PC is the dominant gaming platform claims PAX East panel | PCGamesN

Team Fortress 2 update brings tweaks to pl_upward, improves client stability

PayPal spills the beans on the Steam Autumn sale; starts November 26th

Telltale's Game of Thrones appears on Steam for pre-purchase; coming this December

PC is the dominant gaming platform claims PAX East panel

PAX East PC panel

We all know better than anyone that the PC is a vibrant, diverse, and very-much-alive gaming platform. But it’s not just living, claims a panel of PC experts at PAX East this weekend, but the dominant platform for games. 

The PC Gamer-hosted panel, made up of game designers and hardware gurus, dispelled the myth of falling hardware sales signalling the PC games apocalypse, and pointed to massively strong growth for the PC. Yes, yet again it’s clarified that the PC is the one platform to rule them all. Just incase you needed reminding. 

Taking their place at the table were Oculus’ founder Palmer Luckey, Planetside 2 creative director Matt Higby, Star Citizen creator and general space god Chris Roberts, Nvidia director of technical marketing Tom Petersen, and editor-in-chief of PC Gamer Evan Lahti acting as moderator.

Petersen pointed out that despite reported dwindling figures in PC hardware, the Nvidia’s sales were seeing notable boosts, especially in GTX-level video cards: the choice of many PC gamers. Clearly whilst many non-gaming PC users are moving away from traditional desktops in favour of tablets and other post-PC hardware, the market for enthusiast PC users in search of powerful rig additions is growing. 

The power granted by video cards was what essentially forced Roberts into developing Star Citizen as a PC-only title. His vision for the game is entirely in 4K, and to produce a game with such capabilities requires the hardware that only a PC can provide. Star Citizen requires the ”perfect platform”, and that is the PC. 

Petersen noted that the price of 4K equipment is falling all the time. Whilst there may be only a few early adopters at the moment, falling prices could see the PC become the dominant 4K gaming platform within a few years. Considering the news coming out of console land regarding the Xbox One’s stumbling capabilities with 1080p, we could well be massively far ahead of consoles before they’ve even settled into their current generation. 

Such a high set of requirements for Star Citizen makes Roberts concerned for cloud gaming though. During the research stage for Star Citizen, he found that online video streaming suffered from latency too much to be a viable product, and that he couldn’t imagine that problem being fixed any time soon. 

With so much going for the PC there had to be some kind of challenge, and Planetside 2’s Matt Higby was the one to bring it to the table. Interestingly he noted that the biggest challenge to developers on the PC was also the platform’s greatest strength: diversity. An almost infinite amount of different specifications exist in the PC community, and when developing a game for PC you have to make sure that your software will run on almost every configuration imaginable. There’s no ‘norm’ or standard as in console development, and whilst that should be celebrated, it is the biggest challenge facing developers. The issues is made even more important by the fact that the most bizarre combinations of hardware and software are very likely to be owned by the exact same enthusiasts who will buy cutting-edge games. 

This fractured market, made up of home-builds, store-bought, and a mix of the two, is probably why PC gaming hasn’t hit the headlines as hard as consoles have in the past. The launch of the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 were big news; their marketing was singularly focussed on a sole system. The PC as a platform is absolutely massive note Roberts and Petersen, but doesn’t see those headlines because of a lack of marketing and publicity.

Piracy was naturally a key issue to be brought up, and everyone on the panel agreed that illegal software theft was starting to decline, in no small part thanks to digital distribution. Luckey Palmer explained that the easier it was to buy games and the fewer restrictions on them, the more attractive method it was for acquiring games. With simple electronic store fronts, purchasing games is now easier than having to jump through the many hurdles required to make pirated games work. Higby explicitly stated that piracy was an availability and distribution problem, and that digital was the right way forward. Roberts agreed, also noting that whilst digital helps solve the piracy problem, it also cuts out publishers and retailers from the chain, granting the developer a better slice of the profits. 

Petersen pointed out that the PC games industry is worth $24 billion (sales, in-game microtransactions, subscriptions, and everything else) and that that money will be gained by the developers that provide gamers with the best products purchased through the easiest methods. Those that mess around with complicated unlock codes and DMR are destined to fall foul of piracy. 

Microsoft were also in for a little praise, with Roberts praising the multithreading capabilities of DX12 for taking a burden off developers. He did warn though that the company needs to stop focussing on the Xbox as their primary gaming outlet, especially since the company makes much more money out of PC gaming as a whole. Microsoft needs to embrace the PC community. "Consumers might try to abandon Microsoft for Linux because they're afraid of being pushed to the MS app store," he said. He also noted that Star Citizen will be Windows-led, but that Linux support would definitely be made available. 

Finishing up with a look at our close future, Luckey explained the hurdles in creating sci-fi style VR, explaining how framerate was a real issue to contend with. Whilst framerates have certainly gone up, this doesn't necessarily mean that framerates are actually faster. All manner of software set-ups can inflict hundreds of milliseconds of latency to a frame, and that affects VR. Combined with the latency issues VR hardware can inflict, super-smooth VR images are still a little while away. Destroy the latency, and VR becomes perfected. 

Thanks, Ars Technica. 

Login or Register
0
+2
-2
Belimawr's picture
488

yeah you start reading then you see the list of people involved in it.

NVidia has a vested interest in talking down consoles after both systems turned down NVidia over component prices being too high and want to to stay competitive against AMD and this is the main reason for all their recent digs at AMD as AMD has secured a massive portion of the games market, hell AMD sold several million chips in a matter of weeks when the new consoles came out, so with NVidia at the moment it seems more like they are regretting pricing them self out of the market.

then you have planetside a free to play game that milks the ingame shop to make money and free to play isn't a representation of gaming as a whole.

you also have star citizen who are releasing a game when they get round to it, but while they are on they are milking the people who want to play it for everything they are worth with massively overpriced DLC before the game even launches.

then you have Oculus, the people betting on a format that has a history of failure and is dependant entirely on PC to work.

so while they may have some valid points you couldn't get more biased panel if you tried.

2
+2
-0
subedii's picture
361

It was a panel ABOUT PC Gaming and being run by PC Gamer. Of _course_ its selection of panelists is going to be biased towards that topic. I'm not entirely sure what you were expecting?

And these guys are arguably some of the most important figures in the trends affecting PC gaming today. Nvidia basically runs most of it, Chris Robert's the biggest crowdfunded success story, Planetside one of the biggest MMO's, and whether you like it or not, Occulus is big news (enough that the other major players are working on their own systems now) and even the mere _promise_ of something like this is something that's got everyone excited (certainly Mark Zuckerberg, given the insane money he dropped on it).

I'm genuinely curious as to who you think they should have gotten instead? Someone from Nintendo? I was about to say Sony as well, but again, Planetside 2.

The only other really relevant players I can think of for a PC gaming conference would be Gabe Newell (but I don't see how that would be any LESS biased, and he's always done enough advocacy for the platform anyway), John Carmack (who now works at Occulus, who were, you know, already at the panel) or maybe a Microsoft rep (which could have been entertaining during a QA session, but all he would be is a mouthpiece giving the same empty marketing spiel and non-answers. And I'd rather have someone with something more interesting to say).

Although to be blunt on that last one, I strongly suspect it's not that PCGamer didn't want an MS rep there, but that MS wasn't willing to send one.

0
+1
-1
Belimawr's picture
488

just on a couple of points that need pointing out, you say people are interested enough to make their own VR and facebook spent a fortune buying it, that is because they fear the Wii effect, the Wii came out with motion controls people bought it because it was a novelty and something new, Sony and MS both jumped on the motion control band waggon, with neither form of motion control selling well or really getting supported by many people, then Nintendo released their second console and sold less WiiU in a year than Sony sole PS4's in 3 months, just because there is a lot of people following something doesn't mean that it isn't a trend that will be here one minute and gone the next.

also on Planetside 2, it was a dumbed down and I mean really dumbed down version of the original, made by a faction of Sony that wasn't part of SCE and has predominantly been a PC developer, it's only really with the PS4 and the change from SCE to Sony Worldwide Studios that SOE got brought in under the same leadership as the Playstation, but the fact remains SOE's main target audience is still PC, as if they were a true studio on the PS side of Sony their games would all be PS exclusive like Sucker Punch and Naughty Dog.

