Blizzard: PC gaming "super healthy"

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 26 October, 2010

"It keeps on growing," says Pardo.

World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 creator Blizzard has rebuffed the suggestion that PC gaming is dead.

In fact, PC gaming is in rude health, Blizzard executive vice president Rob Pardo insisted in an interview with GamesIndustry.biz.

"The industry is as healthy as ever," he said. "From our experience our games continue to sell better than the last ones. I always laugh because as long as I've been in the games industry, every year I'm asked 'is PC gaming dead?' But it keeps on growing despite the fact it's been pronounced dead 20 times."

Pardo has good reason to be positive. StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty sold three million copies worldwide during its first month on sale, is the fastest-selling real-time strategy game ever, and the best-selling PC game so far this year.

Of course, it may not end up as the best-selling PC game of 2010. Blizzard's own World of Warcraft expansion Cataclysm releases in December.

World of Warcraft itself is the world's most popular MMORPG; more than 12 million people subscribe to it.

Pardo, however, understands why many believe PC gaming to be in trouble: it's because digital download sales aren't included in charts.

"The PC games industry and the gaming industry is super healthy," he said. "It's always been tough to do metrics in any industry and especially once you start having a lot of digital distribution it's hard to capture the real metrics of the health of the industry. Even if you look at something like NPD there's still an estimation involved there, they don't really have real-time data from every retail chain. By necessity they're guessing."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (44) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • geeza2020 #1 2 years ago

    stealth "We fucking hate consoles" press release?

  • ChthonicEcho #2 2 years ago

    Considering how many stealth "We fucking hate the PC" press releases there were, I don't mind.

  • TheApologist #3 2 years ago

    @geeza2020

    Nope. 'PC gaming is doing well' does not mean 'consoles are bad'. It means 'PC gaming is doing well'.

  • unacomn #4 2 years ago

    Wait, does this mean that the knight in shining armor that Microsoft wants to be doesn't actually have anything to save and will just ruin PC gaming again?
    And that every Epic Games exec is full of poop?

  • nickthegun #5 2 years ago

    Farmville and Mafia Wars propping up sector shocker.

  • geeza2020 #6 2 years ago

    Err, I didn't mean that Blizzard were saying that all consoles were evil, I'm just under the impression that they really don't like developing for consoles as the last game that Blizzard actually released on a console that I can remember was something like The Lost Vikings.

  • Apaar #7 2 years ago

    Problems arise when developers think PC as a platform can be easily compared to PS3/360. It's an entirely different beast. In order to make a game that achives greatness on the PC, you have to tailor it on the platform from the beginning. You decide that you're making a PC game, finish it and only afterwards even start considering possibilities of console ports. It's not like the console counterparts where you can port stuff left and right with some graphical discrepancies at the most.

    In most cases you can't just port a console game on the PC expecting the process to go as smoothly as it does between the consoles. If you do the porting with extra care the result may be ok, but I have yet to see a PC port of a console game that wasn't easily recognizable as one.

  • bad09 #8 2 years ago

    @unacomn

    Funny you say that.

    Epic, MS, Capcom all are part of the PC Gaming Alliance *spits* and are also some of the biggest companies pissing on PC gamers. All they need is Ubisoft to join and a secret hidden base.

    / Tinfoil hat

  • dsmx #9 2 years ago

    PC gaming at the moment would be doing a lot better if most publishers didn't treat it like shit an yes that does include microsoft. Still can't understand why they chose to stop developing games for the PC.
    Edited by dsmx at 26/10/10 @ 10:19

  • butler` #10 2 years ago

    Farmville and Mafia Wars propping up sector shocker.

    Why, because the same hundred-odd million people are playing those instead of Bejeweled and Solitair of yesteryear?

  • Dismiss #11 2 years ago

    Casual and Blizzard games are doing well on the PC, granted.

  • Ryboy #12 2 years ago

    "it's because digital download sales aren't included in charts..."

    I did not know that! Are game sales from Xbox marketplace and the PS3 equivalent put into the game charts?

