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

Forums - PC Discussion - I'm tempted to leave the site.

ssj12 on 06 September 2008
JaggedSac said:
ssj12 said:
JaggedSac said:

Strategyking92 said:
ssj12 said:
Strategyking92 said:
well, maybe PC gamers shouldn't lie *shio* *cough*

 

he actualy doesnt, he is jsut insanely blunt.

 

well, it annoys the hell out of me :P I can picture him talking in a smart-ass tone if you know what I mean.

Like "blah blah, blah, I'm right, your stupid, pc gaming is god lololololololol"

 

I remember him stating that CoD4 was much more successful on pc, I provide a link with the head of Infinity Ward saying the 360 version was the most successful(only 2 months old), yet he still tried to save face.

 

thats the problem, it was old data. COD4 ahoud have easily past the 360 version. PC gaming isnt about the beginning influx of buyers like console games. It isnt about first week sales. It is overall sales. A PC game can still be for sale on shelves or digitally for over 20 years. Each sale is a sale. Console games dont really have that luxury. VC/PSN/XBL is starting to bring back classic games but not in the massive volume that PC has and always will have. PCs 30 years from now will still be able to run classic games like Wolf 3D, Commandor Keen, etc.

In 2 months CoD4(a year old game), is going to make up that much ground on the 360 version.  I looked at Steam's numbers, and am not impressed.  The number of people playing is just unimpressive.  If people download the game on Steam, I would expect them to play on Steam.  But there are only 800 people playing it online right now.  Hell the 360 version has at least 170,000 people on it right now(I say this because that is how much Halo 3 has and CoD4 has retaken the Live lead).  There is not a chance in hell that CoD4 has overtaken the sales of the 360 version.  Just admit it.  This is not a knock against pc gaming(I enjoy pc games), just posters who refuse to admit something that is obvious.

 

 

You have to remember that TF2 is it on the online curcuit for PC right now, COD4 is basically out the door. There are still people who love it, hence the 8000 people, and people who wil jump in and out of it randomly to get a change of pace but really there are so many online options PC gamers have there is no single reason to jsut play COD4 or Halo 3 all year long.

PC gets online games released almost every week that people do buy and enjoy. Consoles only get maybe 20 great online games a year, PC gets nearly a hundred. There is a major difference in the amount of people playing online. And this does not include MMOs like World of Warcrack.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
IllegalPaladin on 06 September 2008
Gnizmo said:
ssj12 said:

typically games that screw PCs up, like BioShock did, dont sell well. This is why BioShock PC had to be rereleased. PC gamers dont take crap like that. It is either release a working product or screw off.

That is an amazingly good way tocompletely dodge my point. Whenever you want to come give me the reality check you were promising I will be waiting. Until then I will stand by my statement of too many PC developers playing the "relase now and patch it later" game and it working. The fact that Bioshock started selling well after it was patched is proof that consumers will tolerate this kind of shoddy treatment and still smile at the end if the day. This was unheard of on consoles until this generation. This causes a lot of console gamers to use it as a way to attack and dismiss the PC as a gaming platform.

 

So you're saying that if there are problems at launch for a game, nobody should buy it even if the problems are fixed?

If the sales of Bioshock didn't really go until it was fixed means that people weren't going to tolerate it and were going to not spend the money on the game until the developers got off their ass and fixed it.



Garcian Smith on 06 September 2008

...and the thread degenerates into yet another flame war.

Hate to say it, but I think you guys just proved Ben right.



"'Casual games' are something the 'Game Industry' invented to explain away the Wii success instead of actually listening or looking at what Nintendo did. There is no 'casual strategy' from Nintendo. 'Accessible strategy', yes, but ‘casual gamers’ is just the 'Game Industry''s polite way of saying what they feel: 'retarded gamers'."

 -Sean Malstrom

 

 

JaggedSac on 06 September 2008
ssj12 said:
JaggedSac said:

In 2 months CoD4(a year old game), is going to make up that much ground on the 360 version.  I looked at Steam's numbers, and am not impressed.  The number of people playing is just unimpressive.  If people download the game on Steam, I would expect them to play on Steam.  But there are only 800 people playing it online right now.  Hell the 360 version has at least 170,000 people on it right now(I say this because that is how much Halo 3 has and CoD4 has retaken the Live lead).  There is not a chance in hell that CoD4 has overtaken the sales of the 360 version.  Just admit it.  This is not a knock against pc gaming(I enjoy pc games), just posters who refuse to admit something that is obvious.

 

 

You have to remember that TF2 is it on the online curcuit for PC right now, COD4 is basically out the door. There are still people who love it, hence the 8000 people, and people who wil jump in and out of it randomly to get a change of pace but really there are so many online options PC gamers have there is no single reason to jsut play COD4 or Halo 3 all year long.

PC gets online games released almost every week that people do buy and enjoy. Consoles only get maybe 20 great online games a year, PC gets nearly a hundred. There is a major difference in the amount of people playing online. And this does not include MMOs like World of Warcrack.

  Current Players Peak Today   Game
 
  52,006 80,635   Counter-Strike: Source
  42,659 66,753   Counter-Strike
  16,409 20,357   Team Fortress 2
  6,628 12,248   Condition Zero
  4,870 5,741   Garry's Mod
  4,615 7,067   Day of Defeat: Source
  2,168 2,878   Half-Life 2
  1,785 2,794   Half-Life 2: Deathmatch
  1,683 2,362   Day of Defeat
  971 1,132   Portal
  844 1,105   Half-Life 2: Episode Two
  834 1,399   TrackMania Nations Forever
  764 928   Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Not 8000, 800.



Gnizmo on 06 September 2008
JaggedSac said:
 

MMOs are the worst about this.  But that is almost a necessity for a game like that.

 MMOs almost made an artform out of releasing buggy crap that people would pay tons of money for. The reason WoW took off like it did because it was the first game in the genre to take the stance that a game should be finished at release and patches are to add extras afterwards. Hell back in EQ days I remember they released one expansion (Shadows of Luclin) where the majority of the features weren't actually implemented until 6 months after the release. One of the features advertised on the box still is not in-game today, and the expansion was released in 2001. In the post-WoW era shit like that does not fly in the genre anymore though. Vanguard showed that your game will flop hard if you try to pull that kind of crap.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
bobobologna on 06 September 2008

I just want to know why people care how many people are playing a given game in multiplayer? I used to play a lot of Rainbow 6: Ravenshield, and I think that game peaked out at maybe 1500 players on at a given time. That was at it's prime. That's probably about 1% of the people who play Halo 3 at any given time. But did it matter? I never really had trouble finding good servers to play on. As long as I can get a decent game going, I could care less that there are 100 or 1 million other people playing the same game online.



Gnizmo on 06 September 2008
IllegalPaladin said: 

So you're saying that if there are problems at launch for a game, nobody should buy it even if the problems are fixed?

If the sales of Bioshock didn't really go until it was fixed means that people weren't going to tolerate it and were going to not spend the money on the game until the developers got off their ass and fixed it.

 No, absolutely not. I am saying that problems at the launch of a game are used by fanboys to flame the platform. When you have a platform where these is absolutely no consistency in hardware there will of course be issues that need to be patched later. I have personal feelings on the matter but I have largely kept them seperate from what I am trying to say.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Gnizmo on 06 September 2008
Garcian Smith said:
...and the thread degenerates into yet another flame war.

Hate to say it, but I think you guys just proved Ben right.

 I feel guilty for my hand in it, but it does help prove one of my points.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

DKII on 06 September 2008

If you have a problem with people's posts or duplicate topics or whatever, then report them. I'm sick of hearing everyone in here bitching when they won't do anything about it.



JaggedSac on 06 September 2008
bobobologna said:
I just want to know why people care how many people are playing a given game in multiplayer? I used to play a lot of Rainbow 6: Ravenshield, and I think that game peaked out at maybe 1500 players on at a given time. That was at it's prime. That's probably about 1% of the people who play Halo 3 at any given time. But did it matter? I never really had trouble finding good servers to play on. As long as I can get a decent game going, I could care less that there are 100 or 1 million other people playing the same game online.

 

I was merely using the numbers to point out the fact that if DD of CoD4 on pc was doing better than the 360 version, I would expect more than 800 people playing online from the place they downloaded it.  And all this was in response to something ssj said that was in response to something I said.

 

EDIT: **** it, this is my point.