And for those wondering, my sources are:lokiduck said:
Wikipedia
Common sense
Dictionary definition of "laptop"
All of which have had their facts checked more often than Moviebob's Big Picture series.
The Big Picture: PC Gaming Is Dead - Long Live PC Gaming!
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wikipedia
Common sense
Dictionary definition of "laptop"
All of which have had their facts checked more often than Moviebob's Big Picture series.
It is a real source. Relevant links are in the article, which link to the report.Chibz said:
No, of course its not without some bias (duh), but then its a hell of a lot more information then Bob could be bothered to look at or mention.
The chances of them outright lying about a revenue increase of a fifth is unlikely.
I agree PC gaming is certainly dead. Most FPS's that come out on PC's are dumbed down in some way because they were made for the xbox first and foremost. That's a bad sign, people. This is why we don't have mod communities or dedicated servers for everything like we used to. Many new games don't support those things because they want the console experience to be similar, and they certainly don't want the PC experience to be more appealing like it used to be.
But the whole PC thing mentioned was just silly. One big factor left out is it takes PCs to make consoles/tablets/smart phones/games and anything else people think are going to take over. Does this mean only the industry will have them? That's not really fair because it's not advantageous to make us rely on phones or consoles to do meaningful things. One of the problems with all these devices (excluding laptops) is that they can't do anything particularly useful or important (aside from the phones which make calls). It's great we can twitter on our phones and play angry birds, but that's also pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Would you actually surrender a real keyboard for a tiny phone or xbox360 keyboard, or worse... a touchpad keyboard, in order to type up an essay or write a novel? With as frail as consoles are getting (hello red ring) I wouldn't trust one of those tiny heat boxes with any important documents for my business, either. I wouldn't want all of my files on a single phone either, I don't like the idea of everything I currently have on my PC being rummaged through by a creepy stranger because I had it on a phone now and it just happened to slip out of my pocket without me noticing. Laptops are the most realistic killers of PC's, but I honestly don't see that happening. Laptop specs are always more expensive then their PC equivalent and what they physically offer is just too cramped. Not as cramped as a phone/tablet, but still not as comfortable to use as a PC. The reason why laptops exist is so you can compute on the go. Unless everyone in world is Forrest Gump then I don't think we have to worry.
As an artist who uses a cintiq and who has dabbled in quite a bit of game modding/mapping, I can't see a future where we don't have a large, comfortable area for doing these kinds things anymore then I can see portable DVD players replacing home theater systems. Trying to do them on handheld or lap device, even if possible from a technical standpoint, would be physically exhausting because of the acrobatics needed to work in such a cramped environment. A laptop large and comfortable enough to use for such complicated and trying tasks in day to day routines would need it's own space and obviously wouldn't be portable anymore by then. That's exactly what a PC is, and that's why they still exist now.
But the whole PC thing mentioned was just silly. One big factor left out is it takes PCs to make consoles/tablets/smart phones/games and anything else people think are going to take over. Does this mean only the industry will have them? That's not really fair because it's not advantageous to make us rely on phones or consoles to do meaningful things. One of the problems with all these devices (excluding laptops) is that they can't do anything particularly useful or important (aside from the phones which make calls). It's great we can twitter on our phones and play angry birds, but that's also pretty stupid in the grand scheme of things. Would you actually surrender a real keyboard for a tiny phone or xbox360 keyboard, or worse... a touchpad keyboard, in order to type up an essay or write a novel? With as frail as consoles are getting (hello red ring) I wouldn't trust one of those tiny heat boxes with any important documents for my business, either. I wouldn't want all of my files on a single phone either, I don't like the idea of everything I currently have on my PC being rummaged through by a creepy stranger because I had it on a phone now and it just happened to slip out of my pocket without me noticing. Laptops are the most realistic killers of PC's, but I honestly don't see that happening. Laptop specs are always more expensive then their PC equivalent and what they physically offer is just too cramped. Not as cramped as a phone/tablet, but still not as comfortable to use as a PC. The reason why laptops exist is so you can compute on the go. Unless everyone in world is Forrest Gump then I don't think we have to worry.