2
+2
-0
subedii's picture
361

Facebook doesn't fear anything, other than the obsolescence of their previous business model, and are looking to diversify as a result. Zuckerberg basically bought them out after trying the thing himself and grilling John Carmack on it.

For that matter, John Carmack, not to mention a fair few of the VR alumni over at Valve have signed up on the project, not because they want to preempt the Wii, but because they believe there's finally the opportunity to develop the technology to make it work. The investment exists (oh BOY does it now exist) and the ability to tailor the appropriate tech exists. Could be a failure, but it's certainly an exciting prospect. And in either case, succeed or fail there is again, no denying the fact that it is major news right now, to such an extent that everyone else is signing up to it. So it's very relevant that it be represented at the panel.

On a side note: I'm also going to have to disagree that hardcore "Gamers" were signed off on WiiU, Kinect or Move. That was console companies trying hard to recreate Nintendo's original success in getting "mainstream" adaptation.

As for Planetside 2, now you're just going for "No True Scotsman" and saying that this is a "faction" and it isn't _really_ a part of Sony or doesn't count because... they don't make PS4 games.

Sony is greenlighting their projects, bankrolling them, and making money off of them and others (the amount of hype going for Everquest Next alone is pretty nutty). For that matter, I'd argue that Sony in some regards has a pretty close relationship with PC games development. Aside from having studios devoted to it, they've been contributing to the development of OpenGL for both platforms. They've also teamed up with companies like Valve for cross-platform play and promotion in games like Portal 2 (something which Microsoft, incidentally, has been working AGAINST over time).

It strikes me as a bit of a tautology to state that PS4 based sub-developers like Naughty Dog would be working on PS4 titles.

All that, and once again, this was a talk headlined ABOUT PC Games and RUN by PC Gamer magazine. The people at the talk were _going to be_ large figures (or their representatives) in the PC games industry.

Having the converse is meaningless. Outsiders to the PC games industry talking about it is what USED to happen, and it was freaking terrible. Media coverage was dedicated to shows like E3 and the 3 big console manufacturers and their massive marketing budgets, with zero mention of the PC games market outside of the odd person talking about how it was dying.

It was ridiculous, to the point that Valve even had to do their own counter-conference at the time to talk about how the PC has a perception issue in the games media because there's no one major organisation pushing marketing for it, which is what happens for the consoles with major figures coming out to voice their opinions.

But why the heck does it matter that Shigeru Miyamoto says he doesn't care about PC gaming when he knows _nothing_ about the market?

Why the heck am I supposed to take at face value people endlessly quoting NPD numbers in decline when they include ZERO information about Digital Distribution?

When Michael Pachter talks about World of Warcraft on launch and how it'll never even crack a million users, or how the PC isn't as powerful as a PS3, what value is his opinion? He's not part of the PC games market, so his opinion is "unbiased" alright, but it doesn't change the fact that he's talking about topics he knows Jack-All about or actively wants to talk down.

So yeah, given a panel on PC gaming, I'd pretty much rather have people that are directly involved with the market. We've already seen what it looked like before.

0
+1
-1
Belimawr's picture
488

again your missing the point, I never said facebook feared the Wii, I was saying they were trying to get out in front of something that could be a one shot big seller like the Wii was, the Wii sold over a 100 million units, the Move and Kinect both sold that poorly there is very little support for it and MS tried to force it on people with the X1 being part of the reason the X1 is selling poorly in comparison to the PS4. so the point was facebook is getting out in front of it as if it is a massive fad like the Wii the money will only be there in the first few years, if they wait and see the buy price would go up and they would most likely make a massive loss.

it is basically facebook placing a bet on the technology selling enough to make their money back, they don't need a long term success since they got out in front of it and bought it while it was cheap, but then considering half of facebook's value was lost in it's first few weeks on the market I wouldn't class them as being the best people at valuing something.

