When it comes to reviews (which I don't do), I totally hear ya. But DocSeuss also talked about coverage in general, which is why I decided to chime in. I'll grant, I'm not really able to speak to the review part--which a lot of people are clearly passionate about. But I am able to talk about coverage, at least from my personal vantagepoint.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Computer gaming tends to get the short shrift from gaming journalism
- Thread starter DocSeuss
- Start date
When it comes to reviews (which I don't do), I totally hear ya. But DocSeuss also talked about coverage in general, which is why I decided to chime in. I'll grant, I'm not really able to speak to the review part--which a lot of people are clearly passionate about. But I am able to talk about coverage, at least from my personal vantagepoint.
It allows him to do what he wants. He covers games based solely on what he wants to cover and not worry about anything else. The best part of coverage is these videos aren't final judgements. They are literally just his impressions. His gives coverage to the game, some personal thoughts, but ultimately leaves the conclusion up to the watcher.
The downside is there is truly only one TotalBiscuit right now. Would be better if there were 5 to 10 of them. He can only cover so many games.
Of course - but the mainstream audience don't read the specialist press.
As I said in a comment before that one, while the hardcore PC gamers are solid as a rock, they're relatively small in number compared to the amount of console owners.
The amount of people who own a PC is pretty much everyone ever.
The amount of people who own a hardcore PC is reasonably tiny, not enough to sustain basing your entire output on anyway.
Ok, challenge accepted. I've written extensively about this on the WSJ, so my data sources are out there. But what hard data are you speaking to? If you can show me comparable data that's meaningfully different from what I've seen (again, NPD, SuperData, PwC), then I'm happy to read through it.
Honestly, I feel like there's not enough data out there and I'm constantly looking for more. So I'm really excited to read what you have.
Giant Bomb is a little different in that their PC focus isn't on genre's like RTS, and more on the long list of older PC titles. They're a video focused site and new games come out on PC every week. Even their GDC coverage this year had mostly people who are PC developers first with a desire to get on consoles second.
Point being, a site like Giant Bomb isn't really having that kind of focus out of an actual change in direction, but from a desire to follow where the most quality content is being produced. For better or worse, a ridiculous amount of PC games release weekly, which is very beneficial for a video content focused site like GB.
Quick looks on their site are really effective in getting across the message of a game with initial impressions. However on a site like IGN or Gamespot that has multiple branches producing all sorts of video content, it's a lot harder for that sorta stuff to stand out, so I understand the lack of focus on that front.
Point being, a site like Giant Bomb isn't really having that kind of focus out of an actual change in direction, but from a desire to follow where the most quality content is being produced. For better or worse, a ridiculous amount of PC games release weekly, which is very beneficial for a video content focused site like GB.
Quick looks on their site are really effective in getting across the message of a game with initial impressions. However on a site like IGN or Gamespot that has multiple branches producing all sorts of video content, it's a lot harder for that sorta stuff to stand out, so I understand the lack of focus on that front.
Great post, OP.
I think you really do hit the nail on the head about the shift from enthusiast PC gaming journalism to fan-oriented console journalism. Back in the day, I was an avid reader of PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World for the good insight into the game development process, learning about the hardware and technical side of the hobby, and coverage of a wide genre of games. Modern console-focused game journalism seems quite superficial in comparison, almost like you're reading straight from the publisher's PR releases. To be fair, this also reflects the decline in games journalism as a whole.
I think you really do hit the nail on the head about the shift from enthusiast PC gaming journalism to fan-oriented console journalism. Back in the day, I was an avid reader of PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World for the good insight into the game development process, learning about the hardware and technical side of the hobby, and coverage of a wide genre of games. Modern console-focused game journalism seems quite superficial in comparison, almost like you're reading straight from the publisher's PR releases. To be fair, this also reflects the decline in games journalism as a whole.
The market dictates what is published, written and covered. You already acknowledged this more or less. So it is not out of bias, or hate. If IGN could write endless articles about some PC game and get insane amount of page views, they would. We all know they would, so would every other publication.
There might be 94 billion League of Legends players, but a very small fraction of them give a shit to read what some journo thinks about their game or any other PC game. WoW players hang around official Bnet forums, MMO champ and Arena Junkies, they do not care about IGN, Gamespot, Gametrailers or anyone else. Shane Satterfield even noted years ago that he wasent even sure why they were producing a WoW Expansion video review, because that community did not care what they think anyway.