As an artist who uses a cintiq and who has dabbled in quite a bit of game modding/mapping, I can't see a future where we don't have a large, comfortable area for doing these kinds things anymore then I can see portable DVD players replacing home theater systems. Trying to do them on handheld or lap device, even if possible from a technical standpoint, would be physically exhausting because of the acrobatics needed to work in such a cramped environment. A laptop large and comfortable enough to use for such complicated and trying tasks in day to day routines would need it's own space and obviously wouldn't be portable anymore by then. That's exactly what a PC is, and that's why they still exist now.
You raise valid points.bahumat42 said:
Thank you for a civil response, when I saw I was quotes on this thread I grabbed my Sword and Shield before opening. Rolled 1d20 passed the Defense Check then opened the message, I feared a Troll attack.
I've been thinking that there might be some truth to this if you wiggle around the definition of 'Personal' in PC. A lot of people that I know are adamant that a lot Macs aren't PC's because you don't have that much customisation in regards to hardware, which you don't, and I was thinking that if you assume that computers like this aren't PCs then MovieBob's argument might have some truth to it. If more and more people buy the uniform computers (like a MacBook), then it stands to reason that developers will begin to create games with those uniform computers in mind and getting a game to work well with the computer you put together will grow harder, so more people shift over to these cookie cut computers and everything snowballs. What you'd have is a consolefication of computers, in which the choices that the consumer has grow much more limited and one can no longer call their desktop (or laptop) a Personal Computer because they have the same product as everyone else. No ones Iphone is a personal computer, even though it is a computer, because everyone's is the same.
When I look around RL I see a lot of people who don't care personalising their computer, they'd much rather buy a MacBook, but I think that there will always be a market who demands that their computer be personalised and companies willing to supply that demand. It might diminish in the future, but it will never be dead.
So the only way that MovieBob's arguments works for me is if you argue that most computers will stop being Personal Computers in the future based on the fact that the consumer doesn't have much choice over the hardware and the OS. If this did happen then there would be no change to gaming, perhaps only that games are easier to make now because of uniform specs. Is this something that could happen? Unlikely, because numerous industries demand the more expensive PCs with additional features that cookie-cut computers can't supply without leaving some level of customisation, and with this companies like NVidia and what have you fill the void to make the parts for these computers.
Also, Laptops (as a general product) aren't PCs? Pfft.
When I look around RL I see a lot of people who don't care personalising their computer, they'd much rather buy a MacBook, but I think that there will always be a market who demands that their computer be personalised and companies willing to supply that demand. It might diminish in the future, but it will never be dead.
So the only way that MovieBob's arguments works for me is if you argue that most computers will stop being Personal Computers in the future based on the fact that the consumer doesn't have much choice over the hardware and the OS. If this did happen then there would be no change to gaming, perhaps only that games are easier to make now because of uniform specs. Is this something that could happen? Unlikely, because numerous industries demand the more expensive PCs with additional features that cookie-cut computers can't supply without leaving some level of customisation, and with this companies like NVidia and what have you fill the void to make the parts for these computers.
Also, Laptops (as a general product) aren't PCs? Pfft.
Actually anything with a user interface and a processor is a PC, OS has nothing to do with itlokiduck said:
Mac, Windows, Linux, ....... - all that uses the same hardware - Ram, processor, motherboard, HDD - All are PC's, Even Smart phone is a small limited PC
There is nothing wrong with cross-platform as long as the game allows it. Blizzard are selling millions of copies on the PC, their audience is there, don't assume that because a game is going to platforms it will be focused on them and not the PC, this is not how things work. Seems like you've been brainwashed by trolls.Foxbat Flyer said:Im not being an asshole, im just genuinely concerned that if it goes to other platforms, that they will then turn their attention toward the other platforms, leaving the PC Community to complain, then when they release their next game, it will be a console only exclusive... I dont want that to happen.Traun said:Don't be an asshole, the more people enjoy the game the better. And it's developed for the PC in mind so don't worry, Blizzard won't screw it's biggest audience.Foxbat Flyer said:Really???? NOOOOOOO!!!! It has always been a PC only game though... Ohwell, there are many other great titles in that listthe_carrot said:Diablo 3 may not be on that list ultimately: http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/711050/blizzard-teases-diablo-3-on-consoles-pc-gamers-around-the-world-mourn/Foxbat Flyer said:Hazah! this to its fullest extent! (I even got shogun 2 yesterdayminespatch said:) This better explains my previous rant in a non banning mannor, i like it
If a game is good enough, it doesnt need to be cross platforms to recieve popularity, people will return to PC gaming and threads like this will cease to exist
Hint: Games that people considered to be "streamlined for consoles" usually means "dumbed down for the Xbox 360 generation", a lot of old-time gamers or people from the PS 2 generation don't like how some games are over-simplified.
Sadly, I think Bob is correct. However, the "WHY" of it all is the reason I will fight to the last breath to hold onto what we know as "PC Gaming": Control.
Today, out of parts I assemble myself I can and have built a relatively standardized piece of hardware I call my "PC". I choose everything about it, from its chassis to processor, amount of RAM, and add-in cards based on the uses at hand. It is what I want it to be and it does whatever I wish it to do. If I find Linux to be my operating system of choice, I can install it and take full advantage of the hardware. If I want to add a HDTV capture card later, I can do so for the price of the card, which will plug into a standardized PCI-Express slot and add new functionality to the box. If I want to game, I install powerful enough hardware to do so. I can run any software on it, provided it is actually compiled for the hardware and operating system (and sometimes not even that, with tools like WINE). This piece of hardware, this "PC" (and any number of them available in my home that I've customized to different tasks), is technically way more powerful and way more adaptable than any "Console". and "They" hate that.
What Bob seems to accept as an inevitability of progress is actually a type of industry brainwashing. I venerate IDEAS from the old days of computing - that users should have control over their software and hardware, privacy should be protected for individuals, and generally what you pay for should be yours do do with as you with. This is the absolute antithesis of everything Bob was speaking of today. What I worry about these days is that business is implementing plans to lockdown and control every thing you buy on their terms.
Game Consoles are a holdover from the day where computing hardware was so underpowered that it had to be specialized to do a few things well. However, it was also a method of industry control. Today's consoles are very much like computers, if underpowered ones - hell, there are plenty of hacks that allow you to run "PC" software like MPlayer on consoles, but you are not "allowed" to do so. Look at Sony's "Do Everything" PS3 removing OtherOS, a crippled way of running a LinuxOS that was STILL too much control in the user's hands for Sony. Is there any reason that Xbox360 titles couldn't be developed for Windows instead, simply selling controller peripherals? No, of course not.
The ONLY reason everything is moving the way Bob speaks of is that the industry has decided that users are too stupid and complacent to really mount any sort of resistance, nomatter how extensive and draconian the control apparatus of business becomes. They do not WANT you using that "Personal Computer" you have in your house or your lap to run their software, they want you to use a specialized piece of hardware THEY have control over. Not you. Everything in our modern society is moving this way. From game consoles to "AppStores", tablets and handhelds with locked down hardware and software, to even attempts to control YOUR hardware on the PC, like Ubisoft and EA DRM. ALL DRM is a way to try to restrict what your hardware can do to give a business control over what you've bought.
Lets call it what it is - extortion and hostage-taking. The industry is holding entertainment hostage. They say "If you don't submit to doing things our way, completely within our control, you don't get to watch this movie. You don't get to play this game". I'd like to see Bob using his platform to rail against this, not assuring everyone that "Everything is fine. Big Brother is your friend". That is part of the problem, not part of the solution. You should not HAVE to buy a specialty device to access certain content if the generalized device you already own can do so. You should not HAVE to put up with entertainment being held hostage. However, the industry has been right so far that people are weak - they'll put up with anything for their entertainment. Until they stop buying, nothing will change and Activision, EA, Microsoft, Sony and others will laugh right to the bank. Systems like OnLive are the ultimate example - the user pays, but owns nothing but a dumb "receiver" and is streamed droplets of content as the provider sees fit. If things keep going this way, there will be expensive proprietary hardware or software necessary to access EVERY bit of content, and Bob and others should NOT be normalizing this further descent into corporate control.
Very disappointed.
