This was the last nail in the coffin, PC gaming is finally dead
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'm sure at least 1/4 of those people don't even use their gaming pc for "gaming".
A lot of those people probably got ripped off into buying expensive gaming hardware they don't even need.
I know many people who own an i7 rig with gtx 480 video card who only use their pc for office works.
Mathlab CUDA and "Office FX" says hi.
How many people buy PCs with Gaming in mind? I thought PC Gamers built their PCs.
[QUOTE="clyde46"]I dissagree with the boring part but it does get old though.JandurinEVERYTHING gets old. But not as quick as this thread is implying. I got months of enjoyment out of GH2 and RB and such. That's just because you weren't getting killed every 3.5 seconds in Halo MP.
so my mum buys a new expensive laptop for $1500 because she wants a fast computer to work on and it so happens to come with a relatively powerful GPU and CPU.
Does that mean by mum is a gamer?
Yes, according to the PC Gaming Alliance. The foundation that has probably done less for PC gaming than the The Gorilla Foundation.so my mum buys a new expensive laptop for $1500 because she wants a fast computer to work on and it so happens to come with a relatively powerful GPU and CPU.
Does that mean by mum is a gamer?
hd5870corei7
That's just because you weren't getting killed every 3.5 seconds in Halo MP.sonicarewell not specifically at that moment, true YO SONICARE you getting reach right away?
[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] Any particular reason? I think it's a pretty damn awesome game.ExESGO
it's boring for starters, it gets old really quickly
That is true. It can get really boring.Played it for an hour with a friend on his PS3 and got bored.
I prefer my Ibanez :D
The PC Gaming Alliance has about as much credibility as VGChartz. They are a public relations group whose sole purpose is to hype up PC gaming. If you read their information these press releases are always very misleading to the point of being deliberate spreading of misinformation.
I'm not saying PC gaming is dead. I have practically zero interest in PC gaming and yet I am playinga ton of SC2 right now. There is a lot of great games out there. But I have yet to see a single press release from this group that doesn't spin like a washing machine.
With such high hardware sales numbers, wouldn't it make sense for PC games to sell at least twice more than console games? Yet most of the times a single console game sells three or four times more than its PC counterpart. That either means over 70% of pc gamers are pirates, or over 70% of them don't play games.waltefmoney
PCGA: 2009 PC Game Software Revenue Rises to $13.1 Billion, Up Three Percent from 2008
I guess PC Gamers has a lot more to choose from than the last big thing.
[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]With such high hardware sales numbers, wouldn't it make sense for PC games to sell at least twice more than console games? Yet most of the times a single console game sells three or four times more than its PC counterpart. That either means over 70% of pc gamers are pirates, or over 70% of them don't play games.RyuRanVII
I guess PC Gamers has a lot more to choose from than the last big thing.
Wait, is that entertainment software, or software in general? Also, again the info is coming from PC Gaming Alliance.[QUOTE="tontontam0"]
I'm sure at least 1/4 of those people don't even use their gaming pc for "gaming".
A lot of those people probably got ripped off into buying expensive gaming hardware they don't even need.
I know many people who own an i7 rig with gtx 480 video card who only use their pc for office works.
Wasdie
I work in a software R&D lab and I can tell you that I don't know a single of the many employees who own such a beast rig for anything. I have the most powerful computer of any of my co-workers.
There are TONS of PC gamers out there. Sales don't lie. Game sales on the PC are not like game sales on the consoles. Games on the PC sell strong throughout their lives as people upgrade their comps. They don't just have a major spike in sales the first week and drop to nothing after like console games. PC gamers get themselves invested in games that take longer to beat, or get caught up in online games with really no end. So instead of buying new games all of the time, they just play the few they have and pick up a new title once the price has come down a bit.
PC gaming and console gaming are entire different animals.
