latest steam survey:
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
When the Gpu's prices will go down ?
- Thread starter sys6em
- Start date
Yep. Same here. Was thinking 4080/4070 but when I saw the stupid prices I just got a used 3080 Ti for £575 and I am glad I did. Both Nvidia and AMD have been an epic fail this generation imo. Only card worth having is the 4090 and they want silly moneys for it. They can keep it.
I wonder what's with their March figures?
Highest RT capable card, the RTC 3060, is all over the place:
Feb 4.36%
Mar 10.67%
Apr 4.66%
May 4.90%
Jun 4.74%
Obviously, March was a glitch (and since the royal should always be 100%, some other cards must have been underrepresented) but things like that make wonder about their methodology. Or whether they even vet their own figures as such a huge glitch should have raised alarm bells.
Soldato
It was pointed out (and I mentioned it back then). The error also made intel look like they had massive gains when after the blip it resorted back to normality.
Last edited:
And this survey is exactly the reason why Devs don't care about pc AAA games.
I suspect they do vet their own figures as otherwise they'd never catch issues, it's just they publish the figures as is and try to get around to fixing issues for next month.
As for their *methodology it's about as sound as any other survey, they poll a random 1k, 5k, or however many users and extrapolate that out to their entire user base.
*It would help if they published what their exact methodology is but from what i remember the how they do it has been pieced together from various interviews so their exact methodology is a bit of an unknown.
e: Personally i wouldn't use it for an accurate reflection of number of units, as in a wouldn't take the total amount of Steam users and divide it by 3.67% and say i know how many 4070's or whatever are being used. I'd use it more to look at long term trends and big swings, like are people moving away from 1080p in any great numbers or is it more of a slow trickle, is the 4070 selling like hot cakes and seeing +1% month on month increase or is it only seeing 0.1% increases.
Last edited:
Yes, that is that the figures seem to imply. At the stage they noticed something was wrong in their survey for March it was too late to get another survey going so they just published it. And like the often quoted JPR surveys I guess they don't say anything to draw attention to any issues.
They actually care so much most of the big publishers nowdays have PC as their lead platform and even Sony is begging for some scraps.
You mean like how Witcher 3 and cyberpunk turned out?
Both were downgraded from trailers, if pc was truly the lead platform then why were they still released like they did?
Caporegime
Because the devs probably expected better PC hardware at release than what we actually get.
This is why we got Crysis barely two years after the Xbox 360 launched because of cards such as the 8800GT.
Last edited:
Soldato
8800GT was a very good card for the money, I think I paid a bit over 300 for 2 of them. But Crysis was too demanding at the time even for higher end cards, I wasn't all that fond of the game either. I much preferred Half Life 2 and even that had its moments where the frame rate could dip a bit with hardware of the time.But could the 8800GT run crysis though?
I'm not a fan of a game that doesn't run very well at release on decent hardware, why would you want to wait 2-3 years or whatever to be able to play it at high ish frame rates? I don't know how well Crysis scaled with the different settings, probably didn't mess around with it all that long to find out.
But now instead of having well performing cards for decent money, we get (at least some) well performing cards for stupid money.
Caporegime
But could the 8800GT run crysis though?
The 8800GT was a chad card. The RTX4060/RX7600 are the wimpy great grand children who identify as an etch a sketch.
It was almost an 8800GTX for a fraction of the price. In today's market it would be like the RTX4060TI being under £400 and being almost the speed of an RTX3090TI.
Soldato
Why did you not reference AMD being part of the reason/problem there @CAT-THE-FIFTH ? Are you going to fetch some graphs to compensate us? 
I think you'll find it was poorly optimised by lazy devs.
Associate
I'd love to know what hardware they developed it on and what the max framerate they achieved with everything on max settings.I think you'll find it was poorly optimised by lazy devs.
Then they thought, we'll come back in 10 years and see where we are
The worst versions by far of those two games are the console ones. One of them was so bad it got delisted from the console store
.It's just shows consoles are simply an afterthought for developers.
Last edited:
Eh, yes the consoles were worse, but the PC version was still downgraded.The worst versions by far of those two games are the console ones. One of them was so bad it got delisted from the console store
It's just shows consoles are simply an afterthought for developers.
If the PC was lead platform then why would they downgrade it?
Man of Honour
You're not. Not by a long chalk. I have spare money for toys. The issue is what I perceive as an acceptable value for money. I could pay the current prices, all the way up to dual 4090s with exotic cooling and an extra couple of hundred pounds for a couple of pounds worth of LEDs because it's fashionable innit. But I won't be a mug for either AMD or nvidia (or LEDs). I'm looking in the £600 region, but nothing around there looks like value for money to me. Maybe a 6950XT, but it's not enough value for money for me to click the buy button. Maybe the 7800XT will be less bad or cheaper than expected and I'll buy that. But probably not. I expect it to be £600 and worse than the 6950XT. I've looked at getting a 6750XT as an interim card, but close to £400 for a midrange last gen card as an interim card doesn't cut it for me. It's not enough value for money. That's the gaming graphics card market in a nutshell - not enough value for money. Except maybe at the entry level. There are some cards suitable for 1080 resolution that are OK value for money IMO.
Sales of graphics cards continue to decline and are at the lowest since records began and that includes sales of cards for uses other than gaming. The last time sales of graphics cards were this low was last century.
But neither nvidia nor AMD care. They're not interested in selling graphics cards to gamers. It's easier to sell graphics cards at much higher profit margins to businesses. AI looks like having more legs as a market for graphics cards than crypto did. The holy grail for selling graphics cards is the "professional" market, which for some reason will accept vastly more profiteering than any other. It costs the manufacturer about the same to get a "Pro" card to a customer as it does to get a comparable non-"Pro" card to a customer. Maybe as much as $50 more cost per card, but they can charge at least 6 or 7 times as much and the "professional" market will suck it up. Take a card that would have a good profit margin at $500. Option 1 is sell it at $500. Option 2 is sell the same card at $800 for crypto, AI, whatever. Option 3 is to add maybe as much $50 of cost, stick a "Pro" label on it and sell it for $4000. The only scenario in which nvidia or AMD is going to choose option 1 is if they have no choice, if they can't sell cards under options 3 and 2. Which isn't the case. So selling cards to gamers is the bottom of the list for either company and they don't care if their cards are overpriced and selling very badly to gamers. They can catch same whales and some people who are desperate and that will do for them. Their main market is elsewhere. Gaming is now more about advertising than sales for nvidia and AMD. I think it would be the same for Intel if they had a competitive product. Which they might do by some time next year, maybe.
Last edited:
Not disagreeing with your overall premise but, and this probably makes it worse, AMD don't have much demand for their professional cards so for them there's less opportunity to not choose option 1. Also the reason the professional markets are willing to pay so much is because the thing they're buying makes more money than it cost.
Last edited: