Unreal Engine 4 Not For Current Platforms (Except Kepler)

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]ultimatum[/nom]"When you look for the best graphics available in the whole game industry today, you look at Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3"i lol'd...[/citation]
Yeah , i was totally gonna say this but i see You already did XD I totally agree - Roflolmfao XD
 
[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Game developers are saying that they went to consoles because no piracy .. well ... the 2 platforms at this moment are the same ... on bouth you can play pirated versions of the games , but if you want to play the multiplayer content you`ll have to buy the game on either of the platforms ... so this bullshit with PC has more piracy is going nowhere. Computers are about evolution, they drove the graphics in games further and further with each year ... consoles are just for the money not for evolution. There goes the fast evolution in graphics ....[/citation]

Currently the only console that doesn't get pirated is the PS Vita, and it's nearly there.
 
This makes me sick. The bottom line that these assholes need to re realize is that hard work and a good product will ALWAYS be worth the effort. Make cutting edge quality optimized PC games. People will buy it and love it. People don't pirate stuff that's quality, they want to support the dev's.

Seems like there are so many greedy big companies nowadays that have more than enough resources but aren't willing to put in ANY effort. Do us a favor if you arent going to DEV a quality PC game FIRST then don't even bother porting it.
 
[citation][nom]raven2510[/nom]Really? You do realize that PC gamers are the minority. 32million Xbox 360s & 25million PS3s have been sold since launch. Its a much bigger market. Why focus on a smaller market with picky people with different hardware and have to waste time making it work for everyone. Its called smart business. What you need to understand is that PC gaming will never be what It used to be, EVER.[/citation]

A count of 54 million hardcore PC gamers was released just a few days ago. It doesn't include the dozens of millions more casual gamers. How many of those consoles were replacements for people who had one of theirs break? Consoles have a significantly smaller market. It's large, but it's not as large as the PC gaming market.

Also, developing on the PC is easier than developing on the console. The problem with on the PC is that PC gamers want to see better and better quality games whereas the game developing companies don't want to do all of that work. The console market doesn't want higher and higher quality games because consoles can't handle it, so developers are moving over to consoles, where they don't need to improve much over time. They have no need to make higher and higher quality textures when the console can't handle it, so the console owners don't complain when they don't get better textures. PC owners like progress and game companies don't like to progress because it's too much work for their taste. Console players have no such thirst for improvement.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]A count of 54 million hardcore PC gamers was released just a few days ago. It doesn't include the dozens of millions more casual gamers. How many of those consoles were replacements for people who had one of theirs break? Consoles have a significantly smaller market. It's large, but it's not as large as the PC gaming market.Also, developing on the PC is easier than developing on the console. The problem with on the PC is that PC gamers want to see better and better quality games whereas the game developing companies don't want to do all of that work. The console market doesn't want higher and higher quality games because consoles can't handle it, so developers are moving over to consoles, where they don't need to improve much over time. They have no need to make higher and higher quality textures when the console can't handle it, so the console owners don't complain when they don't get better textures. PC owners like progress and game companies don't like to progress because it's too much work for their taste. Console players have no such thirst for improvement.[/citation]
Do you know PC gaming demographics better than publishers and developers? What industry experience do you have to challenge their research and experience? Do you honestly really know what millions of people want?
 
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]You are absolutely correct on 4 of those. Point 4 might be debatable since few people buy a computer to game exclusively on. If you did, I would agree it is a terrible bang for buck vs a console. The fact that you were rated down into oblivion is further proof that the fringe, vocal minority, simply don't get it or understand how industries work. Until you decide to face reality and concede the issues inherent with the current PC gaming landscape and do something yourself to address the problems, it isn't going to move forward from where it is now.[/citation]

please play skyrim on a ps3 then play on a $600 pc (mind you both of these are priced evenly considering the launch price of ps3). if you count your hi-def tv as a cost, then add that to your pc budget, $200 gets a 2ms monitor at 23"... dont forget you get dx9 and 720p from your ps3, while you get dx11 and 1080p on the pc (with better performance). once you get your play experiences from each come back to me and tell me a bang for buck rig-a-marol again. at MOST youll need to upgrade your GPU in 3 years, and again, youll have a top notch gaming rig while (the new) consoles fall behind and are forced to accept their master's will (that being their online services, their EULAs, etc).

im so tired of you ill-informed console fanbois. the only excuse for having a console is that it is a PS2 or older. that or you are about 80 years old and do not understand how a computer works. i wouldnt mind you so much if you just shut up and took the left-overs, but when you steal developers and innovation from the PC platform, sh** gets personal real quick. selfish pricks.

trust me, i tried to give up my pc for 2 months and play exclusively on my PS3. i then promptly sold my ps3 and bought a dedicated blu-ray player. even at $100 it was a better value than the ps3. at least it wont YLOD on me. 😉
 
^ oh let me add that the only other reason to play a console is that you are stuck at 480i. if this is the case, though, you shouldn't be spending upwards of $300 on a gaming console, you should get a new effin tv
 
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]Um.......Angry Birds?......Epic has become a lazy a$$ developer like half the world's video games industry from what I can see.Not making games for Windows because piracy is worse in that segment? Try idiots too lazy to spend some time optimising performance for different Hardware.[/citation]

They're not bothering with WP7 because it has 10 sold devices worldwide.

They're avoid android because of hardware fragmentation (which is well documented). In order to get the quality of game Epic wants, they need a stable platform and a very good set of hardware to work with (WP7 would work if they sold more devices).

Epic isn't interested in Angry Birds. They want to make AAA games.

Google really needs to clean up the anarchy that is Android if they want high end games developed for their platform. It doesn't have to be totally locked down, but a more aggressive standard would be nice.
 
[citation][nom]buddhabelly34[/nom]please play skyrim on a ps3 then play on a $600 pc (mind you both of these are priced evenly considering the launch price of ps3). if you count your hi-def tv as a cost, then add that to your pc budget, $200 gets a 2ms monitor at 23"... dont forget you get dx9 and 720p from your ps3, while you get dx11 and 1080p on the pc (with better performance). once you get your play experiences from each come back to me and tell me a bang for buck rig-a-marol again. at MOST youll need to upgrade your GPU in 3 years, and again, youll have a top notch gaming rig while (the new) consoles fall behind and are forced to accept their master's will (that being their online services, their EULAs, etc).im so tired of you ill-informed console fanbois. the only excuse for having a console is that it is a PS2 or older. that or you are about 80 years old and do not understand how a computer works. i wouldnt mind you so much if you just shut up and took the left-overs, but when you steal developers and innovation from the PC platform, sh** gets personal real quick. selfish pricks.trust me, i tried to give up my pc for 2 months and play exclusively on my PS3. i then promptly sold my ps3 and bought a dedicated blu-ray player. even at $100 it was a better value than the ps3. at least it wont YLOD on me.[/citation]
Think about the following:

- When was PS3 released
- What year/generation of PC hardware can play today's games well?
- What was the PS3 price point at that time?
- What was the PC price point at that time?

If you're even slightly honest with yourself, you may suspect PC was just awful bang for buck, and only caught up many years later. Some people make wild claims about Pentium4 and G80 generation being able to play today's games smoothly, which is false of course.
 
[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]Do you know PC gaming demographics better than publishers and developers? What industry experience do you have to challenge their research and experience? Do you honestly really know what millions of people want?[/citation]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/jpr-pc-gamers-numbers-pc-gaming-dead,15530.html

Oh, but you'll be an ass about it anyway. I'm honestly far better with computer engineering than I am with the demographics here, but I'm sure that I don't need to be as good at demographics when there are other people who already did the counting for me.

[citation][nom]descendency[/nom]They're not bothering with WP7 because it has 10 sold devices worldwide. They're avoid android because of hardware fragmentation (which is well documented). In order to get the quality of game Epic wants, they need a stable platform and a very good set of hardware to work with (WP7 would work if they sold more devices). Epic isn't interested in Angry Birds. They want to make AAA games.Google really needs to clean up the anarchy that is Android if they want high end games developed for their platform. It doesn't have to be totally locked down, but a more aggressive standard would be nice.[/citation]

Actually, WP7 is not compatible with most programming languages and that's why it's being skipped. WP8 is supposed to fix this. WP also has a considerable market share, especially because it is fairly untapped by serious gaming developers. WP8 could change that drastically when it brings in support for more programming languages.

[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]Think about the following:- When was PS3 released- What year/generation of PC hardware can play today's games well?- What was the PS3 price point at that time?- What was the PC price point at that time?If you're even slightly honest with yourself, you may suspect PC was just awful bang for buck, and only caught up many years later. Some people make wild claims about Pentium4 and G80 generation being able to play today's games smoothly, which is false of course.[/citation]

The P4s/PDs and G8800s could play the games of their time excellently (better than consoles). They don't need to play all of today's games well (although they play most of the console ports, excluding the most horribly ported, and non-heavy games such as the MMORPGs just as well as they did in their prime time and that is very well).

The consoles can only play games today as well as they did previously because current console games aren't exponentially heavier than older console games like new PC games are compared to older PC games. Even then, a good card like most of the old ones can still play today's games with higher graphics quality than a console. I guarantee that a 4850 doing 720p with very high or maxed out quality settings and AA/AF will still have far better picture quality than a console does. Heck, an even older card (such as the 8800GT) playing at an even lower resolution or lower quality settings and AA/AF in today's top games still looks better than my Xbox 360 does.
 
[citation][nom]aggroboy[/nom]Think about the following:- When was PS3 released- What year/generation of PC hardware can play today's games well?- What was the PS3 price point at that time?- What was the PC price point at that time?If you're even slightly honest with yourself, you may suspect PC was just awful bang for buck, and only caught up many years later. Some people make wild claims about Pentium4 and G80 generation being able to play today's games smoothly, which is false of course.[/citation]
I won't bother with a long reply since others already did that for me but I would like to say this:

since PCI-e x16 is now the standard for GPUs, all I need to do is replace my GPU and POSSIBLY my PSU to upgrade a 2007 pc to specs that go FAR beyond the ps3. 2007 because that was the first ps3 price drop, so it's only fair to count anything in that same year. not everyone is an early adopter, and only the most rich should be.

if you bother making an argument about "it should just work" or "consumers shouldnt be expected to do anything to make it work" then I dare you to drive your car 15,000 miles without changing the oil, checking tire pressure, washing or waxing it, no inspection or registration then let me know what you need... thats right, a new damn car. just like a pc.

oh wait a dryer is the same. better make sure you check for lint in the catcher. that squeaking? oh that's just the bearings. about $10 for the plastic piece and an hour of your time (i know i did it and im not an HVAC professional).

we shouldn't count "consumers" that dont understand what they are buying. would you take a drug that you didn't do a little research on? would you drive across the country without a map or asking anyone where to go?


oops, longer than i expected.
 
[citation][nom]raven2510[/nom]Really? You do realize that PC gamers are the minority. 32million Xbox 360s & 25million PS3s have been sold since launch. Its a much bigger market. Why focus on a smaller market with picky people with different hardware and have to waste time making it work for everyone. Its called smart business. What you need to understand is that PC gaming will never be what It used to be, EVER.[/citation]

Your point is spot on, your numbers aren't. They're actually far more in your favor than you listed. PS3 sales were at 62 million at the end of 2011. XBox 360 has sold 67.2 million units through April of this year.

dont forget you get dx9 and 720p from your ps3, while you get dx11 and 1080p on the pc (with better performance). once you get your play experiences from each come back to me and tell me a bang for buck rig-a-marol again.
Click to expand...

My main PC rig is a 2600k OC'd to 4.8GHz, 16GB RAM, HD5870 xfire setup, SSD boot drive, X-Fi Titanium HD connected to a 24" 1920x1200 flat panel. Not exactly a bottom rung gaming system. I split time between the PC and consoles pretty evenly.

Playing the fanboy card on someone you don't know is just stupid and pointless.

However, when my friends come over, most of them PC gamers, none of them want to crowd around my desk and play games on my PC. They all go to the living room to play PS3 on the 1080p 50" plasma since that is a much better gaming experience to them. You know what never happens? No one ever complains about how bad the console graphics are, because they look great on a decent quality TV.

Consoles have a significantly smaller market. It's large, but it's not as large as the PC gaming market.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue the numbers since there is no way they can be verified either way. So the questions becomes, if the the PC gaming community is so much larger than the any of the individual console user bases. Why do you blockbuster console games sell so many more copies than PC games?

If you doubt the numbers, here they are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

The PC list includes all games that have sold over 5 million copies. A total of 10 games plus an expansion pack to one of them. You should notice a couple things from perusing that list.

1) Only one game on that list has been released since any of the current generation consoles were released (XBox 360 first in April 2005). And that game is Minecraft. Not exactly a DX11 technical tour-de-force.
2) Most of the games on the list fall under the casual gamer category, not enthusiast. Half-life/Half-life 2 and Guild Wars are the only 3 games on that list that required any sort of gaming horsepower at all when they were released. Where are all the graphical powerhouse showcase games? No Crysis? No Metro 2033, no id games at all?

Ignoring the bundled Kinect game, the XBox 360 has 6 games with at least 5 million sold. COD-black OPS has sold 12 million which is more than twice as many copies as any PC game released since the release of the 360.

PS3 which was released a year and a half after the 360 has 2 games of at least 5 million sales.

Oh, and by the way, the Wii has 6 games that have sold at least 20 million copies, not including the bundled Wii Sports. 13 games with at least 5 million.

So that means the PS3 and XBox 360 have a combined EIGHT games with at least 5 million copies sold. Over the same stretch of time the PC has ONE. And I doubt anyone spent $60 on their copy of Minecraft, so who do you think made more money during this stretch, the console publishers, or the PC publishers?

54 million PC gaming enthusiasts? Where are they and why aren't they buying any games if they there are so many of them and they are enthusiasts?
 
All the console vs. PC price arguments can be solved really really simply.

You need to have a PC, everyone has one. what's the minimum you can get one for? $300, if you go for the lowest you can possibly find. Most people spend a lot more. Not that they really need to. At this price point you are only $300 away from a fairly decent gaming PC. There is just no arguments for cost advantage of consoles. Obviously you would need to spend $1000+ if you went to a store and wanted a gaming computer. The only advantage for Consoles anymore in that aspect is that they don't have to think about it. They can get a console and go with it.

Although I'm reasonably certain everyone on Tom's hardware is capable of upgrading a Graphics card+ Power supply in that $300 PC for about $200-$300 and turning it into a fairly respectable gaming machine. Although you are clearly better off building the computer yourself.
 
Your point is spot on, your numbers aren't. They're actually far more in your favor than you listed. PS3 sales were at 62 million at the end of 2011. XBox 360 has sold 67.2 million units through April of this year.
Click to expand...
62.7 million units, huh? Well, when you count all the units that RRoDed and then those morons bought a second one (even I did this once) then that 62.7 million units becomes something like 30million unique consumers. This is a highly different factor. You aren't that deluded are you?

[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]My main PC rig is a 2600k OC'd to 4.8GHz, 16GB RAM, HD5870 xfire setup, SSD boot drive, X-Fi Titanium HD connected to a 24" 1920x1200 flat panel. Not exactly a bottom rung gaming system. I split time between the PC and consoles pretty evenly.Playing the fanboy card on someone you don't know is just stupid and pointless.However, when my friends come over, most of them PC gamers, none of them want to crowd around my desk and play games on my PC. They all go to the living room to play PS3 on the 1080p 50" plasma since that is a much better gaming experience to them. You know what never happens? No one ever complains about how bad the console graphics are, because they look great on a decent quality TV.[/citation]
Had me until "You know what never happens? No one ever complains about how bad the console graphics are, because they look great on a decent quality TV."

If your rig is what you claim, then you know damn well that your PS3's graphics are terrible relative, of course, to that same game with a "gaming PC" like the one you mentioned. If your friends don't want to do a LAN party, that is their own issue (you did say they are PC gamers after all).

This does not make the 360 or PS3 a more viable party platform. Especially when many games now require 1 console per person. Tell me 4 TVs and 4 consoles aren't just as much space consuming as 4 PCs and 4 monitors. Please try to make that argument.

I'm not going to argue the numbers since there is no way they can be verified either way. So the questions becomes, if the the PC gaming community is so much larger than the any of the individual console user bases. Why do you blockbuster console games sell so many more copies than PC games?If you doubt the numbers, here they are:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ [...] ideo_gamesThe PC list includes all games that have sold over 5 million copies. A total of 10 games plus an expansion pack to one of them. You should notice a couple things from perusing that list.1) Only one game on that list has been released since any of the current generation consoles were released (XBox 360 first in April 2005). And that game is Minecraft. Not exactly a DX11 technical tour-de-force.2) Most of the games on the list fall under the casual gamer category, not enthusiast. Half-life/Half-life 2 and Guild Wars are the only 3 games on that list that required any sort of gaming horsepower at all when they were released. Where are all the graphical powerhouse showcase games? No Crysis? No Metro 2033, no id games at all?Ignoring the bundled Kinect game, the XBox 360 has 6 games with at least 5 million sold. COD-black OPS has sold 12 million which is more than twice as many copies as any PC game released since the release of the 360.PS3 which was released a year and a half after the 360 has 2 games of at least 5 million sales.Oh, and by the way, the Wii has 6 games that have sold at least 20 million copies, not including the bundled Wii Sports. 13 games with at least 5 million.So that means the PS3 and XBox 360 have a combined EIGHT games with at least 5 million copies sold. Over the same stretch of time the PC has ONE. And I doubt anyone spent $60 on their copy of Minecraft, so who do you think made more money during this stretch, the console publishers, or the PC publishers?54 million PC gaming enthusiasts? Where are they and why aren't they buying any games if they there are so many of them and they are enthusiasts?
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah blah blah...

Minecraft $60 blah blah...

"5,838,643 people bought the game." (minecraft.net) at almost $30 US that makes close to 3 mil $60 purchases. Though it is really unfair to count against a game that is priced lower and sells better. Close to 6 mil should be the real factor.

Just because Call of Duty: Reiteration number 10 sells well doesn't mean that it's a good gaming platform. Sure it's profitable, but that has literally nothing to do with the gaming experience.

54 million PC gaming enthusiasts? Where are they and why aren't they buying any games if they there are so many of them and they are enthusiasts?
Click to expand...
Well, something like 11mil have been paying $15/mo on World of Warcraft alone. I'd say that $15 x 12 months x 7 years x (this my guess-timated low-ball avg subscribers) 2 million = $2.52 billion is much greater profit-wise than some measly 20 million one time purchases of $60 (especially when I'm excluding all the money made by blizz for selling the game itself which already practically rivals black ops alone).

Mind you, this is just one MMO. And one MMO that plays on virtually any PC. So while consoles are profitable, PCs are AT THE VERY LEAST as profitable. It's all about what your product is.




-----
hopefully that wasnt too scatterbrained
 
[citation][nom]jamie_1318[/nom]All the console vs. PC price arguments can be solved really really simply.You need to have a PC, everyone has one. what's the minimum you can get one for? $300, if you go for the lowest you can possibly find. Most people spend a lot more. Not that they really need to. At this price point you are only $300 away from a fairly decent gaming PC. There is just no arguments for cost advantage of consoles. Obviously you would need to spend $1000+ if you went to a store and wanted a gaming computer. The only advantage for Consoles anymore in that aspect is that they don't have to think about it. They can get a console and go with it. Although I'm reasonably certain everyone on Tom's hardware is capable of upgrading a Graphics card+ Power supply in that $300 PC for about $200-$300 and turning it into a fairly respectable gaming machine. Although you are clearly better off building the computer yourself.[/citation]
wish i could +1 that post like 5000 times. succinct and true.
 
62.7 million units, huh? Well, when you count all the units that RRoDed and then those morons bought a second one (even I did this once) then that 62.7 million units becomes something like 30million unique consumers. This is a highly different factor. You aren't that deluded are you?
Click to expand...

There's a 3 year warranty in place for RROD. Warranty replacements are not included in sales figures. Why are you calling me deluded, when you just tried to claim 32.7 million people have experienced the RROD and all of them decided that instead of getting it replaced for free, they would go pay full retail for another one?

It's not worth my time to discuss anything with you if you're just going to post BS like that.
 
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]There's a 3 year warranty in place for RROD. Warranty replacements are not included in sales figures. Why are you calling me deluded, when you just tried to claim 32.7 million people have experienced the RROD and all of them decided that instead of getting it replaced for free, they would go pay full retail for another one?It's not worth my time to discuss anything with you if you're just going to post BS like that.[/citation]
My RRoD happened nearly 4 years after I got my first console. It was also a door prize that I would not have had a feasible way of providing proof of purchase.

Plus the number of modded 360s that cannot be serviced.

Stop trying to create some scenario where the only consumer is one who goes to the store, buys the product, and goes home with their receipt to file away. I keep my receipts, at best, for a year. If it hasn't failed by then, it shouldn't at all.

Yes, yes, I do find you to be very deluded. If you think that 67.2 million consumers are unique, you are in fact crazy. Maybe 50% was a bit excessive, but I'd want to see the data backing up more than 2/3 of the sales being to unique consumers before even remotely buying in to the idea.
 
^I take that back, now that I think about it, it was only 2 years for the console to fail. But it wasn't an RRoD. It just stopped working all together. Alas, no paperwork to provide proof of purchase and Microsoft said I'd need to cough up about $90. I ended up taking the HDD and getting the first Arcade batch. That was a good built console. At least for me. Had it for like 4 years.
 