WHile I can't speak to the specs, I CAN confirm that he is speaking the truth. I might even go so far as to say MORE than 1/4 have PCs that would fall into the category of this report and yet never play games. My parents have recently bought their third new PC in maybe 20 years. Theynever do anything more than e-mail, internetand office related tasks but they still wanted something with the best specs for the price they were willing to pay. So they went to an electronics store and bought a rig off the shelf. It EASILY qualifies as a gaming rig by the standards of this "study" so technically, they were probably counted as one of the people who bought a PC with "gaming in mind" according to the PC Gaming Alliance. That is absolutely false. And my parents are NOTthe only older people I know who recently did that. My Wife's parents did the exact same thing. As have some friends and people I work with.
Hell, even I haven't had an interest in PC gaming for probably a decade or more and still went out and bought SC2. But that doesn't mean I bought my new computer this past year "with gaming in mind" or that I have any interest in playing games beyond this one. Maybe my parents will one day pick up a game. Maybe they will play alot of Windows Solitaire. But that doesn't mean they bought the computer for gaming or "with gaming in mind" as the report claims.
I agree that "sales don't lie". But what IS lying is the distortion of the datathe PC gaming Alliance consistently does to hype up the cause. Not that I can blame them since their whole job and purpose is to hype up the PC gaming cause.But I have yet to see a single release from them that doesn't distort and mislead.
[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]With such high hardware sales numbers, wouldn't it make sense for PC games to sell at least twice more than console games? Yet most of the times a single console game sells three or four times more than its PC counterpart. That either means over 70% of pc gamers are pirates, or over 70% of them don't play games.RyuRanVII
PCGA: 2009 PC Game Software Revenue Rises to $13.1 Billion, Up Three Percent from 2008
I guess PC Gamers has a lot more to choose from than the last big thing.
If you read that study, they include a whole ton of things that have nothing to do with games to get to that total. It includes advertising revenue, microtransactions and subscription fees. Not that it isn't still an impressive number, but regardless, ithas very little reflection on how many actual games are sold. So it doesn't really refute his claim of piracy.
"The Horizons Hardware report, compiled by the PC Gaming Alliance, shows that the annual shipment volume for PC hardware in 2009 was over double all consoles combined.******* awesome! :DThe report uses revenues from PCs that shipped with a discrete GPU as their benchmark. These revenues totaled $54.6 billion in 2009, and were based on the sale of 61.5 million PCs that were purchased last year with "gaming in mind."
The report also estimates that there 212.6 million PC users with a discrete graphics card in their machine."
link
PC gaming is dead, DEAD I tell you, take that Hermits
sorry if oldohthemanatee
Discrete graphics can mean anything as long as it has dedicated VRAM, from crappy 3450s, 7200s and 8400s to whiz-bang GTX 480s and 5970s.
Yes, not everyone who has dedicated graphics, needs or uses them in a gaming like manner. Many people need them for multi-monitor output or for media machines and video editing as even Intel HD graphics on i3 and i5 dies still suck big time and lack multi-monitor output. I've noticed PC gamers tend to dedicate themselves to a particular genre and or particular games (WoW) unlike ADD-like console gamers who play a title for 5 hours, toss it aside, and play something else.
Even if people all of a sudden quit buying components, laptops would quickly fill the gaming PC void, and in some ways have already. Laptops represent a product who's portability eludes both typical desktops and consoles alike. As long as the current crop of consoles have been out, even mainstream gaming mobile PC tech has absolutely demolished what the consoles could hope to achieve and only continue to improve. It comes at a cost of course but portability is a nice feature to have, especially when it gets you some decent gaming capabilities in a nice portable package. Consoles may have the market in gaming, but each of the big three are somewhat on unstable ground since they have to compete so much via price, especially Sony, who has yet to turn a profit with the PS3 programIIRC. Consoles have become more and more like PCs for good reason, however if they were to become like PCs (open software architectures, OSs), they would only end up costing more and becoming just another pre-built computer.
And lastly on cost, common people have horrendous misconceptions about building PCs and cost. You can also think about gaming PCs in this manner: you need a PC, and probably want a decently fast machine, with ample RAM, quick processor (at least a dual core), large HDD. The graphics card can be thought of as something completely separate. Without it, your machine is reliant on it's integrated graphics to get things done, in which case it does the basic job for non-gaming purposes. For $100 or less you could get a graphics card that tears the 360 or PS3 apart, taking that basic home computer for internet, media, and office work into a whole new world of gaming possibilities. PCs with gaming in mind don't have to be $2000. A good gaming machine (by today's standards) can be had for less than $600 (quad core AMD, 4 GB RAM, Radeon 5770+ everything elseand OS) if you know how to look for the right parts at the right price. Depending on how far your particular needs might go, you could go even lower in total build price.
so my dad bought a ps3 to play blu-ray...so my mum buys a new expensive laptop for $1500 because she wants a fast computer to work on and it so happens to come with a relatively powerful GPU and CPU.
Does that mean by mum is a gamer?
hd5870corei7
[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]
[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]With such high hardware sales numbers, wouldn't it make sense for PC games to sell at least twice more than console games? Yet most of the times a single console game sells three or four times more than its PC counterpart. That either means over 70% of pc gamers are pirates, or over 70% of them don't play games.ZIMdoom
PCGA: 2009 PC Game Software Revenue Rises to $13.1 Billion, Up Three Percent from 2008
I guess PC Gamers has a lot more to choose from than the last big thing.
If you read that study, they include a whole ton of things that have nothing to do with games to get to that total. It includes advertising revenue, microtransactions and subscription fees. Not that it isn't still an impressive number, but regardless, ithas very little reflection on how many actual games are sold. So it doesn't really refute his claim of piracy.
The focus should be revenues being generated from gaming. In-game advertising revenue, micro-transactions and subscription fees are part the overall revenue pool.I'm quite surprised the PC didn't get FF13. Considering it was on the 360, porting it would be quite easy. Would've much rather had it on the PC than my PS3.Personally, i think that it would take more than just millions of computer purchases with gaming in mind if PC gaming is to survive. I STILL SAY THAT PC. NEEDS. FINAL. FREAKIN'. FANTASY. AND. KINGDOM. HEARTS.
flashn00b
[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
[QUOTE="RyuRanVII"]
I guess PC Gamers has a lot more to choose from than the last big thing.
ronvalencia
If you read that study, they include a whole ton of things that have nothing to do with games to get to that total. It includes advertising revenue, microtransactions and subscription fees. Not that it isn't still an impressive number, but regardless, ithas very little reflection on how many actual games are sold. So it doesn't really refute his claim of piracy.
The focus should be revenues being generated from gaming. In-game advertising revenue, micro-transactions and subscription fees are part the overall revenue pool. But NPD reports for example don't include those things. Only PC gaming alliance do. When you read a report on console game sales all you're reading is actual sales. They don't count DLC, subscriptions and micro-transactions, so it would be really unfair to compare the usual report to PC Gaming Alliance's twisting of data.The great news is that you can now get gaming ready laptops for as cheap as £500. Now that Intel IGPs are out, PC gaming will only grow.
Discrete graphics can mean anything as long as it has dedicated VRAM, from crappy 3450s, 7200s and 8400s to whiz-bang GTX 480s and 5970s.
Yes, not everyone who has dedicated graphics, needs or uses them in a gaming like manner. Many people need them for multi-monitor output or for media machines and video editing as even Intel HD graphics on i3 and i5 dies still suck big time and lack multi-monitor output. I've noticed PC gamers tend to dedicate themselves to a particular genre and or particular games (WoW) unlike ADD-like console gamers who play a title for 5 hours, toss it aside, and play something else.
Even if people all of a sudden quit buying components, laptops would quickly fill the gaming PC void, and in some ways have already. Laptops represent a product who's portability eludes both typical desktops and consoles alike. As long as the current crop of consoles have been out, even mainstream gaming mobile PC tech has absolutely demolished what the consoles could hope to achieve and only continue to improve. It comes at a cost of course but portability is a nice feature to have, especially when it gets you some decent gaming capabilities in a nice portable package. Consoles may have the market in gaming, but each of the big three are somewhat on unstable ground since they have to compete so much via price, especially Sony, who has yet to turn a profit with the PS3 programIIRC. Consoles have become more and more like PCs for good reason, however if they were to become like PCs (open software architectures, OSs), they would only end up costing more and becoming just another pre-built computer.
And lastly on cost, common people have horrendous misconceptions about building PCs and cost. You can also think about gaming PCs in this manner: you need a PC, and probably want a decently fast machine, with ample RAM, quick processor (at least a dual core), large HDD. The graphics card can be thought of as something completely separate. Without it, your machine is reliant on it's integrated graphics to get things done, in which case it does the basic job for non-gaming purposes. For $100 or less you could get a graphics card that tears the 360 or PS3 apart, taking that basic home computer for internet, media, and office work into a whole new world of gaming possibilities. PCs with gaming in mind don't have to be $2000. A good gaming machine (by today's standards) can be had for less than $600 (quad core AMD, 4 GB RAM, Radeon 5770+ everything elseand OS) if you know how to look for the right parts at the right price. Depending on how far your particular needs might go, you could go even lower in total build price.mouthforbathory
http://www.techeye.net/chips/ati-amd-sells16-million-5000-series-gpus
As of July 2010, ATI-AMD sells 16 million 5000 series GPUs.
WHile I can't speak to the specs, I CAN confirm that he is speaking the truth. I might even go so far as to say MORE than 1/4 have PCs that would fall into the category of this report and yet never play games. My parents have recently bought their third new PC in maybe 20 years. Theynever do anything more than e-mail, internetand office related tasks but they still wanted something with the best specs for the price they were willing to pay. So they went to an electronics store and bought a rig off the shelf. It EASILY qualifies as a gaming rig by the standards of this "study" so technically, they were probably counted as one of the people who bought a PC with "gaming in mind" according to the PC Gaming Alliance. That is absolutely false. And my parents are NOTthe only older people I know who recently did that. My Wife's parents did the exact same thing. As have some friends and people I work with.ZIMdoomProve that your anecdotes are representative of a larger, general trend and not an unrepresentative sample. You need to do this to extrapolate that more than 1/4 of PCs fall into that category.
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]The focus should be revenues being generated from gaming. In-game advertising revenue, micro-transactions and subscription fees are part the overall revenue pool. But NPD reports for example don't include those things. Only PC gaming alliance do. When you read a report on console game sales all you're reading is actual sales. They don't count DLC, subscriptions and micro-transactions, so it would be really unfair to compare the usual report to PC Gaming Alliance's twisting of data. how about we dont worry about it, its obvious that pc gaming is making tons of money still.[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
If you read that study, they include a whole ton of things that have nothing to do with games to get to that total. It includes advertising revenue, microtransactions and subscription fees. Not that it isn't still an impressive number, but regardless, ithas very little reflection on how many actual games are sold. So it doesn't really refute his claim of piracy.
waltefmoney
The focus should be revenues being generated from gaming. In-game advertising revenue, micro-transactions and subscription fees are part the overall revenue pool.[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
If you read that study, they include a whole ton of things that have nothing to do with games to get to that total. It includes advertising revenue, microtransactions and subscription fees. Not that it isn't still an impressive number, but regardless, ithas very little reflection on how many actual games are sold. So it doesn't really refute his claim of piracy.
ronvalencia
I agree that revenues are important but that is NOT how that report is being sold to the publicor promoted by PC fans. It is being used to say that PC games SALES are high and that means that everything in the pc gaming industry is super rosy fantastic. That report specifically refers to all those areas as being part of "software sales". Well I'm sorry but no matter how high revenues are, I don't considering advertising revenue to be a "software sale". I don't consider subscription fees to be a "software SALE". If they simply wanted to discuss how much revenue PC gaming bring in , why not say exactly that? Because they don't care about revenue. PC Gaming Alliances actual mandate is to promote PC Gaming. So they want people to talk about massive sales to create the image that PC Gaming is extremely popular.
