5 ms·
Actually, PC gaming is one of the biggest overlooked markets in the industry. If you account for all available sources of revenue then the market is incredibly
by talmand 14y ago
Actually, PC gaming is one of the biggest overlooked markets in the industry. If you account for all available sources of revenue then the market is incredibly large; it's just that some people who tally numbers only count boxes sold over the counter.
Almost every computer sold today with AMD or Intel CPUs have a decent video card built in. It's true they won't run the latest and greatest in high quality graphical games but I bet they'll run 90% or more of the games available on Steam just fine and most of the rest with reduced settings that will match the quality of the consoles. Granted, there are exceptions to this.
Most games that are ports of console games are done cheaply because of lack of focus or budget, not because of hardware. There are several franchises out there that make a ton of cash if made for and marketed to the PC market correctly. Most publishers don't bother with PC gaming any more because they no longer understand the market. What consoles are today is what PC gaming was five to ten years ago and they still get that, it's easy. PC gaming today is different and the expectations are different. Companies like Valve that understand the difference are the people making money. When the expectations of the console market catch up with PCs (possibly the next generation) then the current publishers better adapt quick or they'll suffer.
Most of the larger computer makers have been marketing "game" PCs for years but there have no standard configurations because different customers want different things. I, for one, feel that's to the consumer's advantage but it does require a knowledgeable salesman that help make decisions.
Your thought of an Ubuntu box with Steam is interesting but I can't see it happening any time soon, they need many, many more games to run on Linux for it to happen. It would be interesting if they did though.
If Valve went this direction it would help fix the biggest problem PC gaming has ever had, Microsoft.
- krakensden 14y ago> Almost every computer sold today with AMD or Intel CPUs That's really only been true since Sandy Bridge though. Before that, Intel's GPUs were... bad.. Real bad.
- sp332 14y agotalmand said CPU, not GPU. Almost every PC sold with an Intel CPU has a capable AMD/ATI or nvidia GPU.
- talmand 14y agoActually, he's rather correct. You may be speaking of systems that come with a discrete video card from AMD or Nvidia. We're speaking of integrated video cards that are part of the system. AMD and Intel integrates into their CPUs while Nvidia integrates into their motherboards. If you wanted/needed a integrated card then you went with AMD or Nvidia solutions because they used older discrete card technology, Intel's were just horrible. Intel's integrated GPUs have always been lackluster when it came to 3D games. Their original intent was a cheap solution for laptops and very cheap computers. Game developers have been pushing them for years to make a decent integrated card that could support DX9 decently to be considered a low-end standard. It wasn't until for the past year or two that they got something decent out there. EDIT: when I say Intel wanted a cheap solution I'm meaning something that provided for decent 2D and video performance that wouldn't kill the laptop battery in five minutes. For desktops they were intended for cheap office computers running Word and Excel. Hardware acceleration for 3D never seemed to be of much concern because it wasn't intended for gaming.
- commandar 14y agoWell, he did say today; Sandy Bridge has been on the market for 18 months and Ivy Bridge ups the performance ante even further. AMD's APUs are better still in terms of integrated graphics performance.
- talmand 14y agoHe's right in that Intel had horrible stuff, but you're also right in that I mean if you purchased something off the shelf right now then chances are it'll do decent enough for most gaming requirements. It just may not be pretty. But I also think this is somewhat true for the last two years or so, especially if you consider AMD and Nvidia solutions with their integrated video chipsets.
- duskwuff 14y agoAnd it's not true of either company in general, either. AMD's lower-end APU chips do have integrated graphics, but their higher-end CPUs do not. Similarly, Intel's Sandy Bridge-E (LGA2011) chips do not have integrated graphics either.
- talmand 14y agoWhich makes total sense. AMD would rather you buy a more expensive discrete GPU if you purchased a higher end CPU. But that's just good marketing since the people buying those high end CPUs probably don't have much of an issue with buying a video card as well. Intel doesn't care if you buy a discrete card since they don't chase that market but it does care to have the marketing bullet point. Intel's lower end chips may not have a GPU built in but I would imagine that's intended for a market where it doesn't matter. But I'm still willing to bet that almost all computers sold today have a decent video card in them. I can see my statement as it was is a bit much since I was implying that all AMD and Intel CPUs have GPUs built-in, which obviously they do not. But I'm sticking by my thought that almost all computers sold today would have a decent video card in them. All of them may not be able to play the latest and greatest games but they can go a long way with the rest. To me, in today's market, if the computer doesn't have a decent video card then it was built for a specific function in mind and gaming is more than likely irrelevant.