The PC Industry Is Betting Big On Gamers

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The actions of certain hardware makers would suggest that if anyone is going to boost slumping PC sales, it is gamers. The PC gaming market made billions in sales last year—double the revenues from console sales—and is projected to increase over the coming years.

The PC gaming market produced $21.5 billion in hardware sales last year, according to data from Jon Peddie Research, which is more than double the revenues derived from console sales. More notably, unlike the broader PC market, which continues shrinking, gaming PC sales are projected to increase over the next couple of years.
 
But, but, pc gamers are nothing but stinking pirates!!! Everyone knows you can't make money with PC gaming.
 
Someone needs to forward this to Intel, get them working on CPUs with more than a 5% performance improvement.
 
^This
I just tried GTA V for the first time since I got my Skylake CPU and at 4.7GHz, the demo is partly cpu limited!
 
Hehe, yeah, makes everything better just by being there.
I can fly now and beer flows from my taps.
 
If they would legalize movie ripping, maybe that would give people a reason to buy 6 core CPU's and 8TB hard drives.
 
But, but, pc gamers are nothing but stinking pirates!!! Everyone knows you can't make money with PC gaming.

False equivalence. A weird double standard exists, where people will lay thousands into a gaming PC with latest/greatest hardware, then pirate every game, or go to great lengths with VPN's and shady russian key sites to get new releases for $5-$10.

Seriously, if I had a nickel for every "I'll wait for $5 Steem Sail" dork with a 980 or 980 Ti in their signature line.
 
Great, now we need these PC parts OEMs to start paying game devs to:
- PC exclusives
- PC is the development platform and they can then port to consoles. Not the other way around.
- PC titles that are released on the PC for the first then after X weeks/months get released on the other platforms
 
False equivalence. A weird double standard exists, where people will lay thousands into a gaming PC with latest/greatest hardware, then pirate every game, or go to great lengths with VPN's and shady russian key sites to get new releases for $5-$10.

Seriously, if I had a nickel for every "I'll wait for $5 Steem Sail" dork with a 980 or 980 Ti in their signature line.

Why does having a high end rig mean that you should waste money instead of being patient and buying them when they go down in price?

I mean, I have dual 980ti's and play games on a 4k screen, but I haven't bought a game since 2011. (no I haven't pirated any either)

I already have the games I like. When something new I find interesting comes out I might buy it. If it is something highly anticipated, I may throw caution to the wind, and pay $60 on launch day, but for everything else, I'll probably wait for the $15.99 GotY edition.

There is nothing about most games that is better on launch day. In fact, they are usually much much worse, with launch day bugs, performance issues, etc. etc.

Much better to wait for the GotY edition, get a game that actually works, pay less, and get all the DLC included.

Delayed gratification FTW!
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841199 said:
I mean, I have dual 980ti's and play games on a 4k screen, but I haven't bought a game since 2011. (no I haven't pirated any either)

Actually, no, I take that back. I forgot I recently bought Verdun.

It's not bad, but probably not enough to drag me away from Red Orchestra 2 or Civilization V any time soon.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841199 said:
Why does having a high end rig mean that you should waste money instead of being patient and buying them when they go down in price?

I mean, I have dual 980ti's and play games on a 4k screen, but I haven't bought a game since 2011. (no I haven't pirated any either)

I already have the games I like. When something new I find interesting comes out I might buy it. If it is something highly anticipated, I may throw caution to the wind, and pay $60 on launch day, but for everything else, I'll probably wait for the $15.99 GotY edition.

There is nothing about most games that is better on launch day. In fact, they are usually much much worse, with launch day bugs, performance issues, etc. etc.

Much better to wait for the GotY edition, get a game that actually works, pay less, and get all the DLC included.

Delayed gratification FTW!

No offense but why would you spend 1200 on video cards and not enjoy the current crop of games released this year? That's like buying a new corvette and not driving it for 4 years waiting for a highway to be built.
 
But I've seen Microsoft shills in here claim us PC Gamers don't drive the industry and businesses do.
 
No offense but why would you spend 1200 on video cards and not enjoy the current crop of games released this year? That's like buying a new corvette and not driving it for 4 years waiting for a highway to be built.

Because I enjoy Red Orchestra 2, and a single 980ti was not sufficient to play it with acceptable frame rates at 4k.


It was close with one 980ti, but even overclocked I couldn't get the performance I wanted, so I added a second.

4k is pretty difficult to get good performance out of. Even with two 980ti's in SLI only get ~40 or so fps at 4k in Metro 2033, and that's a 5 year old title now...

Considering how poorly multi-gpu solutions scale, I doubt even with 4 980ti's I'd get the frame rates I'd like in more modern titles...

Besides, none of the recently released titles appeal to me. When something I find interesting comes out, I'll buy it :p
 
No offense but why would you spend 1200 on video cards and not enjoy the current crop of games released this year? That's like buying a new corvette and not driving it for 4 years waiting for a highway to be built.

Because with 1200 worth of video cards, 4 year old games is all he can play at somewhat reasonable framerates/settings at 4k resolution. He makes more sense than the people who pay 650/1200 worth of video cards and play 4k on modern games at stick-man settings and slide-show framerates, because "moar is better."
 
P.S.

4 years of Civ V? Time to graduate to Grand Strategy games like EU4, CK2, V2, and Distant Worlds :D Last one has a high outdated-interface learning curve though.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841302 said:
Because I enjoy Red Orchestra 2, and a single 980ti was not sufficient to play it with acceptable frame rates at 4k.


It was close with one 980ti, but even overclocked I couldn't get the performance I wanted, so I added a second.

4k is pretty difficult to get good performance out of. Even with two 980ti's in SLI only get ~40 or so fps at 4k in Metro 2033, and that's a 5 year old title now...

Considering how poorly multi-gpu solutions scale, I doubt even with 4 980ti's I'd get the frame rates I'd like in more modern titles...

Besides, none of the recently released titles appeal to me. When something I find interesting comes out, I'll buy it :p

I'm sorry I should have read that better. 4k :)
 
PC is a close second to PS4 in sales. The Xbox One is essentially failing badly in game sales.

Witcher 3 for PC 1.3 million sold <-two months old info
Witcher 3 for PS4 2.21 million sold
WItcher 3 for Xbox One 0.76 million sold
 
PC gamers are not enough to stop the slump on sales. We like to upgrade but, we usually build our own and do not buy a pre built because of the cost for what we want or need.
 
Because with 1200 worth of video cards, 4 year old games is all he can play at somewhat reasonable framerates/settings at 4k resolution. He makes more sense than the people who pay 650/1200 worth of video cards and play 4k on modern games at stick-man settings and slide-show framerates, because "moar is better."

That is an interesting but incorrect view point you have there. I can play Shadow of Modor at 4k mostly Utra settings at 31fps and it is smooth. (The game play is smooth, I, however, stink at the game. :D ) Even Crysis 3 works great at 4k resolutions and AA is not needed since I use a 28 inch 10p TN panel.

You can feel free to think what you want but, it does not make you correct.
 
That is an interesting but incorrect view point you have there. I can play Shadow of Modor at 4k mostly Utra settings at 31fps and it is smooth. (The game play is smooth, I, however, stink at the game. :D ) Even Crysis 3 works great at 4k resolutions and AA is not needed since I use a 28 inch 10p TN panel.

You can feel free to think what you want but, it does not make you correct.


I've never played Shadow of Mordor, but IMHO, 31 fps is completely unplayable. I wouldn't even bother. I'd go read a book or something.
 
Sure, new and fancy hardware is great, but let's be honest, the games that are getting released these days aren't getting much better. They're even going backwards in a lot of areas. Devs simply need to make more interesting games, rather than re-hashing the same tired formula year after year.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841394 said:
I've never played Shadow of Mordor, but IMHO, 31 fps is completely unplayable. I wouldn't even bother. I'd go read a book or something.

Subjective of course. All I have to do is turn down the settings to up the fps but, it makes little difference as long as the game plays well. 4k is where it is at, anything less is a waste of time on the PC. On consoles, I do not care but on my PC for gaming at home, 4k or go home.
 
Subjective of course. All I have to do is turn down the settings to up the fps but, it makes little difference as long as the game plays well. 4k is where it is at, anything less is a waste of time on the PC. On consoles, I do not care but on my PC for gaming at home, 4k or go home.

You sacrifice video settings to play at 4K? Congratulations on buying all that expensive equipment just to turn graphic settings down. wow...
 
You sacrifice video settings to play at 4K? Congratulations on buying all that expensive equipment just to turn graphic settings down. wow...

4k with some of the settings turned down looks 10000x better than 1080p at max settings any day of the week. :D You should try it sometime if you have not already done so.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841199 said:
Why does having a high end rig mean that you should waste money instead of being patient and buying them when they go down in price?

I mean, I have dual 980ti's and play games on a 4k screen, but I haven't bought a game since 2011. (no I haven't pirated any either)

I already have the games I like. When something new I find interesting comes out I might buy it. If it is something highly anticipated, I may throw caution to the wind, and pay $60 on launch day, but for everything else, I'll probably wait for the $15.99 GotY edition.

There is nothing about most games that is better on launch day. In fact, they are usually much much worse, with launch day bugs, performance issues, etc. etc.

Much better to wait for the GotY edition, get a game that actually works, pay less, and get all the DLC included.

Delayed gratification FTW!

No disagreement on waiting for games to come down in price, but then I wasn't talking about that group of people.

That said, think beyond your own little world for a moment and consider that if everyone thought the same as you, there would be no new PC games coming out left to speak of. It's got to be financially viable for developers at some point, or it goes "poof". PC gamers wonder why new game development is so console focused these days, and PC left with "shit ports". Here's your antagonist.
 
4k with some of the settings turned down looks 10000x better than 1080p at max settings any day of the week. :D You should try it sometime if you have not already done so.[/QUOTE

I play at 1080P on a 60" TV with all the eye candy turned up plus AA and SweetFX. I can't imagine making things smaller would gain me anything at all except having to turn settings down. No thanks... ;-)
 
No disagreement on waiting for games to come down in price, but then I wasn't talking about that group of people.

That said, think beyond your own little world for a moment and consider that if everyone thought the same as you, there would be no new PC games coming out left to speak of. It's got to be financially viable for developers at some point, or it goes "poof". PC gamers wonder why new game development is so console focused these days, and PC left with "shit ports". Here's your antagonist.

I'd consider buying more titles new if they were actually ready on launch.

That being said, I do put my money where my mouth is. My two top titles (which I have over a thousand hours in each) were both pre-orders for me.

They were the rare exception where I was anticipating the games enough that I didn't care about the guaranteed inevitable launch day issues.

Civ5 and RO2 were both pre-orders for me. That being said, if not for those two titles, I have to go all the way back to Counter-Strike: Source and Half Life 2 for my last pre-order or launch purchases.

Had I had a functioning computer at the time, I probably would have bought Civ4 at launch though.
 
I play at 1080P on a 60" TV with all the eye candy turned up plus AA and SweetFX. I can't imagine making things smaller would gain me anything at all except having to turn settings down. No thanks... ;-)

I think it really depends on the title. Some games greatly benefit from higher resolution, and the added clarity is amazing. You might miss certain graphics settings being turned up when you start using it, but if you were to try to go back to lower resolution, you would miss that way more.

On other titles It doesn't matter as much.

Ideally, I'd like to go up in resolution AND keep my settings turned up high.

Luckily my favorite titles just happen to be a few years older now, so I don't HAVE to choose.
 
Great, now we need these PC parts OEMs to start paying game devs to:
- PC exclusives
- PC is the development platform and they can then port to consoles. Not the other way around.
- PC titles that are released on the PC for the first then after X weeks/months get released on the other platforms

pretty much all games are made on PC, when when Autodesk, 3dmax Maya etc... tools run on consoles.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841554 said:
I think it really depends on the title. Some games greatly benefit from higher resolution, and the added clarity is amazing. You might miss certain graphics settings being turned up when you start using it, but if you were to try to go back to lower resolution, you would miss that way more.

On other titles It doesn't matter as much.

Ideally, I'd like to go up in resolution AND keep my settings turned up high.

Luckily my favorite titles just happen to be a few years older now, so I don't HAVE to choose.

Higher quality settings get you better clarity. There is nothing extra I get by going to 4K. The only possible thing you may get is better FOV, yet in most games that is adjustable as well.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841199 said:
Why does having a high end rig mean that you should waste money instead of being patient and buying them when they go down in price?

I mean, I have dual 980ti's and play games on a 4k screen, but I haven't bought a game since 2011. (no I haven't pirated any either)

I already have the games I like. When something new I find interesting comes out I might buy it. If it is something highly anticipated, I may throw caution to the wind, and pay $60 on launch day, but for everything else, I'll probably wait for the $15.99 GotY edition.

There is nothing about most games that is better on launch day. In fact, they are usually much much worse, with launch day bugs, performance issues, etc. etc.

Much better to wait for the GotY edition, get a game that actually works, pay less, and get all the DLC included.

Delayed gratification FTW!
The idea is your graphics cards depreciate almost as fast as games, so it's sort of odd penny pinching on games and taking your time at the same time you're spending a premium for bleeding edge hardware instead of being patient with that also. Now shelling out on something that won't drop fast, like speakers or a monitor, that would be more of an investment, but top-tier GPUs, you'll literally save hundreds of dollars buying the same thing a year or so later.
 
Higher quality settings get you better clarity. There is nothing extra I get by going to 4K. The only possible thing you may get is better FOV, yet in most games that is adjustable as well.

You should try it some time, I think you might be surprised.
 
Because with 1200 worth of video cards, 4 year old games is all he can play at somewhat reasonable framerates/settings at 4k resolution. He makes more sense than the people who pay 650/1200 worth of video cards and play 4k on modern games at stick-man settings and slide-show framerates, because "moar is better."

Witcher 3 and GTA V run smoothly for me on high at Cinema 4k with a single 980ti.
 
Higher quality settings get you better clarity. There is nothing extra I get by going to 4K. The only possible thing you may get is better FOV, yet in most games that is adjustable as well.

FoV, from my experience, never changes with resolution change (there are exceptions, but none of those I am aware of are FPS/TPS, where FoV really matters).

There are many other issues with the 4k resolution in practice however, UI scaling being a major one. It's less of an issue now as most games in recent memory scale UI without issue, but a select few it's really off putting (Civ V I think was the one with biggest issue, but I admit I never really investigated because I could't read the tiny text lol).

And then there is the lack of pixel doubling...
 
(Civ V I think was the one with biggest issue, but I admit I never really investigated because I could't read the tiny text lol).

I don't know. I think the default settings are fine.

Click to embiggen:


That being said, I run my 4k desktop at 100% scaling.

I don't see the point of going 4k to just scale everything up. That's why I went with a 48" screen, and sit at a normal monitor distance from it.

When I upgraded to Windows 10, the default setting was 300% scaling. I scaled that shit right back down to 100% again.

Please tell me they aren't going to force scale all the UI elements up at 4k now. I see very little point in 4k at low screen sizes, like those 27" panels that keep coming up cheap on MonoPrice.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041841547 said:
I'd consider buying more titles new if they were actually ready on launch.

That being said, I do put my money where my mouth is. My two top titles (which I have over a thousand hours in each) were both pre-orders for me.

They were the rare exception where I was anticipating the games enough that I didn't care about the guaranteed inevitable launch day issues.

Civ5 and RO2 were both pre-orders for me. That being said, if not for those two titles, I have to go all the way back to Counter-Strike: Source and Half Life 2 for my last pre-order or launch purchases.

Had I had a functioning computer at the time, I probably would have bought Civ4 at launch though.

Either you're full of it or your memory is fading. RO2 was about as broken as Assassin's Creed Unity at launch. And the devs pissed on their old fan base. To make up for it, they reset everyone's unlocks, which a whole bunch of us opposed anyways. I've unlocked standard issue accessories multiple times because of the crappy & broken unlock system.

Save for spotty design and a poor LOD system, the game does work okay now. But I couldn't connect to servers for weeks at a time.
 
Back
Top