backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by Breakfast Suse.. on Jun 12 at 4:57 PM


The iPad is still the most popular tablet on the market by far
Tablet market will continue to grow at the same time

Gartner says that the growth in the PC market in 2011 will slow to 9.3%, which is lower than the previously predicted 10.5% growth. The total number of computers predicted to ship this year is 385 million. Part of the reason growth in the market is slowing according to Gartner is that there are fewer compelling reasons for the consumer to upgrade their computer today. The company also predicts that there will be few direct replacements of PCs with tablets. The tablet is expected to be a complementary device to a computer.

"Consumer mobile PCs are no longer driving growth, because of sharply declining consumer interest in mini-notebooks. Mini-notebook shipments have noticeably contracted over the last several quarters, and this has substantially reduced overall mobile PC unit growth," said Ranjit Atwal, research director at Gartner. "Media tablets, such as the iPad, have also impacted mobile growth, but more because they have caused consumers to delay new mobile PC purchases rather than directly replacing aging mobile PCs with media tablets. We believe direct substitution of media tablets for mobile PCs will be minimal."

Gartner predicts that over the next 18 months, PC growth will be supported by healthy replacement in the professional markets. Many of these professional users have been holding onto existing computers in the face of the sagging economy. "Businesses sharply reduced replacements and extended PC lifetimes in response to the recession," said Raphael Vasquez, research analyst at Gartner. "Businesses have begun replacing aging PCs more vigorously. We expect the growing urgency for businesses to migrate away from Windows XP will drive significant professional replacements."

The tablet market is continuing to grow with very robust sales of tablets like the iPad. The iPad is in such high demand that Apple is having a hard time keeping up with the demand and some users are willing to go to extreme measures to purchase one. Android tablets are also increasing in popularity and Windows tablets are starting to hit the market with capabilities more like a notebook than Android tablets or the iPad.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hm
By michael2k on 6/8/2011 11:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Battlefield2 only sold 2.25m copies. Why would Battlefield3 move enough to register PC sales?


RE: Hm
By StevoLincolnite on 6/9/2011 12:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Battlefield2 only sold 2.25m copies. Why would Battlefield3 move enough to register PC sales?


Because from a graphical stand point, it's set to be the next Crysis.

Gamers make up such a small portion though...
Most build their own machines or get a mate to do it, and once they have the machine up and running they just upgrade core components.
Hence they usually aren't counted in sales projections.


RE: Hm
By KoolAidMan1 on 6/9/2011 4:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because from a graphical stand point, it's set to be the next Crysis.


This isn't encouraging. :) Crysis didn't sell well at all since it didn't run well with cranked settings on even the best hardware for a long time.

In many ways Crysis was actually the tipping point that slowed down graphical enhancements in PC games. It made clear that people weren't spending tons of money on very expensive upgrades every year or so like they had in the late 90s and early-2000s. Combine this with the lowered ceiling for visuals that more popular console platforms brought about, and increased production budgets for AAA titles (those high quality assets and massive worlds aren't cheap to produce), and the result is a slower evolution for the moment.

A game certainly can't be counted on to drive the sales of expensive hardware. What we are seeing though is hardware catching up to a point where a lot of it will be able to run games like RAGE and BF3 well, but it will be a good amount of affordable hardware able to do this, not just bleeding edge.

Right now we're at a point where display size is more important than the games themselves. I'm currently gaming on a 2650x1440 display, but if I was on a normal 1080p monitor I could certainly dial back on my graphics cards without sacrificing any visual fidelity.


RE: Hm
By TSS on 6/9/2011 9:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
Crysis is a bad comparison (not to mention that engine has always run sloppy). "BF3 is the new CoD4" would be more accurate.

Though considering the advantages BF3 has over MW3 (free stat service, destructability, larger enviroments, better looking enviroments, vehicles *including jet fighters*, just as good a single player story with better battlefield MP gameplay, better animations, better sound (that new sound system is amazing), it would be even more accurate to say "BF3 is the new BF1942".

BF1942 was a culture shock. We went from closed space infantry battles in Q3, UT and HL to expansive enviroments where you could fly a plane just as well as walk around and shoot people. The first time i played that game i saw a zero and a hurricane collide head on with eachother in mid air. I stood and watched in awe from a FPS perspective and knew it was the future. Right before said wreckages hit me on the head. I honestly had not expected wreckages to have collision. I hadn't even expected wreckages.

BF3 will be the same thing, the new standard all future games will reference to. IMO first thing i'm going to do when i have the game is start a local game, bring some C4 and take a skyscraper down!

The only down side to this game for me is that it's 64 players tops. Yes it is absolutely amazing to do what they do with 64 players, i agree. But the only time i've actually felt inside a war was in planetside, in a 200vs250vs250 player battle. And that was years ago. Surely it must be possible by now to get atleast ~150 players in the same battle? I'd be willing to accept BF2 era graphics for that no problem.


RE: Hm
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2011 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
BF 1942 was amazing for its time. It had a certain charm to it that really hasn't been repeated since. It had semi-realistic player characters with a bit of humor to them (remember the shifty-eyes?), it had semi-realistic weaponry but not quite totally realistic and it had over-the top gameplay that was based off of real vehicles and aircraft yet, sacrificed complete realism for fun.

Yes, it was fun. It was a lot of fun actually. So much so that I played it as much, if not more than Quake 3/Rocket Arena 3 at the time. It was just pure entertainment. Then there was Desert Combat and the Vietnam Mod (forget the name) that came out.

Great memories. Then Battlefield 2 happened. It started to lean more towards realism. It put stuff in it like--you had to play more to earn weapons. It to me at least, became less fun and more like a chore. It lost its charm. It did have pretty graphics though. Despite them, I still found Desert Combat to be more entertaining than BF 2.

So when I look at Battlefield 3... I worry. It looks GREAT--but, I really don't care that it looks so good. I stopped caring about improvement in graphics back in 2007. I'm fine with where they are at right now. What bothers me is... will they sacrifice gameplay in the name of graphics? So far I don't think they will. Will they sacrifice fun in the name of realism? I'm not sure yet. You see, if I want realism, I can play Armed Assault--which is fun, but, I really have decided I could care less for realism in an FPS.

I fly flight simulators for realism--simulators like Rise of Flight which is absolutely amazing and a pleasure to fly. I get to relive Red Baron from 1991 with far more realism and fluidity of flight than ever before. An FPS though, I want to take out stress, I want to frag people online. I want to see guts and explosions.

So, I play Team Fortress 2. Not realistic at all but lots of fun.

We're at a crossroads right now. Do we push graphics to the limits again (like I'm seeing at E3), or do we focus on making games fun again. I vote for fun. I hope (and wish) developers will do the same.


RE: Hm
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2011 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're at a crossroads right now. Do we push graphics to the limits again (like I'm seeing at E3), or do we focus on making games fun again. I vote for fun. I hope (and wish) developers will do the same.


NO! I absolutely refute your assertion that it has to be one or the other or there is a "crossroads". We can have BOTH fun games with amazing graphics. Mostly we already do!


RE: Hm
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2011 3:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, mainly I must admit I'm lazy right now and do not want to spend the time, nor money to upgrade my machine. I do it all by hand so anytime I upgrade I lose about 8 - 10 hours out of my weekend (I do it right, I'm not lazy and just format, I do full on ports... haven't formatted in 12 years at least).

So, in the spirit of lazyness *raises a glass* I toast to better gameplay.

We do need better gameplay regardless, though.

But, as you point out:

quote:
We can have BOTH fun games with amazing graphics. Mostly we already do!


We already do have amazing graphics. I'm content with them right now for many years to come.


RE: Hm
By inighthawki on 6/9/2011 12:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Because BF3 not only looks 10x better, but the BF series is now far more well known, especially after the huge success of BC2 on PC.


RE: Hm
By michael2k on 6/9/2011 12:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
You think that there will be over 10m PCs purchased in 2011 due to Battlefield 3 or something?


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki