Can it be that Desktops become 'Obsolete' for the average user?

[MOSFAT]

I am a Desktop enthusiast who's been building and modifying desktops since the 8600 GT era (2007-08). Ever since the emergence of cloud gaming I've been thinking about this, even tried it myself on a chrome book and the concept is very cool. I mean it has a very low entry barrier ($200 chrome book and monthly fees ranging from $10 to $30) compared to a $1000 desktop system. Also it consumes less local electricity + it's like watching a movie, it doesn't even stress the chrome book hardware wise, it remains cool in temperature, etc etc but even me with a decent (not great) fiber internet (200MBps) I could notice some hiccups here and there due to connection loss, so it's not perfect. 

 

But let's say it becomes 'perfect'. Latency problems are eliminated, packet losses gone, etc would this make the Desktop PC obsolete for the average user? I know companies would probably still have use for large super computers and servers, but what about for gamers for example? The average home user like me. 

 

Now to my opinion, I don't wish for Desktops to go obsolete. I really love customizing them and having something tangible and that I own myself, and not rent a machine on the cloud.. but I wish to discuss this with you and hear different opinions. 

[Birblover12]

21 minutes ago, MOSFAT said:

But let's say it becomes 'perfect'. Latency problems are eliminated, packet losses gone, etc would this make the Desktop PC obsolete for the average user? I know companies would probably still have use for large super computers and servers, but what about for gamers for example? The average home user like me. 

I think the main issue is that it likely won't ever be "perfect", at least not for a decade or two. It's just a limitation of internet speeds, resolutions, etc. If Fiber internet becomes the norm and you can get it for super cheap, then maybe it'd be half decent. There's also the fact, that gaming locally will ALWAYS have less latency, that will never change. It's just a matter of cable distance (4 feet compared to thousands of feet of cable) and the distance data has to be sent over. Game Streaming has gotten good about reducing latency, but it's still rough around the edges.

 

I think that there's the issue that most game streaming services don't include every single title on the market. If I want to play some obscure game made 10 years ago, chances are it won't be supported on most big game streaming services. However, I absolutely can on a local PC. This could be solved by a rentable virtual PC, but they're costly and have similar issues to game streaming services. Geforce Now seems to be the best in this regard, but it's still far from perfect, much like its competition.

 

I will say, that I love game streaming and how far it's gotten thus far, the sheer fact that I can play modern AAA+ titles at high FPS on a $300 PC is astonishing, though it'll be a while before it becomes good enough to become equivalent to using a desktop normally.

[thrasher_565]

cloud gaming is the future. but like you said most people will need fiber or something.  witch we are no ware close to that. people still dont have internet... wich will be a thing same as phones. well most people all ready rent there games like on steam. and now you can play console games on pc so that most likely wont last. but there also a problem of how many subs can a minimum wage work afford.  they all ready pay rent, heat, hydro, garbage, phone, internet, food and other's like car / gas. living on your own and making minimum wage is a hard thing to do.

 

having a desktop pc is kind a hobby still. most people upgrade not because they need it but want too.

 

ether the cost of living will take a way moeny used to buy things so your left with less or you work harder...

[Coolmaster]

I think Desktops are already going obsolete, their sales having been decreasing year over year. Most people just need a computer that can run a browser, which laptops can do perfectly fine and have the benefit of being portable and can use a dock to connect to desktop peripherals. And 90% of gamers are perfectly fine using a console. It's only really people who need the very best performance who need desktops, and a lot of professionals with intense applications have the heavy computing running on a company server.

 

[porina]

2 hours ago, Coolmaster said:

And 90% of gamers are perfectly fine using a console.

For another thread I recently tried looking up relative sizes of the higher end gaming market. It wont be exact but based on Steam Hardware Survey, I estimate ray tracing capable monthly active Steam users may be bigger than PS5 or current gen Xbox lifetime sales. If you include non-RT capable PC gamers, it would be a LOT higher. As such I don't think it is even close to 90% of gamers would be happy with only using current gen consoles.

 

Back to this thread though, I only looked at PC gaming in general. It isn't easy to separate desktop from laptops, so those numbers would certainly include gaming laptops too.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

I am a Desktop enthusiast who's been building and modifying desktops since the 8600 GT era (2007-08).

I've been using desktops since desktops existed. XT's with 8088's, Tandy 1000's. C64's, Apple II's.

 

The only significant paradigm shift that has happened was business-use from desktop to laptop, and from laptop to tablet/phone for business/web/video couch-potato'ing.

