Support NeoGAF

[Kinthalis]

Yeah of course you wouldn't trust those numbers because it suits your agenda not to. Unless you have numbers of your own to counter SteamSpy which is extremely accurate according to developers on this very website then I'm afraid we're going to have to go with the numbers given by SteamSpy.

Also Steam has 120 million userbase not 300 million. Last time I checked Playstation 3 sold over 80 million units and 360 83 million, why didn't Skyrim on 360/PS3 sell more than 12 million surely that number is too low given the large install base.




So many? Aside from CDPR could you list me all those PC exclusive devs that are salivating at consoles? Also CDPR said that the Witcher 3 could've been done on PC just smaller scale, second Witcher 3 would not have been possible without the tons of PC support since they founded the company.

I mean correct me but didn't Xcom 2 just skip consoles? Go figure...

You might list Larian and InXile, before you do, both Wasteland 2 and Divinity were alluded for a console release before their PC release and are already stellar PC success.




You have serious reading comprehensions my friend or you are being deliberately obtuse and putting words in my mouth, PC sales have higher profit margin meaning they make more money on the sale of a single on PC then they do on consoles.

On PC all they to do is pay Valve's regular 30% cut, that's 70% percent of the profit, on the other hand the margin is far lower on consoles when you take away platform holder royalties, retailers cut, retailer logistics etc...etc... Not that hard.

And before you say that most PC gamers will buy games for 75% less:

https://twitter.com/Steam_Spy/status/606764052220657664/photo/1

It doesn't matter to me how you view it, they are separate SKU's, separate platforms, you're stacking all of these against one, which is unfair, regardless of that fact PC alone sold a third of Skyrim's global sales a fact you can't deny.



I didn't remove PS4 from the equation, I specifically said PC came in second in the BF4 stats, first position is PS4.

Saying that the different PC configs is the same thing as different consoles is extremely flawed, the user base on all of those different PC's are the same, on the same platform which is Steam/Origin/Uplay, they can play online together, interact together etc...etc... regardless of GPU/CPU variations.

X1/PS4/360/PS3 are different systems all together with their different support network, user and player base, only able to play cross platform at the mercy of the platform holder etc... So no I cannot lump all those consoles together as one single entity against PC. You are the one in denial. Hell even SMS is dividing the sales per console SKU, every company divides their sales between X1/PS4 they don't lump them together.



I would love to see a statement from Kunos Simulazioni saying how the success of SMS made them jump to consoles, were you by any chance with them in the conference room? Funny that's the conclusion you reached instead of say it was always planned to go multiplat like the grand total of all games these days. Also Assetto Corsa sold 250K on Steam.

Aaannd thelastword gets wrecked, yet again.

 

[Three]

Regardless if our reasoning for skipping Project Cars due to Forza are flawed, it still results in Project Cars not being purchased because of Forza's existence. So one case has Project Cars selling what it would have regardless, and the other has it selling less.. an overall net loss.

Or there are more cases that could be possible? The case that's being discussed, where somebody interested in the genre is more likely to buy a system with the sim racer and have an established base on it. Somebody who is more likely to go on and buy PCars afterwards, as shown by the evidence. Other games in the same genre help that genre on the system. What about that?

Would you like to remind me where I said that people would only buy one game "in the genre"? I don't recall making that claim at all. I made a comparison with FIFA and Pro Evo, as opposed to your Halo vs CoD comparison, and stated that someone is more likely to purchase FIFA14 and then FIFA15, rather than FIFA15 and PES2015
(two competing entries released near each other). At no point would I have claimed that if PES2015 were the first Pro Evo game in existence, that checking the owners gaming history wouldn't make it likely that FIFA14 is also on their list. Why the hell wouldn't it be? The previous year, they couldn't have bought Pro Evo at all, there was no choice to even make then. I didn't say the close proximity of FIFA and Pro Evo didn't matter. I said it was the entire point.

You can't just "gather that clearly sim fans buy more than one game in the genre" regardless though (even though my point was never that they would only buy one, ever), as you are essentially ruling any that bought both as "sim fans" and anyone that didn't "not a sim fan". I didn't buy both, so I don't exist in your data set, so you automatically consider me "not a sim fan" by definition, reagrdless of how many cases like mine there may be.

Lastly, to answer the whole "buying Project Cars over Forza" question once again... I would expect that to effect Forza Motorsport 6 (in the way PES2015 would effect FIFA15, rather than FIFA14). If someone bought their Xbox at xmas an wanted a racer, I wouldn't expect them to sit it out for 6 months when FM5 can be routinely found for a tenner. If I see Project Cars tomorrow for a tenner, I'll buy it.

Well that's what I've been discussing with Bgamer until you stepped in to disagree. I was arguing the fact that people buy both games in the genre. You said they would buy one or the other too, not both:

People will often choose one over the other, rather than buy both, because they essentially serve the same purpose.

The majority that have bought one of them have bought both. you specifically said forza 5 too because I somewhat agreed with you with 6 and you still had a problem with the claim

Forza 6 I kind of get with the news today, but people were suggesting that it was Forza 5 that affected Project Cars sales. An 18+ month old game. We only just found out that Forza 6 is similar to project cars in some ways just today, not when Project cars came out and sold less on XB1. I'm not arguing against your personal choice though, just the belief that Forza 5 made PCars sell less on XB1 because there was a game in that genre available already.

I was clearly talking about the genre, and clearly about Forza 5. You said it makes no difference, that people choose one or the other. They clearly don't. You think they bought Forza 5 for a tenner then went on to buy PCars in less than 6 months too, yet they are so similar, why did they do that. wasn't that your argument that they choose one or the other if within the year and not both? That 2 years was just right to want another and 18 months not long enough?

Also, don't misconstrue what I said, I didn't say you're not a sim fan because you didn't buy both . Only that those who bought the latest sim racer were those who bought a previous one. Meaning an established base buys them rather than a previous game taking sales away from the growing base. Those who have bought just PCars and not Forza is actually very very small.
Again, why did they buy PCars at all when there was Forza 5 and it is so similar? Why does almost everyone who owns PCars also own Forza.

I'll reiterate my position:
A game in a particular genre only helps that genre on a particular system. Whether that is Bloodborn/Demon souls/Dark souls, Halo / COD, Forza/PCars.
that's how it has always been. That a person who owns a game in a genre is more likely to buy other games in that genre than those who haven't in the past.

I just find this whole debate pointless because people are trying to use anecdotal evidence to push some hypothesis that isn't even needed. why?

PCars ended up selling much more on PS4, I would have thought that that would be obvious. We know the majority of sim racer sales are in Europe, we know the XB1 is not doing well in Europe and the PS4 is. Occam's razor would apply, right? why do a bunch of people (usual suspects) try and push the hypothesis that sales of a game in a genre hurt sales of other games in that genre with that? Did NFS:Shift sell better on PS3? you know, because GT5 wasn't out yet whereas 360 had Forza.
where is your actual evidence? The burden of proof falls on you. Don't show anecdotal evidence. Show how it is not negligible, show some actual data.

I could just as easily say Ryse sold badly because people think MS is the spawn of satan. I could probably even find you some crazy people who think MS is evil and don't buy any products from them. that wouldn't be a good explanation for its poor sales though would it?

 

[Synth]

Or there are more cases that could be possible? The case that's being discussed, where somebody interested in the genre is more likely to buy a system with the sim racer and have an established base on it. Somebody who is more likely to go on and buy PCars afterwards, as shown by the evidence. Other games in the same genre help that genre on the system. What about that?

You need to stop referring to trueachievements as "evidence". How exactly does that show that those purchasing Project Cars weren't equally as likely to have purchased it if Forza 5 didn't exist? It doesn't. You've placed additional meaning to the data which doesn't actually exist within it. For all you know every last one of those players would have bought PCars regardless, along with another 5000 that didn't buy it in the current scenario. It's worthless data.

Well that's what I've been discussing with Bgamer until you stepped in to disagree. I was arguing the fact that people buy both games in the genre. You said they would buy one or the other too, not both:

The majority that have bought one of them have bought both. you specifically said forza 5 too because I somewhat agreed with you with 6 and you still had a problem with the claim

Eh, the first response I made to you wasn't even part of a convo with Bgamer. It was your reply to Gestault saying skipping PCars because of Forza was like skipping CoD because of Halo. I disagreed and attached a video explaining why. I positioned buying both being buying Project Cars and FM6.. however the existence of FM5 makes waiting for FM6 a lot easier. Let's say if of 10 FM5 players, 5 pick up Project Cars, and the other 5 go with FM6. The 5 with PCars would still show as having FM5 by your metric, even if in Forza's absence all 10 would have had PCars. The data you're choosing can't account for this scenario at all, so is far more useless than my anecdotal examples of people saying point blank "I skipped PCars due to Forza". I'm surprised you're even dismissing these examples so forcefully, as reasoning is by its very nature anecdotal. There's no data point that's can tell you why someone didn't buy something... only the people that didn't buy it could tell you that.

I was clearly talking about the genre, and clearly about Forza 5. You said it makes no difference, that people choose one or the other. They clearly don't. You think they bought Forza 5 for a tenner then went on to buy PCars in less than 6 months too, yet they are so similar, why did they do that. wasn't that your argument that they choose one or the other if within the year and not both? That 2 years was just right to want another and 18 months not long enough?

You can't really discount how price can alter value perception. To take a more common example. I assume you'd agree that many people make a selection between X1 and PS4. Some of us will buy both, but the existence of one has a direct effect on the other. Now people don't only own one because they simply wouldn't like to have the other as well, if cost wasn't a consideration. You could take the most ardent PS4 fan on these forums, and they'll probably take a $30 Xbox One (assuming they can't just flip it for profit), because why the fuck not?.. it's cheap as hell! Same thing here really. FM5 is so cheap, that it's worth picking up, even if only to play for a short while. If it's price were still fixed at $60, it'd be a different matter.

