More Games WORSE on PlayStation 4 Pro

[-BirdiE-]

7 hours ago, Prysin said:

please read things in context before even bothering to reply.

It has nothing to do with context...

 

The fact is that there are multiple subjects referencing the same object in the sentence you are quoting. When you don't identify which you are talking about, it is assumed to be the primary subject (i.e. The 970 performing DSR, not the 970s volume of output).

 

I would suggest creating clear and proper sentences if you don't want people to misunderstand what you're trying to say.

[Prysin]

2 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

It has nothing to do with context...

 

The fact is that there are multiple subjects referencing the same object in the sentence you are quoting. When you don't identify which you are talking about, it is assumed to be the primary subject (i.e. The 970 performing DSR, not the 970s volume of output).

 

I would suggest creating clear and proper sentences if you don't want people to misunderstand what you're trying to say.

when you quote a post that quotes another post, it is considered normal proceedure to assume the post is related to the post it quotes.

[AshleyAshes]

2 hours ago, Miguel Batista said:

First of all, GTA V on PC sold more than 5 million units and is by far the best GTA version around.

 

Second of all, I find it interesting that since this mid gen update for consoles is clearly aiming to make up for the shift of gamers to the pc market, you try to make it seem like consoles are what people want. Which is simply not true.

 

There is a reason why Sony sticks to its exclusives like a drawning man to a rescue boat. There is a reason that they released the pS4 pro in the middle of the console's life cycle. They need to keep people in their platform and stop losing more players to the pc market. The PC market is huge and it is growing. Games like Dota 2 and League of Legends have more players than there are consoles in the world, the most played FPS in the World by far is CS GO which has more people playing it than Cod and BF1 combined. The PC market last year generated more revenue than the mobile market. PC is where people are and will continue to grow.

 

Next step is couch gaming.

Machines like the steam ones are intended to take on casual gaming from consoles and it is a matter of time before they suceed. You may laugh now but remember, not 20 years ago people thought laptops were a waste compared to a typewriter and they would never replace the typewriter in the office. Who uses typewritters nowadays?

5 million units vs 11 million in the first 24hrs.  But as someone said, it's not a fair comparison as the PC port came out much later.  But my challenge remains: Find me ONE PC game that was released both on console and PC in the same week or so, where PC sold more units than the console ports.  Just one.  If you don't want to believe that there are market forces beyond 'I THINK PC IS BEST!!!' then you should have no problem finding ONE example here.  I'm waiting.

 

As for the couch machines... okay, wow...  You have to be pulling this out of your ass, but let's start with you're 'Laptops Killed The Typewriter'.  No, the desktop PC killed the type writer.  No one mocked the idea and desktop PCs and desktop publishing (Or the 'Word Processors' that predated the Desktop PC as a kind of bridge technology between the Typewriter and desktop PC) and they were rapidly adopted through the 1980's.  The wide scale adoption of the laptop came later and that was after the typewriter was already an antique.  But let's be clear; There was no resistance to the retirement of the typewriter.  You're scenario of '20 years ago people thought laptops were a waste compared to a typewriter and they would never replace the typewriter in the office' is fiction that you invented for an argument.

 

As for PC couch gaming itself, it is most certainly not 'a matter of time' but you are welcome to prove otherwise.  Steam OS is a market failure and the hardware has bombed.  While there are unit sales of compact PCs that are living room friendly they make up a niche and have not put a dent in console sales.  Frankly, they are pretty inferior.  Steam OS is missing a lot of critical functions.  It can't even do Netflix or YouTube unless you -exit- Steam and then attempt to use the browser versions, meanwhile consoles offer a wealthy of multimedia functions that extend their utility and they are easy to use and integrate nearly and in a user friendly way.  Trying to do anything on Steam OS beyond using STeam is NOT user friendly.  Not to mention the need for a Windows PC to run elsewhere for streaming Windows exclusive titles which is a stop gap solution and also something very alienating to consumers.  This kinds of machines have gained no meaningful traction in the marketplace as much as YOU WISH they would, that traction is minimal.

 

And I'd like to make this clear; I have couch gaming PCs.  They very much suit my needs but I would be insane to think that this kind of setup could have massmarket appeal.  On the surface, they seem great, they boot right into Kodi and Kodi can launch into Steam BPM all the while Windows 10 Pro runs under it.  They are great 95% of of the time; But then there's the other 5%.  That 5% would be a huge problem to the majority of consumers who want 'A stupid box to play games on' because 'screwing around with a PC to make it work' is not their idea of a good investment in down time.  I had to get Logitech K400's for each one because when Windows decides it's going to be a jerk, you need a keyboard.  Crimson drivers need upgrading.  Windows decides that we're going to install updates, right now, because we can't schedule this stuff for 3am like we used to.  Software crashes to the desktop.  Sometimes booting some software takes too long and it makes Kodi lose focus during startup.  PC games can crash to the desktop instead of back to Steam Big Picture Mode and countless other 'little problems' which I, as a tinkerer, am fine with.  But as a tinkerer who is not delusional, I can see that these are MASSIVE short comings to a consumer friendly livingroom box.  We already made the perfect computer for the living room; It's a game console.  A wide selection of games, user friendly configuration, operates purely on a '10 foot interface', no input needed beyond the included gamepad and many other very userfriendly features.

 

The real problem is that you and others like you, are basically 'gaming facists' who won't be happy until everyone plays games exactly like you do, which is honestly a weird and disturbing world view for you to hold.  They're games and as long as you are having fun you are doing it right.

[-BirdiE-]

12 minutes ago, Prysin said:

when you quote a post that quotes another post, it is considered normal proceedure to assume the post is related to the post it quotes.

I... Don't even know where to begin with this... I've clearly confused you, so let me simplify it.

 

Here is what you quoted:

On 11/11/2016 at 8:27 PM, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I'd never use DSR on my 970 to eliminate those temporal aliasing artifacts since they're pretty minor and require a ton of gpu horsepower.

Here is what you said:

On 11/12/2016 at 4:08 AM, Prysin said:

which your 970 doesnt have. If you had a 1070, you could do that. Which is the difference between PS4 and Pro version.

 

you're also missing the point of the Pro. 4k TVs are getting really popular, due to relatively low cost and agressive marketing. Many people have one, and thus for a console (which 99% of the time is connected to a TV) being unable to deliver any 4K content, well, that isnt OK. Thus, the Pro adresses that issue. Thus makes sense.

 

It does however surprise me how much it struggles to keep stable framerate, i mean Sony is pretty adamant on their games having to be a smooth experience

You say "which your 970 doesn't have", clearly identifying the object of the quote, the 970, but not the subject it is referring to. There are two subjects in this quote... 970 (object) performing DSR (subject), and 970 (object) horsepower (subject).

 

Because the object is the same for both subjects, stating the object does not identify which subject you are referring to. If it is not identified which subject is being referenced, you are to assume it is the primary subject (performing DSR).

 

So, reading the English language properly, I read your comment "which your 970 doesn't have" in reference to the primary subject of the quote "I'd never use DSR on my 970"...  

 

Which, of course, is not what you were trying to say. However, the error is in your post, not my interpretation of it.

 

Even reading the entire initial post doesn't change the fact that your post doesn't say what you were trying to say.

[goodtofufriday]

[Miguel Batista]

54 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

5 million units vs 11 million in the first 24hrs.  But as someone said, it's not a fair comparison as the PC port came out much later.  But my challenge remains: Find me ONE PC game that was released both on console and PC in the same week or so, where PC sold more units than the console ports.  Just one.  If you don't want to believe that there are market forces beyond 'I THINK PC IS BEST!!!' then you should have no problem finding ONE example here.  I'm waiting.

 

As for the couch machines... okay, wow...  You have to be pulling this out of your ass, but let's start with you're 'Laptops Killed The Typewriter'.  No, the desktop PC killed the type writer.  No one mocked the idea and desktop PCs and desktop publishing (Or the 'Word Processors' that predated the Desktop PC as a kind of bridge technology between the Typewriter and desktop PC) and they were rapidly adopted through the 1980's.  The wide scale adoption of the laptop came later and that was after the typewriter was already an antique.  But let's be clear; There was no resistance to the retirement of the typewriter.  You're scenario of '20 years ago people thought laptops were a waste compared to a typewriter and they would never replace the typewriter in the office' is fiction that you invented for an argument.

 

As for PC couch gaming itself, it is most certainly not 'a matter of time' but you are welcome to prove otherwise.  Steam OS is a market failure and the hardware has bombed.  While there are unit sales of compact PCs that are living room friendly they make up a niche and have not put a dent in console sales.  Frankly, they are pretty inferior.  Steam OS is missing a lot of critical functions.  It can't even do Netflix or YouTube unless you -exit- Steam and then attempt to use the browser versions, meanwhile consoles offer a wealthy of multimedia functions that extend their utility and they are easy to use and integrate nearly and in a user friendly way.  Trying to do anything on Steam OS beyond using STeam is NOT user friendly.  Not to mention the need for a Windows PC to run elsewhere for streaming Windows exclusive titles which is a stop gap solution and also something very alienating to consumers.  This kinds of machines have gained no meaningful traction in the marketplace as much as YOU WISH they would, that traction is minimal.

 

And I'd like to make this clear; I have couch gaming PCs.  They very much suit my needs but I would be insane to think that this kind of setup could have massmarket appeal.  On the surface, they seem great, they boot right into Kodi and Kodi can launch into Steam BPM all the while Windows 10 Pro runs under it.  They are great 95% of of the time; But then there's the other 5%.  That 5% would be a huge problem to the majority of consumers who want 'A stupid box to play games on' because 'screwing around with a PC to make it work' is not their idea of a good investment in down time.  I had to get Logitech K400's for each one because when Windows decides it's going to be a jerk, you need a keyboard.  Crimson drivers need upgrading.  Windows decides that we're going to install updates, right now, because we can't schedule this stuff for 3am like we used to.  Software crashes to the desktop.  Sometimes booting some software takes too long and it makes Kodi lose focus during startup.  PC games can crash to the desktop instead of back to Steam Big Picture Mode and countless other 'little problems' which I, as a tinkerer, am fine with.  But as a tinkerer who is not delusional, I can see that these are MASSIVE short comings to a consumer friendly livingroom box.  We already made the perfect computer for the living room; It's a game console.  A wide selection of games, user friendly configuration, operates purely on a '10 foot interface', no input needed beyond the included gamepad and many other very userfriendly features.

 

The real problem is that you and others like you, are basically 'gaming facists' who won't be happy until everyone plays games exactly like you do, which is honestly a weird and disturbing world view for you to hold.  They're games and as long as you are having fun you are doing it right.

Yeah. I don't know why I said laptops... since I am looking to buy a new one it was probably not my mind. 

But, there was a point where people were skeptical about computers and saw no gain to them and in a couple of years they took over and changed everything.

 

Moving on, SteamOS was a first iteration of something that will continue let to exist and evolve because unlike consoles, computer parts are cheap and have been engineered already. I can tell you I made a windows skin that is console like for fun and I could see it in the living room without an itch if I so desired using my Xbox controller. When a company picks that up and irons out the bugs, it will be a small revolution. Not that consoles nowadays don't have crashes or die on their users right?

Those machines may not have much traction for now (those particular PCS because the PC market as a whole has been growing into console territory hence the release of the PS4 pro and Sony's exclusive titles remaining that). But let's wait for the next generation of couch friendly machines and see what they have in store for us. It's not a wish BTW,  I have nothing against consoles besides the fact that they are anti-consumer. 

 

I have no intention of making everyone play games like I do (which is better). As I said, the only problem I have against consoles is that they are anti-consumer. 

 

Now I did mention that the PC market is larger than both consoles combined and with the superior interface and options it is a matter of time for more and more people to transition. As I said, the PS4 pro was sony's attempt to stop people migrating to the PC for the superior graphical fidelity. And I find that what they managed to achieve with such hardware to be impressive although it is a matter of time before the same techniques get implemented into PC games.

 

 

Regarding games released both on consoles and PC,  apparently the Witcher 3 as of March of this year, overtook console sales. plus, if we want our to talk about market size, games like elite dangerous and strong citizen show that there is a lot of moneyou on PC gaming. Join tour that the other games I mentioned and you can see that console gaming is a small minority. 

 

And to the guy that said I canot, play Witcher 3 at 4K 60 with tweaked settings, You have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

And saying that games are well optimized so they run well at 4k 60 and therefore shouldn't be considered is completely stupid since your argument was that we are far away from being able to play games to 4k 60. As I said, we can do that now with a Titan Xp and if everythinget was well optimised we could play them with a 980 ti. So no, that future is not far away. It is the present for some of us.

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

6 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

Yeah. I don't know why I said laptops... since I am looking to buy a new one it was probably not my mind. 

But, there was a point where people were skeptical about computers and saw no gain to them and in a couple of years they took over and changed everything.

 

Moving on, SteamOS was a first iteration of something that will continue let to exist and evolve because unlike consoles, computer parts are cheap and have been engineered already. I can tell you I made a windows skin that is console like for fun and I could see it in the living room without an itch if I so desired using my Xbox controller. When a company picks that up and irons out the bugs, it will be a small revolution. Not that consoles nowadays don't have crashes or die on their users right?

Those machines may not have much traction for now (those particular PCS because the PC market as a whole has been growing into console territory hence the release of the PS4 pro and Sony's exclusive titles remaining that). But let's wait for the next generation of couch friendly machines and see what they have in store for us. It's not a wish BTW,  I have nothing against consoles besides the fact that they are anti-consumer.

Everything you've said here is based on pure conjecture.  'What if' 'when somebody does this', none of this is the reality of consumer products or the reality of what is currently under development for the Windows desktop operating system.  You can't argue that the PC will replace consoles under the television based on nothing more than a wishful fantasy about what could exist. 

 

Also, I just want to go back to this part:

 

Quote

unlike consoles, computer parts are cheap and have been engineered already

Consoles are literally made out of computer parts.  More over, consoles are cheaper to manufacture as they are produced as single board embedded systems using SOCs and are produced in massive numbers, far greater than any PC component, this is what is called 'Economies Of Scale'.

 

Frankly, this is how it's always been.  Do you think they invent hardware for game consoles?

 

The NES?  A variant of the MOS 6502.  The Apple II?  MOS 6502.  Atari 2600?  Older slower variant of the MOS 6502.

 

GameBoy CPU?  Zilog Z80.  CPU in a Sega Master System?  Z80.  Sound chip in the Sega Genesis?  Zilog Z80.  (Take a wild guess as to how the Genesis managed backwards compatibility with the Master System.)

 

Sony PlayStation?  Variant of the MIPS R3000 which was used in a range of graphics workstations and such at the time.

PlayStation II?  Derived from the MIPS R5900.  Better yet, the PS2's IO processor?  The same MIPS 3000 from the PS1, which was used to run PS1 games in the PS2.  (This is also why you can't, even with a mod chip, run PS1 games off a PS2's HDD, because the chip can't simultaneously control the HDD as the IO processor and also operate as a PS1 processor.  The function is limited to PS2 games)

 

Xbox?  Intel Celeron 733mhz (Modified with the FSB speeds of it's Pentium cousin, but it had a Celeron sized L2 cache).  Do you even need to tell you what Celeron's are used in?

 

This is what consoles have always been.  They have been built out of off the shelf hardware.  The crazy thing?  That's how the IBM PC started too.  Realizing that they couldn't develop original hardware to compete with the likes of other companies like Commodore or Apple, who used off the shelf components, IBM decided that that they would build the 'IBM' PC using off the self components and a proprietary BIOS system.  The IBM PC, powered by an off the shelf 8088 as it's brain was born.  ...And then Compaq cloned the BIOS using a perfectly legal technique called 'Clean Room Backward Engineering' and I hopefully I don't need to explain what happened after that, do I?

[Prysin]

 

1 hour ago, -BirdiE- said:

I... Don't even know where to begin with this... I've clearly confused you, so let me simplify it.

