EPTA Legacy of Distinction - Page 4
| Forum Index > Final Edits |
|
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
| ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote: Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard. I have to take issue with this. In your article you said the PC market was dead, you did not say that it was small relative to the console market. To support your statement you would need to show that in the previous years the PC market was larger than what it was in 98. I would be surprised if you could show that. The data you provide here does not support your claim. It supports a completely different claim that you did not make in the article. Other than that, I think it was a very well written article. | ||
|
deathgodtoss
Korea (North)189 Posts
| ||
Arrian
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 08:56 Mastermind wrote: To support your statement you would need to show that in the previous years the PC market was larger than what it was in 98. I would be surprised if you could show that. The data you provide here does not support your claim. It supports a completely different claim that you did not make in the article. Other than that, I think it was a very well written article. This is because the PC market just started around then, when developers tried to figure out how they could use it. When they realized it had almost no advantages over the consoles, until online play came around. EDIT: Hang on. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
On April 08 2009 07:37 Arrian wrote: Keep in mind--I'm talking about the PC market, not the titles. I personally think '97/'98 were some of the best years in gaming ever, but as far as the money being spent on PC vs console games, it isn't even close. The short answer is that yes, there were a number of successful PC titles, but there were way more successful console titles. The titles released for PC were good, but at that time if you were going to try and sell several million games, you were developing for the Playstation, N64, even a Sega console. In more than a few ways, StarCraft's sales numbers were rather surprising. Obviously, I'm speaking relatively, and I'm speaking in a grandiose fashion in the TLFE, but this is the reality I'm trying to convey. Some actual figures of the money spent on console games and PC games in '98/years to and after: Console: -1997 - $5.1 billion -1998 - $6.2 billion -1999 - $6.9 billion PC: -1998 - $1.8 billion -1999 - $1.9 billion So not only, in 1998, was the console market bigger, but it was growing much, much faster than the PC market. This is supported by empirical observation, as well. At that time, consoles were far more powerful, far more established, and far more developed for than PCs. The real leg up that PCs had on consoles was online capability, which at the time consoles could not do. Before 98, and even through 98, the internet and online play was quite new (in fact, I encountered arguments which said that StarCraft basically pioneered online play, but I don't exactly buy that), so that advantage was not quite realized yet, and one of the things StarCraft did was help players realize that advantage, and make it standard. I found the source of your numbers (it is Game Sales Charts, correct?) and there are three issues with the numbers you provided: 1. You compared the Total US Handheld & Console Sales to the PC Game Software Sales. This is not a great comparison since the first number includes the sales of the consoles and handhelds themselves as well as the sales of the games themselves. Since we do not have PC Hardware sales to include (not that that would have been an accurate representation, anyway), it is more accurate to only include the sales of Handheld and Console games, which brings us to these numbers: US Console & Handheld Game Software Sales 1998 - $3.7 billion US PC Game Software Sales 1998 - $1.8 billion 2. When considering these numbers, it is important to note that the first figure also includes the sales of handheld games as well. In the late 90`s the handheld market was already very popular. Gameboy was preety much all the rage back then. So while the console sales are most likely still higher, the fact that handheld sales are included would probably chip away a significant part of that figure if we were able to remove that part. 3. One more thing to consider is that these numbers only include the US market. However, the Japanese market was already very big back then and even the European market was not something to ignore. Of course, this would increase the number of both, but there is no telling what the total would have been. Even if we only look at the numbers themselves, the PC market still equaled nearly half of the sales of the console and handheld market combined. This indicates that while consoles were most likely still more popular, the PC market was quite significant itself as well and accounted for a considerable part of video game sales. But anyway, for the sake of simplicity, let us say that you are correct. Let us say that the console market was already back then far more popular and that there were way more successful console titles then PC ones (although I do not think that point is absolutely correct either). Even considering this...how does that qualify the PC market as "dead" during that period? Heck, one could make an argument that the PC market is not even dead today, even though one can count the number of game developers that develop mostly for the PC on the fingers of one hand. But back then, there was a number of (successful) games that were released for the PC. Ultimately, you cannot seperate the titles from the market since the titles are what make the market and if those titles were developed, it means that there were developers who considered it worthwhile to develop games for the PC. If the market was considered dead, then that obviously would not have been the case. Anyway, PC gaming in 1998 aside, I do agree with your points about StarCraft. It may not have been the game that sparked online gaming, but it certainly was the game that took it to heights never imagined before (or even after). | ||
