Very little of the sales of mainstram PCs were taken into account.

If you actually saw the article you would know this is NOT the case.

Why can't people understand the point of this article? It's pretty straight forward, not rocket science poeple. 

26% is fairly significant, but that's not what the guy was asking, so why did you feel the need to point that out? He asked if his PC purchase counted. I told him yes.

Honestly, none of this really matters since most of the study is behind a pay wall. The most important question is how many people constitute each population (manstream, performance, enthusiast). I'm sure the full study has at least an estimate for each group, but unless someone is willing to pay $7,500-$25,000 for the report and share it, we'll never know.

And I said it counts very little, seeing as that the performance/enthusiast sales still beat out the console hardware figures. I was informing him that while it counts, it's still relatively small compared to the performance/enthusiast sales.

To make PC elitists feel even more superior over console gamers lol?

Idk, I know tons of people love saying that us PC gamers are "elitist" and like to show we are superior or whatever, but a lot of the people here love telling PC fans that they are "niche" and that games shouldn't be optomised for their platform. It goes both ways.

It's not hard to feel somewhat elitist when you read some of the responses from people here that clearly do not understand the article :-p

This

Its funny people always said PC is dying but when all new hardware released in the last 4 years was shit that was"over priced" and suffered from the artificially slowed down technology evolution it just would have been a waste of money. Games were held back by antiquated console technology so noone had a reason to buy new hardware.  (other than people that always want to have the newest hardware no matter the cost)

I mean when your 2008 gaming PC can play modern games why buy new hardware in 2009-13? (I almost bought the I5 2500k but then thought "nah next year something better will come out" man how wrong I was... nothing happend since then. And even reasonably priced GPUs get a small horse power increase these days compared to pre 2009.

The last reason gamers had to upgrade was Crysis in 2007 and thats 7 years ago.


Now thanks to PS4 and XBO people finally have a reason to upgrade but the problem is it wont last long since even a 2012 gaming PC can compete with PS4 and XBO in terms of power.

I will also upgrade my 2008/9 PC in 2015/16. Was going to upgrade this year but nothing changed on the hardware front since PS4 and XBO lack games.
So I bought preowned 2009 PC for 100€. It has an i5 750 that I oced to 4ghz it will do the job and the system allows me to play everythning I tested at 1080p on HIGH/Ultra with 50-60fps. Be it sleeping Dogs or Skyrim or TombRaider I just cant turn on AA (I can with UnrealEngine3 games tho) and shadows are on medium and TombRaiders TressFX kills my system but other than that I am happy.

Whether you think it counts very little or astronomically is besides the point. The point was whether his PC purchase counted toward the study figures. It does. That's the only answer he was looking for. Why is this so difficult for you?

And if you were trying to convey that information to him, why didn't you quote his original post instead of my post that answered his question?

Well you have to a buy a new one every year to run the lastest games and it costs $2000 no fuckin shit it makes more revenue.

I'm kidding.