Why do you guys bother with PC gaming?

[taltamir]

I am not yelling. I am highlighing key points you keep ignoring.

I am not ignoring, I answer them explicitly.

(1) Forrester Research Inc. predicted in a report that desktop-computer sales will decline to 18.2 million in 2015

Good for them.

Consumer PC shipments declined by 4.4% during the first quarter of this year compared with last year

(3) Gartner: Western Europe PC market declines 11% in Q3 2011
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1847115

That is a first... Ok, I concede that point. But you still base a wrong assumption on it (you assume total amount of PCs is decreasing rather then market saturation)... and then you base a second wrong point upon the first wrong point (assume PC gaming is declining based on that). And a third wrong point tangential (you have been using the change in marketshare which included whole new devices s an indication until now, not actual change in sales figures). So at least I got you thinking on the right track.

[qoute](4) Desktop discrete GPU sales are barely growing for AMD or Nvidia and even overall discrete GPU sales aren't doing great. [/quote]
Market saturation.. I have yet to see a card that justifies upgrading my GTX260 and keep in mind that those older cards do not poof out of existance. Even a shrinking market (lower amount of sales) in reusable non perishables is an indication of growth as each sale that isn't meant to replace a broken unit is a slight increase in the percentage of the population who owns such a non perishable.

Laptops are growing faster in total sales period, hardly anything to do with penetration.

BS, you are saying that if 90% of people had a laptop already sales would be identical? That people would throw away their slightly older but perfectly fine laptops to buy new ones?
Market penetration is HUGE! It caused the RAM crisis with DDR2 that brought low one of the only 5 makers in the world and threatened to bring low others before DD3 came about. There are simply only so many people who need to buy something that doesn't break regularly.

It's not that people are throwing desktop in the trash, they are just not replacing older desktops as before.

When that older desktop is a quad core intel core2 w/4GB of RAM there is little reason for them to.
And replacing older hardware is EXACTLY what throwing it in the trash means. You take your old PC, you throw it in the trash (if its relatively new-ish you might sell it second hand... might) and then buy a new one.

No it can't be. Every day people are purchasing new electronic devices. Why are more people not choosing to buy desktops? You can't make the market saturation argument because people still replace their older laptops/tablets and smartphones

You don't get it, a lot of those sales are for people who own a desktop and never ever owned a latoptop before. And when they buy it they now own both a laptop and a desktop.
If 10% of the owners buy a replacement every year, and 90% of the people own a desktop. 9% of the total population buys a new desktop as a replacement for an old one. the 10% remaining will have a very small portion of it relent and finally buy their first desktop.
If 1% owns a tablet then 0.1% buys one as a replacement for an older tablet... the rest of the growth is some arbitrary amount from the 99% that don't own and never owned a tablet buying their first ever tablet.

This is what market saturation means. When everyone (who might be interested and not a luddite) owns one the only sales you have are replacements. Those are stable.

So what? That only proves that the growth is not coming in the desktop space, which means developers and publishers will focus on fastest growing market segments, not on stagnating segments.

That is ridiculous. tablets might be growing the fastest, but the market for a tablet game (all tablet owners) vs a desktop game (all desktop owners) is well less then 1/10th the size. It is insanity to develop as you claim. It requires developing falling for the hype and not realizing market penetration plays a role.

 

[nsavop]

Sorry taltamir edited without quote and fixed link.

What your not comprehending is today's laptops are full blown desktop replacements, and your average household is buying laptops to do exactly that. For the average typical pc user who needs web, email, social media, office etc... there isnt a reason to keep that outdated desktop anymore.

All the short comings laptops used to have (hdd space, heavy, no mobile broadband, expensive) are no longer there, which is why your average user has no need for a desktop anymore and thus replacing them with light, ultra portable, powerful and affordable notebooks.

Check out these pc segment sales projections particularly the chart on 1.1.

 

[taltamir]

@nsavop:
Your quote function is broken as heck
Your link is broken and doesn't work.
Please fix your post

 

[nsavop]

@nsavop:
Your quote function is broken as heck
Your link is broken and doesn't work.
Please fix your post

fixed previous post

 

[taltamir]

Check out these pc segment sales projections particularly the chart on 1.1.

Baseless guesswork. Not in any way more valid then these projections showing the opposite:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-pc-console-sales-battlefield-3-bf3-pc-gaming,13499.html

 

[taltamir]

Check out these pc segment sales projections particularly the chart on 1.1.

This has nothing to do with games, it only discusses desktop shipments as a whole... and compares server PCs to home PCs.

Also projections are inaccurate guesswork. Not in any way more valid then these projections showing the opposite:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-pc-console-sales-battlefield-3-bf3-pc-gaming,13499.html

 

[GaiaHunter]

Sorry taltamir edited without quote and fixed link.

What your not comprehending is today's laptops are full blown desktop replacements, and your average household is buying laptops to do exactly that. For the average typical pc user who needs web, email, social media, office etc... there isnt a reason to keep that outdated desktop anymore.

All the short comings laptops used to have (hdd space, heavy, no mobile broadband, expensive) are no longer there, which is why your average user has no need for a desktop anymore and thus replacing them with light, ultra portable, powerful and affordable notebooks.

Check out these pc segment sales projections particularly the chart on 1.1.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

So what do these 2 show?

Show Desktop PC still growing (project a slight decline between 2008-2011 but project a slight increase 2015). Shows that desktop PC sell more today than 10 years ago. Shows that for many years desktop PC outsold mobile PC/tablets/pads and in recent years these mobile devices started to outsell desktop PCs (and I would say especially in more developed countries, although they only show US data where mobile outsell PCs by much more, where the desktop base is already larger).

And then look at today laptops/notebooks - they can do basically everything a desktop can do with the exception of a few more resource intensive tasks and gaming. So yeah, those laptops can be used as desktop replacements, but those desktops weren't gaming machines either.

And with the advent of APUs, with increasingly more powerful iGPUs, those machines are getting better equipped for gaming.

 

[slayernine]

Fuck piracy, tbh. It's not cool.

I have nothing against piracy. If a game justifies the cost it deserves my money. I have over 200 games purchased through Steam and countless discs long forgotten. I also have a couple terabytes of pirated games, including ones that I have legitimately purchased. I've saved myself a lot of wasted money by pirating a game before I purchase it. Example: Dead Island was a terrible game but was advertised everywhere and the trailer for it was beautiful. The actual game looks like ass and in general managed to be wildly inferior to the status quo for zombie survival FPS games.

To summarize, I stand by the fact that on average people will spend what money they allocate to their gaming budget regardless of piracy. Some people purchase more games but this is often because they have a larger budget to do so.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

One word: Steam. I can buy games like like dungeon defenders and super meat boy if I'm in the mood for indie, or pick up borderlands for $5 where the cheapest for 360 is going to be $20 used.

 

[blastingcap]

You guys are arguing over very coarse statistics and thus are wasting your time. You'd like all PCs were made equal or something, the way you guys are carrying on and on about market share and volume of units shipped, etc.

There is a big diff between a top of the line gaming rig and Aunt Sally's no-frill baseline PC.

Furthermore, number of units shipped says nothing about the average revenue per gamer.

Revenue per gamer doesn't tell you the number or type of games purchased per user on average (e.g., a bunch of $5 PopCap games would equal a single BF3 in revenue).

Without knowing that, it's hard to say exactly how things will shake out hardware wise and for PC gaming. It may well be the case that daughtercard GPU cards have seen their best days already, as we get an APU future where graphics ability is more modest, except for weirdos who want to game on 3 monitors. The Steam Survey hints that most PC "gamers" are running old hardware and playing less-demanding games.

AMD and NVDA have already thought about these things. Is it any surprised why NVDA is pushing stuff like PhysX and 3D NV Surround, and AMD is pushing EyeFinity? Those are technologies that currently can't be replicated by consoles, except for 3D (to an extent). Nobody is gonna buy 3 TVs anytime soon, especially 3 3D TVs. And consoles do not have the strength to crunch extremely highly detailed physics simulations during real gameplay like a pair of top-end NVDA cards can.

But AMD/NVDA have to face reality. Graphics are "good enough" for many people as it is. Many gamers rightfully care more about storyline, music, etc. than graphics. Graphics alone aren't enough to sell games--just ask Microsoft and Sony about how Wii blindsided them.

