Wow Recent survey results.

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

If what you mean by 'hardcore' is something along the lines of 'people who play more than Sims 2 or Rollercoaster Tycoon on their PC' (which is what I was very unclearly trying to get at), I think the percentage is well over 50%.

By hardcore I mean those people who spend significant amounts of their time playing games- even of those WoW is quite a bit bigger then anything we are talking about in this thread. Valve is a very small company. HL series~10 Million; GTA series ~50 Million; Madden ~100Million; Mario ~200Million. Valve is a tiny little ant in the gaming industry- they are only somewhat influential amongst hard core FPS players which are a miniscule portion of the gaming market.

Isn't Counter-Strike (if you add up 'old' CS and CS:S) still the #1 online FPS?

You realize you are asking if something is the biggest out of one of the smallest niches in gaming right? I honestly don't know if CS is still king of the hill, but it is small in comparison.

Still, it seems even at best in the 'midrange' segment, if not tilted somewhat in ATI's favor.

6600. You include the x600 and x700 but ignore the absolute dominant part in the mid range sector for the last eighteen months- why?

As far as people whining about the accuracy of the survey... Well, come on... 711,000!!?!?!? That is plenty enough to derive great information.

Only for those who are obsessed with Valve. Most people have long moved on from the shockingly mediocre sequel to the greatest FPS ever made.

GTA hasn't hit 50 million but if it has its because of consoles not computers, madden if it really has hit 100 million its because of consoles not computers, Mario I think 200 million is a stretch but you can't debate its because of consoles. You talking about a 6 game, 15 game and like 30 game series respectively. Computer games have never been as sucssessful as console games. for every one of us there 5 other people who don't have or want the skill of working on computers and a cheap 200 dollar console that "looks just as good" becomes the best alternative.

That said the 15 million copies of HL and 7 million copies of HL2 that has been sold is an enormous ammount for computer only games. Hell WoW only had 2.2 active accounts at its highest peak. Now that Valve is its own distributer it will be even more important.


HL2 spent a year at the top10, dropped down to 11th on the 13 month, trying to find out more, but in the last 5 years no FPS has come close. Not even BF2 but it still has some time left.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Hl2 rocked imo

I understand that is a matter of taste.... it just appears you don't have any

Seriously though, I would rank HL2 as one of the most repetitive and boring shooters I've played in years. Getting in the buggy- drive a hundred feet- get out to move ******- repeat fifty freakin times- hands down the best example I can think of what not to do in a game is that leve. Epitomizes piss poor level design in every sense. It was highly polished, suffered from no single crippling element, it was just weak overall.

And the hl2 engine would seem to me to be one of the best looking

Best looking.... is there any well known engine being used today that is weaker then Source? Honestly, it seems to me to be very clearly the weakest engine being marketed currently- and by a long shot. The gameplay is a matter of perspective, this one can be nailed down to technical merits.

most scalable engines out there...

GLQuake runs on more systems then HL2. If we want to talk about games with comparable visuals we will have to pull out some really old titles like Mafia- which also runs better on older hardware.

Oblivion's engine slaughters it, FC's kills it, D3's smokes it, U3 make it looks antiquated to an extreme degree and even the latest U2 powered games make Source look tired and weak. LS3D was out years before Source, pulled off nigh everything that Source did and did it while rendering an environment the scope of which Source couldn't imagine and did it with considerably higher levels of perfromance on older hardware.

Have to agree with all of that. HL2 was one of the biggest disappointments I've seen in a long time, both the game itself as well as the graphics.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Where are you getting your figures from Topweasel?

Hell WoW only had 2.2 active accounts at its highest peak.

WoW hits six million.

HL2 spent a year at the top10, dropped down to 11th on the 13 month, trying to find out more, but in the last 5 years no FPS has come close.

11 months out HL2 was out of the top ten- Doom3 wasn't.

That said the 15 million copies of HL

I'm looking, and the most up to date numbers I can find from 2004 half HL pegged at 7.5Million(source)- obviously HL2 wasn't remotely close to being anywhere near that.

 

[dfloyd]

Originally posted by: rstrohkirch
Someone mentioned it above, this is a STEAM survey - not a HL2 engine survey

Go to the steam website and look at the monthly online player totals for their games and you will see just how many cs 1.6/hl1 based players there are

This statement is the most informative statement to this post. Everyone used Nvidia for CS, at least if you wanted to be able to survive a smoke grenade.

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Where are you getting your figures from Topweasel?

Hell WoW only had 2.2 active accounts at its highest peak.

WoW hits six million.

HL2 spent a year at the top10, dropped down to 11th on the 13 month, trying to find out more, but in the last 5 years no FPS has come close.

11 months out HL2 was out of the top ten- Doom3 wasn't.

That said the 15 million copies of HL

I'm looking, and the most up to date numbers I can find from 2004 half HL pegged at 7.5Million(source)- obviously HL2 wasn't remotely close to being anywhere near that.

Oh I am sorry none of that includes the Steam sales which I have read matches or exceeds retail sales. Sorry my Wow info was a bit old, I guess usually for a mmorp its best number are two or three months after release. couple months of stagnent users and then drops to a stable point 6 months to 1 year afterwards.

But no matter what its one of the best selling games out for pcs and probably the best selling FPS.

 

[Zoinks]

I don't know how much I believe these numbers:

System RAM
2.0 Gb and above 216 0.03 %

I think there are more than 216 Half-life players with 2GB and above on AT alone.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

That said the 15 million copies of HL

I'm looking, and the most up to date numbers I can find from 2004 half HL pegged at 7.5Million(source)- obviously HL2 wasn't remotely close to being anywhere near that.

GameState magazine (stats reported 11-11-2003):

1. "Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
2. "Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
3. "Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
4. "Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
5. "Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
6. "Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
7. "The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
8. "Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
9. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
10. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
11. "GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units - sold as much as HL1 - the most successful FPS for PC???? N64 was not even that great of a selling console....shows how much of a waste of $ it is to develop for PCs over consoles.
12. "Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
13. "Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
14. "Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
15. "Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units16. "Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
17. "Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
18. "Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
19. "Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
20. "Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units

Mario sure sells better than sex! (sims)

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

That said the 15 million copies of HL

I'm looking, and the most up to date numbers I can find from 2004 half HL pegged at 7.5Million(source)- obviously HL2 wasn't remotely close to being anywhere near that.

GameState magazine (stats reported 11-11-2003):

1. "Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
2. "Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
3. "Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
4. "Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
5. "Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
6. "Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
7. "The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
8. "Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
9. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
10. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
11. "GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units - sold as much as HL1 - the most successful FPS for PC???? N64 was not even that great of a selling console....shows how much of a waste of $ it is to develop for PCs over consoles.
12. "Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
13. "Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
14. "Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
15. "Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units16. "Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
17. "Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
18. "Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
19. "Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
20. "Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units

Mario sure sells better than sex! (sims)

Nice Little out of date, but Shows just how successful HL was/is for PC gamers.

 

[santz]

This i because no one bought ATI cards during the evolution of 7800 series and 7900 series because everyone thought that when 7800 series comes out, it would beat the ati x1900, and then they though when the 7900 series comes out, it ould beat the x1900,

how badly were they mistaken. In my opinion, this speculative thoought made users reluctant to buy ATI hoping against hope that the next gen nvidia would beat ati. Instead all of them pounded on nvidia cards when they came out.

(there will always be those impatient people who would buy VGPUS without waiting for the benchmarks, I know it, i was one of them)

 

[BenSkywalker]

GameState magazine (stats reported 11-11-2003):

1. "Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
2. "Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
3. "Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
4. "Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
5. "Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
6. "Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
7. "The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
8. "Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
9. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
10. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
11. "GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units - sold as much as HL1 - the most successful FPS for PC???? N64 was not even that great of a selling console....shows how much of a waste of $ it is to develop for PCs over consoles.
12. "Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
13. "Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
14. "Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
15. "Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units16. "Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
17. "Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
18. "Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
19. "Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
20. "Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units

Those numbers looked a little fishy to me, as an example GTA:VC was on there but not GTA3, no Zelda titles at all etc, so I went and found a bit more in depth numbers. I was way off on what I figured Madden had to date(significantly less) but I wasn't too far off on Mario(188Million).

 

[ND40oz]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

GameState magazine (stats reported 11-11-2003):

1. "Super Mario Bros." for NES: 40 Million Units
2. "Tetris" for Gameboy: 33 Million Units
3. "Super Mario Bros. 3" for NES: 18 Million Units
4. "Super Mario World" for SNES: 17 Million Units
5. "Super Mario Land" for Gameboy: 14 Million Units
6. "Super Mario 64" for N64: 11 Million Units
7. "The Sims" for PC: 10 Million Units
8. "Super Mario Bros. 2" for NES: 10 Million Units
9. "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" for PS2: 8.5 Million Units
10. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" for PSX: 8 Million Units
11. "GoldenEye" for N64: 8 Million Units - sold as much as HL1 - the most successful FPS for PC???? N64 was not even that great of a selling console....shows how much of a waste of $ it is to develop for PCs over consoles.
12. "Donkey Kong Country" for SNES: 8 Million Units
13. "Super Mario Kart" for SNES: 8 Million Units
14. "Pokemon Red/Blue" for Gameboy: 8 Million Units
15. "Half-Life" for PC: 8 Million Units16. "Tomb Raider II" for PSX: 8 Million Units
17. "Final Fantasy VII" for PSX: 7.8 Million Units
18. "Myst" for PC: 7 Million Units
19. "Gran Turismo 3" for PS2: 7 Million Units
20. "Dragon Warrior VII" for PS2: 6 Million Units

Those numbers looked a little fishy to me, as an example GTA:VC was on there but not GTA3, no Zelda titles at all etc, so I went and found a bit more in depth numbers. I was way off on what I figured Madden had to date(significantly less) but I wasn't too far off on Mario(188Million).

The other thing is, does it take into account that Super Mario Brothers was bundled with pretty much every NES sold, same with Tetris for the original Gameboy. That pretty much takes the top two out of the picture.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Topweasel
---SNIP---
The Most surprising part you ask. The overall lead of the 6600 and most surprising the 3rd place of the 5200. I know the game isn't the most video intensive but come on who is trying to play HL:2 and CS:S with a 5200.
---SNIP---

I've met people who swear that AOE3 and Black and White 2 plays "just fine" on their FX5200s. Maybe if you played in 256-shades of gray at 320x240

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: Topweasel
---SNIP---
The Most surprising part you ask. The overall lead of the 6600 and most surprising the 3rd place of the 5200. I know the game isn't the most video intensive but come on who is trying to play HL:2 and CS:S with a 5200.
---SNIP---

I've met people who swear that AOE3 and Black and White 2 plays "just fine" on their FX5200s. Maybe if you played in 256-shades of gray at 320x240

Yeah I am the only one of my friends that stay pretty current, but the Idea of playing somthing that intensive on something that poor will make any of them upgrade. Some of them are still playing on 5700s or so but they are all planing on upgrading sometime soon.

 

[Amplifier]

I have 1024 megs of ram but when I look at my system is says .99 gigs.

Would I be listed in the < 1gig crowd by Streams survey?

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Originally posted by: Topweasel
Yeah I am the only one of my friends that stay pretty current, but the Idea of playing somthing that intensive on something that poor will make any of them upgrade. Some of them are still playing on 5700s or so but they are all planing on upgrading sometime soon.

Hey, 5700s are still halfway decent. My good 'ol Ti4400 will smoke the 5200

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: Amplifier
I have 1024 megs of ram but when I look at my system is says .99 gigs.

Would I be listed in the < 1gig crowd by Streams survey?

That weird Windows recognizes my 2GB as 2.00 GB of ram.