also you talk about patcher he is a market analyst they all talk bull shit and make things up, they are also the main people claiming VR will be big and that is why all the firms are coming in on it, these are also the same people who said the PS4 wouldn't sell and the X1 would massively outsell the PS4, EA made the same assumption as they originally planned titanfall as a PS exclusive but their analysts said the PS4 would struggle to sell and the X1 would be the big seller so they went over to MS. so really to even suggest an analyst as a person to put on a panel is just total stupidity as they are wrong more often than not as they are basically the same as someone giving out tips on horse races.

also you can claim what you want about SOE but the fact remains they are still a PC developer and a company on the size of Sony not everyone is pushing in the same direction as every faction is ran by different people, this is why Sony has been restructuring since the PS4 as it is only the Playstation, mobile/tablet and high end TV sections that make a profit so Sony is restructuring to sell off their low/mid end TV sector and PC/Laptop sector as they are making a massive loss pulling down the rest of the company. it is the same with MS, several years ago by law MS was forced to separate their games division and windows division due to monopoly laws, so while they may still be under the same MS heading they are technically independent companies.

the point is if you are going to talk the value of a format the point is you want people with a lot of money invested in both sides, put AMD on the panel they have a load invested in the console and they also have a load invested in PC, so really they are in a position where they can talk the merits of both sides, while Nvidia only has the information for about 50% of the PC market and they already had a bad taste in their mouth from the PS3 after Sony found using the Cell for graphics actually gave more power than the RSX chip Nvidia made for the PS3, so really Nvidia weren't even on the ball with the last gen console as their chip was a second choice for most high end developers.

then also you have the likes of EA, Activision, MS, Ubi and other big firms on top of AMD that work across multiple platforms and this actually touches on your sales argument, most of these developers do release breakdowns of sales by format, it is only the charts who are wrong because they are basically working on bull shit numbers anyway, but still they work on revenue when talking about physical Vs digital sales and when you have firms like EA selling the games for twice the price of physical copies they can sell way less games and still make as much revenue, it was the same tricked played by MS to trick people into thinking higher sales as they used the fact the PS4 cost 20% less than the X1 meaning even if the PS4 outside the X1 5 to 4 the X1 would still be pushing into the lead on revenue, it's the same as a lot of firms also publish "shipped" numbers instead of sales so they count every CD key or item sitting in a database or on a shelf and not just the ones sold.

so in the end market sales are all a bunch of bull shit, if you want to prove a point you need to get the big multiformat names in like AMD, MS, EA and Activision as they are the people accounting for most of the overall gaming market and can actually make informed statements one way or another giving them much more credibility.

2
+2
-0
subedii's picture
361

No I'm, getting your points just fine. I just disagree with them, and even on the presumption I _did_ agree with them, I still fail to see how they preclude the previous participants in the panel.

You keep talking about how VR is a fad and that everyone backing it does so with no undertstanding of anything. Fine, whatever. Doesn't change the fact that it IS being backed, and it IS a major focus of the PC games market right now.

Similar for the other participants. They each have a background in the PC market and have the required knowledge to talk in depth about it.

For that matter, you talk about how it's the guys like Pachter making "all the firms come in on it", but Pachter has explicitly come out AGAINST VR and particularly Sony's involvement in it. As have a fair few others. And yet, these are the guys who we'd hear from when we WEREN'T hearing from guys directly involved with the PC games market. And subsequently, they became a self-feeding story on the decline of PC gaming.

Your suggested panel seems to be limiting mainly to the main AAA publishers. The guys who basically left the PC games market for dead at the beginning of the 360 generation and then are scrabbling to get back INTO it having done so, most of them doing it whilst trying to create their OWN digital distribution platforms now. A fact in itself which is a pretty MAJOR indicator of where they feel they've been losing out (nobody tries to set up a complete sales, community, and multiplayer back-end system, from scratch, attempting to hit the level of Steam, without a serious objective in mind).