 

Here is what you quoted:

Here is what you said:

You say "which your 970 doesn't have", clearly identifying the object of the quote, the 970, but not the subject it is referring to. There are two subjects in this quote... 970 (object) performing DSR (subject), and 970 (object) horsepower (subject).

 

Because the object is the same for both subjects, stating the object does not identify which subject you are referring to. If it is not identified which subject is being referenced, you are to assume it is the primary subject (performing DSR).

 

So, reading the English language properly, I read your comment "which your 970 doesn't have" in reference to the primary subject of the quote "I'd never use DSR on my 970"...  

 

Which, of course, is not what you were trying to say. However, the error is in your post, not my interpretation of it.

 

Even reading the entire initial post doesn't change the fact that your post doesn't say what you were trying to say.

at this point, i assume you're just trolling, so whatever. If you cannot comprehend fully understandable, written english, you should just not try to. I cannot be arsed to pretend to be your teacher for the evening.

 

[-BirdiE-]

Just now, Prysin said:

 

at this point, i assume you're just trolling, so whatever. If you cannot comprehend fully understandable, written english, you should just not try to. I cannot be arsed to pretend to be your teacher for the evening.

 

I'm just saying if you can't construct a proper English comment, don't be surprised when people misinterpret it. And definitely don't be a dick about it.

[othertomperson]

On 13/11/2016 at 9:58 PM, Doobeedoo said:

We're far of from 4K@60fps stable maxed settings in AAA games with 1 GPU though.

Drivers for sure, though it's up to devs to utilize DX12/Vulakn well from start of making a game. Games with those APIs will get way better in time. Currently it's early.

No we're not, the Titan XP exists, it just isn't a more attractive value proposition than two 1080s or 1070s. Maybe the 1080 Ti will change this if Nvidia price it competitively enough... with their existing products.

 

Well yeah it'll get better, but the onus for replacing all of Nvidia's driver work is never going to be taken away from the devs unless those devs choose to stick to Dx11 indefinitely. That is a very real possibility.

[Guest lilbman]

Wow.  Sony really dropped the ball on this one.  They can't even make a decent game console

[Doobeedoo]

5 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

No we're not, the Titan XP exists, it just isn't a more attractive value proposition than two 1080s or 1070s. Maybe the 1080 Ti will change this if Nvidia price it competitively enough... with their existing products.

 

Well yeah it'll get better, but the onus for replacing all of Nvidia's driver work is never going to be taken away from the devs unless those devs choose to stick to Dx11 indefinitely. That is a very real possibility.

Doubt anyone would stick to old API and not DX12 cause benefit is really great. Many started, many will even more. Just needs time, like always.

[LucidMew]

Anyways, hopefully going back on topic. Yet another PS4 Pro game at 1800p 30-ish fps, that can't match the PS4 1080p30fps performance in like for like scenes, Watch Dogs 2
 

 

[Miguel Batista]

16 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Everything you've said here is based on pure conjecture.  'What if' 'when somebody does this', none of this is the reality of consumer products or the reality of what is currently under development for the Windows desktop operating system.  You can't argue that the PC will replace consoles under the television based on nothing more than a wishful fantasy about what could exist. 

 

Also, I just want to go back to this part:

 

Consoles are literally made out of computer parts.  More over, consoles are cheaper to manufacture as they are produced as single board embedded systems using SOCs and are produced in massive numbers, far greater than any PC component, this is what is called 'Economies Of Scale'.

 

Blablaba

If I didn't make myself clear, this is exactly my opinion. sure I try and look at market size and other factors to Base my opinion on but in the end, it is my opinion and I may be wrong in regards to

What the future will bring but I doubt that.

 

To your second point, yes they are made of computer parts and now even share the same architecture. However, they can't just change the configuration due to several problems such as backwards compatibility and cost. While in a computer under the TV, pop it open and change the CPU,  gpu or whatever you want. As for consoles being produced in Greater numbers than anything else, that is probably not the case. Although hard numbers are hard to find, Intel sold more than 100 million processors in q3 of 2014 alone. Compared to the 40 million ps4 sold so far... sure processors will vary from cellar ons to i7s but that is also just 3 months of one year.  

 

Not to mention that console sales are in decline if you compare the numbers of PS2 (155), 3 (86) and 4 (44). Why do you think that is? People stop gaming (sure some of the do) or something else? 

 

I tried to find Steam growth data from at least 2013 to now to compare it to the decline in console sales but I was unable to. only info I gathered as that in 2013 steam surpassed Xbox live in terms of number of accounts and it surpassed PSN in early 2015 (125 million accounts 8.5 concurrent). And latest steam numbers for late 2016 indicate a further growth of about 70 million new accounts and an increase of concurrent users of 5 million (190 million accounts, 13 million concurrent). 

 

And when comparing PSN data I am not excluding Japan where the PS4 holds most of the market share because reasons...  so, these are the reasons that lead me to say that the PC will overtake consoles soon enough. much bigger market, much bigger growth, much more flexibility. So yeah, my opinion is just that but I doubt I will be proven wrong.

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

28 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

Although hard numbers are hard to find, Intel sold more than 100 million processors in q3 of 2014 alone. Compared to the 40 million ps4 sold so far... sure processors will vary from cellar ons to i7s but that is also just 3 months of one year.

