John Romero: PC is Decimating Console in Price Alone

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hasn't PC always generated more revenue than consoles? Likewise, from developer's posts on reddit, they prefer to develop for consoles because of it's a closed architecture. I've seen in Reddit many times that developers prefer console development as it is easier and better than having to deal with many other variables in PC development (AMD vs NVIDIA, i7's hyper-threading, more QA and bug testing which costs more money). This are some of the things that I've read in reddit and I agree... I'm starting out in Unity testing some scenes in a machine with an NVIDIA card and then switched to an AMD card and there's a lot of weird bugs and glitches. I'm no developer but I can begin to understand where they're coming from.

With this mind, I think it's pointless whether or not PC decimates consoles... technically PC always has. But that doesn't mean that developers will abandon consoles anytime soon.
 
Hasn't PC always generated more revenue than consoles? Likewise, from developer's posts on reddit, they prefer to develop for consoles because of it's a closed architecture. I've seen in Reddit many times that developers prefer console development as it is easier and better than having to deal with many other variables in PC development (AMD vs NVIDIA, i7's hyper-threading, more QA and bug testing which costs more money). This are some of the things that I've read in reddit and I agree... I'm starting out in Unity testing some scenes in a machine with an NVIDIA card and then switched to an AMD card and there's a lot of weird bugs and glitches. I'm no developer but I can begin to understand where they're coming from.

With this mind, I think it's pointless whether or not PC decimates consoles... technically PC always has. But that doesn't mean that developers will abandon consoles anytime soon.

Yes its more hardware configs but done right it wont be as much hassle to do proper scalability as many claims. More to the truth is that studios are after your money and why settle for a higher standard than is considered to be the norm... and in this case the norm is the low quality end of the food chain - The consoles.

As for profit on titles, the story gets quite interesting - Depending on the strategy used when selling a title the publishers can really influence the outcome. Release the console version of a game say two weeks ahead of the PC version and claim its due to PC quality improvements is a rather common one - First release on consoles, earn more money since every title have the platform tax (thats doubled right into the pocket) and then release the PC version and ofc claim its the pirates that destroyed their sales as an excuse for adding even more insane DRM scheme in the next release (sometimes even ending up pushing people into pirating just to get this bought title to work properly).

Yes piracy does ruining PC gaming but so doesn't releasing a title late for a certain platform...

Thats my 2 cents on that.
 
Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses. And contrary to Romero's comment consoles aren't being decimated by free to play and $5 games, all 3 console makers have them. The problem is distribution and marketing. If one of the console makers got smart and went with Steam for there digital distribution then they would absolutely kill IMO. Speaking as someone who owns both there is a place for console gaming (Mario Kart for example) and there is a place for PC gaming (seriously who can you play FPS any other way?). It also looks as though consoles are moving towards digital so the backwards compatible argument may change over the next few years. Oh and playing a DOS game from the 80s or an Win95 game from the 90s can be a PITA.

PITA, but doable none the less and in the case of most games released in the past 15 - 20 years is completely doable with little to no effort.

Also, the Mario Kart argument isn't very valid. I love Mario Kart 8, and I own a lot of toys, to include SHIELD, tablets, Wii U, PCs, a HTPC, 3DS, etc etc. But there is nothing functionality wise that a PC can't do that the Wii U does.

I can play 2 - 4 player racing games using Xbox 360 controllers on my HTPC.

The comment by Romero is mostly pointing out that PC has all the strengths, without any of the console weaknesses, at a fraction of the cost. These are just facts. It's not saying "PCz rule don't buy consoles u noob". He was just kindly explaining the current state of affairs and nothing he said was even remotely debatable.


A bluetooth adapter and a pair of Candles are all you need to emulate Wii on PC.
 


I don't fully subscribe to that. People pirating games were never going to buy the game to begin with. These are not lost sales and they were never customers. I believe in getting paid for your work. Assuming these pirates were ever going to pay for your product is very misleading. Some of them pirate the game just to say they did. Others might pirate it, play the game one time for less than 20 minutes and never open that game again for whatever reason. I don't condone the practice but I understand why it exists.
 


