even crazier is that Steam is honestly not what it used to be. between Epic, Xbox Gamepass, Blizzard games launcher, and of course Uplay, an important pillar of the PC gaming scene, I feel I play way less games on steam now than I did 5 years ago.
Not aiming towards you, but I never understood this statement from other PC players. Steam, GoG, it doesn't matter what client you use, all that's important is to play the game itself regardless what client you are using. I use Steam all the damn time, same with GoG and they all do one thing, play games. Other clients like Origin, Rockstars, or EGS are only their when I really need them.
I'll admit, I haven't use Blizzard.Net cause I got tired of Blizz BS.
yea steam is still my goto but I don't go out of my way to get games on steam - if I can get something cheaper elsewhere I will.
especially with gamepass this last year the amount of stuff i've played on steam has gone down quite a bit
yea steam is still my goto but I don't go out of my way to get games on steam - if I can get something cheaper elsewhere I will.
especially with gamepass this last year the amount of stuff i've played on steam has gone down quite a bit
Can't say I'm the same. If I'm buying a key from somewhere (humble, gmg) it has more value to me if they are giving a Steam key than another store key.
For example I've avoided Bethesda.net keys and Windows store keys at all costs.
@tiklandian said:
PC is like a diamond. More pressure = more diamonds.
In reality, the entire gaming industry is growing, with Sony, Nintendo, and MS all making record profits, not just PC. I don't understand the sentiment of those who are desperately trying to make the impression that only PC gaming is growing. Also, the tweet quoted by TC says something interesting;
Steam once again beats its online concurrent users record with over 27 million users currently online. Previous record was set in April at 26.9 million.
So does it want to say that only 0.1 mil online concurrent users have increased in the last 7 months?
“If you look at the game industry as a whole, the console market is not a major market, rather it’s a niche market if you will.
Sony CEO
The number of people who own consoles today is broadly the same as it was in the late 1990s, around 240 to 260 million people.
Former SIE Boss
Speaking of just 0.1M increase in concurrent players. Care to share the same numbers for PS5 or may be all 3 consoles combined?
PC has always been the best way to play, the expense is alot, but when you consider it's more than just a gaming console and can do so many other things it's worth it.
Another thing is game streaming has gotten pretty popular and this is easiest to do on PC. Saving clips and editing videos all on the same box.
Friendly reminder that Japanese games are still a fatal flaw of the platform, and I'm still annoyed by that seemingly immutable truth.
Wonder if Tim Sweeney will consider expanding the Japanese game catalog of the Epic store beyond just Kingdom Hearts and NEO:TWEWY.
Japanese developers are still incredibly superstitious about having their games be played on a home computer. Only real reason why we see Japanese games on PC at all is because on an international level, the platform's too big for them to ignore. We didn't get Gundam Extreme VS MAXI BOOST ON due to our whining about Ace Combat 7, and I still remember when PlatinumGames said that they wanted to put as many of their games on PC as possible, only to focus on console-only game releases. And then we have the EXVS MBON developers porting iM@S: Starlit Season knowing full well that the PC port will fail due to its region locking on Steam while western importers can only buy the PS4 version.
The most we can really do about Japan's apparent dislike for PC gaming is to adjust our purchasing decisions around their bias towards consoles. This may include buying Square-Enix games on the Epic Games Store, and will most definitely include purchasing games you might not necessarily enjoy just because they're from the same developers that worked on games you'd rather have instead. Personally, I couldn't care less about Tekken, but I still bought multiple copies of the game as gifts out of respect for the Tales dev team.
even crazier is that Steam is honestly not what it used to be. between Epic, Xbox Gamepass, Blizzard games launcher, and of course Uplay, an important pillar of the PC gaming scene, I feel I play way less games on steam now than I did 5 years ago.
Not aiming towards you, but I never understood this statement from other PC players. Steam, GoG, it doesn't matter what client you use, all that's important is to play the game itself regardless what client you are using. I use Steam all the damn time, same with GoG and they all do one thing, play games. Other clients like Origin, Rockstars, or EGS are only their when I really need them.
I'll admit, I haven't use Blizzard.Net cause I got tired of Blizz BS.
yea steam is still my goto but I don't go out of my way to get games on steam - if I can get something cheaper elsewhere I will.
especially with gamepass this last year the amount of stuff i've played on steam has gone down quite a bit
I don't even get most of my games through Steam anymore, I buy Steam keys from third-party key seller sites such as Humble Bundle, Fanatical, Game Billet and GreenManGaming, games are usually 1 - 5 dollars cheaper on those sites plus I don't have to pay tax on some of them. Some humble bundle game bundles are better than the sales on Steam and other sites, for example right now for $10 I can get Beyond: Two Souls, Heavy Rain, a 25% off coupon for Detroit Become Human, and 4 other games. on other stores, I'd be spending $10 minimum for just Beyond: Two Souls.
My problem with gamepass is that if I am not playing a game at least an hour a day on it I feel like I'm wasting money since Gamepass actually motivates to finish my games as fast as possible so I can move on to the next one in the list. But my schedule can unpredictable and next think you know I am too busy to play. It happened over the summer when I played Halo Reach and then DOOM Eternal. I spent two months of game pass only playing two games. I could have just bought Doom Eternal Deluxe edition when it went on sale for the same amount of money I spent on gamepass and I would also have had the Ancient Gods DLCs but now I am hesitant about buying it because I beat the main game and don't feel like paying for that when all I want is the DLC. I think I will buy most of Xbox Games Studios/Bethesda games instead of playing them on gamepass that way I can use gamepass to focus on games that are only temporarily on the service. I'd also probably avoid games that take more than 20 hours to beat if you're aiming to play as many games as possible..
@st_monica: What's been going on is that Steam is under some huge pressure:
Epic has been buying up games for over 2 years now, buying away most of the huge releases
Ubisoft left the platform
Rockstar left the platform
Also take into account that PC hardware has increased tremendously in price, while console hardware has increased only marginally.
So yes, Steam growing in the face of all those factors is incredible news and in my view: newsworthy.
If it is your intension, I think the title should be clearly stated as "Steam" instead of "PC". Also, regardless of those circumstances, to me, an increase of only 0.1 mil in 7 months seems to be a stagnation rather than a growth.
Some articles specify how many users there are instead of just saying over 27 million. This article says that there are 27.38 million concurrent Steam users to be exact. The article even says that the exact amount of users is 27,384,959, so Steam actually gained about 484K, concurrent users, over the past 7 months not 100k like you thought. Also, it's concurrent users and not monthly active users which are much bigger.
First of all, you don't seem to understand my comment, because I'm not arguing whether CS or PC has more market share or is growing better, but anyway...
“If you look at the game industry as a whole, the console market is not a major market, rather it’s a niche market if you will. Sony CEO
I remember this Yoshida's comment. I think It depends on his definition of the word "niche." The data below shows that CS's share is about 30%. (source)
Yoshida may just have thought that if CS was only about 30%, it could be described as a "niche." (or just the translation was off.) Either way, it's understandable that he had such an impression, especially when compared to the rapid growth of the mobile games, which is about to occupy 50% of the entire industry.
The number of people who own consoles today is broadly the same as it was in the late 1990s, around 240 to 260 million people. Former SIE Boss
The CS market isn't about how many people have a console, it's about how much money people spend. For example, if you still have an old NES or Genesis in the late 1990s but don't buy any more games, what does it have to do with the market?
Back to the topic, according to the the data from Fortune Business Insights, the CS market is still growing and is expected to grow. (source)
Speaking of just 0.1M increase in concurrent players. Care to share the same numbers for PS5 or may be all 3 consoles combined?
Unfortunately, Sony, Nintendo and MS do not disclose the number of "concurrent players" like Steam does. Of course I can show how many PS5s, Xbox Series and Switches sold this year, but it's not a fair comparison with the number of "concurrent players." Anyhow, as I said at the beginning, my first comment on "0.1 mil" is just an impression, is not intended for comparison with CS.
@NoodleFighter: Okay. I might have overlooked the detail of it. So, it was about 2% growth from 26.9 mil to 27.4 mil, and maybe more growth of monthly users. Thanks I got it.
First of all, you don't seem to understand my comment, because I'm not arguing whether CS or PC has more market share or is growing better, but anyway...
“If you look at the game industry as a whole, the console market is not a major market, rather it’s a niche market if you will. Sony CEO
I remember this Yoshida's comment. I think It depends on his definition of the word "niche." The data below shows that CS's share is about 30%. (source)
Yoshida may just have thought that if CS was only about 30%, it could be described as a "niche." (or just the translation was off.) Either way, it's understandable that he had such an impression, especially when compared to the rapid growth of the mobile games, which is about to occupy 50% of the entire industry.
The number of people who own consoles today is broadly the same as it was in the late 1990s, around 240 to 260 million people. Former SIE Boss
The CS market isn't about how many people have a console, it's about how much money people spend. For example, if you still have an old NES or Genesis in the late 1990s but don't buy any more games, what does it have to do with the market?
Back to the topic, according to the the data from Fortune Business Insights, the CS market is still growing and is expected to grow. (source)
Speaking of just 0.1M increase in concurrent players. Care to share the same numbers for PS5 or may be all 3 consoles combined?
Unfortunately, Sony, Nintendo and MS do not disclose the number of "concurrent players" like Steam does. Of course I can show how many PS5s, Xbox Series and Switches sold this year, but it's not a fair comparison with the number of "concurrent players." Anyhow, as I said at the beginning, my first comment on "0.1 mil" is just an impression, is not intended for comparison with CS.
Yeah already seen and discussed that chart before. May be try reading the sources of the chart next time before copying it.
As for Sony, MS and Nintendo not sharing the concurrent players. Weren't you cows always harping about MS not disclosing their unit sales because they are ashamed? What happened now, why the sudden change of hearts? If it was a significant no. they would have.
As for console gaming not about unit sales? Ummm...what? The whole idea behind consoles is to increase the install base so they could then earn money over the software. If your ecosystem is already saturated and have no potential of growth then why even have a platform to begin with. May be it's also just a coincident that both Sony/MS and Japanese devs are increasingly putting their games on PC because of course, it just doesn't matter.