There seems to be a divide in the PC gaming community, where there is no central hub for everyone to gather around, perhaps because of negligence through the years, so they stick with communities and sites that only cover their own game. So sites that cover little bit of everything never get their traffic. Thus no content is produced for them.
Everyone on GAF knows these sites, because consoles are pretty prominent in this community, everyone more or less knows who Jeff Gerstmann is here. But you go ask in a random game of WoW, Minecraft or League who or what "Giant Bomb" is and i bet very few players will even recognize what it is.
This divide is nothing new, back in late 90s i used to hang around PlanetQuake, Heat forums, Diabloii.net, TeamLiquid and many other game specific places because they were the biggest sites for these specific games. Fan sites certainly have existed for popular console games, but they were nowhere near as big as PlanetQuake, TeamLiquid etc.
Maybe i am projecting how i play and enjoy PC games compared to how i play and enjoy console games. But i dont sit around and play a console game for 4-5+ years, whereas i have played Brood War, Diablo 2, Unreal Tournament, Quake 2, WoW for years on end. So having a more hardcore and indepth place was preferably to IGN telling me awkwardly how to Zerg rush in Starcraft or GameTrailers giving me Arena tips for WoW. Perhaps this is how many players treat PC gaming differently, hence the popularity of those game/series specific sites.
There might be 94 billion League of Legends players, but a very small fraction of them give a shit to read what some journo thinks about their game or any other PC game. WoW players hang around official Bnet forums, MMO champ and Arena Junkies, they do not care about IGN, Gamespot, Gametrailers or anyone else. Shane Satterfield even noted years ago that he wasent even sure why they were producing a WoW Expansion video review, because that community did not care what they think anyway.
There seems to be a divide in the PC gaming community, where there is no central hub for everyone to gather around, perhaps because of negligence through the years, so they stick with communities and sites that only cover their own game. So sites that cover little bit of everything never get their traffic. Thus no content is produced for them.
Everyone on GAF knows these sites, because consoles are pretty prominent in this community, everyone more or less knows who Jeff Gerstmann is here. But you go ask in a random game of WoW, Minecraft or League who or what "Giant Bomb" is and i bet very few players will even recognize what it is.
This divide is nothing new, back in late 90s i used to hang around PlanetQuake, Heat forums, Diabloii.net, TeamLiquid and many other game specific places because they were the biggest sites for these specific games. Fan sites certainly have existed for popular console games, but they were nowhere near as big as PlanetQuake, TeamLiquid etc.
Maybe i am projecting how i play and enjoy PC games compared to how i play and enjoy console games. But i dont sit around and play a console game for 4-5+ years, whereas i have played Brood War, Diablo 2, Unreal Tournament, Quake 2, WoW for years on end. So having a more hardcore and indepth place was preferably to IGN telling me awkwardly how to Zerg rush in Starcraft or GameTrailers giving me Arena tips for WoW. Perhaps this is how many players treat PC gaming differently, hence the popularity of those game/series specific sites.
Haunted
Member
Very good post.
From the circumstances described, I assume OP is in the US, yes?
The situation is slightly better in Europe, where computer gaming is still just as prevalent than the console counterparts, but it's still not ideal. I get where you're coming from. It can be frustrating.
From the circumstances described, I assume OP is in the US, yes?
The situation is slightly better in Europe, where computer gaming is still just as prevalent than the console counterparts, but it's still not ideal. I get where you're coming from. It can be frustrating.
This is another problem with the way the US entertainment press works.
I'm a business journalist, so I naturally am inclined to focus on the big players and industry trends. I can't speak to the nature of other people's work.
giantbomb is a site built around its personalities. it's very hard to put any idiosyncratic flare into a playthrough of ultra polished AAA people mover #12, so it's natural for their content to ride gaming's unclaimed frontier.
Number of users is one datapoint, but I'm definitely focused on worldwide and US revenues. That's what I originally posted, and what I was under the impression you had said was wrong. Boxed sales are only one part of this--Between the three data sources I noted earlier, I'm keeping track of boxed sales, digital download sales and free-to-play/in-app purchases, and my original comment is based on that data.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. PC gaming is great, sure, but regardless of how large it may appear to be, it is still an enthusiast market. You can't expect the mainstream media for gaming to bother covering niche games when their largest audience are most likely console gamers.
grandwizard
Member
I'm reminded of how games journalist Patrick Klepeck had to literally have a pre built PC sent to him by a reader before giving PC gaming a chance. It has since become the source of most of his video content due to the sheer numbers of indie games and horror games on the platform, which are genres he is into.
I simply don't get how you can claim to cover games and ignore such a giant section of the market, just because it isn't convenient.
I simply don't get how you can claim to cover games and ignore such a giant section of the market, just because it isn't convenient.
I think he meant letting readers know that such games exist. Many sites don't mention them at all, not a trailer, not a video, nothing. Thus the readers won't learn about them unless they stumble upon it by chance (be it when browsing the Steam store, Youtube or whatever) or someone recommends it to them/posts about it on some forum. Of course, it's not a gaming site's job to promote PC-only games, but it wouldn't hurt to at least acknowledge their existence.
For example, I could imagine an article showing the best mods for a bunch of games, or providing configuration tips for different specs or to achieve the best possible graphical quality, things like that.
I don't think that's because there aren't enough of a hardcore audience but because the PC gaming audience plays games differently than the average console gamer.
The average PC gamer is much more likely to have few games he has been playing for years suplemented by smaller games that can't sustain a site since they are smaller games, (and your average 10 hour action game will usually count as smaller game in terms of player numbers on PC).
In return, there are sites that are able to sustain themselves just covering one game. Which you rarerly see for console games.
Abdul Hafeez
Member
As someone who mostly sticks with Giantbomb for games coverage, I haven't had this problem. They cover a lot fewer stuff than most websites, but they usually cover a larger variety, including PC exclusives. They just don't have the staff numbers to get articles/reviews about everything they cover so they tend to cover games in many of their video series. I do sometimes cringe when IGN editors are like "hey x game is coming to y console/handheld platform and it's totally awesome" when that game had been on PC for at least a year. It's just weird that they don't even try to play indie games on PC, which is where most of them come first. And indie games obviously don't require a dedicated GPU. Any modern laptop with Intel integrated graphics will play them without a single problem. The myth that PC gaming is janky and difficult is alive and well.
I think the real problem is that a lot of PC-only gamers don't really need coverage because they're already pretty aware of most things in that space. But that might be a massive assumption on my part. Secondly, with the exception of Valve and Blizzard, no massive company spends a ton of money on the PC market. Throughout the year, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo (not to mention third-party publishers) spend tens of millions of dollars just on marketing their products. This creates a massive amount of hype that the PC lacks. And even though most games that show up at E3 or Gamescom or any of the PAXes will come to PC, it's not the main focus. Just this past weekend, Transistor from Supergiant Games was shown on PS4 at PAX East even though it's also coming to PC. And now a lot of people will forget that there is a PC version because their most recent exposure to that game was on PS4. So it's tiny things like that multiplied by a thousand that make it seem like consoles are more important. When in reality, the two markets (PC and console) have largely different audiences.
I think the real problem is that a lot of PC-only gamers don't really need coverage because they're already pretty aware of most things in that space. But that might be a massive assumption on my part. Secondly, with the exception of Valve and Blizzard, no massive company spends a ton of money on the PC market. Throughout the year, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo (not to mention third-party publishers) spend tens of millions of dollars just on marketing their products. This creates a massive amount of hype that the PC lacks. And even though most games that show up at E3 or Gamescom or any of the PAXes will come to PC, it's not the main focus. Just this past weekend, Transistor from Supergiant Games was shown on PS4 at PAX East even though it's also coming to PC. And now a lot of people will forget that there is a PC version because their most recent exposure to that game was on PS4. So it's tiny things like that multiplied by a thousand that make it seem like consoles are more important. When in reality, the two markets (PC and console) have largely different audiences.
Sentenza
Gold Member
Yeah, no, sorry, I'm not going to work on a business reportage for you fishing from news released all over the last three years just because you "accepted the challenge", whatever that's supposed to mean.
I'm not making shit up and I'm not talking about anything new, nor obscure and mysterious.
This isn't even a particularly new topic. We had DOZENS of threads about the size of these market fragments on this very forum and you could probably track back loads of data and well-developed arguments just checking Opiate's post history, as he apparently loves to dive in and destroy people's expectations every single time those baseless claims on the "self-evident prevalence of consoles" are thrown around.
Regarding sales discussion, this reply from Opiate seems relevant (from another thread).