Today, out of parts I assemble myself I can and have built a relatively standardized piece of hardware I call my "PC". I choose everything about it, from its chassis to processor, amount of RAM, and add-in cards based on the uses at hand. It is what I want it to be and it does whatever I wish it to do. If I find Linux to be my operating system of choice, I can install it and take full advantage of the hardware. If I want to add a HDTV capture card later, I can do so for the price of the card, which will plug into a standardized PCI-Express slot and add new functionality to the box. If I want to game, I install powerful enough hardware to do so. I can run any software on it, provided it is actually compiled for the hardware and operating system (and sometimes not even that, with tools like WINE). This piece of hardware, this "PC" (and any number of them available in my home that I've customized to different tasks), is technically way more powerful and way more adaptable than any "Console". and "They" hate that.
What Bob seems to accept as an inevitability of progress is actually a type of industry brainwashing. I venerate IDEAS from the old days of computing - that users should have control over their software and hardware, privacy should be protected for individuals, and generally what you pay for should be yours do do with as you with. This is the absolute antithesis of everything Bob was speaking of today. What I worry about these days is that business is implementing plans to lockdown and control every thing you buy on their terms.
Game Consoles are a holdover from the day where computing hardware was so underpowered that it had to be specialized to do a few things well. However, it was also a method of industry control. Today's consoles are very much like computers, if underpowered ones - hell, there are plenty of hacks that allow you to run "PC" software like MPlayer on consoles, but you are not "allowed" to do so. Look at Sony's "Do Everything" PS3 removing OtherOS, a crippled way of running a LinuxOS that was STILL too much control in the user's hands for Sony. Is there any reason that Xbox360 titles couldn't be developed for Windows instead, simply selling controller peripherals? No, of course not.
The ONLY reason everything is moving the way Bob speaks of is that the industry has decided that users are too stupid and complacent to really mount any sort of resistance, nomatter how extensive and draconian the control apparatus of business becomes. They do not WANT you using that "Personal Computer" you have in your house or your lap to run their software, they want you to use a specialized piece of hardware THEY have control over. Not you. Everything in our modern society is moving this way. From game consoles to "AppStores", tablets and handhelds with locked down hardware and software, to even attempts to control YOUR hardware on the PC, like Ubisoft and EA DRM. ALL DRM is a way to try to restrict what your hardware can do to give a business control over what you've bought.
Lets call it what it is - extortion and hostage-taking. The industry is holding entertainment hostage. They say "If you don't submit to doing things our way, completely within our control, you don't get to watch this movie. You don't get to play this game". I'd like to see Bob using his platform to rail against this, not assuring everyone that "Everything is fine. Big Brother is your friend". That is part of the problem, not part of the solution. You should not HAVE to buy a specialty device to access certain content if the generalized device you already own can do so. You should not HAVE to put up with entertainment being held hostage. However, the industry has been right so far that people are weak - they'll put up with anything for their entertainment. Until they stop buying, nothing will change and Activision, EA, Microsoft, Sony and others will laugh right to the bank. Systems like OnLive are the ultimate example - the user pays, but owns nothing but a dumb "receiver" and is streamed droplets of content as the provider sees fit. If things keep going this way, there will be expensive proprietary hardware or software necessary to access EVERY bit of content, and Bob and others should NOT be normalizing this further descent into corporate control.
Very disappointed.
The $16.2 billion figure has no evidence to support it. In addition, it is directly opposed to all verifiable figures. Especially because PC game sales in 2008 were BELOW THE BILLION MARK (Thank you, NPD).Woodsey said:
Actually, on further inspection, that number looks a lot closer to a vastly different number: The total number of video game software sales of the year. Now, some blog (very bad source, by the way) with a very clear PC gaming master race bias and everything to gain from actively misleading their readers wouldn't... Lie would they? No, that's just silly.
Now, come back with a real source.
It's the PC Gaming Master Race. The inappropriate response is only natural given their incredible emotional & financial investment in their system.omegawyrm said:
I think Bob's a little early for April fools, or at least I hope he is.
In terms of the technology behind the games, PC's are roughly 2 full generations ahead of consoles. And with the way it's going, it's going to be three before the next generation of consoles come out to level the playing field for about 6 months before PC's roars on ahead again.
In response to first person shooters 'almost entirely moving over to consoles', here is this from a DEVELOPER, not a 'reviewer': http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/04/dice-on-the-decline-of-pc-gaming-bullshit-battlefield-3-will-give-extra-love-to-the-pc-community/.
The big picture, Bob, is that developers port their games over to consoles for the money, nothing else. Developers are businesses after all, and the cash cow that is console gaming needs to be milked to stay afloat. A number of developers have said that consoles actually hold gaming back, because their lack of power forbids them from doing what they actually want to do (Crytek comes to mind).
I remember maybe 12 months ago, I read an article where an experiment was conducted to see the competencies of the interfaces of consoles and PC's at first person shooters. It was basically, 6 PC gamers vs 6 console gamers at a popular FPS that had been slightly modified so cross-platform play could be done. The hypothesis was that mouse and keyboard will unequivocally trump joypads. To make their hypothesised point even more poignant when it was proved, the experimenters put 6 average Joe PC gamers against 6 of the worlds top, professional level gamers on the console. I don't think i need to tell you who won, and why. While i realise that this is specifically for first person shooters, it adequately shows that PC gaming still has a lot to teach consoles.
Granted, there are some things that consoles and the joypad interface do better, take assassins creed, racers (without wheel controller) and GTA style games. Motion controls for consoles? As Yahtzee very elegantly put it, if we consider that gaming as a whole has moved into adolescence, then motion controls will be it's first period. An awkward time that just needs to be gotten out of the way. The whole point of gaming is immersion into another world, immersion to a level no other medium can achieve due to audience involvement in the narrative. This, primarily is a mind thing, if you are moving more, your mind cannot be as immersed than it could be if you are simply using small movements of the fingers and thumbs to click buttons. Motion gaming will not survive long, gesture based gaming on a touch screen device? Now that's a different question.
There's no doubt that PC's as the static units they are will be put on the back burner to make way for the era of mobile technologies that are emerging currently, like tablets and smart phones. The world will be becoming more always on, always engaged, accessible anywhere. In this case, PC's will lose the limelight they once had. But fast forward 20 years when the emergence of mobile technologies has fully solidified, i won't be surprised if there are still static box PC's in each household because ultimately, the PC experience of mouse, keyboard, screen, a chair and you is the ULTIMATE in productivity and, as a side point, gaming. Case in point, try typing a loooong email on that fancy tablet / smartphone of yours, try dragging and dropping a few attachments from your storage drive. Unless of course we begin to interface our minds directly with the digital world, static PC's will never 'die', neither will PC gaming as it still represents the peak of what gaming can do visually and audibly, the consoles will always be in a state of catch up. Take the Frostbite 2 engine, not even current generation PC's can handle what DICE want Frostbite to do, they're having to wait til technology catches up with their software to utilise it. Want to take a guess which platform will most likely get it first? Yeah, you got it.
Oh, by the way, this didn't 'enrage' me at all, it did recollect my thoughts and conclusions on the topic and state them here though. I was also bought a Sega Megadrive, Gamegear, Gameboy, GBC, GBA SP, PSX, PS2, PSP & PS3 as a child right up to 18 at the time of PS3. So yeah, i've had my share of consoles, but over the years i always came back to PC gaming.
If you're reading this Bob, which you more than likely won't be, i'm massively disappointed in your video on this as it really isn't the big picture of PC gaming at all, it was simply your opinion on the fact that you prefer your 360 as it's, i'm guessing the most popular gaming machine(despite your little 8 bit message saying you admire PC gaming's contribution to the medium) mingled in with what I would call the big picture of mobile technology coming to the fore in the coming years. Basically, stick to movies / television.
Please forward all tl; dr responses to my inbox, much love.
In terms of the technology behind the games, PC's are roughly 2 full generations ahead of consoles. And with the way it's going, it's going to be three before the next generation of consoles come out to level the playing field for about 6 months before PC's roars on ahead again.
In response to first person shooters 'almost entirely moving over to consoles', here is this from a DEVELOPER, not a 'reviewer': http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/04/dice-on-the-decline-of-pc-gaming-bullshit-battlefield-3-will-give-extra-love-to-the-pc-community/.
The big picture, Bob, is that developers port their games over to consoles for the money, nothing else. Developers are businesses after all, and the cash cow that is console gaming needs to be milked to stay afloat. A number of developers have said that consoles actually hold gaming back, because their lack of power forbids them from doing what they actually want to do (Crytek comes to mind).
I remember maybe 12 months ago, I read an article where an experiment was conducted to see the competencies of the interfaces of consoles and PC's at first person shooters. It was basically, 6 PC gamers vs 6 console gamers at a popular FPS that had been slightly modified so cross-platform play could be done. The hypothesis was that mouse and keyboard will unequivocally trump joypads. To make their hypothesised point even more poignant when it was proved, the experimenters put 6 average Joe PC gamers against 6 of the worlds top, professional level gamers on the console. I don't think i need to tell you who won, and why. While i realise that this is specifically for first person shooters, it adequately shows that PC gaming still has a lot to teach consoles.
Granted, there are some things that consoles and the joypad interface do better, take assassins creed, racers (without wheel controller) and GTA style games. Motion controls for consoles? As Yahtzee very elegantly put it, if we consider that gaming as a whole has moved into adolescence, then motion controls will be it's first period. An awkward time that just needs to be gotten out of the way. The whole point of gaming is immersion into another world, immersion to a level no other medium can achieve due to audience involvement in the narrative. This, primarily is a mind thing, if you are moving more, your mind cannot be as immersed than it could be if you are simply using small movements of the fingers and thumbs to click buttons. Motion gaming will not survive long, gesture based gaming on a touch screen device? Now that's a different question.
There's no doubt that PC's as the static units they are will be put on the back burner to make way for the era of mobile technologies that are emerging currently, like tablets and smart phones. The world will be becoming more always on, always engaged, accessible anywhere. In this case, PC's will lose the limelight they once had. But fast forward 20 years when the emergence of mobile technologies has fully solidified, i won't be surprised if there are still static box PC's in each household because ultimately, the PC experience of mouse, keyboard, screen, a chair and you is the ULTIMATE in productivity and, as a side point, gaming. Case in point, try typing a loooong email on that fancy tablet / smartphone of yours, try dragging and dropping a few attachments from your storage drive. Unless of course we begin to interface our minds directly with the digital world, static PC's will never 'die', neither will PC gaming as it still represents the peak of what gaming can do visually and audibly, the consoles will always be in a state of catch up. Take the Frostbite 2 engine, not even current generation PC's can handle what DICE want Frostbite to do, they're having to wait til technology catches up with their software to utilise it. Want to take a guess which platform will most likely get it first? Yeah, you got it
.Oh, by the way, this didn't 'enrage' me at all, it did recollect my thoughts and conclusions on the topic and state them here though. I was also bought a Sega Megadrive, Gamegear, Gameboy, GBC, GBA SP, PSX, PS2, PSP & PS3 as a child right up to 18 at the time of PS3. So yeah, i've had my share of consoles, but over the years i always came back to PC gaming.
If you're reading this Bob, which you more than likely won't be, i'm massively disappointed in your video on this as it really isn't the big picture of PC gaming at all, it was simply your opinion on the fact that you prefer your 360 as it's, i'm guessing the most popular gaming machine(despite your little 8 bit message saying you admire PC gaming's contribution to the medium) mingled in with what I would call the big picture of mobile technology coming to the fore in the coming years. Basically, stick to movies / television.
Please forward all tl; dr responses to my inbox, much love.
Am I the only one who thinks it's kinda funny that people take an opinion about the future of video games made by a guy who calls himself MovieBob so seriously?
He did make some good points, though. That's not to say I agree completely, but he's not just trolling for the sake of it.
He did make some good points, though. That's not to say I agree completely, but he's not just trolling for the sake of it.
The Extra Credits Team did an explanation on weather PC gaming is dying or not in about 74seconds of a clip. They didn't even need to devote a whole episode to prove Bob wrong . Go watch it if you missed it!
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2216-Mailbag-1
5:14 - 6:18
. Go watch it if you missed it!http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2216-Mailbag-1
5:14 - 6:18
Actually, I was quoting revenue. Total PC game sales in 2008 were under $1 000 000 000 in plain writing. Under a billion dollars. They might not have recorded digital sales but having a source that omits some data is better than LINKING TO A BLOG AS A SOURCE THAT DOESN'T LINK TO THEIR SOURCES.Woodsey said:
I just checked in regards to the current numbers coming from the NPD on digital sales (They're doing that, now). I would be able to give a (generous) estimation of total PC game sales of 2008 to $1.5 billion. That's really not that surprising, given that most companies report digital sales as being a rather insignificant portion of their revenue.
Say otherwise? Please site a real source.