Nevertheless, I think PC gaming will persist for decades because of special advantages relative to consoles: PC gaming's stronghold centers around moddability, special modes like EyeFinity, and the the keyboard and mouse. (Note I am not including PhysX. Strong PhysX-capable systems are rare; you would need $200+ GPUs for that. They also don't seem to add much to gameplay experience most of the time. The faked physics seen in console and most PC games are "good enough" for many people.)

Due to console input device limitations, stuff like RTS (StarCraft II, Total War series, etc.) games pretty much HAVE to be on PC. To some extent it's easier to play MMORPGs, FPS, strategy, and RPG games on PC as well. There is no reason why consoles can't ship with something precise like mice as standard, but realistically I don't see that happening. Console makers continue to make joypads standard and the only other input devices they seem to care about are kinetic like Wii/Kinect/Move, to tap into the much larger "casual gamer" crowd. Their attitude is probably something like: Screw the comparatively small hardcore gamer crowd, they just pirate our games anyway, cry some more.

Anyway what I said in my previous post in this thread still stands. It used to be that you got PC gaming almost for free as part of a desktop computer purchase (just add a video card), but now the tables have turned: most people have TVs as sunk costs, so you get console gaming almost for free. Yes the software costs differ (variable cost, as I noted before), but I am assuming that most people don't buy dozens of games per year. Plus consoles are way more user friendly and have their own joypad-related strongholds (MarioKart, Wii/Kinect/Move sensors, etc.). I've seen people play Rock Band at parties on consoles; I don't think I've ever seen them play something like that on a computer.

So just chill out, PC and console gaming will coexist for quite a while longer. Consoles could resemble HTPCs more and more over time anyway... where does a console end and PC begin? A current-gen Xbox is sort of like a PC as it is, after all, to say nothing of the future.

 

[taltamir]

There is a big diff between a top of the line gaming rig and Aunt Sally's no-frill baseline PC.

My mom and accountant don't even grasp the concept of a video game. The only thing holding their machines back from outperforming an xbox360 by an oder of magnitude is the fact they use an IGP. I knew this lawyer who also doesn't know anything but got scammed into buying a machine with a top of a line video card to go with her top of the line everything else.

Unless aunt sally is poor she is going to want a fast computer, nobody likes waiting for their email to load. And even if poor... Poor people in the USA still own a car, big screen TV, and their own house.

Budget builds are more liable to come from those who understand a 1000$ computer isn't 2x better than a 500$ one (with careful component selection... it can be 20x better if you are sold a p4 single core with 512MB of ram... which I have seen at that price range)

 

[GaiaHunter]

You guys are arguing over very coarse statistics and thus are wasting your time. You'd like all PCs were made equal or something, the way you guys are carrying on and on about market share and volume of units shipped, etc.

There is a big diff between a top of the line gaming rig and Aunt Sally's no-frill baseline PC.

Furthermore, number of units shipped says nothing about the average revenue per gamer.

Revenue per gamer doesn't tell you the number or type of games purchased per user on average (e.g., a bunch of $5 PopCap games would equal a single BF3 in revenue).

Without knowing that, it's hard to say exactly how things will shake out hardware wise and for PC gaming. It may well be the case that daughtercard GPU cards have seen their best days already, as we get an APU future where graphics ability is more modest, except for weirdos who want to game on 3 monitors. The Steam Survey hints that most PC "gamers" are running old hardware and playing less-demanding games.

AMD and NVDA have already thought about these things. Is it any surprised why NVDA is pushing stuff like PhysX and 3D NV Surround, and AMD is pushing EyeFinity? Those are technologies that currently can't be replicated by consoles, except for 3D (to an extent). Nobody is gonna buy 3 TVs anytime soon, especially 3 3D TVs. And consoles do not have the strength to crunch extremely highly detailed physics simulations during real gameplay like a pair of top-end NVDA cards can.

But AMD/NVDA have to face reality. Graphics are "good enough" for many people as it is. Many gamers rightfully care more about storyline, music, etc. than graphics. Graphics alone aren't enough to sell games--just ask Microsoft and Sony about how Wii blindsided them.

