Graphics card manufacturer Nvidia claims that, come 2014, more money will be spent on PC games than on games for consoles. The assertion was made during a conference call with analysts yesterday, Techgage reports. Nvidia quoted data from market watcher DFC Intelligence. DFC Intelligence console vs PC graphs Source: Nvidia But …
to skew data even more..
Do Microsoft Sony and Nintendo even release details on online game sales ?
This seems more a matter of wishful thinking from Nvidia for their investors, since they have relied on a steady upgrade cycle of graphics cards for quite a while. If this market is conceived as dwindling, their share value will go down with it.
I don't have the numbers at hand, but I don't think that their (mobile) chipset sales are on the same scale as their graphics chips sales.
Online game sales
Probably not but then neither does Steam and other online game downloading services which is a huge chunk of PC gaming sales.
it's a cycle...
Again with this....
When will people workout that PC gaming has a cycle due to console releases. When new consoles are launched the PC starts getting obituaries written about it. Then as the consoles of that generation start too get long in the tooth there is more interest in PC gaming again, until the next gen console launches and the cycle starts over again.
Been PC gaming since 89 and I have watched this cycle happen 3 or 4 times now. The only difference this time, is that the cycle has been a lot longer, as this gen of console has been with us for a long time.
Also that due to the success of this console generation in getting more people into gaming and generating record sales figures the the lack of interest in PC gaming has sunk lower than usual. This has meant that the PC has not been able to show off the advantages it does have as a platform over console gaming, due to lack of developer interest and the glut of DX 9 ports. All people have had with the PC is the negatives of the platform vs console gaming.
Hopefully if the sale figures released are true, the upswing in interest in PC gaming (again that happens with every cycle), is starting again and devs will take notice and start making some killer games for the PC. Which will only make it even more attractive. Again.
The only unknown is how big an effect the tablet and smartphone platforms will have. Also I am not quite sure about the beating consoles part. That would be new for any cycle. The PC has been on a par with other platforms, I am not sure about when it has beat consoles in the past.
Hopefully devs will get it through their heads this time around, that this is a cycle and when new consoles come out won't abandon the platform completely again....
Extrapolation - or something
Hmm.. Looks like the graphs show quite clearly what Nvidia want to tell us. But the numbers are purely speculative (unless Nvidia have a time machine).
It's true that graphics processing on PCs is superior, but good graphics do not a great game make. Plus the fact that you can't buy a decent gaming PC for the price of a console. Also, add in the fact that the pre-owned market is huge for consoles. Christ, our local Blockbuster has more floorspace given up to pre-owned console games than movie sales (not rentals, obv).
WRT Skyrim (and others), after the initial 'ooh' and 'aah' of your opening gameplay you become more involved in story, character development and, oh yeah, gameplay. Graphic capability will start to wane in importance. It looks to be something special (over 300 hours of gameplay) and it's this gameplay that sells games. Not prettiness.
Console graphics don't need to improve. We're done there now. Gimme a good playable story with a difficulty where I can complete it instead of more lens flare or whatever the effect-of-the-month is that's chewing through idiots over-priced games PCs.
I thought Blizzard had suggested that an Xbox version was in the pipeline?
Have to agree that console graphics are getting way, way behind. So exactly how much effort would it take to make a new backwards compatible Xbox with say 4 times the current graphical power. I get that there would have to be stringent tests to ensure the hardware was bullet proof but come on it can't be that frigging hard. Get it together Microsoft FFS before Apple kick your arse with gaming as well!
A user can mod their PC for less than the cost of a console, and it will perform far better than a console. That mod will also improve other useful PC functions like editing video, ripping CDs, 3d modeling, and other content creation tasks.
@ Tom Chiverton 1 & LuMan
"can't buy a decent gaming PC for the price of a console"
This statement, that I see a lot, is one if the dumbest things console fans always say. It is a false equivalently. Of course a 'gaming PC' is going to be more expensive than a console. Duh. The same way a 'gaming PC' is going to be more expensive than a normal PC which just surfs the web. A 'gaming PC' today needs to run everything, at a minimum of 1080p and at 60 FPS. How is that ever going to be a similar price to a device that generally runs games at 720p* and at 30fps. Now a PC that just needs to run games at 720p and 30fps, that would be an interest price comparison.
Second, I reject both you suppositions that the only advantage the PC has over consoles is in graphics. This is rubbish. I agree this focus on graphics is counter productive though. If graphics hardware capabilities of the PC are supposed to be 5 times greater than consoles now, what do you think the processing power advantage is? This is CPU processing which means better AI or physics in games. The biggest thing more non graphics processing power gives you is the capability to implement original and innovative game mechanics that would not be possible otherwise.
But here again consoles are hobbling this, Games have to have mechanics that current consoles, now long in the tooth, CPU's can deal with. No one is going to develop something that does not take the console market into account even if released on PC as well. You cannot have game mechanics that scale as you can with graphics.
Hopefully if Nvidia's predictions are not just spin, maybe developers will believe they have a market for games that use that extra processing power, to deliver some new and original ideas. Games that console owners will also be able to enjoy when the next console gen comes along...
*720p being the most used native resolutions for consoles games was sourced from here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
I'm sure I don't need to point out that the root of this discussion comes from a graphics card manufacturer and the crux of the article (towards the end, at least) was a comparison of how much more powerful Nvidia's cards are compared to the capabilities of PS3 and Xbox360. So, it seems fairly obvious that the point I'd make would be that you can buy a whole console for the price of a decent graphics card. Not such a dumb comment in context.
WRT to my supposition that the only advantage PCs have is graphics; no idea where you got that from. I certainly didn't allude to it. I'm not so naive as to not know that multiplayer gaming on PCs is far superior (lower latency, more services, more concurrent online gamers).
But I stand by my point that graphics do not a great game make. Just look at Angry Birds!
"But I stand by my point that graphics do not a great game make."
Agreed. Thought I already conceded that point in my last comment. Just becuase it's Nvidia who are pushing this idea does not mean the processing advantage is graphical only. It is just Nvidia have more of an interest in gaming on the PC than say Intel, else they would be putting out similar stats.
"So, it seems fairly obvious that the point I'd make would be that you can buy a whole console for the price of a decent graphics card. Not such a dumb comment in context."
You can buy several family cars for the price of one Ferrari......
Yes of course PC games are more popular
That's why when you go to a video games shop there are rows and rows of console titles and then a handful of PC games tucked in the corner.
PC gaming has always been hideous; you spent £2K on a machine, pimp it out with an uber multi-core CPU, huewge hard drive & memory, chuck in several graphics cards all SLI'ed to the hilt. then you shove in the disc, wait an age for it to install, then update drivers, then download a mahoosive set of patches to update the game before it finally comes on, it then probes your computer and promptly tells you that it thinks it's shit and can only continue if you massively turn down the graphics quality.
In about 5 years time when you've gone through several nerd-puter upgrades you'll accidentally discover that the game you bought now runs at a reasonable frame-rate as they're finally making machines that can run them.
It's not a mystery as to why consoles and handhelds are so popular.
"you spent £2K on a machine,"
You spent 2k on a machine and it could not play games well. I that is more a comment on your buying skills rather than the platform itself.
"then you shove in the disc, wait an age for it to install, then update drivers, then download a mahoosive set of patches to update the game before it finally comes on"
Yeah, becuase you never have to install a game on a hard drive or download patches (and sometimes large ones) for console games....
- Pic Forget the $2499 5K iMac – today we reveal Apple's most expensive computer to date
- RUMPY PUMPY: Bone says humans BONED Neanderthals 50,000 years B.C.
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook