The future of consoles

[techuse]

This was in relation to techuse's comment below and some associated comments from DSoup (I think) about many GPU's being sold into mining farms and professional workstations with no intention of ever being used for gaming. The presence of an active Steam client on the machines suggests those machines are being used for gaming (however infrequently). i.e. those GPU's were not purchased for exclusively non-gaming purposes. So what we can say is that all of the GPU's in those systems are used for gaming, or at least have been used for gaming at some point. Which is a number we can compare to console sales because there is no guarantee that a sold console is used regularly, or even used at all.



I agree it tells us nothing of the amount of gaming hours spent, or the likelihood of that market buying the next big AAA release. But to answer the question of "how many gaming GPU's are on the market vs consoles sold". It's a valid and useful data point. And it can be used in conjunction with the Steam Hardware Survey to give us an idea of the spec of those PC's as well. Obviously taking one months worth of active Steam accounts as a measure against all consoles sold is probably significantly underselling the PC position, but even as a lower bound it's a useful metric.

To put some context against that, a quick look at the SHS shows that over 22% of all GPU's are of RTX class (not counting the RDNA2 GPU's which don't get their own breakdown). So with the detail above we can make a reasonable assumption that there are at least 22% of 120m, i.e. 26.4m individual RTX powered PC's logging into Steam in a single month. Are they all all being actively used for games? Who knows? But we know their owners have or at least have had some intention of gaming on them at some point, and when you compare those numbers to say PS5 sales which are probably in the 16m region by now, if comes across as an interesting data point to me.



The initial comparison that I posted (from Eurogamer) was comparing the active Steam users to the active XBOX Live and PSN users.

Valid but it's usefulness is predicated on what is being discussed. Total sales of GPUs which is often used to illustrate the size of the PC gaming market for example is not very useful because we have no idea how many of them are being used to mine. There seems to be a disconnect with data examining the size of the PC gaming market with capable hardware and the smaller amt of revenue this market generates for publishers. This could be down to any number of things, just airing out some of my thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Valid but it's usefulness is predicated on what is being discussed. Total sales of GPUs which is often used to illustrate the size of the PC gaming market for example is not very useful because we have no idea how many of them are being used to mine. There seems to be a disconnect with data examining the size of the PC gaming market with capable hardware and the smaller amt of revenue this market generates for publishers. This could be down to any number of things, just airing out some of my thoughts.

Many of the metrics provided are flawed. Like you said, sales of GPUs popular in gaming are flawed because the same GPUs are used to augment Photoshop and many non-gaming applications and never used to play games. Some people dismiss the Steam hardware survey results because some PCs just run Steam for Community and Chat feature and never used to play games.

Most metrics flung around by PR, marketing and platform enthusiasts are flawed.

 

[PSman1700]

Most metrics flung around by PR, marketing and platform enthusiasts are flawed.

Which means we can discard all numbers thrown at each others favourite platforms here.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Most metrics flung around by PR, marketing and platform enthusiasts are flawed.

Most metrics used by anyone ever appear to be flawed. I think we've moved through the Digital Age and Information Age into the Misinformation Age. See for another example the MS announcement of 18 and 20 million FH5 and Halo players - these numbers are basically meaningless as comparisons to previous figures indicating the latest titles to be the 'biggest iterations to date' seeing as they were given away to 25 million GP subscribers, but they make for great headline numbers. And often these days companies are just about generating and sharing big numbers like Netflix subscribers or Spotify titles played or insane player hours of engagement on such-and-such. Big numbers, rooted in fact, not really saying anything but giving the impression they are and, I think, a lot of people being influenced which is why they are being used. "Free to play" is now super useful just to get a number of launch-week players that'll make headlines where a solid-selling paid-for title would be overlooked for its underwhelming data-points.

"Lies, damned lies, and Statistics," and everyone has realised statistics are far easier to wield and far harder to argue against as they are invariably true, so we're going overboard these days.