 

[Ika]

I played CS:S just fine with an MX420 (64mb sdram, 2 pixel pipelines... i win). my KDR was generally around 1.5-2. Budget cards run Source just fine, nothing surprising about that.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: Topweasel
---SNIP---
The Most surprising part you ask. The overall lead of the 6600 and most surprising the 3rd place of the 5200. I know the game isn't the most video intensive but come on who is trying to play HL:2 and CS:S with a 5200.
---SNIP---

I've met people who swear that AOE3 and Black and White 2 plays "just fine" on their FX5200s. Maybe if you played in 256-shades of gray at 320x240

Actually AOE3 plays fine on my Gforce3. Well not with the settings I want, but at least at a resolution I don't cry over (1280x1028 not the 16x12 I love).

So it is doable for AOE3 at least. But its not as pretty as when I turn it all on and get the 0.5fps

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
most people don't buy add in video cards. they simply use those that are bundled with their computers. i'm sure the 5200's/X1600's are quite popular cards in most mainstream computers out there.

5200s rae also the most easy to get pci upgrade card for people with older machines with pci.


and x1600 agp cards are pretty cheap. i'd assume 6200 , 6600 and x1600s would be real popular.

i mean most people are not that hardcore with games or do not have th emoney to pay $400-800 for a super expensive card / sli etc.

honestly i'm shocked that many people use SLI at all. its like, omg there are that many idiots in the world.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: hans007

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
most people don't buy add in video cards. they simply use those that are bundled with their computers. i'm sure the 5200's/X1600's are quite popular cards in most mainstream computers out there.

5200s rae also the most easy to get pci upgrade card for people with older machines with pci.


and x1600 agp cards are pretty cheap. i'd assume 6200 , 6600 and x1600s would be real popular.

i mean most people are not that hardcore with games or do not have th emoney to pay $400-800 for a super expensive card / sli etc.

honestly i'm shocked that many people use SLI at all. its like, omg there are that many idiots in the world.

SLI is just the new high end. Just like how a Dual Core CPU is the new High end for the processor vendors. I mean we need this level of performance if we want to run games at 1920x1200 4xAA/16XAF with the eye candy turned up, a single X1900 XTX or Geforce 7900 GTX barely is able to cut it right now.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Gonna have to agree with Skywalker on this. Source is overhyped. I, too, think the game was boring (But I think a lot of them are boring) and bland. I don't think the engine sucks, but I honestly don't believe it has ANYTHING on iD, Epic, CryTek or anything else. My biggest complaint with Source was "Loading" all the time. The levels were small and thus, the game always paused for "loading". Far Cry, in terms of open space is only second to Oblivion at this point and I am sure tweaks could be done to it to allow seamless loading, since the draw distance is enormous.

D3 has those pesky short levels too, but it was still better. As far as Quake 4, that game DID impress me... I am really impressed with Quake 4. I think the game is actually more scary and twisted than D3 is every way possible... A few of the cut scenes are totally out of your typical horror movie.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

If what you mean by 'hardcore' is something along the lines of 'people who play more than Sims 2 or Rollercoaster Tycoon on their PC' (which is what I was very unclearly trying to get at), I think the percentage is well over 50%.

By hardcore I mean those people who spend significant amounts of their time playing games- even of those WoW is quite a bit bigger then anything we are talking about in this thread. Valve is a very small company. HL series~10 Million; GTA series ~50 Million; Madden ~100Million; Mario ~200Million. Valve is a tiny little ant in the gaming industry- they are only somewhat influential amongst hard core FPS players which are a miniscule portion of the gaming market.

Given that the survey only covers PC gamers, that's what I thought we were talking about. If you want to include console gaming, ANY PC game has only a tiny, tiny fraction of the sales of the most popular console titles.

Isn't Counter-Strike (if you add up 'old' CS and CS:S) still the #1 online FPS?

You realize you are asking if something is the biggest out of one of the smallest niches in gaming right? I honestly don't know if CS is still king of the hill, but it is small in comparison.

To console gaming, yes. In comparison to the 'niche' of 'enthusiast PC gamers', IMO no.