It's incredibly easy to pirate games on Xbox 360. But I agree with the above, pirates are not consumers. It's not lost revenue. It's either people who can't afford the game, people who want to try it before they buy it, or people who may/may not own it, but don't want the DRM associated (which should be within their rights IMHO).
 
The main advantage of consoles is the graphics, exclusive titles, and gimmicks (motion sensing). Games are optimized for consoles and look great where as PC games have to cater to a wide range of hardware and usually for the lowest common denominator. Since PC game pirating has been a huge problem for the PC platform all AAA game devs offer console exclusive games.
 
It was easy for me to predict that the consoles are going to disapear. Since PCs are so powerful they can put a lot more eye candy on than consoles.

But I believe android tablets like the SHIELD are going to replace the console, since for example the tegra K1 is so powerful it can play some really demanding games. Soon everybody will just be connecting their TVs and game controllers to tablets and phones.
 


Actually, PC's will disappear. People don't want to support that environment any longer. It's Windows for Desktop computers that will be replaced with Windows RT. Gaming will become cloud based and mobile.
 
The problem with AAA PC/Console today is it usually is 15hrs or less of gaming and $60. I'd rather pay $20 for games like Torchlight 2, Grimrock (grimrock2 soon, hopefully bigger longer and $20 instead of $15 with game time like AAA $60, it was about 15hrs). If it costs $60-100mil to make crysis3 like graphics, then toss them in the toilet if it means 15hrs or less of gameplay. I prefer more gameplay over graphics, or a $20 pricetag on that 15hrs or less. Huge publishers need to just go bankrupt and go back to small teams that clearly of 5-30 that can clearly put out quality stuff for $40 or under. Look at Divinity original sin for $40, and that is as high as I'll pay today and it has to be DRM free or buzz off. Play time in D:OA is appropriate for $40. What is it 50hrs and built for $5mil or less? This just goes to show EA, Activision etc all need to go belly up just due to massive overhead they create forcing $60 tags on pretty but SHORT games.

Grimrock was made buy 4 dudes for $15 and have commented they have their whole next game paid for even hiring 2 extra people for grimrock 2. It looks pretty good for 4 people doing the work and same play time as $60 games. At launch direct they sold it for $13...LOL. As of Jan 2013 it had sold 600K copies. Minus the 30% cut from stores, that's ~10 a copy=6mil. For 4 dudes that took a year while still working, then quit to do it full time for the last 6-7 months. So under 2yrs and they pocketed 1.5mil each after stores took their cut and that isn't including sales of the last 18 months. I'm guessing their up to a million copies now and pocketed a good 2mil each at this point (assuming some sales at lower pricing now). It's still $15 on steam and gog so they're somewhere between 8-10mil most likely total. Very nice for a few people.

Torchlight had a team of 25 and built in 11 months. 1mil+ copies sold at $20. Of course when you count sales etc they probably only made ~12 per copy but that's only including the first 2yrs. It's still selling. But even at 12mil, considering a team of 25 even at 125K each is only 3.1mil (salary, computer, software tools etc in there), you're pocketing near 10mil as the dev. It sold 1mil as of july 2011, surely many more since with all the gog/steam sales etc.

Bring back the small devs with ZERO shareholders (forcing games to come out in beta, instead of polishing them up), next to nothing marketing (steam, gog etc do that for your + so many free ways like kickstarter, forums etc), low overhead, major profitability and cheaper pricing I say! The days of $60 games and consoles are over shortly especially as mobile ups its quality and pricing to $5-20 for full games (ports mostly first in this range, but more original IP coming monthly too) instead of free crap with In-App purchase junk. Except for a few games that get it all right, $60 is over charging and a tough sell. I could deal with the IAP crap if the devs sold a 2nd way also as full copy so users could go either way. But I don't bother with free that isn't free anyway.

