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

[vallorn]

trouble is. while there may be more gaming Pcs being sold, that dosnt necessarily mean that thier being used for gaming.

also most PC releases nowadays are ported from consoles (ala MW2) and some devs just see PC gaming as a pit that you throw money into. the someone copies the pit and distributes it to everyone for free.

Spoiler: Obligitory (PC gameing is dieing!!!) picture

I wouldn't really agree with that. I'd actually say most console releases, are simply ported to PC (which most PC gamers would pass on anyway, not really interested in games without dedicated servers and engines so bare bones as to not really be worth our time). PC Exclusive games are doing just fine themselves.

But you're right, and the obvious point the console defense force has missed here in this thread. They said nothing about what these PC's are used for, just that the hardware moved is double that of the consoles.

[HEADING=1]console defence force GO!![/HEADING] it sounds like a superhero team. im gonna be smiling for the next 5 mins now. thanks!

also, back in the world of On Topic.

i do agree that PC exclusive games are doing ok but its just that most now have such heavy DRM that thier difficult to play. (spore, AC2, most EA releases before 2009) or get pirated within a week of release (or even before) which disuades developers from focusing on the PC market.

 

[Meggiepants]

Well, it is hard to find a PC below $600 with a dedicated graphics card. And most people who buy those cheapy PCs aren't gaming on them. I know there are lots of reasons for buying a dedicated card, but I would guess the biggest reason is for gaming. More people game than do 3D modelling or movie editing.

I can do photo editing just fine on my laptop without a dedicated card. And that's with the newest Photoshop. That wasn't true on older PCs. It's way easier to get by on the cheapy machines these days then it used to be. But I know if I wanted to play some of the big release titles (like Starcraft 2 for instance), I'd have to fork out another few hundred dollars to get a PC that could do the job properly.

But even if you say only half of those numbers are gamers, that's still pretty impressive.

 

[squid5580]

Deos it matter how many were sold? Does it really make any difference when the industry revolves around software sales. That is what is important.

 

[bobdevis]

If I go to my local computer shop the every desktop offering (except the ultra-chap bare-butt-minimum choice) has a discrete Radeon or a GeForce.

On the other hand there are quite some laptop gamers. Laptops don't have discrete graphics.

Counting discrete graphics card to determine gaming market share is not getting you anywhere.

 

[oliveira8]

Hehe PC Gaming Alliance. Am I the only one who though of the Alliance of Magicians from Arrested Development?

Spoiler

Anyway the number of PC hardware doesn't really matter, unless you work for ATI/NVIDIA. I believe that the software sales are much much more important.

 

[viranimus]

I would offer a point concerning the pic from the OP. Consider that as you move from left to right across that pic notice how the number of games are also available, or were made for consoles then ported to PC. I think this is in part where people are heralding the death of PC gaming.

Arguably You are seeing yearly the number of non MMO PC exclusive titles decrease.

I dont think PC gaming is dying, and I surely hope it isnt because thats where I play roughly 80-90% of the games I play now. But I do respect there are some major problems with PC gaming right now that does make it look dire, such as how developers are trying to say anything to avoid saying that they are purposely shying away from PC gaming due to concerns regarding piracy. Which is funny, because you can pirate console titles just as easily as PC titles, provided your willing to mod your console to do so.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Ok so I'm really failing to see your point, without high-end design cards (not used for gaming) added in, PC's more than doubled the hardware sales of all consoles combined last year. With them added in, it would be even more.

I'm saying that we don't know that they are not added in, because the data is not open to us. It is entirely up to the discretion of the PCGA what they feel qualifies as "PCs shipped in 2009 that can largely be associated with PC gaming as a key usage scenario".

What's amusing, is you're questioning where they get their data. It's AMD, Nvidia, Microsoft, Intel, Epic, Sony DADC, and Razer. Who better to have the hardware sales statistics...than the companies who make gaming parts? And honestly, who would have them other than these companies?

The fact that the PCGA doesn't include ATI isn't a problem? EVGA? Sapphire? Asus? XFX? Gigabyte? HIS? You know, companies that actually manufacture gaming cards?

Nvidia is actually manufacturing partner's with those companies, they have to be in order to release nvidia chipset GPU's. Therefore, it would be fairly simple to gain respective sales data, from your manufacturing partners.

And AMD owns ATI, in case you weren't aware. The parent company, again, typically has access to sales data...from their own subsidiaries. Anything else you'd like to cover, while straws are being grasped?

I'll assume the fact that none of the member companies are actually graphics card manufacturers doesn't bother you? Although I guess BFG makes one card that no one cares about.

Again, you're making a LOT of assumptions about how they gather their data. Yeah they could potentially share data with companies that aren't members. Yeah, they could potentially be able to gather international sales information from companies that have nothing to do with them. But you have no idea. You are putting 100% faith in a group that charges thousands upon thousands of dollars before you gain access to their data.

It's like watching a news report that says "studies show", where none of the studies are mentioned or described. It's suspicious, to say the least. You believe it because you want to believe it, and this 'study' is only going to reassure people who already hold this belief. It is going to do nothing for people (including developers) who are actually concerned about the state of PC gaming.

All I see here is a marketing campaign, not a legitimate study.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Hehe PC Gaming Alliance. Am I the only one who though of the Alliance of Magicians from Arrested Development?

Spoiler

Anyway the number of PC hardware doesn't really matter, unless you work for ATI/NVIDIA. I believe that the software sales are much much more important.

"According to the 2009 PCGA Horizons report, PC gaming software revenue was a $13.1 billion industry in 2009, up 3% from 2008."

From the same site.

Except that they include digital distribution, subscription services, and free-to-play revenue. Again you have to ask how they came across these numbers, as no one else in the industry has them. You also have to ask how they were able to get such broad international sales data from countries that aren't generally very open about such things.

For all we know, they did a whoooooole lot of guesswork here - which is what it seems like to me. I would love to see actual international software sales figures, but the fact is that no one is able to reasonably calculate that. Even calculating sales in the United States is difficult when you include digital distribution and free-to-play revenue, as there are no regulatory bodies that gather that data.

Again, it would be nice to believe this - but the fact that they are so secretive about the actual data and how it was gathered should raise a lot of red flags.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

It's pretty obvious what they're attempting to convey with these figures, and it's equally obvious that the figures convey no such thing.

 

[Continuity]

Hmm I would say that to qualify as a "gaming PC" that graphics card ought to have a minimum cost of about £100, then I think we'd see a different picture...

 

[Delusibeta]

Hehe PC Gaming Alliance. Am I the only one who though of the Alliance of Magicians from Arrested Development?

Spoiler

Anyway the number of PC hardware doesn't really matter, unless you work for ATI/NVIDIA. I believe that the software sales are much much more important.

"According to the 2009 PCGA Horizons report, PC gaming software revenue was a $13.1 billion industry in 2009, up 3% from 2008."

From the same site.

Except that they include digital distribution, subscription services, and free-to-play revenue. Again you have to ask how they came across these numbers, as no one else in the industry has them. You also have to ask how they were able to get such broad international sales data from countries that aren't generally very open about such things.

For all we know, they did a whoooooole lot of guesswork here - which is what it seems like to me. I would love to see actual international software sales figures, but the fact is that no one is able to reasonably calculate that. Even calculating sales in the United States is difficult when you include digital distribution and free-to-play revenue, as there are no regulatory bodies that gather that data.

Again, it would be nice to believe this - but the fact that they are so secretive about the actual data and how it was gathered should raise a lot of red flags.

Even the NPD really have no idea how much is spent of digital downloads, judging by their report on how digital downloads is supposedly only just making up half of sales being fairly vauge and the subsequent whinging by Impulse and Gamersgate, who appeared to have been omitted.

 

[Treblaine]

I am amazed that Nvidia/ATI are able to sell so many discrete graphics cards while so few people actually use them to their full capability.

I guess Sony and Xbox do invest billions in marketing their consoles and evangelising gaming on them.

Hmm I would say that to qualify as a "gaming PC" that graphics card ought to have a minimum cost of about £100, then I think we'd see a different picture...

You can get a LOT of Graphics Processing for $100

Like the Radeon 4850 for often less than $100 will play Unreal Tournament 3 (very common engine on PS3 + 360) at greater than 1080p (1920x1200) at 83 frames/sec with maxed out settings.

Xbox 360 playing UT3 and games with similar engine like Gears of War 2 manage only 720p and 24-30fps on equivalent of medium graphics settings.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1470/radeon_hd_4850_in_crossfire_at_4ghz/index9.html

So why set the "minimum" for a PC that must be literally 10x more powerful than typical games console before they will be considered fit for gaming?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Hehe PC Gaming Alliance. Am I the only one who though of the Alliance of Magicians from Arrested Development?

Spoiler

Anyway the number of PC hardware doesn't really matter, unless you work for ATI/NVIDIA. I believe that the software sales are much much more important.

"According to the 2009 PCGA Horizons report, PC gaming software revenue was a $13.1 billion industry in 2009, up 3% from 2008."

From the same site.

Except that they include digital distribution, subscription services, and free-to-play revenue. Again you have to ask how they came across these numbers, as no one else in the industry has them. You also have to ask how they were able to get such broad international sales data from countries that aren't generally very open about such things.

For all we know, they did a whoooooole lot of guesswork here - which is what it seems like to me. I would love to see actual international software sales figures, but the fact is that no one is able to reasonably calculate that. Even calculating sales in the United States is difficult when you include digital distribution and free-to-play revenue, as there are no regulatory bodies that gather that data.

Again, it would be nice to believe this - but the fact that they are so secretive about the actual data and how it was gathered should raise a lot of red flags.

gotta agree with this. there are so many places they could be shifting these numbers from its ridiculous, so unless they show how they are getting them or what they are using to get these numbers i wouldnt believe em for a second. plus is the pcga...so im not taking anything they say without a big grain of salt to really unbias whats coming from them.

 

[Pingieking]

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.

This sounds like a good idea, until you actually think about it.

I'm currently interning in Taiwan, where PC games are mainly sold through convenient stores such as 7-11 and Hi-Life. Good luck tracking any kind of numbers from those places. Numbers from US and CAN aren't that much easier to track either; a lot of games, especially some of the indie games, can be bought from small time websites or directly from the developers themselves. Have fun tracking down all those loose ends.

All things considered, PC gaming isn't unhealthy. I've heard some people point to the lack of non-MMO PC exclusives decreasing, while I like to point out that those exclusives still outnumber the exclusives of any console (perhaps any combination of consoles). We should just stop arguing about this. We'll all know in a few years whether the PC gaming scene is dying anyway.

 

[Delusibeta]

So why set the "minimum" for a PC that must be literally 10x more powerful than typical games console before they will be considered fit for gaming?

I do have to point out that in general, PC fanboys tend to have a massive graphix addiction. It makes me wonder why they dismiss any PC that can't play everything at 3040p at maximum graphics. Myself, I'll settle for medium.