May be try taking that to your overlord your findings on why he's wrong and he shouldn't mislead their investors or better yet, apply for his position to run your beloved corp. after all you clearly know better than him.
I know this kind of chart isn't completely accurate, but feel free to show us if you have a more accurate one.
According to a GS article, the Xbox Series X|S is estimated to have sold 8 million units. As you know, MS is hiding their unit sales out of shame, so it's an analyst's estimate.
I said the comparison with the late 1990s should be based on the total amount of money the users have spent. This does not mean that console unit sales are not important. You are twisting my words to fit your narrative. As already mentioned, the PS5, Xbox Series and Switch are selling very well, and the profits of those companies are still growing. The assumption that the console gaming ecosystem is saturated is irrelevant.
As for the "coincident," it's a strategy for Sony to sell their old games to PC users for further profits, and also to encourage them to buy a PS5 to play the sequels. MS is in a state of doing anything that makes money. Japanese third parties may have finally learned to pursue profits in the last decade. These are corporate efforts to pursue further profits and do not indicate that the console gaming ecosystem will not grow any further.
I don't think Yoshida said anything that would mislead their investors. He accurately understood the threat of fast-growing mobile gaming and pointed out that CS's share is becoming relatively minor rather than major in the gaming industry as a whole.
I know this kind of chart isn't completely accurate, but feel free to show us if you have a more accurate one.
According to a GS article, the Xbox Series X|S is estimated to have sold 8 million units. As you know, MS is hiding their unit sales out of shame, so it's an analyst's estimate.
I said the comparison with the late 1990s should be based on the total amount of money the users have spent. This does not mean that console unit sales are not important. You are twisting my words to fit your narrative. As already mentioned, the PS5, Xbox Series and Switch are selling very well, and the profits of those companies are still growing. The assumption that the console gaming ecosystem is saturated is irrelevant.
As for the "coincident," it's a strategy for Sony to sell their old games to PC users for further profits, and also to encourage them to buy a PS5 to play the sequels. MS is in a state of doing anything that makes money. Japanese third parties may have finally learned to pursue profits in the last decade. These are corporate efforts to pursue further profits and do not indicate that the console gaming ecosystem will not grow any further.
I don't think Yoshida said anything that would mislead their investors. He accurately understood the threat of fast-growing mobile gaming and pointed out that CS's share is becoming relatively minor rather than major in the gaming industry as a whole.
I'm referring to the very same chart, perhaps you should have read the fine print on how they arrived at those numbers. They are taking Sony/MS/Xbox's financial reports and it also includes any revenues from services like GP, PS Now, PS+/Live etc. Not just that the numbers are also skewed because at least MS/Sony doesn't separate their revenue based on platforms so all the revenue ends up under PS/Xbox division. Lastly, MTs revenue is also included which further skews the stats as those are reported under paid games but are not actually from game sales.
You're again arguing based on your assumptions and hope. The remarks are saturation came directly from the C-level executives of your fav. corp. Take it up with them.
Also your theory about Sony selling old games doesn't hold up either because a) why now, they didn't have to do it for the last 4 gen but suddenly they need to lure PC gamers with that? Let's accept that reasoning for the sake of argument, it still doesn't bode well because that still means they are desperate to increase the saturated market by luring the otherwise not-interested-PC-gamers. b) It's downright false that Sony is only going to release old games for marketing. They are in a transition period and supporting another platform isn't easy as switching a button. It will take time and resources before they are fully equipped to scale to multiple platforms especially when they had no experience supporting anything outside of PS.
I know you desperately want to hide behind mobile but if that was the only reason behind Yoshida's comments then why no ports of PS games for mobile or streaming to mobile at least, why port 'old games' to PC instead?
Actually, I prefer one store especially when it comes to finding a game I've been waiting for. I can't imagine buying digital games from different eshops. It would drive me insane and I don't like how those companies went off to make their own stores instead of staying all on Steam.
Actually, I prefer one store especially when it comes to finding a game I've been waiting for. I can't imagine buying digital games from different eshops. It would drive me insane and I don't like how those companies went off to make their own stores instead of staying all on Steam.
Ok, I can see your point: buying on PC can be a bit of a pain in the ass currently as by default I would look up a game on steam, and a lot of games are missing there.
But eventhough it does have disadvantages to have a fractured situation, having only one store to buy from is still the worst situation imho.
I'm referring to the very same chart, perhaps you should have read the fine print on how they arrived at those numbers. They are taking Sony/MS/Xbox's financial reports and it also includes any revenues from services like GP, PS Now, PS+/Live etc. Not just that the numbers are also skewed because at least MS/Sony doesn't separate their revenue based on platforms so all the revenue ends up under PS/Xbox division. Lastly, MTs revenue is also included which further skews the stats as those are reported under paid games but are not actually from game sales.
You're again arguing based on your assumptions and hope. The remarks are saturation came directly from the C-level executives of your fav. corp. Take it up with them.
Also your theory about Sony selling old games doesn't hold up either because a) why now, they didn't have to do it for the last 4 gen but suddenly they need to lure PC gamers with that? Let's accept that reasoning for the sake of argument, it still doesn't bode well because that still means they are desperate to increase the saturated market by luring the otherwise not-interested-PC-gamers. b) It's downright false that Sony is only going to release old games for marketing. They are in a transition period and supporting another platform isn't easy as switching a button. It will take time and resources before they are fully equipped to scale to multiple platforms especially when they had no experience supporting anything outside of PS.
I know you desperately want to hide behind mobile but if that was the only reason behind Yoshida's comments then why no ports of PS games for mobile or streaming to mobile at least, why port 'old games' to PC instead?
I cited the two charts to show that a) the console market is still growing [Fortune], b) but with the expansion of mobile gaming, its share of the whole is shrinking [Newzoo]. Again, this is what I'm talking about. Even if you adjust what you pointed out, the big picture doesn't change much, and it's not very important to my discussion in the first place.
You are the one who speaks of your "assumptions and hope" through Shawn Layden. He left Sony and joined Streamline Media Group's advisory board. That's why he makes such a narrative to promote services like Web 3.0 and Metaverse as an alternative to console gaming. It's all good, but we should understand that his remarks are biased due to his current position.
I have already mentioned that Sony is doing so to further expand their profits. With that premise, a) Yes, Sony has traditionally used their first party games as an incentive to sell their consoles. That was the right way, especially if you look at the great success of their console business so far. However, Sony has recently decided to release their old games to PC for more profits/users. This will allow them to develop more AAA games with a higher budget. You seem to be misunderstanding, but there is no contradiction between the success of Sony's console business and their entry to PC gaming.
b) I have already written that it is also for “further profits," not just for "marketing" in my previous post. Read it carefully. I know Sony has acquired Nixxes to port their games to PC. They are serious about it. But, again, it's not because their console business has failed, but because they want to make more money to expand their business.
It is clear that mobile gaming is the biggest reason behind Yoshida's remarks. Sony's music division has already invested heavily in mobile content such as FGO, which has generated enormous profits each year, comparable to the profits of AAA games. SIE, on the other hand, has been very successful in the area of AAA gaming, so there would be no reason to allocate those resources to mobile. I've already stated why Sony decided to release their old games to PC.
I'm referring to the very same chart, perhaps you should have read the fine print on how they arrived at those numbers. They are taking Sony/MS/Xbox's financial reports and it also includes any revenues from services like GP, PS Now, PS+/Live etc. Not just that the numbers are also skewed because at least MS/Sony doesn't separate their revenue based on platforms so all the revenue ends up under PS/Xbox division. Lastly, MTs revenue is also included which further skews the stats as those are reported under paid games but are not actually from game sales.
You're again arguing based on your assumptions and hope. The remarks are saturation came directly from the C-level executives of your fav. corp. Take it up with them.
Also your theory about Sony selling old games doesn't hold up either because a) why now, they didn't have to do it for the last 4 gen but suddenly they need to lure PC gamers with that? Let's accept that reasoning for the sake of argument, it still doesn't bode well because that still means they are desperate to increase the saturated market by luring the otherwise not-interested-PC-gamers. b) It's downright false that Sony is only going to release old games for marketing. They are in a transition period and supporting another platform isn't easy as switching a button. It will take time and resources before they are fully equipped to scale to multiple platforms especially when they had no experience supporting anything outside of PS.
I know you desperately want to hide behind mobile but if that was the only reason behind Yoshida's comments then why no ports of PS games for mobile or streaming to mobile at least, why port 'old games' to PC instead?
I cited the two charts to show that a) the console market is still growing [Fortune], b) but with the expansion of mobile gaming, its share of the whole is shrinking [Newzoo]. Again, this is what I'm talking about. Even if you adjust what you pointed out, the big picture doesn't change much, and it's not very important to my discussion in the first place.
You are the one who speaks of your "assumptions and hope" through Shawn Layden. He left Sony and joined Streamline Media Group's advisory board. That's why he makes such a narrative to promote services like Web 3.0 and Metaverse as an alternative to console gaming. It's all good, but we should understand that his remarks are biased due to his current position.
I have already mentioned that Sony is doing so to further expand their profits. With that premise, a) Yes, Sony has traditionally used their first party games as an incentive to sell their consoles. That was the right way, especially if you look at the great success of their console business so far. However, Sony has recently decided to release their old games to PC for more profits/users. This will allow them to develop more AAA games with a higher budget. You seem to be misunderstanding, but there is no contradiction between the success of Sony's console business and their entry to PC gaming.
b) I have already written that it is also for “further profits," not just for "marketing" in my previous post. Read it carefully. I know Sony has acquired Nixxes to port their games to PC. They are serious about it. But, again, it's not because their console business has failed, but because they want to make more money to expand their business.
It is clear that mobile gaming is the biggest reason behind Yoshida's remarks. Sony's music division has already invested heavily in mobile content such as FGO, which has generated enormous profits each year, comparable to the profits of AAA games. SIE, on the other hand, has been very successful in the area of AAA gaming, so there would be no reason to allocate those resources to mobile. I've already stated why Sony decided to release their old games to PC.
Let's quickly debunk all of those:
1. The overall picture most definitely changes when you account for my points because console gaming is over represented and PC gaming is under represented.
2. These are not assumptions but the facts coming from the C-level executive from your fav. corp. It's LOL worthy to disregard Layden's comments just because he quit Sony recently. Leaving your job doesn't suddenly makes one ineligible to comment on his area of expertise especially if it's an macro trend. Now accounting him being biased, I think you didn't think this through. Why leave from a growing market to a lesser market in the first place then? If I were to guess the reason was exactly what he said. Nevertheless, all of this is moot because it's not just him but the CEO as well which I also quoted and you disregarded based on your 'assumptions and hopes'. As for why I only quoted these two people because well they represented your fav. corp. I could just as easily quote MS or other third party publishers.
3. Nice dancing around but you still haven't addressed, why now? Didn't need to before. Your whole argument is cyclic.
4. Again point 3, why now? Saying 'further profits' is actually accepting the argument about saturation. Oh and no one said Sony's console business has failed. Don't try to divert the topic. It's about PC's growth potential and saturation of console market as a whole. You can be successful in a saturated market. Those are not mutually exclusive. PC (not gaming) industry is saturated yet MS's windows is still incredibly successful and continue to. It's just that now it represents a smaller portion of MS's entire portfolio and they focused on other revenue streams including other platforms. Coincidentally that didn't happen until PC industry became saturated.
5. Mobile gaming is definitely the biggest but there's no evidence that alone prompted Yoshida's comments hence my point about 'assumptions and hopes' and the chart you represented. In case you missed, Yoshida's also commented in the same briefing about other ventures like supporting multiple platforms and cloud gaming. So clearly it wasn't just mobile Yoshida was talking about. Let's also put the final nail in the coffin about this argument: If it was only because of Mobile then care to explain why the sudden interest by the big players in PC space (store wars) while no new entrant for consoles? I mean based on your argument console gaming is bigger and faster growing than PC, right?
If the GPU situation could ever finally straighten out, there would be no stopping PC gaming. I thought this gen would finally be the one to cut the console cord... but, not yet it seems.
1. The overall picture most definitely changes when you account for my points because console gaming is over represented and PC gaming is under represented.
2. These are not assumptions but the facts coming from the C-level executive from your fav. corp. It's LOL worthy to disregard Layden's comments just because he quit Sony recently. Leaving your job doesn't suddenly makes one ineligible to comment on his area of expertise especially if it's an macro trend. Now accounting him being biased, I think you didn't think this through. Why leave from a growing market to a lesser market in the first place then? If I were to guess the reason was exactly what he said. Nevertheless, all of this is moot because it's not just him but the CEO as well which I also quoted and you disregarded based on your 'assumptions and hopes'. As for why I only quoted these two people because well they represented your fav. corp. I could just as easily quote MS or other third party publishers.
3. Nice dancing around but you still haven't addressed, why now? Didn't need to before. Your whole argument is cyclic.
4. Again point 3, why now? Saying 'further profits' is actually accepting the argument about saturation. Oh and no one said Sony's console business has failed. Don't try to divert the topic. It's about PC's growth potential and saturation of console market as a whole. You can be successful in a saturated market. Those are not mutually exclusive. PC (not gaming) industry is saturated yet MS's windows is still incredibly successful and continue to. It's just that now it represents a smaller portion of MS's entire portfolio and they focused on other revenue streams including other platforms. Coincidentally that didn't happen until PC industry became saturated.
5. Mobile gaming is definitely the biggest but there's no evidence that alone prompted Yoshida's comments hence my point about 'assumptions and hopes' and the chart you represented. In case you missed, Yoshida's also commented in the same briefing about other ventures like supporting multiple platforms and cloud gaming. So clearly it wasn't just mobile Yoshida was talking about. Let's also put the final nail in the coffin about this argument: If it was only because of Mobile then care to explain why the sudden interest by the big players in PC space (store wars) while no new entrant for consoles? I mean based on your argument console gaming is bigger and faster growing than PC, right?
1. I did not discuss if the console or PC share is higher in the first place. But please feel free to show us if you have your corrected version of the chart.
2. I don't agree. People often change their views depending on their position. For instance, Reggie Fils-Aime, who recently left Nintendo and moved closer to the MS camp, now fully admires the Xbox. Shawn Layden is no exception. As soon as he left Sony and became a board member of a company developing alternative gaming services, he began downplaying the console market and the development of AAA games. Nice dancing around, but these are very straightforward examples.
3. That's because Jim Ryan recently became the new CEO. He introduced a new strategy to maximize their profits differently than his predecessors. His plan is to further increase the share of PS5, develop more big-budget AAA games, and expand their business, including entering the PC market. It might have been completely different if another person was in his position. Now, no more cyclic question, please.
4. I know you desperately want to hide behind Shawn Layden. However, the reality is that there is still a lot of demand for PS5, Xbox Series and Switch. They are selling like hotcakes to a variety of people, including the younger generations and those who have never played on consoles before. These companies are increasing their profits and analysts are predicting further growth. Such a situation is not usually called saturation.
5. I pointed out the rapid growth of mobile gaming, but it goes without saying that Yoshida also has PC and Streaming in mind. Oh and no one said console gaming is growing bigger and faster than PC. Don't try to divert the topic. The reason there aren't any new entrants is because it is obviously difficult to catch up with the services, ecosystems and first-party libraries offered by Sony, Nintendo and MS. This is not mutually exclusive with the fact that the console industry is still growing, though.
1. I did not discuss if the console or PC share is higher in the first place. But please feel free to show us if you have your corrected version of the chart.
2. I don't agree. People often change their views depending on their position. For instance, Reggie Fils-Aime, who recently left Nintendo and moved closer to the MS camp, now fully admires the Xbox. Shawn Layden is no exception. As soon as he left Sony and became a board member of a company developing alternative gaming services, he began downplaying the console market and the development of AAA games. Nice dancing around, but these are very straightforward examples.
3. That's because Jim Ryan recently became the new CEO. He introduced a new strategy to maximize their profits differently than his predecessors. His plan is to further increase the share of PS5, develop more big-budget AAA games, and expand their business, including entering the PC market. It might have been completely different if another person was in his position. Now, no more cyclic question, please.
4. I know you desperately want to hide behind Shawn Layden. However, the reality is that there is still a lot of demand for PS5, Xbox Series and Switch. They are selling like hotcakes to a variety of people, including the younger generations and those who have never played on consoles before. These companies are increasing their profits and analysts are predicting further growth. Such a situation is not usually called saturation.
5. I pointed out the rapid growth of mobile gaming, but it goes without saying that Yoshida also has PC and Streaming in mind. Oh and no one said console gaming is growing bigger and faster than PC. Don't try to divert the topic. The reason there aren't any new entrants is because it is obviously difficult to catch up with the services, ecosystems and first-party libraries offered by Sony, Nintendo and MS. This is not mutually exclusive with the fact that the console industry is still growing, though.
1. I don't have the modified chart because I'm not the one who created it. I just listed what they cited as their sources and how they came up with it. I don't know if that wasn't your point then what was the point about downplaying Steam.
2. I already addressed it. Why would you move to something you don't believe in from something you do? I understand there are many reasons for people to move around like better environment, work/life balance etc etc. however he still had a choice in the same vertical. He didn't had to switch if he actually didn't believe what he was saying.
3. Yes, he's the new head however that again doesn't explain the sudden shift in direction. Going back to point 2. Organization changes usually happen in order to respond to the changing circumstances not the other way around. He wouldn't have changed course if staying on the same course was still viable besides, it's not Jim Ryan. The gradual change started happening way back with Helldivers etc. Sony started experimenting it in the mid of last gen.
4. I don't have to nor am I. I also quoted Sony's CEO not just Layden.
5. Refer to point 1 again. Don't know what was the point then to begin with.
@flashn00b: LMAO oh no we didn't get Gundam Extreme VS MAXI BOOST ON, omg what will the 5 people who cared do?
I think you missed the part where i mentioned how Bandai Namco Studios is actively planning to shoot themselves in the foot just so that other franchises will stay on consoles. The creators of EXVS MBON are also the creators of Tekken, SoulCalibur, Ace Combat, God Eater, Code Vein, Scarlet Nexus and Tales Of.
I also mentioned how PlatinumGames doesn't even care about putting their games on a home computer despite having said in an interview that they would.
@flashn00b: LMAO oh no we didn't get Gundam Extreme VS MAXI BOOST ON, omg what will the 5 people who cared do?
I think you missed the part where i mentioned how Bandai Namco Studios is actively planning to shoot themselves in the foot just so that other franchises will stay on consoles. The creators of EXVS MBON are also the creators of Tekken, SoulCalibur, Ace Combat, God Eater, Code Vein, Scarlet Nexus and Tales Of.
I also mentioned how PlatinumGames doesn't even care about putting their games on a home computer despite having said in an interview that they would.
No I didn't miss any of your hyperbolic concern trolling.
1. I don't have the modified chart because I'm not the one who created it. I just listed what they cited as their sources and how they came up with it. I don't know if that wasn't your point then what was the point about downplaying Steam.
2. I already addressed it. Why would you move to something you don't believe in from something you do? I understand there are many reasons for people to move around like better environment, work/life balance etc etc. however he still had a choice in the same vertical. He didn't had to switch if he actually didn't believe what he was saying.
3. Yes, he's the new head however that again doesn't explain the sudden shift in direction. Going back to point 2. Organization changes usually happen in order to respond to the changing circumstances not the other way around. He wouldn't have changed course if staying on the same course was still viable besides, it's not Jim Ryan. The gradual change started happening way back with Helldivers etc. Sony started experimenting it in the mid of last gen.
4. I don't have to nor am I. I also quoted Sony's CEO not just Layden.
5. Refer to point 1 again. Don't know what was the point then to begin with.
1. My comment on Steam is unrelated to the chart. I used it to show the relative proportion of mobile and console gaming to the total.
Speaking of the chart, why don't you mention the huge amount of mid-high rage graphics cards purchased by crypto-minors? Oh, not only crypto-miners, but also those graphics cards and high-end monitors purchased by video editors, CG designers, architects, scientists etc. that should be mistakenly included in the PC gaming share.