Yeah, no, you can't combine ALL SKUs over a year against a SINGLE or a very SMALL set of SKUs from something else.  This is where you don't understand: Consoles have minimal differences in hardware, though there are minor hardware revisions over time.  For example, the PlayStation 2 had about 20 motherboard revisions over it's 10 years in production.  But you can't compare that to ALL SKUs from Intel or NVidia or Asus.  Each motherboard, CPU, RAM stick or GPU (Not just each 'Chip', even each subversion of say a GTX 1080 variation from each company) is an entirely separate production and different tooling's are necessary for this and when you change this, this increases costs.  This is WHY consoles are so cheap and continue to get cheaper as they are produced, because they massively out produce any PC component.  In comparison to console components, PC component SKUs are very short runs.

 

I don't think you understand manufacturing very well.

 

28 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

Not to mention that console sales are in decline if you compare the numbers of PS2 (155), 3 (86) and 4 (44). Why do you think that is? People stop gaming (sure some of the do) or something else? 

 

I tried to find Steam growth data from at least 2013 to now to compare it to the decline in console sales but I was unable to. only info I gathered as that in 2013 steam surpassed Xbox live in terms of number of accounts and it surpassed PSN in early 2015 (125 million accounts 8.5 concurrent). And latest steam numbers for late 2016 indicate a further growth of about 70 million new accounts and an increase of concurrent users of 5 million (190 million accounts, 13 million concurrent). 

 

User numbers are irreverent.  User numbers doesn't translate into sales.  We are talking about business and consumer, game sales matters.  That's how you make money.  Sales data is the only thing that matters if you want to argue dominance.

[Miguel Batista]

1 hour ago, AshleyAshes said:

Yeah, no, you can't combine ALL SKUs over a year against a SINGLE or a very SMALL set of SKUs from something else.  This is where you don't understand: Consoles have minimal differences in hardware, though there are minor hardware revisions over time.  For example, the PlayStation 2 had about 20 motherboard revisions over it's 10 years in production.  But you can't compare that to ALL SKUs from Intel or NVidia or Asus.  Each motherboard, CPU, RAM stick or GPU (Not just each 'Chip', even each subversion of say a GTX 1080 variation from each company) is an entirely separate production and different tooling's are necessary for this and when you change this, this increases costs.  This is WHY consoles are so cheap and continue to get cheaper as they are produced, because they massively out produce any PC component.  In comparison to console components, PC component SKUs are very short runs.

 

I don't think you understand manufacturing very well.

I understand it well enough. What I was trying to point out is that Intel outsold PS4 and xbone lifelong numbers in one quarter of one year. but yes, if you are talking about SKUs I will grant you that point.

 

As to your second part, I don't think you understand markets very well. More users does translate into a larger potencial market and it does translate into sales as there are more than a billion paid games on Steam accounts  (taking into account multiple instances of the same game across multiple users) and that is not total revenue as imicrotransactions are not included. I don'the know what other metrics you want me to use but I just thought of something funny.

 

There is a difference of about 40 million units bought from the PS3 to the PS4 and about 70 million fromantic xbox360 to xbone. that is 110 million users total

The PS4 and xbone were released in 2013. 

 

Steam users in October 2013 were around 65 million. to today's over 190 million that is anincrease of 125 million. How many of those are previous console players is the interesting question.

[AshleyAshes]

9 hours ago, Miguel Batista said:

As to your second part, I don't think you understand markets very well. More users does translate into a larger potencial market and it does translate into sales as there are more than a billion paid games on Steam accounts  (taking into account multiple instances of the same game across multiple users) and that is not total revenue as imicrotransactions are not included. I don'the know what other metrics you want me to use but I just thought of something funny.

 

There is a difference of about 40 million units bought from the PS3 to the PS4 and about 70 million fromantic xbox360 to xbone. that is 110 million users total

The PS4 and xbone were released in 2013. 

 

Steam users in October 2013 were around 65 million. to today's over 190 million that is anincrease of 125 million. How many of those are previous console players is the interesting question.

Potential for sales are not sales.  You can not drive sales numbers from the number of free accounts that are held.  This is nothing but a fantasy that you are trying to reinforce yourself because your views of PC gaming are less about facts and more about it being a religion.  If you want to argue for the consumer friendliness and accessibility of PC games, PC game sales vs console game sales are the only thing that matters.  Believe it or not, unit sales are the only thing that game developers are ultimately concerned about.  You can't buy food or pay the rent with Steam User Accounts.

 

So I reiterate my challenge: Show me one multiplatform title that was released within the same week or so where PC sales outperformed console sales.

 

If you can't come up with that, stop trying to argue as to why there should be a PC port that's outsold a console port even though there isn't, and try to find out what it is that you don't understand about the gaming consumer base as a whole that leads the majority to spend their hard earned dollars on console games.

 

And I'd like to reiterate, there's nothing wrong with PC Gaming.  It's great, you have control and you can customize.  You want 4K?  You can spend the money to get 4K@60.  You want every game on one system?  You can put a fat 10TB enterprise drive in there.  But with control comes problems.  A need for sufficient knowledge to deal with a PC when things go wrong.  Exercising your Google-Fu when Windows decides to be a jerk.  Waiting on better drivers for the latest game because yet again a game needs a driver update to not run like a potato.  But a lot of people don't want any of that, they don't want to learn how to use a PC or learn what CPU will fit in their motherboard; They want an affordable, stupid box that hooks into the TV and just runs games because the only think they seek from that box is entertainment.  They don't want anything else that PC gaming may offer because all they want is a box that entertains them in their leisure time.  These are both perfectly acceptable choices and honestly, it's kinda creepy how a lot of PC gamers think that they should be making and enforcing the gaming choices of others.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, after arguing that consoles are attractive to consumers and that consoles are a valid entertainment choice, I'm going to relax on my Windows 10 powered Kodi/Steam Home Theater PC, because I can prefer PCs myself without being a psycho who can't see that there's more than one option for what is ultimately a box full of electronics that makes video games and movies happen.

[Trik'Stari]

 

[Prysin]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

my reaction exactly to @Miguel Batista's dogged stance on PCs

[Miguel Batista]

10 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Potential for sales are not sales.  You can not drive sales numbers from the number of free accounts that are held.  This is nothing but a fantasy that you are trying to reinforce yourself because your views of PC gaming are less about facts and more about it being a religion.  If you want to argue for the consumer friendliness and accessibility of PC games, PC game sales vs console game sales are the only thing that matters.  Believe it or not, unit sales are the only thing that game developers are ultimately concerned about.  You can't buy food or pay the rent with Steam User Accounts.

 

So I reiterate my challenge: Show me one multiplatform title that was released within the same week or so where PC sales outperformed console sales.

 

If you can't come up with that, stop trying to argue as to why there should be a PC port that's outsold a console port even though there isn't, and try to find out what it is that you don't understand about the gaming consumer base as a whole that leads the majority to spend their hard earned dollars on console games.

 

And I'd like to reiterate, there's nothing wrong with PC Gaming.  It's great, you have control and you can customize.  You want 4K?  You can spend the money to get 4K@60.  You want every game on one system?  You can put a fat 10TB enterprise drive in there.  But with control comes problems.  A need for sufficient knowledge to deal with a PC when things go wrong.  Exercising your Google-Fu when Windows decides to be a jerk.  Waiting on better drivers for the latest game because yet again a game needs a driver update to not run like a potato.  But a lot of people don't want any of that, they don't want to learn how to use a PC or learn what CPU will fit in their motherboard; They want an affordable, stupid box that hooks into the TV and just runs games because the only think they seek from that box is entertainment.  They don't want anything else that PC gaming may offer because all they want is a box that entertains them in their leisure time.  These are both perfectly acceptable choices and honestly, it's kinda creepy how a lot of PC gamers think that they should be making and enforcing the gaming choices of others.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, after arguing that consoles are attractive to consumers and that consoles are a valid entertainment choice, I'm going to relax on my Windows 10 powered Kodi/Steam Home Theater PC, because I can prefer PCs myself without being a psycho who can't see that there's more than one option for what is ultimately a box full of electronics that makes video games and movies happen.

On the contray dear wattson, my opinions are based on facts. Growth rates, sales of over one billion games on Steam alone, the fact that consoles market space has been shrinking since the days of the ps2... The fact that in pure revenue pc gaming overtakes both consoles combined (to put bread on the table as you oh so eloquently put)...

You want a more fact based opinion?

Pull the other one.

 

As I said, I am not arguing about which is better an I have nothing against consoles other hand the fact they are anti-consumer. I am arguing that it is a matter of time until consoles disappear due to a shrinking player Base and lower overall income. BTW,  Dota 2 (free game) made over 200 million dollars in 2015 alone. 

 

Game that outsold consoles? Well, The witcher 3 launched with as strong PC sales as each individual console and nowadays has outsold both. Skyrim is another title that on the long run outsold both consoles by a wide margin.

Why do you think even Sony allowed for *gasp* mods in their version? Out of the kindness of their hearts? The Base game sold 7.7 million copies on ps3 as soon as they heard the rumour of people not buying this version due to lack of mod support, they immediately came back. Also, free game on PC. Yay!

 

Let me approach it from yet another angle; why did Sony release the ps4 pro. Who is their market? What is their objectives? How much do you think they are going to sell?

 

Anyway,  I need to get to work. cya

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Miguel Batista said:

Game that outsold consoles? Well, The witcher 3 launched with as strong PC sales as each individual console and nowadays has outsold both. Skyrim is another title that on the long run outsold both consoles by a wide margin.

Let's just go quote myself again...

Quote

So I reiterate my challenge: Show me one multiplatform title that was released within the same week or so where PC sales outperformed console sales.

The Witcher 3 was released in Sept 2007 where as the console port was released in Oct 2008.  I understand that I said 'A week or so' but I feel that 13 months may have may be an abuse of the window I gave you.  Just a teeny bit.

 

Further more, this article puts total Witcher 3 sales at 10 million copies.  If we go to SteamSpy we can see that it estimates the number of Steam copies in possession at 2.23 million copies.  (Though we can't take SteamSpy as HARD numbers, it's really the best we can get here)

 

As for Skyrim... Let's quote Wikipedia here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim

Quote

Within two days of the game's launch, 3.4 million physical copies were sold. Of those sales, 59% were for the Xbox 360, 27% for the PS3, and 14% for the PC.^[

I can find no other sales data as to Skyrim's PC sales however is true to say that Skyrim was a big success and generated a lot of revenue on PC, this doesn't mean it generated the MOST revenue.  So if you can explain where you got your information from, I'd like to hear it.  As far as I can determine however you made it up.  Next time you try this angle, come back with sales numbers to back up your blind statements.  'My opinions are based on facts', my ass. 

