PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

[VicariousShaner]

Both PC gaming and Console gaming have pros and cons, and all of us have a PC (or mac, which can still play some nice games anyway), so I don't see the point on arguing which one is better.

[RockyRan]

I completely agree with MasterDex. I grew up with consoles and have only recently taken PC gaming seriously, and I'm nothing short of amazed at what's capable on the PC. Running every game (or almost every game...barring the really shitty console ports) at a solid 60 FPS is a far bigger deal than I initially thought it was, for instance. Very few games run at that speed, and I don't recall any full-budget retail release running in native 1080p either on the PS3 or 360 (there's always a trick to it, mostly through upscaling), and anti-aliasing is just barely present in said games. Like I said, on paper it doesn't sound like a big deal at all, but in practice after spending quite a bit of time with a game on solid 60 FPS with enough anti-aliasing to completely remove jaggies on native resolution you really appreciate the graphics and performance of any game. Everything is just far more fluid and crisp.

 

I'm not trying to say this with any kind of "elitist" attitude, but I don't anticipate anyone who hasn't really gamed with a gaming capable PC for a considerable amount of time to understand any of that. And this is coming from experience. I had no idea what the appeal of a gaming PC was until I got one, and even then it wasn't until I went back to my PS3 and 360 that I truly realized the difference. This is why I don't think a console-centered gamer will ever stop viewing PC gamers as elitist, nitpicky and graphics whores. From the outside looking in, you never understand what the appeal of something like this is.

 

PC gaming, though, is obviously not the end-all, be-all. I'll still keep consoles around, mostly because there are just too many console exclusive games for me to ignore completely and partly because there's something about a walled-garden gaming type of experience complete with its own shiny hardware that will always appeal to me. I dunno, I guess there's where my console gaming roots show

 

But at any rate, it's pretty much why I don't delve into PC vs. Consoles. For me there's just no debate. I have a place and time for consoles and a place and time for PCs. Consoles have their advantages, PC's have their advantages, and I know exactly where those advantages play. No need to argue about things that are crystal clear in my opinion.

[BrainHurtBoy...2]

I'm strongly and strictly in the PC Gaming group here. To me, the pros of console gaming are

1. Exclusives

2. They Work 90% of the Time

Seeing as how I have no major issues with games working on my PC, I don't see any arguments for consoles being equal or greater as truly valid.

Consoles have exclusives, yes, though so do PCs. The gamepad argument is moot, as well, since I could very easily buy a 360 controller to use with my PC, and I am currently using a SIXAXIS.

The PC as a gaming platform has more power, and therefore more potential for the creation of games. To me, console gaming is an outdated system that simply holds no viability in the modern day and doesn't have the ability to keep up with the PC's rapidly advancing pace. Consoles are less powerful, less versatile (no kb/m support), and are holding gaming as a medium back.

 

Now to speak in narrower, more personal terms, I enjoy both platforms for what they have. The PC is my favorite platform, without a doubt, but the fact of the matter is that some of the greatest games of all time have been released on console and console only. While consoles may, in the modern day, be restricting the advance in gaming, the exclusive IPs that are launched on them hold vast importance for gaming's future as a medium. In reality, my thoughts are fairly conflicted. I easily prefer the PC as a platform, but it's folly to ignore what consoles have done for the medium and are continuing to do for it.

[CorgiShinobi]

I think that if I ever get another laptop, you know, six years from now, I'll definitely pay attention to its internal components in regards to gaming capabilities rather than overall performance (though that's important too).

 

While some of you guys are talking about keeping consoles around for their unique experiences, I think I'll be the opposite. I'll pretty much never abandon consoles, that is, if they hold up on their end. The only games I plan on playing on the PC platform at the moment are the Valve games. Though, probably the biggest perk is that I'll get to play the games that have eluded me on the 360 platform.

 

Speaking of advantages, I have to echo Mister Jack in that the PC gamers who saddle up on their high horse for miniscule reasons need to reflect. Perhaps that group feels like PC gaming isn't as big a part of the industry with the flood of console support? That whenever there's a weakness on the console side of gaming, they have to be the shining beacon of PC gaming everywhere.

[deanb]

Well for me personally I'm mainly a PC guy. I'll grab console titles that are console exclusive but pretty much everything else is on PC. Only multi-plats I have on PS3 is ACII n Force Unleashes, both came out on PC many months after release.

Control wise I'll pick whichever fits the game best. RTS, Civ V etc I'll go with keyboard, action games like Arkham Asylum I went with a gamepad. I think either side that sticks purely with one or the other is pretty stupid, use the tool that fits the job.

My main reason for going with PC gaming is that it's;

a ) shit tons cheaper than console gaming

b ) You get really hands on with your games

 

It's a myth that PC gaming is expensive. Everyone more than likely has a PC. So that's £500 or so they're spending regardless. Pretty much all it takes with a modern PC these days to jump from "oh hey I can check facebook" to "Need more vespene gas you say?!" is a GPU, which a graphics card can be had for under £100 and will comfortably play any game you run at it. Whereas to go from "Hey I can check facebook" to "Die Locust, Die!" is £160. Initial savings starting at £60+. Then it comes to the games, brand new PC titles come in at £25-£30 (apart from a few EA n Activision titles here n there, even less if you shop around), compared to the typically standard £40 for the same on console. There's also a ton of PC titles that come out at around the £15-20 mark too that while not top of the line are pretty sweet and fit the price.

Also it's easy to pirate. This has both opened me up to many new games I might not have bothered with before, and saved me from a few duds. Console games it's a bit of a risk on picking up a new title.

 

As for getting down n dirty with games, it's both the fact I can generally mod a game to hell n back. And I can fix a game myself. Any bugs left in a game are generally there to stay on a console title, and they're getting buggy (No idea how any of these companies coped last gen). Unless the dev decides to patch it up you're usually screwed. Whereas on PC you'll have the community patch things up. One of the bigger ones is the Unofficial Oblivion Patch which patches 1800 bugs still left in the final patch of the game. I can get for some people they don't want to be doing this kind of stuff, but I'd much rather have the option there than to be left unable to do anything.

 

 

As for where the "battle" between the two came from I think partly from the whole "versus" mentality of gaming the press like to push, 360 versus PS3, Move vs Kinect, DS vs PSP, WRPG vs JRPG, COD vs BF etc.

I think some of it as well is because once upon a time they were their own thing, you had your platformers, action games n JRPGs on console and you had your RTS, WRPG n FPS on PC. Then they started mingling, and something had to give. And its those things that kinda dirtied the waters a bit. Most games tend to make concessions of the PC parts. No using a mouse to control menus, textures that fit into 256MB VRAM, paying for patches/DLC, P2P multiplayer etc. The equivalent would be buying a modern console game that was built with the PS2 in mind. You'd be a bit bummed because you know it could do better.

And then when you point out that a game could be better, i.e having dedicated servers for multiplayer, someone comes along n calls you elitist*. As MasterDex pointed out if they had half a brain instead of attempting to insult someone they could maybe realise that dedi's for everyone would be great. It's why I hardly play console MP, lobbys are pretty fucking dull. Even duller when it doesn't fill with the required amount n drops it. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would willingly pay for that.

 

I perfectly understand that PC gaming isn't for everyone and vice versa. Thing is it's nice to have the option between the two, but PC is very rapidly getting gobbled up in favour of just mushing it into a single platform. And PC gamers are kicking up a fuss on it, rightfully so, and I think if it went the other way around console gamers would kick up just as much of a fuss. Your game loads up with a mouse to control menus?!, You have to manually fish out a server to play on from a server browser?!, your games come out buggy n require constant patchi...oh wait(at least ours auto-patch, one day console's might get that, hopefully).

 

Now to reply:

@atomsk: What do you mean objects are disappearing? How low you going? Source engine doesn't really have an issue with pop-in.

 

@Strangelove: Regarding the no one cares for AA or fps. I give you Digital Foundry. And that's mainly for consoles. Rarely do they bring in the PC versions even if they exist. They have these Face-Off things where they'll look at the fps, how the shadows look, how quick it loads the 3rd level etc. If no one cared, they wouldn't run the articles. Good reads for some of the editorials mind, go a bit more technically focused than most other sites and articles.

 

@Misterjack: That's hardly the case with 8th gen games. They're just as likely to be buggy. n require patching. It's pretty rare to be able to put a game into the tray and play right away. (compared to PC games which come pre-patched n patch automatically when you're not playing) As long as you don't fuck around, you've bought a game that suits your system, you'll generally have very little issue running a PC game. About the only time I crash a PC game these days is cos I'm alt-tabbing too much, or cos I exited a source game (always "hl2.exe has stopped working". No idea why).

 

sorry for the long post, you guys have had several days on this thread.

 

 

*What is up with this as an insult? "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources." No shit. PC's can do things better than consoles, therefore we'd kinda like if they did. I'd find it much more insult worthy if someone was instead asking to be shat upon and have games come out as half arsed hack jobs. In which case feel free to insult and call them a moron. In fact I've just remembered something else. Off to the innernet pet peeves thread.

[Mal]

I completely agree with MasterDex. I grew up with consoles and have only recently taken PC gaming seriously, and I'm nothing short of amazed at what's capable on the PC. Running every game (or almost every game...barring the really shitty console ports) at a solid 60 FPS is a far bigger deal than I initially thought it was, for instance. Very few games run at that speed, and I don't recall any full-budget retail release...

...But at any rate, it's pretty much why I don't delve into PC vs. Consoles. For me there's just no debate. I have a place and time for consoles and a place and time for PCs. Consoles have their advantages, PC's have their advantages, and I know exactly where those advantages play. No need to argue about things that are crystal clear in my opinion.

Can't say I can add much more to what Rocky said since I have a very similar position. You can tell what sort of gamer I am with a PS3, 360 and a PC right in my face. It been more or less this way for many years, just haven't had a competent PC before December and man... I am in love.

 

I can also see where Dean is coming from on all his points.

[TheMightyEthan]

Control wise I'll pick whichever fits the game best. RTS, Civ V etc I'll go with keyboard, action games like Arkham Asylum I went with a gamepad. I think either side that sticks purely with one or the other is pretty stupid, use the tool that fits the job.

I agree with this 100%. And like I said earlier, almost every PC game that you could conceivably want to use a controller with has the option to do so. Even FPS. *shudder*

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Growing up, I didn't have a cutting-edge console. I had an NES near the end of the SNES's life, and I had a Gameboy. So I did what any reasonable boy would do, and filled every last inch of my father's 256 MB hard drive with games: Sim City 2000, Myst, Theme Park, Asteroids, Might & Magic, Front Page Sports Baseball 94, Flight Simulator 5, and of course TIE Fighter. Well, time passed, I grew older and wiser, and I asked for a bleeding edge console for my next birthday present: the Nintendo 64.

 

Receiving the system along with Diddy Kong Racing as a wide-eyed fifth-grader, I felt like, well, the N64 kid himself. I wore that system to the ground, playing dozens of games over the next several years, even highly anticipating Nintendo's next entry, a goofy-looking purple cube. But it wasn't to be - a studio called Westwood Studios pulled me back from the dark side with a title called Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2. Now, say what you will about RA2, it's a blast to play with friends. That's right, while my poor little 64 sat twiddling its RDRAM modules on its now-dusty Expansion Pak, I was experiencing what consoles would not have widely available for years to come - online play and HD-level graphics on my family's shiny Windows 98 machine.

 

The rest was legend - p4warrior became a PC gamer for real, building my own system, tweaking, upgrading, and following all the latest releases. I did buy a Wii in 2006 and still play it, but only for Nintendo first-party titles and the occasional fun, quirky game.

 

---

 

On a less melodramatic note, I do agree that the console model is outdated and ought to be reconsidered. Even an all-in-one console collaborated on by the Big 3 would be better than the fractured, fragmented mess that is our current situation. Imagine if several large movie studios came out with 3 or 4 competing home media players costing $300-$400 USD each, the movies of each studio being incompatible with the other players, and the studios fighting over smaller studios' support for their format. We all would agree that that would be a disaster, yet we put up with it with video games for some reason.

[Mister Jack]

Um...when you put a console game into the console, it will play. Unless your console has failed or something just went horribly, horribly wrong during the game's development, it will play. It may have bugs, but so will any game, including on the PC. There are plenty of bugs on ANY platform that will simply never be fixed, even with community support.

 

 

Regarding the piracy thing, that is a big reason why developers are becoming more console friendly. PC gamers everywhere got pissed when it was announced that Crysis 2 would be multiplatform. Well, you know why it is? Because the first game got pirated to bejeezus and back. It was one of the most pirated games of that year. Some PC faithful like to think that isn't a big deal, but it is. Piracy rates on the pc make large companies rethink their stance on PC exclusives; that's a fact. If the PC crowd want to be catered to, they need to actually pay for their damn games.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Console games get pirated too, quite a bit actually. And I don't really appreciate you lumping all of us together like that - the PC crowd that "wants to be catered to" is not entirely comprised of the guys pirating games. I have paid for every single game on my PC, and it's frustrating to get treated like a pirate when I support the companies that put out these games. Piracy, while a complex issue, is not a valid excuse to ignore or shortchange the entire platform, especially when you look at the success of PC development companies like Valve or CD Projekt who don't treat their customers like criminals.

Edited May 16, 2011 by P4: Man of the Cloth

[TheMightyEthan]

To further add to that: often console games are up on torrent sites a week or two before launch, but PC games almost always take several days *after* launch before a working copy goes up.

[Mister Jack]

I wasn't lumping all PC gamers together as pirates. I thought that would be a given but if it's not, then I'll just say that no, not all PC gamers are pirates. However, enough of them are that it's still a problem. And consoles have pirates too, sure, but it's not nearly as widespread or as easy to do. It's commendable that you actually pay for all your games, but for every one of you there's ten pirates.

 

As for Valve, they were clever enough to combine their distribution with their DRM. It definitely works for them, but not everyone is going to be able to pull that off.

 

CD Projekt is using DRM on Witcher 2. They also intend to incur fines and/or file lawsuits against pirates. There are rumors of a console port of Witcher 2 as well. They are not confirmed yet as far as I know, but I wouldn't really be surprised if we see it down the line.

[CorgiShinobi]

Now to reply:

@atomsk: What do you mean objects are disappearing? How low you going? Source engine doesn't really have an issue with pop-in.

As in when I'm doing the tutorial in Portal 2, everything is there. I "sleep" and when Chell wakes up in the room "99999..." days later, half (if not most) of the objects are missing. Like, for example, the television though the screen is still there. Wheatley's maintenance rail, the floor, the walls, and etc.

 

I've fixed the issue though. I had to fiddle around with the settings, and for the most part the game runs alright. Framerate kinda chops up, but that's my fault for not anticipating the idea I would be gaming on this laptop of mine.

 

I worry about larger areas though as the beginning became out of sync. I did fix it during the time, but I had to wait for the video and audio to catch up to each other.

[deanb]

At least 80% of games will not just go in your console and poof you're playing. Fair chunk require patches. If you've bought a game new you'll pop it in and their it's a game that's been out a while, where you'll be uploading all the fixes to the game since it first came out, or it'll be brand new and the firs few weeks will be updates to "That game I just bought for £40: The Beta". And every now n then it's a system update for the console. Sure Pc has it too, but 90% of the time it's some kind of automatic updater that assumes if you've got the game installed it's probably cos you want to play it. So it'll be all "you know what, he's doing nothing at the moment, a fix is out, I'll just slip it in while he's not doing much...oh wait, scratch that he's playing a SP only game, best not download it now"

 

As for the piracy thing, know where I said I wrote a bit. I deleted a fair chunk too. Some of it on game sales too. the tl:dr bieng: Crysis sold 3 million copies, making it one of the top 30 best selling PC games of all time. A pretty good feat for a game no one supposedly could run and tons of people pirated. It was cited as a reason for going to multi-plat (definitely by random commenter, not sure if by Crytek) that they had to go multi-plat to get the numbers to afford the game. The game was pretty agreeable all around to have major cutbacks on the original in order to work on consoles. EA haven't been too upfront on sales, but initial figures suggest 700K all around on first week, and VGchartz say 1.5million all platfroms to-date. They went multi-plat and sold less than the original Crysis did on a single dying, pirating, platform.

 

Also as others have pointed out it's not like Console is free from piracy. It has been said many times that it's not so much the piracy in general, but the zero-day piracy that's the killer. Consoles are almost like clockwork, hitting nearly 2 weeks before release. PC games tend to be day of release or a dew days later. The DRM does actually hold them back. Last year one of the top pirated console games was Alan Wake. It was pirated 3 times more than the game sold. Yet no one ever brings it up on consoles. It's pretty much just a scapegoat that actually means jack shit or publishers wouldn't just be doing DRM on PC.

 

edit: Not easy to do? Every single PC game has to be cracked in one of several methods. Console piracy you get a friend of a friend to chip it and you're done. Just burn a disc, pop it in and you're done.

And nope CD Projeckt are not using DRM on Witcher:

http://www.gog.com/en/page/tw2v3

 

Is The Witcher 2 really going to be completely DRM free? It's a brand-new game!

Yes. We will never sell our customers games with DRM and GOG.com is the one and only place to get The Witcher 2 without any form of DRM.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

I wasn't lumping all PC gamers together as pirates. I thought that would be a given but if it's not, then I'll just say that no, not all PC gamers are pirates. However, enough of them are that it's still a problem. And consoles have pirates too, sure, but it's not nearly as widespread or as easy to do. It's commendable that you actually pay for all your games, but for every one of you there's ten pirates.

 

Fair enough, the way your comment read made it sound like the PC gamers who complain are the very same ones who pirate, which is not the case. I don't know that the piracy ratio is 10:1, either. Do we have solid numbers on any of that?

 

CD Projekt is using DRM on Witcher 2. They also intend to incur fines and/or file lawsuits against pirates. There are rumors of a console port of Witcher 2 as well. They are not confirmed yet as far as I know, but I wouldn't really be surprised if we see it down the line.

 

I believe The Witcher 2 will be DRM-free on GOG.com, not sure about other distributors. Also, it's not a problem to me when dev's support multiple platforms; in fact, I think it's awesome that more people get to experience their games. It's only an issue when one platform tends to get shafted because of their support of the other consoles.

[TheMightyEthan]

Also, it's not a problem to me when dev's support multiple platforms; in fact, I think it's awesome that more people get to experience their games. It's only an issue when one platform tends to get shafted because of their support of the other consoles.

This. I don't mind multiplat games, it's just when they shaft the PC version to make it multiplat. I've been playing Dirt 2 on PC, and it's amazing, I freaking love it. It's also multiplat. I did the same with Arkham Asylum, and I have no complaints about that game.

 

Then there's stuff like Homefront, which says "Press A to skip" during cutscenes, even when you're on PC with no controller connected. Can you imagine the bitching if they had left a message on PS3 that said "Press A to skip"? It's obvious they put absolutely no effort into the PC version, and I think PC gamers are entitled to be miffed by that, just like 360 or PS3 gamers would be in a similar situation.

[Mister Jack]

Here is a quote from the president of Crytek:

 

"We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin, a chart leading that is not desirable. I believe that’s the core problem of PC Gaming, piracy. To the degree PC Gamers that pirate games inherently destroy the platform. Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we wont have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore."

 

Whether you agree with his logic or not, he is the president of the company and he shied away from PC exclusives because of the piracy.

 

As for the Crysis sales, three million is a good number but it took 3 years to reach it. Publishers want to sell as many copies as they can while the game is new and full price. In that respect, Crysis was a disappointment for them. According to you, Crysis 2 sold 700k in a week and 1.5 million in two months. Well, the first Crysis sold 86k in two weeks and a million in two months, so Crysis 2 is actually selling better right now, not worse.

 

I had more to add but my post got deleted and I don't feel like doing the whole thing over. This discussion is starting to move toward a whole other topic anyway.

[Mister Jack]

Also, it's not a problem to me when dev's support multiple platforms; in fact, I think it's awesome that more people get to experience their games. It's only an issue when one platform tends to get shafted because of their support of the other consoles.

This. I don't mind multiplat games, it's just when they shaft the PC version to make it multiplat. I've been playing Dirt 2 on PC, and it's amazing, I freaking love it. It's also multiplat. I did the same with Arkham Asylum, and I have no complaints about that game.

 

Then there's stuff like Homefront, which says "Press A to skip" during cutscenes, even when you're on PC with no controller connected. Can you imagine the bitching if they had left a message on PS3 that said "Press A to skip"? It's obvious they put absolutely no effort into the PC version, and I think PC gamers are entitled to be miffed by that, just like 360 or PS3 gamers would be in a similar situation.

 

Oh, I'm with you on that one. I hardly feel like PC gamers deserve shoddy ports. I have an alienware laptop that I love. I feel like people might be thinking that I'm against PC gaming now, and I'm really not. There are just so few voices speaking up for the console side of things in this discussion that I figured I'd do it myself. PC ports should be every bit as good as the console versions, and for them to be lazy slapped-on rush jobs is inexcusable. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is sometimes.

[Strangelove]

PC sales are also really different from console sales. You can eventually buy a game for 5 bucks, even a dollar on pc. That never happens on consoles. Not to mention console games are always 60 dollars(and 50 for Wii). Im sure theyll make more money off Crysis 2 than Crysis 1.

[deanb]

Here is a quote from the president of Crytek:

 

"We are suffering currently from the huge piracy that is encompassing Crysis. We seem to lead the charts in piracy by a large margin, a chart leading that is not desirable. I believe that’s the core problem of PC Gaming, piracy. To the degree PC Gamers that pirate games inherently destroy the platform. Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we wont have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore."

 

Whether you agree with his logic or not, he is the president of the company and he shied away from PC exclusives because of the piracy.

 

I'm sure I've made myself plenty clear on where I stand on the "waah PC piracy" stuff. Even in my last post here. If Piracy was a factor big enough to drive devs away then 360 would have fuck all. It's piracy problem is arguable worse.

 

As for the Crysis sales, three million is a good number but it took 3 years to reach it. Publishers want to sell as many copies as they can while the game is new and full price. In that respect, Crysis was a disappointment for them. According to you, Crysis 2 sold 700k in a week and 1.5 million in two months. Well, the first Crysis sold 86k in two weeks and a million in two months, so Crysis 2 is actually selling better right now, not worse.

 

1million on a single platform compared to 1.5million spread across three with potentially 3 times the dev cost? And as SL pointed out (though I'd say wrong conclusion) PC games get sales, they live long lives. Crysis 1, the 3 year old game, is currently beating out Crysis 2 on the currently played charts. Whereas console games you live strong in the first few weeks or die with a whimper. Half Life 2 is 7 years old with 12million sales on PC (yes, including Steam). I doubt most were in the first week. Compared to stuff like COD where nearly half the sales are in the first 24hrs. The candle that burns twice as bright burns twice as fast.

[TheMightyEthan]

potentially 3 times the dev cost?

Oh come on, you know it's ridiculous to suggest that publishing on 3 platforms makes the game cost 3 times as much to develop.

[Mister Jack]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is more 360 piracy than PC piracy?

[Strangelove]

But who makes more money of their games(not counting Steam, just the games)? Valve or Activision? Long lifespan is a great thing, but the money is what matters. 15 dollar map packs add up very nicely, even if itll get replaced in a year. The CoD franchise alone has probably beaten the Half Life franchise in sales, not by the amount of copies and dlc, but by how much money theyve gotten from consumers.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

But Call of Duty is on PC as well, so that's kind of a moot point.

 

EDIT: Just saw you were referencing Dean's point regarding CoD. Still, unless we're talking about console sales trends vs. PC sales trends, I don't think I see the relevance.

Edited May 16, 2011 by P4: Man of the Cloth

[deanb]

potentially 3 times the dev cost?

Oh come on, you know it's ridiculous to suggest that publishing on 3 platforms makes the game cost 3 times as much to develop.

I said up to. I don't know exactly how much it cost to make, but Crytek have implied that it was much more than the first Crysis, hence going multi-plat to recoup costs. They did develop a new engine don't forget, not like most devs licensing out Unreal 3.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that there is more 360 piracy than PC piracy?

I didn't say "more" I said worse. And that's not me saying, that's developers and publishers. Zero-day piracy is reckoned to be the worst form, and as several of us have pointed out it, the 360 (and more recently PS3) version of a game is pretty much always out well in advance of release. (LA Noire has been available since Saturday if you're on a 360.) I'd grab you an article, I'm fishing for it, but pirates covers piracy on many platforms, movies and sports teams so it's pretty hard to find the article I'm wanting. It's an interview. (but even that doesn't limit it given sports stars and movie stars do interviews )

 

 

@SL: Activiuon make 70% of their money from PC. Activision also output much more games, so of course they make more money on their games than Valve. Per individual unit I bet you Valve makes more. The bonus of not having to sell discs and being able to sell your games for almost pure profit on your own platform. iirc Valve is certainly more valuable. Per employee they're worth more than Apple n Google. They're a private company so hard to gauge. Also don't forget that TF2 has it's DLC, I'm sure there's many people out there who've comfortably spent at least $15 on hats. And once again, There's 8 COD games to the 2(4) Half-Life games. Though on PC they've sold a combined 22million.

 

edit: not the interview I was looking for but:

http://www.microsoft...winterview.aspx

What will Version 3 mean to the industry?There's another feature I didn't mention from the consumer perspective called Zero-Day Piracy protection that we are planning to talk about at GDC. Piracy is one of the biggest problems that publishers have today and, in particular, the leakage of their game before street date. In many cases publishers feel like they lose as much as half of their revenue from pirated copies that get bit-torrented before the game hits the street date. This happens from a number of different places. Somehow the discs, as they go to the manufacturer a month ahead of the street date start showing up on torrents and the like. Publishers don't think that most people grab these titles to steal the IP. They believe they have dedicated customers who really, really want to play the game - now. They have a high excitement level and they can't wait to buy the game on the street date.

 

However, it's very hard, like a kid in the candy store, when they see, sitting there on their PC, the ability to download the game and play it a week or two before the game is released. So, if we can stop the early release of game by using Zero-Day Piracy that can increase legitimate sales for the Publisher.

 

 

Given the prevalence of digital, so the lack of disc based PC games, and advances in DRM, it has really dropped in recent years. Console was there to pick up the slack. It'l all end in tears; OnLive n Co will rise up, no discs, no piracy.

 

edit2: unspoken reason for why zero-day is an issue is because it means word of mouth can get out before release, not just the pre-approved unembargoed reviews.