Also, don't misconstrue what I said, I didn't say you're not a sim fan because you didn't buy both . Only that those who bought the latest sim racer were those who bought a previous one. Meaning an established base buys them rather than a previous game taking sales away from the growing base. Those who have bought just PCars and not Forza is actually very very small.
Again, why did they buy PCars at all when there was Forza 5 and it is so similar? Why does almost everyone who owns PCars also own Forza.

Nothing in that data deals with the possibility of FM5 or FM6 taking sales from PCars. It's a list of the people it didn't take sales from. That's all. Everyone FM5 did take sales from is omitted from that list automatically.

I'll reiterate my position:
A game in a particular genre only helps that genre on a particular system. Whether that is Bloodborn/Demon souls/Dark souls, Halo / COD, Forza/PCars.
that's how it has always been. That a person who owns a game in a genre is more likely to buy other games in that genre than those who haven't in the past.

I just find this whole debate pointless because people are trying to use anecdotal evidence to push some hypothesis that isn't even needed. why?

Yea, I'd agree that having games in a specific genre make it more likely that you will have an audience for that style of game on that console. That doesn't mean that similar competing products don't negatively affect each other though. Statistically, I'd imagine that someone that has bought a previous games console in the past is more likely to purchase an Xbox One than someone who hasn't. However that doesn't mean that the existence of a PlayStation 4 isn't making the Xbox One sell less. People have finite money and time, and products compete for it. When two products have a lot of similarity, many will choice one in favour of the other. It does happen to some extent even with stuff like Halo and CoD (look at Halo pre-CoD vs after), but even more when the two offerings are much closer in what they provide (such as NBA2K and NBA Live). That's how it's always been, and is the reason people look at situations like Blur vs Split/Second, and think "well, that was unfortunate".

PCars ended up selling much more on PS4, I would have thought that that would be obvious. We know the majority of sim racer sales are in Europe, we know the XB1 is not doing well in Europe and the PS4 is. Occam's razor would apply, right? why do a bunch of people (usual suspects) try and push the hypothesis that sales of a game in a genre hurt sales of other games in that genre with that? Did NFS:Shift sell better on PS3? you know, because GT5 wasn't out yet whereas 360 had Forza.
where is your actual evidence? The burden of proof falls on you. Don't show anecdotal evidence. Show how it is not negligible, show some actual data.

I could just as easily say Ryse sold badly because people think MS is the spawn of satan. I could probably even find you some crazy people who think MS is evil and don't buy any products from them. that wouldn't be a good explanation for its poor sales though would it?

Once again, if I was arguing that I thought the Xbox One version would sell more otherwise than you'd have a point with this. I'm not saying that though... I'm suggesting that FM5 had effect on the sales of PCars X1. Hell, I've never even claimed to what extent that is. Occam's Razor would dictate when someone says "I skipped it because Forza", then they skipped it because of Forza. Which makes my point true immediately. Now you could try to argue that the four of us that I've shown you are the only examples of this in existence (which would be stupid... but whatever), but it's still actually more concrete than your suggestion that those that have PCars would be less likely to have bought it without FM5 preceding it. You don't even have anecdotal evidence for that claim.

And as for your amusing little Ryse example. Unless the person was claiming that were the only reason for the game selling less on Xbox, they'd still be more correct than if you were to claim that it had zero effect on the sales.

 

[Three]

You need to stop referring to trueachievements as "evidence". How exactly does that show that those purchasing Project Cars weren't equally as likely to have purchased it if Forza 5 didn't exist? It doesn't. You've placed additional meaning to the data which doesn't actually exist within it. For all you know every last one of those players would have bought PCars regardless, along with another 5000 that didn't buy it in the current scenario. It's worthless data.

Who said such a thing? it's not worthless data at all though. It's a very large data set. Though the sample is not completely random in that it's those who are tracked by that site only. The only point of that data was to show that it wasn't a one or the other scenario. To show that those who bought Forza 5 did in fact buy PCars. What doesn't make sense to you?

Eh, the first response I made to you wasn't even part of a convo with Bgamer. It was your reply to Gestault saying skipping PCars because of Forza was like skipping CoD because of Halo. I disagreed and attached a video explaining why. I positioned buying both being buying Project Cars and FM6.. however the existence of FM5 makes waiting for FM6 a lot easier. Let's say if of 10 FM5 players, 5 pick up Project Cars, and the other 5 go with FM6. The 5 with PCars would still show as having FM5 by your metric, even if in Forza's absence all 10 would have had PCars. The data you're choosing can't account for this scenario at all, so is far more useless than my anecdotal examples of people saying point blank "I skipped PCars due to Forza". I'm surprised you're even dismissing these examples so forcefully, as reasoning is by its very nature anecdotal. There's no data point that's can tell you why someone didn't buy something... only the people that didn't buy it could tell you that.

The problem with this is you have chosen your base already. one assumption, that it would not be changing would be wrong. Two do you think the number of racing fans attracted to a platform is dependent on whether it attracted that audience with Forza or not. There are data points that show that the ownership of Forza 5 did not stop them from also buying PCars. Now imagine that those 10 Forza didn't exist. I'm not dismissing them forcefully but they are anecdotal. I said people would not be deterrd from buying PCars if they owned Forza 5. It would not be a one or the other scenario. That is the case from that large sample size.

You can't really discount how price can alter value perception. To take a more common example. I assume you'd agree that many people make a selection between X1 and PS4. Some of us will buy both, but the existence of one has a direct effect on the other. Now people don't only own one because they simply wouldn't like to have the other as well, if cost wasn't a consideration. You could take the most ardent PS4 fan on these forums, and they'll probably take a $30 Xbox One (assuming they can't just flip it for profit), because why the fuck not?.. it's cheap as hell! Same thing here really. FM5 is so cheap, that it's worth picking up, even if only to play for a short while. If it's price were still fixed at $60, it'd be a different matter.

Except when they have picked up Forza for a £10 earlier (it's not a tenner but lets go with your example anyway) why would they then also buy PCars at £40 if they are so similar and replacements for eachother as you suggested. It's almost as if they enjoy the genre or something. Just as somebody who owns more than one console probably enjoys gaming and might want the slightly different library. I'm never going to get an answer to this but why did they spend £50, why not just the £40 why not just the £10 even. Are you suggesting Fifa players go and buy last years pro evo for a tenner too because that's your contradictory analogy.

Yea, I'd agree that having games in a specific genre make it more likely that you will have an audience for that style of game on that console. That doesn't mean that similar competing products don't negatively affect each other though. Statistically, I'd imagine that someone that has bought a previous games console in the past is more likely to purchase an Xbox One than someone who hasn't. However that doesn't mean that the existence of a PlayStation 4 isn't making the Xbox One sell less. People have finite money and time, and products compete for it. When two products have a lot of similarity, many will choice one in favour of the other. It does happen to some extent even with stuff like Halo and CoD (look at Halo pre-CoD vs after), but even more when the two offerings are much closer in what they provide (such as NBA2K and NBA Live). That's how it's always been, and is the reason people look at situations like Blur vs Split/Second, and think "well, that was unfortunate".

This makes sense but is not relevant. If you showed some data that revealed all XBox one owners were also PS3 owners then I can see the analogy. Yes, they compete but clearly that tells you nothing about the market shifting, how much overlap there is and how the product is a substitute rather than "consumable".

Once again, if I was arguing that I thought the Xbox One version would sell more otherwise than you'd have a point with this. I'm not saying that though... I'm suggesting that FM5 had effect on the sales of PCars X1. Hell, I've never even claimed to what extent that is. Occam's Razor would dictate when someone says "I skipped it because Forza", then they skipped it because of Forza. Which makes my point true immediately. Now you could try to argue that the four of us that I've shown you are the only examples of this in existence (which would be stupid... but whatever), but it's still actually more concrete than your suggestion that those that have PCars would be less likely to have bought it without FM5 preceding it. You don't even have anecdotal evidence for that claim.

And as for your amusing little Ryse example. Unless the person was claiming that were the only reason for the game selling less on Xbox, they'd still be more correct than if you were to claim that it had zero effect on the sales.

You said there were two cases earlier

So one case has Project Cars selling what it would have regardless, and the other has it selling less.. an overall net loss.

If you weren't suggesting it sold less than what it would have then I have no idea what you are arguing if that isn't your point. I'm going to stop arguing in any case.
If you honestly think that I'm trying to convince you that you didn't skip it because of Forza (Forza 6 for that matter) then you clearly haven't read my post where I specifically say I understand your choice but I suspect you are deliberately being obtuse with occam's razor and the Ryse example. The fact that some people hate Greenwalts beard had an affect on Forza sales. How consequential is that? that's the question.

 

[Barneyco]

The arguments in this thread are silly because they can be made either way.

- Should sell more on PS4 since there is no GT yet.
- Should sell more on Xbox since people that like games like this already bought the platform for Forza.

We have no idea if these games are complements or substitutes. Y'all are posturing to confirm your biases.

This!

 

[Bgamer90]

So, if XBone does not have Killer Instinct, would MKX sales be better on Xbone then?

I'm pretty sure MKX sales would have been higher if the system didn't have any other fighters before its release; More anticipation from people who want a fighting game on their console.

Yes, i read your previous posts. Your post refers to the PCars sales between PS4 and Xbone are just doesn't make sense to me. Lower install base and FM5 or FH2 are no reasons for lower sales on Xbone or that PS4 has better sales because 'lack of sim races'.

How wouldn't the PS4 having a larger user base in comparison to the Xbox One (especially in territories where sim racing is popular) help the sales of Project Cars (or any other PS4 version of a multiplat for that matter)? If people in these territories enjoy sim racers then wouldn't they also be greatly interested in the very first sim racer coming to the console they own?

Just NO! What's your excuses for Witcher 3 sales in UK then? Both consoles has enough RPG's, user base difference is not so big in UK.

You said yourself that "both consoles have enough RPGs" so how would the Witcher 3 relate to what I said about a game selling well in part due to it being the first game of its genre on a console (Project Cars)? I really don't understand what you are trying to get at at all.

 

[Aguero9320]

I have Forza 5 and Forza 6 is out soon - that equalled me essentially not even looking up when Project Cars came out. Paid no attention to it.

May take a look when it's on a super sale down the line, but I doubt it.

 

[Synth]

Who said such a thing? it's not worthless data at all though. It's a very large data set. Though the sample is not completely random in that it's those who are tracked by that site only. The only point of that data was to show that it wasn't a one or the other scenario. To show that those who bought Forza 5 did in fact buy PCars. What doesn't make sense to you?

It isn't a large dataset though. The dataset for example is tiny compared to the equivalent achievement for FM5 (87,000 gamers tracked with it). Based on Trueachievements, the vast majority of people that have Forza 5, didn't purchase PCars. Any conclusions you draw from that are mostly pointless though, as we can't know any contributing circumstances (why did they have FM5? why do they not have PCar? etc).

The problem with this is you have chosen your base already. one assumption, that it would not be changing would be wrong. Two do you think the number of racing fans attracted to a platform is dependent on whether it attracted that audience with Forza or not. There are data points that show that the ownership of Forza 5 did not stop them from also buying PCars. Now imagine that those 10 Forza didn't exist. I'm not dismissing them forcefully but they are anecdotal. I said people would not be deterd from buying PCars if they owned Forza 5. It would not be a one or the other scenario. That is the case from that large sample size.

We can imagine that the 10 FM5 purchases didn't exist, but there's no data to outline the result. Maybe 5 copies of PCars get sold still, so FM5 had no bearing. Maybe 10 copies of PCars get sold, meaning 5 FM5 purchasers were deterred from buying PCars... maybe 3 PCars get sold (and this is the scenario you'd be looking for), meaning that FM5 actually caused PCars to sell more. None of this can actually be gleaned from the data you're relying on though, which is what makes it utterly useless.

Except when they have picked up Forza for a £10 earlier (it's not a tenner but lets go with your example anyway) why would they then also buy PCars at £40 if they are so similar and replacements for eachother as you suggested. It's almost as if they enjoy the genre or something. Just as somebody who owns more than one console probably enjoys gaming and might want the slightly different library. I'm never going to get an answer to this but why did they spend £50, why not just the £40 why not just the £10 even. Are you suggesting Fifa players go and buy last years pro evo for a tenner too because that's your contradictory analogy.

Cheap FM5 would be a stopgap until PCars released in this case. If there were a cheaper last years edition of PCars, maybe they'd have bought that. But not having a racer at all makes them more likely to buy one in the meantime, than if they already have on to play meanwhile. I would fully expect a sports fan to pick up a previous years title as a stopgap, rather than not have a single one to play on their console too. A Pro Evo fan would probably more likely opt for last years Pro Evo, rather than last years FIFA though. But in this case, it's like if last year's Pro Evo didn't exist, but last years FIFA does. It's not contradictory at all.

This makes sense but is not relevant. If you showed some data that revealed all XBox one owners were also PS3 owners then I can see the analogy. Yes, they compete but clearly that tells you nothing about the market shifting, how much overlap there is and how the product is a substitute.

Well, the comparison is a pretty bad on in this case, because the 360 had a large userbase in the prior gen as well, so it's equally likely that early adopters came from a previous Xbox console. Maybe a better comparison for this would be to take the first set of Genesis owners, and then ask how many of them owned a NES prior (for the purpose of this comparison the Master System may as well not have existed)? It'd probably be the vast majority, but you wouldn't draw the conclusion that Nintendo consoles don't impact the sales of Sega consoles. It's just that prior to their actually being an actual competitor, everyone opted for what was previously the sole option.

Then I have no idea what you are arguing if that isn't your point. I'm going to stop arguing in any case.
If you honestly think that I'm trying to convince you that you didn't skip it because of Forza Forza 6 for that matter) then you clearly haven't read my post where I specifically say I understand your choice but I suspect you are deliberately being obtuse with occam's razor and the Ryse example. The fact that some people hate Greenwalts beard had an effect on Forza sales.

I simply saw a post saying "it's like Halo vs CoD" and disagreed with it, stating why (and highlighting a vid, that you honestly have no real response to). I didn't think the idea that some people would be skipping a game as a result of another similar offering (far more similar than Halo and CoD ever were, as demonstrated) would be something that would be so fiercely contested to be honest. Basically, Forza is far more of a PCars substitute than Halo is a CoD substitute, as a result I (and however many others) are actually making that substitution in a way that I wouldn't with two more unique titles like Halo and CoD/Titanfall/Battlefield/etc. That was it. My very first post said that it wasn't simply as case of having multiple titles in one genre. I made that distinction immediately.

EDIT: And again, see above post.

 

[Momentary]

Love when a PC game sells more than separate consoles, gamers then lump consoles (different platforms) together into one entity to overcome the PCs win.

Then when a single console has better game sales than the other platforms, it all of a sudden is its own entity and fuck the other guy.

 

[Conduit]

You said yourself that "both consoles have enough RPGs" so how would the Witcher 3 relate to what I said about a game selling well in part due to it being the first game of its genre on a console (Project Cars)? I really don't understand what you are trying to get at at all.

But also Witcher 3 is the FIRST Witcher game on PS platforms. Especially PS4 has Bloodborne which came out 2 months before Witcher 3, although Witcher 3 sold more on PS4. But Witcher franchise is more closer to Xbox platform and MS has a marketing deal with this game. So, what's your excuse more sales on PS4 in UK? Bigger user base difference in UK? No, difference is small. PS4 owners don't like Souls games ( Bloodborne ), so they waited for Witcher 3? No! You said the reasons for PCars. What are the reasons for bigger Witcher 3 sales on PS4? I want to hear it from you.

 

[Three]

It isn't a large dataset though. The dataset for example is tiny compared to the equivalent achievement for FM5 (87,000 gamers tracked with it). .

EDIT: And again, see above post.

I'm not going to address anything in your post as as I said I m not clear on what your point is exactly (seems like you think I didn't respond to your video post anyway so perhaps its a waste). I will point out that that's not how samples work though. The sample size is sufficiently large though not entirely random. I was showing PCars owners also own Forza 5 not the circumstances for why they bought it ( that's what you are doing with no evidence ). Just that it's not either or.

Also the see above comment applied to those who just said they own both too. When you have a discussion like this people would take a stance on it but you are the one making the claims and providing no hard evidence for anything. The burden of proof is on you. You are using anecdotal evidence when the anecdotal evidence and hard data against your claims exist too.

 

[ShamePain]

Could it be the fact that PS4 has double the user base therefore it sold twice as much as on xbone? If they were equal maybe you would see similar numbers.

 

[DieH@rd]

Could it be the fact that PS4 has double the user base therefore it sold twice as much as on xbone? If they were equal maybe you would see similar numbers.

I would also think that PS4 version got the better PR coverage before the release.

 

[Synth]

I'm not going to address anything in your post as as I said I m not clear on what your point is exactly (seems like you think I didn't respond to your video post anyway so perhaps its a waste). I will point out that that's not how samples work though. I was showing PCars owners also own Forza 5 not the circumstances for why they bought it ( that's what you are doing with no evidence ). Just that it's not either or.

Also the see above comment applied to those who just said they own both too. When you have a discussion like this people would take a stance on it but you are the one making the claims and providing no hard evidence for anything. The burden of proof is on you. You are using anecdotal evidence when the anecdotal evidence against your claims exist too.

You responded to the video I guess. It was basically "yea, can't give a comparable video without it actually being the same franchise". Which really should have ended any Halo vs CoD talk right there.

Yes, that's not how sample sizes work, which is specifically why I said that the larger sample of Forza players would also be useless. But you know how else sample sizes don't work? You can't use a sample of people who bought Project Cars to determine the likelihood that people didn't buy Project Cars for whatever reason. It's basically taking 87,000 Forza players, asking all those that still want Project Cars to enter the room on the right.. then going into the room on the right (containing only 5,000 of them) and asking "how many of you guys don't want Project Cars because you have FM5?... No one? Excellent!".

Now finally, I would like you to clarify what claim I made specifically that you're arguing against. I compared PCars and Forza to Pro Evo and FIFA. I didn't not claim that nobody that owns FIFA also owns Pro Evo. In fact taking previous year's entries into account I actually claimed the opposite (people moving from Pro Evo PS2 to FIFA PS3). I also made it very clear that examples counter to my own would exist (and that I was potentially one of them myself at one point)... My point being valid (some people will skip Project Cars directly because of Forza) isn't affected by a counter-example (some people won't skip it). Your argument against my point on the other hand (people won't skip PCars because of Forza) IS reliant on the counter-example not existing (people skipping PCars because of Forza). Which is why anecdotal evidence of people skipping PCars because of Forza is enough.

 

[Three]

You responded to the video I guess. It was basically "yea, can't give a comparable video without it actually being the same franchise". Which really should have ended any Halo vs CoD talk right there.

I said a little more than just that. what I actually said:

Sure, I can't show you like for like videos outside of say old COD vs new COD with old maps but then again it's not about finding like for like maps is it. Why would you buy Forza 6 if you have Forza 5 for example? Surely it's because it offers new things. Like, say, weather, new tracks, other cars, better graphics, more features like more cars on track, day/night? By that bizarre logic there would be no reason for a Forza 5 owner to get 6 either because they are similar and you can do a side by side comparison of Forza 5 vs Forza 6 on the same track with the same car.

