By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - IF MS,Sony and Nintendo Decided to stop making consoles would you stop gaming??.

Nate4Drake on 19 October 2015

First of all I would have started this Thread with :"if Nintendo, Sony and MS", as Nintendo was the first and MS the last in the Console Market, so I would have never put the name Microsoft before Nintendo.

Second, I would never stop to play videogames, even though I would go almost desperate if Sony will stop, then Nintendo, and last MS. My hardware of choice to play videogames is Sony, then Nintendo, then XBox, then PC.
So, if Sony stops, I go with Nintendo, and so on so on...



”Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.”

Harriet Tubman.

Around the Network
AZWification on 19 October 2015

If all of them somehow stop making consoles, then I would stick with PC. There's also the possibility of Nintendo making PC games if that ever happens.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

fatslob-:O on 19 October 2015

There's always PC gaming for me so no ...

As long a game publishers keep pushing out AAA single player games, I'm good even if that output is lowered ...



TheSting on 19 October 2015

If MS and Nintendo go im out as well



aLkaLiNE on 19 October 2015
pokoko said:
aLkaLiNE said:

True but the games are meant to pull you in by design and keep you there.  Many games rely on a monthly subscription on PC.  Games on Console are all under an umbrella service.  In fact, I'd speculate that console games don't want to keep you there - Running the servers costs money and since they aren't charging by the month, there will be a point where it just makes no financial sense to keep the servers up.  This is a polar opposite from games like World of Warcraft where, because they have that monthly income from your wallet going straight to their bank account, it's in their best interest to make that game as addicting as fucking possible.  

 

I hope that's worded in a way that makes sense. Let me know if it doesn't and I'll try to explain it differently.

You ... do know that you can decide which games you want to play on PC, right?  What you're saying makes no sense at all.


Yeah? How many games that are PC exclusive are not free to play or monthly sub.  And even if there are a decent amount, an overwhelming amount of them are microtransaction and monthly sub.  Those require way more time for investment, meaning they exploit the human mind by having addictive game design. There's a major lack of free-to-play on console and there's one monthly sub for all games. The game design philosphy is different because the business model is different. There are games that overlap between PC vs console but judging by the massive software sales difference when you add ps4+xb1 software sales, the amount of those gamers on PC is fairly small in comparison with the rest of that user base. That leads me to the conclusion that most PC gamers are either playing free to play, Micro-Transaction, real-time strategy, MMORPG, RPG, MOBA, monthly sub or some random indie game, right? The exact kind of games that require a lot of investment in time and money to be truly enjoyable? And going off of empirical evidence, the people in real life I do know that are on PC, go hard in the paint when they play and spend what I think is a psychologically unhealthy amount of time sitting in front of that screen.  It's just a personal opinion though and that's the reasoning I have behind it.  My little brother is a PC gamer lol. So yeah.

 

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

I hear you, but I feel like PC Gaming and Console Gaming with regard to software is basically ubiquitous at this point.

True there are games that overlap, but like I said above if you compare the amount of sales between the software platforms on like games, quite more often than not the sales largely favor the console side which tells me that PC gamers most spend their time elsewhere.  You'll be hardpressed to find exceptions. Even the Witcher 3 had triple the sales on console than PC and it used to be a PC game.

The thing about Monthly Subs is that it doesn't matter how much you play, it matters how much you subscribe so they want to keep you subscribing, often giving sub rewards and filling the game with content and expansions so you don't unsub.

But many of these sub rewards are only available at certain times, right? That's because they want you to keep checking back in, logging on daily, weekly, monthly or whatever to help create an addictive habit. So many monthly sub games are grindfests.


FTP is more like what you describe because they need every oppurtunity to get you to buy something. An added benefit of the monthly sub model is that, at least coming from FTP, they make most of the cashshop stuff free/easily accessible to add to that value proposition.

True.

As for online multiplayer, I'd argue that they want that to be as addictive as possible, because even though the server has operating costs, the more activity they have online, the more guaranteed purchases they will have. For instance, if 2 buddies want to play Online COD, they each have to get the game, they can't just share it.

But most of those CoD gamers are on consoles. Most of the games that fit that example have a much bigger userbase on the console side. I'm not saying everyone who plays PC spends a lot of time or too much time or are unhealthy lol. But it's just an unappealing prospect to me because it just appears to be a time eater.



Around the Network
pokoko on 19 October 2015
aLkaLiNE said:


 Yeah? How many games that are PC exclusive are not free to play or monthly sub.  And even if there are a decent amount, an overwhelming amount of them are microtransaction and monthly sub.  Those require way more time for investment, meaning they exploit the human mind by having addictive game design. There's a major lack of free-to-play on console and there's one monthly sub for all games. The game design philosphy is different because the business model is different. There are games that overlap between PC vs console but judging by the massive software sales difference when you add ps4+xb1 software sales, the amount of those gamers on PC is fairly small in comparison with the rest of that user base. That leads me to the conclusion that most PC gamers are either playing free to play, Micro-Transaction, real-time strategy, MMORPG, RPG, MOBA, monthly sub or some random indie game, right? The exact kind of games that require a lot of investment in time and money to be truly enjoyable? And going off of empirical evidence, the people in real life I do know that are on PC, go hard in the paint when they play and spend what I think is a psychologically unhealthy amount of time sitting in front of that screen.  It's just a personal opinion though and that's the reasoning I have behind it.  My little brother is a PC gamer lol. So yeah.

I don't understand.  Why would anyone only have to play games that are "PC exclusive"?  

You just seem to be generalizing a lot of stuff.  The people that you know?  That's your basis?  You can play any kind of game you want on PC.  I'm a PC gamer and I'm not playing any of the stuff that you're complaining about.  It's not hard.  No one MAKES you play MMOs, no one makes you play MOBAs.

Let's see, my last played games on PC are:  Shadowrun, Fallout: New Vegas, Scrabble, Far Cry 3, Skyrim, Divinity: Original Sin, and This War of Mine.

Do you see how this does not correspond with your claims in the slightest?

As far as your claim that the PC user base for games that "overlap" with home consoles is relatively small:  The PC is the second strongest platform for Ubisoft game sales, slightly behind the PS4 and double that of the XO.  It's clearly not insignificant.  A LOT of people are playing AAA games from the big publishers on PC.

Honestly, it just seems like you're looking at your brother and assuming you know everything about everyone else when you clearly do not.  If some people shoplift when they go to Wal-mart, does that mean that everyone who goes into Wal-mart has to shoplift?  PC offers a lot of choices but it doesn't make anyone play anything they do not want to play.



Dr.Vita on 19 October 2015

No I would buy a gaming PC




Dr.Vita talks about Playstation Vita in 2016!
Playstation Vita Media Create Sales (2014 vs 2015 vs 2016)
Playstation Vita Japan Retail Software Sales (2013 vs 2014 vs 2015 + 2015 LTD Edition)
Prediction: Nothing will outsell PSP anymore (except Playstation home consoles)

pokoko on 19 October 2015
zero129 said:

It seems sometimes too much choice can be bad for people, they cant decide what to play so clearly they must only go to the F2P games x_x. I guess most console gamers just like getting the same game pushed down their neck each year and being told what to buy ,See we can all generalize just like him too (In no way is this me running down console gamers, im just showing how generalizing something is silly).

I play about 50/50 on home console and PC, more or less depending on the games that are out.  All I can say is that the preconceptions some console-only gamers have about PC gaming is mind-boggling.  Not a thread like this goes by without someone making some hyper-generalized claim when they clearly know very little about the subject.

Often, as you said, it amounts to people complaining that there is too much choice, which seems to me like an odd thing to have a problem with.



yvanjean on 19 October 2015

I have already switch to Microsoft has my main console. I don't think Nintendo is even trying to appeal to mature gamers anymore. Nintendo can be a fun niche gaming experience while I play most game on Xbox.



Mr_No on 19 October 2015

I probably would. I have no interest on building a PC from scratch to play games.