|
Arrian
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 09:47 Tom Phoenix wrote: I found the source of your numbers (it is Game Sales Charts, correct?) and there are three issues with the numbers you provided: 1. You compared the Total US Handheld & Console Sales to the PC Game Software Sales. This is not a great comparison since the first number includes the sales of the consoles and handhelds themselves as well as the sales of the games themselves. Since we do not have PC Hardware sales to include (not that that would have been an accurate representation, anyway), it is more accurate to only include the sales of Handheld and Console games, which brings us to these numbers: US Console & Handheld Game Software Sales 1998 - $3.7 billion US PC Game Software Sales 1998 - $1.8 billion 2. When considering these numbers, it is important to note that the first figure also includes the sales of handheld games as well. In the late 90`s the handheld market was already very popular. Gameboy was preety much all the rage back then. So while the console sales are most likely still higher, the fact that handheld sales are included would probably chip away a significant part of that figure if we were able to remove that part. 3. One more thing to consider is that these numbers only include the US market. However, the Japanese market was already very big back then and even the European market was not something to ignore. Of course, this would increase the number of both, but there is no telling what the total would have been. Even if we only look at the numbers themselves, the PC market still equaled nearly half of the sales of the console and handheld market combined. This indicates that while consoles were most likely still more popular, the PC market was quite significant itself as well and accounted for a considerable part of video game sales. But anyway, for the sake of simplicity, let us say that you are correct. Let us say that the console market was already back then far more popular and that there were way more successful console titles then PC ones (although I do not think that point is absolutely correct either). Even considering this...how does that qualify the PC market as "dead" during that period? Heck, one could make an argument that the PC market is not even dead today, even though one can count the number of game developers that develop mostly for the PC on the fingers of one hand. But back then, there was a number of (successful) games that were released for the PC. Ultimately, you cannot seperate the titles from the market since the titles are what make the market and if those titles were developed, it means that there were developers who considered it worthwhile to develop games for the PC. If the market was considered dead, then that obviously would not have been the case. Anyway, PC gaming in 1998 aside, I do agree with your points about StarCraft. It may not have been the game that sparked online gaming, but it certainly was the game that took it to heights never imagined before (or even after). 1. This is because counting all PC sales as sales for games is ridiculous and untrue. At that point in the development of gaming, the amount of sales specifically for gaming or even in large part for gaming would be only a fraction of the market. However, all sales of consoles are specifically for gaming. 2. I don't see how this is relevant. Just because another market was taking off doesn't invalidate my claim. 3. The Japanese PC game market was very not good in 1997, as seen here. The console market, however, was very good. 1.9 is nowhere near 3.1. That's a whopping 1.2 billion dollars off. When you look at the symbols, it doesn't seem big. When you think of the sums, it does. But I'll make an admission. It was a dramatization, and perhaps an inappropriate one. I didn't, and still don't, think it's a particularly important piece of information--StarCraft was innovative regardless of the climate it was introduced into. That was my point. If you would like me to amend that point to clarify, I will, but I think that there's enough information here that I could reasonably make this judgment. | ||
|
MoRe_mInErAls
Canada1210 Posts
Poll: Beauty or Truth? (Vote): Beauty (Vote): Truth Okay I'm done trolling for the day | ||
|
Cyrox
Sweden147 Posts
| ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
On April 08 2009 10:00 Arrian wrote: 1. This is because counting all PC sales as sales for games is ridiculous and untrue. At that point in the development of gaming, the amount of sales specifically for gaming or even in large part for gaming would be only a fraction of the market. However, all sales of consoles are specifically for gaming. 2. I don't see how this is relevant. Just because another market was taking off doesn't invalidate my claim. 3. The Japanese PC game market was very not good in 1997, as seen here. The console market, however, was very good. 1.9 is nowhere near 3.1. That's a whopping 1.2 billion dollars off. When you look at the symbols, it doesn't seem big. When you think of the sums, it does. But I'll make an admission. It was a dramatization, and perhaps an inappropriate one. I didn't, and still don't, think it's a particularly important piece of information--StarCraft was innovative regardless of the climate it was introduced into. That was my point. If you would like me to amend that point to clarify, I will, but I think that there's enough information here that I could reasonably make this judgment. 1. I agree that it would be ridicolous to count all PC sales as sales for games. However, we are talking about sales of games themselves, not the related hardware. So the sales of consoles themselves should not be a factor. 2. It is relevant beacuse the inclusion of that market inflates the number of sales. Since our purpose is to directly compare the sales of PC games and console games, handheld game sales are irrelevant to our comparison. However, the first number does include the sales of handheld games. 3. Very well, good point. I do not know where you got the 3.1 number, but even considering that, 1.9 is still much more then half of the console market. So while the console market was bigger, the PC market was still very much significant and not at all "dead". I think the climate in which StarCraft was released does bear some significance (although not that much) since it reflects upon StarCraft`s success. To be successful in a dying market is a great feat, to be successful in one of the best years of a significant market is an even greater feat. Overall, StarCraft proved to be among the best of the best in a period which produced many other rivals. While it does not affect me personally, I think it is best if you do provide a clarification for the sake of the article`s correctness. I hope you do not take any of this criticism to heart. In spite of my words, I think it was still an excellent article which showed what made StarCraft successful and the legacy upon which StarCraft II will be built upon. | ||
|
Arrian
United States889 Posts
On April 08 2009 10:40 Tom Phoenix wrote: 1. I agree that it would be ridicolous to count all PC sales as sales for games. However, we are talking about sales of games themselves, not the related hardware. So the sales of consoles themselves should not be a factor. 2. It is relevant beacuse the inclusion of that market inflates the number of sales. Since our purpose is to directly compare the sales of PC games and console games, handheld game sales are irrelevant to our comparison. However, the first number does include the sales of handheld games. 3. Very well, good point. I do not know where you got the 3.1 number, but even considering that, 1.9 is still much more then half of the console market. So while the console market was bigger, the PC market was still very much significant and not at all "dead". I think the climate in which StarCraft was released does bear some significance (although not that much) since it reflects upon StarCraft`s success. To be successful in a dying market is a great feat, to be successful in one of the best years of a significant market is an even greater feat. Overall, StarCraft proved to be among the best of the best in a period which produced many other rivals. While it does not affect me personally, I think it is best if you do provide a clarification for the sake of the article`s correctness. I hope you do not take any of this criticism to heart. In spite of my words, I think it was still an excellent article which showed what made StarCraft successful and the legacy upon which StarCraft II will be built upon. 1. I was talking about the whole market, to be technical. The console market includes the sale of its platforms. 2. I'm getting the feeling we're talking about two different things... 3. In fact, if you include Japan's PC struggles (which is a huge video gaming market), then the statement gains a lot more credibility, and in fact perhaps even complete truth. However, as a matter of complete truth, the statement was something of an opinion. When I call it 'dead,' the definition of 'dead' to me, metaphorically in this context, could be precisely how it was, and your opinion can be (and is) quite different, and the analysts I reference could be anybody with an opinion. I'm mentioning this merely as a matter of course to dispense further argument. I haven't taken this at all to heart, you've made your points and made them fairly. You've made your points and well, at that. I will consider some manner of clarification, to be sure, and seriously at that. But I also do want to stress that if I choose not to make a change it's because I think that the statement is still justified, given all data that have been presented. | ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
 | ||
|
jodogohoo
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
ZkilfinG
Sweden14 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 39582
317 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + JK, Great article, I loved it | ||
|
Roxen000
1226 Posts
| ||
|
dekuschrub
United States2069 Posts
great read | ||
|
Makhno
Sweden585 Posts
| ||
|
Splunge
Germany925 Posts
| ||
riptide
5673 Posts
Good post by the way. SC is far and away the best RTS of all time, and I know that I'll be playing it for many years to come. | ||
|
Batibot
Philippines348 Posts
| ||
| ||
