Discussion in 'PC Games' started by boneburner, Dec 5, 2018.
Shocker that a company wants to walk back that statement. Anyone else here shocked?
what so you are now saying the statement was a lie? keep reachin'.
I did say that it was a random employee and not an official statement from 4a in the metro thread but thanks for stating the obvious.
Agreed, a post on a Russian gaming forum by an individual dev was not an official company statement.
The guy was upset about the shitty publisher back door deals at the last minute, and the public reaction to it - especially after working on the game for years.
As clarified officially as such the next day by 4A as linked above..
If anything, the public backlash may help stop this exclusivity mentality idea for the PC platform, stick to price vs services and let the customer decide.
But 4A will pay the price for Deepsilver's greed.
yup, i still wonder what on earth the employee was thinking. My understanding from the statement is just some frustration seeping out. Which people being human is kind of understandable.
I hope they rethink trying to go for that sweet Epic cashpile too. Put it on both, price as you see fit and let true competition reign.
Seems like a typical Russian response to me. I've seen quite a few posts like that from Russian devs, some of them on official game forums.
Grab a free copy of Axiom Verge on EPIC launcher now, this war just keeps on giving!
Back onto this subject, I'm coming across more and more people that agree with my perspective - that this isn't all about Fortnite. This article is trending on the first page of HackerNews: Fortnite Is the Future, but Probably Not for the Reasons You Think
Regarding the growth that you are blind to;
And as a point of interest for people who keep defending Steam's 30% take;
Note, that link to twitter has some interesting information posted by Sweeney.
I'm not blind to the engine reaching a wider market. I'm able to put it into perspective, something you're incapable of. Considering you focused on one paragraph from the article and conveniently ignored the other points it was making it's not the only issue you have.
You're just making a lot of assumptions in an attempt to backup a seriously flawed argument.
Come back in 5 years when Epic has made billions from expanding their engine sales and tell me I'm wrong. I'll happily admit defeat.
Day 1 sales will favor console and PC sales will catch up 2yrs later when then game is $10.
Only gotta look at The witcher 3 which is prob the holy grail developer for PC and yet day 1 sales got smashed by PS4 and Xbox.
even if you are right, and you very well may be - that does not mean that the revenue stream on pc is only in the tail. the day one could still give them a higher proportion of overall revenue with the tail keeping the money coming in.
but the fact is that pc is still a very important platform.
I’m not saying it isn’t important but truth is it’s never gonna be the supreme AAA money maker.
I’m sure overall the PC market is most likely the biggest but not in the AAA share.
It’s difficult to show this as publishers don’t reveal sales by platform results like CDPR however Steam did list 3.2 million Fallout 4 owners after Bethesda released 12million day 1 sales.
see this is where you need a citation.
PC makes bank, xbox and ps4 need to combine to match PC. AAA or not, PC players spend more money than the console peasants and are more valuable per dollar to developers - considering also that console owners like myself have console as a secondary platform.
One of the factors i can cite straight off the blocks is that the used PC market is basically non-existent yet without used games EB ceases to exists - this part of the market is secondary too with huge chunks taken by the store (WAY more than Steam). This means far more money for devs - EVEN during sale time on PC. one used console game = zero dev/publisher revenue even a $1 game on Steam makes more money for those who make the games.
Not everything is about AAA, but i'd love to see a real set of numbers of overall AAA on PC vs console, including all platforms, key sites everything. I'd venture that on a per platform basis (making each console it's OWN platform) PC would hold it's own.
I think a very important aspect is that PC gamers have a lot more games to choose from as well as generally enjoying more interesting games rather then just your standard EA/Ubisoft game.
This means that even if a game does poorly on PC, but does well on console, it doesn't mean the PC market is too small, it simply means that PC gamers instead spent their money on the long list of games that are not on console.
Cracking game. A little easy and short, but still heaps of fun, amazing sound track (one-man company) and worth playing. Inspired heavily by my favourite game of all time - Super Metroid.
I also see Thimbleweed Park will be free later this month, another retro inspired game from the original makers of Monkey Island, Day of the Tentacle, etc.
Yea already Subnautica and Axiom Verge free, thats like 2 of the best games in recent years.
I doubt we will ever see this kind of information as most publishers don’t even reveal total sales anymore. But the witcher 3 had 48% just PS4 and I reckon that’s a pretty good indicator of how things would go down for most games. The little information I can find susgests PC platform has a longer life of revenue which could be due to lack of used games or due to more options? But it seems like average PC consumer buys games later for reduced cost opposed to full release retail.
I agree that citations are needed. For the above too.
What's the support cost for PC versus console? Is that factored into "making bank", or are we only considering sales and not post-sales support/patching/fixing/multiplayer-servers?
Profit is a complex thing. Not only are we unlikely to ever see real data, most of the time you'll find creative studios are, even internally, really shithouse at even calculating their own actual real world net profits (ask me how I know).
Beyond that, I honestly think comparing sales-per-platform is worth nothing more than sheer tribalism and e-penis comparisons (as if only the highest number matters, rather than sustainability of income). It's a childish consideration at best, when considering the bigger picture of Triple-A companies survival and shoddy treatment of staff to get these pieces of art out the door.
i've posted links elsewhere regarding pc revenue and it is massive, it is within spitting distance of ALL console combined. well above any other platform except mobile.
While it can be seen as childish I was seeking to rectify a faulty and oft-repeated delusion that console > PC in terms of dollars and importance to publishers.
See that 33BILLION - Epic wants a nice big chunk for themselves and if they spend a $100m to get there it's worth it.
costs is related back to this video that attempts to break down how revenue/profit/cost of goods sold etc works overall for publishers today. Return on investment is only going up.
Revenue isn't profit. And I asked above, are we taking into consideration the considerable extra effort required to develop on a "platform" that isn't a platform, but an almost infinitely variable combination of hardware and software? Doesn't seem like it. (Doesn't seem like even getting that data is possible, knowing the creative industries the way I do).
There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. I can find a dozen developers who sing the praises of the PC "platform", and a dozen more who'd tell you it's an unprofitable nightmare compared to the consistence and simplicity of consoles. And that's precisely why I consider the entire argument childish, because it's attempting to rank something unrankable for zero gain to anyone (developer, publisher or consumer).
Choice is good, and variety is the spice of life. "Revenue" is as irrelevant as it is muddying when trying to argue what platform is "superior" by any metric over another. Clearly individuals in all three camps (again, developer, publisher, consumer) have their personal preferences. But the very proof that there is no consistently correct answer to the platform wars, by any metric, is the fact that this variety exists in the first place.
The video you posted is even worse - a YouTuber compete with Patreon beg in every video and description, lecturing the games industry on how to suck eggs. I invite him, like I do anyone highly critical of the creative industries, to put their money where their mouths are and attempt to make their own product. This shit *is* hard, and no amount of graphs in a YouTube video will teach anyone that as much as cold, hard experience.
Vive la difference, thank goodness for diversity of tastes and platforms, and hooray for hard working creatives in all parts of this amazing industry. But I maintain that the worst thing about video games always have been and always will be the gamers.