People buy games in the same genre 18 months apart for the same reason they buy more similar games in a series every 12 months, because it offers more of what they enjoy.

Everything else you repeated was already discussed repeatedly too. I didn't make that claim. I don't think this is getting anywhere really and because I no longer understand your point, if it wasn't to try and say it is an either-or situation with the genre or that it lowered sales without evidence then I don't understand what you are suggesting and I dont see it as worth continuing.

 

[Synth]

I said a little more than just that. what I actually said:

People buy games in the same genre 18 months apart for the same reason they buy more similar games in a series every 12 months, because it offers more of what they enjoy.

Everything else you repeated was already discussed repeatedly too. I didn't make that claim. I don't think this is getting anywhere really and because I no longer understand your point, if it wasn't to try and say it is an either-or situation with the genre or that it lowered sales without evidence then I don't understand what you are suggesting and I dont see it as worth continuing.

The fact that the only comparable video you could do for Forza vs Project Cars, is something like old CoD vs new CoD shows that your claim that Forza and PCars are as unique and different as Halo and CoD isn't the case. That should have been a very quick discussion.

Following on from that... yes, people will buy sequels 18 months or year apart from one another. There is a reason (other than development considerations) why you don't see sequels every few months though. I am indeed claiming that PCars lost sales as a result of Forza. It's possible that it also gained sales some because of Forza, but in this case I'm not convinced that it works out as a net positive. I don't have proof that it's definitely a net negative, but I never claimed that as definite. I claimed the lost sales part as definite, and the anecdotal evidence you dislike so much is enough to substantiate that.

 

[Three]

The fact that the only comparable video you could do for Forza vs Project Cars, is something like old CoD vs new CoD shows that your claim that Forza and PCars are as unique and different as Halo and CoD isn't the case. That should have been a very quick discussion.

Following on from that... yes, people will buy sequels 18 months or year apart from one another. There is a reason (other than development considerations) why you don't see sequels every few months though. I am indeed claiming that PCars lost sales as a result of Forza. It's possible that it also gained sales some because of Forza, but in this case I'm not convinced that it works out as a net positive. I don't have proof that it's definitely a net negative, but I never claimed that as definite. I claimed the lost sales part as definite, and the anecdotal evidence you dislike so much is enough to substantiate that.

That should not have been a "quick discussion " because it finished but you went on to claim it was an either-or situation like FIFA which I clearly disagreed with.
You not only clamed lost sales but you specifically said "net loss." If you incorrectly used the word "net"and you are not claiming to know then we don't disagree regarding that. I don't see what there is left to discuss really or why you think I both did not and should not have responded to your video.

 

[gtj1092]

If some people bought it because of forza and some didn't but you can't prove it was a net negative or positive it seems there is no reason to bring it up.

 

[EchoChamber]

we can just be friends and agree the PS4 version sold more because it has a bigger user-base?

 

[Synth]

That should not have been a "quick discussion " because it finished but you went on to claim it was an either-or situation like FIFA which I clearly disagreed with.
You not only clamed lost sales but you specifically said "net loss." If you incorrectly used the word "net"and you are not claiming to know then we don't disagree regarding that. I don't see what there is left to discuss really or why you think I both did not and should not have responded to your video.

FIFA and Pro Evo aren't either/or, but one effects the other. There's still some overlap, and that overlap would be large if one wasn't present previously.

I believe I used the term "net loss" once prior when quoting Jameways (long after we began arguing actually, so that's NOT what set you off). This was in the case of him buying PCars, and me not buying it. That would be 1 PCars sale, as opposed to 2 PCars sales if there was no Forza, i.e. a net loss. I do think that it results in less copies sold overall... not the sort of amount that'd have it sell more on PS4, but less regardless. There are numerous reasons I can think of for PS4 having more of a built-in audience for sim racers than the X1, but that's a different topic entirely.

Regardless of my belief that it would have sold more sans Forza, or your apparent belief that it would have sold less. Neither of us has "evidence" that proves that either way (trueachievements certainly not being that). I do have evidence of people selecting one over the other due to their similarities though, which covers my only real claim here.

 

[JaseC]

Aaannd thelastword gets wrecked, yet again.

I see he hasn't returned to the thread despite being well and truly active in the ~21 hours since that post. I won't call out the user here, but I know of another who employs this "tactic" liberally and it's immensely frustrating -- I mean, when I corrected said user on a misunderstanding, which clarified that the situation was actually better than they thought, I was still ignored (and that was far from the first time). There's no point in engaging in a back-and-forth with someone if they'd rather run and hide than express a modicum of humility.

 

[Three]

I see he hasn't returned to the thread despite being well and truly active in the ~21 hours since that post. I won't call out the user here, but I know of another who employs this "tactic" liberally and it's immensely frustrating -- I mean, when I corrected said user on a misunderstanding, which clarified that the situation was actually better than they thought, I was still ignored (and that was far from the first time). There's no point in engaging in a back-and-forth with someone if they'd rather run and hide than express a modicum of humility.

I have some clue as to who but what does their username begin with?

FIFA and Pro Evo aren't either/or, but one effects the other. There's still some overlap, and that overlap would be large if one wasn't present previously.

I didn't say it's either or there either.
There is a huge overlap. In fact PES15 users bought FiFa 15 too even though the gap between those is a month or two:
http://www.trueachievements.com/achievementgamer.aspx?achievementid=194382
contrary to what you said below:

and stated that someone is more likely to purchase FIFA14 and then FIFA15, rather than FIFA15 and PES2015 (two competing entries released near each other).

They bought all 3 because it's the genre they enjoy.

 

[AgentP]

I'm pretty sure MKX sales would have been higher if the system didn't have any other fighters before its release; More anticipation from people who want a fighting game on their console.

By the same token, PS4 sales would have been higher if the PS+ people didn't get Injustice for free. Both consoles have a fighting game, its not an excuse for one and not the other.

 

[thelastword]

I see he hasn't returned to the thread despite being well and truly active in the ~21 hours since that post. I won't call out the user here, but I know of another who employs this "tactic" liberally and it's immensely frustrating -- I mean, when I corrected said user on a misunderstanding, which clarified that the situation was actually better than they thought, I was still ignored (and that was far from the first time). There's no point in engaging in a back-and-forth with someone if they'd rather run and hide than express a modicum of humility.

Come on guys, I may be signed in and have my browser open, doesn't mean I'm actually reading the forum every single time. I Just got back from work, I skimmed the thread but I have other engagements, I haven't had times to read the responses properly or the rest of the thread since yesterday, but I'll do so and get back. At least give persons the benefit of the doubt, it's not always about a war.

 

[SwordStruck]

Don't really see what the big deal is about the platform split. Its an impressive number and well deserved by SMS. Here's hoping the sales numbers continue and they are able to put out some awesome DLC.

 

[Kinthalis]

Come on guys, I may be signed in and have my browser open, doesn't mean I'm actually reading the forum every single time. I Just got back from work, I skimmed the thread but I have other engagements, I haven't had times to read the responses properly or the rest of the thread since yesterday, but I'll do so and get back. At least give persons the benefit of the doubt, it's not always about a war.

::Kicks table over, draws sword::

The hell it ain't!

 

[JaseC]

I have some clue as to who but what does their username begin with?

Let's say just his username implies he's a doctor, but I doubt that's the case.

Come on guys, I may be signed in and have my browser open, doesn't mean I'm actually reading the forum every single time. I Just got back from work, I skimmed the thread but I have other engagements, I haven't had times to read the responses properly or the rest of the thread since yesterday, but I'll do so and get back. At least give persons the benefit of the doubt, it's not always about a war.

I'm not above giving people the benefit of the doubt, but the other person I refer to has exhibited the behaviour to me directly no less than 7 or 8 times, which is clearly deliberate avoidance. To be clear, I wasn't making the implicit statement that the two of you are as bad as each other -- outside of your proclivity for ardently defending the PS4, I'm not overly familiar with your posting habits. Maybe you would have eventually reappeared in this thread even if I hadn't used you as a springboard to air a more general grievance (I apologise if I offended you) or maybe you're only here again because I did. Given the lack of personal experience I have to draw from, I have no qualms giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I don't know enough to actually lean either way.

 

[thelastword]

It's not just him saying though:

We also saw pictures of the devkits at their office I think even before the release of pCARS so the console version decision would not have been with the success of pCARS, but the announcement surely could have tried ride on the same wave. Kunos might have been just fine with the PC sales of AC in terms of running a studio; they are a tiny studio and as per the quote above AC started as a PC only title and "has been more than successful". Still, I'm not trying to downplay the market share of the consoles in any way; I know the reality is that consoles are and will be generally the larger part of the market, but PC especially lately has become a strong platform that does reward investing into it.

That's really saying nothing, they had access to dev kits? you know how many devs had access to dev kits and never shipped a game due to no financing or a publisher? Just look at Project cars it was gamer funded. You think SMS would be able to fund this on their own or that it's apiece of cake to get a publisher?

In any case, at that time, Sony was sending dev kits to most devs who had a semi-descent game in production or games which they felt would do good on their platform. Simulazioni carried out technical tests since 2013 and in mid 2015 have nothing to show, means there is nothing to show. I'm pretty sure their tests came back positive (clearly), but they did not have the financial backing to make a console effort possible for late 2014 or early to mid 2015.

Apparently, they just got a partner to foot the bill with, so they're only now getting the green light to start working on consoles. This does not translate to working on consoles since 2013. Their target of 2016 is also a very loose target and I very much doubt they will meet that even.

Yeah of course you wouldn't trust those numbers because it suits your agenda not to. Unless you have numbers of your own to counter SteamSpy which is extremely accurate according to developers on this very website then I'm afraid we're going to have to go with the numbers given by SteamSpy.

