PC gaming dead?! CPR STAT...CLEAR ZAAP!

WickedAngel said:
All PCs can't play the same games. Having the same OS is irrelevant; they're manufactured in different ways using different components. To insenuate that the only difference between a Dell PC and a Hewlett Packard PC is the label on the outside is absurd to say the least.
Click to expand...

If i have an 3GhzAMD, 7800GTX, 80GBSeagate. And a friend has a 4GhzIntel, x800, 100GBMaxtor. Two totally different machines in terms of components, we shouldn't be counted together? That's nuts (although some f*nb*ys would say otherwise).

So PS1/2 games won't work on the PS3? No Xbox games will work for the X360? No previous Nintendo games will work for the Revolution?
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. ALL PC's follow the same specifications and the same basic architecture. The portability is what lends to the PC's tenacity. A new game will still run in all major PC's (barring the cheapo ones with internal video *yuck*), even five year old ones. I'd like to see you run a PS2 title on a PS.
 
This is so sad.

It doesn't even matter. Whether or not all PCs are created equal is irrelevant. The sales of PC games have been on the decline for years. What is it going to take to get you foolish elitists to see the obvious?

Sly said:
If i have an 3GhzAMD, 7800GTX, 80GBSeagate. And a friend has a 4GhzIntel, x800, 100GBMaxtor. Two totally different machines in terms of components, we shouldn't be counted together? That's nuts (although some f*nb*ys would say otherwise).
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter, for the two of you are the minority in the PC gaming industry.

Those "cheapo" PCs are, by and large, the majority of the PC industry. Go into any B&M store and you will see this labeled on almost all of the computers; "Now featuring Intel eXtreme Graphics!!!".
 
It seems to me that PCs are the driving force behind new technologies in the video game industry.

Could you run FEAR on today's PS2 like you can on my computer (sig)? HELL NO.
Could you run HL2 on today's Xbox like you can on my computer? No.

As new consoles come out they stick around for 5 years or so right? Developers have to work within the confines of the specific console specs. Now as PC's are constantly changing developers can produce new engines/technologies new games.

I do not think that without PC gaming HL1 could have made the transition to HL2.

Without PC gaming we would expect to get new advancements in the gaming industry every 5 years or so.

Does this make sense or is my logic flawed?

EDIT: Here's something else that just came to mind. Are console games running engines that are recycled computer game-engines?
 
WickedAngel said:
110% sure is more like it.

ATi/Nvidia make far more on consoles than they do with their stand-alone graphics cards. There is no comparison between the two.
Click to expand...
And you would be 110% wrong about ATI (haven't found anything from Nvidia).
Page 16 of ATI's Fiscal 2004 report.
Royalties from our Nintendo business and other licensing income, as well as “non-recurring engineering” (NRE) revenues
associated with our development contracts continued to represent less than 3.0% of revenues in 2004, and in absolute dollars
were higher in 2004 relative to 2003.
Click to expand...
Desktop revenues
represented a little less than 50.0% of our overall business in 2004 versus about 55.0% in 2003.
Click to expand...

2005 Q3 report page 3
The PC segment accounted for $461 million or 87% of revenues while the Consumer segment accounted for approximately $70 million or 13% of revenues in the quarter.
Click to expand...
It then says Desktops made 60% of the PC revenues making it about 52% overall.
And remember, that 13% for the Consumer market includes handheld (mobile phones) and DTV revenues.
 
PC games are not in decline if you count in the online sales. And again-
More importantly is that worldwide online sales have increased to $2 billion a year, and those numbers are never included in the typical NPD industry tracking reports.
Click to expand...

I pretty much believe what that article said about the PC market - it is a "very healthy and steadily growing marketplace." Unless somebody can provide proof that PC game retail + online sales are in decline, than this is what I'll believe.
 
If more people do it, clearly they are right. Everytime, without exception.
 
WickedAngel said:
This is so sad.

It doesn't even matter. Whether or not all PCs are created equal is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Wow, you turned around on your own word.

It wouldn't matter, for the two of you are the minority in the PC gaming industry.
Click to expand...

I just rebunked your post and your couldn't counter so you targeted me. Low.

Those "cheapo" PCs are, by and large, the majority of the PC industry. Go into any B&M store and you will see this labeled on almost all of the computers; "Now featuring Intel eXtreme Graphics!!!".
Click to expand...

Read TGA's post
 
WickedAngel said:
110% sure is more like it.

ATi/Nvidia make far more on consoles than they do with their stand-alone graphics cards. There is no comparison between the two.
Click to expand...

Console sales indeed sold in the millions, but you forget, they're sold at a loss. To atleast minimize production cost, the components are bought at a minimum and make up for it in numbers which is doubtful to even compare to the profits gained from selling video cards. You think GPU manufacturers would actually try to charge the same cost per chip on consoles as they would on video cards?

MS bought the R500 rights from ATI so they can produce it themselves and reduce production costs further. The offset of this is that ATI actually gets less per chip than if they were to supply MS with it themselves. I dunno about the PS3's chip tho, but then again, that console's reported be expensive.
 
No one wants to acknowledge it but the support for PC games is diminishing. It will never be dead but there will be less and less games.

And people shouldn't expect to have serious conversations in this forum. If you ask anything other than

1) Recommend a game
2) What mouse pad do you use
3) Who likes x game

Then the question is too hard for most people in this forum to understand.
 
Mind you -- not many people who own computers, own the latest and greatest hardware. Suprisingly, there's a lot of people out there still using Windows 98 and AOL. Less than 10% of the market would really benefit from the wonderful graphics that can be produced.

Those the 90% of the market has to suffer and can't enjoy the full-fidelity of the game. And a lot of games for the PC now are based on graphics. The story lines are "meh" but the holy grail is the graphics really. Leave that unaccessable to a lot, and bam, you have nothing really to enjoy.

With the next-generation hastily coming up. We see a small discernability between Console and PC graphics. Yes, the PC can push more polygons, and push more power etc. Who says it isn't? If so, they're retarded.

But the differences between consoles vs pcs, and pcs vs pcs is really large.

Consoles of the next-gen are looking wonderful, near PC quality. Though, with the next generation games for PC we see a large quality difference between the "average" or "above average" pc and the "high end" pc.



Another gripe I have is some FPS's for the computer are becoming too complicated in their controls. Look at Counter-Strike, very simple controls. This is where the Mouse and Keyboard excel. When FPS's and TPS's are very very simple in controls

Now, we're having to press a lot more buttons to do a lot more functions simultaneously. This is where the controller excels. When it comes to more complicated movements and such.

There's a reason why mouse and keyboard suck with sports games. There's a lot to do simultaneously and it's pretty complicated stuff.
 
Staples said:
No one wants to acknowledge it but the support for PC games is diminishing. It will never be dead but there will be less and less games.

And people shouldn't expect to have serious conversations in this forum. If you ask anything other than

1) Recommend a game
2) What mouse pad do you use
3) Who likes x game

Then the question is too hard for most people in this forum to understand.
Click to expand...
You haven't read too many of the Recommend-a-game, What-mouse-pad-do-you-use, or Who-likes-x-game threads have you? ;) :p
 
EricNS said:
Where are you getting that PC gaming was dead/dying?
Click to expand...
People have been saying that for the last couple years or so. Its bullshit. PC Games don't bring home the cash that console games do and there are probably 10 times as many console games that come out every year as their are PC games.

PC gaming is a niche market. It always has been and always will be.
 
If PC gaming is dying, its not because of consoles. Its because of small houses being bought up by big corporations and hacking out any originality and creativity. We're basically seeing the same game over and over again. RTS games have dipped, FPS games are all the same. The DOOM3/Halflife2 release was a mad rush to get new hardware, but they fell short IMO. So basically, what you are looking at is a conglomorate of tired FPS games, weak attempts at Massively Multiplayer games like BF2 which is turning people off somewhat.

What this leaves you with is a smidgen of releases that are copies of each other in one form or another. This opened the door for MMORPGs, the past few years the number of these genre games has jumped. Why? Because you can milk that shit for years and add 'content' without redesigning the engine and get a contuing stream of revenue. Now we are inundated with them and the quality is getting poorer and poorer until the next trend which comes along which will be.....????? Well, you get the idea. The indie studios being eaten up by the heavy hitters are what ultimately lead to the demise of innovation. Happens in the movie and music industries as well, its just finally caught up with ours.

The main advantage for consoles that I see is definitely going to be the added game genres of platformers, fighters and shooters which seemed to have really declined and arguably never really took off on the PC. But oddly enough, I hate consoles. I've been stuck with crappy manufactured consoles for the PS1 AND PS2 and the repair and warranty are enough to sour the experience for me. At least with a computer, I don't give a crap and I can control every aspect of it. Consoles are just toasters, i think Sony really put the sour note on them for me....great games, but having to have to flip over the PS1 upside down so it would not skip and the PS2 laser going wacky (i have actaully found instructions how to fix it a year later, but obviously I don't care any more). Maybe I'll give the xbox360 a try in a few years when the price is lower...but I am surely not going to rush out and get one.
 
God damn... October is going to rape my wallet...

Serious Sam II
Black & White 2
Call of Duty 2
Quake 4
FEAR
Age of Empires III
Half Life 2: Aftermath



Then Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion in November....
 
Age of Empires 3 and a few FPS's for some headshots and I'm set untill Ages 4 :)
 
Sly said:
Console sales indeed sold in the millions, but you forget, they're sold at a loss. To atleast minimize production cost, the components are bought at a minimum and make up for it in numbers which is doubtful to even compare to the profits gained from selling video cards. You think GPU manufacturers would actually try to charge the same cost per chip on consoles as they would on video cards?

MS bought the R500 rights from ATI so they can produce it themselves and reduce production costs further. The offset of this is that ATI actually gets less per chip than if they were to supply MS with it themselves. I dunno about the PS3's chip tho, but then again, that console's reported be expensive.
Click to expand...

They make their money back at the end of the console lifecycle. By that time they almost always have created new technology that makes the production of the older console product cheaper and more efficient.

Sly, it's "debunked", and you didn't do it. You mainly proved how much of a loyalist you are. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the minority. User-built PCs are not nearly as common as pre-builts (Which are useless for gaming). You're still avoiding the point. Sales for games in the PC industry aren't as large as those in the console industry. For the price it would cost to develop one top-tier PC game, console developers could likely make a release across all console platforms. What would be the better business decision?

To the rest of you; enjoy the countless "Me Too" FPS', RTS', and MMORPGs that you're going to be subjecting yourselves to. That is, after they suffer years worth of pushbacks and after you get them working on your system.

I was wrong about ATi though. I'd forgotten that they only console they were in was the Gamecube.

Nasty_Savage; if you're going to go with a console for manufacturing quality, Microsoft and Nintendo would be your best bet. Microsoft is using DVD-ROM, which is a technology that has been used several times in the past. Sony is going for a Blue-Ray platform with multiple lasers for backwards compatibility. With all those moving parts, it isn't going to be easy on them.
 
I guess the whole experience with Sony put a sour taste in my mouth that i did not give the xBox a chance. Even with all the cool mods you can do for it, as co workers at work slapped linux on a few and obviously ginormous hard drives. Maybe I'm just getting too old, hehe. I'll look into the 360 down the road, but I'll wait for the dust to settle a bit first and the first price drop.

I'm still hesitant as I think the games for PC's are more to my likeing with keyboard/mouse/joystick combos. I liked the fighting games like Tekken and the Sports games like NHL and Madden for consoles, but I think a lot of it has become overcomplicated and not as much fun any more (just my opinion....old man reflexes and lack of memory for 50 button combos kinda sucks the life out of ya, lol).

I'm still getting little snippets of information about the nifty things being done with the PSP, but my mind is saying NOOOOOOOOOOO, LOOK WHAT SONY DID TO SWG! THEY CONTINUE TO BEAT YOU OVER THE HEAD WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!!!!!!! :D
 
Sony is good with concepts and marketing. Their manufacturing in the gaming industry has been less than stellar, though (Which is confusing, considering that most of their car CD players, portable CD players, and televisions are top quality).

If you're not dead-set on getting the newest right away, it's always smart to wait. Microsoft will undoubtedly get better at manufacturing the X360 as times goes on (Which will also bring price cuts).

As for keyboard/mouse...the X360 is going go support them for browsing, but not for gaming. I expect that limitation to be cracked quickly.
 
WickedAngel

First of all you are WRONG. PCs stand alone in their own market. They are NOT, I REPEAT NOT broken up into sub catagories because of manufactuer. The reason being is because of this ... Doom 3 was made for Consoles and PCs right ? right. Ok, now answer me this ... HOW MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF DOOM 3 PC WERE MADE ? Oh thats right, ONE.

Now ask yourself how many versions were made for console ? Well lets see.... Xbox, PS2 for sure. This is the same for all other games.

So while you do your best to try to defend your lousy arguement, just stop. We are not breaking up consoles because of manufactuer, we are breaking them up because of propritary OS's that require the game developer to to create another game for, thus splitting up sales.

So if one were to compare consoles to pcs, they would have to take all the consoles and compare them to all the pcs right ? Accept.. there is only ONE PC version made opposed to say 1-4 versions for consoles which need to be added together.

Basically you're entire arguement is wrong, you lose.
 
@WickedAngel
Again, you avoided the original post i quoted you for :rolleyes: Actually, you've dismissed your own word completely and went on a different tangeant.

WickedAngel said:
Sly, it's "debunked", and you didn't do it. You mainly proved how much of a loyalist you are. Nothing more, nothing less. You are the minority. User-built PCs are not nearly as common as pre-builts (Which are useless for gaming). You're still avoiding the point. Sales for games in the PC industry aren't as large as those in the console industry. For the price it would cost to develop one top-tier PC game, console developers could likely make a release across all console platforms. What would be the better business decision?
Click to expand...

Let's see, five consoles (which you conveniently lump together as a single media), each with it's own processor, architecture, OS and language, versus the scalability of the PC that can run over majority of gaming PC's, custom or otherwise. You have to remake the game for each console, where's one version of the game is all will it take to run on any PC.
 
theNoid said:
WickedAngel Ok, now answer me this ... HOW MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF DOOM 3 PC WERE MADE ? Oh thats right, ONE.
Click to expand...

The fact that it comes in the same package doesn't mean it is the same for everyone.

Just like consoles, the experience varies from PC to PC. An Nvidia GPU is going to run it differently than an ATI GPU. It will perform differently on a Windows XP rig than it does on a Windows 2000 rig. I'm sorry that you're too foolish to see this, but it really isn't my problem. The fact that they put the code for multiple set-ups on one disk is just a matter of convenience for them. Instead of making one game that can run on an Xbox/PS2, they simply print what is basically the same game for three different consoles. Have you ever played the same game across multiple platforms? The difference is marginal.

The only difference is usually the graphical prowess, and that isn't enough to say that they're different games. I addressed both of your "points", Sly. They were equally ridiculous but I took the time to speak on both of them. Reading comprehension is our friend.
 
There is a reason people don't bother trying to dispute what WickedAngel has to say, look at his argument so far, it consists of saying your argument is irrelevant, ignoring the facts posted, and basing his case on opinion. Why do you guys even bother :D

Although it is quite amusing.

So far I saw what one maybe two links to actual FACTS posted, other than that I see alot of wordplay and someone who likes to try to baffle with bullshit. Thanks I'll go listen to some politicians if I want to hear that noise.
 
2002 Industry Trends

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bga20021213017757.htm

...according to the numbers 41.6 million PC games were sold in the first 10 months of this year for a total of US$956 million, compared to 44.4 million for $945 million last year.
Click to expand...

Less games sold + More Profit = Big Companies are taking over with Cookie-Cutter rehashes.

2003 Industry Trends

http://retailindustry.about.com/od/seg_toys/a/bl_npd012703_2.htm

The PC game software industry showed signs of slowing down, with revenues from retail sales down 14 percent, topping $1.2 billion in sales in 2003 versus $1.4 billion in 2002.
Click to expand...

2004 Top Ten Sellers:

Annual 2004 Top 10 Video Game Titles Ranked By Units Sold
Source: The NPD Group / NPD Funworld / Point-of-Sale

RANK - TITLE - PLATFORM - PUBLISHER
1 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - PS2 - Take II Interactive
2 - Halo 2* - XBX - Microsoft
3 - Madden NFL 2005* - PS2 - Electronic Arts
4 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2 - Take II Interactive
5 - Need For Speed: Underground 2 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
6 - Pokemon Fire Red W/ Adapter - GBA - Nintendo of America
7 - NBA Live 2005 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
8 - Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2 - Activision
9 - Halo - XBX - Microsoft
10 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - XBX - Take II Interactive
*Includes Limited & Collector’s Editions

Source: The NPD Group, January 2005

Any PC titles on that list? Didn't think so.

First Six Months of 2005

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/gta4/news_6129940.html

PC software sales, on the other hand, continued to tumble, falling 10.5 percent from last year.
Click to expand...

Is that enough factual information for you or would you like some more?

You act as if the fact that they're lumping consoles together is relevant. They're not basing the decline of PC games on comparisons to their counterparts in the console industry. They're comparing the sales of PC games to how they were selling in the industry through previous years.
 
The NPD Group tracks computer and video game sales in the United States. It reported that as of 2004:

Console and portable software sales: $6.2 billion, up 8% from 2003 [3]
Console and portable hardware and accessory sales: $3.7 billion, down 35% from 2003 [4]
PC game sales: $1.1 billion, down 2% from 2003 [5]
These figures are sales in dollars, not units; unit shipments for each category were higher than the dollar sales numbers indicate, as more software and hardware was sold at reduced prices compared to 2003.

Retail PC game sales have been declining slightly each year since about 1998, but this fact should be taken with a grain of salt: the retail sales numbers from NPD do not include sales from online downloads, nor subscription revenue for games like MMORPGs.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game

And again, like it says, online sales are not counted. Online sales for the PC are expected to grow to about 7 billion over the next four years. More and more people are buying PC games online so of course retail sales will go down.
 
Actually they are known. As the first article said- 2 billion dollars which is projected to go up to 7 billion over the next four years.
 
WickedAngel said:
So you're going to base your argument on unknown numbers (Online sales)?
Click to expand...
It is not worth talking sense.

Blind PC fan boys will still think PC games account for a majority of the market when an elementary understanding of the world will say otherwise.
 
I thought that I read some place the with windows vista you were going to be able to play next gen xbox games. Microsoft is trying to position the new xbox as a entry level pc with not as many features as a true pc. This is a smart move as it keeps both alive. I own an x box. ps2 and an awsome gamming computer, if you think about it this is the best of both worlds for harware and software manufactures. Its in their best interest to make games for all. I will stop gamming if I cant run games on my pc. Call me nestalgic but its just not the same on a console.
 
Staples said:
It is not worth talking sense.

Blind PC fan boys will still think PC games account for a majority of the market when an elementary understanding of the world will say otherwise.
Click to expand...


And where did I or anyone here say that PC games make up a majority of the market? Fact is PC games are a much smaller market than the console game market but that has nothing to do with it. The thread was about the "decline of PC games" and not which market is bigger. It's also nice that you don't have anything to offer to this discussion except personal attacks such as "PC fan boy."
 
WickedAngel said:
Is that enough factual information for you or would you like some more?
Click to expand...

First of all I don't "act" like anything except that you didn't have any kind of valid argument besides spewing your opinion like you are the end all authority on such things. Some more facts? These being the first facts you posted now you actually have an argument based on some FACTS rather than your overstated, overinflated, self-important opinion. To be honest yes I would as I don't think one source really cements a case.

So we should just disregard the 2 billion in online sales that would change the sales figures entirely. Online distribution has soared this year alone and discounting that on a mere whim of yours seems fairly silly, 2 billion sounds like a known number to me.

You can't just discount things because you don't like the fact, you really are quite hilarious everything that you ignore and sidestep, it's like a regular comedy show going on in this thread.

If anything I need to print this thread and put it somewhere on the wall so in 10 years I can see how the end of PC gaming was foretold :rolleyes:
 
WickedAngel said:
I was wrong about ATi though. I'd forgotten that they only console they were in was the Gamecube.
Click to expand...
Ok, pieced together some info on Nvidia.

Article about Nividia's Q2 2005
Sales of $574.8m grew 26 per cent from $456.1m.
Click to expand...
Microsoft has switched from Nvidia to ATI for its next-generation Xbox 360 games console, due in November, and Nvidia said there would be no more shipments for the existing Xbox in the third quarter.

This left it needing to replace the $70m in second-quarter Xbox sales to hold revenues flat in the third.
Click to expand...
So, Q2 Xbox related revenue was $70 million leaving $504.8 million from PC's and other.
Either they sold over $434.8 million in not-Xbox-or-PC stuff, or you're wrong there too.
 
WookieRookie said:
And where did I or anyone here say that PC games make up a majority of the market? Fact is PC games are a much smaller market than the console game market but that has nothing to do with it. The thread was about the "decline of PC games" and not which market is bigger. It's also nice that you don't have anything to offer to this discussion except personal attacks such as "PC fan boy."
Click to expand...
My point is that it is smaller and getting smaller as the years go buy. Console gaming is getting bigger. There are a lot of people who deny that this is happening. If I was a developer, I'd go with consoles too because that is where the money is. Most pc developers are jumping ship exactly because of this and the PC game market is certainly getting smaller.
 
auxout said:
You can't just discount things because you don't like the fact,
Click to expand...

1. "Online distribution" can mean any number of things.

2. You're doing exactly what you're criticizing me for in ignoring the concrete numbers that are being counted for sales.

3. Console games are sold online as well.

Feel free to continue on with your pathetic rant, though. Denial is the only excuse for your opinions on the subject.

Kadarom, this is the article you linked; Even if that information is correct, you're accounting for sales of a system that is in it's final phase. This is far from being the peak of it's sale cycle.

Nvidia, the graphics chipmaker, signalled it was fighting back against its biggest rival ATI, reporting second-quarter profits nearly 15 times higher than a year earlier.

Nvidia said net income to July 31 was $74.8m, or 41 cents a share, compared with $5.1m and 3 cents in the previous year. Sales of $574.8m grew 26 per cent from $456.1m.
Click to expand...
 
Online sales are accounted for; they said online downloads. And subscription services. These things are also available on consoles as well (Xbox Live is quite the money maker), and will likely soar in popularity when the new systems release (what with all the MMOs coming to them).
 
That would certainly explain the huge number (Subscription services are huge moneymakers, even when the actual sales for the applicable games are only marginally successful).

Xbox Live hit over a million subscribers alone back in 2004.
 
I don't trust those Xbox Live numbers. MS refuses to answer the question if those include all the active accounts or all the accounts ever and then if those are counting the 2 month trials too. Plus there are many accounts of people who never play. I have not seen you play for 6 months. were you a 2 month member?
 
I have a year subscription. I happened to start playing during my first semester at college (Last Fall) so priorities kind of tore into the gaming schedule. Add to that a full-time job, apartment hunting, and a girlfriend (Which means two full-time jobs... :p )

That said, I wouldn't doubt that the number of active subscribers is less than one million. Their active susbcriber base is likely huge, though (And let's not forget the popularity of games like WoW and Everquest 2, which would contribute to that number as well).
 
WickedAngel said:
Kadarom, this is the article you linked; Even if that information is correct, you're accounting for sales of a system that is in it's final phase. This is far from being the peak of it's sale cycle.
Click to expand...
I'll give you that lame excuse for dancing around facts and still show you're wrong. :rolleyes:
Sales of $574.8m grew 26 per cent from $456.1m (in 2004).
Click to expand...
Q2 2003 and 2002
Revenue for the quarter (Q2 2003) was $459.8 million, compared with $427.3 million a year ago (Q2 2002).
Click to expand...
Wow, you're right.
You can actually see their revenue plummeting as over 50% of there income wound down to it's final phases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top