| Soundwave said: What's the 2nd highest used GPU on Steam? A GTX 1650? That's "high end hardware"? |
You have literally shifted the goal post for the umpteenth time. Stop with the logical fallacies, it's getting super embarrassing at this point.
Heck. Whenever have I made the baseless assertion that the majority of GPU's are high-end on Steam?
The GTX 1650 was mid-range hardware but has depreciated at this point as it's several generations removed now, it can still outperform the RTX 2050 however, that extra 80GB/s of bandwidth makes a difference you know?
| Soundwave said: Graphics whores are a minority part of the audience, it is showing in SALES DATA. Just because people buy new consoles and GPUs doesn't mean there's a 1:1 correlation to "these people must love graphics like I do" ... no actually there's a lot of different factors in play. |
Again, the majority of PC gamers have hardware that vastly exceed the Switch 2.0.
I have provided the evidence on this already, meaning that statement is a lie.
However, the vast majority of PC gamers aren't chasing 4k ultra settings, they are just chasing better visuals than what you will get with your console, it's that simple.
| Soundwave said: Lots of people buy PC hardware for work/hobby/investment purposes first for example, lots of people bought PCs for crypto, lots of people want to be social media influencers and buy modern PCs to be able to edit videos, other people work in fields like computer animation, etc. etc. etc. They also then may justify the purchase by also saying "well I can also game on this rig too, cool". |
People who are represented in the Steam statistics are gamers. It's a gaming platform, not a crypto platform, not a social media platform, not a video editing platform.
The fact those same systems can perform those extra, additional tasks is a net-positive, not a net-negative like you falsely paint.
You are trying to shift the goal post yet again with another blatant misrepresentation of PC gaming using ZERO facts and evidence.
Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed about your lies that have been proven wrong at this point?
| Soundwave said: People are not buying games like Alan Wake II, Unreal Engine 5 showcases like Immortals Of Aveum, Sensua's Saga, Avatar, shit even on PS5 Square-Enix can't even get people interested in next-gen only Final Fantasy games including a remake of one of the most popular games ever made. When we are seeing market trends like this it is fair to surmise there is a complexity of things happening on the market, it's not as simple as "I like this that means everyone also must". |
There are many games that are selling extremely well that aren't those franchises you listed.
| Soundwave said: That is also a laughable dumb POV that gets throw around here a lot "well I only game with 16GB+! Well I need this level of performance! Well I only game at XYZ resolution! No one must play at 30 fps because I! Nintendo should have used $700 worth of components for the Switch in my opinion!" ... like that has no relevance to wide market discussion whatsoever. I'm interested in what the actual market trends are, how they are changing, the dynamics of budgets in relation to that and the future of the business ... I don't give two shits about random individuals on the internet and their individual gaming fetishes as if that is some super important issue, least of all when they are niche part of the audience to begin with. |
Stop shifting the goal post.
No one in this thread has asserted that the Switch 2.0 needs more than 16GB of Ram and $700 worth of components, that is your baseless lie, not ours.
You need to actually stop with these logical fallacies.
| Soundwave said: In a discussion about broad market trends and the overall industry, 3-4 people constantly trying to insert their own personal gaming fetishes and preferences is irrelevant and frankly stupid that the entire discussion has to always revolve around the preferences of a handful of people. I'm not interested in what settings you like to game at or what you need as a gamer, it has nothing of value to add to the conversation if we're talking the overall market, where the industry is trending, how massively rising budgets are impact the business, what strategies companies like Nintendo, Sony, MS, Valve may pursue in the future, etc. etc. etc. |
I own all gaming platforms, you need to come to terms with that.
I am also able to give credit where credit is due and provide criticism of platforms also when it is due.
And Nintendo having low-end hardware is a valid and relevant criticism.
I am a consumer first and foremost... And I want more hardware for my dollar, to argue otherwise is anti-consumer and a detriment, not a positive to all consumers.
If you want to be spoon fed whatever, then that is your prerogative, I won't hold that against you.
| Soundwave said: Again my point is the majority of those people are not like "you" guys (the 3-4 people that flood every thread with their personal preferences. I know it may be shocking but not everyone buys hardware for the same reason as you, nor does owning a PC = graphics driven gamer enthusiast). The sales of games that are banking hard on being sold on graphics primarily are showing shockingly low sales. Even for games that are critically acclaimed or have significant marketing behind them. Now maybe we could discuss that and not "well I can only enjoy games if it's like this" ... like it adds nothing of value to a market wide discussion. |
Tears of the Kingdom sold less than Breath of the Wild, the direct sequel using the same out-dated technology.
By your argument, the lower sales shouldn't have occurred, because it wasn't chasing graphics?
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
