Do console gamers feed PC gamers...

...or has it always been this way? Another set of DLC (Operation Flashpoint) and another case of console owners having to pay for it. I'm not a PC gamer so I don't know so much about the background/history at all but it does seem to me console owners prop-up PC content. The reason I'm puzzled is that usually big games sell more on consoles.

From my black and white perspective it seems a format that has a much higher rate of piracy gets a hell of a lot of free content. That's a bit bizarre to me. Shouldn't publishers be rewarding people who pay for the majority of games rather than give out free content to a format that seems to have little control and fewer sales or is it to do with precedents in the market...like XBL?

Like I said I'm just asking and curious about the economics involved. Seems to me people actually buying the stuff get stuffed by PC gamers who can pirate and get lot's and lots and lots of content completely free.

I'm no expert on the subject, but free maps have just been a part of certain companies ethos on PC considering the capabilities of the format, bundling them in with patches and what not.

However on PC you also had the idea of an expansion pack, again much simpler due to the way the format works by reading data from the machine, the expansion tacks more content on, takes less time, and cost less for both ends. Essentially I see DLC as the expansion pack of the console, however PC gamers aren't ready to take that view when it comes to content that is distributed digitally, and this is mainly due to how developers have treated PC gamers in the past.

360 people bend over and take paid for DLC, so it keeps coming.

PC players get rewarded for purchasing their games. Take TF2 for example. I'm sure there are ways to play that game online illegally and for free, but it's going to be a much poorer experience. You won't get proper integration with Steam, no achievements, no friends lists, no free VAC secured dedicated servers. And most of all, you're not going to get the extensive free updates people who own the game get. This makes people want to own the game properly. And it clearly works as last I checked Valve were in pretty good shape.

I think the problem is that because PC users have had free content for so long they are naturally going to moan about having to pay for content that would have previously been free. I think the PC market will become more and more like the download services offered on consoles with microtransactions for DLC but I'm sure a few PC gamers here will be fiercely against this.

Last edited by Dalagonash on Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I'd also like to point out that TF 2 is a special case, a VERY special case. I can't think of another developer that has supported a game so passionately with free content for its users since release.

I think the thing is with TF 2, is that there are still people who don't own it, ergo the free content is the delicious carrot that keeps getting dangled in front of them, TF 2 still sells now and it's been out for what, two years? (currently second on steam's top sellers.)

Keeping a team working on new content is likely much smaller than a team working on a fully fledged game.

Peter Crisp wrote:I think the problem is that because PC users have had free content for so long they are naturally going to moan about having to pay for content that would have previously been free.

I think it's more PC players aren't as easily raped as console players.

Edit: Dala, other examples. All the UT games of the past, Armed Assault, the Battlefield series, Call of Duty, Wolf and Quake ET, Company of Heroes. And they're just the games I own. There's lots more going back further. Some not quite to the extent or with as much fanfare as TF2, but the principle is the same.

smyrrhphy wrote:I think it's more PC players aren't as easily raped as console players.

One of the problems I have with this argument is that it almost boils down to console gamers being "Peter Crisps" while PC owners are more discerning. If the service was as shockingly bad as you seem to think it is it would not be as used as it is.
I've had this argument before so I'm going to agree to disagree as we both seem fairly passionate about the side we are on.

Change is nearly always feared or unwanted and this is no different.

smyrrhphy wrote:I think it's more PC players aren't as easily raped as console players.

If only Kitty Genovese had been a PC gamer, eh readers?

Last edited by Dalagonash on Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

smyrrhphy wrote:
Peter Crisp wrote:I think the problem is that because PC users have had free content for so long they are naturally going to moan about having to pay for content that would have previously been free.

I think it's more PC players aren't as easily raped as console players.

Edit: Dala, other examples. All the UT games of the past, Armed Assault, the Battlefield series, Call of Duty, Wolf and Quake ET, Company of Heroes. And they're just the games I own. There's lots more going back further. Some not quite to the extent or with as much fanfare as TF2, but the principle is the same.

Ah, yea, I remember UT 3 had the black update recently all free. Didn't realise quite so many modern games kept the mantra but now you mention them Dawn of War 2 had an update not too long ago did it not?

Meh, I honestly have no problem giving the devs a lil more money for content I know I'm going to play, as long as the price is right. That said I'm not adversed to free content either!

smyrrhphy wrote:360 people bend over and take paid for DLC, so it keeps coming.

PC players get rewarded for purchasing their games.

