Slashdot Mirror

Erm 100% of Blizzard's revenue is generated by PC Gamers, so therefore I extrapolate from my dataset that 0% of gaming must be happening on other platforms.

Picking Activision or Ubisoft are bad examples as they primarily produce console games with PC as an afterthought. Fortunately they are not the only game manufacturers, nor are they representative of the gaming industry in general.

Activision Blizzard is a single company and the market leader. So yeah, it's very representative.

You may wish to become better informed.

What I wrote are numbers released by the publishers themselves. Before you make a fool of yourself again: Better read what you post. The infographic says very clearly that the 2011 and 2012 numbers are predictions by a 3rd party source. The infographic onlycompares PC vs. consoles but ignores the entire mobile market (I just wrote that 5-7% revenue are PC games, not that the remaining ~95% are consoles). They are not actual data.
The infographic also explicitly includes browser games that are already Linux-compatible. Was there a rush of FarmVille players to Linux? No.
So if we include browser games in a discussion about AAA game publishers, fine: My argument was that Windows users have an irrational emotional attachment towards Windows and the installed base of PC Linux will not change via further availability of games, as the free Linux ports of id Software's and Epic's games -- and by your will also availability of browser games -- already proved.

To repeat myself: Linux is great and it's the main platform I use. I'm not bashing Linux. All I did was countering the claim that Steam on Linux will suddenly lead to a mass migration of Windows users to Linux.
We had AAA games on Linux in the past. It did not change a thing and Steam will not boost PC Linux from 1% installed base to a 30, 50,or 70% installed base. It just won't.

PC has a niche in MMORPGs and strategy games but the overall majority of revenue is generated on other platforms: Consoles and mobiles (iOS, Android, NDS,...).
Valve's ambitions on Linux have nothing to do with PCs. Valve wants Steam with its big picture mode to run on "livingroom hardware" (=smart TVs) with Linux as option to run on them. See http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episodes/ncis3o/gt-tv-valve (after 3min) for an interview with Valve's boss who confirms that. The Valve games announced for Linux (TF2, L4D2, and Portal) are not high-end games like Battlefield2. Smart TVs capable of Full HD playback are powerful enough to run them.

The only thing tying a lot of people (myself included) to Windows is gaming.

A lot? According to this interview with Ubisoft representatives, only 7% of Ubi's 2011 revenue was generated on PC and 5% of Activision's revenue:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-drm-piracy-interview/

That means that >90% of gaming happens on other platforms anyway (consoles, smartphones) and for those users gaming is not what's keeping them on Windows.

Erm 100% of Blizzard's revenue is generated by PC Gamers, so therefore I extrapolate from my dataset that 0% of gaming must be happening on other platforms.

Picking Activision or Ubisoft are bad examples as they primarily produce console games with PC as an afterthought. Fortunately they are not the only game manufacturers, nor are they representative of the gaming industry in general.

You may wish to become better informed.

PC game revenues have been higher for over 2 years now despite selling fewer units. Per unit, PC games sell at a lower price point than console games and make more money. PC gamers play more than console gamers and there's also a lot more people with PC's that can play games than people with consoles.

Don't we already have enough people on the internet? Why do we keep encouraging more? :-)

Note: to all you humor-impaired people, the smiley face indicates this is a JOKE.

But the internet is serious business!

Of course no one knows the exact numbers but it's pretty obvious by practically every industry report I've seen that PC gaming isn't only alive and well but it's growing very fast.

Generally speaking, when your market share increases, so do the amount of devices you have in service. The more devices you have in service, the higher the percentage of failed devices. It's math, not magic.

http://www.eurodroid.com/2011/04/26/stats-android-now-10-ahead-of-iphone-in-us-smartphone-market-share/

http://www.techi.com/2011/08/android-ios-approach-70-combined-smartphone-market-share/

http://www.techi.com/2011/07/3d-printer-makes-working-tools-with-moving-parts/

Not exactly. China is already producing a cheap iPad -- a rip rather than a clone -- it's called iPed: http://www.techi.com/2010/05/iped-launches-for-105-in-china-runs-on-android/
It's way less than half the price. It does not have an Apple logo on it btw...

Except for all the people still on XP, which has no native IPv6 support... http://www.techi.com/2010/10/windows-xp-still-the-most-widespread-windows-os/ and the fact that MacOS still doesn't work quite right with it... http://openradar.appspot.com/7333104

Don't need thirty years. AppleTV is a flop.

Wish I had a "flop" like this!

You missed the point of TFA. Even music and movies create new scarcities which can be monetized, even if the original work itself cannot be. Here is an article with a clip that explains it much better than I can.

Why do people keep citing Apple TV as an example of failed Apple product? I know it hasn't been a runaway success like iPod and iPhone but Apple TV is estimated to have sold 8 million units since its launch in March 2007. Compare that to a "successful" product like Kindle which have sold an estimated 3 million units since its launch in November 2007. What am I missing?