Slashdot Mirror
90 Million Gaming PCs By 2007
Joystiq has commentary on research by ananlyst group IDC, which states that 90 million 'gaming ready' PCs could be in homes by the end of 2007. From the article: "IDC expects out of those 90 million units that 67% will be Vista Basic and 30% will be Vista Premium (both private consumer versions). Vista requires the PC to have a semi-competent graphics processor, able to push DX9, just to function properly. This could mean the PC gaming market will enjoy more potential customers, especially among more graphically intense programs."
Will I have to get Vista to run Zork?
A lot of them use Windows 2000 for the extra speed over XP. Claiming they're going to upgrade to an even more bloated OS is just flat-out wrong. And preinstallation doesn't count, most gaming PCs are custom built.
50 percent of these "gaming" computers will not be used to do anything but run email and Internet explorer.
Just more proof that "gaming ready" is another bullshit term used by media groups to signify that they might possibly run a game one day. Besides which this all assume Vista works properly and actually is able to shut off the gui when you start a game. If it can't do that, all these "gaming ready" pcs well be "gaming euniched" PC as it will require close to double what we had before.
" Vista requires the PC to have a semi-competent graphics processor, able to push DX9, just to function properly. This could mean the PC gaming market will enjoy more potential customers, especially among more graphically intense programs.""
What!? You're saying there's an UPSIDE to Vista?
most people wont get cards with spare ram, power ect
they'll get the dell dirt cheap option, if 256 Megs is what is needed for vista, they'll get a 256, not enough for modern gaming
(Emphasis mine.)
The PC Gaming market already "enjoys" a rather massive "potential" market. Yet PC sales are quickly falling to the wayside in favor of console gaming. In fact, most PC Games are either being ported to consoles or are ported from consoles. Which means that there is little advantage to being a PC Gamer unless you're into MMOGs.
A better headline would be, "Casual gaming market gets bigger! Game studios still have no idea how to make money off them!"
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
When you are talking about 90 million users, you aren't talking about hardcore gamers with gaming PC's -- you are talking about Joe and Jane Normal, who just want a computer to do basic work and keep the kids quiet/busy at home. That's the mass market -- and if you can deliver quality games that function on those computers (that are bought stock at the retail stores) you are delivering to a huge potential audience -- which makes great business sense.
:)
It's not about those of us who will build our own computers, it's about the Eloi who think Geek Squad is a lifesaver.
Grimwell - old, cranky, mean, obsessive
But how many of these gaming PCs will be connected to a 23" or larger monitor and thus suitable for single-head multiplayer with four gamepads in a USB hub? Right now, consoles seem to have an oligopoly on single-head multiplayer games such as Smash Bros., Tekken, Mario Party, Bomberman, and the like, and Windows seems to have a monopoly on independent titles. So what is an independent developer of single-head multiplayer games to do?
I believe Vista is supposed to be able to unload a lot of itself when necessary freeing up the resources it held. On top of that, only Vista is going to have DirectX 10. Gamers will buy it eventually.
Now what the hell is a gaming PC? I have a Sempron 2500+ with 1GB ram an ATI X1600 and a Creative XFi. Is that a gaming PC? It must be, thats all it's used for. If I found an old Pentium 166 and just for games, is that also not a gaming PC?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
There are a good number of onboard DX9 graphics that meet Vista specs. Onboard graphics like Intel's which can barely "run" any current games.
Why would any gamer want bloatware that would completely destroy their CPS?
"No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
Cause I aint buying a name brand computer for the rest of the ATX cases usable lifespan. or as long as they sell MOBOs to consumers.
Seriously.
I love to build, customize, and tweak my own computers. It's fun, challenging, and way way cheaper, with a more powerfull end result.
Although in the past, my homebrews were like the Millenium falcon (had to kick em to get them to boot windows, but I think it's cause they were self aware....) They allways bring a much higher Performance : Price, have allways been rock solid for me.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
"Which means that there is little advantage to being a PC Gamer unless you're into MMOGs."
Or RTS games that actually have a decent interface. Or just about any kind of strategy game in general such as Civilization or Heroes of Might and Magic. Or if you want to play FPS games with a mouse (Wii MAY help to change this, but not PS3 or Xbox 360).
Sometimes my arms bend back.
A lot of them use Windows 2000 for the extra speed over XP
Sure and that's worked due to dx9 being available for 2k as well as xp. dx10 is Vista only. Crysis for one, and I'm sure there are plenty more, will only really shine under dx10. So, yes, many of the gamers are going to switch.
Anything that doesn't use onboard graphics or hardware that's older than maybe 4 years probably counts as a gaming PC.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
no text...
On top of that, only Vista is going to have DirectX 10.