I'm sorry to bring this up as I said I'd stop but don't console gamers also pay for the the games they play? Why should one group expect free content when they ask another group to pay and I'm talking about like for like games here not the examples you picked which are all from a previous generation with regard to financing games.
If a download is 500msp it should not be free on PC that's all I'm saying.

I've got nothing against free content in itself and I agree Live is far to expensive at times but I'm just asking for parity.

Well Valve wanted Crash Course (Left 4 Dead) to be free on 360 I think, but Microsoft said 'erm, no.' So they put the price as low as they'd let them.

They're different markets.

In the PC arena, continued fan support for a game is key for continuing revenue, so releasing devtools (for user-created mods) and new content as a free incentive is a fantastic way to keep that support up. Both TF2 and L4D sales spiked hugely when new content was released -- both fan- and developer-made stuff caused resurgances in sales. Free DLC turns games in the PC market from mere products into active revenue streams.

Over in the console market devs have obviously found -- due to the nature of the platform (I'm sure Microsoft charging for devs to release patches doesn't help matters, but also the transient nature of Live and so on) -- that most games are very much more burst in their revenue patterns. To make more money from their game they have to go by their existing userbase, in essence exploiting them for quick cash. This works because console gamers let it work, but also because Microsoft won't support a more PC-like market and the Live playerbase doesn't tend to support older games.

Why should one group expect free content when they ask another group to pay

Console gamers should also expect free content, and refuse to pay when it isn't. But many do pay, so developers continue to charge and push the boundaries of how much they charge. So, as 'consolisation' continues to creep onto the PC, so does this mentality that they can charge for DLC. But PC gamers don't put up with it when it's unreasonable. Why should we just take it as you seem to be suggesting?

in b4 Peter Crisps

I'm not suggesting console gamers stop trying to get better deals just that now console gamers are forced to pay so should PC gamers. I really don't accept that it's a different market especially when we are talking about the same content.

Peter Crisp wrote:I really don't accept that it's a different market especially when we are talking about the same content.

Well they clearly are different markets if the service providers are using different business models to gain the maximum possible amount of profit when approaching different sets of people.

Peter Crisp wrote:I'm not suggesting console gamers stop trying to get better deals just that now console gamers are forced to pay so should PC gamers. I really don't accept that it's a different market especially when we are talking about the same content.

So when the developer wants to give it away for free on the PC as well as the console, but Microsoft steps in and forces the console market to pay, you feel that the PC players should also have to pay for it?

:lol:

You aren't asking for parity. You're just pissed off that you had to pay for it, nothing to do with parity. Parity would mean that you got it for free on the console THE WAY THE DEVELOPER INTENDED THAT CONTENT TO BE.

Console games don't prop up the PC market. Just give it awhile, piracy is just as rife on the console market, it's just such a huge market that there's more profit made to cover up the piracy. Piracy on the DS and PS2 was high, and it's only getting bigger on the 360.

See now the difference is that people are voting with their wallets on the PC. On the console, no one wants to hold off on buying things at all, they're happy to pay for everything that's overpriced. It's definitely a different market, it's disposable gaming. Console gamers who buy DLC are the ones that justify the ridiculous prices they have to pay.

Get it straight though, the console market isn't subsidising the PC market. The PC market has a lot of buyers there, and the only games that I see doing well are the ones being supported by the developers. Look at the Battlefield series, servers are still open for those games, and the game is still selling on Steam. Look at Left 4 Dead, when Crash Course came out, you had an influx of new players. TF2 and Counter Strike Source sell like hot cakes when they're priced cheaply, and they have shitloads of servers available. I've bought The Orange Box, Counter Strike, and Day of Defeat twice. Free content or not, I've more than paid for my PC games. We're not getting anything for free just because of piracy. Piracy is not getting the PC market anything on either side. It's the fact that developers want their titles to sell well, not just sell like a diaper, where you use it once and chuck it away.

DLC is a console concept. The traditionally open nature of PC gaming means that mods and such are usually developed within the PC gaming community, and the PC gaming community as it exists now was actually founded largely by the work of iD software, and other software developers clever enough to realise that this was actually a huge benefit to them, because good content would lead to extra sales of their original title.

The perennial example of this is Counter Strike, of course. Without this little mod that could, it's arguable whether Valve would be in anything like the position they're in today.

On the PC, they're usually known as expansion packs, but that's the point of comparison.

Peter Crisp wrote: I really don't accept that it's a different market especially when we are talking about the same content.

Are the Western and Japanese markets different?

TheTurnipKing wrote:little mod that could

Do console gamers feed PC gamers...

Who is online

Affiliates