AMD and MS I'd be interested in (the latter, more for the QA session), but Nvidia is just as relevant, and as I said before, I do not believe an MS rep would have actually been able to answer any direct questions.

Likewise with any rep from a major publisher like EA, Ubisoft or Activision, I do not believe they would have been able to do anything except be on target with messaging, and studiously ignore any relevant questions on previous bad behavior. As it stands those are three I could take or leave. They were short sighted, and quite frankly now they cry fowl over Valve every chance they get because they ignored an opportunity that Valve took. I have more interest in what developers have to say than the big publishers, particularly since the PC games market has been trending _away_ from them as being the mainstay, whereas console side they are the mainstay out of necessity.

Finally as for Sony, nothing you've said there changes anything. You're shifting goal posts talking about Sony's laptop department instead (the gist of which the Nvidia rep actually ADDRESSED, and in fact, has been addressed for some years now. The basics is that all-in-one PC units aren't being sold, but gaming hardware IS, and is growing), you're saying that Sony's online division isn't TRULY Sony for reasons that _I've_ already addressed as not making sense. Sony pays for it, they develop it, they greenlight it, they make money off of it. It's still a No True Scotsman.

Actually, your highlighting of the laptop department is PRECISELY the kind of thing I was talking about earlier. People point to the lowering of sales of all-in-one desktop / laptop PC hardware, and if you took a rep who only talked about those figures you'd be forced to say that PC gaming is dying. Again.

Except, that doesn't make any sense. An actual analysis of this would come to the realisation that

a) More PC games are being sold year on year and the PC games industry is still growing.

b) There was no real need for major hardware upgrades for a long time (so no reason to buy new off the shelf systems), and

c) Actual standalone gaming hardware was still _increasing_ in sales during the same period.

So why would I want someone ignorant of these factors talking about the PC games market? It's the freaking NPD debate all over again, and it took a _decade_ for people to acknowledge they didn't know what they were talking about.

0
+1
-1
Belimawr's picture
488

you comment on the triple A market being a necessity on console shows how little you ahve paid attention to recent developments since the majority of the games on the PS4 at the moment are actually indie games due to the accessibility and support given by Sony with MS jumping on the bandwagon with ID@XBOX. this showing my point you are defending a panel as being the best people to talk about it when these type of panels stop people being aware of what is happening in the larger picture.

it's the same as you say PC software sales are up year on year, so is console software, the new consoles have beat beat the sales records of their previous generations so showing a hardware sales upwards trend and this is the point it is the entire gaming industry trending up, so in reality you can isolate any section of the market you want and claim it is trending up.

I'm not arguing PC isn't doing well and trending upwards with the rest of the market, what I'm against is a bunch of people trying to isolate one set of facts offering no real info to back up what they claim.

it's like you say NVidia is important and want to prove gaming is valid on PC, they could do it instantly by releasing the sales numbers for their chips at different levels, if you work on the consoles last generation have sold about 80 million each (just counting Sony and MS) that is 160 million units since about 2006 so about 8 years, or roughly 20 million units a year, so if NVidia wanted to show they are pushing as far as console where is their chip sales numbers? it would be the perfect way to back up their claims, since the graphics card is more or less the deciding factor if it is a gaming PC or not so Nvidia would be in the perfect place to release numbers to back up their claims, but instead they just make broader statements.

also on the VR, just because people are putting money into it doesn't mean it will work out, look how much NVidia, Hollywood and other groups threw at 3D and people were just as big on how great and revolutionary it would be when it was first starting to emerge again, then with the turn last year it has gone into full decline, so just because people are throwing money at it doesn't ensure a success, just because people are talking about it doesn't mean it will be a massive success.

it's the same as before the launch of the consoles on most internet social metrics the X1 was trending way ahead of the PS4 on people talking about it, but when it came to sales the PS4 is sitting around 6 million while the X1 is sitting around 3 million, now MS chucked a load of money at the X1 and the stuff with it and caused a load of chatter about the console, but when it came to sales it's sitting at 2 to 1 in favour of Sony with a much lower investment and less chatter.

