PC games are now outselling console games worldwide

SeantheMan

Mr Bloat wrote: »

Ars Technica had an interesting article a couple of weeks ago where they put together accumulated data from thousands public Steam profiles. It doesn't give data on how much a particular game may have made but it shows how many people own particular games and how often they are played:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/

You can check this yourself everyday , over a period of time and see yourself

http://store.steampowered.com/stats

Shows you how many people currently online on Steam, the 100 most played games today by users at peak...and the current number of online users playing

DOTA2 and CS are always winning, but Dark Souls 2 had near 80,000 users at it's peak today on at the same time , 50,000 of them playing now

gizmo

Blowfish wrote: »

That was a bit of an odd statement as Dota2 was officially released in 2013. Granted they could claim it was accessible through the beta before that, but if you count that, then Hearthstone beta was available in 2013, so the statement still wouldn't have been true.

Quite true, it's hard to tell what the logic is without seeing the full report though. If I was to hazard a guess I'd imagine it was something to do with the long, expansive and highly publicised beta phase DOTA2 went through compared to most titles, arguably including Hearthstone.

Blowfish wrote: »

In any case, it's always been the case on PC that older games have a long lifespan, from Quake/Unreal to Starcraft to MMO's etc. the popular ones just run for a long long time.

This isn't about the popularity of titles though, this is revenue generation year on year, a very different metric altogether.

Magill wrote: »

Good to see the market is in good shape tho, even if the numbers are a little muddled. And why would you not be happy that most of the top grossing games aren't new ? They're constantly adding new content to these games, its not like they the same game as was released. Infact... i'd argue there is probably more change and content added to these games over the space of a year than some of the big sellers on console (Fifa,madden.. hell even CoD).

This isn't really about a couple of titles though, it's about the entire top 20 in 2013 and the vast majority of them in 2014 so far. Not only that but many of these titles are, from the same report, deemed to be dominating everything else by an order of magnitude. I just don't see this as a particularly good situation for anyone who isn't a fan of online-orientated MOBA and F2P titles. It certainly doesn't indicate something so general as "PC games" outselling console games worldwide.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I actually was confused about that too. How's that a bad thing. Games on pc generally have a lot more life in them. They are not being recycled as fast as on consoles. Look at that new stalker mod that became standalone. It's being downloaded like hot pancakes!
Free to play games on pc are very good too. No wonder why they stay active for so long. Even when you do a break from them for a good few months or a year, when you come back there is a ton of new content.

Again, games having prolonged lifespans on the PC is a great thing, you won't find me complaining about that here. But as I said above, this is year on year revenue generation and when new titles are finding it difficult to break into even the top 20 titles, it's going to have some adverse effects when it comes to publishers and the kind of games they choose to fund in the future.

As for STALKER, case in point, instead of getting STALKER 2 or another strong single player experience we get another F2P MMO-like FPS in the form of Survarium.

Again though, this isn't some criticism of F2P in general, I'd be just worried that in an industry which shown time and time again to be extremely reactionary, we're going to continue to see a strong push in the direction of online-orientated, micro-transaction-centrc F2P games at the expense of other areas. Not only that, but that push may also continue to bleed out into more traditional single player games (look at Dead Space 3 for instance) affecting their design too.

Let me put it like this, I'd much prefer to see the figures behind this headline pointing to higher sales of multi-platform games on the PC. At least then we may see publishers put more effort into higher quality (and less delayed) ports which offer an experienced tailored to platform or even more interest in PC-orientated titles from some publishers which still focus on console titles. This could still include the development of titles this particular report is championing but also not necessarily trigger any potentially negative changes in publisher attitudes going forward.

Hercule

the revenue figures are mostly skewed by people buying hats in TF2

Magill

gizmo wrote: »

This isn't really about a couple of titles though, it's about the entire top 20 in 2013 and the vast majority of them in 2014 so far. Not only that but many of these titles are, from the same report, deemed to be dominating everything else by an order of magnitude. I just don't see this as a particularly good situation for anyone who isn't a fan of online-orientated MOBA and F2P titles. It certainly doesn't indicate something so general as "PC games" outselling console games worldwide.


Again, games having prolonged lifespans on the PC is a great thing, you won't find me complaining about that here. But as I said above, this is year on year revenue generation and when new titles are finding it difficult to break into even the top 20 titles, it's going to have some adverse effects when it comes to publishers and the kind of games they choose to fund in the future.

As for STALKER, case in point, instead of getting STALKER 2 or another strong single player experience we get another F2P MMO-like FPS in the form of Survarium.

Again though, this isn't some criticism of F2P in general, I'd be just worried that in an industry which shown time and time again to be extremely reactionary, we're going to continue to see a strong push in the direction of online-orientated, micro-transaction-centrc F2P games at the expense of other areas. Not only that, but that push may also continue to bleed out into more traditional single player games (look at Dead Space 3 for instance) affecting their design too.

Let me put it like this, I'd much prefer to see the figures behind this headline pointing to higher sales of multi-platform games on the PC. At least then we may see publishers put more effort into higher quality (and less delayed) ports which offer an experienced tailored to platform or even more interest in PC-orientated titles from some publishers which still focus on console titles. This could still include the development of titles this particular report is championing but also not necessarily trigger any potentially negative changes in publisher attitudes going forward.

There are a number of things you aren't considering.

The console and pc markets are completely different, just because a AAA game sells well on console doesn't mean it deserves to sell well. Why did Assasins Creed 3 not sell as well on PC... because it doesn't deserve to, some games are suited to console and some aren't... its not like multi-plat AAA games never sell well on PC, just look at Skyrim, Battlefield, Darksouls etc These games are appriciated by the community and thus do well.

You also have to take into consideration the much longer selling window on PC, many games continue to sell well years after release thanks to digital store sales... so while the initial revenue gained from releasing a game on PC might not be up to your hopes, it has the opportunity to make money long into its life-cycle. So Southpark hasn't sold amazing on PC ? it has 10 years to make up for it.

At the end of the day, the PC gaming market is never going to be the same as the Console market. CoD outsells every game(With the odd exception) by a mile on console, yet it barely eeks into the top 5 shooters on PC. PC gaming is its own market, its stronger than its ever been... there is no reason to be concerned imo.

ScumLord

Magill wrote: »

The console and pc markets are completely different, just because a AAA game sells well on console doesn't mean it deserves to sell well. Why did Assasins Creed 3 not sell as well on PC... because it doesn't deserve to, some games are suited to console and some aren't... its not like multi-plat AAA games never sell well on PC, just look at Skyrim, Battlefield, Darksouls etc These games are appriciated by the community and thus do well.

I don't think there's any game that wouldn't work well on a PC set up, as long as people don't see PCs as the grey box sitting on a desk in the corner it can act like a console as well. Consoles have problems playing PC titles though, you don't have the sim market on consoles because you don't have the same range of equipment.

You also have to take into consideration the much longer selling window on PC, many games continue to sell well years after release thanks to digital store sales...

It's not just down to digital sales, games become platforms on PC, with people modding them for years and the makers bringing out new content keeping the game alive. The latest driving sim on PC Assetto Corsa, has a development life of at least 5 years after release and most people would be eagerly awaiting DLC rather than feeling like it's just DLC for the sake of making money.

At the end of the day, the PC gaming market is never going to be the same as the Console market.

And that is it's advantage, it can be a jack of all trades and master of all trades.

gizmo

Magill wrote: »

The console and pc markets are completely different, just because a AAA game sells well on console doesn't mean it deserves to sell well. Why did Assasins Creed 3 not sell as well on PC... because it doesn't deserve to, some games are suited to console and some aren't... its not like multi-plat AAA games never sell well on PC, just look at Skyrim, Battlefield, Darksouls etc These games are appriciated by the community and thus do well.

Games selling well despite not deserving to is not a trend limited to consoles, there are plenty of striking examples on the PC too. As for Assassins Creed, entries in that series have always sold considerably better on consoles, the terrible port work on AC3 would have had little to do it with it. None of this has anything to do with my point however, and if anything demonstrates how truly meaningful such a turn around in sales would be rather. Instead we're supposed to laud a report about PC gaming outselling console gaming because of F2P and MOBA games? No thanks.

Magill wrote: »

You also have to take into consideration the much longer selling window on PC, many games continue to sell well years after release thanks to digital store sales... so while the initial revenue gained from releasing a game on PC might not be up to your hopes, it has the opportunity to make money long into its life-cycle. So Southpark hasn't sold amazing on PC ? it has 10 years to make up for it.

I'm not saying this isn't important, I'm pointing out that publishers and those who decide where development funds go see this as less important. Again, this is a comparison between year on year revenues so the ability to make ones money back after ten years due to digital distribution of your title at knocked down prices doesn't really come into it.

Magill wrote: »

At the end of the day, the PC gaming market is never going to be the same as the Console market. CoD outsells every game(With the odd exception) by a mile on console, yet it barely eeks into the top 5 shooters on PC. PC gaming is its own market, its stronger than its ever been... there is no reason to be concerned imo.

My concern has nothing to do with the platform, it's to do with the games being released on it. Over the course of the last generation I don't think anyone could deny the overwhelming influence multiplayer-centric heavy hitters such as CoD had on the market. Whether they were first person shooters or third person adventure games we saw multiplayer elements shoehorned in regardless of whether they fit or not. This obviously led to higher budgets, higher sales targets and ultimately, more expensive flops. My basic point amongst all of this is that I don't want to see the next fad for the coming generation be F2P and micro-transaction based gameplay. Nor do I want to see such facets becoming equally pervasive in genres they have no place in.

But yes, PC gaming is stronger than it's ever been, or at least since the last time it was stronger than it's ever been, but my problem is that, according to this report at least, it's not because of things like the great service/sales provided by Steam and their counterparts or the resurgence of the indie development movement or indeed any particular advantage inherent to the PC as a platform. It's due to the revenues generated by a subset of games that are either derided by a huge number gamers on this site and others (that'd be your F2P or micro-transaction heavy-based games) or those that seem to appeal to the type of gamer that seems to really like paying for aesthetic items (and that'd be your MOBAs). Again, there's nothing wrong with fans of these genres being served but not, imo, if that level of success adversely affects other genres.

Polar101

Magill wrote: »

You also have to take into consideration the much longer selling window on PC, many games continue to sell well years after release thanks to digital store sales... so while the initial revenue gained from releasing a game on PC might not be up to your hopes, it has the opportunity to make money long into its life-cycle. So Southpark hasn't sold amazing on PC ? it has 10 years to make up for it.

That makes me think a lot of new games just get pirated, and are only bought in 75% off Steam sales. Maybe that's old fashioned thinking, but surely piracy is a bigger issue on PC than on consoles.

And PC does suffer from non-backwards compatibility problems as well - in 10 years nothing might run today's game. I'd say digital sales are getting pretty big on consoles as well, so older games can sell on consoles as well.

ShadowHearth

Polar101 wrote: »

That makes me think a lot of new games just get pirated, and are only bought in 75% off Steam sales. Maybe that's old fashioned thinking, but surely piracy is a bigger issue on PC than on consoles.

And PC does suffer from non-backwards compatibility problems as well - in 10 years nothing might run today's game. I'd say digital sales are getting pretty big on consoles as well, so older games can sell on consoles as well.

www.gog.com says hi! :pac:

gizmo

Polar101 wrote: »

And PC does suffer from non-backwards compatibility problems as well - in 10 years nothing might run today's game. I'd say digital sales are getting pretty big on consoles as well, so older games can sell on consoles as well.

If you ignore PS+, digital sales on the consoles have only very recently been a thing. Previously the base RRP was so high that even with a meaty percentage discount, the prices of digital titles on the various store fronts were still way too high. As I said, while that has changed or at least begun to change recently, consoles still have the fundamental problem of being not being directly compatible with each other across generations whereas the PC has no such problem with hardware and there's nearly always a way around any potential compatibility problems brought up by software.

wes

ShadowHearth wrote: »

www.gog.com says hi! :pac:

Those guys have to do a lot of work to get some games running on modern systems, and if you bought a game elsewhere, you would still have to buy a new copy on GOG to get it working on your system, if its not working on your current system. Its not all that different than Nintendo etc re-releasing old games on there stores.