 

However desktops will not be replaced. Laptops are always garbage for gaming. ALWAYS. Manufacturers obsession with thin-and-light means thin-and-loud, or thin-and-hot, or thin-and-slow. None are good to game on.

 

I'd actually make the argument that Laptops will be replaced by Tablets because a tablet can be better engineered to be silent, cool and performant, and last all day on a battery, where as a Laptop does none of those. If you need anything more powerful than a tablet, you go back to a desktop.

 

 

5 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

Ever since the emergence of cloud gaming I've been thinking about this, even tried it myself on a chrome book and the concept is very cool.

Cloud gaming is miserable if you don't live next door to the data center it's run out of.  It works for some games that do not require accurate timing. But anything you've had to smash buttons on, it's miserable for.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

But let's say it becomes 'perfect'. Latency problems are eliminated, packet losses gone, etc would this make the Desktop PC obsolete for the average user?

Latency problems can not be eliminated because that would be defying the laws of physics. If you have more than 8ms of latency (basically if the data center is more than 50 miles from your location) your round trip latency becomes greater than that of the refresh rate of the computer screen and the input timing loop.

 

So for a turn-based MMORPG like SWTOR, WoW, Final Fantasy XIV, you might luck out and be able to play the game without much penalty, because the game client to server processing is really only like 2-4 times per second. But something that is action based (think Mario Party or Dark Souls) that latency gap is far too wide to be playable and instead relies on trickery inside the game client to be smooth and playable while still only sending a minimum number of packets over the wire.

 

 

5 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

 

I know companies would probably still have use for large super computers and servers, but what about for gamers for example? The average home user like me. 

I think people who play games for a living will still own desktops. No sane person would try to stream from just a cell phone, and nobody would watch a grainy video of some poor dude playing a handheld that you can barely see the screen of.

 

What will most likely happen is that people in major cities (by which I mean NYC, LA, Toronto, Vancouver, London, and Paris) will have their own data centers that will permit "cloud gaming" that is region-locked much in the same way people are region locked for IRL sports games. If you are from "Vancouver" and your buddy is in "Toronto", you never get to play together on the cloud service. You can only do so with a desktop with non-cloud game. If you happen to live in Calgary, sucks to be you, no cloud gaming for you.  That lock-in will be there to keep the actual RTT latency to nearly zero so everyone can play fair.

 

5 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

Now to my opinion, I don't wish for Desktops to go obsolete. I really love customizing them and having something tangible and that I own myself, and not rent a machine on the cloud.. but I wish to discuss this with you and hear different opinions. 

 

Seeing the blowback against Netflix/Disney+/etc and Twitch/Youtube with ISP's wanting to double/triple-dip on bandwidth charges, might ultimately throw cold water on cloud gaming. Nobody will do cloud gaming if they have to pay for bandwidth, and nobody will watch binge-watch Netflix/Youtube without unmetered bandwidth. You just can't rely on your ISP to not suck enough.

 

In fact, I would be willing to bet some of this faux-web3 push might actually result in some games being developed without any microtransaction BS that go back to the traditional client-server/P2P model. But that will only be games (think original Warcraft II/Starcraft) that you'd enjoy by having the players in the same room in the first place. 

 

[dilpickle]

Desktops became obsolete for the average user a LONG time ago. 

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

But let's say it becomes 'perfect'. Latency problems are eliminated

This is impossible as it would break the laws of physics. The speed of light is not infinite.

10 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

would this make the Desktop PC obsolete for the average user? I know companies would probably still have use for large super computers and servers, but what about for gamers for example? The average home user like me

People have been saying this would happen since the early 2000s and it still hasn't. Famously Steve Jobs declared the personal computer dead when presenting the iPad, needless to say he was quite wrong (or more likely intentionally lying). Prebuilt desktop sales have decreased but the DIY market is bigger than ever, particularly for games and workstation use. The reality is that it's simply impossible to make a laptop that is as good as a desktop in the same hardware generation. For a lot of people one computer is plenty and they'll just get a laptop so they can carry it around, however if you run any heavy workloads you'll ALSO want a desktop. I agree with @Kisaithat, if anything, laptops as we know them risk extinction as tablets and convertibles become increasingly capable of running everyday tasks for the average user.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

10 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

I am a Desktop enthusiast who's been building and modifying desktops since the 8600 GT era (2007-08). Ever since the emergence of cloud gaming I've been thinking about this, even tried it myself on a chrome book and the concept is very cool. I mean it has a very low entry barrier ($200 chrome book and monthly fees ranging from $10 to $30) compared to a $1000 desktop system. Also it consumes less local electricity + it's like watching a movie, it doesn't even stress the chrome book hardware wise, it remains cool in temperature, etc etc but even me with a decent (not great) fiber internet (200MBps) I could notice some hiccups here and there due to connection loss, so it's not perfect. 

 

But let's say it becomes 'perfect'. Latency problems are eliminated, packet losses gone, etc would this make the Desktop PC obsolete for the average user? I know companies would probably still have use for large super computers and servers, but what about for gamers for example? The average home user like me. 

 

Now to my opinion, I don't wish for Desktops to go obsolete. I really love customizing them and having something tangible and that I own myself, and not rent a machine on the cloud.. but I wish to discuss this with you and hear different opinions. 

I don't think so. Even with 10gb up/down internet, there would still be latency. Especially for Esports gamers etc. even a tiny bit of latency is a nono

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

10 hours ago, Coolmaster said:

I think Desktops are already going obsolete, their sales having been decreasing year over year. Most people just need a computer that can run a browser, which laptops can do perfectly fine and have the benefit of being portable and can use a dock to connect to desktop peripherals. And 90% of gamers are perfectly fine using a console. It's only really people who need the very best performance who need desktops, and a lot of professionals with intense applications have the heavy computing running on a company server.

 

I don't think this is true at all. Desktop gaming use is higher than ever. Even young kids (think like the 12-14 demo) are all wanting to build custom rigs now 

 

My brother is in this demographic FWIW and is building one this Christmas. All his buddies are too, and they aren't you stereotypical "nerds" or whatever. All play football etc. It really has gone mainstream since COVID

[Just that Mario]

Title should be "desktop gaming" not "desktops" in general. Also an "average user" doesn't game and already uses a mobile device.

[Heliian]

Statistically speaking, we'll all be mobile gaming by next year.  

 

 

[Arika]

5 hours ago, ShawtyT30beTHICCC said:

I don't think so. Even with 10gb up/down internet, there would still be latency. Especially for Esports gamers etc. even a tiny bit of latency is a nono

There will always be latency when streaming regardless, bandwidth doesn't change that. 

 

Look at local streaming solutions, steam in home streaming, moonlight, parsec etc. Even when the 2 PCs are on the same network not even using the internet, There is enough of a delay to feel it. You get used to it pretty quick, but it's still there so you would be disadvantaged against anyone playing normally. 

[crazzp]

8 hours ago, ShawtyT30beTHICCC said:

Even young kids (think like the 12-14 demo) are all wanting to build custom rigs now 

I beg to differ. I teach in a school and kids these days are glued to their phones playing games. Many rarely touch a keyboard. Yes there are some niche 1 or 2 kids who custom builds PC but those are pretty rare. There are way more mobile gamers than desktop gamers and it's projected to increase even more over the years.

[Deadpool2onBlu-Ray]

16 minutes ago, crazzp said:

I beg to differ. I teach in a school and kids these days are glued to their phones playing games. Many rarely touch a keyboard. Yes there are some niche 1 or 2 kids who custom builds PC but those are pretty rare. There are way more mobile gamers than desktop gamers and it's projected to increase even more over the years.

Mobile games are a joke. They are just playing on their phones because they can't bring their console/pc to class

[wasab]

2 minutes ago, ShawtyT30beTHICCC said:

Mobile games are a joke. They are just playing on their phones because they can't bring their console/pc to class

Except you don’t realize mobile games far exceed desktop and console in revenues and players. My age 50+ parents won’t be playing grand theft auto but they will definitely waste hours on candy crush saga on their iPhone.

[igormp]

17 hours ago, porina said:

It wont be exact but based on Steam Hardware Survey, I estimate ray tracing capable monthly active Steam users may be bigger than PS5 or current gen Xbox lifetime sales.

How did you infer that? iirc, steam never provided actual numbers other than percentages.

[Blademaster91]

8 minutes ago, wasab said:

Except you don’t realize mobile games far exceed desktop and console in revenues and players. My age 50+ parents won’t be playing grand theft auto but they will definitely waste hours on candy crush saga on their iPhone.

Thats only because mobile games are either full of loot boxes, or have gacha mechanics, and mobile games are more accessible to people because downloading the game is usually free or cheap. Also a phone is something most people already have, and can be cheaper than buying a console with a online subscription.

