20 Million Shift from PC Gaming to Console Gaming by 2022

  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for gtx021
#1 Posted by gtx021 (344 posts) -

Jon Peddie Research: 20 Million Shift from PC Gaming to Console Gaming by 2022

Jon Peddie Research has released a new report on the state of gaming and its future, with the research firm estimating a total of 20 million PC gamers will make the shift to console gaming by 2022. It does make sense, as the no-frills architecture of consoles and highly specialized hardware and development - alongside the lower cost of entry) have been calling gamers from all ages and budgets. Add to this the fact that IQ considerations are becoming smaller and smaller between a high-end gaming PC and their console counterparts - at least when it comes to global, base IQ of settings - and it does make sense that makers make the shift.

Adding to this is the expectation of increased doubling-down on exclusives from games consoles, with the exception of Microsoft, which will be bringing all of its exclusives to the PC market as well. The increased attention to game streaming, with Google's Stadia and Microsoft's own xCloud will prompt change in the way gamers consume content - no dedicated hardware may mean no consoles, but it will also mean no need to purchase expensive, high-end PC gaming hardware to run the latest games with the latest graphics technologies - that will all be run in the cloud. Smart TVs, for instance, may be all the investment required for a premium, lag-free gaming experience with maximum details, should worldwide internet access improve as it has been. Of course, the ratio of high-end PC gamers making their way to consoles is lower than that of gamers with basic or entry-level PCs that are capable of gaming - those will make up the vast majority of the quoted 20 million shift

https://www.techpowerup.com/254930/jon-peddie-research-20-million-shift-from-pc-gaming-to-console-gaming-by-2022

Avatar image for sancho_panzer
#2 Posted by Sancho_Panzer (814 posts) -

Nah.

Avatar image for BassMan
#3 Edited by BassMan (10362 posts) -

Avatar image for Pedro
#4 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

Oh! This is one of those prediction thingymajig.

Avatar image for fedor
#5 Posted by Fedor (5139 posts) -

LMAO!!!

Avatar image for kali-b1rd
#6 Edited by Kali-B1rd (2182 posts) -

So that blurb has absolutely nothing concrete in it.... literally the same console advantages for the last 3 gens straight... yet nothing. Another swing and a miss with the "image quality difference is less" again mis-labelling the platform's main draw.

And then goes onto contradict itself by saying game streaming will affect PC far more (no evidence to suggest that either).

I would easily argue that successful game streaming will affect the casual market for quicker than the enthusiast market and most certainly the not affect non-western markets.... control, performance and library pricing (in which PC is king in both quantity and cost) will keep PC VERY relevant on most markets.

what a joke of a prediction.

Avatar image for son-goku7523
#7 Posted by Son-Goku7523 (955 posts) -

Bullshit

Avatar image for that_old_guy
#8 Posted by That_Old_Guy (1236 posts) -

PC gaming just isn’t the end all be all that it used to be.

I can see especially with the next gen coming and if predictions are correct doing the basic 4K 60fps that many will want the ease of use of consoles and for sure make the switch.

Avatar image for BassMan
#9 Edited by BassMan (10362 posts) -

@that_old_guy said:

PC gaming just isn’t the end all be all that it used to be.

I can see especially with the next gen coming and if predictions are correct doing the basic 4K 60fps that many will want the ease of use of consoles and for sure make the switch.

How exactly are they going to be doing 4K/60 at around $500? I can see 1080/60 finally being a thing with the huge CPU upgrade consoles will get next gen, but native 4K/60 is not going to happen on most games. The price point is always the limiting factor and will keep console performance at peasant standards.

Avatar image for Pedro
#10 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@BassMan said:

How exactly are they going to be doing 4K/60 at around $500? I can see 1080/60 finally being a thing with the huge CPU upgrade consoles will get next gen, but native 4K/60 is not going to happen on most games. The price point is always the limiting factor and will keep consoles at peasant standards.

So, current midgen can do 4k (sometimes with checkerboard) between 30-60fps but next generation would just be 1080/60? That makes no sense.

Avatar image for fedor
#11 Posted by Fedor (5139 posts) -

@Pedro: You factoring in the generational leap or do you just assume games will look and play like they do now just with higher frame rates?

Avatar image for tenaka2
#12 Posted by tenaka2 (17188 posts) -

Consoles always have and always will be a good gaming option for poor people.

