PC Gaming is Not Dead (.com)

[SpecialKO]

but some games are still PC exclusives due to coding (directX mainly I believe. this is an observation)

Just not Deux Ex!

Seriously, though, I think it's more current market size, plus the existence of bootcamp, more than anything else. When only 10% of the market has Macs, and the gamers of that crowd mostly have a bootcamped windows partition already, a studio has to already be a mac dev studio to actually make it worth it in time/resources to develop for the Mac.

 

[PatrThom]

only 10% of the market has Macs

Oh, I believe it's up to almost 13% now (6% worldwide).

--Patrick

 

[SpecialKO]

Oh, I believe it's up to almost 13% now (6% worldwide).

It will be...ours.

 

[fade]

I wonder what that is in laptops, though. You can't go anywhere without seeing someone with a Mac laptop. Sure seems like more than 10%.

On the other hand, 10% isn't bad for a single computer manufacturer. Puts them in the #3 spot in the us.

 

[SpecialKO]

I wonder what that is in laptops, though. You can't go anywhere without seeing someone with a Mac laptop. Sure seems like more than 10%.

Looks like 27%.

 

[@Li3n]

Without a system by system breakdown, we can't tell, unfortunately (though I'm guessing the GB had the lion's share among handhelds). And within the context of this discussion, handhelds are most definitely standardized platforms.

So is my old mobile phone (which wasn't a smart phone), but i doubt that it affect what games get made for PC...

 

[SpecialKO]

So is my old mobile phone (which wasn't a smart phone), but i doubt that it affect what games get made for PC...

Actually, mobile phones not so much with the standardized. Hundreds of different Hardware SKUs and iterative software technologies. Nothing standardized about it as a development platform until RIM (and they weren't really developer-friendly for games, as I recall), and for non-smartphones, Android (software only).

 

[figmentPez]

So last gen was what started the trend, it just wasn't as obvious from the PC side... i'll have to remember that next time.

I see they include handhelds there too... that kinda explains why it's so much larger even back then but didn't start affecting the PC yet...

And the landscape has changed again. PC gaming now makes more money than console, and is projected to continue to make more past 2012:

Thumbnail because this thing is huge, even resized:


So, most of this infographic is just propoganda, but some of these figures are actually significant. Especially the number of hours played.

 

[SpecialKO]

That info graphic doesn't pass the smell test.

The NPD sales group numbers they're "quoting" actually say some very different things. Estimated total sales by the NPD for the game industry in 2010 was $16 Bn, 9.4 of which was console games and hardware, with an additional 5 Bn including platform-agnostic virtual goods, DLC, themes, avatars, FB credits, etc. Similarly, total unit sales was 257 million, with 230-ish being console.

You can't look at 2 games released in a single month and make any kind of wider claim. All you've compared is those 2 games released at that time. You could just as easily decide to pick the two top games of 2010 and compare their sales figures. Say, SC2, which sold 3 million copies worldwide in the first month, versus Call of Duty Black Ops (the top console game of 2010), which sold 8 million in console units alone (+around 300K PC). Comparing just two games is problematic not only for this reason, but also because it doesn't reflect how well either of those platforms are doing outside of their best-seller.

Now, the hours played? That seems credible to me. Of course, it also doesn't break down by type of game, platform, online vs download vs CD, AAA vs casual, etc. Without that info, the whole "more powerful PC" thing that they're promoting in that section falls pretty flat. You don't need a gaming PC to play CityVille every day.

 

[Frank]

NPD still doesn't count Steam.

 

[SpecialKO]

NPD still doesn't count Steam.

Neither does that infographic.

 

[figmentPez]

Neither does that infographic.

Really? How do you know? It certainly doesn't say that. In fact, it explicitly says that it incorporates numbers, like MMOs and social networks, that NPD does not include.

EDIT: The revenue numbers are based on a survey done by Newzoo, not on NPD data.

 

[SpecialKO]

Really? How do you know? It certainly doesn't say that. In fact, it explicitly says that it incorporates numbers, like MMOs and social networks, that NPD does not include.

Because Steam isn't in their list of sources at the bottom. Steam is notorious for not sharing data, so if they had shared it, they would have been mentioned by name. And you have no info to suggest that they did, anyways.
Added at: 15:06
I'm also going to point out that the expansion of social networks into gaming, like Facebook, isn't going to "save" the AAA PC market. If anything, it's incentive to spend more budget on FB/in-browser games.

 

[figmentPez]

Because Steam isn't in their list of sources at the bottom. Steam is notorious for not sharing data, so if they had shared it, they would have been mentioned by name. And you have no info to suggest that they did, anyways.

Actually, I do. The numbers come from Newzoo, they gather their information from multiple sources. Although the infographic didn't get any information directly from Steam, that doesn't mean that they didn't get any numbers from Steam sales. There are other ways to find out how much people are spending than to directly ask Valve.

 

[SpecialKO]

EDIT: The revenue numbers are based on a survey done by Newzoo, not on NPD data.

Still doesn't sound right. The NPD reports digital/other games sales besides console at $5 Bn in the US. Newzoo reports the same thing at $10 Bn in the US. Unless Valve is doing several billion in revenue (doubtful), the gap is just too high unless Newzoo is including cellphone/smartphones, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

Social networks will overcome console sales, probably quite soon, but it's not going to "save" the AAA PC market, which is clearly what the infographic is about.
Added at: 15:17

Actually, I do. The numbers come from Newzoo, they gather their information from multiple sources. Although the infographic didn't get any information directly from Steam, that doesn't mean that they didn't get any numbers from Steam sales. There are other ways to find out how much people are spending than to directly ask Valve.

So you're assuming they have Steam sales until they say they don't? Right....

 

[SpecialKO]

Honestly, it looks like the just screen-scraped the newzoo infographics.

The US one has a lot more info than the one Ignite made, and makes a lot more sense.

 

[figmentPez]

Still doesn't sound right. The NPD reports digital/other games sales besides console at $5 Bn in the US. Newzoo reports the same thing at $10 Bn in the US. Unless Valve is doing several billion in revenue (doubtful), the gap is just too high unless Newzoo is including cellphone/smartphones, which is another kettle of fish entirely.

Considering they include MMOs and casual games in their digital/other games category, it doesn't have to be just Valve making billions. I don't consider NPD to be reliable, since they no longer give sales numbers to the public and because they don't include many sources that they ought to. I don't even know what NPD includes and what it doesn't.

So you're assuming they have Steam sales until they say they don't? Right....

I'm assuming that a survey of the entire industry is actually a survey of the entire industry, unless they specifically state otherwise. I don't think it's so illogical to conclude that when they say they covered digital distribution that they at least estimated Steam sales figures based on publisher numbers, customer surveys, or some other form of indirect data.
Added at: 15:15
Also, Steam's revenue in 2010 was estimated at $1 Billion. I'm going to assume that Valve isn't the only online company that doesn't tell it's numbers to NPD. Wal-Mart didn't share their sales data with NPD until this year. That's not digital/other, but it's still a pretty major chunk of information. If the biggest online distributor and, possibly, the largest physical distributor of games aren't included in 2010 NPD data, why the hell should I trust them?

I'm hardly the only one to criticize NPD numbers for this:

"Using NPD data for video game sales is like measuring music sales and ignoring something called iTunes," EA corporate communications exec Tiffany Steckler told CNN Money. "We see NPD's data as a misrepresentation of the entire industry."

NPD numbers are widely criticized by the press, both gaming and investment outlets, and are not considered reliable for comparison to reality.

 

[fade]

I used to be a PC gamer, but not anymore. The financial and time investments in PC gaming got too high. Plus, PC loses (for me) on one very, very important point. The "lying back on the couch in the living room" factor.

 

[SpecialKO]

The NPD definitely uses retail boxed sales, numbers reported by public companies, and information that has been made public in general. The only major distribution system they don't have much clarity into is Steam.

Newzoo does large-scale surveys, and then derives larger data from the data that they find. In the US, that survey pool is 145,000. This gives them pretty decent legs to stand on as that's a nice huge data pool, but it also means that their numbers aren't actually based on sales data.

Spoiler'd for length:

Spoiler

For something like PC/Boxed, Console, Direct2Drive, iOS, and possibly Facebook and Google/Amazon Android, I would go with the NPD data, because those are either straight retail figures or figures that get reported in SEC filings.

For off-brand Android, 3rd-party private web portals (fewer big ones than you might think), and Steam, Newzoo and others like them are the only ones in town, because those games tend not to report their sales, so we can only hope that the sample is representative and we can derive sales from it.