Just stop upgrading your hardware or stay loud about that the software should push the hardware... (I'm still thynking if what I said is appropriate)
 
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]I don't know where you live. But here in America, the XBox 360 launched at $279, which is almost half of $500 by most peoples' math, and $320 less than the $600 PC estimate you gave.[/citation]

The 360 with the hard drive launched at $400, not $280. In fact, there was no North American version of the 360 that launched at $280. The closest is the core version of the system at $300, and frankly, that system is not the one anybody here is referring to. That console had no hard drive, a wired controller, and the included AV cable didn't support HD resolutions.
 
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]Your point is spot on, your numbers aren't. They're actually far more in your favor than you listed. PS3 sales were at 62 million at the end of 2011. XBox 360 has sold 67.2 million units through April of this year.My main PC rig is a 2600k OC'd to 4.8GHz, 16GB RAM, HD5870 xfire setup, SSD boot drive, X-Fi Titanium HD connected to a 24" 1920x1200 flat panel. Not exactly a bottom rung gaming system. I split time between the PC and consoles pretty evenly.Playing the fanboy card on someone you don't know is just stupid and pointless.However, when my friends come over, most of them PC gamers, none of them want to crowd around my desk and play games on my PC. They all go to the living room to play PS3 on the 1080p 50" plasma since that is a much better gaming experience to them. You know what never happens? No one ever complains about how bad the console graphics are, because they look great on a decent quality TV.I'm not going to argue the numbers since there is no way they can be verified either way. So the questions becomes, if the the PC gaming community is so much larger than the any of the individual console user bases. Why do you blockbuster console games sell so many more copies than PC games?If you doubt the numbers, here they are:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ [...] ideo_gamesThe PC list includes all games that have sold over 5 million copies. A total of 10 games plus an expansion pack to one of them. You should notice a couple things from perusing that list.1) Only one game on that list has been released since any of the current generation consoles were released (XBox 360 first in April 2005). And that game is Minecraft. Not exactly a DX11 technical tour-de-force.2) Most of the games on the list fall under the casual gamer category, not enthusiast. Half-life/Half-life 2 and Guild Wars are the only 3 games on that list that required any sort of gaming horsepower at all when they were released. Where are all the graphical powerhouse showcase games? No Crysis? No Metro 2033, no id games at all?Ignoring the bundled Kinect game, the XBox 360 has 6 games with at least 5 million sold. COD-black OPS has sold 12 million which is more than twice as many copies as any PC game released since the release of the 360.PS3 which was released a year and a half after the 360 has 2 games of at least 5 million sales.Oh, and by the way, the Wii has 6 games that have sold at least 20 million copies, not including the bundled Wii Sports. 13 games with at least 5 million.So that means the PS3 and XBox 360 have a combined EIGHT games with at least 5 million copies sold. Over the same stretch of time the PC has ONE. And I doubt anyone spent $60 on their copy of Minecraft, so who do you think made more money during this stretch, the console publishers, or the PC publishers?54 million PC gaming enthusiasts? Where are they and why aren't they buying any games if they there are so many of them and they are enthusiasts?[/citation]

How many of those consoles are replacements for broken ones? I bet a lot of them are. Lets not forget the huge portion of console owners who use them for watching TV through their optical drive or through streaming (more than 1/5 of Xbox owners do this, M$ did a count last month). PC gamers often don't play as many different games as console gamers (despite PC games being cheaper) and just stick to a small number of games, so a lot of game purchases are purchases by people who didn't purchase most other games. How many console players buy a game more than once (even if it's used or whatever) because the first one gets damaged, for any reason?
 
Amazing how many posts i missed in couple of hours later lol.

Anyways, here is the bottom line. If this is the trend of the gaming industry in the future. I am afraid I might just have to throw in the towel. No way can these consoles have a lifespan of eternity and expect to get their money's worth all due to being heavily subsidized, yet Apple can release the iphone 5 tomorrow and those isheep will be in line going gaga how awesome the iphone 5 really is.

Gee i wish gaming was this exciting. But nope, Smartphones and tablets are more exciting than gaming. Does not take a genius to figure out why that is when you have devs griping and moaning like Mr.Tim over here holding back progress. Pay for a overpriced Mac, but complain how PC's are expensive for gaming? I just don't get it lol.

What do smartphones/tablets have in common with PC's you say??

They both have a upgrade cycle except you be replacing 5 tablets and smartphones for the cost of a new PC build yet console gamers want to maximize their consoles as long as possible for the sake of "not keeping up" No wonder gaming is going down the crapper and is not "exciting" as it once was.

I mean how many COD must they make. Really??. How about bringing back RTS for the PC like Generals 2. Enough with the COD's!.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom