Why Video Game Console Sales Are Plummeting

[roaf85]

I think the PS2 lasted around 10 years, but even then it overlapped with the PS3. I agree that these analysts are mostly grifters though.

There were a number of reasons they PS2 lasted 10 years.

It was the first console to play DVDs and was adopted at the time for that internationally. It was the only console to carry at 99 dollar price point for a number of years, it was backwards compatible with a PS1 and the development costs were half that of new games for current gen consoles.

Plus it had a huge library of games, so it sold well internationally at a time of a global recession.

 

[ekuest]

It would have to be a convincing argument. I used to be pretty pro piracy and even got shredded in college for a paper I wrote on it when I interviewed around 300 individuals on campus at my college on piracy. This was after the Napster phase, but during the Kazaa phase.

I tried to draw a relation to 2 questions on my survey but couldn't I said fuck it and still went with it anyways. My relation was trying to draw in people by asking them if they downloaded something illegally, surprisingly all said they did and then asked if they would pay for it ever. A majority in my survey said no they wouldn't pay for it ever.

The most common complaint at the time was the cost.

However I still got a 13 percent that said they would and I tried to argue that.

this confirms your hypothesis though, not disprove it. you should go back and rewrite your paper. heres why: clearly the cost of the content they downloaded is greater than the worth they put on that content. therefore, if they could not pirate, they wouldnt have bought any of that stuff anyway. this means that pirating isnt losing content providers any sales (well, 13% of the pirates might reflect some lost sales.) what it does show is that (close to) 100% of the people you interviewed were being exposed to music they would not have bought at full price, and therefore would not have been exposed to otherwise. this drives word of mouth to people who perhaps will buy content, as well as concert sales and merchandise sales etc.

this is where the pirated content /= lost sale idea comes into play. you cant think of every download as a lost sale, because chances are if facing the choice between buying at full price and not buying, most would probably just not buy it.

This is the disconnect between the gaming public and people that hangout on these forums. Yes, you can build something ok for $500 but most people aren't building anything, they're buying pre-built, and those will run you quite a bit more for something decent. Unless you know what you're doing you're probably looking at buying something for $500 that can't run many games at all or you're paying $1000 or more to get something that can.

Yes, maybe steam-box can change that but I don't see it unless they're willing to take a loss on the hardware to sell more games. I suspect, as has been speculated, that Valve isn't going to be building anything, they're just going to license a "stamp of approval" for others. Most of the "gaming" level "Steam Approved" systems will be quite a bit more than $500. That's my guess right now, of course, simply because everyone selling "gaming" hardware right now is marking it up like crazy.

i pretty much said the same thing as the first paragraph a few posts back. its a sad state, but most people just dont know (or are too lazy to care) that you can get a far superior gaming experience for less money on a computer compared to a console. the only thing consoles have over PC are a few exclusive titles.

i do hope youre wrong about valve not releasing their own hardware though. havent they even had prototypes out or were those all made by third parties? valve did hire a bunch of hardware engineers a while back if i recall, which would point to them making their own box (although rumors abound about their own controller, and VR headsets, so could be that.) if all steam had up their sleeves was a minimum cpu/gpu/ram requirement for "valve certification" then they would need a team of 1 person and 2 days' time to come out with that.

Look up the attachment rate of the Wii sales at launch to Zelda Twilight Princess. I think it was 80 percent of something. Why WiiU was launched without Zelda is beyond me.

I believe you can use a regular controller, but the experience or why you bought the system in the first place was the new features of the wii u controller.

yeah the wii U launch makes no sense to me. marioland is pretty fun, but its a game that give you something to do once you have the console, it isnt in and of itself a reason to get the console. definitely the most lackluster launch ive seen. i hope they pick it up with some must-have titles soon that justify that weird-ass controller, cuz i really dont want to see nintendo go out of business.

