Quantcast
Battlefield 3 is a perfect example.

Forums - PC Discussion - Battlefield 3 is a perfect example.

its alot easier to get it on a console. I would agree that multiplatform games just won't sell well on PC.



Around the Network
radiantshadow92 said:
its alot easier to get it on a console. I would agree that multiplatform games just won't sell well on PC.


won't sell "as" well, it's not like it sold 1 copy on the PC lol



pezus said:
I want to provide this link yet again:
http://bf3stats.com/
Surprise, while the people in EMEAA are awake the PC/PS3 versions are whooping the 360 version in amount of players. As I said, EMEAA PC sales are much bigger than some of you here think (and than VGC indicates)


This. As much as I love vgchartz our PC software tracking is horrible. BF sold over 200k copies (retail) in Germany on PC in two weeks. In UK it sold about 50k first week on PC (retail) and in Finland it sold 32k copies (retail) in two weeks on PC. That's only three countries and we already have bigger total than vgchartz has for whole EMEAA so far... Not to mention digital sales.



ghettoglamour said:
Gunman121 said:

Your statistics are mistaken. This is a success for the PC.

Remember, with the 360 + PS3 = Costs are more to produce the game + retail space + walmart/gamestop take.


PC titles are cheaper to build, Thus 250,000-500,000 is considered a success. With Digital distribution, Take Steam 100,000- 200,000 units is necessary to make a profit. (Steam takes 30 % ) While at stores they take 60-70% --- now note, steam didn't have BF3. Take origin. 100 % profit right there.

This is not a failure. A failure for the PC is when a boxed unit only sells 20-80,000.


(This is why The Witcher 2 was considered a success)

Can you tell me why are they cheaper to build? I'm not trolling you, I just don't get it.

It's cheaper because you're working with the PC. By that I mean you have only one development kit (you do have to fiddle around with drivers, and optimizations for several PCS though.)

With that said, you don't have to do several of the same tricks as you do on the console to get similar performance. Also you need to factor in retail time. Ex: Game goes gold > go to distributor > make DVD copies of game > get all set in boxs > ship to stores > unload and place on shelfs.

Where as with PC digital distribution. ex: Game goes gold > upload to steam > it's on steam. 

Furthermore, remember when working with consoles - the PS3 and 360 are both different. Extra time i needed to update each build and try to make each one look on par.

Tl;dr

1) PCs have power + familiar dev kit
2) Most modern pc games  have less retail space, but more for digital markets
3) Console differences in terms of builds.

I hope that answered your question.



Gunman121 said:
ghettoglamour said:
Gunman121 said:

Your statistics are mistaken. This is a success for the PC.

Remember, with the 360 + PS3 = Costs are more to produce the game + retail space + walmart/gamestop take.


PC titles are cheaper to build, Thus 250,000-500,000 is considered a success. With Digital distribution, Take Steam 100,000- 200,000 units is necessary to make a profit. (Steam takes 30 % ) While at stores they take 60-70% --- now note, steam didn't have BF3. Take origin. 100 % profit right there.

This is not a failure. A failure for the PC is when a boxed unit only sells 20-80,000.


(This is why The Witcher 2 was considered a success)

Can you tell me why are they cheaper to build? I'm not trolling you, I just don't get it.

It's cheaper because you're working with the PC. By that I mean you have only one development kit (you do have to fiddle around with drivers, and optimizations for several PCS though.)

With that said, you don't have to do several of the same tricks as you do on the console to get similar performance. Also you need to factor in retail time. Ex: Game goes gold > go to distributor > make DVD copies of game > get all set in boxs > ship to stores > unload and place on shelfs.

Where as with PC digital distribution. ex: Game goes gold > upload to steam > it's on steam. 

Furthermore, remember when working with consoles - the PS3 and 360 are both different. Extra time i needed to update each build and try to make each one look on par.

Tl;dr

1) PCs have power + familiar dev kit
2) Most modern pc games  have less retail space, but more for digital markets
3) Console differences in terms of builds.

I hope that answered your question.


Errrr...

Battlefield on PC with it's super high res textures and powerful engine surely cost more to develop than the vastly inferior console versions.



Around the Network
blkfish92 said:
All pc gamers play starcraft 2


I only played SC1...  I did play the beta for SC2 though.



yeah no doubt the EMEAA sales for PC are usually too low, but this time I wouldn't expect too many digital sales.



After taking a look at this thread again

http://bf3stats.com/

look at the stats in the left corner. PS3 tops both PC and 360 (although I recon 360 tops PS3 when it's day in the US).



Currently playing: MAG, Heavy Rain, Infamous

 

Getting Plat trophies for: Heavy Rain, Infamous, RE5,  Burnout and GOW collection once I get it.

 

gamelover2000 said:
After taking a look at this thread again

http://bf3stats.com/

look at the stats in the left corner. PS3 tops both PC and 360 (although I recon 360 tops PS3 when it's day in the US).

PS3>PC>360 but when USA wakes up it's 360>PS3>PC. This tells me the PC version is much closer to the console versions than VGC makes you believe



blkfish92 said:
All pc gamers play starcraft 2

This. Or Team Fortress 2.