Don't get me wrong PC backward comparability is superior to current consoles (excluding the Wii U), but it does have its issues.

ShadowHearth

wes wrote: »

Those guys have to do a lot of work to get some games running on modern systems, and if you bought a game elsewhere, you would still have to buy a new copy on GOG to get it working on your system, if its not working on your current system. Its not all that different than Nintendo etc re-releasing old games on there stores.

Don't get me wrong PC backward comparability is superior to current consoles (excluding the Wii U), but it does have its issues.

It works, and price is very low. I bought heroes 3 back in the day, then I payed gog.com 2$ on sale and got a complete heroes 3 collection. I am pretty sure if I still had old cds, I would be able to play it on my current pc with a help of a few tweaks and mods.
Backwards compatability is the least of pcs worries and one of its hugest advantages over consoles.

With allmost all pc games having steaM support at this day and age, I don't see any issues with old games at all. Half life 1 game is very old now, still works perfect on pc tanks for steam, and it will still work 20 years from now on my brand new shiny pc or upgraded several times one.

abbir

wes wrote: »

Those guys have to do a lot of work to get some games running on modern systems, and if you bought a game elsewhere, you would still have to buy a new copy on GOG to get it working on your system, if its not working on your current system. Its not all that different than Nintendo etc re-releasing old games on there stores.

GOG do some work to get them running, but it is usually work you could do yourself if you had the original discs. They often use programs like Dosbox and Scummvm. They also apply community patches to games to get them working.

ScumLord

Polar101 wrote: »

That makes me think a lot of new games just get pirated, and are only bought in 75% off Steam sales. Maybe that's old fashioned thinking, but surely piracy is a bigger issue on PC than on consoles.

It is because it's easier to do on PC but I think steam have done the most for preventing piracy by having their sales, like many people have pointed out, you end up buying games you'll probably never play just because it was too cheap to pass up on. The easy updating and just ease of use over all would mean I don't ever see myself pirating a game.

I'll still buy new releases too, I just won't buy them on steam because steam seems to be crippled with high prices on new games. Having said that I would be sorely tempted to pay extra for a steam key just so it's part of my library. The only place it's an issue is with the likes of U-play, if I buy the key anywhere else other than steam it's only linked to my U-play account which is an inconvenience more than anything.

beauf

I've been disappointed at the compatibility of older titles on steam. Something like COD4 and punkbuster was a PITA. That said there was so many hacks for that game it became a bit pointless playing it on any server. But some of the others I tried had issues. They didn't really keep up with the patches. Maybe it was better for newer titles. I only played low end ones because thats all my laptop could play.

Magill

gizmo wrote: »

Games selling well despite not deserving to is not a trend limited to consoles, there are plenty of striking examples on the PC too. As for Assassins Creed, entries in that series have always sold considerably better on consoles, the terrible port work on AC3 would have had little to do it with it. None of this has anything to do with my point however, and if anything demonstrates how truly meaningful such a turn around in sales would be rather. Instead we're supposed to laud a report about PC gaming outselling console gaming because of F2P and MOBA games? No thanks.

You say that as if console sales aren't top heavy tho, yes there are a number of incredibly successful games on PC that inflate the sales figures (LoL, Dota, WoW, Diablo, Guildwars etc) but that trend isn't isolated to PC. Call of duty, Fifa, AC, BF, Halo, GTA.... these games probably generate just as much revenue as the F2P games you're talking about. I'd much rather the biggest sellers on a platform to be games like WoW and LoL than CoD and Fifa but thats just me.

Has this top 20 list even been published btw ? I'm in work so can't go digging for it atm, but i'd be interested in seeing just what games they have on it. If the PC market is comparable to all 3 console markets combined (Or even just the xbox/ps market) then there really has to be more to it than just a few F2P games.

