Obviously this was created long before Diablo III was released, but it’s still interesting nonetheless.
Also, this is definitely a lot more upscale of a discussion than my console vs pc comics.
Sorry, but at least with a console, I know that I won’t need to get new hardware to play new games (except in specific circumstances). I don’t want to spend that much time making sure that my computer is up to date.
Not to mention the fact that I have a laptop and not a desktop (not exactly gaming friendly).
That would depend entirely on your laptop.
Also, keeping your computer ‘up to date is not that hard
First step.. don’t buy the first POS you see, off the shelf.
research your stuff, and make an informed decision. Don’t know enough? get your techhead buddy to give you a hand (custom building is also good)
after that, if you are doing high-end gaming, you’ll want to upgrade your video card in 2-3 years, and replace the whole computer within 7-10, depending on tech growth and other factors.
A gaming laptop from 2009 is still capable of playing pretty much every single games released today. Due to 90% of them just being bad console ports. While they cost about 4 to 5 times as much as a console, you can also do more than just gaming on it and are portables. An equivalent gaming desktop computer would only cost about 3 times as much.
Another thing, you say you wont have to get new hardware to get new games…
nes ~> snes ~> n64 ~> game cube ~> wii
xbox ~> 360
ps` ~> ps2 ~> ps3
None of which can help with school work, job related needs and on the laptop front, none of these are portable, so a poor comparison.
desktops are cheaper than laptops, but Techguykal said it best. desktops, buy a good one early on, it does far more than gaming, but on gaming alone… new video card 2-4 years new computer 6-10. laptops probably every 4-5 years.
i personally use a laptop for all gaming so i don’t have to have a desktop, 5 consoles, and other things. this connects to TV’s, has dual screens, a real keyboard and mouse, and is mobile for gaming at school or on vacation when everyone else is asleep. and using it for work? now it’s a work expense, no gaming machine is.*except in rare circumstances*
The stats could not be more skewed here if they tried, which I’m sure they did.
Console gaming in the long run is cheaper and more user friendly. I bought my computer 2 years ago, a month before my PS3. Despite upgrading it, my PC cannot run Skyrim, Crysis 2, Battlefield 3, or most other high-end games from this year. My PS3 can. My PS3 cost my $280 used. My PC’s part totaled to $490.
There are advantages to both, one is not superior to the other. Period.
Just wanted to comment on how surprised I was when reading this comment about Skyrim.
I have an extremely old CPU, a Pentium 4 Prescott 2.8 Ghz that I bought about 7 years ago, even then it wasn’t nowhere near the top CPUs out there. I recently upgraded my video card to a cheap oldish (2010) GeForce 440 for less than 80 bucks, I also have 2 Gbs of ram (very poor for todays standards). With this setup I was extremely pleased to see Skyrim running at a comfortable 1920×1080 30 fps on open areas and 40-50 fps on closed spaces (most dungeons) with the highest settings possible, except antialiasing which I run on 2 or 0.
Even with this old pathetic CPU and overall poor stats computer all around, gets 3 fps on games like Saints Row and can never get more than 20 on Mass Effect or League of Legends (yes 10 fps on team fights) runs Skyrim incredibly well. For comparison, it runs Crysis on full settings 1080p at 20-30fps.
So I’m really curious what kind of 2 year old PC you have. My guess is that you should update your video card, there is a really good selection of cheap budget cards out there, it makes a big difference on a lot of games.
I think the key here is having the ability to open your computer and take parts in and out when you please, it’s scary at first, having to put a new cpu and all that, but then you realize how intuitive is the design of placing pieces on their respective places.
If you only spent $490 for your computer, yeah, you didn’t buy one for playing games. Not sure what upgrades you did, though, but a new graphics card (and probably a new PSU that can handle it) might help, though.
Here’s the thing, though… I’m not arguing that a PC isn’t more expensive than a console. It absolutely is. But most people own a PC anyway. If you add what you’d spend on a console to your PC budget, a gaming PC isn’t out of reach.
And whatever extra PC gamers spend on hardware, you’ll make it back on software pretty quick. Services like Steam are always offering incredible deals (I’m eying the L.A. Noire Complete Edition for $7.50 on Steam as I type this). New releases are often cheaper on PC, too. If I go to Walmart and want to buy Lego Batman 2, it’s what, $50? PC version is $27 right now.
So, while this is an interesting infographic, there’s clearly some pushing going on.
First up, the very first graph. It includes social network gaming? I don’t know anyone who considers those to be PC games. Those are more browser games than anything. Certainly not something the PC Gaming Master Race cares about.
Time spent on each… Great, though it’s not time spent playing games on each. Those eight hours could be spent browsing the Internet, using Skype, or doing any number of other things. The same is true for the other devices, but most people tend to use computers and not their consoles for such things when they have a choice.
I’d also like to see just what the hell kind of Wii game is going for $100.
I know for damn sure that PCs have a nonzero failure rate after two years, though the lack of a single brand makes it harder to track by far.
The entire “PC Gaming by the Numbers” section is not restricted only to PC gaming; it contains data from both PC and console gaming. The same is true of the “Video Game Industry Dominates in Popularity” section.
And lastly, comparing first-month sales of SC2 and Another Madden Game is downright silly. If sales for each specific month meant anything, then we could probably make an infographic about how console games dominate.
All in all, the data are interesting, but they really don’t paint the kind of picture the infographic is selling.
Think of the Rockband band sets and Collector Edition games.
For how the PC games are so cheap, consider Steam and Indie releases.
