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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - VGC Yearly Charts: Number of Games Comparison

okr said:
Ruler said:

Yeah because PC is not on top?

Cute try but no, that’s not the reason.

PC games are sold mostly digital.

To name the most obvious and famous example: The 27 million copies of Minecraft sold on PC and Mac are completely missing on VGC, the PC version would be in every year’s top 100 from 2009-2017 if VGC was able to track digital numbers. 

Other examples:

Nier Automata PC: 0.01 million on VGC vs. 0,6 million on Steamspy (Steamspy is the only somewhat reliable source for digital sales on PC)

Civ V: 1.69 million on VGC vs. 10.7 million on Steamspy

Civ VI: 0.42 million on VGC vs. 2.2 million Steamspy

Undertale: 0.0 on VGC vs. 2.8 million on Steamspy

Stardew Valley: 0.0 on VGC vs. 3.2 million on Steamspy

Considering a lot of the biggest IPs of this generation (Rust, H1Z1, Ark: Survival Evolved, and Battlegrounds) were PC Digital only titles originally and have a majority of their sales on PC .... yeah ... it's kind of worthless to track physical sales for PC.



Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
XB1 is really holding it's own when it comes to software sales. With PS4 outselling it 2:1 you would expect 2:1 software sales. But we aren't really seeing that.

These charts don't show total software sales.  They show top selling games.  So, it is impossible to get this conclusion from the data provided.  



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Considering a lot of the biggest IPs of this generation (Rust, H1Z1, Ark: Survival Evolved, and Battlegrounds) were PC Digital only titles originally and have a majority of their sales on PC .... yeah ... it's kind of worthless to track physical sales for PC.

Those are not big IPs. Not unless you are talking about sales. For example, once Ark officially released critics panned it for being a buggy mess. 



Cerebralbore101 said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Considering a lot of the biggest IPs of this generation (Rust, H1Z1, Ark: Survival Evolved, and Battlegrounds) were PC Digital only titles originally and have a majority of their sales on PC .... yeah ... it's kind of worthless to track physical sales for PC.

Those are not big IPs. Not unless you are talking about sales. For example, once Ark officially released critics panned it for being a buggy mess. 

.....

For someone who hates Destiny I honestly don't know how you can associate critical appeal with being a "big" ip. Yeah, of course we're talking about sales? That's what makes something a big IP? Duh? 

Seems like you're just trying to argue for the sake of it. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Those are not big IPs. Not unless you are talking about sales. For example, once Ark officially released critics panned it for being a buggy mess. 

.....

For someone who hates Destiny I honestly don't know how you can associate critical appeal with being a "big" ip. Yeah, of course we're talking about sales? That's what makes something a big IP? Duh? 

Seems like you're just trying to argue for the sake of it. 

Destiny 2 got good review scores. They fixed a lot of what was wrong with the original game. Sales aren't the singular thing that makes an IP big. You also need more than one game in an IP. An IP with a single game isn't big. Also, when an IP becomes big it usually involves having a ton of commercial products associated with it. Poke'mon for example has toys, candy, a T.V. show etc. Star Wars is a big IP. Mario is a big IP. X-men is a big IP. 



Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

.....

For someone who hates Destiny I honestly don't know how you can associate critical appeal with being a "big" ip. Yeah, of course we're talking about sales? That's what makes something a big IP? Duh? 

Seems like you're just trying to argue for the sake of it. 

Destiny 2 got good review scores. They fixed a lot of what was wrong with the original game. Sales aren't the singular thing that makes an IP big. You also need more than one game in an IP. An IP with a single game isn't big. Also, when an IP becomes big it usually involves having a ton of commercial products associated with it. Poke'mon for example has toys, candy, a T.V. show etc. Star Wars is a big IP. Mario is a big IP. X-men is a big IP. 

No offense Cerebral, but this is seriously such a slippery slope and considering your history of arguments ... I'm not sure this is worth continuing. You kind of literally just pointed out that you're going to make exceptions when you want them. Destiny and Watch Dogs were big IPs and didn't get amazing scores till their 2nd game, but they were still big before them. PC games rarely have sequels, usually they have updates to keep the game going instead of a direct sequel. Is Overwatch not a big IP? Oh but wait, that has good reviews so it fits your narrative! Bwahaha oh boy. And usually people refer to "franchise" when they're talking about a product that needs multiple releases, but if you see IP as a synonym for franchise I mean ... I guess? Here, let me restate it for you : Some of the best selling new game properties. Wait ... that's literally the same thing as IP!

Also, Ark Survival Evolved *does* have TV ads. I've seen about 4 of them on Comedy Central(and I don't watch much TV at all). Games selling well on the PC without having ads is honestly just proof that the platform is profitable for start up properties .... not proof that it doesn't create big ips. If a game sells 10 million on PC without ads and another game sells 3 mil with ads is the second game the bigger ip? Of course I'm not saying a game like Battlegrounds is one of the biggest franchises ... which is why I said new ip. Honestly you're only saying this to argue for no reason when you have no basis to stand on. *shrug* Whatever works for your definition of big.

I mean really isn't this just semantics? Why does it matter if you think it's a big ip or not when the point was new game creation has been successful on PC? 

I have no interest in carrying this on, I think we know where this is going.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Destiny 2 got good review scores. They fixed a lot of what was wrong with the original game. Sales aren't the singular thing that makes an IP big. You also need more than one game in an IP. An IP with a single game isn't big. Also, when an IP becomes big it usually involves having a ton of commercial products associated with it. Poke'mon for example has toys, candy, a T.V. show etc. Star Wars is a big IP. Mario is a big IP. X-men is a big IP. 

No offense Cerebral, but this is seriously such a slippery slope and considering your history of arguments ... I'm not sure this is worth continuing. You kind of literally just pointed out that you're going to make exceptions when you want them. Destiny and Watch Dogs were big IPs and didn't get amazing scores till their 2nd game, but they were still big before them. PC games rarely have sequels, usually they have updates to keep the game going instead of a direct sequel. Is Overwatch not a big IP? Oh but wait, that has good reviews so it fits your narrative! Bwahaha oh boy. And usually people refer to "franchise" when they're talking about a product that needs multiple releases, but if you see IP as a synonym for franchise I mean ... I guess? Here, let me restate it for you : Some of the best selling new game properties. Wait ... that's literally the same thing as IP!

Also, Ark Survival Evolved *does* have TV ads. I've seen about 4 of them on Comedy Central(and I don't watch much TV at all). Games selling well on the PC without having ads is honestly just proof that the platform is profitable for start up properties .... not proof that it doesn't create big ips. If a game sells 10 million on PC without ads and another game sells 3 mil with ads is the second game the bigger ip? Of course I'm not saying a game like Battlegrounds is one of the biggest franchises ... which is why I said new ip. Honestly you're only saying this to argue for no reason when you have no basis to stand on. *shrug* Whatever works for your definition of big.

I mean really isn't this just semantics? Why does it matter if you think it's a big ip or not when the poin was new game creation has been successful on PC? 

What exceptions? What exactly do you think my narrative is? Your comment about Destiny and Watch Dogs is circular. I wouldn't exactly call Overwatch a big IP, but it's a lot less laughable than calling Ark, or some flavor of the month Indie games a big IP. Had you mentioned Overwatch as a big IP, in your original post, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. That's not something I'd disagree with so much to bother with. Franchise and IP don't mean the same thing. A Franchise is a series of things in the same medium. For example the X-men have a comic book franchise, and a movie franchise, but they don't have a video game franchise. Sure there are X-men games released here and there, but they don't have the same publisher or developer. They aren't sequels of one another either. Commercial product =/= T.V. advert. 

You didn't say new I.P. though. I would have agreed with a statement like "PUBG, Overwatch, and Ark, are the biggest out of all the new I.P.s this generation." It's like the difference between saying a bullet ant is one of the biggest ants alive, and saying a bullet ant is one of the biggest creatures alive. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

No offense Cerebral, but this is seriously such a slippery slope and considering your history of arguments ... I'm not sure this is worth continuing. You kind of literally just pointed out that you're going to make exceptions when you want them. Destiny and Watch Dogs were big IPs and didn't get amazing scores till their 2nd game, but they were still big before them. PC games rarely have sequels, usually they have updates to keep the game going instead of a direct sequel. Is Overwatch not a big IP? Oh but wait, that has good reviews so it fits your narrative! Bwahaha oh boy. And usually people refer to "franchise" when they're talking about a product that needs multiple releases, but if you see IP as a synonym for franchise I mean ... I guess? Here, let me restate it for you : Some of the best selling new game properties. Wait ... that's literally the same thing as IP!

Also, Ark Survival Evolved *does* have TV ads. I've seen about 4 of them on Comedy Central(and I don't watch much TV at all). Games selling well on the PC without having ads is honestly just proof that the platform is profitable for start up properties .... not proof that it doesn't create big ips. If a game sells 10 million on PC without ads and another game sells 3 mil with ads is the second game the bigger ip? Of course I'm not saying a game like Battlegrounds is one of the biggest franchises ... which is why I said new ip. Honestly you're only saying this to argue for no reason when you have no basis to stand on. *shrug* Whatever works for your definition of big.

I mean really isn't this just semantics? Why does it matter if you think it's a big ip or not when the poin was new game creation has been successful on PC? 

What exceptions? What exactly do you think my narrative is? Your comment about Destiny and Watch Dogs is circular. I wouldn't exactly call Overwatch a big IP, but it's a lot less laughable than calling Ark, or some flavor of the month Indie games a big IP. Had you mentioned Overwatch as a big IP, in your original post, I wouldn't have bothered to respond. That's not something I'd disagree with so much to bother with. Franchise and IP don't mean the same thing. A Franchise is a series of things in the same medium. For example the X-men have a comic book franchise, and a movie franchise, but they don't have a video game franchise. Sure there are X-men games released here and there, but they don't have the same publisher or developer. They aren't sequels of one another either. Commercial product =/= T.V. advert. 

You didn't say new I.P. though. I would have agreed with a statement like "PUBG, Overwatch, and Ark, are the biggest out of all the new I.P.s this generation." It's like the difference between saying a bullet ant is one of the biggest ants alive, and saying a bullet ant is one of the biggest creatures alive. 

Do you even know how to read? Serious question. My entire point was that a franchise and ip aren't the same ... so saying it needs merchandise, tv shows, or multiple sequels to be a big ip doesn't make sense. I was obviously talking about new ips, thats why I said "biggest ips of this generation". An ip is something that is created at a certain date. Resident evil 4 is not an ip, Resident Evil is. That being said, maybe you could see it as me seeing they are some of the big ips of the entire generation, meaning out of all the products from all gaming ips. That ... still wouldn't actually be wrong though ... 

Rust, Ark, Battlegrounds, and H1Z1 are not "flavor of the month" indie games. See, *this* is what I'm talking about.  Your narrative is that something is only a big ip when you want it to be. As soon as I called you out on Destiny you adjusted your parameters to "but it has a sequel! but that sequel has good reviews" ... that literally is just adjusting the parameters to fit your narrative. You're mostly a console player, so of course you're not going to think big games that spread mostly from word of mouth are big games. It doesn't have the most advertising ever so it's not a big ip! I mean, I don't even have any of these games except Battlegrounds and even i'm not ignorant enough to say they aren't some of the biggest new ips. It's seriously frustrating that people only bring into question how legitimate the success of something is when it's on the PC platform ... I don't think that's a coincidence, quite frankily. I would have used Overwatch in my original comment, but it's also on PS4 and Xbox One and i'm sure you would have used that against me in a reply. 

To be clear this is what i'm talking about : " You also need more than one game in an IP. An IP with a single game isn't big. Also, when an IP becomes big it usually involves having a ton of commercial products associated with it. Poke'mon for example has toys, candy, a T.V. show etc. Star Wars is a big IP. Mario is a big IP. X-men is a big IP."

You don't need more than one game to be an IP..... or to even be a big ip. The fact that you might not even consider Overwatch a big ip speaks volumes, honestly. Those are all *franchises* that are also IPs. All big franchises are big IP, not all big IP are franchises. 

IP popularity is fluid, but that doesn't change that from a sales perspective that they have crafted some of the most big new ips of this generation. 

You're being silly. I mean the fact that you literally said "Ips aren't franchises!" when that was my entire point ... my god man. You are by far the most frustrating user to converse with, because I *know* you can do better but it's like you don't even understand what you're saying half the time. I'm not going to respond to you, you're wrong and I'm sure that a few console users here will come and back you, that's pretty much VGC. Doesn't change the facts. Seriously, what was even the point of arguing? You just did it for no reason and came with no good points at all. You pretty much just said you agreed with me too ... I mean sure I could have said "new ip" but it was heavily implied and that's obviously what I meant. Again .. reading comprehension dude.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I mean sure I could have said "new ip" but it was heavily implied and that's obviously what I meant. Again .. reading comprehension dude.

It wasn't even a week ago when I told you I would be more specific, because one of my own posts didn't explicitly say one thing or another, and you misunderstood. Now the shoes on the other foot. Nothing implied that you meant new I.P. at all. You said I.P.s of this generation, meaning it included long standing franchises. 

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of what you typed because it would just frustrate you further, and it's silly to argue over something that came about via a lack of communication. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I mean sure I could have said "new ip" but it was heavily implied and that's obviously what I meant. Again .. reading comprehension dude.

It wasn't even a week ago when I told you I would be more specific, because one of my own posts didn't explicitly say one thing or another, and you misunderstood. Now the shoes on the other foot. Nothing implied that you meant new I.P. at all. You said I.P.s of this generation, meaning it included long standing franchises.

This isn't even *close* to the same thing, but ok....... I honestly don't know how "ip of this generation" is "nothing implying that you mean new ip". Like, there's only two ways you could interpret that, and I think the most common interpretation would be the correct one. Meaning new ip. Since you know ... games like Halo 5, Resident Evil,  these aren't ips of this generation. They're old ips. But I mean ... maybe you could interpret it the way you did.