  • dsmx #13 2 years ago

    Steam is doing fantastically well as well, 3 million players at once at it's peak every night.

  • bad09 #14 2 years ago

    "I did not know that! Are game sales from Xbox marketplace and the PS3 equivalent put into the game charts

    No, nothing at all. PC downloads are changing this year though, not sure when it happens or how it's collated but PC DD will be tracked but no plans to do the console stuff yet.

  • White_Waffle #15 2 years ago

    Hmm if something gets consistent bad press and is more or less every few months attacked, like PC gaming - and still does continue to be alive and well. Then it must be in pretty good shape. And all of that although there is no big corporation that is backing the platform with their own developer studios. (exclusive)
    Edited by White_Waffle at 26/10/10 @ 10:42

  • Buran #16 2 years ago

    Console gaming, on the other hand, is in free fall in sales, as the NPD charts in the last half year is remarking month after month.

  • des #17 2 years ago

    More like,Blizzard games are growing.
    Without numbers PR loonies are having a party.

  • Ryboy #18 2 years ago

    Then I am looking forward to what the DD sales do to game charts.

  • arcam #19 2 years ago

    And all of that although there is no big corporation that is backing the platform with their own developer studios

    That's a big part of why it is always attacked.

    And regarding the sales charts - the new download chart will be just that, and will not be mixed in with boxed releases. Seeing as they are pretty unlikely to release the download numbers, the chart won't actually tell us anything about the state of digital downloads as compared to retail. All it'll do is tell you which downloadable game is more popular than other downloadable games.
    Edited by arcam at 26/10/10 @ 11:31

  • carrotcake #20 2 years ago

    Blizzard are an exception.... their games make the most money by far. How many other PC games these days even move 1 million copies (sold, not illegal downloads). Console games aren't being ported to PC any more because there's no point, and the formerly PC gaming giants had to spread out to consoles out of necessity... Epic, id, Crytek... even the stubborn Valve has eventually formed a PS3 dev team internally. I wouldn't even classify browser-based casual games as PC games because you could play those on anything with a browser, doesn't have to be a PC. If you measure actual PC games that have to be bought and installed, I bet the numbers are low outside of dirt cheap bargains on old games. Call of Duty games probably sell a lot better on Xbox now than they do on Windows.

  • White_Waffle #21 2 years ago

    I would say PC giants like EPIC, id and Crytek went multiplatform because their games are also controllable rather well on consoles and their heavy action nature appeals to a lot of console buyers as well. It's not my intention to bash on the average console gamer - it's just i think they are on average more into simple, straight forward games, which are easily and intuitively controllable from the start. They don't appreciate complex, hard to learn systems - which is of course all fair game in my eyes as well.

    But that's why i think there will also be PC gaming and "PC games (the more complex less polished kind" in the future as long as some people want that. Cheaper production costs (and also often less polish and QA :-P ), no license fees for console manufactures will also ensure such games with a smaller audience being made although they sell not millionS of copies.

  • geeza2020 #22 2 years ago

    I'll have to remember that pc games related threads are ultra-sensitive and not bother posting next time. My second post hasnt been negged or plussed, even though (after the posts underneath it clearly didnt understand the fact that I wasn't entirely serious) it explains what I meant in the first.

    Meh

  • Salaminizer #23 2 years ago

    we managed to get past the "Wii is a fad" thing, I wonder if we will ever get over this "PC gaming is dead" too. I haven't looked at it, but I believe that Pardo may be answering the same question since 2005 (when the Xbox 360 came out and this "vision" came back in full force) with the same answer...

    and regarding games, although we have the occasional Bionic Commando, we have been getting some unprecedent dedication from certain companies (Capcom, for example), and lost exclusives and "dumbed down" games didn't appear this gen (Interplay games, for example, had console instances BEFORE this generation, and yet PC gaming obviously didn't go way - now we are even able to say, with your wallets, that we love the classics once again).

    I'm now saving the URL so I can come back here in 2011.

  • subedii #24 2 years ago

    @geeza2020:

    I'm not sure what we're SUPPOSED to say to your second post. You're attributing the fact that Blizzard hasn't released console games recently pretty much to irrational hatred on their part, as opposed to simple business practices.

    Blizzard are a company. They exist to make money, and they'll do it the best way they can. At the moment, their fanbase is on the PC and their products are well received on that platform."We hate the consoles" doesn't come into it. Starcraft 2 is extremely unlikely to fly on the consoles, I'd have a hard time arguing otherwise. And much like Diablo 3, is heavily dependant on Blizzard's on BNet architecture, which MS would never allow onto the 360 for example. Given that scenario, I can't really see it as "hate" when they can't release on the consoles. If only for the fact that their games depend on BNet, and BNet only exists on one platform at the moment.

    It would also be unreasonable to assume that they aren't going to release console games in future. But like Starcraft: Ghost, they may have to be outsourced first.

  • Dynamize #25 2 years ago

    I love this. An industry VP says "PC gaming's alright actually, healthy market despite all the doomsayers."
    Nothing partisan about that, just that a market is still lucrative and reports of its death are greatly exaggerated; as they have been for ~ the past 10 years.

    Cue "you must secretly hate consoles!", "it's NOT healthy, most of the users are criminal thieves!", "yeah, it's healthy...IF you like casual baby-games that make everyone question your sexuality!"
    Throw in some "PC gamers don't wash and obsess about FPS and GPU and rubbish and make all the cool gamers who drink BEER and talk to GIRLS look bad!" and we'll have the full set. Probably have that by going home time today actually.

    Haters gonna hate, indeed.

  • hiddenranbir #26 2 years ago

    Maybe digital sellers should stop being arses and just tell us how much sales are being made digitally?

  • UncleLou #27 2 years ago

    Err, I didn't mean that Blizzard were saying that all consoles were evil, I'm just under the impression that they really don't like developing for consoles as the last game that Blizzard actually released on a console that I can remember was something like The Lost Vikings.

    Well, I guess it's fair to say that they indeed do not like developing for consoles, and all too understandably, no? They're basically building a platform of their own within the PC with battle.net, where they make up their own rules, subscription fees for MMOs, patch releases, and whatnot. You can't expect them to happily bow to someone else's rules especially when they're doing so incredibly well with what they're doing.

  • geeza2020 #28 2 years ago

    @Dynamize

    Your over the top response is exactly what I was talking about.

    I typed ONE line which was taken far too seriously by all other posters as some kind of attack on Blizzard, and thats really not what I was doing. And then I get ripped apart for being some kind of console fan boy, PC hater, which I am not either.

    I had a PC for years, in fact I was huge fan of Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2, (as well as many many other non Blizzard PC games; CoH, the old C&C games, Baldurs Gate, Painkiller plus loads more) but since that time I have had to be a bit more strict with my spending on games which has meant that I can simply no longer afford to play games on PC's.

    I was trying to make the point that Blizzard simply don't make games for consoles, and that is unfortunate for all of us who don't own PC's capable of running the most up to date games. And for me, the excuse of Bnet being a barrier is just ridiculous. How many billions must Blizzard have made over the last few years from WoW and now Starcraft 2? And you're telling me that there was no way that Blizzard could get this to work on 360/PS3. I find this unlikely. It seems to me that they just don't want to lose a slice of their pie to MS/Sony so simply don't bother trying.

    Hey ho.

  • subedii #29 2 years ago

    @geeza: Again, you're attributing to malice that which is largely defined by business. Blizzard are the ones in the best position to assess how well their titles would perform on the other platforms. Money is money, giving some to platform holders is irrelevant as long as they make more money. It's hard to argue that they're disregarding profits out of some bizarre principles, especially when they're headed by Bobby Kotick now.

    It doesn't matter that Starcraft 2 does well on the PC, the question is whether it would do well on consoles. IIRC the best selling console RTS was Halo: Wars, and that just about made a million. We're talking about something set in the Halo universe, arguably the biggest exclusive franchise on the system ,with a game that was tailor made for it. Starcraft may be relatively well known on the PC, on the consoles, it has an uphill battle simply for name recognition, and that's before we get into the real problems.

    Aside from issues of network and community architecture, the very gameplay style is just unsuited to a gamepad. Halo Wars worked because it was built with a gamepad in mind. But unlike FPS's, if you don't tailor an RTS to the gamepad, you're going to have an extremely hard time of getting something workable. This is compounded simply by the fact of how micro-intensive a game like SC2 is. There's a reason that APM is often talked about in Starcraft circles, the way the gameplay is designed requires a LOT of precise control. SC2 is one of the worse candidates for porting over to the consoles. Something like Supreme Commander 2 is actually far more suited to the control scheme (and they actually got a really good control scheme working for it), and yet when that was ported over, it also flopped.
    Edited by subedii at 26/10/10 @ 14:32

  • subedii #30 2 years ago

    @carrotcake:

    You're really talking about several issues at once here. I'll try to take them one by one. Unfortunately that warrants a fairly lengthy post if you want me to go into any meaningful discussion on them, so reader be warned: It's a long post.

    On the topic of games that sold over a million, quite a few. Off the top of my head

    - Every Blizzard game
    - Every Valve game
    - Bioware games
    - Call of Duty games
    - All the Stalker series of games (I expect you've never heard of it, but anyway)
    - The Civ games
    - Crysis series
    - Bioshock series
    - The Witcher (Again, I doubt you pay attention to more niche European devs, but anyway, 1.5 million IIRC)
    - Operation Flashpoint / ArmA series (see above comments)


    Naturally I'm not listing out every title of recent years, series will have to do, and this is pretty far from an exhaustive list. We simply don't have the numbers on most titles. Given the performance of Dawn of War 1 for example, I'd expect DoW2 to have broken a million as well, but nobody ever released stats on that. I'm guessing you don't want to include the Sims and MMO's for largely arbitrary reasons, so I'll leave those out.

    It's important to add in two things at this point: Most games rarely break a million, even on the consoles. Games like Dead Space and Mirror's Edge failed to break a million, despite having ENORMOUS marketing budgets and both being multiplatform titles.

    The second point is: Nobody's ever going to argue that the PC was not (and does not remain), a smaller system as a games platform. Apart from the occasional "breakout" title (your Doom, or your Sims), PC games never really sold in the kind of numbers that console games did. Historically, PC games have always sold less than consoles. The reason I put this in is that it's needed for context when we talk about the "decline" of PC gaming. Decline from what? It's difficult to decline from what was already a niche. People tend to have rose tinted glasses about how well they think titles should have done, but whilst they did well on the platform, they never achieved the kinds of numbers you'd expect of heavier hitter console titles. Monkey Island and Wing Commander are remembered fondly by all, and spawned numerous sequels, but they never matched Street Fighter or Mega-Man.

    On to the next point, and I'd have to disagree that console games aren't being ported over to the PC. I'd actually say it's the reverse. In the days of the SNES or the PS1, console games were rarely if ever ported onto the PC. The PC never had the platform games during their heyday, no Mario no Sonic. Never saw Street Fighter. The PC never saw Crash Bandicoot or Gran Turismo (two of the biggest selling PS1 games).

    Yet when I look at the Steam list today, I see no shortage of ports from console side. Dead Rising 2 for example, a franchise which wasn't even originally on the PC for its first incarnation. Transformers. Split/Second. Blur. Front Mission. HAWX. Plenty of others. These are all titles you never would have expected to see on the PC in previous generations. So why now?

    It's pretty much driven by two things: The increasing similarity between the platforms (porting between PC and 360 is much easier than PS1 and Windows 95/XP), and the simple necessity of having multiplatform releases owing to rising development costs. Because another thing you might notice this generation, is that there is far less to separate the platforms in terms of titles than there has been in previous generations. Platform exclusives are more rare, developers NEED to be able to shift as many copies as possible, and that means being on as many platforms as possible. Which means, naturally, the PC as well. The key factor being, they WOULDN'T be ported if they didn't sell.