John is correct above, anyone can make games and make good money if it's a quality game most won't pirate at $20 or lower. You can get rich and unreal 4 makes it easy even at $20 a month for the engine. IN 2yrs you've spent what $240 to try your hand at making a game? Taking their cut at the end (5% of sales this way) is smart as everyone can join in then and they have a decent revenue stream while games are being made.

PS4 hit 8.2mil so far, xbox1 hasn't hit 5mil yet (4.9 I guess). It gets tougher for these guys each month as mobile amps up and pc games get cheaper to make (and port to mobile) by small teams using tools like unreal 4 etc. You don't have to know how to code today to make a decent game.
 


You get 15 hours of AAA Gameplay for $60. With full voice acting, full movies and full cutscenes. It's significantly more entertainment than you get for $20 on a 1.5 hour DVD movie these days.
People just play through to watch the story in many cases. I don't see anything wrong with some interactive entertainment, especially at that quality level.
Than there's BF4, which is a buggy mess...
 
Alec, there is actually a lot of 20$ with full voice acting and cutscene etc. that is not what decide the price.
 


Apple's and Oranges. I can rent the movie for $1.99-$3 on amazon etc (or for a few dollars more at launch in theaters even, today). But that's beside the point and yes movies are a ripoff too. The comparison here is the $15-40 games that give you even MORE game time, probably much more fun (due to them not being graphic fests, so they have to do more with gameplay itself), many with great voice acting, maybe not so many cutscenes (better to have fewer IMHO) but I rarely like that type of stuff that merely blows up the budget anyway in a game. I rather PLAY the game than watch it 😉 My problem is the value vs. what you get at anything under $40, such as Divinity OS, torchlights, grimrock etc. Wasteland2, Torment Tides of Numenera, Elite Dangerous, Project Eternity, Shroud of the Avatar, Planetary Annihilation, Shadowrun Returns, Grim Dawn, etc etc all coming soon. I'm betting all will be under $40 (shadowrun already was at launch $15 even with the DLC $30 total) with far more play time than AAA $60 games. Most of these are being made by many of the people that were at the devs that EA/MS etc bought and destroyed. But now they're all back in small teams pushing some great games out, without all the big firms overhead/shareholder crap etc. And that's just the list of the ones I like, there are others in the adventure genre etc for those story people you mention, that look good (double fine games etc). I think we're kind of on the same page though, you can get that $60 game down to $40 without the huge dev/publisher being involved. You also get better releases because they put them out when they think they're actually done more often than today where it's to meet deadlines, keep shareholders happy etc causing BF4 like beta releases.

Remember the days of Sirtech, Origin, Bullfrog, Interplay, Sierra, Digital Anvil etc etc (all bought and destroyed by big firms)? I'm just saying we need to get back to small companies or teams to eliminate most of what causes $60 when they should be $40 or less. We got rid of THQ, we just need EA and a few others to go down, and we'll be back to the good old days with more new content etc at small firms with less bugs. NO need for 50-100mil in marketing this crap either, a good game with the help of forums, steam, gog etc can get the same thing done without all the wasted advertising. Making games easily cross platform helps cut a huge cost out also. Kickstarter type stuff will help advertising also as people follow a game's development. You don't need to spend 40-100mil to make a great game today either. There are a few that have good excuses for this type of cost, but VERY few. The witcher/witcher 2 were made for Pc for $7mil each. That multiplied for consoles but this is a pair of triple AAA titles for $7mil with all the stuff you mention (high quality cut scenes etc). Big publishers/devs are just like the govt. Anything they're involved in cost more than it should for no good reasons and usually end in coming up short compared to private sector (or in this case small devs).
 
You can rent games for cheap as well, how does that compare?

You can buy AAA titles for cheap as well, once they go on Sale on Steam. Humble Bundle has all the Deus Ex games for $15 right now (among other things).

