Introduction
So the PC game is out. We all know what I'm referring to, so I won't go into detail, but it's something that likely-all PC gamers are clamouring for. People bought new rigs, bots beeped-and-booped in their droves to scoop up Ampere GPU stock so that other people can buy from them at, countless marketing materials were made, all for this game's high-end PC version. Whilst this game is the driving factor for this thread, this is not a thread about that game, as I want to point more towards a general theme throughout the PC gaming community. This isn't exactly new, after all.
Essentially, I think it points towards a phenomena that I've seen too much of in recent years; that is how high-end PC gaming is viewed as being more significant, and therefore more viable for the general consumer, than it actually is. This, I feel, leads to more FOMO from those without high-end PCs and more elitism from those who do own them; it stymies the discourse in general, really. It also, in the case of the aforementioned game, leads to reviews and impressions that are altogether not indicative of the type of experience that the majority of people will actually be having. Seeing as how many gamers seem to care so much about the 'sanctity of review scores', I feel that the latter is something especially necessary to point out.
Plum Foundry PC GPU Analysis: Unexpected Results???
Now, I wouldn't make this argument if I didn't have at least some data to back me up. That's why I decided to do some, albeit basic, statistical analysis on the only real indicator of 'what PCs PC Gamers have'; the Steam Hardware Survey. I took Cyberpunk 2077's 'Recommended GPU' (the 1060) and looked at the percentage numbers of GPUs that were equivalent to, or more powerful than, that GPU; including the 1060 itself, of course. Since a PC gamer without Steam is rarer than a Unicorn, I used Steam's 'total active userbase' of 90 million to determine a rough estimate for the total amount of 'PC Gamers' there are. I then simply worked out roughly how many GPUs of that type exist in the wild. To account for the likely-many statistical errors of my method, I also added an extra 25% of GPUs in a seperate one.
Some disclaimers before I start:
- There are likely a few GPUs I'm missing, but their market share is too small to really be considered viable. If not please say so and I'll add them to the table; I ain't trying to be unfair here lol (though many are likely thinking that...)
- I am basing this purely on what is considered 'high-end' at this time, for modern games. There are many GPUs capable of running games from earlier this generation at 'high-end' settings
- Of course this doesn't reference any other components that have a significant impact on game performance. However, since CPUs are still working with games intended to run on 2013 Jaguars, and games made purely for SSDs aren't being released yet (though they are coming), I figured that it wasn't really necessary.
- The Steam hardware survey I used is not 100% up-to-date, so it doesn't include the 3070 for example
Now, here's the raw data of what I found:
What to take away from this? Well:
- Even with an incredibly generous bonus, only 50% of Steam's active userbase will have a mid-to-high-end GPU. If you remove that bonus then it moves down to nearly a 3rd.
- The total number of PC gamers with these GPUs amounts to approximately the same amount of people who own Xbox Ones
- If you discount people running on OSs other than Windows then that number is lower
- Adoption of any resolutions higher than 1080p is incredibly small relative to how many
- Only around 25%/33% of PC Gamers own graphics cards that are decidedly more powerful than the 1060
- GPUs capable of ray-tracing barely reach Wii U numbers, and if you discount the 2060/2060S whose RTX capabilities simply aren't that great then that number only grows lower
Now, of course, these numbers are only for what is happening right now; when Ampere GPUs finally get into stock then the 'bar' will shift for sure. However, these stock issues are seemingly going to last a while, and even when they do adoption will most assuredly be slow. Similarly, it seems that this same dynamic is common in the PC gaming community; a few years ago it was the 970 that took the 1060's place, and before that it was the 770. There will seemingly always be a card that is the 'baseline' for mid-to-high-end PC gaming, with cards more powerful dropping drastically in total market share.
So, what does this mean?
So, what does this mean?
Well, it means to me at least that the type of PC gaming that is often portrayed as being 'what PC gaming is like' is, in fact, not the type of PC gaming that the majority of PC gamers actually experience. Things such as RTX, higher-than-1080p-at-60fps gaming, and even simple 1080p/60fps on current-gen games are either not available at all, or not available in a serious way, for most PC gamers.