    Epic, id, Crytek: I could go into their circumstances but I don't want to make this post longer than it already is. I'll just leave it at what I said earlier: It's best for all devs to be multiplatform. Unless you can really nail a killer app and get the backing of the platform holder (which the PC doesn't have), you want to be gunning for releases across as many platforms as possible.

    With Valve, same deal, but where you're going wrong is in presuming that this was some sort of move of "capitulation", as opposed to something profit motivated. Valve are a unique company. Their primary profits do come from the PC, much like Blizzard. But this isn't going to prevent them from making more money by branching out onto the Mac, or the PS3. The PS3 in particular is an interesting case, because just a few months ago, if you asked any PS3 fanboy about Valve they'd have nothing but caustic vitriol to contribute. And yet, that's not the case now. The reason being, much like the importance of BNet to Blizzard, Steamworks is important to Valve's business. And in a move that surprised everyone, Sony are going to be allowing Steamworks on the PS3, and suddenly the PS3 is Valve's preferred console platform over the 360. There's a number of dynamics at play here, but it's basically about how much control Valve have over their products (and so ultimately, how they can best benefit from them).

    As for PC games sales being "low", well, that's something you're going to have to back up, in particular given the context laid out above regarding PC sales over the generations and multiplatform sales in general. When Alan Kertz from DICE says the following:

    "PC gaming is alive and well, BFBC2 has proven that and no one at DICE or EA can argue with the numbers.."

    We need to start wondering a bit about that. And the framing of the discussion.

  • geeza2020 #31 2 years ago

    Gauloisess - "Because it's impossible to play Blizzard games on consoles, yes even Diablo"

    Why? Explain to me why it is impossible for a game like Diablo to work on a 360. I finished Diablo 2 on the PC and at no point during it did it occur to me that what I was playing would have been impossible to put on to a console. Blizzards RTS games, sure, I understand that require a level of control that only a mouse and keyboard can bring, but a hack and slash rpg? Come on.

    And your ridiculous point about spending $300 on a console. Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. When did you last check the price of an Xbox 360? Check your facts before spouting bullshit next time.

  • Dynamize #32 2 years ago

    @geeza

    I just quoted what users had already said here to illustrate how ludicrous the reaction to "PC market is alright" usually is. If that's over the top, take it up with them.

    One line - consisting entirely of "stealth "We fucking hate consoles" press release?"
    If people take that at face value, which is all they can do really, you can hardly cry foul. The point still stands that from the press release you extract "this statement is about the console market, they say 'PC is healthy' but they mean 'we hate developing for consoles'."
    I don't see it as anything apart from "s'alright, this making money on PC lark."

    Battle.Net being a barrier is a fairly sound explanation for their business. They've no doubt invested heavily in creating it and as a constant service will have expenditure on it in perpetuity.
    You'll want to see that you at least break even after that investment before you think about partnering with MS/Sony, working out how to get it all working on their systems and network, as well as paying money for the privilege of selling on their machines.

    Long story short - it's business, not hate, other emotions or some sort of loyalty to the PC. Business and practicality. If the console market shows it can turn a profit after deductions for platform royalties, costs etc then Blizzard will be on it like...well, like vendors on customers. It would be foolish to fund a massive infrastructure across all platforms without even knowing that the actual games and initial network won't flop.

    "I was trying to make the point that Blizzard simply don't make games for consoles, and that is unfortunate for all of us who don't own PC's capable of running the most up to date games."

    Well why didn't you say that in the first place?

  • arcam #33 2 years ago

    Blizzard have also said:

    "I think there is a pretty good argument to be made that that type of game might work very well on consoles," he added. "There might be some technical limitations though that we might need to get past.

    "We haven't really decided to take the [console] plunge," he continued "We've really come to the conclusion that it's probably the best fit because the control scheme is actually not that incompatible. So if we were to make that decision, Diablo would be the natural choice."