[Prysin]

7 minutes ago, Miguel Batista said:

On the contray dear wattson, my opinions are based on facts. Growth rates, sales of over one billion games on Steam alone, the fact that consoles market space has been shrinking since the days of the ps2... The fact that in pure revenue pc gaming overtakes both consoles combined (to put bread on the table as you oh so eloquently put)...

You want a more fact based opinion?

Pull the other one.

 

As I said, I am not arguing about which is better an I have nothing against consoles other hand the fact they are anti-consumer. I am arguing that it is a matter of time until consoles disappear due to a shrinking player Base and lower overall income. BTW,  Dota 2 (free game) made over 200 million dollars in 2015 alone. 

 

Game that outsold consoles? Well, The witcher 3 launched with as strong PC sales as each individual console and nowadays has outsold both. Skyrim is another title that on the long run outsold both consoles by a wide margin.

Why do you think even Sony allowed for *gasp* mods in their version? Out of the kindness of their hearts? The Base game sold 7.7 million copies on ps3 as soon as they heard the rumour of people not buying this version due to lack of mod support, they immediately came back. Also, free game on PC. Yay!

 

Let me approach it from yet another angle; why did Sony release the ps4 pro. Who is their market? What is their objectives? How much do you think they are going to sell?

 

Anyway,  I need to get to work. cya

PS4 Pro is aimed at a rapidly growing market that is complaining about poor image quality on their 4k displays. This console alleviates that, while at the same time preventing console owners/buyers from jumping on the wastly overhyped PC bandwagon.

 

time for some disclosure

I own a PS4 and i own a 4000$+ gaming PC setup.... yes, i have way overkill PC.

But i also have equally adequate amount of money going in. It is no surprise that PC sells more games, the average PC user has more money and is BY FAR OLDER AND MORE ESTABLISHED THEN A CONSOLE USER IS. Thus each individual PC user can spen way more then the average console user can. Thus skewing the statistics. It is no longer a comparison of apples to apples, but purchasing power.

 

The consoles also does one thing better then any PC has ever done and probably ever will. 

they just fucking work. and anyone with 2 braincells can use one and be entertained by it.

 

Just plug in the cables according to the manual. press the button and put the disc in. Then click OK to download whatever files that may or may not be needed.

 

PC doesnt tell you which files you need. W10 makes it slightly easier as it will force download WHQL drivers for GPUs, but for the most part, it takes a complete noob 2-4 hours to build a computer (put the parts together), plug the cables together, install the OS, install drivers and install the game (which takes just as long on PC as consoles these days. So there is no "better or worse" argument to be had here).

 

If i told you you could play mario cart, only after you had done this long frustrating, confusing and boring proceedure. you wouldnt bother. you'd say "fuck off", take a bike over to your friends house and play on his wii. Because the Wii just works. 

 

 

Not to mention that there is almost no PC chassis ever designed that looks good in a livingroom. Those few that do cost a LOT of money, is very technically challenging to build in and doesnt lend themselves very well to novices. Not to mention that WHO THE FUCK wants to use wired devices from 3-5m away? it is annoying. you want wireless, and the truth is - PC Wireless devices are by far and large less responsive then console controllers. There are exceptions, but then again, you pay more for ONE good wireless mouse then you pay for TWO OR THREE controllers.... Such value.

 

And that is the inherent goal of the console. VALUE. It has that, lots of it. Let us just look at what the normal console package gives you. Let us look at the PS4 Pro and see what said console gives you out of the box for 399$

 

Console capable of 1800-2160p (HDD, mobo, ODD, PSU, GPU, CPU, memory)

Controller(s)

easy installation guide

maybe a game or two.

 

For the sake of making the comparison livingroom friendly, we need a not atrocious looking case. This drives up prices a tiny lil bit. The point here is not to see what you CAN get, but what off the shelves parts of equal performance costs.

 

You see, just like you can go out buying used PCs, you can buy used consoles, you can even buy used console games due to the DRM being the disc itself (unlike PC which everything is digital these days). How i miss the days of PC game discs. Those were the days.

 

So a PC must contain the following to match the console package

HDD, mobo, ODD, PSU, GPU, CPU, memory, legal software for Blu-Ray playback, legal software for operating system, wireless keyboard and wireless mouse (of reasonable quality).

 

Let us see how much that would cost, shall we?
http://pcpartpicker.com/list/B2qGxY

 

over TWICE as much... sure i could have gone with a low end AMD CPU, like a Athlon x845, but i dont think that would be comparable. The reason is that console games are designed for 8x laptop cores. That while weak as fuck, is more then 4x nearly as weak desktop cores. Thus i really wanted a i3 6100T, aka "low power i3"... but at 130 bucks, it cost more then the regular one.

A dual core Pentium G4400 wont be running ANY AAA multiplayer game anywhere near as smooth as even those shitty console CPUs does. So it has to be a i3 or quad core AMD.

The most natural choice on AMDs side would be the FX 4350. It is clocked high, and cheap. BUT, it is also no ITX FX boards. and you wouldnt want a huge as box in your livingroom. Especially not when the consoles are 4-8 times smaller in terms of physical dimensions.

 

Thus we end up with this. 870 USD for a LEGAL setup that anyone can build.

 

BUT BUT BUT Prysin, you can use Linux or Softwareswap or G2a or whatever.

Yes you can, and neither of those options are A) Particularily noob friendly, B) 100% legal, C) giving you any customer support.

 

The value of a console is more then just the sum of its parts. The value is the sum of its ecosystem. From the exclusive titles, to the ease of use, to the value, to the industrial design package. It is all this.