I think the PS2 lasted around 10 years, but even then it overlapped with the PS3. I agree that these analysts are mostly grifters though.

we talked about this earlier. i guess a few consoles were technically "in production" for 10-12 years, but its generally been 6-7 years between generations. for example, ps1: 1995-2006, ps2: 2000-2012, ps3: 2006-? so ps1 and ps2 were in production for 11 and 12 years respectively, even though they were replaced after 5 and 6 years respectively. the 10-12 number is pretty dishonest imo, cuz who do you know that was buying a ps1 in 2006?

 

[ekuest]

damn thats a long post. i should get back to my job maybe...

 

[Zohar78]

I would argue that hardcore gamers are probably the first ones to buy a system and out of those people who owned a WiiU only 5 percent of total Call of Duty 2 sales were on a WiiU. Most of those gamers were probably buying it on other platforms and it is because the WiiU controller is shitty.

i think we both agree hardcore normally start the sales of the new console. But heres the thing, if a hardcore gamer has an xbox perse, and buys a wii u. then a new game in a popular series comes out, for both with very little upgrade for the "new" system and most of, if not all hardcore friends still have xbox, which do you think he will buy? put myself in that position, why would i short change my online experience with very little player base and almost none of my friends having it?

Im currently playing halo 4, and even if its released for pc, i would probably play it on the xbox more because 1) 3 of my fams dont have pc good enough for gameing but have an xbox 2) and currently playing with a group of players in my clan that i really enjoy.

 

[conghelach]

Its a shame to see whats happened to gaming on the desktop. Pure tragedy!!

PC games are in most cases bad ports from console games. Personally my last console was sega genesis.
I find both xbox and playstation controls to be highly inefficient and lacking especially with first person shooters as im sure most will agree.
PC gaming can offer a much richer experience if only companies would quit punishing consumers like EA for example.
I wonder if EA truly realizes all the piracy they have cause with their BS practices that punish the consumer who buys their games.

It's high time PC gaming was given the attention it deserves.

 

[Ididar]

i do hope youre wrong about valve not releasing their own hardware though. havent they even had prototypes out or were those all made by third parties? valve did hire a bunch of hardware engineers a while back if i recall, which would point to them making their own box (although rumors abound about their own controller, and VR headsets, so could be that.) if all steam had up their sleeves was a minimum cpu/gpu/ram requirement for "valve certification" then they would need a team of 1 person and 2 days' time to come out with that.

If it is just going to be standard computer parts on a standard motherboard then they really don't need many people at all. Heck, take 2-3 people off these forums and you could come up with a custom case and hardware to do the job. The forums certainly have the expertise. Plus, the hardware they have shown has been created by other people. We simply haven't seen any evidence that they're doing their own setup and manufacturing. More than likely they're collaborating with one, or multiple, hardware vendors to come up with a bunch of options. I suspect it isn't just about size either but also form factor, controllers, and so forth.

Either way, Valve would have to grow a LOT bigger than it currently is to assemble and test its own hardware and customized case. Microsoft's comment on the whole thing was true ... hardware is a bloody expensive business to get into.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

Valve is most likely working on a custom controller. The hardware will most likely be a "PC" in some kind of custom built case. Whether or not it'll use standardize components is another story. I'd venture to say it will for the most part.

I would also imagine they are doing a lot of work on the software front as well, making it as "plug and play" as it possibly can.

 

[roaf85]

i think we both agree hardcore normally start the sales of the new console. But heres the thing, if a hardcore gamer has an xbox perse, and buys a wii u. then a new game in a popular series comes out, for both with very little upgrade for the "new" system and most of, if not all hardcore friends still have xbox, which do you think he will buy? put myself in that position, why would i short change my online experience with very little player base and almost none of my friends having it?

Im currently playing halo 4, and even if its released for pc, i would probably play it on the xbox more because 1) 3 of my fams dont have pc good enough for gameing but have an xbox 2) and currently playing with a group of players in my clan that i really enjoy.

Yea I know. Thats the point I was trying to make. If Call of Duty BO 2 is ported over to the WiiU with all these nifty features and it doesn't sell, then your 3rd party publisher is going to abandon support for that platform.

A platform can't survive without 3rd party support as demonstrated by Sega.

By not having Nintendo in the console market it hurts gaming, especially when it has a brand name that is Nintendo.

You also demonstrated another point that I was trying to make earlier. Halo 4 looks great I would say that a game of Halo 4's caliber couldn't be ran on PCs with Intel HD 4000 or PCs that you could buy for under 200 dollars (price of a Xbox).

Therefore all your friends or the mass market in this case have bought Xboxes and you have a unified platform to play Halo 4.

I think when people look at games like Halo and Call of Duty they sell millions, but yet what are their sales on PC?

Do PC games sell millions? Yes they do, but what are the games. The Diablos and WoWs, which aren't easily adapted to a controller.

 

[SkribbelKat]

Its a shame to see whats happened to gaming on the desktop. Pure tragedy!!

PC games are in most cases bad ports from console games. Personally my last console was sega genesis.
I find both xbox and playstation controls to be highly inefficient and lacking especially with first person shooters as im sure most will agree.
PC gaming can offer a much richer experience if only companies would quit punishing consumers like EA for example.
I wonder if EA truly realizes all the piracy they have cause with their BS practices that punish the consumer who buys their games.

It's high time PC gaming was given the attention it deserves.

Consoles have really awful touch points. The controller is a horrible idea and one of the worst (aside from Kinect and anything Nintendo makes) things ever to be invented. The Xbox controller is possibly the dumbest of them all. I bet a lot of other people feel the way you do and won't spend as much money or time with a console because of it. Well that and they're just an obsolete toy these days with their super slow video cards and tiny amounts of RAM.

 

[roaf85]

Consoles have really awful touch points. The controller is a horrible idea and one of the worst (aside from Kinect and anything Nintendo makes) things ever to be invented. The Xbox controller is possibly the dumbest of them all. I bet a lot of other people feel the way you do and won't spend as much money or time with a console because of it. Well that and they're just an obsolete toy these days with their super slow video cards and tiny amounts of RAM.

I would say a lot of people disagree with that counter point. The controller is a great idea. I can sit, stand, lay down, sit in a recliner all with a controller and be comfortable.

You can't do that with a mouse and keyboard.

 

[Ididar]

Consoles have really awful touch points. The controller is a horrible idea and one of the worst (aside from Kinect and anything Nintendo makes) things ever to be invented. The Xbox controller is possibly the dumbest of them all. I bet a lot of other people feel the way you do and won't spend as much money or time with a console because of it. Well that and they're just an obsolete toy these days with their super slow video cards and tiny amounts of RAM.

Yeah, gonna have to disagree on that and sales would directly conflict with your opinion. They don't sell millions and millions of the things because everyone hates the controller. Matter of fact, all indications are that the Xbox controller is one of the best on the go. To add, I have my Xbox controller hooked up to my computer so I can sit on the couch and play games on the TV. I rarely use the KB and trackpad. The mouse is actually tossed to the side and turned off right now because I really don't need it that much. The keyboard and trackpad sit on the coffee table just long enough to launch a game and then I'm leaning back on the couch playing with a controller.

 

[SkribbelKat]

Yeah, gonna have to disagree on that and sales would directly conflict with your opinion. They don't sell millions and millions of the things because everyone hates the controller. Matter of fact, all indications are that the Xbox controller is one of the best on the go. To add, I have my Xbox controller hooked up to my computer so I can sit on the couch and play games on the TV. I rarely use the KB and trackpad. The mouse is actually tossed to the side and turned off right now because I really don't need it that much. The keyboard and trackpad sit on the coffee table just long enough to launch a game and then I'm leaning back on the couch playing with a controller.

That's okay! I think that the numbers of consoles versus the numbers of PCs are pretty telling though. There are a lot more PCs around, like 90% of homes versus around 56% of all consoles, not just the Xbox. You could and prolly should argue that not everyone uses their PC for games and that PCs can be used for a lot more stuff than just playing with yourself or playing with your friends. The other thing is that people forget that you can put your laptop in your lap to play games or take it along with you to pretty much anyplace which is a lot more comfortable than trying to play on a large screen confined to a limited area.

 

[obs]

Console sales are dropping because this generation is almost done and Wii U sucks. Nothing to see here.

 

[roaf85]

That's okay! I think that the numbers of consoles versus the numbers of PCs are pretty telling though. There are a lot more PCs around, like 90% of homes versus around 56% of all consoles, not just the Xbox. You could and prolly should argue that not everyone uses their PC for games and that PCs can be used for a lot more stuff than just playing with yourself or playing with your friends. The other thing is that people forget that you can put your laptop in your lap to play games or take it along with you to pretty much anyplace which is a lot more comfortable than trying to play on a large screen confined to a limited area.

I am not forgetting the laptop space. You aren't going to be playing far cry with a track pad. Even so you would still need some sort weird fucked up TV tray type thing to play games on the couch and the experience still isn't the same as the controller.

If 90 percent of homes have a PC and you guys are claiming that "even a prehistoric computer" can play games at the same level as an Xbox 360 than why are certain multiplatform sales so low on the PC?

If the experience of the keyboard and mouse is truly better?

 

[Ididar]

That's okay! I think that the numbers of consoles versus the numbers of PCs are pretty telling though. There are a lot more PCs around, like 90% of homes versus around 56% of all consoles, not just the Xbox. You could and prolly should argue that not everyone uses their PC for games and that PCs can be used for a lot more stuff than just playing with yourself or playing with your friends. The other thing is that people forget that you can put your laptop in your lap to play games or take it along with you to pretty much anyplace which is a lot more comfortable than trying to play on a large screen confined to a limited area.

PC's sell to businesses and homes. There are tons of PC's in homes that never get used for what we'd consider gaming (unless you really want to count solitaire). Yes, PC's can be used for a lot more than just playing games, as can consoles these days. They're becoming home entertainment hubs in a lot of ways to drag in more than just the gaming market. As for laptops, yes they are portable ... and? Few people that own laptops are using them for gaming. Yes, there are some, but as a percentage of the laptop buying public they are very small. You can't point at pure sales numbers of PC's and call it a win for PC gaming.

I recognize the problem. Since Steam has become a significant chunk of PC game sales and Valve isn't releasing any numbers, PC gaming supporters really don't have a lot of statistical data to back up their hobby's importance. Frankly, that doesn't bother me. I just got back into PC gaming not because of any statistics but because I wanted to. As long as PC games are being made who the hell cares if consoles are doing better or worse than PC gaming? It is irrelevant unless you're just interested in a penis measuring contest.

 

[Stiletto]

The other thing is that people forget that you can put your laptop in your lap to play games or take it along with you to pretty much anyplace which is a lot more comfortable than trying to play on a large screen confined to a limited area.

Meet Ben Heck.

He has created some of the most innovative portable form factors for consoles you'll ever see.

 

[roaf85]

I don't know why anyone would base an argument that playing on a smaller screen with shitter speakers and controls is the way to go.

Hence why you don't see games on the mobile platforms selling for 50-60 dollars.

 

[SkribbelKat]

PC's sell to businesses and homes. There are tons of PC's in homes that never get used for what we'd consider gaming (unless you really want to count solitaire). Yes, PC's can be used for a lot more than just playing games, as can consoles these days. They're becoming home entertainment hubs in a lot of ways to drag in more than just the gaming market. As for laptops, yes they are portable ... and? Few people that own laptops are using them for gaming. Yes, there are some, but as a percentage of the laptop buying public they are very small. You can't point at pure sales numbers of PC's and call it a win for PC gaming.

I count pretty much anything as PC gaming that is a program designed to entertain. That includes things like Solitaire. Drawing a line somewhere and saying, "This is 'real' gaming and this isn't always seemed silly to me." I guess that weighs stuff favorably to my argument about pretty much everyone playing games on their computers, but pretty much everyone has fun on their computers.

I recognize the problem. Since Steam has become a significant chunk of PC game sales and Valve isn't releasing any numbers, PC gaming supporters really don't have a lot of statistical data to back up their hobby's importance. Frankly, that doesn't bother me. I just got back into PC gaming not because of any statistics but because I wanted to. As long as PC games are being made who the hell cares if consoles are doing better or worse than PC gaming? It is irrelevant unless you're just interested in a penis measuring contest.

I'm not really comparing stuff that way. It's not a big enough deal to worry about or get upset over who plays what and were. For me, playing a game from my netbook while I'm riding a bus is fun and so is playing something on a desktop PC with a keyboard and mousey. Even consoles are okay too if you can get around the hardware limitations and the controllers. For some people, none of that is a big deal. I guess for me, if I want to enjoy something that's supposed to be a major high end release, it makes more sense to do it on a PC because even modern integrated graphis are a lot more powerful and immersive than a console. Plus, using a keyboard and even a trackpad on a netbook feels lots more comfortable.

Meet Ben Heck.

He has created some of the most innovative portable form factors for consoles you'll ever see.

I saw that before. He's pretty amazing at tinkering with stuff. It's too bad Microsoft isn't willing to do that kinda thing with their systems in a mass production way since that might make a console system more appealing to consumers. It's just too bad the system isn't very good at also sending e-mail or word processing. That'd be a huge win for everyone if it could do some light productivity tasks too.

 

[ekuest]

I count pretty much anything as PC gaming that is a program designed to entertain. That includes things like Solitaire. Drawing a line somewhere and saying, "This is 'real' gaming and this isn't always seemed silly to me." I guess that weighs stuff favorably to my argument about pretty much everyone playing games on their computers, but pretty much everyone has fun on their computers.

I'm not really comparing stuff that way. It's not a big enough deal to worry about or get upset over who plays what and were. For me, playing a game from my netbook while I'm riding a bus is fun and so is playing something on a desktop PC with a keyboard and mousey. Even consoles are okay too if you can get around the hardware limitations and the controllers. For some people, none of that is a big deal. I guess for me, if I want to enjoy something that's supposed to be a major high end release, it makes more sense to do it on a PC because even modern integrated graphis are a lot more powerful and immersive than a console. Plus, using a keyboard and even a trackpad on a netbook feels lots more comfortable.

I saw that before. He's pretty amazing at tinkering with stuff. It's too bad Microsoft isn't willing to do that kinda thing with their systems in a mass production way since that might make a console system more appealing to consumers. It's just too bad the system isn't very good at also sending e-mail or word processing. That'd be a huge win for everyone if it could do some light productivity tasks too.

i cherish your posts skribbelkat, but i disagree with you on a few things when it comes to this topic. first of all, i do not consider solitaire "gaming" because there are no sales associated with it. it is not part of the gaming industry. also, just having a pc in the home is not comparable to having a console in the home. my parents have a pc in their house, as well as a laptop, and neither one has ever had even solitaire opened. my gf's mom has a desktop, and ive never even seen it turned on. and im sure her laptop has never seen a game played either. i dont think it's fair at all to compare console sales, where people go out and buy one specifically for gaming and then muse buy multiple $60 games for it, to home PC sales where everyone needs one at least for facebook and email and basic web browsing and never buys a single PC game and most never even play solitaire or farmville.

second, gaming on a console>>>>>gaming on a laptop on your lap. i am not a huge console fan, in fact i dont even own one (well, an N64 but that doesnt count), and even i can admit to that. i have a moderate gaming htpc in my living room hooked up to my projector, and when i game single player on it, i reach for my xbox controller first. its just so easy, and i can lie down or sit sideways or lay on the floor or recline in my bean bag chair, whatever. my gaming rig upstairs is still a much more quality gaming experience for brand new titles or for competitive multiplayer, but when im just chilling with a classic game or replaying a single player campaign again, i prefer my couch and controller. the controls are not as precise or programmable, but theyre simple and comfortable.

i completely disagree with whatever you said about gaming on a netbook being "comfortable". it is the worst. rts and platformers MAYBE, but anything shooter or rpg is going to suck donkey balls. add that to the fact that a netbook has a 11" 1366x768 screen and just the worst graphics processor imaginable, and you have an experience that is terrible in every way. the only redeeming quality of gaming in a netbook is you can do it on a bus or something, anywhere else it is a complete waste. and your comment about integrated graphics is off too. even the 360 gpu is still better than the HD4000, and thats before you take into account the higher performance per hardware power that you get out of a console for reasons everyone is already aware of.

i play braid, meatboy, plants vs zombies, etc on my laptop when i have to, but never any real games. it is just a horrible experience.

 

[Stiletto]

I saw that before. He's pretty amazing at tinkering with stuff. It's too bad Microsoft isn't willing to do that kinda thing with their systems in a mass production way since that might make a console system more appealing to consumers. It's just too bad the system isn't very good at also sending e-mail or word processing. That'd be a huge win for everyone if it could do some light productivity tasks too.

I honestly have no idea why the guy hasn't already been recruited by Razer or Origin-PC or some sort of boutique gaming company to develop those things for mass production.

 

[Ididar]

I count pretty much anything as PC gaming that is a program designed to entertain. That includes things like Solitaire. Drawing a line somewhere and saying, "This is 'real' gaming and this isn't always seemed silly to me." I guess that weighs stuff favorably to my argument about pretty much everyone playing games on their computers, but pretty much everyone has fun on their computers.

Yes, it does shift everything in your favour but it isn't what is being discussed. If you're comparing PC gaming to console gaming you can't define the terms to sway the argument impossibly in the direction of PC gaming. That said, if we do use your very loose definition of "gaming" then smartphones and tablets are kicking everyone's ass. But, again, that's not the comparison. The comparison is between consoles and "PC Gaming" so you have to define gaming that allows the two to be compared on equal terms. Because, otherwise, anything with a browser is a "gaming system" and thus the discussion becomes pointless.

 

[SkribbelKat]

i cherish your posts skribbelkat, but i disagree with you on a few things when it comes to this topic. first of all, i do not consider solitaire "gaming" because there are no sales associated with it. it is not part of the gaming industry. also, just having a pc in the home is not comparable to having a console in the home. my parents have a pc in their house, as well as a laptop, and neither one has ever had even solitaire opened. my gf's mom has a desktop, and ive never even seen it turned on. and im sure her laptop has never seen a game played either. i dont think it's fair at all to compare console sales, where people go out and buy one specifically for gaming and then muse buy multiple $60 games for it, to home PC sales where everyone needs one at least for facebook and email and basic web browsing and never buys a single PC game and most never even play solitaire or farmville.

You have strange friends and family. We're gonna have to agree to disagree with what does and doesn't constitute gaming. I think that Vista sidebar thing where you move tiles around to make the picture complete can get pretty hardcore. There are also tons of flash-based games in the internet. I think that there was even mini golf in a few banner ads I've seen.

second, gaming on a console>>>>>gaming on a laptop on your lap. i am not a huge console fan, in fact i dont even own one (well, an N64 but that doesnt count), and even i can admit to that. i have a moderate gaming htpc in my living room hooked up to my projector, and when i game single player on it, i reach for my xbox controller first. its just so easy, and i can lie down or sit sideways or lay on the floor or recline in my bean bag chair, whatever. my gaming rig upstairs is still a much more quality gaming experience for brand new titles or for competitive multiplayer, but when im just chilling with a classic game or replaying a single player campaign again, i prefer my couch and controller. the controls are not as precise or programmable, but theyre simple and comfortable.