Still, it seems even at best in the 'midrange' segment, if not tilted somewhat in ATI's favor.

6600. You include the x600 and x700 but ignore the absolute dominant part in the mid range sector for the last eighteen months- why?

1) There was no breakdown in their results between the 6600 and the 6600GT. If I knew exactly how many of those 80K cards were 6600s, I might have analyzed it differently.

2) Even the 6600 performs significantly better than any of those cards -- more like a 9700Pro or 9800 or 5900. Hence I compared the 6600 sales to those of the X800s and 9800s.

3) Pricing has changed dramatically on the 6600s over the last year, which has made them more attractive recently as a 'midrange' card. There is nothing here to give any indication of when the cards were actually purchased or how much was paid for them. Someone who bought the 6600GT at release was not buying a $100 card; someone who bought one used last week was.

Even if you label, say, half of the ~80K "6600" cards in as 'midrange' non-GT GF6600s, the numbers aren't dramatically in NVIDIA's favor. The 6600GT may have dropped into the midrange pricing segment recently, but it really wasn't there at launch, so I would question lumping its sales numbers in with things like the FX5500/5600. And if you're going to do that, you should probably put the X800/X800GTO in there as well (of which there is also no detailed breakdown), since they have been priced close to the 6600GT.

Ultimately, these numbers are pretty rough, but IMO they provide an interesting cross-section of the PC gaming population.

 

[BenSkywalker]

To console gaming, yes. In comparison to the 'niche' of 'enthusiast PC gamers', IMO no.

WoW dwarfs it also- and that is never scheduled to hit consoles. Even when limiting it to FPSs, CS is dwarfed by the original HL. Online FPSs is a very small niche even when looking at PC gaming.

Even if you label, say, half of the ~80K "6600" cards in as 'midrange' non-GT GF6600s, the numbers aren't dramatically in NVIDIA's favor. The 6600GT may have dropped into the midrange pricing segment recently, but it really wasn't there at launch, so I would question lumping its sales numbers in with things like the FX5500/5600. And if you're going to do that, you should probably put the X800/X800GTO in there as well (of which there is also no detailed breakdown), since they have been priced close to the 6600GT.

Where your point loses every bit of validity is the fact that you included the x700. The x700Pro launched at $200 which was right where the 6600GT was at. You give the appearance of trying to create a segment in which ATi has a decisive edge- and you appear to be doing so by simply ignoring the crystal clearly defined direct competitive product. In all honesty- how do you expect anyone to make any sense out of your appraisal of the situation when you include the x700- which came out after the 6600 series and cost as much as the GT varriant? Because the GT was so far superior to what ATi was offering at that price point? Is that the logic behind it? I'm going to ignore the hands down most popular part from this survey because it doesn't agree with what I want to say. Statistical analysis can show you how to twist the numbers to say what you want them to, but even the most convuluted method of twisting wouldn't allow what you are doing.

All of the rest of your points attempt to justify your exclusion of the 6600. By your standards(which your inclusion of the x700 make clear) the 6600 and the 6600GT are both completely in your market segment. Don't apologize for your company of choice when they make a blunder the caliber of the x700- it only encourages them to do it again(can anyone see the miles wide hole in ATi's lineup right now.... ).

 

[imported_Crusader]

Originally posted by: Topweasel
I just had Valve request a survey at the end they give a up to date results. And some of them are shocking.

The closest curent competitor to the 7800 series is the X1600. In fact the 7800 series is eight times more populer then the X1800 and x1900 combined. As expected of 97% of the dual GPU setups are SLI and over all the Nvidia is out used buy about 7%. Not surprising the 7900 isn't adopted as well Nvidia hope (availability issues anyone?).

The Most surprising part you ask. The overall lead of the 6600 and most surprising the 3rd place of the 5200. I know the game isn't the most video intensive but come on who is trying to play HL:2 and CS:S with a 5200.

The truths from this (and trust me a 500,000 sample group is a great sample)?