PC gaming is for serious players.

Avatar image for Pedro
#13 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@fedor: I factoring diminishing returns graphically and that transitions between gens are marginal especially in the first 2 years.

Avatar image for BassMan
#14 Edited by BassMan (10362 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@BassMan said:

How exactly are they going to be doing 4K/60 at around $500? I can see 1080/60 finally being a thing with the huge CPU upgrade consoles will get next gen, but native 4K/60 is not going to happen on most games. The price point is always the limiting factor and will keep consoles at peasant standards.

So, current midgen can do 4k (sometimes with checkerboard) between 30-60fps but next generation would just be 1080/60? That makes no sense.

Oh my friend Pedro, you are a cool banana, but you don't think things through. Current gen consoles have the CPU as the major bottleneck preventing 60fps at any resolution. This will be alleviated with the next-gen Ryzen CPUs. So, unless the scope of the simulations increase greatly next-gen, 1080/60 should be doable on most games next-gen. Native 4K/60 is extremely demanding and checkerboard and dynamic resolution do not count as 4K/60. Games will continue to become more demanding and a console around $500 will not be a 4K/60 console. Let's not forget that PC always has the advantage of increased settings and customization over consoles too. You play the way you want on PC and you just bend over and take what they give you on consoles.

Avatar image for pcvirginrace
#15 Posted by PCVirginRace (177 posts) -

LMAO I was primarily a console gamer and shifted to pc. Because it takes too long to release next gen. They always come out outdated. In 2 years the ps5 will be mid range and PC parts can be found the same price. Tech moves fast

Avatar image for fedor
#16 Posted by Fedor (5139 posts) -

@Pedro: How are you factoring in diminishing returns? Can I see your data that backs up graphical fidelity is stalling? Are engines already being pushed to their max potential?

Avatar image for kali-b1rd
#17 Posted by Kali-B1rd (2182 posts) -

@Pedro said:

@fedor: I factoring diminishing returns graphically and that transitions between gens are marginal especially in the first 2 years.

Consoles use to sometimes beat PC ... this is nothing new. (Gears of War?) , the consoles are still missing whole genres, have a much weaker es port scene etc.

@fedor said:

@Pedro: How are you factoring in diminishing returns? Can I see your data that backs up graphical fidelity is stalling? Are engines already being pushed to their max potential?

Going beyond this, most of the graphically impressive 4k games never reach more than 30FPS.

This is because half of Sony's selling power for example is how technically impressive their games are, purposefully sacrificing FPS and Resolution for better graphics, this will not change next gen. PC will always have the "throw money at it to make it happen" option.

there is the streaming curve-ball now

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#18 Posted by MonsieurX (39123 posts) -

OP forgot to talk about the cost of a 2080TI

Avatar image for xantufrog
#19 Posted by xantufrog (11502 posts) -

Predictions are great and all, but that's the opposite of what the current trend data show

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#20 Edited by lundy86_4 (53346 posts) -

Yeah... All we're shown is a graph and what I can assume is solely an interpretation of said graph. Techpowerup may have access to the full report (which costs a pretty penny,) so why not do something a little more in-depth? Something tells me this is a simple reaching argument.

It doesn't shock me, considering you have to be one of the biggest morons on this board TC.

Avatar image for that_old_guy
#21 Posted by That_Old_Guy (1236 posts) -

@BassMan: you do realize that for the majority of console gaming history these companies would sell their consoles at a loss to get some of the best tech and over time the cut from the non 1st party games would make up for it especially once the tech got cheaper after a couple or few years.

Nothing says they can’t get tech that can get close and then with optimization that consoles are known for, sell the hardware at a loss and achieve the mark.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
#22 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (18972 posts) -

Wouldn't surprise me.

Avatar image for Pedro
#23 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@BassMan said:

Oh my friend Pedro, you are a cool banana, but you don't think things through. Current gen consoles have the CPU as the major bottleneck preventing 60fps at any resolution. This will be alleviated with the next-gen Ryzen CPUs. So, unless the scope of the simulations increase greatly next-gen, 1080/60 should be doable on most games next-gen. Native 4K/60 is extremely demanding and checkerboard and dynamic resolution do not count as 4K/60. Games will continue to become more demanding and a console around $500 will not be a 4K/60 console. Let's not forget that PC always has the advantage of increased settings and customization over consoles too. You play the way you want on PC and you just bend over and take what they give you on consoles.