You are a bit delusional about the marketing stuff. Those small companies weren't small in comparison to other companies back than, and they went under because they stopped producing quality games. People don't want cheap games with simple graphics all the time. It's a bit of a fad.

I mean, Call of Duty Black Ops II in the most purchased game on Xbox Live right now.
http://majornelson.com/2013/07/24/live-activity-for-week-of-july-15/

PC gamers have always had different tastes, and obviously free games are the most played. But DOTA II, Counterstrike and TF2 are far from Indie. Valve is a pretty big company right now.
http://www.steamcharts.com/top

I don't see your point at all. A well produced game for $60 is fine. So long as it doesn't have any game breaking bugs. EA is just as bad as Activision or Blizzard (who never have sales).

I think you just want indie games to be better because you like to be against "The Man" (as you stated in your anti-Government ramblings). This has nothing to do with good or bad games, it's just your way of venting against corporations.
 
Alec since when did blizzard not have sales? they often have sales on their products but they don't have a a lot of games and therefor you might not look as often on their shop, and therefor you will not see the sales.
 


You don't know "therefor" twice in a sentence as it's used to join two related ideas. Generally, you would also start with a semi-colon; therefor, you used "therefor" completely incorrectly.

http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/semicolons_before_transitional_phrases.htm
 


I'm talking launch prices. Not what you sell it for a year later. But you're making my point as cheap games sell tons (even though many never get to half their steam games...ROFL, they just can't pass up the sales right?). The games I mentioned above are not really INDIE so to speak. The graphics on all of them are pretty top notch. You will have trouble selling console games at $60 with good mobile games at $5-20, and great PC games at $10-40. Anyone thinking otherwise is delusional themselves. That's not railing against "the man" or venting, it's just realizing $5 is easier to sell than $60...LOL. Torchlights CEO (runic games) said he makes the same $14 on a $20 game now that he did when he was selling $60 boxes. Simple math and straight from a CEO. Both LAUNCH pricing.

Govt ramblings? LOL. Name one thing govt has done right vs. private sector. VA? Dead veterans. Obamacare? Higher prices, lower care, website that cost $840mil that should have cost 50mil and it still doesn't work right. Your roads with all the potholes? Your public education's dropout/failure rates vs. Private/Charter schools? Due to public schools/overprice teachers who can't get fired etc, we're FAR from the top in math, science, etc etc etc.. Can you name one thing govt does better than private/smaller companies who have to COMPETE to get your money? You're confusing "ramblings" with "facts". It's so easy to mention govt because they fail at everything making it an easy comparison to the worst company in america for 2yrs in a row (EA - see consumerist).
http://consumerist.com/2013/04/09/ea-makes-worst-company-in-america-history-wins-title-for-second-year-in-a-row/
THREE things that caused EA to win:
"1. Provide a Product People Want and Like
2. Sell Your Product at a Reasonable Price
3. Support the Products You Sell"

You're not seeing my point here yet? It's not about bad games? ROFL Read the article above. It's not just my opinion tons of people VOTED two years in a row and many people, mags, websites expressed the hate.
“We don’t hate them because we’re homophobes, we hate them because they destroy companies we love. We hate them because they release poor games. We hate them because they claim our hate doesn’t matter as long as we give them our money.”

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-statements?symbol=EA
10yr summary on EA. How well are the $60 games doing for them and how much do you like paying for them? In 10yrs as one of the largest publishers AND devs, they've lost 2.5B dollars and earned the worst company award TWICE. How well did that pricing do for THQ? I'm railing against stupidity/bloated companies (or govt) and what we pay for it. Many companies making a SINGLE game, have done better than EA who launch how many yearly? THQ same story now gone bankrupt. The crap didn't come from the little companies, it came after the big guys bought them and started forcing them to put out betas due to deadlines/shareholders wanting quick bucks. The big guys=COD/BF4 etc rehashed yearly with no new ip risks. Little guys give us stuff the big publishers won't touch. You know, things like NEW ideas, IE all the games I listed above and more. None of the ones above look like crap. Take a look at any of the titles I listed and tell me they have simple graphics.