How in the flying hell is NCAA “tackleball” ’11 considered a best seller? And how can they compare THAT to the behemoth that is StarCraft II?
Why not look at some of the REAL best-sellers on consoles?
Couldn’t agree more that this is clearly skewed to prove a point. Several times actually
1st graph: Social games are included. Even flash games on websites are included. And two years are projected…
Time spent on a computer can include time working. What does that prove?
Price ranges on PC clearly include small indie games, but on Xbox for example clearly don’t include xbox live games to make things seems costlier.
Lack of reliability doesn’t include any credible sources for PC problems. Actually no data at all. Yet the statement on lack of reliability is there. Then we go into pc gaming where domination of online social games is clearly dominant.
And in the end the amazing conclusion on the many signs takes a single data point. One month where a long awaited sequel faced of to a backup game of a backup game.
Additional data point they didnt put up? Diablo III was the best selling video game in May 2012. “NPD also listed the top-selling games in May and said it was the first time since July 2010 that a PC-only game was a top seller for the month.”
Who was this July 2010 pc-game? You got it Starcraft.
This discussion about who is greater is ridiculous . But this graph is one of the most lopsided piece of advertising i’ve seen in some time. Either that or Ignite aren’t very good with numbers and accuracy
Troll graph is trolling.
And so the new console war as begun.
Who keeps making these? And who is thinks these stats are fair and not at all playing up PC gaming? While I bet the statistics being provided is truthful, the information provided is biased. These people who make these should go work for Fox News.
Starcraft 2 a PC exclusive game outsold NCAA Football for consoles, is that a fair comparison? How many copies of MW2 sold on the PC versus consoles on Nov 09, Or Black ops on Nov 10, Or MW3 Nov 11? Compare games that came out on Consoles and PC.
According to November 2010 NPD figures, the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 moved “nearly 170,000″. Lets compare that to ONE console on that month, the one that sold less copies of MW2, the PS3. According to NPD it sold 3.1 million. You want me to go on?
The GPU on PC’s are twice as powerful than 5 year old consoles? You dont say?
You seriously believe that spending more time playing games is a positive thing for PC gamers?
Game revenue on PC games is higher that consoles. I love the part where it says, “* Includes downloaded/boxed games downloaded in social networks, CASUAL GAME websites, MMO’s and other PC platforms.” Is that what all that GPU power is for, Farmville? While Im sure this info is probably correct, I believe the argument was as the title suggest, “PC gaming VS Console gaming”. Most people wouldn’t buy an Xbox 360, Wii or PS3 to play Mafia Wars. OK, Wii maybe, JK;)
“Percentage of gamer who pay to play online rises” 2004 to 2008 it more than doubles. Am I the only one who thinks about Xbox Live since the 360 released in 2005? Am I supposed to believe this is all MMO’s? C’mon!
Everything else seems OK. But I have something they might want to add to their “info”graphic.
How about a comparison of pirated games on PC versus consoles. Starcraft 2 might have sold much more than NCAA if it weren’t for the 3.12 million illegal downloads in 2010 (according to TorrentFreak).
Cute infographic, but there is a lot of weird bias going on with how the data is presented. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it’s a very strange way of arguing for PC gaming. (I also posted this on r/gaming, see website link)
Here are some things to consider when viewing the infographic (in order from top to bottom):
1. The “Game Revenues” chart includes casual game websites and games on social networking sites. Of all game platforms, games on social networking sites have experienced the largest growth over the past three years and greatly skews the result. In my opinion, social networks are platforms in themselves and should be positioned apart from pc gaming in the graph.
2a. When discussing GPU processing power, don’t let the number of Hz fool you. It depends a lot on the architecture of the GPU – If it can run two simultaneous processes at 500 MHz, would the result equal one process at 1 GHz, or would the net gain be greater? It all depends on the operations being performed.
2b. When comparing GPUs, which PC GPU is being referred to? My Macbook pro has a discrete AMD Radeon GPU working at 675 GHz, and the majority of both laptop and stationary PCs are entirely without a separate GPU and use integrated graphics processing that use the CPU for performance. (For instance; The “average” Dell Inspiron 620 Desktop with Intel HD graphics processes graphics at between 500-677 MHz)
3. “Time spent on each system” is a very strange measurement. The time spent on a PS3, XBOX360, or a Wii, is all dedicated to entertainment (including someone watching movies, etc), but on the PC that time is not dedicated time at all. Most of the time spent on game consoles is spent on actual gaming, while time spent on the PC includes anything from paying your bills and browsing Facebook to filing TPS report spreadsheets in a cubicle.
4. The “Consoles and Lack of Reliability” section doesn’t use PC statistics for comparison. My guess is that the failure rate of a PC system after two years is far greater than the console ones. – Especially when taking software problems into account (including reboots due to windows acting weird).
5. When regarding “The Future of PC Gaming”, comparing sales during a single month (a month with a huge PC release and a very poorly marketed console release) is misleading at best. “The best-selling console game” of all time is actually “Wii Sports” with a total of 38.93 million units sold in North America alone. That makes the best selling PC-game of all time seem a bit small in comparison (The Sims, 11.22 million units in North America).
So, be a tad skeptical, that’s all I’m saying.
TL;DR – The data displayed in the infographic says nothing about PC gaming versus console gaming.
Infographics are awful things. They always are, always will be.
I’m guessing the % of PCs failing within a year is way over the % consoles. Why is that not in the graphic when they are trying to prove a point of “unreliability”