There is a lot fallacy when it comes to graphics and gaming. First fact is most games are not triple A games and are not pushing the systems to any substantial degree across all platforms. Secondly this idea that game developers are just brain dead and will simply add more and more stuff to their games just cause is a clear indicator of no game developing experience whatsoever. Also it seems like you are unable to handle the fact that the performance advantage PC currently holds has been shrinking with each console gen and its made worse by the significant slowdown in GPU and CPU performance. Next gen will be delivering on performance and fidelity and folks like you will be wasting your time trying to justify the marginal improvements in performance PC offers while missing the real advantage of PC gaming which options not performance.

@fedor said:

@Pedro: How are you factoring in diminishing returns? Can I see your data that backs up graphical fidelity is stalling? Are engines already being pushed to their max potential?

Diminishing returns isn't mystical. Compare the visual difference between consoles and PC for vast majority of games and you will see that the difference is marginal. CPU and GPU performance has not been able to keep up with the performance needed to have any significant visual upgrades. Just look at benchmarks for games and various visual presets and its obvious to anyone of these diminishing returns. Also diminishing returns exist in everything anyone does in the field of computer graphics and is not based on silly ideology of "engines being pushed to their max potential" its heavily reliant on whether or not the time investment is worth the returns whether it be fidelity or performance. Its like the fools who waste processing on ULTRA because of the most placebo effect as they struggle to tell the difference between High and Ultra at the cost of performance (diminishing returns).

Avatar image for BassMan
#24 Posted by BassMan (10362 posts) -

@that_old_guy said:

@BassMan: you do realize that for the majority of console gaming history these companies would sell their consoles at a loss to get some of the best tech and over time the cut from the non 1st party games would make up for it especially once the tech got cheaper after a couple or few years.

Nothing says they can’t get tech that can get close and then with optimization that consoles are known for, sell the hardware at a loss and achieve the mark.

None of them practice that business model anymore. They are not willing to take a hit on hardware sales and try to make up for it. They want profit right away. Also, that console optimization you speak of is not much of a factor anymore since they share the x86 architecture with PC.

Avatar image for Juub1990
#25 Posted by Juub1990 (8630 posts) -

@pedro

My friend, you are saying a lot of bullshit. I will educate you further when the time is right.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#26 Posted by Sevenizz (3901 posts) -

The differences between PC and consoles is barely negligible at this point making the high price and learning curve of pc gaming look very unattractive.

Avatar image for the_master_race
#27 Posted by the_master_race (4619 posts) -

#PCGAMINGISDEAD

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#28 Edited by lundy86_4 (53346 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

The differences between PC and consoles is barely negligible at this point making the high price and learning curve of pc gaming look very unattractive.

Well, that's not true. Look at The Division 2 max vs console settings... Then appreciate that I personally can run 4K up to 60fps (though my 2080 isn't the best at 4K,) but my TV can do 1080p/1440 at 120fps (native, btw.) Obviously, there is a huge differential in cost, and that's where consoles do their best work... To say the differences are minimal is just incorrect. Consoles do excellent in cost/performance, and that's due to limiting a lot of graphical settings, as well as selling at lower-than-cost on release.

Avatar image for Ant_17
#29 Posted by Ant_17 (12534 posts) -

It goes to talk about not needing consoles and playing on phones and toasters, how are we getting these 20 million herms?

Avatar image for davillain-
#30 Posted by DaVillain- (36881 posts) -
@lundy86_4 said:
@Sevenizz said:

The differences between PC and consoles is barely negligible at this point making the high price and learning curve of pc gaming look very unattractive.

Well, that's not true. Look at The Division 2 max vs console settings... Then appreciate that I personally can run 4K up to 60fps (though my 2080 isn't the best at 4K,) but my TV can do 1080p/1440 at 120fps. Obviously, there is a huge differential in cost, and that's where consoles do their best work... To say the differences are minimal is just incorrect.

PC gaming is far superior to Console gaming, I was blinded for years and years and years... then one day, I have seen the light! It was Crysis that save me. True story my friend.

Listen to Lundy68_4 Sevenizz.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#31 Posted by lundy86_4 (53346 posts) -

@davillain- said:

PC gaming is far superior to Console gaming, I was blinded for years and years and years... then one day, I have seen the light! It was Crysis that save me. True story my friend.