    I don't think it's technical or controller issues keeping Blizzard away from consoles, it's the inflexible nature of platform holders and the console business.

    As for prices, $300 is pretty cheap for a console in the UK, unless you want a Wii or 360 arcade.

  • subedii #34 2 years ago

    @arcam: Which is a fair point. And it highlights even moreso that this isn't to do with Blizzard's simply disliking consoles for some reason.

  • arcam #35 2 years ago

    Oh yeah, I agree.

    Whether it's Valve, Bungie or Blizzard, assigning fanboy motivations to professional, high quality development outfits is rather silly.

  • One_Vurfed_Gwrx #36 2 years ago

    Issues with PC developers who are supposedly quite PC friendly such as 2K and Capcom (both with a reptation for reasonable PCversions albeit not as optimised to the systems as they could be) have let the ball go completely in the trust stakes with DLC (both for GFWL which has a DLC and payment facility (as I recall Fallout 3 used it)). RE5 didn't get the DLC and Bioshock 2 didn't get the last couple (apparently the better ones). People could argue about sales of previous DLC but I imagine porting the DLC to the PC would have been elementary for both examples as the engines were already 'optimised' etc. Makes me think about Capcom or 2K titles on PC a bit more now (and that's ignoring intrusive DRM restrictions which is another kettle of fish).

    BTW, didn't Diablo come out on PS1 showing some capability for what has a relatively simple control system. I agree that full-scale RTS isn't best suited though such as Starcraft 2 (look how well Stracraft on N64 did :p)

  • geeza2020 #37 2 years ago

    Yes Diablo 1 did come out on the PS1, but I think it came out pretty late in the consoles life (March 98 according to the wiki), so wasn't particularly well received. But from what I remember, it worked fine. So it is possible, it just seems like Blizzard can't be arsed.

  • subedii #38 2 years ago

    The only thing worse than attributing it to malice is when people start saying it's because the devs are lazy.

    So well done, and I'm out. Grief.
    Edited by subedii at 26/10/10 @ 16:46

  • subedii #39 2 years ago

    @Gauloisess: Which whilst true, is also why we have gamepads.

    I have no qualms in saying that the PC version of DMC4 was one of the best ports I've ever played.

  • AOFanboi #40 2 years ago

    @Gauloisess: <em>Diablo will never appear on consoles because it's impossible</em>

    Except that Diablo appeared on the PS-X/PS1 even though Blizzard left the porting duties to a third party.

    <em>it's impossible to shift between multitargets quick and precise with a controller.</em>

    Are you a game designer? How fast did your company go bust because you failed at your job by making blatant and dismissive statements instead of trying to solve challenges? I mean, did you even for a moment consider how you would implement something like Diablo on a console controller, of are you the run-of-the-mill Wintendo user dismissing consoles on principle?

  • IronCladChicken #41 2 years ago

    The console boyz here really are touchy.
    Even articles unrelated to consoles seem to get them all defensive.

  • geeza2020 #42 2 years ago

    Dear oh dear, looks to me like the only people getting defensive and "up in arms" here are pc cunts. And you are cunts. Insecure, stuck-up, elitist, over-sensitive little smelly cunts. I hope PC gaming dies on its big fat spotty arse if you lot are the gamers who are left. CUNTS.
    Edited by geeza2020 at 27/10/10 @ 12:20

  • paketep #43 2 years ago

    Blizzard should shut up after SC2. That's not PC gaming, that's Facebook gaming.

    Pardo, give us back out PC features, or STFU.

  • subedii #44 2 years ago

    @geeza2020:

    Well dude, I engaged you in polite discussion and presented my points, and never once cussed at you or made any attempt to demean you. You ended up not really addressing anything and swearing at me repeatedly for no real reason.

    I think that says more about you than it does me. You know, I don't really identify myself as a "PC Gamer" as such, but if it means that I have a behaviour distinct of what you've shown, then I'll happily take the title.