2. Lots of people work for the money, not for what they believe, if you don't know it, you're just naïve.
3. I have already answered it. If you feel differently, do not hesitate to tell the story of your version.
4. So you admit that you are just hiding behind the former SIE CEOs.
5. I believe we were talking about whether the console market is saturated and niche or not.
1. I don't have the modified chart because I'm not the one who created it. I just listed what they cited as their sources and how they came up with it. I don't know if that wasn't your point then what was the point about downplaying Steam.
2. I already addressed it. Why would you move to something you don't believe in from something you do? I understand there are many reasons for people to move around like better environment, work/life balance etc etc. however he still had a choice in the same vertical. He didn't had to switch if he actually didn't believe what he was saying.
3. Yes, he's the new head however that again doesn't explain the sudden shift in direction. Going back to point 2. Organization changes usually happen in order to respond to the changing circumstances not the other way around. He wouldn't have changed course if staying on the same course was still viable besides, it's not Jim Ryan. The gradual change started happening way back with Helldivers etc. Sony started experimenting it in the mid of last gen.
4. I don't have to nor am I. I also quoted Sony's CEO not just Layden.
5. Refer to point 1 again. Don't know what was the point then to begin with.
1. My comment on Steam is unrelated to the chart. I used it to show the relative proportion of mobile and console gaming to the total.
Speaking of the chart, why don't you mention the huge amount of mid-high rage graphics cards purchased by crypto-minors? Oh, not only crypto-miners, but also those graphics cards and high-end monitors purchased by video editors, CG designers, architects, scientists etc. that should be mistakenly included in the PC gaming share.
2. Lots of people work for the money, not for what they believe, if you don't know it, you're just naïve.
3. I have already answered it. If you feel differently, do not hesitate to tell the story of your version.
4. So you admit that you are just hiding behind the former SIE CEOs.
5. I believe we were talking about whether the console market is saturated and niche or not.
1. Again read the link of you 'chart'. It doesn't include revenue from PC HW at all. Swing and a miss.
2. Of course they do. That was the entire point. Why would leave for a vertical that's going to have less growth than where you're right now? He could have stayed in the same industry and still significantly increase his 'perks'. I think you don't understand how and why top executives leave their position.
3. No you didn't at all. You just talked about what this shift will bring to the table not why this shift happened in the first place.
5. No, I didn't, not sure where I admitted that. Sony's current CEO is still the same person who made the remarks are the 'niche' market.
5. Yes, we are. Hence the niche market but it all started with you downplaying PC so it's relevant compared to the 'niche' market of consoles.
1. My comment on Steam is unrelated to the chart. I used it to show the relative proportion of mobile and console gaming to the total.
Speaking of the chart, why don't you mention the huge amount of mid-high rage graphics cards purchased by crypto-minors? Oh, not only crypto-miners, but also those graphics cards and high-end monitors purchased by video editors, CG designers, architects, scientists etc. that should be mistakenly included in the PC gaming share.
2. Lots of people work for the money, not for what they believe, if you don't know it, you're just naïve.
3. I have already answered it. If you feel differently, do not hesitate to tell the story of your version.
4. So you admit that you are just hiding behind the former SIE CEOs.
5. I believe we were talking about whether the console market is saturated and niche or not.
1. Again read the link of you 'chart'. It doesn't include revenue from PC HW at all. Swing and a miss.
2. Of course they do. That was the entire point. Why would leave for a vertical that's going to have less growth than where you're right now? He could have stayed in the same industry and still significantly increase his 'perks'. I think you don't understand how and why top executives leave their position.
3. No you didn't at all. You just talked about what this shift will bring to the table not why this shift happened in the first place.
5. No, I didn't, not sure where I admitted that. Sony's current CEO is still the same person who made the remarks are the 'niche' market.
5. Yes, we are. Hence the niche market but it all started with you downplaying PC so it's relevant compared to the 'niche' market of consoles.
1. Oh, that's right. The chart didn't get the blessings of the crypto-miners, which has often been confused with the rapid growth of PC gaming.
2. If Shawn Layden left SIE because he felt the limits to the growth of console gaming, it would be inconsistent with your narrative that SIE had been preparing to enter the PC market for some time. If that's the premise, why did he bother to quit when SIE was trying to get into PC gaming and also investing more in streaming like PS Now?
3. I have already mentioned that Jim Ryan's proposal is in line with SIE's intention to further increase its profits. In addition, it could be due to Nintendo's return as a threat with the huge success of the Switch, and MS's aggressive investment in gaming.
That's all for me. So why not listen to your story?
4. Oh, you're right. For a moment I confused Sony CEO Kenichiro Yoshida with former SIE CEO Shuhei Yoshida. Of course I know the difference.
5. I see. It seems that it hurt your feelings that I pointed out earlier that Ubi, Europe's largest video game publisher, earns about twice as much revenue from consoles as PC.
1. Again read the link of you 'chart'. It doesn't include revenue from PC HW at all. Swing and a miss.
2. Of course they do. That was the entire point. Why would leave for a vertical that's going to have less growth than where you're right now? He could have stayed in the same industry and still significantly increase his 'perks'. I think you don't understand how and why top executives leave their position.
3. No you didn't at all. You just talked about what this shift will bring to the table not why this shift happened in the first place.
5. No, I didn't, not sure where I admitted that. Sony's current CEO is still the same person who made the remarks are the 'niche' market.
5. Yes, we are. Hence the niche market but it all started with you downplaying PC so it's relevant compared to the 'niche' market of consoles.
1. Oh, that's right. The chart didn't get the blessings of the crypto-miners, which has often been confused with the rapid growth of PC gaming.
2. If Shawn Layden left SIE because he felt the limits to the growth of console gaming, it would be inconsistent with your narrative that SIE had been preparing to enter the PC market for some time. If that's the premise, why did he bother to quit when SIE was trying to get into PC gaming and also investing more in streaming like PS Now?
3. I have already mentioned that Jim Ryan's proposal is in line with SIE's intention to further increase its profits. In addition, it could be due to Nintendo's return as a threat with the huge success of the Switch, and MS's aggressive investment in gaming.
That's all for me. So why not listen to your story?
4. Oh, you're right. For a moment I confused Sony CEO Kenichiro Yoshida with former SIE CEO Shuhei Yoshida. Of course I know the difference.
5. I see. It seems that it hurt your feelings that I pointed out earlier that Ubi, Europe's largest video game publisher, earns about twice as much revenue from consoles as PC.
1. The chart was only software revenue which is what we were discussing, no? And if you want to talk about the HW, which I don't think you do but if you do, look at the growth of PC HW even before the rise in crypto. It trumped console sales and continue to even though PC HW is sold at a profit unlike consoles.
2. There could be multiple reasons: being privy to the inside knowledge he may have also didn't agree with strategy Sony is going for or know about the problems which he knew Sony won't be able to overcome easily or he didn't feel confident that Sony will be able to pivot successfully. There could be thousands of reasons. None of that proves your point at all.
3. Your reasons describe the saturated market and hence the fear of encroachment. May be you should rethink.
5. Ubisoft is one pub and also the one who's not that favored by PC gamers. So, PC gaming occupying a 30% of their revenue is actually quite impressive. However, go right ahead and compare the revenue charts of companies like EA, Blizzard and Tencent. The story is completely different. Oh and speaking of Ubisoft, may I remind you of reading their statements to their investors: they too with other companies identified PC as their next biggest growth opportunity, not consoles.
1. The chart was only software revenue which is what we were discussing, no? And if you want to talk about the HW, which I don't think you do but if you do, look at the growth of PC HW even before the rise in crypto. It trumped console sales and continue to even though PC HW is sold at a profit unlike consoles.
2. There could be multiple reasons: being privy to the inside knowledge he may have also didn't agree with strategy Sony is going for or know about the problems which he knew Sony won't be able to overcome easily or he didn't feel confident that Sony will be able to pivot successfully. There could be thousands of reasons. None of that proves your point at all.
3. Your reasons describe the saturated market and hence the fear of encroachment. May be you should rethink.
5. Ubisoft is one pub and also the one who's not that favored by PC gamers. So, PC gaming occupying a 30% of their revenue is actually quite impressive. However, go right ahead and compare the revenue charts of companies like EA, Blizzard and Tencent. The story is completely different. Oh and speaking of Ubisoft, may I remind you of reading their statements to their investors: they too with other companies identified PC as their next biggest growth opportunity, not consoles.
1. Again, how can you tell which PC HWs were purchased for gaming and which PC HWs were purchased for other purposes such as video editing, graphic design, architecture, science, engineering, etc?
That said, the growth of the PC gaming have been largely driven by the Chinese market. It should be noted that it is a very volatile market where the Chinese Communist Party could suddenly suspend the import of games or even ban the sale of games. In fact, they recently ordered Tencent to suspend updating their apps.
2. I don't think so. In my opinion, when Shawn Layden was CEO, he insisted on the console exclusive strategy that led to the success of the PS4, thereby conflicting with Jim Ryan's multi-platform strategy. The reason he left SIE was because they agreed to adopt Jim Ryan's proposal and appointed him as the new CEO. There may be various reasons why he didn't stay in the same industry, but I think he chose the new job based on his salary and position offered by the company. There he gives only opinions which support the business of the enterprise.
3. Then why don't you stop dodging around and show me some data about the "saturation" and explain why it supports your claims?
5. Really? Now let's take a look at EA's financial report. It shows that EA has earned about 3-4 times more revenue from consoles than PC over the past years. It's worse than Ubi. Ouch!
I know you're now desperate to hide behind Tencent, but unfortunately their primary business is mobile gaming, not PC. Also, I have an interesting quote about Fortnite's revenue by platform.
"Court documents reveal that PlayStation 4 generated 46.8 percent of Fortnite’s total revenues from March 2018 through July 2020, while Xbox One, the second-highest platform, generated 27.5 percent. iOS ranked fifth, with just 7 percent of total revenue. The remaining 18.7 percent would have been split between Android, Nintendo Switch, and PCs."
1. The chart was only software revenue which is what we were discussing, no? And if you want to talk about the HW, which I don't think you do but if you do, look at the growth of PC HW even before the rise in crypto. It trumped console sales and continue to even though PC HW is sold at a profit unlike consoles.
2. There could be multiple reasons: being privy to the inside knowledge he may have also didn't agree with strategy Sony is going for or know about the problems which he knew Sony won't be able to overcome easily or he didn't feel confident that Sony will be able to pivot successfully. There could be thousands of reasons. None of that proves your point at all.
3. Your reasons describe the saturated market and hence the fear of encroachment. May be you should rethink.
5. Ubisoft is one pub and also the one who's not that favored by PC gamers. So, PC gaming occupying a 30% of their revenue is actually quite impressive. However, go right ahead and compare the revenue charts of companies like EA, Blizzard and Tencent. The story is completely different. Oh and speaking of Ubisoft, may I remind you of reading their statements to their investors: they too with other companies identified PC as their next biggest growth opportunity, not consoles.
1. Again, how can you tell which PC HWs were purchased for gaming and which PC HWs were purchased for other purposes such as video editing, graphic design, architecture, science, engineering, etc?
That said, the growth of the PC gaming have been largely driven by the Chinese market. It should be noted that it is a very volatile market where the Chinese Communist Party could suddenly suspend the import of games or even ban the sale of games. In fact, they recently ordered Tencent to suspend updating their apps.
2. I don't think so. In my opinion, when Shawn Layden was CEO, he insisted on the console exclusive strategy that led to the success of the PS4, thereby conflicting with Jim Ryan's multi-platform strategy. The reason he left SIE was because they agreed to adopt Jim Ryan's proposal and appointed him as the new CEO. There may be various reasons why he didn't stay in the same industry, but I think he chose the new job based on his salary and position offered by the company. There he gives only opinions which support the business of the enterprise.
3. Then why don't you stop dodging around and show me some data about the "saturation" and explain why it supports your claims?
5. Really? Now let's take a look at EA's financial report. It shows that EA has earned about 3-4 times more revenue from consoles than PC over the past years. It's worse than Ubi. Ouch!
I know you're now desperate to hide behind Tencent, but unfortunately their primary business is mobile gaming, not PC. Also, I have an interesting quote about Fortnite's revenue by platform.
"Court documents reveal that PlayStation 4 generated 46.8 percent of Fortnite’s total revenues from March 2018 through July 2020, while Xbox One, the second-highest platform, generated 27.5 percent. iOS ranked fifth, with just 7 percent of total revenue. The remaining 18.7 percent would have been split between Android, Nintendo Switch, and PCs."
"Swing and a miss" to you.
1. Pretty easy because of HW configurations, while there's some oveerlap b/w the segments, there are specialized HW for each segment and it doesn't make sense from an economical perspective to use the HW which isn't optimized for the use case. Another way is how much investment these HW companies are making into gaming specific HW R&D, nothing showed any signs of decline in that.
As for the Chinese market glad you bring it up as it's the primary driver behind growth and consoles have no chance of ever penetrating that market. Besides, not just gaming China is pretty much the main driver in all other segments in entertainment as well. The risks are the same for every entertainment segment. Either way if China were to ban gaming altogether tomorrow, it will still won't improve any prospects for console gaming or its saturation and while the PC gaming will be affected it won't be destroyed or slowed down due its very nature where it's harder to control.
2. So now are you retreating your original reasoning that Shawn Layden couldn't taken seriously because of his new position? It definitely sounds like that. Either way, you have failed to prove your case.
3. I already did, you just don't want to accept it hence the Shawn Layden/Yoshida's dismissal. You on the other hand is without explanation and going from one set of assumptions to another without any evidence.
5. I'm not depserate to hide behind Tencent, you are on the other hand by picking console centric companies to drive your point which in their own words are now pivoting to PC by identifying PC as the biggest driver of growth behind only mobile. It's only natural for me to bring up Tencent as it's the biggest publisher in the world which has almost negligible presence on consoles.
Fortnite is what you want to hide behind now? May be look at how it was created again. It was an imitation of PUBG which already captured the PC market while also being a paid game. Another reason for its PS share is because PS didn't only got PUBG very late allowing Fortnite to capture the market. Besides Fortnite isn't even the biggest game in the world to begin with and has already been declining YoY.
1. Pretty easy because of HW configurations, while there's some oveerlap b/w the segments, there are specialized HW for each segment and it doesn't make sense from an economical perspective to use the HW which isn't optimized for the use case. Another way is how much investment these HW companies are making into gaming specific HW R&D, nothing showed any signs of decline in that.
As for the Chinese market glad you bring it up as it's the primary driver behind growth and consoles have no chance of ever penetrating that market. Besides, not just gaming China is pretty much the main driver in all other segments in entertainment as well. The risks are the same for every entertainment segment. Either way if China were to ban gaming altogether tomorrow, it will still won't improve any prospects for console gaming or its saturation and while the PC gaming will be affected it won't be destroyed or slowed down due its very nature where it's harder to control.
2. So now are you retreating your original reasoning that Shawn Layden couldn't taken seriously because of his new position? It definitely sounds like that. Either way, you have failed to prove your case.
3. I already did, you just don't want to accept it hence the Shawn Layden/Yoshida's dismissal. You on the other hand is without explanation and going from one set of assumptions to another without any evidence.
5. I'm not depserate to hide behind Tencent, you are on the other hand by picking console centric companies to drive your point which in their own words are now pivoting to PC by identifying PC as the biggest driver of growth behind only mobile. It's only natural for me to bring up Tencent as it's the biggest publisher in the world which has almost negligible presence on consoles.
Fortnite is what you want to hide behind now? May be look at how it was created again. It was an imitation of PUBG which already captured the PC market while also being a paid game. Another reason for its PS share is because PS didn't only got PUBG very late allowing Fortnite to capture the market. Besides Fortnite isn't even the biggest game in the world to begin with and has already been declining YoY.
1. I understand there are some instances in which specialized HW is used. However, in general, CPU, GPU, SSD, HDD, etc. are manufactured with multi-purpose specifications. If they were purchased individually, it can be very difficult to determine if they are being used for gaming purposes or not.
When it comes to the manufacturers' investment and R&D, if they are "for gaming purposes," it generally includes custom products specifically for the consoles. That is, specialized CPUs and GPUs produced for PS5, Xbox, Switch etc. Of course, there are products such as gaming monitors and headsets, but they are also used for consoles.
I just made the point that we should not be overly optimistic about the Chinese market. I'm rather glad that those console makers aren't making a big investment there.
2. No, I did not. I have consistently said that when he changed his position, he also changed his view. I also haven't changed the reasoning for it. Read it carefully.
3. I have already given my opinion, and here are some of the evidences (articles) to back it up.
Sony's quarterly game revenues rise to $ 10.8bn as PS5 sales pass 13m -Hardware sales rise 287% year-on-year to $ 1.4 billion
Nintendo reports record full-year profits as Switch nears 85m units sold -And, despite forecasting decline, the platform holder expects console to beat Wii's 101 million lifetime sales this year
Microsoft says Xbox Series X / S are its "fastest-selling consoles ever" -But doesn't provide sales figures.
Now shouldn't you stop hiding behind Layden/Yoshida and make your point with evidence?
5. First of all, you are the one who mentioned EA. (You said, "However, go right ahead and compare the revenue charts of companies like EA, Blizzard and Tencent.") So I just did a fact check on it, and it turned out that your assumption was deadly wrong. Don't blame me for exposing your mistake.
Regarding Ubi's expectations for PC growth, take a closer look at Ubi's earnings report. PC revenues are down by 32% to 20%, whereas consoles are up slightly. I understand that there is a shortage of chips, but consoles are also affected.
Why do I need to hide behind Fortnite? As you mentioned Tencent, I just showed the fact that one of the most famous games associated with Tencent is primarily profiting from the consoles and very little from PC.
Regarding PUBG, the number of peak concurrent players on Steam has dropped to about only 400. People seem to have already lost interest in it.
Also, recently in China, all PUBG competitions have been banned by the Chinese Communist Party. Did you read the following article?
PUBG esports banned in China over government regulations
So I don't think it's a good idea for you to hide behind PUBG.
1. Pretty easy because of HW configurations, while there's some oveerlap b/w the segments, there are specialized HW for each segment and it doesn't make sense from an economical perspective to use the HW which isn't optimized for the use case. Another way is how much investment these HW companies are making into gaming specific HW R&D, nothing showed any signs of decline in that.
As for the Chinese market glad you bring it up as it's the primary driver behind growth and consoles have no chance of ever penetrating that market. Besides, not just gaming China is pretty much the main driver in all other segments in entertainment as well. The risks are the same for every entertainment segment. Either way if China were to ban gaming altogether tomorrow, it will still won't improve any prospects for console gaming or its saturation and while the PC gaming will be affected it won't be destroyed or slowed down due its very nature where it's harder to control.
2. So now are you retreating your original reasoning that Shawn Layden couldn't taken seriously because of his new position? It definitely sounds like that. Either way, you have failed to prove your case.
3. I already did, you just don't want to accept it hence the Shawn Layden/Yoshida's dismissal. You on the other hand is without explanation and going from one set of assumptions to another without any evidence.
5. I'm not depserate to hide behind Tencent, you are on the other hand by picking console centric companies to drive your point which in their own words are now pivoting to PC by identifying PC as the biggest driver of growth behind only mobile. It's only natural for me to bring up Tencent as it's the biggest publisher in the world which has almost negligible presence on consoles.
Fortnite is what you want to hide behind now? May be look at how it was created again. It was an imitation of PUBG which already captured the PC market while also being a paid game. Another reason for its PS share is because PS didn't only got PUBG very late allowing Fortnite to capture the market. Besides Fortnite isn't even the biggest game in the world to begin with and has already been declining YoY.
1. I understand there are some instances in which specialized HW is used. However, in general, CPU, GPU, SSD, HDD, etc. are manufactured with multi-purpose specifications. If they were purchased individually, it can be very difficult to determine if they are being used for gaming purposes or not.
When it comes to the manufacturers' investment and R&D, if they are "for gaming purposes," it generally includes custom products specifically for the consoles. That is, specialized CPUs and GPUs produced for PS5, Xbox, Switch etc. Of course, there are products such as gaming monitors and headsets, but they are also used for consoles.
I just made the point that we should not be overly optimistic about the Chinese market. I'm rather glad that those console makers aren't making a big investment there.
2. No, I did not. I have consistently said that when he changed his position, he also changed his view. I also haven't changed the reasoning for it. Read it carefully.
3. I have already given my opinion, and here are some of the evidences (articles) to back it up.
Sony's quarterly game revenues rise to $ 10.8bn as PS5 sales pass 13m -Hardware sales rise 287% year-on-year to $ 1.4 billion
Nintendo reports record full-year profits as Switch nears 85m units sold -And, despite forecasting decline, the platform holder expects console to beat Wii's 101 million lifetime sales this year
Microsoft says Xbox Series X / S are its "fastest-selling consoles ever" -But doesn't provide sales figures.
Now shouldn't you stop hiding behind Layden/Yoshida and make your point with evidence?
5. First of all, you are the one who mentioned EA. (You said, "However, go right ahead and compare the revenue charts of companies like EA, Blizzard and Tencent.") So I just did a fact check on it, and it turned out that your assumption was deadly wrong. Don't blame me for exposing your mistake.
Regarding Ubi's expectations for PC growth, take a closer look at Ubi's earnings report. PC revenues are down by 32% to 20%, whereas consoles are up slightly. I understand that there is a shortage of chips, but consoles are also affected.
Why do I need to hide behind Fortnite? As you mentioned Tencent, I just showed the fact that one of the most famous games associated with Tencent is primarily profiting from the consoles and very little from PC.
Regarding PUBG, the number of peak concurrent players on Steam has dropped to about only 400. People seem to have already lost interest in it.
Also, recently in China, all PUBG competitions have been banned by the Chinese Communist Party. Did you read the following article?
PUBG esports banned in China over government regulations
So I don't think it's a good idea for you to hide behind PUBG.
1. I was talking about Intel, AMD and Nvidia's investments for gaming not consoles and you're wrong that gaming consoles have any impact on gaming HW advancements. It's the other way around. I have explained it many times in the past. It's because of PC gamers and PC market that consoles can even exist. Without us spending money on the PC hardware Nvidia/AMD/Intel won't be able to put money in R&D which drives the industry. Console market isn't big that Sony/MS/Nintendo could afford to design their own hardware.
2. Yes you did change the reasoning. You said he wanted to focus on consoles and hence he left while before you said he left for money to another vertical and hence changed his views. You're all over the place and have yet to prove why Shawn Layden shouldn't be taken seriously.
3. All you have highlighted doesn't change anything that I have already said. Already explained the difference between saturation and profitability. You just desperately want to neglect it over and over again. Oh and yes, I'll continue to use Yoshida's and Layden's comments, why shouldn't I, unless you can prove them wrong or are you saying you know the market better than them? Have you tried to apply for the their job? I also remember the same argument from another cow who disregard all the big publishers statements saying he knows better than them.
4. Oh, I'm not blaming you for pointing out EA. I just highlighted the mistake of you comparing solely console focussed publishers like Ubisoft and the reason I already explained.
5. Oh I'm well aware of PUBG and wasn't hiding behind it. My point was how you completely missed the picture when you brought Fortnite as PC gamers and Xbox gamers already had PUBG and why Fortnite has a bigger share on PS5.
1. I was talking about Intel, AMD and Nvidia's investments for gaming not consoles and you're wrong that gaming consoles have any impact on gaming HW advancements. It's the other way around. I have explained it many times in the past. It's because of PC gamers and PC market that consoles can even exist. Without us spending money on the PC hardware Nvidia/AMD/Intel won't be able to put money in R&D which drives the industry. Console market isn't big that Sony/MS/Nintendo could afford to design their own hardware.
2. Yes you did change the reasoning. You said he wanted to focus on consoles and hence he left while before you said he left for money to another vertical and hence changed his views. You're all over the place and have yet to prove why Shawn Layden shouldn't be taken seriously.
3. All you have highlighted doesn't change anything that I have already said. Already explained the difference between saturation and profitability. You just desperately want to neglect it over and over again. Oh and yes, I'll continue to use Yoshida's and Layden's comments, why shouldn't I, unless you can prove them wrong or are you saying you know the market better than them? Have you tried to apply for the their job? I also remember the same argument from another cow who disregard all the big publishers statements saying he knows better than them.
4. Oh, I'm not blaming you for pointing out EA. I just highlighted the mistake of you comparing solely console focussed publishers like Ubisoft and the reason I already explained.
5. Oh I'm well aware of PUBG and wasn't hiding behind it. My point was how you completely missed the picture when you brought Fortnite as PC gamers and Xbox gamers already had PUBG and why Fortnite has a bigger share on PS5.
1. Your statement is very biased. AMD supplies CPU/GPU for PS4/5 and Xbox One/S/X, and Nvidia supplies for Switch. These consoles enable AMD/Nvidia to sell hundreds of millions of chips and contribute to their business. I quote the articles below to back it up.
AMD:
"Revenue in AMD's Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment revenue was $1.28 billion, up 176 percent year over year. The vast majority of that came from the game consoles that use AMD's embedded chips: the Sony PlayStation 5, and Microsoft Xbox Series S and X. " (source)
Nvidia:
"Broken down by market instead of reportable segment, one highlight was gaming, which was up 85% to $3.06 billion [...] Nvidia said the increase in gaming sales was due to both GeForce graphics card sales as well as the chips it sells to game console makers, such as the processor at the heart of the Nintendo Switch. "(source)
They apparently use the money they earned from the console industry, not just from PC gaming, to make further investments and R&D. Your PC-centric assumptions that ignore these facts seem not very convicting.
2. The both my reasonings are consistent. I argued that a) the main reason Shawn Layden left SIE was because the company had chose Jim Ryan's multi-plat strategy over his console-exclusive strategy, b) the reason he chose to be a board member of Streamline Media Group instead of staying in the same industry is essentially because of money (and status). I added a) later, which seems to have confused you, but if you read my previous posts correctly, you will see that they are consistent. Either way, I have now made it clear what I meant.
3. My argument is that you are using Yoshida and Layden's comments (niche/saturated) in an arbitrary manner, ignoring the context/background of their interview. I already highlighted these context/background such as "the threats of mobile gaming," and "Laden's new position made him change his view."
Also, your definition of "saturation" is so vague that does not make much sense even with your example. I have already argued that the market is not saturated by showing that these consoles continue to sell and the companies continue to make profits. But you failed to provide any evidence of "saturation."
4. You made a strange assertion in your previous posts that I only chose "console focused companies like Ubisoft. (You said "I just highlighted the mistake of you comparing solely console focused publishers like Ubisoft...") But when did companies such as Ubisoft (and EA if you include it) become "console focused publishers"? They are rather multiplatform publishers/developers, who always release their games on PC. "Console focused publishers" usually refers to companies like SIE and Nintendo who mainly publishes games on their consoles. Your definition seems too arbitrary.
Also, since you mentioned Activision-Blizzard (you said Blizzard, but they already merged) in addition to EA and Tencent, I'll put their net revenue by platform which shows they also make more money from consoles than PC.
5. Again, since you mentioned Tencent, I have given you the example of Fortnite, not to listen to your excuse for the low income from PC. Either way, is there anything you still wanted to say about Tencent?
1. I was talking about Intel, AMD and Nvidia's investments for gaming not consoles and you're wrong that gaming consoles have any impact on gaming HW advancements. It's the other way around. I have explained it many times in the past. It's because of PC gamers and PC market that consoles can even exist. Without us spending money on the PC hardware Nvidia/AMD/Intel won't be able to put money in R&D which drives the industry. Console market isn't big that Sony/MS/Nintendo could afford to design their own hardware.
2. Yes you did change the reasoning. You said he wanted to focus on consoles and hence he left while before you said he left for money to another vertical and hence changed his views. You're all over the place and have yet to prove why Shawn Layden shouldn't be taken seriously.
3. All you have highlighted doesn't change anything that I have already said. Already explained the difference between saturation and profitability. You just desperately want to neglect it over and over again. Oh and yes, I'll continue to use Yoshida's and Layden's comments, why shouldn't I, unless you can prove them wrong or are you saying you know the market better than them? Have you tried to apply for the their job? I also remember the same argument from another cow who disregard all the big publishers statements saying he knows better than them.
4. Oh, I'm not blaming you for pointing out EA. I just highlighted the mistake of you comparing solely console focussed publishers like Ubisoft and the reason I already explained.
5. Oh I'm well aware of PUBG and wasn't hiding behind it. My point was how you completely missed the picture when you brought Fortnite as PC gamers and Xbox gamers already had PUBG and why Fortnite has a bigger share on PS5.
1. Your statement is very biased. AMD supplies CPU/GPU for PS4/5 and Xbox One/S/X, and Nvidia supplies for Switch. These consoles enable AMD/Nvidia to sell hundreds of millions of chips and contribute to their business. I quote the articles below to back it up.
AMD:
"Revenue in AMD's Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment revenue was $1.28 billion, up 176 percent year over year. The vast majority of that came from the game consoles that use AMD's embedded chips: the Sony PlayStation 5, and Microsoft Xbox Series S and X. " (source)
Nvidia:
"Broken down by market instead of reportable segment, one highlight was gaming, which was up 85% to $3.06 billion [...] Nvidia said the increase in gaming sales was due to both GeForce graphics card sales as well as the chips it sells to game console makers, such as the processor at the heart of the Nintendo Switch. "(source)
They apparently use the money they earned from the console industry, not just from PC gaming, to make further investments and R&D. Your PC-centric assumptions that ignore these facts seem not very convicting.
2. The both my reasonings are consistent. I argued that a) the main reason Shawn Layden left SIE was because the company had chose Jim Ryan's multi-plat strategy over his console-exclusive strategy, b) the reason he chose to be a board member of Streamline Media Group instead of staying in the same industry is essentially because of money (and status). I added a) later, which seems to have confused you, but if you read my previous posts correctly, you will see that they are consistent. Either way, I have now made it clear what I meant.
3. My argument is that you are using Yoshida and Layden's comments (niche/saturated) in an arbitrary manner, ignoring the context/background of their interview. I already highlighted these context/background such as "the threats of mobile gaming," and "Laden's new position made him change his view."
Also, your definition of "saturation" is so vague that does not make much sense even with your example. I have already argued that the market is not saturated by showing that these consoles continue to sell and the companies continue to make profits. But you failed to provide any evidence of "saturation."
4. You made a strange assertion in your previous posts that I only chose "console focused companies like Ubisoft. (You said "I just highlighted the mistake of you comparing solely console focused publishers like Ubisoft...") But when did companies such as Ubisoft (and EA if you include it) become "console focused publishers"? They are rather multiplatform publishers/developers, who always release their games on PC. "Console focused publishers" usually refers to companies like SIE and Nintendo who mainly publishes games on their consoles. Your definition seems too arbitrary.
Also, since you mentioned Activision-Blizzard (you said Blizzard, but they already merged) in addition to EA and Tencent, I'll put their net revenue by platform which shows they also make more money from consoles than PC.
5. Again, since you mentioned Tencent, I have given you the example of Fortnite, not to listen to your excuse for the low income from PC. Either way, is there anything you still wanted to say about Tencent?
1. No, it's not biased at all. It's the fact, if it wasn't Sony/MS would be designing their own chips like they used to do in the past. Nvidia didn't even sell its chips to MS/Sony when they both approached them and AMD had to because they were getting hammered in the PC space at razor thin margins. The quote about Nvidia is them giving the context behind numbers/segments not that Switch was a big contributor. The console part is so small that they lumped it with Geforce even though it's technically under SoC/Mobile. Before sharing out of context quotes and again ASSUMING things you have no idea about based on just no. of consoles sold, may be just go read something about the economics of chip designing. Don't be mad at the truth, without PC console wouldn't even exist.
2. Your a & b are actually what people say oxymoron.
3. Those aren't arbitrary if one of them was directly to their sponsors but ground reality. I already explained to you the shifts which you ignored without explaining the why. I already explained what saturation means. MS profits are actually coming from multiple streams and they hide their actual Xbox numbers so Sony is essentially getting what Xbox lost in the console space. They ALL aren't growing but actually taking share from one another.
4. They are console focused publishers. Majority of their money is now coming from MTs on games like FIFA etc. which doesn't have a big audience on PC. The audience for such yearly rehashes is so low that EA usually have outdated ports because of just to not lose their license. As for Activision-Blizzard may be you should re-evaluate the chart you posted. Where's the growth in consoles? Seems very saturated to me.
1. No, it's not biased at all. It's the fact, if it wasn't Sony/MS would be designing their own chips like they used to do in the past. Nvidia didn't even sell its chips to MS/Sony when they both approached them and AMD had to because they were getting hammered in the PC space at razor thin margins. The quote about Nvidia is them giving the context behind numbers/segments not that Switch was a big contributor. The console part is so small that they lumped it with Geforce even though it's technically under SoC/Mobile. Before sharing out of context quotes and again ASSUMING things you have no idea about based on just no. of consoles sold, may be just go read something about the economics of chip designing. Don't be mad at the truth, without PC console wouldn't even exist.
2. Your a & b are actually what people say oxymoron.
3. Those aren't arbitrary if one of them was directly to their sponsors but ground reality. I already explained to you the shifts which you ignored without explaining the why. I already explained what saturation means. MS profits are actually coming from multiple streams and they hide their actual Xbox numbers so Sony is essentially getting what Xbox lost in the console space. They ALL aren't growing but actually taking share from one another.
4. They are console focused publishers. Majority of their money is now coming from MTs on games like FIFA etc. which doesn't have a big audience on PC. The audience for such yearly rehashes is so low that EA usually have outdated ports because of just to not lose their license. As for Activision-Blizzard may be you should re-evaluate the chart you posted. Where's the growth in consoles? Seems very saturated to me.
1. First, I remind you that we are comparing the console gaming market to the PC gaming market, not the entire PC market, because you are always trying to mix it. (You said "It's because of PC gamers and PC market that consoles can even exist." "Don't be mad at the truth, without PC console wouldn't even exist.") I know the PC industry is much larger than the console industry, but that's not what we are talking about here.
You also said in a previous post that "you're wrong that gaming consoles have any impact on gaming HW advancements." This is quite contrary to reality. For instance, with Sony and MS adopting AMD chips for PS4 and Xbox One, AMD, once an underdog, has been able to gain x86 processor market share against Intel and is competitively able to develop today's CPUs and graphics cards for both consoles and PC. Stop assuming things again.
Also, the article I quoted about Nvida has a strong context, as the Switch is an extremely successful console with almost 100 million units sold. The Switch continues to sell more units with the introduction of new models such as Mimi and OLED, and has expanded it's share particularly during the pandemic. You seem desperate in downplaying the success of Nvidia Tegra chips used for the Switch, but it's pointless. Don't confuse your lack of context with the quote being out of context. Also, you seem to be ignoring again the fact that huge amounts of GeForces were purchased for crypto-mining and non-gaming uses, which I always remind you of.
2. You don't seem to understand the meaning of "oxymoron".
3. No, you are using their comments out of context to downplay console gaming. I give you another context about Yoshida's comment. It was a comment when Sony announced that it would cooperate with MS on the streaming business. Therefore, it can be taken that Yoshi used such a strong expression about the console market to justify it. Of course, this is also consistent with my earlier point that the console share is relatively declining in the gaming industry due to the rapid growth of mobile gaming. That said, the question of whether the console market is truly a niche market can be interpreted in different ways depending on each point of view, and that's why I'm saying the context is important. (Can you explain to me what I ignored?)
I've read your explanation about "saturation" again but it still seems too vague and arbitrary. Sure, Sony has got a part of MS's console share due to the success of the PS4, but what about the Switch, whose sales is still growing? Moreover, we should not ignore the fact that the PS5 and Xbox S/X series continue to sell very well. While MS hide their unit sales, it was MS that said "Xbox Series X/S are its "fastest-selling consoles ever."
4. Dude, nobody agrees with your childish strawman argument about "console focused publishers". You just labeled companies that earn more from the consoles than from PC as "console focused publishers," to make it look like I'm having an unfair argument. We all know that's because you don't want to accept the fact that "multiplatform companies" like Activision-Blizzard, EA, and Ubisoft all make more money from consoles than PC. Your excuse about MTX is also just an assumption if not prove with evidences and numbers.
Activision-Blizzard's sales figures for both consoles and PC are slowly but gradually increasing. If one is saturated, then the the other is equally saturated. This also does not change the fact that Activision-Blizzard has earned more money from the consoles than PC.
In reality, the entire gaming industry is growing, with Sony, Nintendo, and MS all making record profits, not just PC. I don't understand the sentiment of those who are desperately trying to make the impression that only PC gaming is growing. Also, the tweet quoted by TC says something interesting;
Steam once again beats its online concurrent users record with over 27 million users currently online. Previous record was set in April at 26.9 million.
So does it want to say that only 0.1 mil online concurrent users have increased in the last 7 months?
@R4gn4r0k said:
@with_teeth26: Yeah I spend more time on other launchers now too. Occassionaly start Uplay for Valhalla and Blizzard launcher for Diablo.
Speaking of Ubi, I think it worth noting for those who living in a bubble that about 50-60%of Ubi's profits come from consoles while PC are only about 20-30% according to the latest Ubi's financial results. (source)
There own fault. hope they crash and burn.
AC valhalla was absolutely laughable bad optimized for PC because they wanted to favor AMD hardware which they did some sponsored deal with hardware wise. Sadly AMD is basically non existent on PC and it resulted in people simple ditching the game as result.
Also last DLC was a total joke with valhalla, there risen phoenix was way to short for the money they asked for and badly optimized also.
Same with far cry 6, absolute crippled on 90% of the PC hardware because sponsorship with AMD.
1. No, it's not biased at all. It's the fact, if it wasn't Sony/MS would be designing their own chips like they used to do in the past. Nvidia didn't even sell its chips to MS/Sony when they both approached them and AMD had to because they were getting hammered in the PC space at razor thin margins. The quote about Nvidia is them giving the context behind numbers/segments not that Switch was a big contributor. The console part is so small that they lumped it with Geforce even though it's technically under SoC/Mobile. Before sharing out of context quotes and again ASSUMING things you have no idea about based on just no. of consoles sold, may be just go read something about the economics of chip designing. Don't be mad at the truth, without PC console wouldn't even exist.
2. Your a & b are actually what people say oxymoron.
3. Those aren't arbitrary if one of them was directly to their sponsors but ground reality. I already explained to you the shifts which you ignored without explaining the why. I already explained what saturation means. MS profits are actually coming from multiple streams and they hide their actual Xbox numbers so Sony is essentially getting what Xbox lost in the console space. They ALL aren't growing but actually taking share from one another.
4. They are console focused publishers. Majority of their money is now coming from MTs on games like FIFA etc. which doesn't have a big audience on PC. The audience for such yearly rehashes is so low that EA usually have outdated ports because of just to not lose their license. As for Activision-Blizzard may be you should re-evaluate the chart you posted. Where's the growth in consoles? Seems very saturated to me.
1. First, I remind you that we are comparing the console gaming market to the PC gaming market, not the entire PC market, because you are always trying to mix it. (You said "It's because of PC gamers and PC market that consoles can even exist." "Don't be mad at the truth, without PC console wouldn't even exist.") I know the PC industry is much larger than the console industry, but that's not what we are talking about here.
You also said in a previous post that "you're wrong that gaming consoles have any impact on gaming HW advancements." This is quite contrary to reality. For instance, with Sony and MS adopting AMD chips for PS4 and Xbox One, AMD, once an underdog, has been able to gain x86 processor market share against Intel and is competitively able to develop today's CPUs and graphics cards for both consoles and PC. Stop assuming things again.
Also, the article I quoted about Nvida has a strong context, as the Switch is an extremely successful console with almost 100 million units sold. The Switch continues to sell more units with the introduction of new models such as Mimi and OLED, and has expanded it's share particularly during the pandemic. You seem desperate in downplaying the success of Nvidia Tegra chips used for the Switch, but it's pointless. Don't confuse your lack of context with the quote being out of context. Also, you seem to be ignoring again the fact that huge amounts of GeForces were purchased for crypto-mining and non-gaming uses, which I always remind you of.
2. You don't seem to understand the meaning of "oxymoron".
3. No, you are using their comments out of context to downplay console gaming. I give you another context about Yoshida's comment. It was a comment when Sony announced that it would cooperate with MS on the streaming business. Therefore, it can be taken that Yoshi used such a strong expression about the console market to justify it. Of course, this is also consistent with my earlier point that the console share is relatively declining in the gaming industry due to the rapid growth of mobile gaming. That said, the question of whether the console market is truly a niche market can be interpreted in different ways depending on each point of view, and that's why I'm saying the context is important. (Can you explain to me what I ignored?)
I've read your explanation about "saturation" again but it still seems too vague and arbitrary. Sure, Sony has got a part of MS's console share due to the success of the PS4, but what about the Switch, whose sales is still growing? Moreover, we should not ignore the fact that the PS5 and Xbox S/X series continue to sell very well. While MS hide their unit sales, it was MS that said "Xbox Series X/S are its "fastest-selling consoles ever."
4. Dude, nobody agrees with your childish strawman argument about "console focused publishers". You just labeled companies that earn more from the consoles than from PC as "console focused publishers," to make it look like I'm having an unfair argument. We all know that's because you don't want to accept the fact that "multiplatform companies" like Activision-Blizzard, EA, and Ubisoft all make more money from consoles than PC. Your excuse about MTX is also just an assumption if not prove with evidences and numbers.
Activision-Blizzard's sales figures for both consoles and PC are slowly but gradually increasing. If one is saturated, then the the other is equally saturated. This also does not change the fact that Activision-Blizzard has earned more money from the consoles than PC.
1. I'm using them interchangeably, even if I didn't none of this would change the fact that consoles exist in the first place because of PC and PC gamers. You're taking everything out of context and looks like a fool in the process who doesn't know anything about the HW industry. Yes, consoles don't have any impact on the HW advancements. Intel didn't supply anything to the consoles after the original Xbox yet they were the ones leading until they stumbled with 10nm process. Intel failure had nothing to do with their lack of advancement in the chip design it has everything to do with chip manufacturing. Unlike AMD Intel manufactures their own chips. Again nothing to do with money from consoles that put AMD on the track. AMD would have captured the x86 share regardless of consoles and it's LOL worthy to even suggest that AMD took share because of consoles. AMD took share after Ryzen which didn't even make its way to consoles until this gen and was on AMD's roadmap long before they got a contract for PS4/X1. Before that they were using their failed Jaguar CPU's for consoles. So much for consoles contributing anything to technical advancements
As for Nvidia, they too didn't have any presence on consoles until Switch in 2017 which is using their 2014 chip design for mobiles and yet they were the ones pushing the technology forward not AMD and still is. AMD is still playing catchup to them and a whole gen behind while being on a much advanced node than them.
Let's finally debunk the myth that console sales has any impact on these companies R&D. These companies relese their successful architectures every 1.5-2 years with minor improvements all year round. Consoles releases after 5-6 years at minimum. Even if we assume that the margins are the same on let's say like on PC, the gap in release cycle is too big to have any impact on technical advancement. It's the PC advancement which consoles rely on not the other way around.
Your assumptions about the console impact is so stupid that if you said something like that in Nvidia/AMD/Intel subbreddits or their forums or any community around them or their stocks you would be banned right away after being laughed at. Either way we are way off topic. Wanna be laughed at go right ahead and create a thread about consoles impact on HW advancements.
2. Yes I do. Don't be mad at me for highlighting your flip flop because Layden said something you didn't like.
3. What you're missing is profitability of Sony vs the saturation of the market. Two things which you're mistakenly interpreting as being synonyms. You again missed and failed to answer why the sudden shift from Sony to release their games on PC which goes back to your flip flop on Shawn Layden. As for your rebuttal behind cannibalizing each other market share, may be you should wait. Even X1 was said my MS to be the their fastest selling console and then fell completely off the cliff after the launch year.
4. They are console focussed. No ifs or buts about it. Their bread and butter are franchises like FIFA, CoD which doesn't have a market on PC and it's also EA's, AB's own yearly reports that show that now they earn more revenue from MTX than unit sales. Pretty easy to see how it skews the result if we take it out of context. Looking at the entire market it's easy to how it's not the case. Since you're hiding behind one metric by posting individual publishers revenue, how about other metrics like unit sales, total no. of consoles being sold, MAUs, etc. None of that really growing at all or not growing significantly in the console space which actually sparked this whole debate where you tried to downplay Steam.
Console gaming has pushed PC gaming because if standardization. I appreciate the push. Console gaming uses what was previously only PC hardware, now the hardware spans the two markets. In the end a win for everyone.
1. I'm using them interchangeably, even if I didn't none of this would change the fact that consoles exist in the first place because of PC and PC gamers. You're taking everything out of context and looks like a fool in the process who doesn't know anything about the HW industry. Yes, consoles don't have any impact on the HW advancements. Intel didn't supply anything to the consoles after the original Xbox yet they were the ones leading until they stumbled with 10nm process. Intel failure had nothing to do with their lack of advancement in the chip design it has everything to do with chip manufacturing. Unlike AMD Intel manufactures their own chips. Again nothing to do with money from consoles that put AMD on the track. AMD would have captured the x86 share regardless of consoles and it's LOL worthy to even suggest that AMD took share because of consoles. AMD took share after Ryzen which didn't even make its way to consoles until this gen and was on AMD's roadmap long before they got a contract for PS4/X1. Before that they were using their failed Jaguar CPU's for consoles. So much for consoles contributing anything to technical advancements
As for Nvidia, they too didn't have any presence on consoles until Switch in 2017 which is using their 2014 chip design for mobiles and yet they were the ones pushing the technology forward not AMD and still is. AMD is still playing catchup to them and a whole gen behind while being on a much advanced node than them.
Let's finally debunk the myth that console sales has any impact on these companies R&D. These companies relese their successful architectures every 1.5-2 years with minor improvements all year round. Consoles releases after 5-6 years at minimum. Even if we assume that the margins are the same on let's say like on PC, the gap in release cycle is too big to have any impact on technical advancement. It's the PC advancement which consoles rely on not the other way around.
Your assumptions about the console impact is so stupid that if you said something like that in Nvidia/AMD/Intel subbreddits or their forums or any community around them or their stocks you would be banned right away after being laughed at. Either way we are way off topic. Wanna be laughed at go right ahead and create a thread about consoles impact on HW advancements.
2. Yes I do. Don't be mad at me for highlighting your flip flop because Layden said something you didn't like.
3. What you're missing is profitability of Sony vs the saturation of the market. Two things which you're mistakenly interpreting as being synonyms. You again missed and failed to answer why the sudden shift from Sony to release their games on PC which goes back to your flip flop on Shawn Layden. As for your rebuttal behind cannibalizing each other market share, may be you should wait. Even X1 was said my MS to be the their fastest selling console and then fell completely off the cliff after the launch year.
4. They are console focussed. No ifs or buts about it. Their bread and butter are franchises like FIFA, CoD which doesn't have a market on PC and it's also EA's, AB's own yearly reports that show that now they earn more revenue from MTX than unit sales. Pretty easy to see how it skews the result if we take it out of context. Looking at the entire market it's easy to how it's not the case. Since you're hiding behind one metric by posting individual publishers revenue, how about other metrics like unit sales, total no. of consoles being sold, MAUs, etc. None of that really growing at all or not growing significantly in the console space which actually sparked this whole debate where you tried to downplay Steam.
Calm down, dude. No matter how desperately you argue, it doesn't mean anything without evidence to support it. Also, calling your discussion partner "fool/stupid" is not the attitude of a grown-up man. Anyway...
1. "The PC market" and "the PC gaming market" are not interchangeable. The PC market is made up of everything from home PCs to office PCs to industrial PCs. The PC gaming market is only the part of it. I just made the point that you shouldn't mix them up because that's not what we're debating here.
Even if you deny the influence of the console, the reality does not change. This is a very simple matter. R&D generally requires time and money. These companies typically scale their R&D in relation to their overall bottom line. For example, if the console business is making a lot of money, they will spend more time and money on research and development. In this sense, the console clearly contributes to their R&D. That's common in business. If you deny it, you need to prove that AMD/Nvidia have never spent money from the consoles on their R&D.
It is also apparent from their earnings reports that AMD's console revenues contributed significantly to their restructuring. In particular, they contributed about 50% of all their income between 2015 and 2017. The revenue from the game console is included in "Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment," and AMD has confirmed that the vast majority of "Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment" revenue come from the game consoles.
Your argument about the release cycle, which ignores updates such as the PS4 Pro or Xbox One X, is nonsense. You said the console cycle is 5-6 years, but the reality is that the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X were released 3-4 years later with the upgraded CPU and GPU. Stop assuming things, again.
Why don't you go to business/economics subreddits or forums with the AMD/Nvidia's earnings charts, and claim that Sony/MS/Nintendo's adoption of their chips for the hugely successful consoles had absolutely no impact on their R&D, and see how hard they will laugh at you.
2. I have already explained it. If you can't understand it, it's your problem, not mine.
3. Why don't you explain with evidence and numbers what "Sony vs the saturation of the market" means ? I have already explained to you many times about "the sudden from Sony to release their games on PC.” If you are not convinced, make a reasoning to deny it and prove it with evidence and numbers, again.
4. I've already told you to quit your childish strawman argument. Activision-Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft are "multi-platform publishers," not "console focused publishers," it's a hard fact that you can't arbitrarily change with your sophistry. Moreover, it was you who listed Activision-Blizzard and EA with Tencent saying they are not "console focused publishers" compared to Ubisoft. I quote it again:
You said, "Ubisoft is one pub and also the one who's not that favored by PC gamers. So, PC gaming occupying a 30% of their revenue is actually quite impressive. However, go right ahead and compare the revenue charts of companies like EA, Blizzard and Tencent. The story is completely different."
Why don't you reflect on your flip flop on these companies first, and try to make a more sound argument?
You give no evidence or figures that MTX is the reason for the number of people playing FIFA or CoD on PC is smaller than the number of people playing on consoles. Also, in China, where you desperately hide behind, MTX for F2P/P2W games occupies a large part of the PC gaming market. You should not generalize the idea that MTX heavy games are not for PC gamers.
Why don't you use "other metrics like unit sales, total no. Of consoles being sold, MAUs, etc" in the PC gaming market to prove whether the console market or the PC market is more saturated? I'm all ears.
Log in to comment