 

[techuse]

Many of the metrics provided are flawed. Like you said, sales of GPUs popular in gaming are flawed because the same GPUs are used to augment Photoshop and many non-gaming applications and never used to play games. Some people dismiss the Steam hardware survey results because some PCs just run Steam for Community and Chat feature and never used to play games.

Most metrics flung around by PR, marketing and platform enthusiasts are flawed.

This is why I was curious if Steam requires any games played or at the very least purchased over a previous timeframe to be considered an active account. If it doesn't the data might become less useful.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Which means we can discard all numbers thrown at each others favourite platforms here.

Not at all. If Sony state there are x million PS+ subscribers then you know there are x million people willing to pay Sony money. If Microsoft state there are x million GamePass subscribers then you know there are x million subscribers who are either willing to pay the subscription fee or invest time in Microsoft's ecosystem sufficient to get their GamePass subscription for "free". It's not "free", because time and effort are valuable, but users need to invest money, or time and effort It's tangible.

Active users is really quite vague unless what this means is explicitly stated. If anybody counts owning a console that downloads games, or runs a store client on their PC that they are otherwise not engaging with as "active users", that's a stretch. But most metrics are not intended for users for but shareholders and this is why they have increasingly been stretched in directions that have sometimes become meaningless but look useful.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Total sales of GPUs which is often used to illustrate the size of the PC gaming market for example is not very useful because we have no idea how many of them are being used to mine.

But that was the point of my post. The fact that those PC's are running an active Steam Client is strong evidence that they haven't been purchased exclusively for non gaming purposes. I totally acknowledge that GPU sales alone may be deceptive because some unknown percentage of them will indeed be purchased without any gaming intent. But what the Steam active users metric gives us is the number of PC's (GPU's) that have a games platform actively running on them. Those GPU's haven't been purchased exclusively for mining or running photoshop. They may do that too, but that doesn't stop them also being a valid gaming platform for devs to target.

There seems to be a disconnect with data examining the size of the PC gaming market with capable hardware and the smaller amt of revenue this market generates for publishers. This could be down to any number of things, just airing out some of my thoughts.

Is there though? Or are PC gamers just playing different games? The chart that Shifty posted earlier (below) suggests that the PC as a platform brings in more games revenue than any single console platform by a significant margin, and almost as much as all combined.

Some people dismiss the Steam hardware survey results because some PCs just run Steam for Community and Chat feature and never used to play games.

Who are these people? And what evidence is there of this? I find it extremely unlikely that there is a statistically significant number of people that install Steam purely for it's chat/community features without ever using it to game as opposed to using something like Facebook or some other mainstream messaging platform.

 

[PSman1700]

If we are starting to go that way, we can say these PS+ memberships arent doing much more then paying for it but not playing. Perhaps AFK style. This discussion could never have an ending we'd want to. No idea why some are so against the PC as a gaming platform, it is in no way a danger to playstation, it never has been and it never will be. On the contrary, its a good platform for Sony to expand to.

Remember, the topic is 'the future of consoles', not the future of the PC.

 

[techuse]

But that was the point of my post. The fact that those PC's are running an active Steam Client is strong evidence that they haven't been purchased exclusively for non gaming purposes. I totally acknowledge that GPU sales alone may be deceptive because some unknown percentage of them will indeed be purchased without any gaming intent. But what the Steam active users metric gives us is the number of PC's (GPU's) that have a games platform actively running on them. Those GPU's haven't been purchased exclusively for mining or running photoshop. They may do that too, but that doesn't stop them also being a valid gaming platform for devs to target.



Is there though? Or are PC gamers just playing different games? The chart that Shifty posted earlier (below) suggests that the PC as a platform brings in more games revenue than any single console platform by a significant margin, and almost as much as all combined.

Who are these people? And what evidence is there of this? I find it extremely unlikely that there is a statistically significant number of people that install Steam purely for it's chat/community features without ever using it to game as opposed to using something like Facebook or some other mainstream messaging platform.

Is that chart for dedicated PC gaming specifically? Doing some googling it appears most of the PC gaming revenue is from titles like League of Legends, World of Tanks and other service based games that run on slow hardware. Are these tens of millions of RTX GPUs really being bought to play those games? The more statistics I find the more questions they raise in my mind *shrug*.

 

[see colon]

Is that chart for dedicated PC gaming specifically? Doing some googling it appears most of the PC gaming revenue is from titles like League of Legends, World of Tanks and other service based games that run on slow hardware. Are these tens of millions of RTX GPUs really being bought to play those games? The more statistics I find the more questions they raise in my mind *shrug*.

Aren't the biggest earners on console stuff like Fortnite, Minecraft, Apex Legends and GTA5? Fortnite and Minecraft will run on actual cell phones, Apex on phone class hardware (Switch), and GTA5 is a 360/PS3 title that's just been prettied up on modern hardware. It doesn't really matter if games can run on older hardware or not, it matters that people are spending money, because without that there would be no games industry. I mean, if we are discounting slower hardware, we would have to remove the mobile segment completely, and then the industry is nearly 1/3 the size it is when mobile is included.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Aren't the biggest earners on console stuff like Fortnite, Minecraft, Apex Legends and GTA5? Fortnite and Minecraft will run on actual cell phones, Apex on phone class hardware (Switch), and GTA5 is a 360/PS3 title that's just been prettied up on modern hardware. It doesn't really matter if games can run on older hardware or not, it matters that people are spending money, because without that there would be no games industry. I mean, if we are discounting slower hardware, we would have to remove the mobile segment completely, and then the industry is nearly 1/3 the size it is when mobile is included.

Yes, this is for PlayStation, but I imagine that it's similar for Xbox as well.

PlayStation Makes More Money from DLC, Microtransactions Than Anything Else - Push Square

DLC, microtransactions and subscriptions generated ~1.84 times more revenue than game sales for Sony.

Even more interesting (for me), digital game sales outsold physical game sales by 3.91 : 1. Basically approximately 4 out of 5 gamers on PlayStation bought the digital version of a game instead of the physical version.

Of course, much of that shift to digital on PlayStation was due to the pandemic, but I predict that the vast majority of people that started buying digital due to the pandemic will continue to buy digital just because it's massively more convenient and people are generally used to the idea of not owning a physical copy of a game because of Mobile and PC.

I imagine that the only reason the PS5-DE doesn't outsell the PS5 is just because Sony doesn't want to make too many PS5-DE consoles.

Regards,
SB

 

[Ivan]

People often focus on technical aspects only, but there is much more to it when it comes to people preferring doing certain activity on a certain type of device.

My example:

I was a computer enthusiast/lover/whatever since i was 5. I love doing all this, like most of you guys on b3d. Tinkering is not a problem for me at all, it was part of the fun for decades for me. If you LOVE everything about computers, nothing's a problem. It intrigues you, it's no hassle, it's fun and educational at the same time. God knows how much I spent on hardware over the years...

But...

As I got older, something happened and I started enjoying more focused experiences over something like an ocean of options at every second you have on pc. Browser is just a click away, you can do whatever you want all the time.

I found myself preferring control system, performance, options like gsync/freesync and everything similar on pc and yet I spent very small amount of time actually playing anything.

On consoles it is completely opposite - I see that a lot of things are a compromise, but I still enjoy just playng a game in that focused mode and and enjoying it for what it is without much thinking. And I started preferring controller over itme, too. All the buttons under my fingers, I can do everything without looking and in very comfortable position on an armchair, sofa or whatever.

There's nothing rational about it, but it is true - pc experience started becoming "too much" for me to enjoy it.

And with age, I compeltely changed my view on sitting at the desk and doing things, even with best chair with all the options which is not uncomfortable at all. It is just not wanted anymore, not something I could ever LOVE doing, even if it is the best way to do some things.

And as a consequence, I started to see my tech enthusiasm shifting to TV technology and everything around it. OLED tv is a next big thig for me, I'd rather play anything on it than on a 360hz monitor which is objectively better for gaming.

I wonder what changes in our brain to make this kind of a shift - you enjoy something to death and after a certain point you just can't be bothered anymore.

 

[Karamazov]

i can see a future in 10+ years when AR/VR headstets are no bigger and heavier than ski goggles, showing a giant virtual screen in your living room, playing cloud games with parts of the game going out of that giant screen (imagine a horror game with monsters going out of the screen, like the ring movie), and other games going full VR.

 

[Nesh]

Yes, this is for PlayStation, but I imagine that it's similar for Xbox as well.

PlayStation Makes More Money from DLC, Microtransactions Than Anything Else - Push Square

DLC, microtransactions and subscriptions generated ~1.84 times more revenue than game sales for Sony.

Even more interesting (for me), digital game sales outsold physical game sales by 3.91 : 1. Basically approximately 4 out of 5 gamers on PlayStation bought the digital version of a game instead of the physical version.

Of course, much of that shift to digital on PlayStation was due to the pandemic, but I predict that the vast majority of people that started buying digital due to the pandemic will continue to buy digital just because it's massively more convenient and people are generally used to the idea of not owning a physical copy of a game because of Mobile and PC.

I imagine that the only reason the PS5-DE doesn't outsell the PS5 is just because Sony doesn't want to make too many PS5-DE consoles.

Regards,
SB

There are many games that are not available on disk.
I am curious what is the true ratio between games that exist on both formats, not just revenue.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Is there though? Or are PC gamers just playing different games? The chart that Shifty posted earlier (below) suggests that the PC as a platform brings in more games revenue than any single console platform by a significant margin, and almost as much as all combined.

Just bear in mind that's a graph a grabbed on the internet without context. I don't know what they're measuring or how they are getting their numbers or if the source is at all reliable. I also just noticed it's copyright 2018, implying forecasts for 2021 rather than actual figures. I reckon reality looks like that, moreso actually with pandemic super-growth.

Also this one compares money rather population. Population for mobile is far bigger, so relative income is far smaller probably.

I...really don't have a point.

 

[pjbliverpool]

People often focus on technical aspects only, but there is much more to it when it comes to people preferring doing certain activity on a certain type of device.

My example:

I was a computer enthusiast/lover/whatever since i was 5. I love doing all this, like most of you guys on b3d. Tinkering is not a problem for me at all, it was part of the fun for decades for me. If you LOVE everything about computers, nothing's a problem. It intrigues you, it's no hassle, it's fun and educational at the same time. God knows how much I spent on hardware over the years...

But...

As I got older, something happened and I started enjoying more focused experiences over something like an ocean of options at every second you have on pc. Browser is just a click away, you can do whatever you want all the time.

I found myself preferring control system, performance, options like gsync/freesync and everything similar on pc and yet I spent very small amount of time actually playing anything.

On consoles it is completely opposite - I see that a lot of things are a compromise, but I still enjoy just playng a game in that focused mode and and enjoying it for what it is without much thinking. And I started preferring controller over itme, too. All the buttons under my fingers, I can do everything without looking and in very comfortable position on an armchair, sofa or whatever.

There's nothing rational about it, but it is true - pc experience started becoming "too much" for me to enjoy it.

And with age, I compeltely changed my view on sitting at the desk and doing things, even with best chair with all the options which is not uncomfortable at all. It is just not wanted anymore, not something I could ever LOVE doing, even if it is the best way to do some things.

And as a consequence, I started to see my tech enthusiasm shifting to TV technology and everything around it. OLED tv is a next big thig for me, I'd rather play anything on it than on a 360hz monitor which is objectively better for gaming.

I wonder what changes in our brain to make this kind of a shift - you enjoy something to death and after a certain point you just can't be bothered anymore.

I think all of this makes perfect sense, and I hear a lot of it from many on this forum, but I'm curious for those with families, especially kids, how you make this work?

For me PC gaming is perfect because I have the second screen connected to the PC in the lounge so that I can game while the family controls the TV (realistically I get very little gaming done before the kids go to bed). If I were restricted to using the family TV for gaming on a console, I'd basically never get to game at all. In fact I do have my PC connected to the lounge PC (a 55" OLED) and I pretty much never get to utilise it.