Also Steam has 120 million userbase not 300 million. Last time I checked Playstation 3 sold over 80 million units and 360 83 million, why didn't Skyrim on 360/PS3 sell more than 12 million surely that number is too low given the large install base.

No, I don't trust these figures because truthfully they can't be trusted. I don't even know why Kinthalis is getting his "pantalones" so moist from this post either. Certain PC gamers like to blow up stats when it suits them and that's what I was alluding to.

Reference a post from our very own PC gamer Kinthalis when the "over" 125 million active users on steam was announced.....

Yeah, those would be registered acocunts, which are up probably over 300 million by now.

Thread

Now, I don't know if you or others have amnesia, but these type of things tend to happen often and most persons cast a blind eye to people spouting such figures and anecdotes because it's not disagreeable to their angle. If it's any other way it's a different story of course.

As for steam spy's veracity. I don't trust it because steam spy is more guess work more than anything else, they sample very small sizes of the 125 million steam users and extrapolate. They're pretty much in the same bracket as chartz, perhaps even worse. Most of the accounts they go through are empty and dead anyway and yet anything at all can impact their numbers significantly. You know how many times my steam account have been littered with free weekend games or access to games for 3-5 days. Steam spy usually gives you results for a game after 3 days, so yes, I'm sure I'm an owner or have been for many games I do not own.

Do you know how many pirates are able to activate products on steam through cracked software? Just do a google search about it in reference to skyrim. Any time you're using software to predict numbers/sales on PC it becomes a slippery slope, the best entity to provide that data would be VALVE or steam themselves because they'd be going by actual purchases made. Steam spy is just a guessing game, I think it has it's uses but in no way can we use it as concrete evidence to determine actual sales of a product.

So many? Aside from CDPR could you list me all those PC exclusive devs that are salivating at consoles? Also CDPR said that the Witcher 3 could've been done on PC just smaller scale, second Witcher 3 would not have been possible without the tons of PC support since they founded the company.

I mean correct me but didn't Xcom 2 just skip consoles? Go figure...

You might list Larian and InXile, before you do, both Wasteland 2 and Divinity were alluded for a console release before their PC release and are already stellar PC success.

How many PC only devs are really left. Even RTS/strategy devs are on consoles in full force. I doubt console gamers would embrace moba's but wasn't a moba just announced for consoles? You think Xcom 2 will remain exclusive? that looks like a game that will come to consoles with extra content in 6 months to a year anyway. You do know that the consoles received all xcom games last gen right?

The thing is, not all these PC devs are that great with handling multiple versions of games in development, Even CDPR which praised the consoles for W3's existence could have used a couple of months learning the console's API and how to program for it properly. Perhaps they should have released the PC version call that exclusive and release the console versions in good form a couple months later, I'm also pretty sure PC will always be ahead in the development pipeline since PC is the lead platform for most games these days.

You have serious reading comprehensions my friend or you are being deliberately obtuse and putting words in my mouth, PC sales have higher profit margin meaning they make more money on the sale of a single on PC then they do on consoles.

How can you agree and disagree with me all at the same time. Did I lie when I said you mentioned the PC version of Project Cars may out do the almost 600k sales on PS4 in revenue and profit? NO, but yet you are giving a case why you think the 160k does just that... smh.

On PC all they to do is pay Valve's regular 30% cut, that's 70% percent of the profit, on the other hand the margin is far lower on consoles when you take away platform holder royalties, retailers cut, retailer logistics etc...etc... Not that hard.

And before you say that most PC gamers will buy games for 75% less:

https://twitter.com/Steam_Spy/status/606764052220657664/photo/1

Annnnnd... here you go trying to justify the very statement you said I was putting words in your mouth about.

To make such a case you would need more data than what you have here, notwithstanding you're still using steam spy's data which are not concrete and just guesswork for the most part. I'll let you in on something, not every deal with the console manufacturer or the publisher with the devs is equal across every game. It may be so for entry level indies since they have less clout but certainly not so for the big boys or more seasoned developers (or those with a hit already).

So yes, that 70/30% cut that you guys keep spewing is also not concrete, valve may take a minimum of 30% (mostly for indies), but there's no stopping valve taking more or less in other situations, using anecdotal samples/feedback is only useful to get you an idea of things, not to empower you as an authority on sales and data. Almost every game goes through separate deals, but these deals are also all well NDA'd up, so the little bits and pieces you hear (here or there) does not paint the whole picture.

So in essence, you want to paint a picture that Steam returns more to the developer than Sony or MS even at significantly lower sales, now that alone is already way below objective reasoning, but....you don't even qualify it, all you use is a steam spy tweet.. smh. Where is the comparison, where is the disparity? I won't even do the math because I believe that line of reasoning was already very much outttttt there, but like I figured, you can't prove what you say.

Also, the majority of games release at $50-60 dollars, of course the graph will show that, hell, any graph would show that. You think Uncharted sold more at $60 or $20, I mean come on, by the time it was $20.00 or even $30 the majority who were interested had already nabbed it. This is especially true for popular AAA games which also happen to sell the most units anyway. You think there is anybody lining up for a game that launches at $0.99? You think anybody is lining up for Bad Rats (the awakening) at $5.00 on launch.

Please stop using steamspy, it's embarrassing. Also, where are the people saying that the steam sales are bringing in so much revenue to the devs, don't your graph say otherwise to those people, but I can see how some would skew their statements based on their angle. Many times their own stats prove their argument wrong..(not you in particular).

Like I said I won't go into too much detail, but on the console side, I'll let you know that beyond the breakdowns of console manufacturer to publisher, to dev, to packaging, to retail to returns, which is clearly not the same across all game deals, save for the more tangible things like packaging etc.. A dev would receive more money when certain milestones are achieved, either through sales or even a certain Meta Critic score, if both even better. (Note how excited SMS was on both sales and metacritic). Also, not all games are released on disc on consoles, but yet, all games are available digitally. Do you know that digital sales by and large form a significant portion of console sales? What data do you have on consoles as to the digital sales breakdown that require no packaging, no returns, no shipping?

The thing is you never made a case for consoles in your argument, I suspect you have no idea of all the dynamics there, even on the pc side you have no idea as well. All you did was go on non-concrete data on the PC side and use anecdotes (everything is 70/30). With game sales being locked under NDA in many regards with the exception of sales statements from publishers, it's all very grey. You think if you go to Joe Grey programmer from CZ games and ask "is steam spy data correct?" You think he will tell you these guys are off by 1,278,985 sales either way, they're all under NDA man, he will simply tell you that it's in the ball park give or take and be done with you.

It doesn't matter to me how you view it, they are separate SKU's, separate platforms, you're stacking all of these against one, which is unfair, regardless of that fact PC alone sold a third of Skyrim's global sales a fact you can't deny.

There's nothing unfair about this, so you want me to stack PC against PS4 or just XB1, how convenient. How about I stack PS4 only against a 750ti machine, would that be fair.....

This is crazy because there are hundreds of millions of PC's worldwide, perhaps even a billion or more. Do you think Steam figures are all the PC's gaming or otherwise that exist? I'm also sure even the most basic PC can play a wide variety of downloadable games. Do you know that there are other services besides steam that have millions of users (despite some overlap) as well. Do you know that PC retail games are still a thing? Also, there are people with capable PC's that don't use these download services. PC is no underdog here, it's a platform just like consoles are a platform. The underdog is clearly the XB1/PS4 vs PC but yet you think it's unfair.

Saying that the different PC configs is the same thing as different consoles is extremely flawed, the user base on all of those different PC's are the same, on the same platform which is Steam/Origin/Uplay, they can play online together, interact together etc...etc... regardless of GPU/CPU variations.

Precisely, which is why users of closed boxes which all comes default with a controller, where every game runs the same on each unit (as per manufacturer), where their online services are standardized (where hacker A can't just go and give himself more xp in a huge RPG or change the leaderboards to suit him.

So yes, all pc's may be able to play the same game and connect, but the experience of each user may be vastly different as well. The standardization of consoles where everybody plays with the same specs is what makes the console unique. XB1 and PS4 is no different in that regard. The different configs of PC is also what makes it one platform and unique (you get returns based on what you pay). Consoles are still the underdog in installbase and the whole idea of segregating consoles is silly. PC is a platform, Mac is a platform, console is a platform, Mobile is yet another platform, don't try to change what has always been for a silly argument, you're sounding very desperate.

I would love to see a statement from Kunos Simulazioni saying how the success of SMS made them jump to consoles, were you by any chance with them in the conference room? Funny that's the conclusion you reached instead of say it was always planned to go multiplat like the grand total of all games these days. Also Assetto Corsa sold 250K on Steam.

As I said, I'm sure they always wanted to come to consoles, but it's clear they did not have the financial backing. I'm simply saying that Project Cars may have pushed them or their financing partner over the edge. In this day and age, a lot of games come in, only to crash and burn, for a small studio it's a risk you can't take when you know that each Console Manufacturer has their own sim juggernaut, I could imagine the reluctance. The fact that Project Cars came and did so well may have served as a litmus test. I still believe they should have been more proactive and that the game should have already been released tbh. By the time they release this I'm pretty sure GT7 and F6 would have already been unveiled and we would have tonnes of footage on these two sims already.

SMS played their cards right and launched at an opportuned time, 18 months away from Forza5 and no Gran Turismo or a sim on the PS4 for that matter. I still want them to release it and give a good effort on consoles. I have no doubt they will sell much more than the 250k on PC, but I suspect they would have a bit more success if they released the product earlier. I still think Project Cars would have done better on consoles if some of the technical issues were much less.

 

[KillerSloth]

I cannot believe people are trying to spin that Forza somehow had much of anything to do with the split..that is some serious mental Gymnastics...Forza is 18 months old and a launch title, and was kind of disappointing to boot. A racing fan is not going to not buy PC over that.

Every game sells more on ps4 because install base. Why did COD sell more on Xbox despite halo launching the same year? There are hundreds of example.

Forza had no quantifiable effect, the install base did.

 

[Sijil]

No, I don't trust these figures because truthfully they can't be trusted. I don't even know why Kinthalis is getting his "pantalones" so moist from this post either. Certain PC gamers like to blow up stats when it suits them and that's what I was alluding to.

Reference a post from our very own PC gamer Kinthalis when the "over" 125 million active users on steam was announced.....


As for steam spy's veracity. I don't trust it because steam spy is more guess work more than anything else, they sample very small sizes of the 125 million steam users and extrapolate. They're pretty much in the same bracket as chartz, perhaps even worse. Most of the accounts they go through are empty and dead anyway and yet anything at all can impact their numbers significantly. You know how many times my steam account have been littered with free weekend games or access to games for 3-5 days. Steam spy usually gives you results for a game after 3 days, so yes, I'm sure I'm an owner or have been for many games I do not own.

Do you know how many pirates are able to activate products on steam through cracked software? Just do a google search about it in reference to skyrim. Any time you're using software to predict numbers/sales on PC it becomes a slippery slope, the best entity to provide that data would be VALVE or steam themselves because they'd be going by actual purchases made. Steam spy is just a guessing game, I think it has it's uses but in no way can we use it as concrete evidence to determine actual sales of a product.

Really irrelevant if you believe in Steamspy's accuracy or not, plenty of devs on this board have already confirmed that the stats are accurate enough and the admins on NeoGaf have allowed the thread dedicated to SteamSpy to continue because of it while they banned sites deemed untrustworthy. Developers also told Gamasutra that SteamSpy was accurate enough (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...asy_to_estimate_sales_for_all_Steam_games.php).

So really believe those stats or not, they're still accurate you just choose to disregard them because it just suits you and at this point I no longer care, I mean if developers themselves confirm accuracy why should I take your word for it? Sorry not going to work.

How many PC only devs are really left. Even RTS/strategy devs are on consoles in full force. I doubt console gamers would embrace moba's but wasn't a moba just announced for consoles? You think Xcom 2 will remain exclusive? that looks like a game that will come to consoles with extra content in 6 months to a year anyway. You do know that the consoles received all xcom games last gen right?

The thing is, not all these PC devs are that great with handling multiple versions of games in development, Even CDPR which praised the consoles for W3's existence could have used a couple of months learning the console's API and how to program for it properly. Perhaps they should have released the PC version call that exclusive and release the console versions in good form a couple months later, I'm also pretty sure PC will always be ahead in the development pipeline since PC is the lead platform for most games these days..

How many? Relic, Blizzard, Creative Assembly, GSC, Petroglyph, DigitalMindSoft, all RTS focues devs that gave released an RTS title in the past two years, heck even Gearbox, a multiplatform dev, release Homeworld remake a PC exclusive RTS,

Then there's Eugene who released 3 grand RTS games to critical acclaim (Wargame series) in the span of 3 years and are working on another, there are far more and I could go on and on from AAA, AA to indie RTS games, TBS and 4x games. I don't see any of those games on consoles, so much for full force, Creative assembly only just made Alien Isolation as a multiplat and now are going back to making Total War Warhammer and another historic Total War, Relic only made 1 console game, Space Marine, and now back to PC RTS and so on.

Even Ubisoft is working on 2 RTS titles.

As for XCOM, I don't care if consoles get it, I'm not some petty platform internet warrior who doesn't want others to enjoy their games, but the point being discussed is that XCOM flopped HARD on consoles so much that a giant company like 2K greenlite the sequel as a full fledged PC sequel without even looking at consoles.

How many console exclusive devs are there left? I assume that Metal Gear flopped on consoles for Konami to finally consider a PC version at this time, same thing for all those AAA devs, namely from

How can you agree and disagree with me all at the same time. Did I lie when I said you mentioned the PC version of Project Cars may out do the almost 600k sales on PS4 in revenue and profit? NO, but yet you are giving a case why you think the 160k does just that... smh.

Did I say that the 160K on PC will outdo the PS4 sales in revenue profit? Please point it out to me and stop putting words in my mouth. My point was as always PC has higher revenue margin on digital sales, FYI Valve gets 0% from devs selling Steam keys on their own website.

Annnnnd... here you go trying to justify the very statement you said I was putting words in your mouth about.

To make such a case you would need more data than what you have here, notwithstanding you're still using steam spy's data which are not concrete and just guesswork for the most part. I'll let you in on something, not every deal with the console manufacturer or the publisher with the devs is equal across every game. It may be so for entry level indies since they have less clout but certainly not so for the big boys or more seasoned developers (or those with a hit already).

So yes, that 70/30% cut that you guys keep spewing is also not concrete, valve may take a minimum of 30% (mostly for indies), but there's no stopping valve taking more or less in other situations, using anecdotal samples/feedback is only useful to get you an idea of things, not to empower you as an authority on sales and data. Almost every game goes through separate deals, but these deals are also all well NDA'd up, so the little bits and pieces you hear (here or there) does not paint the whole picture.

So in essence, you want to paint a picture that Steam returns more to the developer than Sony or MS even at significantly lower sales, now that alone is already way below objective reasoning, but....you don't even qualify it, all you use is a steam spy tweet.. smh. Where is the comparison, where is the disparity? I won't even do the math because I believe that line of reasoning was already very much outttttt there, but like I figured, you can't prove what you say.

Also, the majority of games release at $50-60 dollars, of course the graph will show that, hell, any graph would show that. You think Uncharted sold more at $60 or $20, I mean come on, by the time it was $20.00 or even $30 the majority who were interested had already nabbed it. This is especially true for popular AAA games which also happen to sell the most units anyway. You think there is anybody lining up for a game that launches at $0.99? You think anybody is lining up for Bad Rats (the awakening) at $5.00 on launch.

Please stop using steamspy, it's embarrassing. Also, where are the people saying that the steam sales are bringing in so much revenue to the devs, don't your graph say otherwise to those people, but I can see how some would skew their statements based on their angle. Many times their own stats prove their argument wrong..(not you in particular).

Like I said I won't go into too much detail, but on the console side, I'll let you know that beyond the breakdowns of console manufacturer to publisher, to dev, to packaging, to retail to returns, which is clearly not the same across all game deals, save for the more tangible things like packaging etc.. A dev would receive more money when certain milestones are achieved, either through sales or even a certain Meta Critic score, if both even better. (Note how excited SMS was on both sales and metacritic). Also, not all games are released on disc on consoles, but yet, all games are available digitally. Do you know that digital sales by and large form a significant portion of console sales? What data do you have on consoles as to the digital sales breakdown that require no packaging, no returns, no shipping?

The thing is you never made a case for consoles in your argument, I suspect you have no idea of all the dynamics there, even on the pc side you have no idea as well. All you did was go on non-concrete data on the PC side and use anecdotes (everything is 70/30). With game sales being locked under NDA in many regards with the exception of sales statements from publishers, it's all very grey. You think if you go to Joe Grey programmer from CZ games and ask "is steam spy data correct?" You think he will tell you these guys are off by 1,278,985 sales either way, they're all under NDA man, he will simply tell you that it's in the ball park give or take and be done with you.

You've given me nothing here but speculations from you responding to cold hard data given by me, but of course you scoffed it off by "Pffft it's just SteamSpy". Do you have any metrics? Data? I don't on the console side, I admit that, but on PC the metrics are practically public knowledge at this point, choosing not believe them just because it suits you, well that's just ignoring facts.

The graph was meant to remove the misconception that Steam users wait for sales and that the majority of the big sales, say the 8 million Skyrim units, were sold for a pittance, that graph shows that most AAA games sales are big on release and they do fine for the most part.

You're accusing me of providing non concrete data, regardless of the fact that it was proven to be accurate by many developers and that is being hosted right here on NeoGaf with admin approval, yet you didn't provide any data, at all. If you're going to just ignore that data and scoff it off then there's nothing left to discuss at this point.

There's nothing unfair about this, so you want me to stack PC against PS4 or just XB1, how convenient. How about I stack PS4 only against a 750ti machine, would that be fair.....

This is crazy because there are hundreds of millions of PC's worldwide, perhaps even a billion or more. Do you think Steam figures are all the PC's gaming or otherwise that exist? I'm also sure even the most basic PC can play a wide variety of downloadable games. Do you know that there are other services besides steam that have millions of users (despite some overlap) as well. Do you know that PC retail games are still a thing? Also, there are people with capable PC's that don't use these download services. PC is no underdog here, it's a platform just like consoles are a platform. The underdog is clearly the XB1/PS4 vs PC but yet you think it's unfair.

Yeah and a 750ti machine can play with the same user with a different GPU, hence their the same platform, can a PS4 play with a 360? An X1 with a PS3? A PS4 with an X1? Nope, only in the extreme cases anyway like PS3/PS4 cross platform, hell even the developers themselves call it cross platform for a reason, because they're different platforms.

Numbers of global PC users outside of Steam is irrelevant to the discussion, they're all still on the same platform, PC.

Precisely, which is why users of closed boxes which all comes default with a controller, where every game runs the same on each unit (as per manufacturer), where their online services are standardized (where hacker A can't just go and give himself more xp in a huge RPG or change the leaderboards to suit him.


So yes, all pc's may be able to play the same game and connect, but the experience of each user may be vastly different as well. The standardization of consoles where everybody plays with the same specs is what makes the console unique. XB1 and PS4 is no different in that regard. The different configs of PC is also what makes it one platform and unique (you get returns based on what you pay). Consoles are still the underdog in installbase and the whole idea of segregating consoles is silly. PC is a platform, Mac is a platform, console is a platform, Mobile is yet another platform, don't try to change what has always been for a silly argument, you're sounding very desperate.

Really? We're going to argue that there is no hacking on consoles?

Regardless, that's not what separate platforms since hacking is prevalent, consoles while they have a more controlled network, they're still two separate networks, with a separate user base, separate exclusive games, appeal, honestly that just boils down to being separate platforms. When the devs/publishers/industry itself treat them as such then I'll treat them as such as well.

As I said, I'm sure they always wanted to come to consoles, but it's clear they did not have the financial backing. I'm simply saying that Project Cars may have pushed them or their financing partner over the edge. In this day and age, a lot of games come in, only to crash and burn, for a small studio it's a risk you can't take when you know that each Console Manufacturer has their own sim juggernaut, I could imagine the reluctance. The fact that Project Cars came and did so well may have served as a litmus test. I still believe they should have been more proactive and that the game should have already been released tbh. By the time they release this I'm pretty sure GT7 and F6 would have already been unveiled and we would have tonnes of footage on these two sims already.

SMS played their cards right and launched at an opportuned time, 18 months away from Forza5 and no Gran Turismo or a sim on the PS4 for that matter. I still want them to release it and give a good effort on consoles. I have no doubt they will sell much more than the 250k on PC, but I suspect they would have a bit more success if they released the product earlier. I still think Project Cars would have done better on consoles if some of the technical issues were much less.

I believe every developer wants to be on every platform possible, unless they're first party devs or believe a platform restricts them, I'm glad they found success on PC with Assetto Corsa, happy that they're managing a console version with the sales they achieved.

 

[thelastword]

Really irrelevant if you believe in Steamspy's accuracy or not, plenty of devs on this board have already confirmed that the stats are accurate enough and the admins on NeoGaf have allowed the thread dedicated to SteamSpy to continue because of it while they banned sites deemed untrustworthy. Developers also told Gamasutra that SteamSpy was accurate enough (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...asy_to_estimate_sales_for_all_Steam_games.php).

So really believe those stats or not, they're still accurate you just choose to disregard them because it just suits you and at this point I no longer care, I mean if developers themselves confirm accuracy why should I take your word for it? Sorry not going to work.

Up to you to believe what you want, I never said the steamspy tool is not good, I only said it was not accurate or concrete. It can be used as a gauge like anecdotal evidence is used here often, but not to say conclusively that Skyrim sold 8 million copies on PC. Tbh, I don't even care if Skyrim sold 8 million on PC, perhaps it did, but steamspy is not the source that will make this factual. It is just a tool to give a rough picture, which can also be highly unreliable in many instances.

As for the "developers" who said it's reliable, who are they? what are their names? from what companies, what games. You want to believe this so much, but yet the information is shrouded in mystery and even further anecdotes, facts don't work that way man.

BTW, You know who said that? it was the guy who made the tool himself, he also said steamspy is unreliable, especially for newer games and there are other cases stated too. At the end of the day it's only a tool, it was only a side project. You're trying to push this as if it's the NPD or it's sales data given by the publishers. Read this for some more information on how it's done.
This is certainly not admissible in to factual data, but please believe it if it suits you.

How many? Relic, Blizzard, Creative Assembly, GSC, Petroglyph, DigitalMindSoft, all RTS focues devs that gave released an RTS title in the past two years, heck even Gearbox, a multiplatform dev, release Homeworld remake a PC exclusive RTS,

Then there's Eugene who released 3 grand RTS games to critical acclaim (Wargame series) in the span of 3 years and are working on another, there are far more and I could go on and on from AAA, AA to indie RTS games, TBS and 4x games. I don't see any of those games on consoles, so much for full force, Creative assembly only just made Alien Isolation as a multiplat and now are going back to making Total War Warhammer and another historic Total War, Relic only made 1 console game, Space Marine, and now back to PC RTS and so on.

Even Ubisoft is working on 2 RTS titles.

You're always missing the forest from the trees, this is not a list war. RTS is primarily a PC genre, of course this is where you should play that genre. On the other hand; fighters tps, slashers Jrpg's, platformers, action/slasher/adventure, sports are more console based, hell, even shooters are now more console oriented in terms of popularity in certain regards. That is not the point however, I don't expect every rts to make it to consoles, this is not normally the pallete of console gamers and neither are MOBA's but some of them are still coming regardless. That was my point.

The tropico games have been on console for a while now. Civiization also made it. A popular tpa game like Diablo is now on consoles and some players have commented that they prefer to play it there over PC. In these type of genres only some of the best or some of the more action based games will be viable on consoles, and that's what's happening for the most part. I don't think every RTS or strategy game is viable on consoles, but they're coming regardless, even mobas.

As for XCOM, I don't care if consoles get it, I'm not some petty platform internet warrior who doesn't want others to enjoy their games, but the point being discussed is that XCOM flopped HARD on consoles so much that a giant company like 2K greenlite the sequel as a full fledged PC sequel without even looking at consoles.

Again RTS is primarily a PC genre, If XCOM flopped on consoles, who's to say. Most console gamers won't buy XCOM over a new UC, Gears, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield etc..It's really not the genre that console gamers play. Now if the next UC, battlefront, Halo, FF flops, then there will be a problem. Strategy is a really niche genre on console, so it better be darn good or have some type of appeal. (Whether that be great accessibility and good control)

How many console exclusive devs are there left? I assume that Metal Gear flopped on consoles for Konami to finally consider a PC version at this time, same thing for all those AAA devs, namely from

Too many to list, but that's not the point.

Did I say that the 160K on PC will outdo the PS4 sales in revenue profit? Please point it out to me and stop putting words in my mouth. My point was as always PC has higher revenue margin on digital sales, FYI Valve gets 0% from devs selling Steam keys on their own website.

Yet, you never proved the difference in PC vs Console in revenue margins, yes, because you forgot that consoles have digital stock too. It's very likely that 160k or more digital copies of Project Cars were sold on PS4 alone, then when you add XB1 digital sales and the revenue generated from disk sales it's a no brainer. Of course the fact that they hit 500k and climbing on just one console means there are further bonuses for the devs relative to profit.

You've given me nothing here but speculations from you responding to cold hard data given by me, but of course you scoffed it off by "Pffft it's just SteamSpy". Do you have any metrics? Data? I don't on the console side, I admit that, but on PC the metrics are practically public knowledge at this point, choosing not believe them just because it suits you, well that's just ignoring facts.

Smh.....if this is COLD HARD DATA, then I think I'm done here. And please nothing suits me. You're arguing on simply generated data by a piece of software, with absolutely no reference points to the publishers at all, this is bonkers. 30/70 breakdown on PC is not public knowledge, such information is NDA'd how is it public knowledge? I think you need to concede on this point. Who made that information public exactly?

The graph was meant to remove the misconception that Steam users wait for sales and that the majority of the big sales, say the 8 million Skyrim units, were sold for a pittance, that graph shows that most AAA games sales are big on release and they do fine for the most part.

So now steamspy figures are bonafied, you're using these figures like it was given out by Bethesda or even steam itself. Btw even on release you can get games for a pittance on other services/vendors and redeem them on steam. Again another factor that throws all your better revenue on PC out the door, in most cases you don't even need a steam sale. Witcher 3 was available for preorder for $15.79 on GOG is just one of the things that happens often and are common in pc circles, the list goes on but I think you're being willfully obtuse here.

It's just a bit disingenuous to be throwing "hey you can get games cheaper on PC over consoles" but this time around it doesn't suit the argument. Come on now.

Yeah and a 750ti machine can play with the same user with a different GPU, hence their the same platform, can a PS4 play with a 360? An X1 with a PS3? A PS4 with an X1? Nope, only in the extreme cases anyway like PS3/PS4 cross platform, hell even the developers themselves call it cross platform for a reason, because they're different platforms.

I can play with any PS4 user all over the world. I can even play the games of any PS4 user all over the world if he allows me. An XB1 owner can play with any XB1 user all over the world. No need for a different GPU here, it's all uniform ( as per manufacturer) so we know the only thing in our way is the internet connection.

Perhaps I should try fragging a guy who runs Battlefield at 60fps on his 970 GTX coupled with his fios connection, to a guy running 520GTX running battlefield at 20fps with 512MB upload in Mississippi.

Numbers of global PC users outside of Steam is irrelevant to the discussion, they're all still on the same platform, PC.

No quarrels here, they're all potential customers for released games. PC's installbase towers over the consoles. I also never included the PS3/360 into the discussion, only the lowly 30 million consoles that comprise PS4+XB1, perhaps it suits your argument better if you are able to put the 100's of million PC's against the 10 million XB1's, but do what you must I guess....

Really? We're going to argue that there is no hacking on consoles?

Hacking of leaderboards, xp etc...? not to my knowledge. I don't consider glitches as hacks because anybody can do those.

Regardless, that's not what separate platforms since hacking is prevalent, consoles while they have a more controlled network, they're still two separate networks, with a separate user base, separate exclusive games, appeal, honestly that just boils down to being separate platforms. When the devs/publishers/industry itself treat them as such then I'll treat them as such as well.

Again, the two console manufacturers are different but the thinking behind the two consoles are the same. Each might be going for it's own marketshare, but it's essentially the same, quite similar to GPU's in that regard. Nvidia has Cuda and Gameworks to spice things up on it's side, AMD has it's own set of features (better price to performance) going for it, they're both still GPU's. I only explained what makes the personal computer what it is and what makes the console what it is. I can't put PC vs PS4 then PC vs XB1 as isolated cases, especially when talking about sales. Perhaps if it was technically related, yes, just like I would compare the 980ti's performance to the titan x but surely not everything streamlines across the divide.

Sales is PC vs consoles because the installbase is a huge factor. It's just a tad funny that individually the consoles still came up trumps against PC regardless in Project Cars.

 

[Sijil]

Up to you to believe what you want, I never said the steamspy tool is not good, I only said it was not accurate or concrete. It can be used as a gauge like anecdotal evidence is used here often, but not to say conclusively that Skyrim sold 8 million copies on PC. Tbh, I don't even care if Skyrim sold 8 million on PC, perhaps it did, but steamspy is not the source that will make this factual. It is just a tool to give a rough picture, which can also be highly unreliable in many instances.

As for the "developers" who said it's reliable, who are they? what are their names? from what companies, what games. You want to believe this so much, but yet the information is shrouded in mystery and even further anecdotes, facts don't work that way man.

BTW, You know who said that? it was the guy who made the tool himself, he also said steamspy is unreliable, especially for newer games and there are other cases stated too. At the end of the day it's only a tool, it was only a side project. You're trying to push this as if it's the NPD or it's sales data given by the publishers. Read this for some more information on how it's done.
This is certainly not admissible in to factual data, but please believe it if it suits you.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1022509

First page, Steamspy numbers compared to actual sales data. It has come to a point where you're just shying away from facts. Not admissible in factual data? According yo who? Your biased view? The page I linked shows accurate information in comparison to data provided by developers with a small margin of error, I'll take their word over yours.

You're always missing the forest from the trees, this is not a list war. RTS is primarily a PC genre, of course this is where you should play that genre. On the other hand; fighters tps, slashers Jrpg's, platformers, action/slasher/adventure, sports are more console based, hell, even shooters are now more console oriented in terms of popularity in certain regards. That is not the point however, I don't expect every rts to make it to consoles, this is not normally the pallete of console gamers and neither are MOBA's but some of them are still coming regardless. That was my point.

The tropico games have been on console for a while now. Civiization also made it. A popular tpa game like Diablo is now on consoles and some players have commented that they prefer to play it there over PC. In these type of genres only some of the best or some of the more action based games will be viable on consoles, and that's what's happening for the most part. I don't think every RTS or strategy game is viable on consoles, but they're coming regardless, even mobas.

Again RTS is primarily a PC genre, If XCOM flopped on consoles, who's to say. Most console gamers won't buy XCOM over a new UC, Gears, Mass Effect, COD, Battlefield etc..It's really not the genre that console gamers play. Now if the next UC, battlefront, Halo, FF flops, then there will be a problem. Strategy is a really niche genre on console, so it better be darn good or have some type of appeal. (Whether that be great accessibility and good control)

You asked how many, I provided a rough list.

How many PC only devs are really left. Even RTS/strategy devs are on consoles in full force.

Going from PC RTS devs being in full force on consoles, to some MOBAs and a few tactical games here and there making it over is quite the back peddle. Yes some games such as XCOM and Civ revolution might work on consoles due to their type of gameplay which works with a controller, on the other like Xcom and Civ revolution they were commercial disasters. And the only moba on consoles I've heard of is SMITE which is third person based, of course it would work on consoles given the different perspectives and controls, Battleborne might be the same.

Conversely, historically console oriented developers are now more and more prevalent on PC, Capcom, Konami (Metal Gear), Square Enix, FROM, NetherRealm sutdios, Tecmo Koei, Namco etc..etc.. I mean I could probably count the numbers of games that aren't coming on PC this E3 with my fingers. Arguably more console oriented devs have jumped on Steam than any PC centric RTS dev have jumped to consoles.

Too many to list, but that's not the point.

You were claiming many PC only devs were jumping on the console bandwagon, I provided a list and examples to the contrary as above that most of the PC RTS devs are still where they are, conversely speaking, as I said before, most of the high profile console only publishers are embracing PC/Steam as a third platform.

Yet, you never proved the difference in PC vs Console in revenue margins, yes, because you forgot that consoles have digital stock too. It's very likely that 160k or more digital copies of Project Cars were sold on PS4 alone, then when you add XB1 digital sales and the revenue generated from disk sales it's a no brainer. Of course the fact that they hit 500k and climbing on just one console means there are further bonuses for the devs relative to profit.

www.pcgamer.com/steam-and-gog-take-30-revenue-cut-suggests-fez-creator-phil-fish/

http://www.pcgamer.com/notch-on-why-minecraft-still-isnt-on-steam/

Phil Fish and Notch pretty much confirmed that Steam only takes a 30% from games sold on Steam.

So we have Steam data on what their cut is, you can also buy Project Cars from their website bypassing Steam and netting them around 90% of the revenue (I'm speculating taxes) https://www.projectcars-store.com/row?trackid=10#/cart. Do you have data for the console sales? We all know how popular the retail market is for consoles.

Smh.....if this is COLD HARD DATA, then I think I'm done here. And please nothing suits me. You're arguing on simply generated data by a piece of software, with absolutely no reference points to the publishers at all, this is bonkers. 30/70 breakdown on PC is not public knowledge, such information is NDA'd how is it public knowledge? I think you need to concede on this point. Who made that information public exactly?

I've provided references above for the 30/70 split, unless you think Notch and Phil are in league with me and outright lying. When those two developers outed that information, among others on NeoGaf, then it became public knowledge, hell ask any indie dev on Steam right now and they'll tell you about the split, honestly have you been living under a rock or just denying reality?

So now steamspy figures are bonafied, you're using these figures like it was given out by Bethesda or even steam itself. Btw even on release you can get games for a pittance on other services/vendors and redeem them on steam. Again another factor that throws all your better revenue on PC out the door, in most cases you don't even need a steam sale. Witcher 3 was available for preorder for $15.79 on GOG is just one of the things that happens often and are common in pc circles, the list goes on but I think you're being willfully obtuse here.

It's just a bit disingenuous to be throwing "hey you can get games cheaper on PC over consoles" but this time around it doesn't suit the argument. Come on now.

Well that list only references sales directly on Steam not to my knowledge any sales of keys outside of Steam, yes there are Steam prices that extremely cheap outside of Steam, mainly smuggled keys, that are getting stamped down. But again we go back to data, I gave metrics (which you obviously scoff at, not my problem) you gave speculations.

I can play with any PS4 user all over the world. I can even play the games of any PS4 user all over the world if he allows me. An XB1 owner can play with any XB1 user all over the world. No need for a different GPU here, it's all uniform ( as per manufacturer) so we know the only thing in our way is the internet connection.

Perhaps I should try fragging a guy who runs Battlefield at 60fps on his 970 GTX coupled with his fios connection, to a guy running 520GTX running battlefield at 20fps with 512MB upload in Mississippi.

You've never heard of graphics options? The graphics can be scaled according to the hardware in order to make the game playable and just as there are people with bad connections on PC there are people with lag, latency on consoles that ruins multiplayers sessions. That's why there are minimum requirements a person with a low end PC will have no trouble playing against someone with a high PC in an MP match, higher visual fidelity will not confer any gameplay advantages to the person with the more powerful PC whatsoever, Counter Strike by itself is a testament to that.

The X1 and PS4 have different hardware, different CPU/GPU/RAM configurations, much like you distinguish PC's as different platforms based on their specs then you should acknowledge that X1 and PS4 are different platforms due to the different specs. That's according to your flawed argument, I distinguish them due to their different player base, services and owners.

No quarrels here, they're all potential customers for released games. PC's installbase towers over the consoles. I also never included the PS3/360 into the discussion, only the lowly 30 million consoles that comprise PS4+XB1, perhaps it suits your argument better if you are able to put the 100's of million PC's against the 10 million XB1's, but do what you must I guess....

Doesn't mean they're all video game enthusiasts, there could well over 2 billion machines with Windows installed but realistically speaking the Steam user base is the closes number you'll get for potential customers considering Windows isn't just a gaming OS.

Hacking of leaderboards, xp etc...? not to my knowledge. I don't consider glitches as hacks because anybody can do those.

My PS3 has a custom firmware with Stealth MultiMan installed, I can play hacked COD or BF online without much problems, same thing for my modded 360, give the PS4/X1 some time and the hacking scene will get around to modding the new consoles, it's always been a question of time more than anything.

Again, the two console manufacturers are different but the thinking behind the two consoles are the same. Each might be going for it's own marketshare, but it's essentially the same, quite similar to GPU's in that regard. Nvidia has Cuda and Gameworks to spice things up on it's side, AMD has it's own set of features (better price to performance) going for it, they're both still GPU's. I only explained what makes the personal computer what it is and what makes the console what it is. I can't put PC vs PS4 then PC vs XB1 as isolated cases, especially when talking about sales. Perhaps if it was technically related, yes, just like I would compare the 980ti's performance to the titan x but surely not everything streamlines across the divide.

False equivalency, since both GPU's in the end serve the same platform PC, outside of the special request to make GPU's for consoles. Were you saying that Sony and MS are two developers serving the same console, the comparison would've been more apt.

How could they be the same? You just said right there that the different platform owners are going for different market shares, by your own words they're different. Does Microsoft lump PS4 sales into their own? Does Sony with the X1 sales? Nope, different platforms on a platform owner level. Can a X1 user play with a PS4 user? Nope different platfroms. Can a Nvidia user play with a ATI user? Most certainly.

If we're going by the concept that X1 and PS4 are the same because they share the same idea behind them, well might as well put PC/Steam next to them since all 3 platforms also share the same idea which is to be a gaming platform.

Sales is PC vs consoles because the installbase is a huge factor. It's just a tad funny that individually the consoles still came up trumps against PC regardless in Project Cars.

As hilarious as the Xcom PC sales vs consoles combined. Honestly it feels like you're just doing this to live up to your username.

 

[JaseC]

Phil Fish and Notch pretty much confirmed that Steam only takes a 30% from games sold on Steam.

It was also confirmed when Sega filed a lawsuit against the corpse of THQ regarding CoH2 pre-order sales.

$1,345,301.29 (the stated net figure) - 30% = $941,710.93 (the stated revenue share figure).