Nevertheless, I think PC gaming will persist for decades because of special advantages relative to consoles: PC gaming's stronghold centers around moddability, special modes like EyeFinity, and the the keyboard and mouse. (Note I am not including PhysX. Strong PhysX-capable systems are rare; you would need $200+ GPUs for that. They also don't seem to add much to gameplay experience most of the time. The faked physics seen in console and most PC games are "good enough" for many people.)

Due to console input device limitations, stuff like RTS (StarCraft II, Total War series, etc.) games pretty much HAVE to be on PC. To some extent it's easier to play MMORPGs, FPS, strategy, and RPG games on PC as well. There is no reason why consoles can't ship with something precise like mice as standard, but realistically I don't see that happening. Console makers continue to make joypads standard and the only other input devices they seem to care about are kinetic like Wii/Kinect/Move, to tap into the much larger "casual gamer" crowd. Their attitude is probably something like: Screw the comparatively small hardcore gamer crowd, they just pirate our games anyway, cry some more.

Anyway what I said in my previous post in this thread still stands. It used to be that you got PC gaming almost for free as part of a desktop computer purchase (just add a video card), but now the tables have turned: most people have TVs as sunk costs, so you get console gaming almost for free. Yes the software costs differ (variable cost, as I noted before), but I am assuming that most people don't buy dozens of games per year. Plus consoles are way more user friendly and have their own joypad-related strongholds (MarioKart, Wii/Kinect/Move sensors, etc.). I've seen people play Rock Band at parties on consoles; I don't think I've ever seen them play something like that on a computer.

So just chill out, PC and console gaming will coexist for quite a while longer. Consoles could resemble HTPCs more and more over time anyway... where does a console end and PC begin? A current-gen Xbox is sort of like a PC as it is, after all, to say nothing of the future.

I think the problem is the fact that people try to equate a slow down in hardware requirements (with the exception of some features that ridiculously increase requirements) and a slow down on units moved to GAMES.

And the fact is that PC gaming industry is growing. As is the entire Video Game industry.

The PC can have all the controllers a console has and vice-versa.

Buiding a PC to hook into the TV to get 30 FPS at console IQ isn't that expensive. Won't be too big or too noisy either.

What it seems to me is that the console behave much more like the PC market before widespread P2P.

For one to survive into the PC market one needs to find new commercial models, like micro transactions, online requirement or just great online multiplayer modes, etc, while in the console many are still just doing what they always did and it works more or less for the time being.

 

[Magic Carpet]

PC gaming is alive and well... but unfortunately is taking a serious performance hit due to poor programming and other platform issues.

Quite often console gaming is more seamless and polished. I wouldn't swap my PC though as I play mostly older games anyway.

 

[taltamir]

Quite often console gaming is more seamless and polished. I wouldn't swap my PC though as I play mostly older games anyway.

I think this was the case in the past but no more..
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...futes-skyrim-ps3-lag-claims-by-fallout-nv-dev

thats patch 1.2 for the PS3 just so you realize... you ever noticed that ANY game with few exceptions that you put into the PS3 or xbox360 has to download a patch before it runs nowadays?

Thats because QA died with the PS2, the last console to not allow online patching of games.

 

[Insomniator]

If it weren't for SC2 I probably wouldnt bother with PC gaming anymore.

It was fun as a kid, but now that I actually have the money for high end stuff I just don't want to deal with it anymore. Buy PS3/Xbox --> keep for 7 years no problems have all my friends online to play with. PC --> barely any games, no friends, computer crashes, gets obsolete, costs $$$, bad drivers, buggy releases etc...

All for... higher resolution and AA?

Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 single handedly keep me into PC gaming...

 

[SirPauly]

For one to survive into the PC market one needs to find new commercial models, like micro transactions, online requirement or just great online multiplayer modes, etc, while in the console many are still just doing what they always did and it works more or less for the time being.

Imho.

I don't disagree with your post but just the wording survive. For the PC market to flourish one may need to be more innovative and flexible to take advantage of the strengths of the PC platform.

Another area that the Console has to worry about is actually mobile gaming from tablets and super phones, and this is the area that may see the most growth percentage with gaming revenue potential.

The key is it's tough for the PC to be the lead platform or have a ton of exclusives based on there is revenue potential for developers with multi-platform. As long as the PC titles take advantage of PC strengths, don't care if they're exclusive or multi-platform. Another key is since many titles are multi-platform, well, IHV's may have to be even more pro-active to devise strategies to get their hardware features in there which helps the company, their customers, innovation and awareness for the PC platform as well.

There is strong competition with mobile tablets and super phones, consoles and PC, which translates into nice revenue streams for developers to create gaming titles and for the gaming market to continue to grow as a whole and the hardware vendors to support them.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Imho.

I don't disagree with your post but just the wording survive. For the PC market to flourish one may need to be more innovative and flexible to take advantage of the strengths of the PC platform.

Another area that the Console has to worry about is actually mobile gaming from tablets and super phones, and this is the area that may see the most growth percentage with gaming revenue potential.

The key is it's tough for the PC to be the lead platform or have a ton of exclusives based on there is revenue potential for developers with multi-platform. As long as the PC titles take advantage of PC strengths, don't care if they're exclusive or multi-platform. Another key is since many titles are multi-platform, well, IHV's may have to be even more pro-active to devise strategies to get their hardware features in there which helps the company, their customers, innovation and awareness for the PC platform as well.

There is strong competition with mobile tablets and super phones, consoles and PC, which translates into nice revenue streams for developers to create gaming titles and for the gaming market to continue to grow as a whole and the hardware vendors to support them.

My survive was more regarding developers than overall market.

And there are loads of high quality games exclusive for the PC but they mostly are of the multiplayer RPG, MMORPG and RTS/TBS/4X genres with some space simulators/flight sims tossed in and other games like DOTA/HoN/Lol. etc.

And why would anyone make a PC exclusive game if they can develop it to consoles?

Who is going to pay a developer to create something for PC only?

And are PC gamers going to cry because they didn't get Halo 3 on the PC? Or Guitar Hero whatever?

Are the console gamers crying because they didn't get SC2, Diablo II, WC3, WoW, Guild Wars, Galactic Civilization, SupCom?

Or the fact is gsming innovation is really slow for those that have been playing for years, when gaming was an activity frowned upon?

Are Crysis and Crysis 2 any better than Far Cry? Is Far Cry any better than Half-Life and
No one lives forever?

Was Oblivion any better than Morrowind?

For a kid/teenager Crysis probably looks and play awesome, but for someone that remembers spending a summer playing Half Life, Crysis might look great and might even be a good play, but does it awe you the same?

Developers excuse themselves with piracy and what not, but the fact is the games haven't evolved much, and older players are also the ones that have been playing on the PC and are much less impressionable while consoles is a market that has attracted many people that had never contact with gaming before, so publishers/developers can keep selling the same stuff that bore us to death a little longer.

But not forever.

 

[SirPauly]

so publishers/developers can keep selling the same stuff that bore us to death a little longer.

So you're bored.

 

[GaiaHunter]

So you're bored.

I was just describing a sentiment that I see in many places regarding games, PC gaming, etc.

For example I played guild wars for over 10000 hours according to the game and I have thought and talked about it for hundreds more.

The fact that know I don't feel compelled to play the game makes it a bad game?
No, it just doesn't challenge/interest me anymore.

Still you will see people accuse Anet for their own similar feelings about it.

Same happens about PC gaming.

How many times have we read PC Gaming is dying and that aren't any great new PC games anymore?

Of course there are great new PC games!

Instead of recognizing the problem of some game genres is lack of innovation that generates repetition, PC gamers blame consoles and console ports, Game developers blame piracy for weak sales, etc.

Am I bored from gaming?

Nah - I'm bored from some games and game genres, especially single player ones. Games vs people are always fun due to the unpredictability of human opponents.

Still, sometimes I look at my games library and I start some good old Mechwarrior 4: Mercs, some Starlancer or Painkiller.

Are consoles any better?
I don't think so.

But I was never one plagued by driver problems or head aches setting up my PC to play games and I was always able to find my friends trough skype, msn, x-fire or good old phone/mobile.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I think this was the case in the past but no more..
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...futes-skyrim-ps3-lag-claims-by-fallout-nv-dev

thats patch 1.2 for the PS3 just so you realize... you ever noticed that ANY game with few exceptions that you put into the PS3 or xbox360 has to download a patch before it runs nowadays?