I realise you can always connect a monitor to a console as a second screen but then you lose some of the more valued aspects of console gaming and may as well just go with a PC anyway. Or you could have the console in a separate room, but unless you have two or more lounges then you have the same problem. And I don't really want to be sequestering myself away from the family to game anyway. We get little enough family time as it is.

 

[Karamazov]

I don't have kids and have instead a gaming room with a big TV on which i never watch TV. Its only purpose is gaming. We also have a TV in the living room and another in the training room.
My pc is a netbook style as i only uses it for internet stuff. My wife's pc is a portable gaming pc but she uses it only for work, she needed beefy specs as she uses heavy applications such as photoshop etc...for her job.

 

[zed]

Slightly different than their forecast

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Interesting that according to newzoo, PC gaming (-0.8%) dropped less YoY than console gaming (-6.6%). If I had to guess, I suspect it's a drop due to a change in console generations and that the drop would have been much larger if not for BC (and FC) on both consoles. Being able to buy a title for PS4/XBO and know that it'll run just fine on hard to get PS5/XBS likely helps with game sales not dropping off a cliff as it used to do in historical generation shifts.

Regards,
SB

 

[PSman1700]

People often focus on technical aspects only, but there is much more to it when it comes to people preferring doing certain activity on a certain type of device.

My example:

I was a computer enthusiast/lover/whatever since i was 5. I love doing all this, like most of you guys on b3d. Tinkering is not a problem for me at all, it was part of the fun for decades for me. If you LOVE everything about computers, nothing's a problem. It intrigues you, it's no hassle, it's fun and educational at the same time. God knows how much I spent on hardware over the years...

But...

As I got older, something happened and I started enjoying more focused experiences over something like an ocean of options at every second you have on pc. Browser is just a click away, you can do whatever you want all the time.

I found myself preferring control system, performance, options like gsync/freesync and everything similar on pc and yet I spent very small amount of time actually playing anything.

On consoles it is completely opposite - I see that a lot of things are a compromise, but I still enjoy just playng a game in that focused mode and and enjoying it for what it is without much thinking. And I started preferring controller over itme, too. All the buttons under my fingers, I can do everything without looking and in very comfortable position on an armchair, sofa or whatever.

There's nothing rational about it, but it is true - pc experience started becoming "too much" for me to enjoy it.

And with age, I compeltely changed my view on sitting at the desk and doing things, even with best chair with all the options which is not uncomfortable at all. It is just not wanted anymore, not something I could ever LOVE doing, even if it is the best way to do some things.

And as a consequence, I started to see my tech enthusiasm shifting to TV technology and everything around it. OLED tv is a next big thig for me, I'd rather play anything on it than on a 360hz monitor which is objectively better for gaming.

I wonder what changes in our brain to make this kind of a shift - you enjoy something to death and after a certain point you just can't be bothered anymore.

And this is how discussions should/could go, personal opinions on the platform. And as per your post, a throwback to the good old times, where the couch and TV where used.
Better like system wars like this than random useless numbers ranging from 120 million to 1 billion users etc etc.

I think all of this makes perfect sense, and I hear a lot of it from many on this forum, but I'm curious for those with families, especially kids, how you make this work?

For me PC gaming is perfect because I have the second screen connected to the PC in the lounge so that I can game while the family controls the TV (realistically I get very little gaming done before the kids go to bed). If I were restricted to using the family TV for gaming on a console, I'd basically never get to game at all. In fact I do have my PC connected to the lounge PC (a 55" OLED) and I pretty much never get to utilise it.

I realise you can always connect a monitor to a console as a second screen but then you lose some of the more valued aspects of console gaming and may as well just go with a PC anyway. Or you could have the console in a separate room, but unless you have two or more lounges then you have the same problem. And I don't really want to be sequestering myself away from the family to game anyway. We get little enough family time as it is.

That and so much more. For me its primary pc gaming because its versetile, upgradable, technically best versions and games from both MS/sony and pc games/indie games.

Slightly different than their forecast

And another diagram could show a totally different picture. List wars/number wars never end.