DanneSandin said:
etking said:
Only in a small number of markets like Germany the PC is really strong (almost 25% of global software sales) and online sales like Steam are completely missing. |
There are quite a few big PC markets in Europe alone; Sweden and Germany are two of those. And then we have Korea... Don't they only game on PCs, more or less?
|
South Korea is a massive market for games like Dawn of The Ancients and League of Legends.
And StarCraft... StarCraft is actually broadcasted on several TV channels over there.
In-fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 10~ million copies that the origional StarCraft sold, that 80% alone were sold in South Korea.
torok said:
Pemalite said:
You are also forgetting that a PC game doesn't have to sell as much as the console version to be as or more profitable.
You don't have to pay the Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo tax to have your games on the system, last I checked they take what, 30%? You also have to pay for releasing Patches and DLC too I think.
That probably explains why EA and Ubisoft have their own "stores" now in PC land.
Granted you also have to pay the privelage to have your games on Steam, you literally *don't* have to, Minecraft and majority of EA games have lived fine without it.
There has been a distinct shift in the way games are being developed over the last few years with more games starting to focus primarily on the PC version then releasing the downgraded console version. (I.E. Battlefield, Low settings on the Last-gen twins and only high settings for the next-gen twins, ultra and beyond for the PC.)
Just take a look at any Frostbite or CryEngine powered game...
|
I don't seee this shift, exepct with a few cases like BF and Crysis. Even Skyrim was mostly a 360 game (DLC came first, Kinect voice commands, etc). And we have big titles like GTA V that weren't release on PC (this one can still come) and Red Dead Redemption or games releasing much later than console versions or with more bugs. My point is, if the majority of the money was on PC sales, PC versions would be better or at least released together with the console versions (or at least simply released anyway). Of course, some games like Diablo make more money on PC, but they are a minority (and in this case, what I said is clear. PC version is the best and was released earlier). I the end, if it was more profitable, it would get the best versions and best release dates and that's not what we see here.
Anyway, the shift in development is a sign that at least now everyone is agreeing on a more common architecture. Even PS360 weren't as different from PCs (from a developer standpoint) than PS2 or GC were. I believe that the HD transition created a mindset more focused on creating extreme high quality assets and then downgrade as much as needed for each platform (since none of them could deal with million pollygons characters and so on) and that assets would still be usable for future stronger PCs or consoles from future gens.
It would be interesting to see digital sales data for Steam, but I really doubt we will see it someday since MS, Sony, EA and all other are very reluctant to release this numbers too (even when they are good). Publishers of course will prefer to have this numbers only for themselves so they can decide which ones they will brag about and wich ones they will simply hide and just sum up with all the game sales for quarter reports.
|
Red Dead Redemption never launched on PC and probably never will, sadly, but that just says allot about Rockstar games...
Rockstar games has never taken the PC seriously since the 2D top-down GTA1 and 2, but that's there own fault, GTA IV was fun to mod though, you can get that looking better than GTA 5.
The rest we will just have to agree to disagree.
As for sales tracking, I've been hoping+nagging Valve to release sales counters for games on Steam, maybe one day! :P
I really would like more comparison points.