1
+1
-0
subedii's picture
361

- I don't see how the panel stops people being aware. Chris Roberts is currently the very definition of a Kickstarter success, and the panel talked about crowdfunding in general, as well as indies.

- " so in reality you can isolate any section of the market you want and claim it is trending up."

Or down. Which is precisely why I'm against having people ignorant of the PC games market talk about it. You're the one that brought up Sony's laptop division, not me.

- "it's like you say NVidia is important and want to prove gaming is valid on PC, they could do it instantly by releasing the sales numbers for their chips at different levels"

Could be said of AMD. IIRC as with Nvidia they release profit breakdowns and trends. The reason for not releasing discrete individual sales numbers are varied, but generally because they don't need to.

- "so just because people are throwing money at it doesn't ensure a success, just because people are talking about it doesn't mean it will be a massive success."

Again, doesn't matter. It's still extremely relevant to the current discussion. In fact if you say that it isn't going to succeed in-spite of all this interest and investment, I'd argue it's even MORE-so to bring the topic to a panel.

- And as for your final paragraph, that _still_ doesn't change anything I've said about Sony, or their relevance in being on the panel.

1
+1
-0
Belimawr's picture
488

since you keep going back to Sony's laptop division you obviously don't understand how compartmentalisation of companies works since that is the reason I brought it up, but then you also made a comment about you want to hear from developers and not publishers despite developers still towing the publishers line as in apparent by most of the games you see coming from the same publisher as the dev house makes little difference.

you say SC is the definition of KS success, but in reality it isn't, as it stands the only thing it has been successful at is taking stupid amounts of money while offering little in return. what will make it a successful kickstarter if the game comes out to a standard fitting the money raised and sells well. so far it hasn't done anything successful other than successfully taking money from random people.

as for brining up AMD, I never said they couldn't release numbers, it's also why I said people like them should be on the panel as they are pushing a lot more into both side of the fence than most other firms. the difference is Nvidia keeps making claims that PC is the bigger market but never release any numbers to back up their claim. so while AMD could publish these numbers, they aren't making a claim without publishing any info they are just riding the fence selling to both sides.

since you are set on VR being massive, I put this question that no one has ever answered to you, how do you make joe public who wouldn't even wear a pair of glasses to get 3D want to strap something the size of a house brick to their face? this is the biggest hurdle for 3D and VR, but the people bigging up VR neglect this and never address it as they know it would make people more wary on the technology when they realise the vast majority of people see no reason to strap something to their face to do what they can already do just fine.

if VR does take off i will be surprised but saying someone talking against it is wrong is just pointless because history shows VR hasn't worked and people don't want to have to wear something to play games, hell it's the reason firms like MS are even pushing voice chat without a headset as they know people want to sit in comfort the way they normally would.

2
+2
-0
subedii's picture
361

- "since you keep going back to Sony's laptop division you obviously don't understand how compartmentalisation of companies works since that is the reason I brought it up"

Brought it up as a reason for why Sony is actually not being represented at the panel, which again, doesn't make sense. And the example you gave is one that would been largely useless to discussion of the PC games market if we had simply left it at that (something else I pointed out the reasons for as to why). Meanwhile Sony Online Entertainment is a far more relevant party to the discussion in this regard.

- "what will make it a successful kickstarter if the game comes out to a standard fitting the money raised and sells well."

It was a successful Kickstarter campaign, it got paid for in spades and to a level that's normally reserved for major AAA titles. If you're saying that we can't actually have devs discussing KS in general until launch well, extraordinarily few have done so as of yet. Not even Double Fine as Broken Age isn't complete yet, and they're the ones that _started_ the whole crowdfunding boom in the first place.

More to the point, his is also the only one that I can think of that's really pushing hardware. And to top it off, Roberts is an industry veteran of about 25 years, has worked with the major players of the games industry, has worked both inside and outside the games industry, and inside and now outside the traditional publisher model. His input is extremely relevant.

-"since you are set on VR being massive"

*Sigh*, stop right there please.

AGAIN, I'm not saying talking against VR is wrong. In fact I've already said several times that it could fail.