Your link for COD black ops 2 is for July 2013. Even the comments are a year old. You're not even in the right year here and mobile is now competing with $60 games and NOT angry birds now, thus tough for EA, THQ etc. ON top digital has allowed everyone to compete as if they were all on the same shelf and in the same boxes (valve, gog etc helped this). A little guy can get on the front page on any of the digital sales houses, unheard of just 10yrs ago in retail stores when if you didn't have a huge publisher backing you, you'd never be seen.

But yeah, PC gamers have many different tastes. But most would pay $40 or less every day vs. $60 when there is no perceived difference between the two with regards to what you get. I can't tell the difference between Diablo 3 and torchlight 2. Not $40 difference. T2 was $20 at launch, D3 was $60. Do you see $40 extra value in Diablo3? I don't. $60 would be fine if it was TANGIBLY better. But it isn't. One of them had a HUGE advertising budget, the other practically nothing but word of mouth etc. I don't see anyone saying they feel screwed by Torchlight 2 in price or fun factor or graphics quality etc. I see a heck of a lot of hate for D3. It will only get worse for these guys vs. mobile and cheaper pc stuff from great small companies without the bloat forcing $60 pricing and STILL losing money (thq, ea, etc). Runic games made two games in the last 4yrs and made more than ea did on hundreds of games in 10yrs...LOL. See the point? And they did it at $20.

We have high prices because previously nobody could compete with the largest devs/publishers for shelf space etc. We're seeing the playing field go level without the need for huge marketing or shelf space via digital sales. Quality is still there, but magically the high price isn't needed 😉 Game engines at cheap prices are also leveling the field. IE, unreal for $19 a month means I can make a game too. They even have FREE training to teach me to use it. You can bet EA etc doesn't like this trend. I don't need them now and can get seen, help in the engine forums etc.

I don't get your valve point. Their making money on the platform, not much on the games. The bulk of their income is digital sales of OTHER people's games. Dota 2 costs how much? Team Fortress 2 costs how much? Counter strike costs how much? They are the top three games on the list because they look ok and are NOT $60. You're proving my point, not yours. You're pointing to them being the top 3 in the charts and 2 of the 3 are completely free? LOL. Thanks for making my case. The other is $15. You just made my point with 3 cases. Valve only has 330 employees. They make a ton of money per employee, but not a LARGE company people wise and the GAME makers in that company are even smaller numbers as most run the store and support that store/team client not GAMES themselves correct? I don't get what you're saying here. The makers of the games I listed before have under 50 employees. IE, inxile making wasteland 2, Torment, 11-50 employees. Shroud of the avatar guys (Richard Garriot and company, ~15 employees, the old ultima guys from origin etc). Runic games, ~30 employees. etc.

What do you get from a small company who has to WIN your support?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_Games
"Gamasutra named Runic Games one of its "Top 5 Developers" of 2009 for the studio's ability to create the "highly-polished" Torchlight in only 11 months.[11] The company was also praised for its responsiveness to its player community, citing one particular incident: Mere hours after a forum member mentioned that one of the game's camera effects left her unable to play sections of the games due to an uncommon eye condition, a Runic developer patched in a user toggle for the option -- at 8:00 am on a Sunday morning, no less."

Small, competitive, and FIGHTING for your dollar with support etc. How good is comcast, att etc (merged until there was no compeitition, lobbying to kill the enemy instead of winning you with great stuff/support)? EA, MS, Govt etc. Large mostly sucks and so does support as they feel they're OWED your support and don't have to fight for it due to no competition. You just owe them and should shut up about it no matter what they put out 😉 Too big to fail just needs to FAIL so we can get better products and support as little guys take over. I'm not saying all big companies are bad, there are clearly some really great ones with great service, products etc. But this is the exception list of companies not the rule list :) Am I "ranting" about big corps or just making common sense backed by proof?
 