This, I feel, leads to a bit of a strange dichotomy when it comes to the PC gaming space. Outlets such as Digital Foundry, despite doing incredible work, almost entirely focus on this minority of PC gamers; with the 1060 being considered their 'lowest bound' of hardware that they test. The same goes for others such as Linus Tech Tips, who make a living on hyping up the latest high-end GPUs. The representation of the majority is, if not non-existent, very rare, and it seems to be the same wherever you look.
So, in essence, this all creates a sense of 'unrealistic expectations' when it comes to PC gaming. It paints games such as Control, Flight Simulator, etc as being better on 'PC Gaming in General' than they actually are.
But why is this 'bad'? Well, it's not 'bad'; this isn't the end of the world. However, to answer that question I'd look at FOMO and marketing. FOMO because, unless you're willing to spend a lot of money, you are in all likelihood not going to be getting the experience that the PC gaming community shows you'll be having. It makes it harder to appreciate what you do have, and what your own PC (or console, or potential PC) can do, because there's always 'something' more to buy, upgrade, etc. It shifts the rhetoric surrounding PC gaming into one that is less realistic as to what PC gaming can do for most people, and as someone who's personally suffered from said FOMO and anxiety I feel that it can have a definite impact on mental health.
Marketing because, well, it's misleading. A game shown and reviewed exclusively on 2080-or-higher graphics cards is being marketed and reviewed with an experience that most people won't have. In a world where 'bullshots' is a term and gamers constantly question/harass reviewers based on how 'objective' they may-or-may-not-be, I feel that such a thing should be a bigger deal. But it isn't, for some reason. Perhaps because, unlike 'bullshots', high-end PC gaming is something that people actually can obtain; so to say that we "shouldn't focus on that' is to imply that the monetary investment into high-end PC gaming is not as worthy of attention.
So, yeah. What do you think, Era? Do you agree, disagree, or have another opinion? What are your experiences with this sort of thing? Comment below and don't forget to like, subscribe, and smash that bell for notifactions on future Plum threads.
So the PC game is out. We all know what I'm referring to, so I won't go into detail, but it's something that likely-all PC gamers are clamouring for. People bought new rigs, bots beeped-and-booped in their droves to scoop up Ampere GPU stock so that other people can buy from them at, countless marketing materials were made, all for this game's high-end PC version. Whilst this game is the driving factor for this thread, this is not a thread about that game, as I want to point more towards a general theme throughout the PC gaming community. This isn't exactly new, after all.
Essentially, I think it points towards a phenomena that I've seen too much of in recent years; that is how high-end PC gaming is viewed as being more significant, and therefore more viable for the general consumer, than it actually is. This, I feel, leads to more FOMO from those without high-end PCs and more elitism from those who do own them; it stymies the discourse in general, really. It also, in the case of the aforementioned game, leads to reviews and impressions that are altogether not indicative of the type of experience that the majority of people will actually be having. Seeing as how many gamers seem to care so much about the 'sanctity of review scores', I feel that the latter is something especially necessary to point out.
Plum Foundry PC GPU Analysis: Unexpected Results???
Now, I wouldn't make this argument if I didn't have at least some data to back me up. That's why I decided to do some, albeit basic, statistical analysis on the only real indicator of 'what PCs PC Gamers have'; the Steam Hardware Survey. I took Cyberpunk 2077's 'Recommended GPU' (the 1060) and looked at the percentage numbers of GPUs that were equivalent to, or more powerful than, that GPU; including the 1060 itself, of course. Since a PC gamer without Steam is rarer than a Unicorn, I used Steam's 'total active userbase' of 90 million to determine a rough estimate for the total amount of 'PC Gamers' there are. I then simply worked out roughly how many GPUs of that type exist in the wild. To account for the likely-many statistical errors of my method, I also added an extra 25% of GPUs in a seperate one.
Some disclaimers before I start:
- There are likely a few GPUs I'm missing, but their market share is too small to really be considered viable. If not please say so and I'll add them to the table; I ain't trying to be unfair here lol (though many are likely thinking that...)
- I am basing this purely on what is considered 'high-end' at this time, for modern games. There are many GPUs capable of running games from earlier this generation at 'high-end' settings
- Of course this doesn't reference any other components that have a significant impact on game performance. However, since CPUs are still working with games intended to run on 2013 Jaguars, and games made purely for SSDs aren't being released yet (though they are coming), I figured that it wasn't really necessary.
- The Steam hardware survey I used is not 100% up-to-date, so it doesn't include the 3070 for example
Now, here's the raw data of what I found:
What to take away from this? Well:
- Even with an incredibly generous bonus, only 50% of Steam's active userbase will have a mid-to-high-end GPU. If you remove that bonus then it moves down to nearly a 3rd.
- The total number of PC gamers with these GPUs amounts to approximately the same amount of people who own Xbox Ones
- If you discount people running on OSs other than Windows then that number is lower
- Adoption of any resolutions higher than 1080p is incredibly small relative to how many
- Only around 25%/33% of PC Gamers own graphics cards that are decidedly more powerful than the 1060
- GPUs capable of ray-tracing barely reach Wii U numbers, and if you discount the 2060/2060S whose RTX capabilities simply aren't that great then that number only grows lower
Now, of course, these numbers are only for what is happening right now; when Ampere GPUs finally get into stock then the 'bar' will shift for sure. However, these stock issues are seemingly going to last a while, and even when they do adoption will most assuredly be slow. Similarly, it seems that this same dynamic is common in the PC gaming community; a few years ago it was the 970 that took the 1060's place, and before that it was the 770. There will seemingly always be a card that is the 'baseline' for mid-to-high-end PC gaming, with cards more powerful dropping drastically in total market share.
So, what does this mean?
So, what does this mean?
Well, it means to me at least that the type of PC gaming that is often portrayed as being 'what PC gaming is like' is, in fact, not the type of PC gaming that the majority of PC gamers actually experience. Things such as RTX, higher-than-1080p-at-60fps gaming, and even simple 1080p/60fps on current-gen games are either not available at all, or not available in a serious way, for most PC gamers.
This, I feel, leads to a bit of a strange dichotomy when it comes to the PC gaming space. Outlets such as Digital Foundry, despite doing incredible work, almost entirely focus on this minority of PC gamers; with the 1060 being considered their 'lowest bound' of hardware that they test. The same goes for others such as Linus Tech Tips, who make a living on hyping up the latest high-end GPUs. The representation of the majority is, if not non-existent, very rare, and it seems to be the same wherever you look.
So, in essence, this all creates a sense of 'unrealistic expectations' when it comes to PC gaming. It paints games such as Control, Flight Simulator, etc as being better on 'PC Gaming in General' than they actually are.
But why is this 'bad'? Well, it's not 'bad'; this isn't the end of the world. However, to answer that question I'd look at FOMO and marketing. FOMO because, unless you're willing to spend a lot of money, you are in all likelihood not going to be getting the experience that the PC gaming community shows you'll be having. It makes it harder to appreciate what you do have, and what your own PC (or console, or potential PC) can do, because there's always 'something' more to buy, upgrade, etc. It shifts the rhetoric surrounding PC gaming into one that is less realistic as to what PC gaming can do for most people, and as someone who's personally suffered from said FOMO and anxiety I feel that it can have a definite impact on mental health.
Marketing because, well, it's misleading. A game shown and reviewed exclusively on 2080-or-higher graphics cards is being marketed and reviewed with an experience that most people won't have. In a world where 'bullshots' is a term and gamers constantly question/harass reviewers based on how 'objective' they may-or-may-not-be, I feel that such a thing should be a bigger deal. But it isn't, for some reason. Perhaps because, unlike 'bullshots', high-end PC gaming is something that people actually can obtain; so to say that we "shouldn't focus on that' is to imply that the monetary investment into high-end PC gaming is not as worthy of attention.
So, yeah. What do you think, Era? Do you agree, disagree, or have another opinion? What are your experiences with this sort of thing? Comment below and don't forget to like, subscribe, and smash that bell for notifactions on future Plum threads.