This is from 2012, which makes Nvidia's reported 24 billion figure seem fairly reliable.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04...-24-billion-dollars-yearly-revenue-estimated/
The PC Gaming alliance is the best we have for estimating PC gaming revenues: http://pcgamingalliance.org/
Relevant chart from 2012:
Estimates from the same year by DFC Intelligence (the analyst group cited in this thread) also reached the 20B figure:
http://www.develop-online.net/news/pc-games-achieved-record-20bn-revenue-in-2012/0114418
This is from 2012, which makes Nvidia's reported 24 billion figure seem fairly reliable.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04...-24-billion-dollars-yearly-revenue-estimated/
TechnicDownfall512
Banned
PC GAMING NEEDS GOOD EXCLUSIVES, NOT JUST DECENT ONES, I'M TALKING ABOUT HALO KIND OF EXCLUSIVES.
Trust me, I do my best to keep abreast of all the data out there and keep my eyes out all the time. But I don't catch it all. And moreover, you claim to know something I don't. If you aren't willing to point to it, I don't really know what else to say.
This is interesting, thank you. I'll take a closer look at this. Appreciate the link.
Are you comparing retail sales? Where do you get data for digital (where the majority of the PC market is)?
We could take an example like BF4, the PC player counts beats every console version consistently except for the PS4. It often manages to pull ahead of the PS4 depending on the time of the day.
Battlefield is one of the most mainstream console titles out there. But I say all this, and when we look at player counts for other PC games such as Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - not a particularly mainstream series these days by console definitions - it has 2.6 times the current player count than the current largest platform for BF4. A hair under the combined player count for *all* console versions (last + current gen) combined (at time of posting).
And CSGO is tiny compared to the biggest PC games. The PC market doesn't exist in places where your tradition consoles do, you don't see Steam sales in NPD, you don't see League of Legends or DoTA represented there, etc.
http://bf4stats.com
http://store.steampowered.com/stats
Sentenza
Gold Member
Well, someone else apparently preceded me.
You can start checking post #72 just above.
And that's just one source out of many making very similar estimations in the last three years.
It would be nice if the press wasn't just free marketing for publishers.
Even on GAF you see people react to spec requirement threads and say "welp, going console then" because they can't max out a game.
Imagine if a site like IGN posted some screens of a decent rig playing a game on with a mix of medium/high settings and shows how it outclasses what you could get on consoles anyway
but then they wouldn't be allowed to get free ipads or consoles at the next event, so that'll never happen.
Even on GAF you see people react to spec requirement threads and say "welp, going console then" because they can't max out a game.
Imagine if a site like IGN posted some screens of a decent rig playing a game on with a mix of medium/high settings and shows how it outclasses what you could get on consoles anyway
but then they wouldn't be allowed to get free ipads or consoles at the next event, so that'll never happen.
jaundicejuice
Member
One of the first things I thought of whilst reading the OP.
http://www.lar.net/2014/03/07/educating-players/
If we're talking about PC vs Console, shouldn't you lump all the console versions of BF4 together vs the PC? Why just cherry pick the PS4 version?
Edit: PC is currently at 38,677. Consoles combined is currently at 124,120.
I'm not talking about PC vs Console - I'm pointing out the significance of PC even in mainstream titles like Battlefield 4. It isn't "this is bigger than this" it's - "look, this thing you're saying is a fraction of consoles is competing well in the areas you're saying it is so much smaller in".
Sentenza
Gold Member
Uh, no?
Actually, it's the other way around; that's what usually happens and I still have no idea why that's the case, as it doesn't make any sense.
As I mentioned earlier, I use a combination of data from NPD, SuperData (which tracks PC) and PwC (which tracks PC disk and digital sales). I also keep track of what individual companies say, of course. DoTA, LoL, WoT, CSO and others are hard ones because of course, player counts don't = $$.
there's been tons of data published on (insane) revenues from those games, i remember seeing a thread about it just a few days ago
yep, cuz 4v1 is a fair comparison.
Even League of Legends probably looks small when you compare the playerbase of every active multiplayer game across all 6 six consoles.
That's simply not true.
1) Steam accounts are growing at a rate faster than Xbox Live and PSN.
2) The most-played video games in the world are PC games.
3) Money spent on computer gaming is growing quite a bit. A year or two ago, a higher-up at EA said that the PC may become their biggest platform, based on the way things are growing. He's not the only one.
Right. How many retrospectives are you going to get of that? NOT MANY. Meanwhile, you'll get random stuff about Zelda pretty much all the time. Even just generic retrospectives or whatever are going to talk about it. And ffs, System Shock 2 is literally one of the most influential games ever made, with most of this-gen's biggest titles borrowing mechanics from it in some way, shape, or form. Zelda's influence is nothing compared to SS2 (what, mechanics like Z-targeting and repetitive dungeon design? Obsolete and frequently complained about).
Not trying to disparage Zelda here. It's a bit like saying Jaws isn't as great as The Godfather. They're both EXCELLENT. System Shock 2 just has way more of an impact, and it was pretty much completely ignored on its rerelease.
It's not just technical stuff. The journalists I mentioned as awesome? They're the kind of people who understood how games worked, well enough, in many cases, to make their own. A lot of the console-oriented games journalists write critiques that are pretty much "um, well, I had fun playing it, and it looked nice." Understanding the underlying ideas behind a work of art leads to good criticism.
Some of the best film critics that have ever lived also happen to be some of the best filmmakers. If we want better reviews, then we need the kind of people who actually care about how games are made, designed, and work. We don't get nearly enough of that.
Thanks. I realize it was long, and ran out of time to throw some pictures in to break up the flow. I am just in a tremendous amount of pain and wanted to distract myself.
What bugs me is that RPS and PCG are the only people who cover this stuff. We should see general gaming websites cover it, and we don't. It's a bunch of people who grew up with console games, and who tend to use macs rather than build their own computers, covering this stuff. People who liked playing games. Some of the writers I'm quick to criticize are people who show now interest in the way games work, just their personal response to them. What they don't get is that their response is influenced by how these games are designed--it's like they don't care about understanding their impressions.
The data I've seen indicate that this is far from the truth. If I can get some time--and I probably won't, I've got three or four massive projects to work on this week.
Again, part of it's just about coverage. We see spikes in sales when these games get coverage. When do they get coverage? Most often when they're going to get a console version. What we have are primarily console gamers not paying attention to games until these games hit the platforms they prefer--then these people go off and write about them, so the consumers become aware of said games. "People don't read about PC games that much" is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On Twitter, right now, a dev has posted a question asking whether it's common to get requests for console codes after the PC version has already been reviewed. In all my time, I've seen a great deal of sites go back and review a game once it's rereleased on consoles--I don't think I've ever seen a site review the PC version.
Games journalism is VERY MUCH "meh, I don't care--oh, now it's on consoles? Sure, let's cover it!"
1. I have spoken with indies who have been flat-out refused.
2. I pitched several articles to some sites recently. One site accepted some stuff, but rejected a piece of mine about one of the weirdest indie games in development right now (and its designer has a really cool personal story, I think, as he's very much an outsider to games), on the grounds that they'd "covered it before." The only article they had was one for the Kickstarter. This same site has run about 30-40 articles on various Pokemon-related stuff (including multiple reposts of dorkly comics) during 2014.
I feel that this is pretty typical of games coverage on the whole. "Sure, we'll post whatever we can find about pokemon games, even just fanart or whatever, but there's no way we want a feature on an upcoming indie game." When I hear that the biggest gaming publications in existence are saying "no, we won't talk about your game, or even mention your Kickstarter," this says, to me, "this is a problem."
Very little of this will give you PC figures, because digital distributors do not report their sales figures, most of the time. A good way to see where things are is to look at the quarterly financial reports of publishers by breakdown. We've seen a push towards Steamworks by many large publishers--Sega, for instance, actually went back and converted Company of Heroes to Steam, though they had no obligation to do so. Many games are removing GFWL, or engaging in better port practices, and their sales are growing. Several large publishers have indicated that the PC makes a great deal of their money--iirc, Ubisoft, Bethesda, and EA have all said things to this effect. For smaller games, read up on postmortems by their developers.
iOS, for instance, gets a TON of coverage. A TON. I believe it was fellow gaffer chubigans, who released his game Cook, Serve, Delicious on iOS, who said that he might as well have not wasted the time porting his game to mobile devices. It wasn't worthh the cost of the time it spent. He made most of his money on computers, specifically through Steam.
Even random, obscure iOS games (that are good!) get plenty of coverage.
I gotta admit, I'd be bad at talking about retro computer gaming. My personal forte is from the mid-90s onward. But I wish more people talked about it.