*FacePalm*

What a rant.... Stop mentioning the Government and the Gaming industry in the same sentence. There's no relationship. You are just demonstrating that you only support the little guy because you are anti establishment, not because of game quality.

I don't know why you are trying to push your personal opinion like it's a fact.

EA is losing money because they are losing customer support for making bad products. They release incomplete games and don't listen to consumers. But other companies are doing well. That doesn't mean the markets don't want big budget games, it just means EA isn't making quality products, regardless of their budget.
Sim City was rushed, and did not meet expectations. They also had to hand out free games to compensate for it not working
BF4 is a buggy mess, it's nothing more than a BF3 upgrade. I'm sure it didn't meet sales expectations.
Dropping Steam and moving to Origin was understandable, but a bad move overall.
Titan Fall will probably turn them around this year.

TF2 and Counter Strike are NOT free games. Half life 2 was $50 when it was released, TF2 and Counter Strike only went free to play almost a decade after they were released. That's not a good example of free to play.
You also see Skyrim, Rome 2, Football Manager and a lot of other big budget games on that list. This will generally reflect games with high replayability.

The market for big, high budget games still exists. The issue is that major publishing companies are not listening to consumers, and it shows. I don't necessarily need 80 hours of fetch quests, but I do expect the game to work on release day. I'm not going to spend 400 hours playing a 3D shooter. Once I've finished it a big title, I usually don't pick it up again. However; I still feel all three Batman titles were well worth the money, and the voice acting was exceptional. I'll gladly pay $50 for the new one.

Take 2, EA, Activision Blizzard, Sony, Nintendo, Bethesda, Ubisoft.. the only except here is Minecraft.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/top-10-game-sales-according-to-npd-may-2014-watch-dogs-on-top/1100-6420523/

Runic who? You liking something doesn't make it a fact, nor does it make it popular. The Xbox sales tables haven't been updated since Xbones release. I assume it basically looks like the list above, same big brand names.
 
Alec if you want to be taken serious, don't correct people's grammar, that is just childish, what about growing up? I pointed out that your statement about blizzard was incorrect, if you cant handle it, don't answer it.

Runic games is the creator of torchlight, if you don't know what torchlight is, then try look at youtube, it is a really good game. And CS GO was a 15$ and source a 30$ game at launch. And the original CS was a game you got together with Half life. The same with TF2, they were not a full priced games.

Your link is useless: The top 10 games list follows below, though it's important to keep in mind that this represent new physical retail only, not digital or used game sales.

that means that they have not taken digital sales in perspective, that is taking out all mobile games, and all steam sales GOG Humble and amazon sales out of the equation.
 


Actually, it's childish to use grammar incorrectly. That's why it needs to be corrected.
 
Alec no it is not, it is to come from another country, with another native language than english. But i can see you keep avoiding your own mistakes about the fakta of this, and have to point out something irrelevant. That is called, changing focus, and is not a way to debate in a grownup conversation.
 
Calm down, folks - attack the post but not the poster if you don't mind. English grammar is important to people who's first language is English but Tom's is multi-national and lots of minor mistakes can be forgiven.

I've almost forgiven the poster who corrected someone else's use of the word "therefor" (sic) without correcting the spelling to therefore. I'm English and have spoken it for well over sixty years so if I can let things go, so can you. 😀
 
Have you looked at 750ti? It's way cheaper tgan a console and plays games at 1080p ...way better than console. It works with any old pc too.
 


You tell me about it NOT being about BAD GAMES, but then tell me this:
"EA is losing money because they are losing customer support for making bad products. They release incomplete games and don't listen to consumers."

Do you actually read the post before responding? You're quoting 2 of the 3 reasons I posted from consumerist etc. You responding to me telling me I'm wrong but then telling me my own words as being right...ROFL.