Wined3d is currently being designed with the intention to work on windows. They are waiting for the Vista release to begin coding DX10, and I suspect they will then try to get Wined3d ported to work on old versions of windows at that point. Considering the adoption rate of XP, they have alot of time to get it done before people start hitting the hard requirement of Vista.
The operative word in the article is there COULD be 90 million gaming PCs running Vista by the end of 2007. The reality is Justin Murray (the article's author) needs to put down the pipe! Just like the PS/3--no one I know is excited about Vista. Quite the opposite. The talk I hear is about switching to a Mac/OSX or trying Linux on the desktop. The DRM controls in Vista are crazy. Vista turns a PC (Personal Computer) into a CCC (Corporate Controled Computer.) Vista will not bolster the PC gaming market--if anything Vista will help gaming on alternative platforms.
We could know that couldn't we? When Intel..known of its integrated CRUD on most cheap motherboards and notebooks! Came with their Dx9 videochip, weak...very weak but it was just made to be able to run Windows Vista!
Codefile Defected to another Hexadimal Range refresh your CHAOSTACK.NLM file with a new copy
It's just the focus is placed on the fanciest graphics. The big publishers are losing out on a lot of income to people that want simple "pick up and play" games they could use to leverage against the exploding budgets of AAAAA++++ titles.
No sig for you!!
Two words: DRM, WGA
The problem is not as much the suitability of Vista for gaming (we won't really know that until it gets tested), it's the fact that it's the first time that when you buy a PC you pay for it but somebody else controls it.
Unfortunatly for most people, they will only realize how far they have been shafted with Vista when a false negative in the license validation process causes their PCs to turn into vegetables or they have to buy their music all over again when a harddrive breaks (even though they had backups) or they buy a new CPU/Motherboard and the system thinks it's not the same PC.
Those of us in the know will avoid Vista like the plague and warn our friends about it's less publicized "features".
Personally i intend to get a Wii for my gaming needs (up to now i've always played games on the PC and never got a console) and phase out gaming on the PC (basically i'll stick with XP and older games and will never buy a game that requires DirectX 10, possibly switching to Linux once and for all - i've had it as dual boot for almost a decade now - and used Cedega).
So more and more systems will be able to play more powerful games that require better video cards.
But who is really going to make use of that? People who are very casual gamers are notlikley to find many (or any) games that they want to play that needs all that extra power anyway - those people are playing poker online today just fine thanks.
Someone looking for more graphical oopmh is probably going to buy a console anyway, as that's where many games are headed for first runs now. If you had the choice between buying Oblivion for a console or the PC, which way would you go? I mean modern consoles support expanded content and online play and even PC level resolutions, so why go with a game on the PC when it's simpler to use with a console?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/05/19/q1_06_gpu
(That leaves 21 million ATI chips, plus 14 million NVidia chips, for a total of over 35 million chips that don't suck.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_X3000
(Oops. Maybe the remaining 39 million won't be upgrading to chips that don't suck?)
http://www.gamershell.com/articles/884.html
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Personally i intend to get a Wii for my gaming needs (up to now i've always played games on the PC and never got a console) and phase out gaming on the PC (basically i'll stick with XP and older games and will never buy a game that requires DirectX 10"
Does the Wii run Eve-Online? Half-Life 2 Episode One? If not, then I'm still going to have to suck it up and run Windows. It sucks, and I'd give it up in a second, but the PC is still the best gaming platform out there. I've never owned a console, and although I've seen some nice things on them, the games that enthrall me all require the Personal Computer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I mean lets be honest here, PC gaming has pretty much gone to the farm beyond RTS, MMOs, and decent FPS where even those are starting to be taken over by the systems. Do analysts really think with the recent trend downward for gaming sale on the PC for anything other than casual gamers that they will ever open up a bigger market?
People who want to game will buy the system for it. The fact is, most people use computers for what their main purpose in life is, work, email, internet, and porn.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Now that Apple has finally allowed a real OS to be installed on their computers, there is no longer any reason to bother with Apple-compatible games.
And gaming on Linux... creating anything for it is the ultimate in both unprofitable and thankless (as well as needlessly complicated. How many decades is it going to take for an application installer which works properly? Maybe someone should work toward that problem rather than making yet another damn text editor).
"only Vista is going to have DirectX 10. Gamers will buy it eventually."
Or revolt. I've bought a Wii, so Microsoft and their ever more pointless (to me) OS can just go to hell =)
Bye!
"I doubt 97% of gamers are going to install Vista.
A lot of them use Windows 2000 for the extra speed over XP."
This is 2006, not 2001-2. While I doubt every "gamer" is going to go over to Vista, to assume that people who buy the newest hardware are still using 2000 is a sad, sad joke.
I agree that's a great point for why you'd go for a PC version, but it still seems like the majority of the market would rather have the simplicity and bullet-proofness of the console version...
