So PC users are the minority huh?

[worm82075]

On what platform will you play Fallout 3?

 

* PC (57%, 9,090 Votes)

* Xbox 360 (28%, 4,540 Votes)

* PlayStation 3 (15%, 2,401 Votes)

 

Total Voters: 16,031

 

I knew it all along :yes:

[giskarduk]

Interesting stats there Worm :D

 

Giskard

[mikekearn]

I don't like polls with limited choices. Where do I stand? I play on Xbox 360 and PC!

[Slugworld]

I'm currently playing Fallout 3 on a PC.

[Dark0ne]

The actual sale results are, naturally, very different. The poll is slightly biased since it's based on one of the actual platforms. I'd like to see a similar poll put up on XBox Live! and see the results then ;)

 

The actual statistics are quite different.

 

It was the 360 version that sold the biggest share of Fallout 3 discs, representing 55 percent of the title’s total purchases, with PS3 and PC versions attributing to 28 percent and 17 percent respectively. Yet despite the 360 version taking twice as many sales as the PS3’s, and three-times as many as the PC’s, today the game sits atop all three platform charts.

 

So yes, we are the minority according to sales.

[MrCooper2006]

Yep, id say 50-75% of the PC gamers didnt actually pay for it, but do play it constantly.

 

 

Sales will tell a very different story, always gonna be the case i imagine.

 

Hence all the ball-ache with Securom etc....

[GrandBreton]

Unfortunately, those stats(posted by Dark0ne) only attribute retail sales. Fallout topped the Direct2Drive charts and came second on Steam(came in second last week with pre-sales as well). Would it make that much of a difference? Doubtful, but I'm sure it'd bump it up a decent amount.

[ElizabethLestrad]

I find the idea of a game manufacturer stating that PC gamers are the "minority" offensive. PCs are and will always be the superior system. Just look at consoles...their now allowing players to use USB keyboards and mice because the controllers dont have enough buttons, and controllers generally stink for any real FPS games. Whats more, unlike the PS2, PS3, XB360,etc, you can always upgrade the PC as needed unlike consoles where everytime a new game comes out with better graphics you have to pay 300-400 dollars *cough*ps3*cough* to get an entirely new console making the old ones pretty much obsolete. To end, I have an interesting quote from way back before Starcraft: Ghost was cancelled where I wrote Blizzard a email questioning their decision on not making it for PC as well. Their remark was:

 

"There simply are not enough buttons/controls on a PC to do what we can do on a console."

 

*Glances down at keyboard* Lets see....~100 keys on a keyboard + at least 2 on a mouse....I call Bulls---.

[mikekearn]

While I myself have a very nice gaming PC, and am playing Fallout 3 on both PC and Xbox 360, I take offense at calling consoles inferior. You say a console is expensive for $300-$400? A quick trip to Newegg.com shows every latest video card alone priced over $400. Add in the fact that have to have a motherboard capable of handling it, enough RAM to make the game playable, a good CPU to crunch all the numbers, plus a hard drive with good speeds if you want the smaller loading times, and you're looking at about $1000 or more minimum. My own PC cost me almost $1500, but that does include the costs for a new case, monitor, keyboard and mouse.

 

So yes, PCs will always be technically superior later in the console's life, the costs for always maintaining the latest top-of-the-line PC are astronomical, and even if you only upgrade about as often as you'd have to get new consoles, you're still going to be paying more.

 

Also, if you think consoles aren't so hot for FPS games, that's cool. But remind me again what game was the best selling of 2007? Oh, that's right. Halo 3. A console-only FPS.

[Armadous]

I don't think you can't really use Halo 3 or CoD4 to claim that FPSes are the same on consoles as they are on the PC. PC users have had shooters of that caliber for near a decade now. Quake 3 arena may not have looked anything like Halo 3 but the multilayer was nearly identical. Not to detract from the awesomeness that Halo 3 or CoD3 are, I absolutely loved both those campaigns. Although to me the multilayer felt uninspired and fairly generic. The point is Halo 3 and CoD4, with the exception of GoW did little different than what PC FPS players haven't been doing since the days of Duke Nukem. The original Halo was also a huge seller on the original X-Box and they did port that to PC but that didn't make near the waves the console version did, simple because in the PC arena it had little to differentiate itself from other PC shooters.

 

Attempting to valuate PC, 360, or PS3 as the superior console is entirely academic anyway. This answer will be different depending on who you talk to. The less tech savvy individuals will play consoles and consequently these people likely never played Duke Nukem, Quake, UT, Castle Wolfenstein or the Battlefield series. They may have played Goldeneye and prefect dark, but you never got a multilayer experience beyond the walls of your room. That makes Halo 3 and CoD4 revolutionary games never before seen on a console.

 

You also can't overlook the appeal for developers to release on consoles, the piracy rate is minimal compared to PC. Crytek claimed 1/3 more, or maybe 1/2 more people download their patch than they had unit sales. The logistics for console development are simpler as well. The hardware is a constant which simplifies a number of development aspects. I can't remember off the top of my head but I've heard of a few PC/360 games that were developed on the 360 then adapted to PC and I'm not just talking ports. I believe BioShock did it that way. For me I love both my 360 and my PC and could not do without either.

 

I feel the sad truth is gaming will continue to lean further and further towards consoles until we simply no longer get AAA PC titles.