Analytics for PC gamers that use controller?

Anybody have or come by any stats for percentage of PC gamers that use a controller?

My combat system is fluid with variable degree of movement that a joystick provides. It works with WASD/arrows controls but it's a bit cumbersome in some situations. So it's a risk, would be nice to have some indication of how much of risk.

I'm assuming it can be quite high now since lots of games have been supporting 360 controller for few years now and now you can easily plug in PS4/Xbone controllers. Plus Steam pushing it's own controller which could indicate large numbers. Argh!

Hopefully I can make some assist to iron it out.

 

Doesn't Steam publish stats for free?

 

Already checked steam stats and unity stats, they don't publish controller stats. I googled with no luck either.

 

I don't know what the stats are regarding game controller support on the PC. Regardless of the stats, there are some people who have strong opinions regarding game controllers on PC. I recently put a game on Steam Greenlight that will require a game controller, and some PC users were absolutely furious. Those users felt that mouse/keyboard support was an absolute requirement for every game released for the PC regardless of whether or not that made any sense for the specific game.

 

I would tend to agree with them

 

Outside of niche games, like flight simulators, I cannot think of any reason to favor a game controller over a traditional keyboard and mouse configuration. One of my reasons for using a PC over a console is having that choice.

 

For most PC games, I strongly prefer a mouse/keyboard. But some games don't play right without the correct controller, whether that means a joystick, steering wheel, or a game controller. Flight sims and racing games are good examples of games that strongly benefit from using the right hardware controller, with a joystick for the flight sim and a steering wheel for the racing game. I remember back when Descent came out and some guys tried using the mouse/keyboard instead of a joystick, and it was horrible with a mouse/keyboard.

 

Yes, but how many of those are exclusively one control system? I know Microsoft's Flight Simulator wasn't the easiest thing to control with a keyboard/mouse but I still managed to do it. I've even played racing games with them.

It may have been horrible but they still gave the option. By the way I played Descent 2 with a keyboard/mouse too.

 

Did you ever play Descent 2 with a joystick? The game was massively more fun with a joystick than with a keyboard/mouse.

 

No. I didn't own one for a very long time and now that I do I have it safely boxed up in the basement. Outside of a flight simulator I simply never found the need for the extra precision a game controller brings with it.

I have used joysticks for older computers but most of them were digital in nature and those computers lacked arrow keys and using a mouse was practically unheard of.

 

Without actually surveying people, I don't think you'll get a good estimate. Part of the problem is the controller might not be connected all the time. People might only plug in a controller when they need it (especially if it's used on their console too). The other issue is how reluctant people are to switching over to using a controller. I have to be pretty committed to playing something because I usually have to F*** around with xbox360ce to get my PS2 controller to work.

 

One nice thing about modern game controllers is that they are relatively standardized in terms of supported features. If a game developer has an idea for a game that will benefit from a game controller, it is relatively easy to design around the common feature set shared by all of the modern game controllers.

In the past on PC, there were so many different joysticks with often quite varied features. But with modern game controllers, all of them share a pretty rich common feature set (dual analog joysticks, dual analog triggers, dual bumper buttons, a d-pad, and four buttons). If a user has any modern game controller, it will likely work with any game that requires a game controller, and that is certainly a nice thing for both the game developer and the game player.

In addition to that, prices have gone down on game controllers in recent years. There are good game controllers available for $20 these days. My gut feeling is that somebody who is willing to pay for games is also willing to buy (or likely already owns) a modern game controller to get the most out of the games that were designed around that control scheme.

 

What you are saying is mostly true, although I bought a Logitech F710 last year and it was not quite just "plug and play", it was a bit of pain on Windows, and a huge pain on OSX. I bought it to use with one particular console like game and ended up switching back to just mouse and keyboard.

The thing is, you can have lots of valid reasons but the culture of PC is mouse & keyboard so you're going to run into resistance and aren't going to convince a lot of people to use a controller. Steam machine is a different animal, that's more console than PC and controller games should do well there.

 

I've got a few game concepts that explicitly require two analogue inputs, something PCs still don't offer by default. Hell, one of them requires four, which you can find on almost every gamepad, but no default PC config.

edit: And this doesn't even begin to touch on the undocumented hellscape that is keyboard matrices and how they limit what buttons you can press at the same time while still registering both inputs. Often this can actually vary by brand.

 

I pretty much play exclusively with an Xbox gamepad. It's just easier to control and more comfortable to just sit back and relax. I do realize a mouse is more precise, but I don't play competitively so I don't care.

 

PC games should have decent support for mouse and keyboard. They can have support for specialised controllers. But keyboard and mouse should be there by default.

Otherwise just launch on a console instead.

 

You can't just "launch on a console instead" most of the time. You're assuming a lot about resources here.

 

If you are a no name, then just launch what you feel like and deal with players wrath

 

You can't just ignore the primary controller(s) for your target platform either if you're trying to get sales.

 

What about flight sims and racing games? Should those simply not be written, or should they be gimped so the keyboard/mouse combo can be the default controller? There are some types of games that benefit from being designed around a joystick, steering wheel, or game controller. In many cases, those games would literally be less enjoyable if the keyboard/mouse had to be the primary control scheme.

This discussion feels like it already happened years ago. I actually remember a time when a lot of people said that PC games should not use a mouse, because not all PC systems had a mouse. Doom was probably the first game a lot of gamers finally accepted using a mouse as an input device, and even then there were a lot of gamers who tried to play with only the keyboard initially. Eventually the mouse became so widely accepted as a gaming input device that most gamers don't remember a time before mice. We are probably at a similar point in time with the game controller right now on the PC platform as we were with mice when Doom shipped back in 1993.

I am not saying the game controller will replace a mouse in all games. For example, I will always use a mouse in Counter Strike. The mouse will definitely continue to have a place in many games. But I honestly do think the game controller is refined enough, inexpensive enough, and available enough that it is an ideal input device for certain type of games on PC. And if the game controller makes more sense for a specific game, then that should be the default controller for that game and the game should be designed around that as a control scheme. Blindly demanding keyboard/mouse as a default for every PC game would severely limit certain types of games.

 

Gaming was not the primary motivation for every PC gaining a mouse. Every computer possesses one now because the mainstream OSes being sold mandated it. You couldn't use them in any reasonable fashion without one. Likewise because every computer possessed one it made little sense not to support it.

If you feel it simply cannot be made for keyboard/mouse then simply ignore those people who are complaining. Unless you didn't tell them ahead of time that your game didn't work with a keyboard/mouse, they shouldn't be buying a game they don't intend to buy the required controller for.

 

Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons, states it requires a controller, which has avoided negative rating. Maybe putting "Better played with controller" could do the same.

 

People have beaten the game using a keyboard. Clearly it does support it to some degree.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/225080/discussions/0/522730701822512709/

 

i have no keyboard/mouse co-ordination & get to frustrated with games that require it so I never buy them unless they have proper gamepad support. I've tried the emulators for gamepads but they don't work to well with mapping to most games.

 

The first programming book I ever picked up had a section on how to use the mouse to access an item in a drop down menu.

 

This is a interesting discussion topic. I am sure www.gartner.com or similar market research company could probably create a report for you for a price.

A PC Gamer can mean slightly different things. My first thoughts are Windows PC only and for controller I think gamepad (e.g. XBOX-360) is what most people are thinking about. Some people may include Linux x86 desktop as PC gaming too.

I would look what the companies that are selling game controller hardware and see what they are promoting on their websites. If they are public companies you can go through their quarterly reports and get some indication of they believe are the future markets. Most companies only support the Windows platform officially so that does it make easier. I think just looking at sales is probably best indicator short of paying for a report.

Not sure if any of the gaming magazines (e.g. PC Gamer) have been asked that question. They may have something internal with regards to for selling advertising but probably not something to share with public. No harm in asking them to see what they think.

One area which I think is very unfortunate is limiting a single player to only one controller. In Flight Simulation we usually have better options since we typically have 3 controllers as a minimum [(Stick, Throttle and Pedals) or (Yoke, Throttle Quadrant and Pedals)].

I think you should give the player as many choices as possible with regards to input devices supported. But I also think you clearly indicate which controllers/input devices were extensively tested. In Flight Simulation most companies that develop hardware specifically for that market are usually clear about what versions of the Flight Simulation software (e.g. typically X-plane, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Lockheed's Prepared3D) they were tested against. I think it is critical to mention that in your documentation.

 

My first programming on the PC was well before that. Believe it or not, there was a time when the PC had a keyboard but no mouse, an internal PC speaker (no external speakers), no sound card, and a monochrome text only (no graphics) display card. Nobody thought the PC would become a gaming platform. When some PC owners did get CGA cards, most developers said we should not write code that required a CGA card, because not every PC had a CGA card.

When some PC owners switched to EGA card, most developers said we should not write code for EGA, because not every PC had an EGA card. Similarly, when some PC owners got VGA card, most developers said we should not write code that requires a VGA card because not every PC had a VGA card.

When some PC owners got mice, a lot of developers said we should not design for a mouse based interface because not everybody had a mouse. When some PC owners got dedicated sound cards (like the Creative Labs Sound Blaster), a lot of developers said we should not develop for a card that not everybody has.

When dedicated 3D video cards first appeared in a few PC systems, most developers said not to design for those since not everybody had them. In fact, a lot of developers highly doubted that PC owners would ever be willing to pay hundreds of dollars to get a dedicated 3D video card, since it would only be useful in games. When Quake II shipped, it required a hardware 3D video card, unlike Quake which merely allowed it as an option. A lot of developers thought the requirement would probably prevent people from playing Quake II. In fact, the opposite happened. A lot of PC gamers used that requirement to justify finally buying a 3D video card, and that largely helped create what we consider to be the PC gaming platform of today.

This was always the pattern. The "PC platform" is not a single monolithic platform. Each time new hardware became available for the PC, some PC owners quickly embraced it but a lot of developers were scared to require it because "not everybody" had the new hardware. The only thing that really mattered was whether or not enough PC gamers would have the hardware to make a game viable. Whether or not "everybody" had a specific piece of hardware never mattered, because not everybody would buy a game anyway.

With game controllers, I'd guess that millions of PC gamers already have a modern game controller, such as a PS3/PS4 controller, XBox360/XBoxOne controller, or one of the other brands like Logitech. If a game is designed to play really well on a game controller, then that game has plenty of potential customers even though not everybody on the PC platform has a game controller. Again, it has never mattered if "everybody" had a certain piece of hardware. All that matters is whether or not enough people have the required hardware, and I am guessing that enough PC gamers do have a game controller.

Similarly, VR support will go through some of this same discussion this next year. A lot of games will be designed primarily around a conventional display and then have VR support tacked on to fill a check box, and those games are not going to be well received by VR users. Those games will be designed primarily for conventional displays for the same reason a lot of PC developers still develop primarily for the mouse/keyboard, which is because that is something "everybody has support for". VR gamers will be able tell that those games were not truly designed as VR games. For example, Counter Strike already plays perfect on a conventional display. Simply adding VR rendering support to CS would give a better 3D effect for visuals, but the input scheme would be unchanged.

By contrast, some developers will choose the much riskier path of developing primarily for VR regardless of not everybody having VR support, and a few of those developers are going to build something extremely amazing with an input scheme that we cannot even imagine today. Their input scheme will probably combine head tracking and a game controller in an intuitive way, and maybe even something gesture related. Once even one amazing VR-only game comes out, PC users will suddenly buy VR devices.

 

@ShilohGames: When some PC owners got game controllers, a lot of developers said we should not design for a game to rely solely on a controller because... oh wait, that's right. We still don't have controllers on every computer.

Until the day that a peripheral becomes commonplace it makes no sense to support it exclusively. If you decide to do so anyway then you shouldn't complain when you receive backlash from your audience.

 

There are enough people with joysticks that a game could be viable that supported a joystick exclusively, especially if it was a game that focused on a niche that has largely already adopted joysticks, like flight sim users. The problem with joysticks is there are so many different ones and many of them have different input options. For example, some joysticks have a hat, and some do not. Some joysticks have a bunch of buttons, while others have only a couple buttons. Some joysticks might include a throttle axis, but many do not.

That is where game controllers differ from typical joysticks. Every modern game controller has a common list of features. There are a few controller specific features that are not widely supported (like a gyro or force feedback), but there are a lot of common features (dual analog joysticks, dual analog triggers, d-pad, dual bumper buttons, four other buttons, etc).

 

Yes, I've changed the post to refer to game controllers in general. Joysticks are one of the first devices that enters my thoughts before any others because I'm so familiar with them from my 8/16-bit computer days. Still though there is one thing all non-keyboard/mouse peripherals share in common. They all require an additional purchase if your targeted audience does not already own one.

Additionally you're assuming everyone will enjoy using one. Take the time to skim through that Steam link I gave earlier. A number of those who beat the game stated they enjoyed the game and even the controls despite keyboard support being little more than a clunky afterthought.

 

Just don't be surprised if the game gets the reputation of being a god awful console port. Being better with a controller is one thing, but completely ignoring the fact that the primary input methods are mouse and keyboard says you don't even care.

 

Dark Souls is a good example of this. My first impression left me wishing that Steam had refunds at the time. I still have yet to go back and try to play the game despite how many people praised it solely because it felt like that.

 

There are quite a few games on Steam that were designed with a game controller as the primary control scheme. Those that also had a mouse/keyboard option often got negative reviews by the people who tried to play the game using a mouse/keyboard. There are plenty of flight sims and racing games where this happened.

There are also other examples. For example, Contrast was a game from 2013 that was designed with a game controller as the primary input scheme. If you watch a gamplay video on YouTube where a reviewer used the keyboard/mouse and then another similar video where the reviewer used a game controller, you see a huge difference in the gameplay. That game still managed to get an overall "Very Positive" rating on Steam, despite the fact that it did receive negative reviews from keyboard/mouse users. And I do bet a lot of those keyboard/mouse users would have demanded a refund if refunds would have been available back then. But there were obviously still a lot of very happy gamers using game controllers to play that game.

It is like I already mentioned in this thread, the issue is only whether or not enough people have game controllers to make the game viable. It does not matter if "everybody" has a game controller, since not everybody is in the market for every game. If somebody wants to play a game that was designed around a game controller, they probably already have a game controller or are willing to get one.

 

I know the perfect Unity asset to solve that problem easily. Rewired.

http://guavaman.com/projects/rewired/docs/SupportedControllers.html

The other issue is almost every game player wants to remap their controllers to something different than what the default provided in the game. Control Mapper feature of Rewired handles that nicely.

http://guavaman.com/projects/rewired/docs/ControlMapper.html

Agreed. That does make it easier to support them.

 

Yeah. I was relapsing when I realized it was Fromsoft, and I started remembering the terrible controls of their early PS2 games. Suddenly the bar for what I expected of their first PC game was set very low.

 

It is important to remember that this was only partially true. Back in the early 90's, most new PCs were being shipped with Windows and a mouse, but according to Microsoft's own research, more PCs ran Doom than Windows and users were making hardware purchasing decisions based on Doom. In 1993, 1994, and 1995, Doom was used more than any other software. Doom encouraged users to upgrade their PCs (VGA cards and mice), and then a lot of old PCs became powerful enough to support Windows as well.

Doom was such a big deal that Microsoft realized they need to make a Windows port of Doom called WinDoom to try to convince users that Windows could be used for gaming. The leader of that project at Microsoft was Gabe Newell, who later went on to co-found Valve and create Steam. Doom drove the direction of a great many things in the gaming industry.

After WinDoom, Microsoft launched DirectX to try to standardize Windows as a platform to develop games for. In many ways, DirectX was a result of Doom.

 

But how much of this was end users buying mice independently and how much of this was manufacturers/sellers bundling mice with new computers?

 

I don't know what the split was between the two.

 

man.. bad ports are just total crap, whenever i see one iam like BAAH!!! these devs are total nooby lamers

if on a PC game it EVER by default shows controller buttons as button/action prompts .. you KNOW its a game not worth anything .. or if you cant navigate menus with a mouse
seriously that crap is SUPER N00B

but yeah ive learned to support the xbox controller as an optional input device,
always wonder how many people use them, (bought one only now) but i seen some streamers use them and call it out as "lame game" for not including it as an option, so heck why not

 

I struggled with it (also have it on steam) but ultimately because it's a good game, it won regardless. Used xbox 360 controller.

It's worth bearing in mind that the xbox controller is the *official* windows controller as well and the one I see supported in the majority of desktop games which use a controller.

It requires no drivers or support since it's natively supported by windows. Having said all this, I would never dream of making a game that can't be played without a controller. That's just stupid, proper dumb.

It's like buying a car except you can't drive it because you need to purchase a steering wheel separately.

 

Good to know. I've got a PlayStation 2 controller by MadCatz with an adapter for PC. I haven't tried the controller with the game, but Windows does recognize it and supports everything short of the rumble motors.

 

What's funny is that there's a rift coming even within games that will support Oculus Rift (pun not intended - really). Each consumer Rift will ship with an Xbox One controller, so that will be the baseline. Later the Oculus Touch motion controllers will be sold as a separate product, and may enable more unique experiences that more fully take advantage of VR. But not all Rift users will have that. So games that only support Oculus Touch will be in a niche within a niche, but could be the more compelling experiences.

On a side note, I actually know someone who wants to use keyboard and mouse in VR. That makes absolutely no sense to me, but players are often quite set in their ways.

Some PC gamers perceive "gamepad" style controllers as a step down from the almighty keyboard/mouse in all cases. In some cases, I think they have a point, but of course PC gaming is a far more diverse landscape than just FPS and strategy games.

The issue of gamepad and mouse/keyboard support is something I've struggled with on my current game. It's very much oriented toward twin analog sticks and plays pretty awkwardly with keyboard and mouse. The menu system I have doesn't even support a mouse currently. I do support pretty much anything a player could have, even flight stick throttles and joysticks (thank you, Rewired), but it is disappointing to think of someone playing the game in a non-ideal way mostly just because of stubbornness.

Ultimately it's about targeting a specific audience and hoping for the best. The racing sim iRacing does require a steering wheel controller, and they do OK. That's a pretty specific/weird example, but they do seem to understand their audience.

 

Ultimately I'll use the controller that feels the most comfortable to me and that has yet to be anything other than a keyboard and mouse. I would like to try the Oculus Touch motion controllers, but you can only do so much with a motion controller before your arms become fatigued. A keyboard and mouse arrangement is simply better for prolonged play.

 

I'm guessing you don't play many racing or flight sims.

 

No, but those are not the only games that can benefit from virtual reality nor are they the only ones that use controllers.

 

The thing that is so frustrating about the issue is that mouse/keyboard elitists actually complain both ways on the subject. If a game does not include mouse/keyboard input as the primary control scheme, then they are furious. But if a game does include mouse/keyboard even though it is not an ideal input scheme, then those same people complain that the control scheme is crap.

I remember reading a bad review years ago about Descent, a game that was awesome with a joystick but not fun with a mouse. The reviewer knew this fact, acknowledged this fact, and then reviewed it using a mouse/keyboard anyway because the reviewer assumed that is how most users would try to play the game.

Anymore, I prefer to simply make a game around the best control scheme for that game. I love playing games with the mouse/keyboard when that is the best solution. For example, Counter Strike obviously rocks with a mouse/keyboard. But not every game is the same. Racing games and flight sims definitely have different requirements. It is silly to try to play a game like Descent or iRacing using a mouse/keyboard.

Basically some people believe that every PC game needs to be designed around the mouse/keyboard and that means those people also believe certain types of games should not be made for the PC. Personally, I think there are enough people out there with a game controller, joystick, and/or steering wheel to allow for alternative input schemes in some PC games. I am guessing millions of PC gamers have a modern game controller or would be willing to get one if they saw a game they really wanted that required a game controller to play.

 

I think the OP has a good question, which is if there are any stats about how many people use controller on PC. The side discussion where people are debating controller vs. keyboard/mouse is irrelevant, if you feel that's the only way your game can be played effectively then just go with it and worry about your target audience. You're not going to convince someone who is opposed to it(like me) that I should buy a controller to play it.

 

You will never make everyone happy but you can at least strive to make your game playable by the most individuals and the easiest way to do that is to provide support for the widest range of control devices while recommending that players use a specific one.

I don't understand why you are treating the idea that the game wasn't fun without a controller as anything other than an opinion. A quick search has brought me multiple links showing people who enjoyed the game without a controller. Some of them without even a mouse. Seems like this isn't as much of a fact as you are trying to claim.

 

With Descent, there were reviewers that literally knew the game was dramatically better with a joystick, but they still reviewed the game using mouse/keyboard. The strong, well known joystick recommendation was completely ignored by some reviewers, and it did lead to some negative reviews for what was one of the best games at the time.

With the addition of Steam's refund system, I really don't see any point for intentionally including an input scheme that is vastly inferior for a specific type of game just to try to appeal to a wider range of possible gamers. A die hard mouse/keyboard player will try a flight sim or racing game with a mouse/keyboard, and then promptly get a refund once they realize the game was designed around a different input scheme. So including mouse/keyboard input in a game that does not fit well with that scheme does not increase revenue.

I realize not every PC has a game controller, but that is moot. A lot of PC gamers already have a game controller. In fact, there are a lot more PCs with game controllers than will even buy each game, so the game controller requirement won't limit sales. And some people who actually prefer using a game controller will pick a game because it requires a game controller.

 

This is an excellent point. How can we get numbers on the number of game controllers for PCs? There are some stats are game consoles from Microsoft and Sony. For example, there are over 25 million PS4 sold and (I think) over 10 million Xbox Ones sold and over 80 million PS3 sold and over 84 million Xbox 360. Each of those consoles has at least one game controller and every one of those game controllers are compatible with the PC.

That is 200 million game controllers right there, if you assume only one game controller per console. Plus there are all of the game controller purchased without a console, which is likely millions more but I have no idea how many millions. There are obviously hundreds of millions of modern game controllers in existence, but we have no easy way to determine how many of those game controllers exist in households that play games on PC through Steam.

I am guessing millions of PC gamers already have a game controller they could use with their PC. I am guessing that the number of game controllers already connected to PCs vastly exceeds the number of people who will buy any given indie game.