Not to mention that content makers are more limited in number over producers - the real answer to this issue is to allow the ability for user-defined content to be used by console users as well. There is no reason this cannot be so with all next gen consoles being able to download material online.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and replacing them with gaming consoles.
But, an analyst can predict anything.
Doesn't mean it will come true, but they can predict it.
Amazingly, they are rarely punished for being totally out to lunch on their predictions.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
only Vista is going to have DirectX 10. Gamers will buy it eventually."
Or revolt. I've bought a Wii, so Microsoft and their ever more pointless (to me) OS can just go to hell =)
Good point. I bought a Wii because I won't have an HDTV until they drop in price (around 2009) and just have given up on PC gaming.
My next laptop will be Linux - it currently is WinXP - but if you force me to upgrade, you lose me as a customer.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This is ricockulous. The status quo for graphics processors won't increase just because of Vista. Pretty much every new computer in the past year has shipped with a GPU which satisfies the requirements/recommendations for Vista, save some business machines, but they're not exactly a potential gaming market to begin with.
So Vista definately won't push the envelope for consumer hardware, but more importantly, hardware still ages. In about two years (+/- 1yr), today's bottom end Vista-capable card will be struggling to run new games, at least with full settings. The requirements of an operating system are not future proof, unless MS decides to up the ante with new eye candy every year, so asserting that they would somehow enhance the install base of "gaming ready PCs" -- which are essentially machines with hardware not more than 2-3 years old -- is inane. Games will always push the envelope far beyond an operating system.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What exactly is a "gaming PC"?
Is it a PC that can play games? If so, then any PC dating waaaay back to the 8086 was a "Gaming PC". What sort of non-news announcement is this?
Reminds me of the old "Multi-media level" rating which failed pretty quickly as soon as Pentium computers became affordable as they all had CPU, memory, graphics, CD-ROM and sound capabilities far beyond the highest rating.
Heck, I even remember when DOOM (the first one) was used as benchmarking program, which quickly became outdated and replaced by another game as even the wimpiest office-grade video card was scoring off the chart.
Even if Microsoft is looking at "Gaming PC" to mean "PC that's running Vista", it's still a meaningless measurement since I highly doubt the 1000s of PCs used for developing software for Vista are going to be running any sort of game - including the inevitable updated version of Solitare and Minesweeper.
You might as well have Sony and Nintendo announce they've sold millions of "Super Computers".
Care to pull up any numbers to back up that bullshit assertation?
Does the Wii run Eve-Online? Half-Life 2 Episode One?
At this point, there's no technical reason why it couldn't, they just aren't available for the Wii.
However, that's a fair trade, I suppose, since there are more games on consoles that aren't available for PCs than vice versa, and the imbalance only grows.
Sure, you might not like Zelda, Gears of War, Guitar Hero, or any of the other things that make game consoles worth owning but if you really have diverse gaming tastes the PC loses hands down.
This isn't to say that there aren't great games on the PC that aren't available for consoles. I personally cannot wait for Supreme Commander. I'm simply pointing out the fact that there are more reasons to game on a console than a PC, and the reasons to game on a PC instead of a console are slowly disappearing.
The Wiimote simply opens up even more possibilities for the Wii.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Thats estimating that 97% of those computers will have Vista by the end of 2007. That seems like a tall estimate. I doubt that many companies and gamers will switch to Vista so quickly.
I could see companies switching to Vista if they have a huge need for it specifically next year. I can't see that many gamers upgrading to Vista till a game requires it, like DX10, which isnt XP compatable.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
There's one reason for this, and one reason only. Nobody likes configuring controllers in arcane menus. I have no problem with it, but I can write software:
10 print "hello"
20 goto 10
See, not one bug! But for the rest of the populace, they turn on the game, they start mashing buttons, nothing happens, they turn off the game. Never mind that every controller under the sun has a different placement of button 1, button 2, etc....
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Should read "... Vista Home Premium and above requires the PC to have a semi-competent graphics processor, able to push DX9, to display the new Aero interface instead of the Vista Basic or legacy interfaces."
I ran Vista Ultimate betas for months on a computer that couldn't get even one frame/second in Aero because it didn't support pixel shader 2.0 (I overrode the hardware check just to see). Everything else worked perfectly. Yeah, high-end graphics adds usability as well as eye candy (stuff like Flip-3D, transparent sidebar, etc.) but in the end, even a high-end desktop OS can do fine without fancy graphics compositing. While people might end up buying more graphics cards, even Intel Integrated (crap, from a gamer's perspective) can do Aero if you have the newest releases.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Another example of just because you do it doesn't mean that lots of people do it.
According to the valve hardware survey about 1 percent of respondents uses windows 2000.
Judge Rakoff in UMG v. MP3.com disagreed with your reasoning. So why aren't there any multiplayer games for home theater PCs that don't require either 1. multiple PCs and multiple monitors or 2. piracy?