This was the last nail in the coffin, PC gaming is finally dead

I see what you did there. Though, even this kind of misdirection thread is getting old. PC gaming not being dead is a fact, and only those who deny it don't know.

its also funny how despite these numbers, publishers still make more money and get more sales from the console market.AiurProtoss

[QUOTE="AiurProtoss"]its also funny how despite these numbers, publishers still make more money and get more sales from the console market.ronvalencia

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="AiurProtoss"]its also funny how despite these numbers, publishers still make more money and get more sales from the console market.AiurProtoss

We could estimate 2010 GPU mix based from the past.

Refer to http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3711

"That of course doesn't tell the full story, and in speaking with ATI we were informed that 70% of sales have been 4300/4500 parts - the lowest performing, least expensive offerings. 15% of sales are from the 4600 series, which is where reasonable gaming can finally enter the picture. As for the 4800 series, it's still sitting at less than 5% (with the remainder of ATI's sales apparently coming from older 3000 series parts). As far as high-end laptop graphics is concerned, NVIDIA has had a clear lead for a while, for a couple of reasons."

Consumers's spending power from the past wouldn't change much.

Therefore, revenue is not an accurate indicator of how many PCs are sold "with gaming in mind".ZIMdoom

Pc gaming is gonna be hard to track sales wise because no one discloses sources or methods and we just don't know how much software is sold due to DD. Its obvious PC gaming is far from dead but its not so obvious just how profitable it is for what demographic.

[QUOTE="AiurProtoss"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Depends on the publishers.ronvalencia

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?

ZIMdoom

I didn't say you should take their word for it. Just not to assume they are innaccurate because you don't know the process of how they come to such conclusions. For all you know, they could be highly accurate. They could not be.

How did they mislead in their language. I have a feeling if we had access to the entire report, it would give an overview of their techniques. However, as a member of the general public, we don't have access (much like not having access to the full NPD reports, unless we pay for them).

They're not top secret, they just aren't meant for the general public. They are for people interested (either from a personal or business aspect) who is willing to pay for the report.

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

ActicEdge

That's true. It would be very interesting to see.

At the end of the day it's likely not intended for the general public.

its also funny how despite these numbers, publishers still make more money and get more sales from the console market.AiurProtoss

Activision says "HI!" :P

[QUOTE="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.Vandalvideo

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.

You say I'm not credible and that there is a problem with my arguement, and yet you continue to ignore my arguement to nitpick anecdotal evidence I've used to make my point?

Here is my arguement. The PCGA uses a standard of "gaming PC" that includes people buying PCs with no intent of gaming. I say this because their definition of "discreet graphics card" includes most newer work computers (which my office recently picked up 30 and the rest of the department is slowly replacing as well) and practically any computers someone picks up off the shelf at Best Buy or any other retail store. Can those PCs be used at some point to play SOME SORT of game. Sure. But that is not what the PCGA is saying. They specifically say in their release that these PCs were bought "WITH GAMING IN MIND".

What evidence do they have to make that claim? Where is the proof in that claim since, again, many people/offices buying a new computer would fall into their category of buying a "Gaming PC" and bought that PC "with gaming in mind"?

Please point out where I am not credible, or incorrect, in making this point? If you want to have a serious, honest discussion about this then where am I wrong in this arguement?

p.s. I've never attacked your character. I'm simply pointing out whatseems to be abehavioural patternon your part.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="AiurProtoss"] Yes that is true but most of the big publishers make more from the console market. I mean Dragon Age:Origins which I bought for my PC and an Excellent game i might add, still sold more on consoles despite it being a more traditional RPG. I mean thread is a little pointless considering PC isn't dead or isn't going to die any time soon. If PC gaming died then so would consoles. Those numbers that were presented could mean anything, As i have said previously id like to see how many of those PC's can run Crysis on high settings, a game from 2007, because my PC was about 1000 dollars (which I built) and I can run it on high but with DX10 turned off. Those numbers could mean anything from being able to play crysis or Reader rabbit. AiurProtoss

You say I'm not credible and that there is a problem with my arguement, and yet you continue to ignore my arguement to nitpick anecdotal evidence I've used to make my point?

Here is my arguement. The PCGA uses a standard of "gaming PC" that includes people buying PCs with no intent of gaming. I say this because their definition of "discreet graphics card" includes most newer work computers (which my office recently picked up 30 and the rest of the department is slowly replacing as well) and practically any computers someone picks up off the shelf at Best Buy or any other retail store. Can those PCs be used at some point to play SOME SORT of game. Sure. But that is not what the PCGA is saying. They specifically say in their release that these PCs were bought "WITH GAMING IN MIND".

What evidence do they have to make that claim? Where is the proof in that claim since, again, many people/offices buying a new computer would fall into their category of buying a "Gaming PC" and bought that PC "with gaming in mind"?

Please point out where I am not credible, or incorrect, in making this point? If you want to have a serious, honest discussion about this then where am I wrong in this arguement?

p.s. I've never attacked your character. I'm simply pointing out whatseems to be abehavioural patternon your part.

ZIMdoom

Dell has a separate home and business order links. You can estimate home vs business use from Dell's POV.

You say I'm not credible and that there is a problem with my arguement, and yet you continue to ignore my arguement to nitpick anecdotal evidence I've used to make my point?ZIMdoom

Here is my arguement. The PCGA uses a standard of "gaming PC" that includes people buying PCs with no intent of gaming. I say this because their definition of "discreet graphics card" includes most newer work computers (which my office recently picked up 30 and the rest of the department is slowly replacing as well) and practically any computers someone picks up off the shelf at Best Buy or any other retail store. Can those PCs be used at some point to play SOME SORT of game. Sure. But that is not what the PCGA is saying. They specifically say in their release that these PCs were bought "WITH GAMING IN MIND".What evidence do they have to make that claim? Where is the proof in that claim since, again, many people/offices buying a new computer would fall into their category of buying a "Gaming PC" and bought that PC "with gaming in mind"?

p.s. I've never attacked your character. I'm simply pointing out what seems to be a behavioural pattern on your part.

yet consoles have better game sales...i wonda why

sikanderahmed

That's true. It would be very interesting to see.

At the end of the day it's likely not intended for the general public.

lundy86_4

They don't even have to give us much, NPD particularly pisses me off, we get 5 games numbers for 31 days of sales. That practicly useless. In Japan the give us top 1000 for the year, top 50 for the weeek etc. Its not hurting anyone's margins either. But NPD is so restrictive it kills anyone's curiousity and I don't understand how they are just able to get away with it. I want movie sales, I can fund them. I want music sales, I can find them, I want game sales. . . .

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That's true. It would be very interesting to see.

At the end of the day it's likely not intended for the general public.

They don't even have to give us much, NPD particularly pisses me off, we get 5 games numbers for 31 days of sales. That practicly useless. In Japan the give us top 1000 for the year, top 50 for the weeek etc. Its not hurting anyone's margins either. But NPD is so restrictive it kills anyone's curiousity and I don't understand how they are just able to get away with it. I want movie sales, I can fund them. I want music sales, I can find them, I want game sales. . . .

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That's true. It would be very interesting to see.

At the end of the day it's likely not intended for the general public.

ActicEdge

They don't even have to give us much, NPD particularly pisses me off, we get 5 games numbers for 31 days of sales. That practicly useless. In Japan the give us top 1000 for the year, top 50 for the weeek etc. Its not hurting anyone's margins either. But NPD is so restrictive it kills anyone's curiousity and I don't understand how they are just able to get away with it. I want movie sales, I can fund them. I want music sales, I can find them, I want game sales. . . .

I know. I would prefer a healthier batch of numbers. I understand them keeping the whole report for paying customers, but a reasonable list of sales would be rather nice. Especially as it gives us, as gamers, an idea of how games and systems are performing within the market.

I wonder why the games industries numbers are so limited compared to other industries. Seems a little ridiculous.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That's true. It would be very interesting to see.

At the end of the day it's likely not intended for the general public.

ronvalencia

They don't even have to give us much, NPD particularly pisses me off, we get 5 games numbers for 31 days of sales. That practicly useless. In Japan the give us top 1000 for the year, top 50 for the weeek etc. Its not hurting anyone's margins either. But NPD is so restrictive it kills anyone's curiousity and I don't understand how they are just able to get away with it. I want movie sales, I can fund them. I want music sales, I can find them, I want game sales. . . .

so, Media Create, Enterbrain etc are all in the same business and they allow us to see good portions of sales. Other industries do it and allow us to see good chunks of data. NPD witholding information to the extent they do is unreasonable. Their profit margins are not suddenly going to drop because they give us a top 50 list of games each month and a platform top 10.

PC Gaming Alliance also confirms that the average new gaming PC costs 887€.SUD123456

[QUOTE="AiurProtoss"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] SC2 say Hi to DAO.ronvalencia

lulz! it's confirmed pc is teh casual!!! :lol:

lulz! it's confirmed pc is teh casual!!! :lol:

Riverwolf007

Hermits talk about the PC not being dead a lot more than others saying it's dead.

its not shock that pcs sell more then console. it would be pretty sad if gaming consoles out sold home and businese machines .

on a side note i don't think having a decent gpu means its a gaming pc . my moms friend got a 4870 just to have a powerful card. also people buy gpus for work and media content .

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz! it's confirmed pc is teh casual!!! :lol:

Birdy09

seriously though the whole casual/ hardcore lable thing is so overdone here. if one of my rl friends talked that way i would prolly never speak to them again or try to get them acounceller of some sort to talk to.

i would think he had some deep rooted inferiority complex or something.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"]Therefore, revenue is not an accurate indicator of how many PCs are sold "with gaming in mind".Vandalvideo

1) You do have to accept that other sources of revenue are included because the PGCA's own report on this issue specifically lists those areas as being part of "software sales".

2) My arguement is not reliant on the extent to which revenue may or may not reflect actual sales. My arguement remains the same as always. That the PCGA lacks credibility because of their history of making claims not backed by the actual data. Since they refuse to release their studies, the extent to which their data may or may not "necessarily follow" their claims is moot. Further, if they wanted to be credible then, in my opinion, if they want to hype up sales why not just commission a study that looks at sales? If they want to hype PC sales, why no just talk about that? Why do they commission a study on all software revenue then try selling it to the public as record software sales"? That is misleading. If they want to talk about all the PCs that are sold each year that could potentially be used for games, they should do that. Instead they just act like anyone buying a certian level of PC must absolutely be doing so because they having "gaming in mind".

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.

tontontam0

Make stuff up much?

PC's with i7 and gtx 480's aren't readily available in prebuilt form so I don't believe for a second that you know many people like this. People who just want to use office works go to retail outlets where pc's like that aren't usually sold at all.

My guess is you're making it up in an attempt to discredit the OP.

The fact of the matter is that surely not all of those are used for gaming in the way we think, but given the ridiculous amount of gaming hardware that's sold, pc gaming dwarfs any console. It's why the PC gets the most games, exclusives, etc. It's also why PC gaming brings in more money than any console.

PC gaming is huge, period. You'll have some consolites come in here saying how when they go to gamestop or best buy that consoles take up most of the gaming space and that's fine because statements like that simply come from a lack of knowledge on the state and direction of pc gaming.

Hermits talk about the PC not being dead a lot more than others saying it's dead.

Chutebox

This isn't even close to true. For every thread like this there are 10 proclaiming that PC gaming is on the decline. I can't believe you're even attempting to pass this off as truth.

[QUOTE="Birdy09"][QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

lulz! it's confirmed pc is teh casual!!! :lol:

Riverwolf007

seriously though the whole casual/ hardcore lable thing is so overdone here. if one of my rl friends talked that way i would prolly never speak to them again or try to get them acounceller of some sort to talk to.

i would think he had some deep rooted inferiority complex or something.