[Blademaster91]

20 hours ago, MOSFAT said:

I am a Desktop enthusiast who's been building and modifying desktops since the 8600 GT era (2007-08). Ever since the emergence of cloud gaming I've been thinking about this, even tried it myself on a chrome book and the concept is very cool. I mean it has a very low entry barrier ($200 chrome book and monthly fees ranging from $10 to $30) compared to a $1000 desktop system. Also it consumes less local electricity + it's like watching a movie, it doesn't even stress the chrome book hardware wise, it remains cool in temperature, etc etc but even me with a decent (not great) fiber internet (200MBps) I could notice some hiccups here and there due to connection loss, so it's not perfect. 

 

But let's say it becomes 'perfect'. Latency problems are eliminated, packet losses gone, etc would this make the Desktop PC obsolete for the average user? I know companies would probably still have use for large super computers and servers, but what about for gamers for example? The average home user like me. 

 

Now to my opinion, I don't wish for Desktops to go obsolete. I really love customizing them and having something tangible and that I own myself, and not rent a machine on the cloud.. but I wish to discuss this with you and hear different opinions. 

I think a chromebook can be enough for some people, but the limitation is going to be internet speeds, and most people don't have fast enough internet for cloud gaming. Another issue is bandwidth caps and throttling, a lot of people aren't going to be able to stream games if the ISP is going to throttle their download speed while streaming a game. And an issue I have is game streaming is its yet another subscription, I like owning my own desktop and games.

[wasab]

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Thats only because mobile games are either full of loot boxes, or have gacha mechanics, and mobile games are more accessible to people because downloading the game is usually free or cheap. Also a phone is something most people already have, and can be cheaper than buying a console with a online subscription.

By this logic, browser flash games should be up there with mobile games as well but they do not. These factors might be correlation but not causations. iPhones do not cost any less than your Xbox or ps4 but iOS gamers easily outnumber either and outspend either. Play for free and pay to win is also the most profitable monetization model nowadays as well and it isn’t exclusive to mobile titles. You can have whales playing Genshin Impact dropping 10k a month on the in games purchase. They won’t be doing that playing Skyrim and Witcher 3.

[TetraSky]

Considering the price of a GPU, I'm starting to wonder if I'm not better off buying a Steam Deck, honestly.

 

[porina]

19 minutes ago, igormp said:

How did you infer that? iirc, steam never provided actual numbers other than percentages.

I forgot where I found it, but there are other sites somehow giving that number. If it is accurate or not, is unknown. I also wonder what the definition of monthly active is. Just signing into steam in the last month? Which may count those who auto-start it but not necessarily use it.

 

Also there is https://store.steampowered.com/charts/ which is a snapshot of online players. So again how many clients may be running, but not necessarily gaming. I don't generally leave clients running if I'm not actually using it, so I wouldn't necessarily be counted in those stats for example.

 

Recent peak numbers at link above is ~28M users. Again, this doesn't necessarily represent all users who may sign in infrequently. The number I saw on other site for monthly active was around 3x to 4x that, so it doesn't seem too way out.

[YellowJersey]

I'd say desktops are already obsolete for average users. You don't need anything more than a basic laptop unless you're doing something that requires significant power (serious gaming, video editing, etc).

[wseaton]

Desktop gaming is almost entirely driven by the GPU. Nobody builds a gaming rig to use integrated graphics. 

 

As long as desktop gaming requires GPUs that require several hundred watts the desktop will be the most optimum platform for housing it.

 

Gaming laptops have always been a joke and a waste of money.

[igormp]

1 hour ago, porina said:

I forgot where I found it, but there are other sites somehow giving that number. If it is accurate or not, is unknown. I also wonder what the definition of monthly active is. Just signing into steam in the last month? Which may count those who auto-start it but not necessarily use it.

 

Also there is https://store.steampowered.com/charts/ which is a snapshot of online players. So again how many clients may be running, but not necessarily gaming. I don't generally leave clients running if I'm not actually using it, so I wouldn't necessarily be counted in those stats for example.

 

Recent peak numbers at link above is ~28M users. Again, this doesn't necessarily represent all users who may sign in infrequently. The number I saw on other site for monthly active was around 3x to 4x that, so it doesn't seem too way out.

Well, given that you mention 28M, and the PS5 apparently sold 25M units, I guess your previous affirmation was kinda inaccurate, or am I missing something? Even at 3~4x that it wouldn't that accurate (too lazy to check on that percentage of ray-tracing enabled systems I gave you in other thread, so I might be wrong lol)