Look at any thread where that study is posted and you will see it is being used as PROOF that PC games SALES have hit record highs. That is wrong but that is exactly the message the PC Gaming Alliance continues to put out. Their press releases are all misleadingly worded to create this message when that isn't what their data actually says.
PC gaming can certainly make tons of money. No doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that these news releases are EXTREMELY misleading and that PC fans continually fall for it. THAT is the issue.
PC sales in terms of gaming have rocked consoles this gen. It's a very popular platform in places like Europe.
A "total" was given quite a while ago about around 196 million computers shipped from retail for gaming, since the release of the 360. Their lower-end in the report consisted of computers with stripped higher-end cards, such as the 5770, which ae still excellent for gaming.
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]The focus should be revenues being generated from gaming. In-game advertising revenue, micro-transactions and subscription fees are part the overall revenue pool. But NPD reports for example don't include those things. Only PC gaming alliance do. When you read a report on console game sales all you're reading is actual sales. They don't count DLC, subscriptions and micro-transactions, so it would be really unfair to compare the usual report to PC Gaming Alliance's twisting of data. Selling boxed title is one business model. Subscription is another business model. In the end, NPD report also focuses on revenue.[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
If you read that study, they include a whole ton of things that have nothing to do with games to get to that total. It includes advertising revenue, microtransactions and subscription fees. Not that it isn't still an impressive number, but regardless, ithas very little reflection on how many actual games are sold. So it doesn't really refute his claim of piracy.
waltefmoney
[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]WHile I can't speak to the specs, I CAN confirm that he is speaking the truth. I might even go so far as to say MORE than 1/4 have PCs that would fall into the category of this report and yet never play games. My parents have recently bought their third new PC in maybe 20 years. Theynever do anything more than e-mail, internetand office related tasks but they still wanted something with the best specs for the price they were willing to pay. So they went to an electronics store and bought a rig off the shelf. It EASILY qualifies as a gaming rig by the standards of this "study" so technically, they were probably counted as one of the people who bought a PC with "gaming in mind" according to the PC Gaming Alliance. That is absolutely false. And my parents are NOTthe only older people I know who recently did that. My Wife's parents did the exact same thing. As have some friends and people I work with.VandalvideoProve that your anecdotes are representative of a larger, general trend and not an unrepresentative sample. You need to do this to extrapolate that more than 1/4 of PCs fall into that category.
I admit that all I have is anecdotes. But those anecdotes are just as accurate as the misleading information the PC Gaming Alliance is once again putting out. They have no way of proving that people who bought PC withs "discreet graphics cards" did so "with gaming in mind". There is ZERO evidence to back that assertion. Therefore, my anecdotes are equally as realiable an indicator as their study.
But once again I have to refer back to your post history to say I will not engage you in debate on this issue. You have proven in the past you will argue in favour of these misleading releases, demand an impossible level of "proof" from others who accurately point out misinformation, and say "well they know better so I will take their word for it."
Sorry, but you are not credible. Your mind is made up that anything pro-PC is 110% factual and no amount of evidence or debate to the contrary will change your mind. The anecdotes are just a personal example used to make my point. If you have an issue with my arguement, that this report is misleading for reasons I have listed, then feel free to rebut it. But I'm not about to engage someone who has no genuine interest in truth so long as that truth isn't filtered through PC-tinted glasses.
PC sales in terms of gaming have rocked consoles this gen. It's a very popular platform in places like Europe.
A "total" was given quite a while ago about around 196 million computers shipped from retail for gaming, since the release of the 360. Their lower-end in the report consisted of computers with stripped higher-end cards, such as the 5770, which ae still excellent for gaming.
lundy86_4
Thank you for proving my point (see above) on why PC Gaming Alliance's reports/studies are so extremely misleading.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
PC sales in terms of gaming have rocked consoles this gen. It's a very popular platform in places like Europe.
A "total" was given quite a while ago about around 196 million computers shipped from retail for gaming, since the release of the 360. Their lower-end in the report consisted of computers with stripped higher-end cards, such as the 5770, which ae still excellent for gaming.
ZIMdoom
Thank you for proving my point (see above) on why PC Gaming Alliance's reports/studies are so extremely misleading.
What did I prove? I stated that the report regarding their low-end cards were highly-capable of gaming (they're also capable of gaming at high resolutions).
I admit that all I have is anecdotes. But those anecdotes are just as accurate as the misleading information the PC Gaming Alliance is once again putting out. They have no way of proving that people who bought PC withs "discreet graphics cards" did so "with gaming in mind". There is ZERO evidence to back that assertion. Therefore, my anecdotes are equally as realiable an indicator as their study.ZIMdoomActually, no they aren't. For it to be considered equally reliable you would have to be equally credible. But I see no reason to take your anecdotes at face value. I was being kind by assuming that you weren't lieing and demanding some kind of proof of authenticity.
Prove my mind is made up.Your mind is made up that anything pro-PC is 110% factual and no amount of evidence or debate to the contrary will change your mind.
I have never argued that the PCGA's articles are an accurate reflection. I'm merely demanding you prove your own argument. If you want to hold the PCGA up to such high standards, clearly you should expect I hold you up to the same standards. PS: Don't attack my character.The anecdotes are just a personal example used to make my point. If you have an issue with my arguement, that this report is misleading for reasons I have listed, then feel free to rebut it. But I'm not about to engage someone who has no genuine interest in truth so long as that truth isn't filtered through PC-tinted glasses.
Prove that your anecdotes are representative of a larger, general trend and not an unrepresentative sample. You need to do this to extrapolate that more than 1/4 of PCs fall into that category.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]WHile I can't speak to the specs, I CAN confirm that he is speaking the truth. I might even go so far as to say MORE than 1/4 have PCs that would fall into the category of this report and yet never play games. My parents have recently bought their third new PC in maybe 20 years. Theynever do anything more than e-mail, internetand office related tasks but they still wanted something with the best specs for the price they were willing to pay. So they went to an electronics store and bought a rig off the shelf. It EASILY qualifies as a gaming rig by the standards of this "study" so technically, they were probably counted as one of the people who bought a PC with "gaming in mind" according to the PC Gaming Alliance. That is absolutely false. And my parents are NOTthe only older people I know who recently did that. My Wife's parents did the exact same thing. As have some friends and people I work with.ZIMdoom
I admit that all I have is anecdotes. But those anecdotes are just as accurate as the misleading information the PC Gaming Alliance is once again putting out. They have no way of proving that people who bought PC withs "discreet graphics cards" did so "with gaming in mind". There is ZERO evidence to back that assertion. Therefore, my anecdotes are equally as realiable an indicator as their study.
But once again I have to refer back to your post history to say I will not engage you in debate on this issue. You have proven in the past you will argue in favour of these misleading releases, demand an impossible level of "proof" from others who accurately point out misinformation, and say "well they know better so I will take their word for it."
Sorry, but you are not credible. Your mind is made up that anything pro-PC is 110% factual and no amount of evidence or debate to the contrary will change your mind. The anecdotes are just a personal example used to make my point. If you have an issue with my arguement, that this report is misleading for reasons I have listed, then feel free to rebut it. But I'm not about to engage someone who has no genuine interest in truth so long as that truth isn't filtered through PC-tinted glasses.
I'm guessing you haven't done inference statistics.[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
PC sales in terms of gaming have rocked consoles this gen. It's a very popular platform in places like Europe.
A "total" was given quite a while ago about around 196 million computers shipped from retail for gaming, since the release of the 360. Their lower-end in the report consisted of computers with stripped higher-end cards, such as the 5770, which ae still excellent for gaming.
lundy86_4
Thank you for proving my point (see above) on why PC Gaming Alliance's reports/studies are so extremely misleading.
What did I prove? I stated that the report regarding their low-end cards were highly-capable of gaming (they're also capable of gaming at high resolutions).
There is no evidence in that report that backs their claim that people bought those PCs "with gaming in mind". They simply say. as you did, any PC with X level graphics can be used for gaming and then jump to the conclusion that that is the REASON they bought the PC in the first place. My department is updating all their PCs this year. That is more than 30 in my office alone and they fit the very vague and bare bones definition of "gaming PC".Therefore, these computers would be counted in their study as PROOF that PC gaming is on the rise.
Their data does not back their conclusion. But they keep putting out misleading statements like this becuase they know the PC internet community (in general, probably not all) willnot think about it too hard andjust parrot the study as they reported it.
There is no evidence in that report that backs their claim that people bought those PCs "with gaming in mind". They simply say. as you did, any PC with X level graphics can be used for gaming and then jump to the conclusion that that is the REASON they bought the PC in the first place. My department is updating all their PCs this year. That is more than 30 in my office alone and they fit the very vague and bare bones definition of "gaming PC".Therefore, these computers would be counted in their study as PROOF that PC gaming is on the rise.
Their data does not back their conclusion. But they keep putting out misleading statements like this becuase they know the PC internet community (in general, probably not all) willnot think about it too hard andjust parrot the study as they reported it.
ZIMdoom
I wasn't talking about the same report. This was a different report.
I don't know how they come to their conclusions, as I have never done statistics, however you shouldn't make the assertion that they're innaccurate because of what they state. For all we know, they could be quite accurate.
[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]
[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
Thank you for proving my point (see above) on why PC Gaming Alliance's reports/studies are so extremely misleading.
ZIMdoom
What did I prove? I stated that the report regarding their low-end cards were highly-capable of gaming (they're also capable of gaming at high resolutions).
There is no evidence in that report that backs their claim that people bought those PCs "with gaming in mind". They simply say. as you did, any PC with X level graphics can be used for gaming and then jump to the conclusion that that is the REASON they bought the PC in the first place. My department is updating all their PCs this year. That is more than 30 in my office alone and they fit the very vague and bare bones definition of "gaming PC".Therefore, these computers would be counted in their study as PROOF that PC gaming is on the rise.
Their data does not back their conclusion. But they keep putting out misleading statements like this becuase they know the PC internet community (in general, probably not all) willnot think about it too hard andjust parrot the study as they reported it.
They are correlating the hardware sales with gaming software revenue.I'm guessing you haven't done inference statistics.ronvalencia
True. But since the PC Gaming Alliance is keeping this data top secret, and refuses to release it for scrutiny and analysis...you can't really say their statistical methods are reliable or accurate. If they used any at all.
But NPD reports for example don't include those things. Only PC gaming alliance do. When you read a report on console game sales all you're reading is actual sales. They don't count DLC, subscriptions and micro-transactions, so it would be really unfair to compare the usual report to PC Gaming Alliance's twisting of data. Selling boxed title is one business model. Subscription is another business model. In the end, NPD report also focuses on revenue. So it's ok to include digital distribution and subscriptions when calculating PC gaming revenue, but it's not when calculating console revenue? Xbox Live for example makes a ton of money but you won't see it in a gaming revenue report.[QUOTE="waltefmoney"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] The focus should be revenues being generated from gaming. In-game advertising revenue, micro-transactions and subscription fees are part the overall revenue pool.
ronvalencia
I wasn't talking about the same report. This was a different report.