This is why, when considering Newzoo's US numbers, I find their PC/Mac boxed sales figures hard to believe, because those are directly verifiable as retail, and the gap between their numbers and the NPD's numbers doesn't work. Their PC/Mac downloads figures (which includes Steam, and Direct2Drive, and the Mac App store, and Origin, and GoG) also seem pretty high, but are probably closer than their boxed numbers.

The reason I don't buy Ignite's presentation of any of it is because they're misrepresenting the growth of the casual social market to say that premium PC gaming is making a comeback. It's why they combined "time-played" (which is far more about casual games) with the "processor power" graphic, and compared the sales of 2010's top PC game with the sales of a console game which didn't crack top 20.

 

[drifter]

Looks like their survey pool is actually about 20,000, worldwide.

 

[SpecialKO]

Looks like their survey pool is actually about 20,000, worldwide.

My mistake, I'm tired and read it wrong. Still a good sample size assuming they don't break it down too far.

 

[Necronic]

I used to be a PC gamer, but not anymore. The financial and time investments in PC gaming got too high. Plus, PC loses (for me) on one very, very important point. The "lying back on the couch in the living room" factor.

Some of this is because many PC gamers think of the PC in a traditional sense: Desk/monitor/keyboard/mouse.

With the way that modern technology has become so heavily streamlined for home use there is little reason why people can't go through the extra steps for more elaborate setups, like having their computer hooked up to their TV/projector and using wireless input device hubs.

The one thing holding that back are the controllers. A console has a very simple, very compact controller, whereas computers have more complex controllers with more comfort issues. (lying back with a keyboard mouse vs lying back with an xbox controller. ) Its a double edged sword though, because one of the major complaints many PC gamers have against consoles are the limitations of the controllers themselves.

However, you're starting to see a shift in this over time. Originally there was just the plain old keyboard/mouse. Then people started making more advanced mice for gamers. Then you've started to see more advanced keyboards. Now, finally, you are starting to see purpose built peripherals for PC gamers, like the G13 game pad (which is amazing by the way.)

Joysticks are a real history lesson in the history of peripheral advances, as they were the first (thank god for those flight sim nuts.) You started with relatively basic stuff, but very quickly you started to see *very* advanced peripheral hardware coming out. Force feedback joysticks started showing up in what, the mid 90s? I bought my dad one right around then I think..... And when you think about the tech in those they were *very* advanced for their time.

It very well could be the case that, as time goes on, more streamlined peripherals come out that are more suited towards the "laying back" gaming attitude

And the only reason this is true, which is also the prime difference between consoles and PCs, is the freedom of the development market. Understanding it as a darwinian system consoles are somewhat inbred. They innovate in a vaccuum without much, if any, competition (when it comes to peripherals). PCs are like the pile of muck behind my fridge though, its a breeding ground for innovation due to the freedoms they have, and for that reason are quite likely to move farther, faster than the console peripherals (which really they have done 2o times over.)

Long story short, PCs have the oppurtunity to do exactly what consoles do, while the reverse isn't true.

btw check this out for "laying back" gaming:

http://theairmouse.com/

 

[Chibibar]

Some of this is because many PC gamers think of the PC in a traditional sense: Desk/monitor/keyboard/mouse.

With the way that modern technology has become so heavily streamlined for home use there is little reason why people can't go through the extra steps for more elaborate setups, like having their computer hooked up to their TV/projector and using wireless input device hubs.

The one thing holding that back are the controllers. A console has a very simple, very compact controller, whereas computers have more complex controllers with more comfort issues. (lying back with a keyboard mouse vs lying back with an xbox controller. ) Its a double edged sword though, because one of the major complaints many PC gamers have against consoles are the limitations of the controllers themselves.

However, you're starting to see a shift in this over time. Originally there was just the plain old keyboard/mouse. Then people started making more advanced mice for gamers. Then you've started to see more advanced keyboards. Now, finally, you are starting to see purpose built peripherals for PC gamers, like the G13 game pad (which is amazing by the way.)

Joysticks are a real history lesson in the history of peripheral advances, as they were the first (thank god for those flight sim nuts.) You started with relatively basic stuff, but very quickly you started to see *very* advanced peripheral hardware coming out. Force feedback joysticks started showing up in what, the mid 90s? I bought my dad one right around then I think..... And when you think about the tech in those they were *very* advanced for their time.

It very well could be the case that, as time goes on, more streamlined peripherals come out that are more suited towards the "laying back" gaming attitude

And the only reason this is true, which is also the prime difference between consoles and PCs, is the freedom of the development market. Understanding it as a darwinian system consoles are somewhat inbred. They innovate in a vaccuum without much, if any, competition (when it comes to peripherals). PCs are like the pile of muck behind my fridge though, its a breeding ground for innovation due to the freedoms they have, and for that reason are quite likely to move farther, faster than the console peripherals (which really they have done 2o times over.)

Long story short, PCs have the oppurtunity to do exactly what consoles do, while the reverse isn't true.

btw check this out for "laying back" gaming:

http://theairmouse.com/

I agree. I think with newer games where VOIP is essential. With a G13 type on left hand and advance mouse on the right hand, you don't need anything else really (in most games)

 

[@Li3n]

Nvidia: PC Game Sales Will Surpass Console Sales by 2014 - http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/119/1196429p1.html

So the PC games market is still behind (although it outdoes any individual console), but, as i always assumed, it's been growing just fine, the consoles just had a big boom that didn't happen for the PC:

 

[SpecialKO]

Good news for small developers, if true.

That said, my question, as before, is are they including Facebook/social networking games, and are they including games whose distribution method is PC downloadable, but whose technical requirements are already below that of current consoles (like Amnesia, League of Legends, Braid, etc.)?

Because neither one of those is based on the GPU power argument, which Nvidia is trying to push, that's a cost-of-sales/delivery argument that assumes that console makers aren't going to want to get in on it (which at least in the case of Microsoft seems unlikely). I would argue that these trends are more indicative of the likelihood of Nintendo's soon-to-be demise, since they are by far the most resistant of the video game hardware giants to supporting digital delivery and social networking.

While DFC Intel is very reputable, and I would trust their figures, Nvidia didn't show any of the breakdowns, just like the last guy's infographic in this thread that ended up revealing the growth in projected PC sales revenue was due to facebook and mobile platforms, not the power of premium PC gaming technology.

 

[Chibibar]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15536488

heh. I can see from a casual perspective that PC might seem to be "dying" but PC is the only system really that can handle the "imperfect MMO" that is the major cash cows.

"imperfect MMO" - I use that term loosely meaning that the game need constant patch and updates. Even with the iPad, Wii, Xbox or PS3 can't keep up. We already see that some games like DCUO take a hit in quality vs PC.

 

[SpecialKO]

I would like to see the actual Gartner report on that one. I have very little confidence in BBC as a reliable tech reporting vehicle.

 

[@Li3n]

and are they including games whose distribution method is PC downloadable, but whose technical requirements are already below that of current consoles (like Amnesia, League of Legends, Braid, etc.)?

Why would that matter when it comes to just video games, and not hardware sales?

I can't even imagine playing LoL with a controller, and those are the type of games i want on PC, not something that's shinier then the last thing.

...........

Anyway, the whole industry is doomed it seems: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-02-games-industry-votes-apple-as-biggest-influence

 

[SpecialKO]

Why would that matter when it comes to just video games, and not hardware sales?

Because this whole thread and that stuff from nVidia is about console platforms restricting developers due to aging technology (which is likely true to some point or another), but that doesn't affect titles like LoL. Which is why including titles like LoL (or Machina or Braid or something) in PC sales as evidence in an infographic that PCs are making a comeback due to superior graphics/tech performance is highly misleading.
Added at: 08:33

Anyway, the whole industry is doomed it seems: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-02-games-industry-votes-apple-as-biggest-influence

Eurogamer is pushing that one a bit far methinks. Slight pluralities do not a revolution in game design make.

 

[@Li3n]

Because this whole thread and that stuff from nVidia is about console platforms restricting developers due to aging technology (which is likely true to some point or another), but that doesn't affect titles like LoL. Which is why including titles like LoL (or Machina or Braid or something) in PC sales as evidence in an infographic that PCs are making a comeback due to superior graphics/tech performance is highly misleading.

Well if the argue it's a comeback it's wrong anyway because the graphs clearly shows that it's always been growing, so there's nothing to come back from...

That's why that's not the argument i'm making, and i'm just using their data...

Also, LoL needs 1GB of RAM... don't confuse graphics with overall requirements.

 

[SpecialKO]

It needs 1GB of RAM on a PC that's also running lots of other processes. Not even remotely the same thing.
Added at: 09:50

Well if the argue it's a comeback it's wrong anyway because the graphs clearly shows that it's always been growing, so there's nothing to come back from...

Nvidia's graph. The previous one linked by you guys shows that they were (EDIT: were shrinking until recently, I mean).

 

[@Li3n]

It needs 1GB of RAM on a PC that's also running lots of other processes. Not even remotely the same thing.

There's a reason why i posted the min reqs you know... from a technical standpoint even the most graphically intensive game could run on a console as long as you lower the possible settings and limit what shows up on screen enough (see Crysis 1). EDIT: and use 30fps.

Nvidia's graph. The previous one linked by you guys shows that they were (EDIT: were shrinking until recently, I mean).

Which one? Coz i must have missed it.

 

[SpecialKO]

There's a reason why i posted the min reqs you know... from a technical standpoint even the most graphically intensive game could run on a console as long as you lower the possible settings and limit what shows up on screen enough (see Crysis 1). EDIT: and use 30fps.

PC RAM requirements and console RAM requirements are not automatically analogous. Just because LoL requires 1GB of RAM on a PC does not automatically mean that a console would need 1GB of RAM to perform at the same level. The throughput of a system is based on a lot more than RAM.

I'm honestly stunned to that you think LoL could not run, as is, on a current-gen console because of its RAM limitations. Microsoft being asses about connectivity through Live, certainly, (which is a real advantage that PCs have) but not RAM limitations.

Which one? Coz i must have missed it.

The ignite one that was based on the Newzoo data (which did not say what ignite said it did).

Look, the thing that I find truly bizarre about this entire thread is how so many of the folks here think that PC game development is some kind of giant monolith. Where one goes, so shall we all, and all that. It's completely not. If the rising low-cost indie game market is growing, it's not indicative of the PC game market as a whole growing, it's indicative of the low-cost indie game market growing. That's it. It's just as probable that the success of games like LoL could contribute to less money being put into Triple-A PC development as being put into the console market.
Added at: 13:09
As a peace offering to the folks who probably think I hate PC gaming:

Zelda + Total War (conversion mod)!

 

[Chibibar]

I love pretty graphics, BUT I rather have a decent gameplay vs "awesome graphic" and sucky gameplay. Twilight Princess on the Wii looked pretty good and I really enjoy that game. The Wii graphical capability is the lowest compare to Xbox and PS3 and can still look decent.

PS3 can look phenomenal since it has a Blu-Ray player.

Now when it comes to control, I guess I'm old school. I do love using KB/M combo when it comes to MMORPG. I know it can be done via controller (FF 11 did it) but PC can do so much more. Can you imagine playing WoW on Xbox or PS3 without a keyboard and just a controller?

I think games specifically design for it can work (like Final Fantasy) I don't see games like WoW to port over to console version anytime soon.

 

[SpecialKO]

Now when it comes to control, I guess I'm old school. I do love using KB/M combo when it comes to MMORPG. I know it can be done via controller (FF 11 did it) but PC can do so much more. Can you imagine playing WoW on Xbox or PS3 without a keyboard and just a controller?

I could imagine WoW on the PS3 hardware really easily, seeing as how the PS3 supports KB/M if the developers bother to build it in. The stumbling block there would be:

1) Blizz and Sony making nice on PSN talking to Battle.net for matching, server handshakes, updates, etc.
2) Mods. No way would Sony allow mods to run on the PS3. It's a bit of a shame, but that's the truth of it. They may be more open than the 360, but the PS3 is still a closed system.
3) HDD size. Not everyone has the slim models with 120GB+ HDDs.

I suspect Blizzard would be less interested than Sony would be. There's no benefit to them at this point to re-build WoW to run on PS3 architecture. Time and effort for folks who likely own WoW already on a PC if they have any interest in the game at all.

On the 360...well, that's never happening. They're stricter than Sony about other folk's services running through their network, and they've specifically blocked KB/M capabilities for anything beyond texting in the chat interface. Silly as heck.