1. It looks like the 6000 series is the the current modern champion.
2. No matter what over all sales numbers that ATI and Nvidia have thrown out for all to see it is very obvious that ATI has taken a heavy hit on high sales since the introduction of the X800 and not the X1800 as most would think.
3. Middle end cards have been even worse for ATI, Nvidia out numbers the 9600 by over 20,000 and the next middle end card to do well is the X700 at 17,000 total.
4. Some would think the numbers get distorted by the ages of some of the cards, but over all with the Geforce4 MX and Geforce 4 cards still listed I don't think that holds much wieght.

To look at the numbers yourself go here.

Looks like this is the final nail in the coffin for the ATI fanboys who pretended to ignore that Geforces were flying off shelves the last few gens and ATI cards were much less appealing to buyers.

Too bad guys. Better luck next R300 If you ever get one again!

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

To console gaming, yes. In comparison to the 'niche' of 'enthusiast PC gamers', IMO no.

WoW dwarfs it also- and that is never scheduled to hit consoles. Even when limiting it to FPSs, CS is dwarfed by the original HL. Online FPSs is a very small niche even when looking at PC gaming.

Even if you label, say, half of the ~80K "6600" cards in as 'midrange' non-GT GF6600s, the numbers aren't dramatically in NVIDIA's favor. The 6600GT may have dropped into the midrange pricing segment recently, but it really wasn't there at launch, so I would question lumping its sales numbers in with things like the FX5500/5600. And if you're going to do that, you should probably put the X800/X800GTO in there as well (of which there is also no detailed breakdown), since they have been priced close to the 6600GT.

Where your point loses every bit of validity is the fact that you included the x700. The x700Pro launched at $200 which was right where the 6600GT was at. You give the appearance of trying to create a segment in which ATi has a decisive edge- and you appear to be doing so by simply ignoring the crystal clearly defined direct competitive product. In all honesty- how do you expect anyone to make any sense out of your appraisal of the situation when you include the x700- which came out after the 6600 series and cost as much as the GT varriant? Because the GT was so far superior to what ATi was offering at that price point? Is that the logic behind it? I'm going to ignore the hands down most popular part from this survey because it doesn't agree with what I want to say. Statistical analysis can show you how to twist the numbers to say what you want them to, but even the most convuluted method of twisting wouldn't allow what you are doing.

All of the rest of your points attempt to justify your exclusion of the 6600. By your standards(which your inclusion of the x700 make clear) the 6600 and the 6600GT are both completely in your market segment. Don't apologize for your company of choice when they make a blunder the caliber of the x700- it only encourages them to do it again(can anyone see the miles wide hole in ATi's lineup right now.... ).

Ben, If you want to continue ignoring the HL and HL2 as un poplular games, ignoring the fact any sales figure are for retail sale and doesn't include steam purchases go ahead. My point was more to the fact that HL and HL2 are popular enough games amoung players of any type of genre and is usually the most graphically intensive genre to say that this is a fair, maybe a little low end biased, but over all fair look at the current status of the video and CPU usage of people who play computer games in general. Even if Wow hits 15 Million users that just mean that its double the users of HL2 (compaired to retail sales), still puts value to the into the survey.

I agree here, anything from the 6600-6800nu would be considered middle range cards. Some maybe High middle end, but by the long time "non-scientific but still adopted by almost every review site" standard the middle end is designated not by performance but inturductory price of $100-$200, which even at release almost all 6600 GT's and 6800Nu's fell into.

I think most people will agree the 6600GT is a mid end card, which makes Its dominance over all but the 9000 series all the more important. That is newer money, and with the location and amounts of the 6600, 6800, and 7800 vs. any of the last 3 gens of ATI you can see that ATI has taken a hit (and why for the first time in a while they almost lost money in multiple quarters). Hopefully ATI will bounce back but the numbers of the X1900 or X1600 cards isn't that promising, now its just a race to be the First with a DX10 out, because alot of pople will care about the 100% compatible with Vista tag.