I don't know how they come to their conclusions, as I have never done statistics, however you shouldn't make the assertion that they're innaccurate because of what they state. For all we know, they could be quite accurate.
lundy86_4
I know exactly which report you are talking about because it was posted in this forum as well, resulting in many of the same comments you have posted.
But I have to laugh that you say I shouldn't say they are inaccurate because of what they say, and I should just take their word for it. If their words are inaccurate then they are. And it seems to me that if they have so much confidence in what they are saying, then why the need to mislead in their language and why the need to keep all these studies they keep quoting top secret?
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]Selling boxed title is one business model. Subscription is another business model. In the end, NPD report also focuses on revenue. So it's ok to include digital distribution and subscriptions when calculating PC gaming revenue, but it's not when calculating console revenue? Xbox Live for example makes a ton of money but you won't see it in a gaming revenue report.[QUOTE="waltefmoney"] But NPD reports for example don't include those things. Only PC gaming alliance do. When you read a report on console game sales all you're reading is actual sales. They don't count DLC, subscriptions and micro-transactions, so it would be really unfair to compare the usual report to PC Gaming Alliance's twisting of data.waltefmoney
Unlike WOW(MMOG) type subscriptions, Xbox Live involves non-gaming (community) service access.
They are correlating the hardware sales with gaming software revenue.
ronvalencia
1) How can you know that when the data is not there to back your claim? Or are you just assuming that is what they are doing?
2) Even if you are correct, their definition of "gaming software revenue" includes areas of gaming that has NOTHING to do with game sales. This includes advertising revenue, subscription fees, microtransactions, etc. How can anyone accuratelycorrelate that to hardware sales? That would be like saying lobbying is an accurate representation of the democratic majority. Money does not represent the people because those with more money get more say. Therefore, revenue is not an accurate indicator of how many PCs are sold "with gaming in mind".
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]I'm guessing you haven't done inference statistics.ZIMdoom
True. But since the PC Gaming Alliance is keeping this data top secret, and refuses to release it for scrutiny and analysis...you can't really say their statistical methods are reliable or accurate. If they used any at all.
I believe you have to pay for the reports. Either that, or you have to become a Promoter/Contributor ($30,000/$5000 US annual respectively). As far as i'm aware, they're not typically meant for the general public.
[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]I'm guessing you haven't done inference statistics.lundy86_4
True. But since the PC Gaming Alliance is keeping this data top secret, and refuses to release it for scrutiny and analysis...you can't really say their statistical methods are reliable or accurate. If they used any at all.
I believe you have to pay for the reports. Either that, or you have to become a Promoter/Contributor ($30,000/$5000 US annual respectively). As far as i'm aware, they're not typically meant for the general public.
Its so sad that all this sales data is withheld from us. We don't need all of it but its so ridiculous how we see none of it
[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]
They are correlating the hardware sales with gaming software revenue.
ZIMdoom
1) How can you know that when the data is not there to back your claim? Or are you just assuming that is what they are doing?
2) Even if you are correct, their definition of "gaming software revenue" includes areas of gaming that has NOTHING to do with game sales. This includes advertising revenue, subscription fees, microtransactions, etc. How can anyone accuratelycorrelate that to hardware sales? That would be like saying lobbying is an accurate representation of the democratic majority. Money does not represent the people because those with more money get more say. Therefore, revenue is not an accurate indicator of how many PCs are sold "with gaming in mind".
If a game targets advertising, subscription fees, micro-transactions and 'etc' as the means to gain revenue (ROI aka return on investment), then the comparsion is valid. The hardware question is for install base for revenue growth.
Remember, PC game revenue may involve X rated titles. The big 3 is pretty conservative when it comes to this type issues.
In the end, it's all about ROI.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment