PCGA: Twice as many "Gaming" PCs sold than consoles combined in 2009

[Delusibeta]

The PC Gaming Alliance, a group of companies who between them created large proportion of irritants in PC gaming these days, have issued a press release [http://www.game-newswire.com/index.php/the-news/232.html], claiming that there was twice as many "gaming PCs" sold last year than PS2s, PS3s, Xbox 360s and Wiis combined. Which might seem impressive, until you realise they seem to be equating "gaming PCs" with "PCs with a discrete graphics card". If you know anything about graphics cards, you'll know that having a graphics card is no guarentee that you'll be playing games well (although all of them will beat having no graphics card any day of the week). They're also predicting that by 2014, 322 million computers with graphics cards will be sold annually.

Even if you agree with my sceptical tone, those are big numbers. Also, in b4 "PC gaming is dying" pic [http://tcpm.mrlazyinc.com/files/images/games/general/brief_history_pc_games.jpg]

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. People have graphics cards for all sorts of reasons, often for graphic design or 3D development. Many computers nowadays allow people to have two graphics cards for maximum power. I've bought 3 graphics cards over the last 6 years due to necessary upgrades or technical difficulties. Because graphics cards are becoming so cheap to produce, pre-built machines now include them as an added perk automatically which doesn't necessarily indicate that they are being used specifically for gaming.

Also I tend to take everything the PC Gaming Alliance says with a grain of salt. An organization whose entire purpose is to stop people from saying "PC gaming is dying" may have something of an agenda. They also hide all their data from the public, only allowing members access to their sources and information.

EDIT: I would wager that more people have 'gaming ready' PCs than any given console, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that PC gaming is dominating the industry.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Really it's better to look at ATI/NVIDIA sales directly although lots of sales are upgrades for existing gamers not new gamers buying their first card.

Their is a reason why the biggest game developer happens to only make PC games

 

[Delusibeta]

Also I tend to take everything the PC Gaming Alliance says with a grain of salt. An organization whose entire purpose is to stop people from saying "PC gaming is dying" may have something of an agenda. They also hide all their data from the public, only allowing members access to their sources and information.

Well, when you consider their membership includes Microsoft (Games for Windows Live), Sony DADC (SecuROM) and Epic (Oi! Where's Gears 2 for PC then?), you start to wonder what their agenda could possibly be. Intel may have a vested intrest, however, since IBM is handling the 360 processors and the Wii and PS3 processors are PowerPC based (again, IBM, although this time in partnership with Apple and Motorola).

 

[AcacianLeaves]

snip

oh yea we have an "agenda". saying an ENTIRE industry has an agenda is about the same level of absolute retardation as the people who say all gays have an "agenda". the PC industry does not have the level of organization to carry out agendas. the PC gaming alliance? don't make me laugh.

Yeah, the PC Gaming Alliance does not represent the industry. I'm not saying the entire PC gaming industry has an agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC_Gaming_Alliance

It's a specific organization that charges several thousand dollars for membership and mostly includes processor, graphics card, and computer manufacturers. Do a bit of research before you leap down my throat, please.

Also I tend to take everything the PC Gaming Alliance says with a grain of salt. An organization whose entire purpose is to stop people from saying "PC gaming is dying" may have something of an agenda. They also hide all their data from the public, only allowing members access to their sources and information.

Well, when you consider their membership includes Microsoft (Games for Windows Live), Sony DADC (SecuROM) and Epic (Oi! Where's Gears 2 for PC then?), you start to wonder what their agenda could possibly be. Intel may have a vested intrest, however, since IBM is handling the 360 processors and the Wii and PS3 processors are PowerPC based (again, IBM, although this time in partnership with Apple and Motorola).

I didn't say they were particularly GOOD at pushing their agenda, haha.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Their is a reason why the biggest game developer happens to only make PC games

Wait, Acvitision Blizzard? Is that who you're referring to? You know they also make console games, right? Guitar Hero? Call of Duty? F.E.A.R.? No? Or do you specifically mean Blizzard, the division of Activision-Blizzard that makes Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo? You know with games like Diablo for the PS1, Warcraft 2 for the PS1, Starcraft 64, Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, and Rock n' Roll Racing?

I guess Blizzard Inc. did only make PC games from 2001-2008 though.

I only ask because the only reason they are able to maintain the title of "biggest" developer is because they are paired with Activision.