Um starcraft 2 was exclusive to PC and Mac so that is hardly good comparison. Despite it being the "best selling RTS in gaming history" Online Numbers aren't reflective of that. In my region alone there are only 10,000 games going on an global games is around 30,000 at a time, and only about a million people on Battlenet globaly. That is hardly reflective of this so called data presented by the PCGA. I am an avid PC gamer but i don't trust them, any group that asks you to cough up 30,000 to be a part of there little treehouse club is pretty lame.AiurProtoss

Yes, the online numbers do reflect that. 1,000,000 people on at any given time is ridiculous. Considering this game is played worldwide, 1/3 of the people who bought the game are sleeping and 1/3 are working or in school or doing whatever they do during the day when they can't play. Realistically, only 1/3 of the people at any given time could possibly be playing and, of course, not all of them will be playing at that instant.

Are you trying to accuse blizzard of lying about their sales? Really, what's your point here?

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="AiurProtoss"]its also funny how despite these numbers, publishers still make more money and get more sales from the console market.AiurProtoss

yet consoles have better game sales...i wonda why

sikanderahmed

do you really "wonda" why? It's not hard to see.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Interesting. It would seem the average "PC" that people use to play games is actually quite a poor piece of equipment. For sure its a bit better than consoles but staggeringly the higest percentage of PC gamers resoultion is not even widesreen and is less than 1080P. The average Mac user (54% on steam) have 4GB Ram, PC has 2GB Ram and only a 512mb 4800 series graphics card.

Sometimes we wonder why PC gaming is not throwing out the graphics kings every so often because the platform is stuck with an OS which is near 11 years old or something with 2GB Ram as the highest averaged used amount, with a rather average graphics card with 512mb vram and a dual core with speeds around 2.3ghz...

PC gaming may be better but the overall picture of what people are running is nothing to be proud about. If anything the ever so reminded Picture of the godlike PC gamer would mock his fellow average man because of his poor equipment lmao.

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

yet consoles have better game sales...i wonda why

Brendissimo35

do you really "wonda" why? It's not hard to see.

[QUOTE="Brendissimo35"]

[QUOTE="sikanderahmed"]

yet consoles have better game sales...i wonda why

TerrorRizzing

do you really "wonda" why? It's not hard to see.

True, but unfortunately we live in a corporate culture and investors/stockholders don't care about sales over time. They care about short term profits. That is why investors were supposedly "disappointed" despite SC2's stellar, record breaking sales. They don't care that people willbe playing the game for years. They care about how much money the game will bring in this quarter.

Yeah PCs sell a lot, I think we get it...locopatho

Yea , to bad the games dont .

[QUOTE="AiurProtoss"] Um starcraft 2 was exclusive to PC and Mac so that is hardly good comparison. Despite it being the "best selling RTS in gaming history" Online Numbers aren't reflective of that. In my region alone there are only 10,000 games going on an global games is around 30,000 at a time, and only about a million people on Battlenet globaly. That is hardly reflective of this so called data presented by the PCGA. I am an avid PC gamer but i don't trust them, any group that asks you to cough up 30,000 to be a part of there little treehouse club is pretty lame.mudman91878

Yes, the online numbers do reflect that. 1,000,000 people on at any given time is ridiculous. Considering this game is played worldwide, 1/3 of the people who bought the game are sleeping and 1/3 are working or in school or doing whatever they do during the day when they can't play. Realistically, only 1/3 of the people at any given time could possibly be playing and, of course, not all of them will be playing at that instant.

Are you trying to accuse blizzard of lying about their sales? Really, what's your point here?

[QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"][QUOTE="waltefmoney"] What? Konami is in the red? Square Enix is in the red? Capcom, Namco Bandai..Can you point out a PC publisher that is greener than those?waltefmoney

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"][QUOTE="TerrorRizzing"] half of those guys are in the red, ncsoft, blizzard & valve are crushing them in money earned.TerrorRizzing

Capcom makes far more off consoles consdering Super Street Figher 4 was there best performer last quater and it didnt even come out for pc .

NC-SOFT makes the majority of there money through monthly fees off AION and lineage 2.

Epic thread. Will read again. GG.

*Note: Anyone not aware of hardware sales for the PC has not been keeping up with news. The continued and rising success of PC hardware sales has been well documented for a while.