Gaming-ready PCs could hit 90 million in 2007

by Justin Murray { Nov 30th 2006 at 12:55PM }

Forget the other guys, gaming PCs could be sitting pretty at around 90 million units by the end of 2007. According to IDC, an analyst group, Windows Vista is expected to obtain this mad install-base; the bulk of the installations are expected to be in home computers.

IDC expects out of those 90 million units that 67% will be Vista Basic and 30% will be Vista Premium (both private consumer versions). Vista requires the PC to have a semi-competent graphics processor, able to push DX9, just to function properly. This could mean the PC gaming market will enjoy more potential customers, especially among more graphically intense programs.

Since each Vista PC will have a DX9 capable card sitting in it, we can now understand the logic behind Microsoft's Games for Windows push. This could easily cut into the console market; people buy PCs for functions that consoles cannot perform (word processing, etc). If the PC can play games right out of the box, why buy the console -- where games now cost upwards of $20 more on average -- when the PC they buy at Best Buy does the job?

[Via FiringSquad]

Tags: Games for Windows, GamesForWindows, PC, Vista

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

ackmondual @ Nov 30th 2006 1:20PM

""If the PC can play games right out of the box, why buy the console -- where games now cost upwards of $20 more on average -- when the PC they buy at Best Buy does the job?""

First off, I wouldn't be surprised if consoles (at least M$'s consoles) also incorporate Office capability. Otherwise, Win Vista is still new. It'll take at least a year or maybe even 2 before PC users start migrating over to that OS. Until then, low end home users, the majority of PC users will still be using winXP with 64MB to 128MB of integrated graphics and 'Celery' processors.

The heck with winXP, last I checked in 2004, win2k is still favored in the corporate environment while some home users are still dragging their feet with win98 (the first edition!).

Console games cost $20 up on average? I think the editor meant to hit '5' on his numpad, missed, and hit '2' instead, b/c all console games I've noticed go for $50 (Wii) to $60 (PS3, 360) on average

crono141 @ Nov 30th 2006 1:22PM

20 more than their PC counterparts, is what they meant, I think. And all new PC's will begin shipping with vista installed, and since vista has stringent sys req. these PC's should at least be adequate for most PC games.

@ Nov 30th 2006 1:32PM

The thing with PC gaming is that it is never static; devs are always trying to push the limits and one up each other.

So, the next wave of 'Vista' games may be playable on those (estimated) 90 million Vista enabled PCs, but, devs. arent going to be happy to develop for the lowest common denominator forever and ever.. they will begin pushing the envelope again, and so, in a few years, things will be right back to where it is today where its beyond the reach of non-gaming PC consumers.

ackmondual @ Nov 30th 2006 1:58PM

Mack Swift @ Nov 30th 2006 1:59PM

What's been interesting about the 'Games for Windows' moniker is the asides various Microsoft execs have made concerning XBox Live, Games for Windows, and the other Microsoft Live services. While I don't see complete nicey-nice integration between all the connected Live platforms, I can see a few things making it over. The movie and TV show download service, and even cross-multiplayer capability. Game companies have bitched in the past about their free PC multiplayer servers and the money made from the M$ Live and Playstation Network services. There's no reason, given the closeness of M$ games and the Xbox dev platforms, that say multiplayer matches with the various Rainbow Six Vegas owners and the 2007 Vista only Gears of War release.

ackmondual @ Nov 30th 2006 2:00PM

sorry for the dup posts. Damnit, I've actually gotten 2 emails for the same post.

Spence @ Nov 30th 2006 2:02PM

...AND you can hook it up to your HDTV like I do. Half-Life 2 looks really sweet in HD

epobirs @ Nov 30th 2006 2:03PM

No, Vista does not require a DX9 capable GPU to run. Only certain non-critical display features have this need. There will be many, many systems, especially among corporate early adopters drawn to other new features, that will be getting along running Vista with an XP-style desktop look and feel.

As with integrated audio support, businesses will buy systems with the needed graphics functionality when it verges on free. Audio became a standard feature in business desktops when the cost was measured in nickels and dimes instead of tens of dollars. Intel is working towards giving adequate support for the Vista desktop niceties but these will fall far short of what most PC gamers regard as adequate video. Remember, a 256MB FX5200 that is complete dog for modern gaming makes Vista completely happy.

That the majority of early adopters will be non-business users is hardly surprising. Businesses naturally take a conservative approach to altering mission critical systems while home users are much more compelled by novelty. The only version of Windows since 3.0 to ever reverse this was Windows 2000, largely because it wasn't marketed through the primary venues for consumer PCs.

There has also been a long tradition is selling systems with grossly inadequate specs to businesses who don't realize the money saved on the hardware is far less than the productivity lost to poor operation. I recently dealt with a school district in which hundreds of Win2K and XP desktops had only 128MB of RAM. For what it cost them to pay us to explain to them why this was making these PCs so horribly slow, they could have just spent on having at least 256MB everywhere in the first place.

Why is a DX9 GPU equipped PC gaming ready and a lesser machine not? Zork runs fine on a original IBM 5150. Some of the bestselling games of recent years ran on very modest systems. The hardcore PC gamers are a tiny minority compared to the base that made 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire' one of the most profitable games ever produced.

In any case, the Games for Windows logo compliance has more to do with meeting requirements of behavior in the game's installation and other areas more than it does hardware strength.

Obvious @ Nov 30th 2006 2:06PM

#1, a good post... minor point of clarification, though: the author of the article said "$20 MORE [than PC titles] on average". :)

Aside from pushing a large number of gaming-capable machines, I don't think the PC gaming market can possibly replace the console market, and I say this for one reason: Since working in IT and tech support in my early days, one thing has remained consistent in the tech field (despite processor power increase, etc): people cannot take care of a complex system, and will not take the time to learn enough to keep their own systems running efficiently. I'd say that this simple fact is one of the best (only?) selling points of a dedicated gaming device.

jcmschwa @ Nov 30th 2006 2:14PM

Even in a couple years the first wave of Vista PCs should be able to play the games coming out then. Albeit not all games will look as beautiful as they do on the $3600 demo system at the store. But developers are getting better and better at programming their games for scalable graphics. Company of Heroes and Dawn of War: Dark Crusade are the two newest games I own. I'll throw out Dark Crusade because it's based on the DoW engine which is a couple of years old. However, Company of Heroes is extremely scalable. I play it on my amd x2 4600 with a geforce 7600gt on max settings against my friend who plays with an amd athlon xp 1700+ and the 256mb version of the radeon 9550. He could have played it with the geforce 4 ti 4200 he used to have but we both upgraded from geforce4 when Battlefield 2 came out. On that note, Battlefield 2 is not a good example of the direction developers should be going. They specifically coded the game not to work with pixel shader 1.1 (by throwing in a whole lot of redundant checks to your hardware, making emulation nearly impossible) which is what geforce4 supported. My friend's comp can even play the supreme commander multiplayer beta and that just came out.

What I'm basically saying is that computers have a longer lifespan than most people think, (3.5 years if you really want to push it) and the average consumer who buys a new PC in the next year and half that comes with Vista and one of these fancy-schmancy video cards probably won't be too concerned with whether he/she can play a game that comes in 2009 on the highest settings. I imagine he/she especially won't be concerned if the reason they bought the computer in the first place was to do home office type stuff.

Graphics don't make the game, they just enhance it. And a smart developer will create a optimize a game for scalability so as to appeal to a wider market.

crono141 @ Nov 30th 2006 2:17PM

A valid argument (for once). This was sorta discussed on here before. Vista gives your computer an overall performance index rating, and the "games for windows" can be stamped with a minimum rating, instead of a long list of system specs.

The other nice thing about PC games is their scalability. Most vista games can have a low detail setting that will run just fine on minimum vista sys reqs.

rjg @ Nov 30th 2006 2:24PM

'If the PC can play games right out of the box, why buy the console...'

Because I work on a computer for 8+ hours day and the last thing I want to do is play boring ass PC games on a 20" wide screen display. I will ALWAY choose the big tely (44"widescreen hd) plus the comfy couch + the more inviting to visitors to play option of a killer console.

plus pc games all suck.

crono141 @ Nov 30th 2006 2:39PM

"plus pc games all suck."

Everybody don their flame-retardant suits!

jayntampa @ Nov 30th 2006 2:40PM

Why buy a console? To play games on your TV. I happen to like kicking back on my couch and playing a game while my computer is off doing work -- transcoding, downloading, etc, etc. Plus, it's pretty anti-social to sit at a computer when my gf or friends are over ... I'd rather invest in a console where we can all play.

The reality is ... the console is where the PC is heading, I think. A single box that runs your TV & computing needs -- but it will be mass-produced, not like your towers of today where you can shove any of a thousand components into. That market will always exist, but I think at some point, you'll see consoles outputting 2 video signals ... one to a monitor for work, and one to the TV for entertainment.

J.Goodwin @ Nov 30th 2006 2:48PM

The only way you can get to 90 million is if you're only counting computers that can play The Sims.

I'd venture that there are fewer that 20 million Vista-ready PCs out there as of today, let alone Crysis-ready PCs.

Boing @ Nov 30th 2006 2:48PM

I have many gaming console both classic and current but nothing will every replace my PC. There's nothing like being able to simply Alt-Tab out of WoW and be able to look up something on Thottbot.com at the same time. try doing that with a console. Sure the PS3 and Xboxes can do hi definition..if you purchase an expensive new television. Meanwhile I've been doing 1280x1084 on my relatively inexpensive monitor for years. Yeah, consoles have had their advantages wit genres such as sports and fighting titles but since 360 controllers are now compatible wit PCs that will probably change soon as well.

ackmondual @ Nov 30th 2006 5:08PM

To all those who commented about the "$20 games", thanks. Yeah, i don't know how I missed the $20 _MORE_, but i did manage to do so.

@ #12
Well, if the HD isn't that important to you, I've seen plenty of ppl hook up their PC output to 80+ inch screens. It looks marvelous just having all that screen real estate even tho the res is only a meager XGA or even SVGA.

crono141 @ Nov 30th 2006 6:23PM

I've got a 32" LCD with VGA and DVI inputs. I plug my PC in through DVI. Its very nice.

I also have a DDL sound card going to my sony receiver over optical. Its pretty schweet.

farmok @ Dec 1st 2006 12:01AM

Here is what I see. With microsoft releasing more and more x-box perifs for the pc (webcam, controller, hd dvd drive), I think that they are slowly moving away from consoles and instead getting pc's to the point of consoles. Microsoft has predominantly been a softward company and through x-box have engineered a great backbone system for a unified online network (Live!) and with Vista having standards for the pc manufacturers to meet, why should microsoft stay in the consol business. They have other manufacture the hardware to their specs, and I'm sure microsoft will still gain some royalties from developers. I think when it comes to consoles, it may not be as profitable as they would like it to be, especialy when trying to deliver next gen horsepower.

Autocrawler @ Dec 1st 2006 12:29AM

The only reason why the consoles are so popular is simply because the average Joe customer can't be bothered to RTFM. PCs are far superior for gaming otherwise. And stop saying that PC gaming is not compatible with socializing. Ever heard of "LAN parties"? Yes, it requires more effort but its easily worth it.
Finally, as the previous posters have already noted: you can easily connect your gaming rig to a HDTV and play games sitting on a couch. Once again, just RTFM.