Thats because QA died with the PS2, the last console to not allow online patching of games.

Damn, you're right. Everybody wants to rush titles now, consoles are no longer exception.

I haven't had a console since Super Nintendo days anyway. I found several glitches in that Jurassic Park game, they could use an update... and a SAVE STATE ;-p

My biggest set of gripes with todays consoles are the controls. I am so used to mouse/keyboard combo that its next to impossible to play without.

I've been itching to buy a set of PS3's and turn them in to a cluster. Can't get around to it. Anybody done that here yet?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You know, you're absolutely right. I HATE console gamers, but I never have top of the line PC hardware. Not since 2005.

In 2005 I bought the 7800GT on launch day and I overclocked the hell out of it. In 2008 December or so I bought a USED 4850 for dirt cheap. Today I have crap performance and I bought a 6850 in the summer and used it for a few weeks before transferring it to bitcoin operations.

I can't play BF3 even with my 6850, and I feel annoyed at having to buy a $300 card in the next few months. At the same time I want to also upgrade my 27" to a Dell 2711. 25x14 is gaming is gonna require some serious horsepower, possibly XFire/SLI or $400 cards.

I think this is why I was still playing DoTa last summer and I still play CS:S occasionally. I end up playing old games forever. Thank goodness SC2 works with my hardware.

I think after I buy my 7-series ATI card, I'll be sitting on some goodness up until Ivy Bridge comes out and slaps my Nehalem i7. Even more reason to keep my power guzzling machine at 4ghz LOL.

 

[skipsneeky2]

You know, you're absolutely right. I HATE console gamers, but I never have top of the line PC hardware. Not since 2005.

In 2005 I bought the 7800GT on launch day and I overclocked the hell out of it. In 2008 December or so I bought a USED 4850 for dirt cheap. Today I have crap performance and I bought a 6850 in the summer and used it for a few weeks before transferring it to bitcoin operations.

I can't play BF3 even with my 6850, and I feel annoyed at having to buy a $300 card in the next few months. At the same time I want to also upgrade my 27" to a Dell 2711. 25x14 is gaming is gonna require some serious horsepower, possibly XFire/SLI or $400 cards.

I think this is why I was still playing DoTa last summer and I still play CS:S occasionally. I end up playing old games forever. Thank goodness SC2 works with my hardware.

I think after I buy my 7-series ATI card, I'll be sitting on some goodness up until Ivy Bridge comes out and slaps my Nehalem i7. Even more reason to keep my power guzzling machine at 4ghz LOL.

Hell i still play ut3,ut2004,ut2003,ut2004 this one being my new favorite.

As for BF3 relentless issues i went back to BC2 last night and was able to fully max the game on my gtx570 at 1600x1200 never once dropped under 70fps....smooth as hell.

Was able to play 2 whole 1,000 ticket heavy metal rounds without a single glitch .

Don't get me wrong BF3 is a way better game but the fun factor is removed with disconnection errors glitchs and with the game crashing...it still needs work i joined BC2 about 6 months after it came out...

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

But your 570 should handle BF3 no problem. I'm playing BF3 on low on a 4850 and it's still choppy... LOL.

BC2 is ok for me at 1680x1050, but I'm not running super high detail or anything either.

I've been itching to get a 6950 since summer, but this whole 7-series business is annoying me. I WILL jump on that 7950 the minute its out though.

 

[Magic Carpet]

ut2k4 was the best one in the series, imo.

Eagle Eye ;-p

havent played bf3 personally yet but by the looks reviews of it... Game seems massively unoptimized. Hope they get it fixed for the radeon 7k release ;-p

 

[RussianSensation]

So just chill out, PC and console gaming will coexist for quite a while longer. Consoles could resemble HTPCs more and more over time anyway... where does a console end and PC begin?

I agree with your post. To me PC and console gaming are complementary devices. You also bring an excellent point about revenues / profits per gamer. When most PC games plummet to $5-10 just 6-12 months after release, and most PC games lucky enough to sell 2-3 million copies, while MW3 sells $775 million in revenue in 5 days, it's hard to imagine anyone outside of Blizzard even dreaming of reaching these #s.

In the future, smartphones might be powerful enough to stream games in 1080P from the phone directly to your 60 inch TV in the living room.