You're right. What we tend to see is consoles selling more at launch, but PC games selling more in the long run. The money spent on PC gaming is ridiculously high, and growing.
Spoke with someone who worked on the project about it.
What you're looking at is something approaching about 75% of all sales being on Steam, and 12-13% for both consoles. The PC SKU sold waaaay better, and basically saved the ompany.
actually at this point LoL probably dwarfs the active communities for every console multiplayer game put together
Hellsing321
Member
I think the places people go to get coverage of games is changing now. instead if reading a preview on IGN people will watch a YouTube personality or a Twitch stream. I also think the extended generation pushed more journalists to the PC. Giant Bomb's PC coverage has increase substantially over the past 2 years compared to when they started.
League alone is bigger than all of xbox live and by quite a margin.
FriedConsole
Banned
PC game coverage has never been greater. It is amusing to see all the people jumping to PC gaming now that it is trendy again and then complain about the coverage for it.
Way to conform to the stereotype PC superiority complex OP.
Way to conform to the stereotype PC superiority complex OP.
Because each console is not the same FFS!
Games binaries for a PS4 will not work on a XB1. Games have to be programmed for a console, pass what ever technical requirements a console maker sets out and pay their fees to the console maker for each console.
Using the numbers from all consoles combined to shit on the PC is crap that only console fanboys do.
Sentenza
Gold Member
No, that's not what I meant.
I mean, there's that too, but my point was a bit different. To recap:
- Consoles tend to sell a lot of copies with few, selected heavy hitters.
- On PC you have hundreds of different games that build their own niche over time. Some of those are more or less negligible and/or even complete failures, of course. Still, a lot of "mid-tier" and indies games find a very fertile ground to build their own success, even if not necessarily on a scale deserving a nine columns title with exclamation marks.
I have a feeling that there wouldn't be a huge number of Animal Crossing articles (I don't know if that is true or not) if they didn't get enough hits to be worthwhile. There might be some writer-bias there too, but do you really want articles written by someone who is not interested or knowledgeable in the subject matter at all? Hiring someone who is interested, like you suggested, even "below the poverty line" might not even guarantee a return in investment. It's hard to tell when you don't know any of the numbers.
grandwizard
Member
CSGO is a good example to use here. Compare it to Halo 4, the latest Halo game. Both of these games came out in 2012. Going by this population graph, Halo 4's numbers these days are about ~15k. CSGO on PC regularly peaks at 130+k nowadays, two years post-release. Would you say these games got similar levels of hype/coverage? I wouldn't, especially with CSGO having a PC focus and being a historical PC series. And it is clear the market hasn't followed only that which the games press judges to be hot, maybe if they did give it it's fair due of coverage they would have gotten the clicks they so desire, because there is clearly a huge base of people interested in the game.
Also, the recent Steam statistics published by ArsTechnica showed Borderlands 2 sales to be 3.2 million on PC , where the last time they talked overall sales they said 8.5million total. That would make PC sales a huge and significant chunk of the total. I think a lot of games press underestimate how the PC market is doing.
I think this post here sums it up. Your average LoL, Dota or whatever PC exclusive game player doesn't give a shit about media coverage, and the press goes the other way. It's a chicken/egg situation, I think.
OP has it absolutely right. Seeing Dragon Warrior and Kentucky Route Zero outright ignored by so many outlets is very disappointing. I expect a console-focused site like GAF to overlook them but I always hope for more unbiased coverage from general review sites.
RPS isn't perfect by any means but I'm so glad that they exist to shine a light on PC exclusives.
RPS isn't perfect by any means but I'm so glad that they exist to shine a light on PC exclusives.
True, but the question is that in aggregate, are they larger than aggregate sales for consoles? From the data sources I've seen so far, the answer is no, but I'm keeping my eye out.
robovanburen
Member
A rant that grossly generalizes about the attitudes of hundreds of journalists?
Game sites talk a lot about PC games. Minecraft, DayZ, Rust, League of Legends, Dota 2, and Elder Scrolls Online are some of the current examples. Do some of the smaller indie games get lost in the shuffle? Yes but that happens for every platform, even consoles.
Game sites talk a lot about PC games. Minecraft, DayZ, Rust, League of Legends, Dota 2, and Elder Scrolls Online are some of the current examples. Do some of the smaller indie games get lost in the shuffle? Yes but that happens for every platform, even consoles.
I'll make sure to watch it. Thanks for the link!