Didnt nvidia or someone recently say only 13 million total worldwide were good enuf to run occulus rift (check out the steam hardware survey onboard graphics dominate). The number of win 10 PC's will be a subset of that coupled with the fact the number of gamers will also be a subset of that
I'd say you've got that backwards. The number of PC gamers will be a superset of the PC's capable of running Oculus. To run Oculus you need a GTX970 or R9 290. Do you really think many non gamers bought those GPU's?
On the other hand, there will be many more PC gamers out there with systems slower than that.
In fact, last time I counted up the number of GPU's on Steam that matched or exceeded the PS4 in performance, I think it came to about 18 million. That was probably 6-12 months ago and of course, Microsofts target market would be larger than just PC's on Steam that can match or exceed PS4 performance.
That figure is irrevelant. It's telling you who has high end graphics. Win 10 PCs capable of running games and operated by gamers will be substantially more than that. Anyone who bought a discrete GPU is probably tech savvy and on (or aiming for) the W10 bandwagon. What's the Steam count for PCs with a 750Ti or better? Because that's the sort of spec DF has shown is comparable to consoles.
Edit: pjbliverpool suggests ~20 million. As much as XB1. PC and Win 10 is a very viable market. It's also a major means to challenge Sony. Personal position - I can buy a PS4 or buy a GPU. If Win 10 offers all the games, it's a better investment.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Discrete GPUs are now hugely popular in academia and with the CSS crowd thanks to CUDA and OpenCL. Nobody buys a faster CPU for faster Photoshop, you buy a faster GPU. Not everybody who has a discrete GPU is a gamer but equally they're probably not showing up in volume on the Steam surveys either.
All our dev workstations at work currently have 980Ti cards in - gaming usage: 0%. Well, below 10%
All our dev workstations at work currently have 980Ti cards in - gaming usage: 0%. Well, below 10%
Yeah, everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. I am puzzled by all the media sources jumping to conclusions.
This is the IGN interview:
Hey, I agree you get more bang for your bucks with a console, but a $700 GPU is a little more powerful than the XB1
Bare in mind though that the 18m came from Steam. So that's 18 million PC's capable of PS4 level graphics (more if we lower the spec to the XBO ball park) on which Steam is being actively used (Steam only counts active accounts). So those are almost certainly gaming PC's. Outside of Steam there will of course be many more gaming capable PC's, a reasonable percentage of which aren't used for gaming.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If Microsoft did decide to pack in Xbox hardware I don't see them continuing first party study operations and making games for PlayStation. Microsoft's DNA is different to Sony, who have been in content creation - music, TV, movies - since 1987. Games were just another medium to move into. I couldn't see Microsoft putting up with delays with studios like Polyphony (Gran Turismo) or SCE Japan (The Last Guardian), nor could I see them entertaining a partnership with Hideo Kojima for the same reason. Sony seem happy to manage their internal teams like artists, not like engineers, and they seem to have no qualms about delaying things - look at Uncharted 4 - we're now on the third release date?
Hmmm? I think you forget that Microsoft have been making and publishing games since the 1980's, long before Sony got into the gaming business. They had some very accomplished 1st party PC game studios before they decided to try to enter into console gaming. Unfortunately, and much to the IRE of the PC community, when X360 became hugely successful, they abandoned and disbanded virtually all of their PC focused game studios.
In fact their history of creating and publishing games is almost as long as their OS related ventures. MS-DOS came out in 1980 while Microsoft Flight Simulator came out in 1981.
Heck, Microsoft making games predates Microsoft making office applications as MS Office didn't come out until 1990. I'd argue that games are very much in the DNA of Microsoft.
If they do abandon Xbox as a console brand, I don't see why they don't continue to make and publish games.
Regards,
SB
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I started a thread on the PC Gaming forum because it's definitely more of a PC business right now, but Tim Sweeney just published a medium-sized comment about Microsoft's UWP on The Guardian.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1897249/
Spoiler alert: he isn't a fan of it.
https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1897249/
Spoiler alert: he isn't a fan of it.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
You've stumped me and Wikipedia on games Microsoft created or published in the 1980s. Wikipedia's earliest cite in 1990.
What's older?
Better resource here...
http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/microsoft-corporation/offset,175/so,1d/list-games/
Tommy McClain
The entries for PC-Dos, Windows (included game) give me a chuckle. That PC classic DONKEY.BAS. And how can we forget Minesweeper, Solitaire and Hearts!
MS Flight Simulator, though, (a port from subLOGIC's original) would be the obvious one.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yeah, I'm not sure that list does much credit to Microsoft chops as a media creator. Had no idea Microsoft ported Flight Sim. I had Flight Sim II On the Amiga (so circa 1987-1990) and it was entirely branded subLogic. I still have the massive spiral bound manual somewhere, I came across it a few years ago.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Flight Simulator had a rather convoluted development history.
Flight Simulator 1st generation - Apple 2 and TRS 80.
Microsoft Flight Simulator was FS1 with major improvements for IBM PC compatibles.
Flight Simulator 2nd generation = Microsoft Flight Simulator improvements ported to FS1 for other platforms.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2 was a minor improvement over the previous.
Flight Simulator 3rd generation = Amiga started, but due to problems with Commodore buying them, appeared on Mac first. Mac version was published by Microsoft of all people.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 3 (no longer Sublogic) = Large improvements over MFS2 unrelated to FS 3rd gen (Sublogic) as well as work put in to allow conversion of Sublogic FS scenery files to the format used by Microsoft FS.
Basically version 2.0 was the last time Microsoft Flight Simulator shared basically the same code base and developers as Flight Simulator. Basically a fork. With the Sublogic version ending at gen 3.
Regards,
SB
Also we are a few short months away from a new generation of cards. With the micron drop and HBM2 we should see performance sky rocket compared to the xbox one and ps4 while costs go down. The r7 370 is a $130 gpu which seems to be able to keep up with an xbox one and a ps4 in a lot of cases. The 380 is a $200 card
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9784/the-amd-radeon-r9-380x-review/6 this is the full review. You can see the 370 is able to keep 30fps in the majority of games at 1080p ultra quality while the 380 is over 40fps . I would expect this fall that 380x performance would be around $100 down from $230 with the new gpus. We might even get better than 390x for under $200.
So the amount of systems capable of console + games will grow and costs will come down.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Ugh. So what are we talking about now? That you will need to buy cross-platform games from the windows store?
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, because this thread is a cluster of all kinds of things that are completely unrelated to MS merging XB and PC as a singular platform.
So if you buy a game in the Windows Store you get the same game on your XB for $60 or you just buy the game through Steam and play it only on your PC for $20. Okay, so what? This conversation has gone so sideways I don't even know what people are for, against, championing for or rallying against.
I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, because this thread is a cluster of all kinds of things that are completely unrelated to MS merging XB and PC as a singular platform.
So if you buy a game in the Windows Store you get the same game on your XB for $60 or you just buy the game through Steam and play it only on your PC for $20. Okay, so what? This conversation has gone so sideways I don't even know what people are for, against, championing for or rallying against.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
I think if you want to convince the PS-fanboys or the anti-MS crowd, what you need to show is the graphical capability of the most commonly sold computers. I imagine that those are running Intel integrated graphics that don't have discrete graphic cards.
So we're talking about being limited by whatever intel's integrated graphics capability is because really both AMD and NVIDIA have the shit the bed the last 10 years in terms of doing anything to move to mainstream.
Right?
What we need to know is that if tomorrow, I go to Best Buy and pick up a computer for $300-$500, is it physically capable of playing XB1 games? If it's not, then MS still has a huge problem. If it is, then MS is going to kill Sony and the PS4 and the console wars will go "puff" in a cloud of smoke.
I was posting more to the fact that a $130 video card today will give you xbox one performance. So if you bought a computer from bestbuy in the last few years . Lets say 3 years for $500 . You can add a $130 and have xbox one or better performance. in the later half of the year you will have Polaris and we should see even more powerful cards , r280 down to the $130 level or less. That will give you a much better experience than even a ps4.
Then at the high end you will have even greater performance.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
No. UWP is an unknown quantity right now. The bottom line is that only UWP software will run on multiple platforms and the only place to buy UWP software is Microsoft's stores. But UWP wasn't designed by unicorns so just because you buy software from a Microsoft store doesn't mean it's UWP and will work anywhere - only software that is specifically designed to be UWP software. So this needs software developers and publishers to be onboard and actively support it.
If Sony's Cross Buy programme for PS3/PS4/Vita is any indication, even factoring in only software that was available on multiple Sony platforms, you'll see support from Microsoft and indies and other publishers will turn a blind eye. But it's early days yet, there may be advantages for developers/publishers that aren't clear yet.
It's odd how anything pro-consumer generally gets lacklustre support from the mainstream gaming industry (Cross Buy again) but I'm a cynical old bastard.
I don't understand the logic behind this. We all know that the average PC sold is not sold as a gaming device. Most are probably sold to businesses as workplace machines. The original point was about how large the combined Microsoft gaming platform market is across PC's and XBO. That means the question should be focussed on how many PC's are in the market which are capable of playing the kind of games that Microsoft wants to sell, i.e. it doesn't matter what performance level the average new PC attains, what matters is the percentage of new PC's which meet the minimum performance level required by Microsoft for them to consider those devices as part of their target market.. And that's exactly what eastmen's point was addressing. i.e. the more powerful new PC hardware becomes, then the cheaper hardware gets at a particular performance point, thus the distribution of that performance point grows at an accelerating rate, and we're about to hit one of those bursts of acceleration.
Similar threads