I think controllers and interfaces are a personal preference thing. I sort of liked the original Wii controller, but the Xbox 360 controller is (totally opinion, I admit) an ungainly, awkward thing that collects sweat and hand goo in the most yucky ways. The fact that they all insist on vibrating for no good reason is all sort of weird. There's better things on the market for less money if you want vibrations.

i completely disagree with whatever you said about gaming on a netbook being "comfortable". it is the worst. rts and platformers MAYBE, but anything shooter or rpg is going to suck donkey balls. add that to the fact that a netbook has a 11" 1366x768 screen and just the worst graphics processor imaginable, and you have an experience that is terrible in every way. the only redeeming quality of gaming in a netbook is you can do it on a bus or something, anywhere else it is a complete waste. and your comment about integrated graphics is off too. even the 360 gpu is still better than the HD4000, and thats before you take into account the higher performance per hardware power that you get out of a console for reasons everyone is already aware of.

i play braid, meatboy, plants vs zombies, etc on my laptop when i have to, but never any real games. it is just a horrible experience.

In my case, the netbook is a 10.1 inch screen at 1020x600. Um...Samsung n150 with an Atom n450 CPU and GMA 3150...there's probably a link somewhere, but go Google or Bing it. They're great little computers! Compared to a much larger notebook PC like a Dell Vostro with a 15 inch screen, I think the netbook is far more comfortable because it perches better on one thigh without putting a lot of pressure on my skin and it doesn't get so hot that I have to put on sweats or something to insulate my leg. Bigger notebooks are okay if you use both legs, but its not comfortable to sit with both feet down and flat. It's not natural feeling. Anyhow, the GPU is good enough for some pretty modern games and handles heavy loads really well. Master of Orion 3, The Sims 2 (okay, lowered settings of course), and Morrowind which are all major titles are playable.

I agree the HD4000 isn't really quite as good at gaming as the Xbox, but the iGPU I was thiking about is in AMD A-series chips. The fastest of them are pretty close to being equal to a HD 5570 which pretty much totally outclasses an Xbox.

 

[SkribbelKat]

I honestly have no idea why the guy hasn't already been recruited by Razer or Origin-PC or some sort of boutique gaming company to develop those things for mass production.

No kidding. Maybe he already has a nice job someplace else? Anyhow, his work is pretty much awesome.

Yes, it does shift everything in your favour but it isn't what is being discussed. If you're comparing PC gaming to console gaming you can't define the terms to sway the argument impossibly in the direction of PC gaming. That said, if we do use your very loose definition of "gaming" then smartphones and tablets are kicking everyone's ass. But, again, that's not the comparison. The comparison is between consoles and "PC Gaming" so you have to define gaming that allows the two to be compared on equal terms. Because, otherwise, anything with a browser is a "gaming system" and thus the discussion becomes pointless.

I don't wanna stack the argument in my favor. It's sort of unfair so yeah, I admit it's debatable about what makes something a game and someone playing it a gamer. Then again, you do make a good point. Phones and tablets pretty much totally dominate the gaming market at this point. I'm actually wondering why people even worry about either the console or the PC since they can play some pretty interesting stuff without having any other device aside from one that a lot of them are already carrying in their pockets. I have been debating about getting an iPod or an Android MP3 player (pretty much Samsung is the only one that makes a decent one) and just skipping the whole PC/console thing for entertainment.

 

[N4CR]

Your average modernish computer now seems to have a reasonable graphics processor, especially the new ones, making praybox 15 a little unnecessary.

Not to mention the latest gen from Microsoft and Sony have been rather unreliable and game experience often leaving a little to be desired. Up-scaled 720 sucks, especially when it still algs. Went through three CECHC PS3s with YLOD. Many friends had bricked Xbox360s, RROD I believe. Then there was the gradual retardation of the PS3 launch model, no more linux, no more this, no more that.

Fool me once, fool me twice.. not this time.

Got a refund on the PS3 and put it towards sandy bridge and ram fund. Never looked back since.