It would be interesting to look at the sales of ATI/NVIDIA individual cards though, that's some data I would like to see.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Their is a reason why the biggest game developer happens to only make PC games

Wait, Acvitision Blizzard? Is that who you're referring to? You know they also make console games, right? Guitar Hero? Call of Duty? F.E.A.R.? No? Or do you specifically mean Blizzard, the division of Activision-Blizzard that makes Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo? You know with games like Diablo for the PS1, Warcraft 2 for the PS1, Starcraft 64, Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, and Rock n' Roll Racing?

I guess Blizzard Inc. did only make PC games from 2001-2008 though.

I only ask because the only reason they are able to maintain the title of "biggest" developer is because they are paired with Activision.

It would be interesting to look at the sales of ATI/NVIDIA individual cards though, that's some data I would like to see.

Specifically Blizzard, Diablo for the PS1 was the last console games them made and that was a long time ago (12 years)

No they are still the biggest game developer Blizzard and Activision are still different companies with each having their own directors and CEO's they do share the same parent company Vivendi

Bobby Kotick is the CEO/president of everything that involves the joint efforts made by Activison and Blizzard.

Underneath him is Eric Hirshberg, CEO of Activision Publishing and Michael Morhaime, President and CEO of Blizzard Entertainment.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

and since when does PC gaming alliance represent ALL of the hardware industry? PC gaming and its hardware is HUGE and when compared to PGA, the PGA is tiny. note that this is the same thing we heard last year from a different source, so the PGA isn't making this up or pushing an agenda. this is old news. you seem to bash PC gaming and basically say its dying based on your hardships with PC. just because you don't understand the PC, and therefore have technical difficulties doesn't mean you should go on a crusade.

Excuse me, but what the Sam Hell are you talking about? I've seen Straw Man arguments before but this one is just baffling.

I never said PC gaming was dying. That's silly. I never said the PC Gaming Alliance represented ALL of the PC gaming industry(although a group who has intel, amd, antec, logitech, microsoft, nvidia, acer, dell, and gamestop in its membership is hardly 'tiny'). I never said I had hardships with PC gaming. I never said I had technical difficulties with PC gaming. I never 'bashed' PC gaming.

Just because I don't agree that PC gaming is the ideal gaming platform above all others doesn't mean I'm on a 'crusade'. I happen to think all gaming platforms have advantages and disadvantages, and I acknowledge the flaws and perks of each of them.

I believe you are referring to this as the 'different source'. You know, the article published on the intel website based on information from the exact same study mentioned in this thread.

 

[Woodsey]

They're being silly; that's a totally stupid way to find it out.

You'd be much better looking at how many people use Steam (and the fact there's always ~2 million people on whenever I log on), or download and retail sales combined of PC games.

There's no definitive way to know, but ultimately it's unimportant. PC gaming's not dying, it's not even "unhealthy" as some people might put it.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Really it's better to look at ATI/NVIDIA sales directly although lots of sales are upgrades for existing gamers not new gamers buying their first card.

Not exactly, since a card does not really tell you anything about the gaming habits of a person other than they need a certain spec to play a certain game. In fact;

You'd be much better looking at how many people use Steam (and the fact there's always ~2 million people on whenever I log on), or download and retail sales combined of PC games.

We have a winner! You want to track the status of PC gaming as an industry? Track the sales of PC games. Simple as that.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Really it's better to look at ATI/NVIDIA sales directly although lots of sales are upgrades for existing gamers not new gamers buying their first card.

Not exactly, since a card does not really tell you anything about the gaming habits of a person other than they need a certain spec to play a certain game. In fact;

You'd be much better looking at how many people use Steam (and the fact there's always ~2 million people on whenever I log on), or download and retail sales combined of PC games.

We have a winner! You want to track the status of PC gaming as an industry? Track the sales of PC games. Simple as that.

In case you hadn't noticed the thread is solely about hardware sales not about gaming habits (software sales)

"They're also predicting that by 2014, 322 million computers with graphics cards will be sold annually."

Sale numbers of graphics card are a good indicator of how many people owning gaming hardware suitable for gaming

as for sales 1.2 billion USD anually for a single game speaks for itself.

 

[tharglet]

I don't see how they can really get a statistic for "gaming PCs". I know people with "gaming laptops/PCs" who've either got them for development or because they were shiny (my old MD was in the latter category - funny explaining to him why WASD keys were a different colour). I think the pre-build that I had in my previous company may've even been classed as a gaming machine, despite being for development.

Also I'm guessing my self-built system wouldn't be counted in said stats, along with my NC10 I used for WoW and a couple of other games...

Pretty much any PC can be used for gaming - especially as there's now a large back-catalog of old games, MMOs and browser games that will run on pretty much anything. To me, the stat at best is going to be a fairly bogus one - what's more telling is sales and torrent availability. That'll tell you how much the games are getting around .

 

[AcacianLeaves]

There's no definitive way to know, but ultimately it's unimportant. PC gaming's not dying, it's not even "unhealthy" as some people might put it.

Hear hear!

As long as people keep developing good games for the PC (and arguably superior mutli-platform games like Dragon Age), then what does it matter?

 

[SonicWaffle]

In case you hadn't noticed the thread is solely about hardware sales not about gaming habits (software sales)

No, the thread is about a PC gaming advocacy group attempting to infer that PC gaming is a bigger market than console gaming based on relative PC/console sales. The point we made is that this is a flawed way for a gaming group to reach it's conclusions, as a better way to demonstrate the vibrancy of the PC gaming market would be to base it on game sales. The fact that they are basing it on hardware sales rather than game sales indicates that the data on sales of their (somewhat loose) definition of a "gaming PC" supports their cause more than their data on the sales of PC games.

Sale numbers of graphics card are a good indicator of how many people owning gaming hardware suitable for gaming

as for sales 1.2 billion USD anually for a single game speaks for itself.

Yeah, but owning the hardware is fairly meaningless if you are trying to show that people play PC games more than they play on consoles. If I represented the 'People Who Make Pie Alliance', and wanted to prove just how many people made pies, I would base my conclusions on the amount of pie ingredients sold rather than the number of people who bought ovens.

As to your point about sales, I'm not claiming that PC gaming isn't a lucrative market. I'm just saying that this study is fairly meaningless.

 

[Kif]

That's pretty silly. I mean, I'm a PC gamer, I love PC gaming and the fact that the majority of tripple A games are now developed with console in mind and ported distresses me. Despite that even I'm willing to concede that measuring PC with graphics card sales is a stupid way to say how many PCs have been sold for gaming.

My parents have a graphics card in their new PC, they can barely run IE let alone start messing with games. Their agenda and bias is far too obvious.

As for a measurable statistic which could be used, how about PC game sales?

 

[jamesworkshop]

In case you hadn't noticed the thread is solely about hardware sales not about gaming habits (software sales)

No, the thread is about a PC gaming advocacy group attempting to infer that PC gaming is a bigger market than console gaming based on relative PC/console sales. The point we made is that this is a flawed way for a gaming group to reach it's conclusions, as a better way to demonstrate the vibrancy of the PC gaming market would be to base it on game sales. The fact that they are basing it on hardware sales rather than game sales indicates that the data on sales of their (somewhat loose) definition of a "gaming PC" supports their cause more than their data on the sales of PC games.

Sale numbers of graphics card are a good indicator of how many people owning gaming hardware suitable for gaming

as for sales 1.2 billion USD anually for a single game speaks for itself.

Yeah, but owning the hardware is fairly meaningless if you are trying to show that people play PC games more than they play on consoles. If I represented the 'People Who Make Pie Alliance', and wanted to prove just how many people made pies, I would base my conclusions on the amount of pie ingredients sold rather than the number of people who bought ovens.

As to your point about sales, I'm not claiming that PC gaming isn't a lucrative market. I'm just saying that this study is fairly meaningless.

Ok where is software sales or even games themselves commented on anywhere in the orginal post?

They are not infering anything sales data is sales data it's how we know more Wii's have been sold than PS3, more PC's get sold each year than consoles.

The point I made is that sales of "gaming PC's" is not as good an indicator of how many PC's being able to play games out in the world than actual sales data of people specifcaly buying graphics cards from graphics vendors since most out of the box PCs come with rubbish 7300 Nvidia chipsets very few people buy Cards from directly from "Add-In-Board Partners" with no intention of playing games with them.

I never compared anything to software only hardware to hardware and no they were not trying to show that more people played games on the PC than anywhere else they were showing the widespread availability of PC's that were capable of gaming by showing how much gaming capable hardware was being sold.

 

[YourlocalPCsnob]

well discrete and integrated graphics chips are getting to the point they can play most games at reasonable settings. So yea, this would be a vaild claim.