None of that changes the fact that it's still very relevant to discuss. It's generated massive amounts of funding and interest especially in the PC sphere, and that alone means it needs to be discussed. Because whether you like it or not, it's still one of the biggest largely PC-specific stories of the past year.

1
+1
-0
Belimawr's picture
488

but the fact remains SOE until very very recently wasn't even part of the section of Sony that had anything to do with Playstation, it's why most of the SOE games never went to console and why they are still developing PC first, it's also why people where screaming the sky is falling a few months back when they got brought in under the heading of SCE/SWS as up until that point SOE was a separate entity to SCE and the PS brand.

on kickstarter so far there is actually more games that have been canceled after funding than there has been successful releases so while the Ks was successful for the creators of SC, as yet it hasn't done anything for PC gaming or the end users. so in reality as it stands it is no more successful than any other KS that has made funding, on a consumer level, if anything as it stands consumers are actually in a worse position since pay to win ships are being sold for stupid prices.

on the Rift I'm not denying it isn't something that will get talked about a lot, but again market response will be the thing that shows how important to PC gaming it is, it's the same as when NVidia brought out 3D Vision it was going to revolutionise gaming with real time active 3D, but in the grand scheme of things it never got anywhere, loads of large firms pumped a load of money into 3D but it didn't help it be anything more than a short fad and this is my point you can talk up VR all you want, but as it stands it has the same problem that cause 3D to fail to a much larger degree so as it stands they are coming into an uphill battle.

sure the people who have to have everything and spend stupid amounts of money that is just unneeded on their PC will go for it, but those type of people make up less than 5% of the market so the fact still remains how do you convince joe public he has to have the rift and wants to strap it to his face? as this is the thing that will make or break VR, the actual technology has very little to do with it's success.

2
+2
-0
subedii's picture
361

At this stage I'm afraid I feel like you're pretty much ignoring anything I've said in favour of a narrative that I don't believe I've been parsing. So I'm just going to leave it here.

Toodles.

1
+1
-0
Shriven's picture
1761

You're such a buzzkill!

1
+1
-0
Belimawr's picture
488

not trying to be, but it's a very valid point.

even if they just stuck MS and AMD in the mix it would have validated the panel more, but instead they chose to make it entirely of people who don't see the larger picture.

to be fair it would be the same as having a panel of AMD, Sony, Nintendo and MS claiming console is the larger part of the gaming market, my entire point is claims like this only ever come from people who are obviously biased and they could make the entire claim a lot more credible just by adding in a few people who have a lot of money into both sides.

1
+1
-0
Zeusington's picture
25

Agreed. If even console reps had said "Oh, yeah. You kidding? PC is growing. It's a HUGE competitor." then I would have taken that much more seriously than such obvious PR.

1
+1
-0
Belimawr's picture
488

thats my point to go with firms/people heavily reliant on PC it doesn't hold a lot of weight but to move onto people who have a lot to lose on both sides of the fence it gives it a much more valid outcome.

1
+1
-0
avatar
20

While I agree with you on the Nvidia and Planetside 2 argument, I disagree with the SC and VR ones.

Those last two things could revolutionize gaming within a span of 1-2 years. "the people betting on a format that has a history of failure and is dependent entirely on PC to work" is a ridiculous argument to make, as technology has made huge leaps since the last attempt at VR. If they are able to sell a million Rift within the first couple months of release, I wouldnt be surprised.

As for planetside 2, I have no idea why that guy was up there. The game really isnt that great.

1
+1
-0
Belimawr's picture
488

you say those last 2 could revolutionise gaming in the next few years, it wasn't that long ago people were saying the same thing about 3D, they also said it would be different this time as "the technology had caught up" but then they suddenly found the reason 3D had failed time and time again is because once the novelty wears off what reason can you give people to make them actually want to wear glasses just to watch something?

this is the exact same problem VR faces but on a much larger scale, when firms failed to justify to people why they should wear glasses how are you going to justify to the larger public strapping something to their face the size of a house brick? this is the point people miss when they look at VR they see the level of technology and the tech demos, but they never think several months down the line will I still want to keep strapping this to my face? and that is the shared problem between VR and 3D, unless they can actively convince the larger public that they "need" to strap it to their face to get the full experience it will never take off on the scale a lot of people are thinking, as I've said when firms can't convince people to wear a simple pair of glasses how do you expect them to convince people on putting something much much larger on their face?

as for SC if you can't see they are doing nothing other than milking their fan base who seem to have more money that sense with stupidly overpriced ships and other add ons for a game that isn't even released so their development should be going into that and not stuff to sell as DLC, seriously if any other firm was doing this people would be up in arms, hell look how many people bitch and moan that firms put day 1 DLC out for a price, yet you are here defending a firm that is selling DLC long before day 1 is even here.

Alienware - Game VictoriousTurtle Beach
World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor review in progress

World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor

World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor review in progress

Team Fortress 2 update brings tweaks to pl_upward, improves client stability

Team Fortress 2 update brings tweaks to pl_upward, improves client stability

PayPal spills the beans on the Steam Autumn sale; starts November 26th

PayPal spills the beans on the Steam Autumn sale; starts November 26th

Telltale's Game of Thrones appears on Steam for pre-purchase; coming this December

Telltale's Game of Thrones appears on Steam for pre-purchase; coming this December

Layoffs hit Double Fine as unannounced project deal falls through

Layoffs hit Double Fine as unannounced project deal falls through

Civilization Online trailer shows time-lapse of players building Paris, before nuking it

Civilization Online trailer shows time-lapse of players building Paris, before nuking it

Yogscast’s Jingle Jam streams for charity all this December

Yogscast

Yogscast’s Jingle Jam streams for charity all this December

Blizzard revert World of Warcraft dungeon loot changes after overwhelming fan feedback

Blizzard revert World of Warcraft dungeon loot changes after overwhelming fan feedback

Evolve won't charge players for its DLC maps; other DLC won't restrict matchmaking either

Evolve won't charge players for its DLC maps; other DLC won't restrict matchmaking either

The Game Awards 2014 announces fan and jury nominees and categories

The Game Awards 2014 announces fan and jury nominees and categories

Chivalry isn't dead - Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is free for the weekend

Chivalry isn't dead - Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is free for the weekend

EVE Online's

EVE Online's "This is EVE" trailer uses player voice comms to capture the MMO

Port Review - Far Cry 4

Far Cry 4

Port Review - Far Cry 4

Metal Gear Solid 5 screenshots compare the PC and PS4 versions of Snake's bottom

Metal Gear Solid 5 screenshots compare the PC and PS4 versions of Snake's bottom

Blow up spaceships in the name of trade in Wayward Terran Frontier: Zero Falls

Blow up spaceships in the name of trade in Wayward Terran Frontier: Zero Falls

Korean RPG Lost Ark Online looks even more ambitious in the new extended trailer

Korean RPG Lost Ark Online looks even more ambitious in the new extended trailer

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor gets another free skin and a new challenge mode

Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor gets another free skin and a new challenge mode

Dota 2 Nemesis Assassin event paints targets on hero heads

Dota 2 Nemesis Assassin event paints targets on hero heads

Port Review - Dragon Age: Inquisition

Dragon Age 3: Inquisition

Port Review - Dragon Age: Inquisition

Frontier rethink refund policy for those that wanted an offline mode in Elite: Dangerous

Frontier rethink refund policy for those that wanted an offline mode in Elite: Dangerous

Gin and jungling: Snoop Dogg supports fan petition for Dota 2 announcer pack

Gin and jungling: Snoop Dogg supports fan petition for Dota 2 announcer pack

MiniDayZ is a free top-down fan project with the backing of Bohemia

MiniDayZ is a free top-down fan project with the backing of Bohemia

Telltale's Game of Thrones gets a teaser trailer filled with Cersei snark

Telltale's Game of Thrones gets a teaser trailer filled with Cersei snark

Rome II gets four new Greek and Gallic factions today, and one of them is free

Rome II gets four new Greek and Gallic factions today, and one of them is free