 

And iv'e been building mITX setups myself, they are bothersome to set up due to the cramped spaces. and NEVER have i seen anyone be able to build a true match for a console at console prices. Even with used parts, the moment you add the required peripherals and software, the console is way cheaper.

 

 

BUT PRYSIN, YOU HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY ONLINE GAMES ON CONSOLES!!!! PC IS FREE, PC IS GLORIOUS!!!!

Look mate, if it costs roughly 900$ to get a comparable PC package in terms of looks, size, specs etc... and the console costs 399$, and the early subscription fee for consoles is like 60$, you can have that console for another 7 years before it has cost you as much as the PC hardware. And by that time, due to the overhead in PC drivers and APIs and shit, you'd be forced to upgrade your PC in order to compete or beat the old ass console at visual fidelity. Simply because the game devs get paid to optimize the fuck outta console titles, and does not get paid to do a equally good job at PC ports.

Thus, we go full circle and PC gets more expensive and yadda yadda.

 

 

PC has it's advantages, but only if you are willing to spend an atrocious amount of money to get the most out of it. If you just want to play games, and dont have a lot of money, a console is almost always better value for money then a PC. With or without online subscription fees and what not

 

 

 

[goodtofufriday]

4 hours ago, Prysin said:

-snip-

I just want to chime in and say that a console lasting 7 years isnt exactly true. The 7th gen era lasted for 8 years which is an extreme outlier for a typical console life. I dont think we will see that this time around. 

[Miguel Batista]

5 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Let's just go quote myself again...

The Witcher 3 was released in Sept 2007 where as the console port was released in Oct 2008.  I understand that I said 'A week or so' but I feel that 13 months may have may be an abuse of the window I gave you.  Just a teeny bit.

 

Further more, this article puts total Witcher 3 sales at 10 million copies.  If we go to SteamSpy we can see that it estimates the number of Steam copies in possession at 2.23 million copies.  (Though we can't take SteamSpy as HARD numbers, it's really the best we can get here)

 

As for Skyrim... Let's quote Wikipedia here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim

I can find no other sales data as to Skyrim's PC sales however is true to say that Skyrim was a big success and generated a lot of revenue on PC, this doesn't mean it generated the MOST revenue.  So if you can explain where you got your information from, I'd like to hear it.  As far as I can determine however you made it up.  Next time you try this angle, come back with sales numbers to back up your blind statements.  'My opinions are based on facts', my ass. 

The Witcher 3 was released in 2015 concurrently. I got the info it outsold consoles from an interview with one of the creators. If Steamspy says different then feel free to disregard the Witcher 3 as an example. Mind you that gog sales are not counted but it seems a bit of a stretch To account for several million copies more even considering that the game sold more on gog than on steam (according to first figures from gamerant).

Also, after reading some more about that interview, there is confusion if he was talking about the global market or the Polish market in particular.

 

The 12 million copies on PC of skyrim I got from steamspy.

Since there was a free weekend sometime ago, I looked up the special edition (that was free for all who had Skyrim and dlc) and that one has over 5.5 million copies. With the 2.92 million physical copies the game sold for PC close to launch (first month or so) we reach over 8 million copies for PC. Still higher than any console and a conservative estimate.

 

I don't want to beat on a dead horse but my point was more towards the disappearance of consoles being inevitable so more and more PC gamers appear. I have nothing against consoles except for the fact that they are anti-consumer consumer.

--------

 

As for the console being cheaper, I disagree. You don't need a super expensive computer to match the PS4 level of graphical fidelity and it certainly can get expensive to own a console. From the Internet annuity to the price of games or extra controllers those costs do add up.

I'll give you my personal example. I bought a PS2 and was happy with it. then I was at uni and needed a laptop for my studies. when the PS3 came out I thought about buying one but then my old laptop broke down. Frankly it was no choice. I bought a new laptop and didn't get the PS3. Consoles are not cheaper than PCs in all settings is what I am trying to tell you. 

And if you want to get the latest console, even if you already own a PS4 is going to cost you an extra 400 dollars to get the pro. If I want to spend 400 dollars every three years I will treat myself to a new GPU.

 

That said, If you are happy with your PS4, more power to you but I am not here trying to convert people or saying PC is the superior platform though for me it objectively is. 

 

All I said is that since the PS2 consoles have been losing market space. Which is incorrect btw since the ps2 had basically a monopoly and if you combine PS3 and Xbox 360 sales they have even more sales (roughly 164 million to 155 million). However that makes the jump to this generation even more steep as the total sales of PS4 and XBONE are just shy of 60 million. That is 100 million less console gamers in 6 years.

Why don't we add Nintendo to the mix? After all, the original wii outsold both PS3 and Xbox360 selling over 100 million units. How much did the wiiU sell? 13 million units. An 87% drop in sales. Yes, the future bodes well for consoles indeed...

[SteveGrabowski0]

On 11/15/2016 at 1:02 AM, LucidMew said:

Anyways, hopefully going back on topic. Yet another PS4 Pro game at 1800p 30-ish fps, that can't match the PS4 1080p30fps performance in like for like scenes, Watch Dogs 2
 

 

This is exceedingly disappointing that Sony seems to be ok with greenlighting games that perform worse for 1080p users. The Pro just seems like a stupid buy over the Slim for someone who doesn't have a 4k TV. That's absolutely pathetic not being able to even get a locked 30 fps at 1080p with the hardware that's in that box.