Listen to Lundy68_4 @Sevenizz.

You get these "but they're getting closer and closer" and "they look largely the same," but it's really not the case... Plus, it's a revolving door. There's a reason my PC costs $3,000+. Consoles have their place, and shit, they make some great looking games... It's why I own them as well.

Avatar image for mazuiface
#32 Edited by mazuiface (898 posts) -

I have shifted more and more to PC gaming as the years have gone by lol. I still have my consoles, but I think the PS5 will probably be the last I buy for that BC. I can't see this being reversed unless something truly awful happens to PC gaming, which is unlikely. Really once you go PC, you don't go back.

Avatar image for that_old_guy
#33 Posted by That_Old_Guy (1236 posts) -

@BassMan: why bc this is the first generation to do so?

They know devs and gamers weren’t happy with the lack of performance.

Avatar image for sancho_panzer
#34 Edited by Sancho_Panzer (814 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

The differences between PC and consoles is barely negligible at this point making the high price and learning curve of pc gaming look very unattractive.

There's a bit more to it than that I think. Most people need some kind of productivity machine already, so the question of price for entry is not so straightforward. Why not just get a better PC, at that point. And once you're in the ecosystem, there are a lot of benefits to building a PC library - especially when it comes to the price of games. Then there's the side benefit of having a dedicated system that doesn't hog the home's main entertainment centre. It really depends a lot on your lifestyle.

Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
#35 Posted by SolidGame_basic (24258 posts) -

I've already thought about this happening. Times have changed. People don't need to own a steady desktop these days. You have so many alternatives; tablets, smartphones, laptops, chromebooks, etc. You're not really going to see a huge difference on PC unless you spend good money. The average person doesn't really care about having the best specs.

Avatar image for BassMan
#36 Edited by BassMan (10362 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@BassMan said:

Oh my friend Pedro, you are a cool banana, but you don't think things through. Current gen consoles have the CPU as the major bottleneck preventing 60fps at any resolution. This will be alleviated with the next-gen Ryzen CPUs. So, unless the scope of the simulations increase greatly next-gen, 1080/60 should be doable on most games next-gen. Native 4K/60 is extremely demanding and checkerboard and dynamic resolution do not count as 4K/60. Games will continue to become more demanding and a console around $500 will not be a 4K/60 console. Let's not forget that PC always has the advantage of increased settings and customization over consoles too. You play the way you want on PC and you just bend over and take what they give you on consoles.

There is a lot fallacy when it comes to graphics and gaming. First fact is most games are not triple A games and are not pushing the systems to any substantial degree across all platforms. Secondly this idea that game developers are just brain dead and will simply add more and more stuff to their games just cause is a clear indicator of no game developing experience whatsoever. Also it seems like you are unable to handle the fact that the performance advantage PC currently holds has been shrinking with each console gen and its made worse by the significant slowdown in GPU and CPU performance. Next gen will be delivering on performance and fidelity and folks like you will be wasting your time trying to justify the marginal improvements in performance PC offers while missing the real advantage of PC gaming which options not performance.

Regardless if many games can run on a potato, there are still going to be demanding AAA games that push the medium forward. Like I said, the biggest issue with console performance is that consoles are limited to a low budget. You get what you pay for. However, I am glad that consoles are going to finally be able to provide 60fps gaming on many games even if it won't be 4K.

Please don't try to lecture me on the real advantage of PC as I have been using PCs for decades in all manners. Performance happens to be one of the major benefits of PC. I am not threatened by consoles in any way and don't need to justify my purchases to anyone as I buy top end hardware to meet my own needs and desires. Needs and desires that can not be fulfilled by consoles. The benefits are clear and the performance gap is still large between consoles and PC and will remain so in the future as technology and software demands continue to evolve.

Avatar image for Pedro
#37 Edited by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@Juub1990 said:

@pedro

My friend, you are saying a lot of bullshit. I will educate you further when the time is right.

LOL. If you say so buddy. Says the person who claimed that resolution and distance has no relation.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#38 Edited by lundy86_4 (53346 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

I've already thought about this happening. Times have changed. People don't need to own a steady desktop these days. You have so many alternatives; tablets, smartphones, laptops, chromebooks, etc. You're not really going to see a huge difference on PC unless you spend good money. The average person doesn't really care about having the best specs.

That's literally been the case for PC over the decades. There is a distinct difference between a standard desktop PC (or equating lesser hardware in your case,) and something more gaming capable. You've literally just said nothing new, as well as the blatantly obvious.

Avatar image for dxmcat
#39 Posted by dxmcat (2667 posts) -
@that_old_guy said:

@BassMan: why bc this is the first generation to do so?

They know devs and gamers weren’t happy with the lack of performance.

No, because creating their own custom architectures were costing them too damn much. Why spend that extra money on people who DONT want to spend money, lol

Avatar image for Juub1990
#40 Posted by Juub1990 (8630 posts) -

@Pedro: I asked you several times to quote me saying that and you never found the quote. My friend, baseless accusations are tantamount to slander and are unbecoming of a gentleman of your stature.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#41 Posted by with_teeth26 (9545 posts) -

according to my research, 20 million console gamers are predicted to move back to PC in 2023 after they realise consoles are rubbish by comparison

Avatar image for Pedro
#42 Posted by Pedro (34904 posts) -

@Juub1990: I don't do forum scrubbing, you just have to learn to deal with it.

Avatar image for jasonofa36
#43 Posted by JasonOfA36 (1283 posts) -

I read this as: 20 million PC Gamers will buy console/s because they're not scrubs who stick to one system and shit on others.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#44 Posted by NoodleFighter (10319 posts) -

@sancho_panzer said:
@Sevenizz said:

The differences between PC and consoles is barely negligible at this point making the high price and learning curve of pc gaming look very unattractive.

There's a bit more to it than that I think. Most people need some kind of productivity machine already, so the question of price for entry is not so straightforward. Why not just get a better PC, at that point. And once you're in the ecosystem, there are a lot of benefits to building a PC library - especially when it comes to the price of games. Then there's the side benefit of having a dedicated system that doesn't hog the home's main entertainment centre. It really depends a lot on your lifestyle.

It is also cheaper to upgrade a desktop you already have than to buy a console. Nowadays thanks to efficiency in tech you can buy GPUs that are powered solely by their PCIE slot and have low TDP so your prebuilt PCs PSU is likely sufficient enough. Put in a card like the GTX 750 ti and GTX 1050ti and you easily got a PC rivaling or surpassing the consoles.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#45 Edited by Sevenizz (3901 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Naw, it’s still minimal difference compared to where it was just 2 generations ago and beyond. Screenshot comparisons are not as distinguishable as before. Yes PCs have higher resolution and frame rates - most times - but most people don’t care about the minor details - hence why consoles sell so well year after year.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#46 Posted by Sevenizz (3901 posts) -

@davillain-: Why? He’s wrong - just like you are.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#47 Edited by lundy86_4 (53346 posts) -

@Sevenizz: A few generations ago was a large leap compared to today. Nowadays, it's more performance, but notable graphical differences exist. Most people not caring about the difference is completely on you bud... You made that claim. As for the actual difference? See The Division 2... Like I said.

Furthermore, your arbitrary definitions don't really mean much.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#48 Posted by joebones5000 (2322 posts) -

@tenaka2 said:

Consoles always have and always will be a good gaming option for poor people.

PC gaming is for serious players.

Please. High end PCs represent such a small percentage of the market. Consoles look the same or better than most gaming PCs Look at the steam hardware survey. Most of the high-end stuff represents like 2% of users.

Most people just don't want to deal with PC, not when you can get a console that will look just as good to most people.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#49 Posted by joebones5000 (2322 posts) -

@Sevenizz said:

@lundy86_4: Naw, it’s still minimal difference compared to where it was just 2 generations ago and beyond. Screenshot comparisons are not as distinguishable as before. Yes PCs have higher resolution and frame rates - most times - but most people don’t care about the minor details - hence why consoles sell so well year after year.

^^ This guy knows what he's talking about. Couple that with the fact that you never have to deal with a horrible mouse and keyboard on a console.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#50 Posted by lundy86_4 (53346 posts) -

@joebones5000 said:

^^ This guy knows what he's talking about. Couple that with the fact that you never have to deal with a horrible mouse and keyboard on a console.

I don't deal with a M/KB on PC at all. Every game I play allows me to play with my Elite Xbox controller.

See my post above as to why he's wrong.