By comparing the LARGE pubs/devs to the govt I'm not saying they're related. I'm demonstrating what you get when they get too big and have little competition. NO service, and BAD products, both of which you cited yourself. From your hate of me actually mentioning the govt, I'd guess you work for them 😉 Now that they have some competition in places they can dominate by pushing people around (can't push around valve, thus they tried to do Origin etc), they are now losing money at many large firms. As I said the little guy can get seen, where they couldn't before on shelf space. I mentioned many other large companies too (ms, att etc), which while not related again illustrate the point I was making. Large with no competition usually means we get crap products or service.

TF2 and Counterstrike are FREE to play today. You're using ancient history to defend your point, but at the same time recognizing I'm correct. They are FREE, hence most played. I didn't say they NEVER cost a dime at any point in history. You're choosing to ignore reality today, because at some point ages ago they weren't free? That's like saying The Bard's Tale isn't $2.99 on android because at launch it was $50. No, it's still $2.99 for anyone buying it today. Period. That is what is happening RIGHT NOW. This is part of the problem for the $60 game; you can get great stuff today for $2.99. I'm not wrong in TF2 or CS. They are free TODAY, irregardless of price even 6 months ago, let alone years ago. Half life 2 $50 upon release, again comparing ancient history and using it as a basis for your argument. That is NOT reality today, so pretty ridiculous to even mention it in a conversation about what is going on in the games industry TODAY. Today games go on sale quickly after release and much of the competition is cheaper than $60, so it's tougher for the big shots to compete. EA's history I quoted was 10yrs long. You can say they are having problems because of unfinished games and bad service (which was 2 of my points already) but you're also missing how long they've been losing money and as noted overall losses for 10yrs. I never said other companies were not doing well, so I don't get your point there.

I didn't say the market for big games doesn't exist, just that it will die if there isn't a perceived VALUE for that $60 game vs. cheaper ones made by not only INDIE people you've never heard of but more importantly by industry experts who went back to work for themselves today. I said there are exceptions, but as noted big prices have to be worth it and generally today they are not, hence many losses at these big yearly rehash firms.

Also you're quoting numbers that don't include digital sales. I'm kind shocked you don't know who Runic is and there stuff is pretty famous for a little guy (2mil sold for T2).
From your own link you apparently missed this very important detail:
"The top 10 games list follows below, though it's important to keep in mind that this represent new physical retail only, not digital or used game sales."

Steam, the largest digital distribution house doesn't divulge numbers, neither does gog, or many others AFAIK. So your argument is flawed at best about who's on top. Xbox1 sales numbers (through sales) are not reported because they are far lower than PS4 😉 According to the channels though, they haven't hit 5mil (stores know, whether MS wants to say it or not, they can do the math). PS4 gives sell-through numbers and even they aren't great in the grand scheme of things today with such a large gaming industry vs. when xbox360/ps3 etc were launched. Many of the games today are NOT ever on a retail shelf, so hard to say who's really on top when the digital shelves won't divulge numbers. You're also ignoring profits, while I'm talking who's making money here also (IE, lots of little guys are).

Even Richard Hilleman from EA said that ~25 devs were working on HIGH BUDGET titles for the eighth console generation, compared to 125 at the same point in the 7th gen-console cycle seven or eight years earlier. That's EA telling you the HUGE budget games are dying (and failures cost huge sums of money so just plain stupid in most cases today). It will get worse for them as the smaller devs put out great stuff with serious value and great support.

http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/financial-statements?symbol=ttwo
TakeTwo doesn't look much different than EA. ~$10mil in PROFITS over the last 10yrs. LOL. How many games do they put out? Torchlight 2 made more for Runic and they put out a game every year or two. If you don't get the point here, I'm really wasting my time with you. THQ same story, obviously already gone bankrupt. IF you take away Activision/Blizzards WOW earnings monthly (7-8mil subs at $15/mo is ~105mil+ or 1.2B/yr, which is their profits for the last year at 1B last two years each), they'd be about in the same spot. Nintendo? Well take a look at their losses over the past few years...IF they'd release their games on other hardware they'd be profitable as they do have fun stuff to play but I didn't mention them as a terrible software company. Sony/MS lost 4B+ and 3B+ on ps3/xbox360. So how successful is that?

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-05-14-sonys-game-division-reports-full-year-loss
Game division at sony produces a year loss again even with PS4 in there. I doubt any difference for MS as their sales are far worse for xbox1.

Handhelds?:
"That downward trend is expected to continue in the coming year, with all three products forecast to sell a combined 3.5 million."

Handhelds etc at sony set to fare badly for the whole next year too vs. tablets phones etc with far cheaper games. 1.24B loss for the whole division is bad right? You can cite a few games on top from these huge companies, but overall you're talking pretty much a whole group of losers as shown. You don't seem to follow the financials unfortunately.

You call my post a rant, but that's pretty much what yours is. You even use false data, as in pricing from years ago, and don't even know the players are here today with no idea who Runic is. These are the ex-diablo/diablo2 guys etc who are pretty famous people in the games industry(thus the comparison of $20 game vs. $60 which is Diablo3 etc which is why Torchlight 2 is compared in the media to Diablo 3). You didn't even understand why I mentioned Torchlight 1/2. All of the games I mentioned are from guys who made the most famous games in gaming history who are now making games TODAY that are competing with $60 games and as noted previously NONE will likely be $60. Now I get why you called them indie, when really you have no idea who the people making them are, and no idea what these games are. It's not indie gaming when it's made by Brian Fargo, Richard Garriot, Chris Avellone, Feargus Urquhart, Chris Parker, Darren Monahan, Tim Cain, Josh Sawyer etc. These are the people who were involved in some of the most famous games in history. Like Ultima's, Guild Wars games, Dragon Age games, Alpha Centari, Star Wars The Old replublic, Guitar Hero, Wing commander series, Wasteland, Fallout series, Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale series, Bard's Tale series, Planescape Torment, Arcanum, etc etc...Now they're back to working in small teams etc. Why do you think their games are the most funded on kickstarter? Inxile, Portalarium, Obsidian, Runic etc are not NEWBIE indie teams of game developers. LOL. Some of the people STILL work at big devs while doing projects on their own (IE, Grim Dawn guys, from Titan Quest series).

It's no wonder you acted like they are all crappy graphic/junk games. You don't even understand who I was talking about. These people will be putting out $60 quality games at $40 and under. You literally do not understand who I was talking about or the QUALITY of stuff they'll put out. Please do yourself a favor and look up all the games and companies I just mentioned (and in my previous posts) before "ranting" about me hating on the "big corporations" , hating "the man" and loving crappy non $60 games. Sure some great games will come from really small indie teams (like the Grimrock guys etc) and now they can all get seen on Steam/Gog etc, but most of what I was talking about are EX-employees of EA, MS, Activision, THQ etc and all the companies they bought and destroyed along the way. You don't even understand the conversation you are in...ROFL. I don't expect 400hrs from every shooter either. Serious Sam 1+2 were far less hours, but great fun/value for $20 and worth every penny. IF the market for $60 games was there TODAY, they'd be making tons of money instead of losing tons of it on these games right? Except for a few great hits that make a decent profit to cover many other losers, that market has a tough time competing with the likes of the games/companies/people I mentioned with the ways they can get noticed etc today.

I'm not ranting when I'm posting comments clearly backed by data from all aspects of these companies. Product, support, financials, customer hate, websites spouting the hate in great detail etc. Quit wasting my time and read a LOT more before posting people are ranting. It's comic when someone lays out a well thought out reply the first words out of the other guy's mouth is "facepalm - what a rant"...Whatever guy, I digress...
 
Oops,
"Now that they have some competition in places they can dominate by pushing people around"

Meant - CAN'T DOMINATE in the previous post; not going to edit it and prefer to leave the post in stone. The words following it make the point anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.