I'm not saying this isn't important, I'm pointing out that publishers and those who decide where development funds go see this as less important. Again, this is a comparison between year on year revenues so the ability to make ones money back after ten years due to digital distribution of your title at knocked down prices doesn't really come into it.

That all depends on how much it costs to port a game, I would image it is much less this generation as the console architecture is apparently much more similar to the typical PC ? Either way, like I said, some AAA games flop on PC... some take a while to get momentum.. some are instant successes... just like on console.... its up to the developers to cater their game to the gamers. Skyrim is a perfect example of how developers crack both markets.

My concern has nothing to do with the platform, it's to do with the games being released on it. Over the course of the last generation I don't think anyone could deny the overwhelming influence multiplayer-centric heavy hitters such as CoD had on the market. Whether they were first person shooters or third person adventure games we saw multiplayer elements shoehorned in regardless of whether they fit or not. This obviously led to higher budgets, higher sales targets and ultimately, more expensive flops. My basic point amongst all of this is that I don't want to see the next fad for the coming generation be F2P and micro-transaction based gameplay. Nor do I want to see such facets becoming equally pervasive in genres they have no place in.

Don't get what your problem with F2p games is, some of the best games released over the last few years have been F2P but I understand your concern... saying that, i don't think there is any real need to worry that traditional single player games are at risk of being forced into this model. Deadspace 3 was a good example... of how it wont work, afaik it was a flop and received massive criticism over its use of micro transactions ?

But yes, PC gaming is stronger than it's ever been, or at least since the last time it was stronger than it's ever been, but my problem is that, according to this report at least, it's not because of things like the great service/sales provided by Steam and their counterparts or the resurgence of the indie development movement or indeed any particular advantage inherent to the PC as a platform. It's due to the revenues generated by a subset of games that are either derided by a huge number gamers on this site and others (that'd be your F2P or micro-transaction heavy-based games) or those that seem to appeal to the type of gamer that seems to really like paying for aesthetic items (and that'd be your MOBAs). Again, there's nothing wrong with fans of these genres being served but not, imo, if that level of success adversely affects other genres.

I think your putting too much on the shoulders of the F2P/Moba's. Yes they are massive, but if that report is correct then there still has to be an incredibly healthy market outside of them if its to be of the size reported.

gizmo wrote: »

This isn't really about a couple of titles though, it's about the entire top 20 in 2013 and the vast majority of them in 2014 so far. Not only that but many of these titles are, from the same report, deemed to be dominating everything else by an order of magnitude. I just don't see this as a particularly good situation for anyone who isn't a fan of online-orientated MOBA and F2P titles. It certainly doesn't indicate something so general as "PC games" outselling console games worldwide.

I forgot to point out that this quote was in terms of usage and player hours. Obviously a multiplayer game like LoL with some 30million active daily users is going to dominate the majority of games when it comes to this stat, why would you be surprised at that ? Its the exact same as how WoW used to do the same (And tbf probably still has incredible numbers in this area too) and how CoD does on the consoles... multiplayer games are not 10 hour games for most people... theres only so many hours a person can get out of even the best SP games.

beauf

Magill wrote: »

...... multiplayer games are not 10 hour games for most people... theres only so many hours a person can get out of even the best SP games.

I don't think there's anything like the the depth and variety of titles that there was in PC gaming heyday. Especially in SP. Which is why game time in SP has fallen off a cliff. The sales maybe bigger, number of players bigger, but they are all very derivative titles, all very similar, and similar MP.

Magill

beauf wrote: »

I don't think there's anything like the the depth and variety of titles that there was in PC gaming heyday. Especially in SP. Which is why game time in SP has fallen off a cliff. The sales maybe bigger, number of players bigger, but they are all very derivative titles, all very similar, and similar MP.

What ? That's the biggest load of tripe I've read in a while. Both your points are completely wrong and if anything it's the complete opposite.

C14N

I imagine that it means in terms of units instead of in terms of revenue. I buy tons of games on PC but I'm usually paying €5-10 for a PC game compared to €10-20 for a console game.