Millions To Shift From PC To Console Gaming By 2022, Says Research

This is the major factors to consider, Game streaming requires zero to low commitment to hardware and a huge requirement for high speed internet. PC gaming requires a huge commitment hardware and zero to low requirement for high speed internet.

I think there are 2 important considerations that can sway this in either direction.
Net Neutrality might determine the speed at which your internet traffic flows and which company's pipeline is faster than another.
You Internet provider, will they add data caps, charge high prices when you use large amounts of data, provide high bandwidth internet at reasonable prices, create high bandwidth internet in locations that currently are under represented.

If I had to guess, I predict the Internet providers are going to get greedy and game streaming, along with mass-market 4K video streaming is not going to become main stream. Game streaming services are going to focus on mainstream titles and ignore the indie game titles where a lot of innovation is occurring.

Problems with the conclusions from JPR:

Moore's Law Slows to a Crawl. Technically, yes, we've been seeing this to some extent on the PC's side. However, while the increase in per-core speeds have slowed down quite a bit, we have seen other improvements in PC hardware that show continued performance improvement: additional cores on a CPU; virtual cores; continued increases in bus/data transfer speeds; faster RAM; faster & larger storage drives; & so forth. However, the biggest problem I have with this claim is simple: Consoles are subject to the same Moore's Law limitations. Note, for example, that the last generation or 2 of consoles have all used PC-grade components (mostly from AMD). They might be customized versions, but they've been based on the same hardware architecture used in PC systems. You can't say that 1 variant has a limitation yet imply that the other variations don't have the same limitation, when they're all based on the same engineering & physics principles.
High GPU prices. At face value, yes, it's a valid complaint that the combination of cryptomining craze & AMD's focus on the mainstream gaming sector (leaving nVidia to -- for now -- hold the high-end crown) has meant higher component prices. However, what this ignores is the disparity between PC graphics hardware & console graphics hardware. What's considered "mainstream" for gaming resolution in PCs (1080p/60-144Hz) is considered "high-end" for consoles (as especially seen in console games in recent years that were locked at 30FPS or even 60FPS, no matter what your TV"s resolution actually was). Given a console & a PC GPU from the same generation, the console's maximum graphics for gameplay are inferior to the PC (in terms of maximum resolution, maximum FPS, or both), & is especially noticeable in FPS games (where "competition" players on PCs shoot for 1080p/144FPS gameplay that, in many cases, does not require top-tier GPUs to achieve). And now that the cryptomining craze is passing by, GPU prices are already dropping down significantly -- as pointed out in recent reviews (here & on other sites) of the GTX 1650, a number of the mainstream GPUs such as the RX 570/580 are now under $200 USD, with even the GTX 1060 & 1660 coming in at under $250 USD. The only time you really see expensive GPU prices is in the true top-tier area...where nVidia is charging a ton of bucks for the privilege of being an "early adopter" of ray-tracing capability.
Game streaming on smart TVs. First off, they shouldn't have started off saying that both PC & high-end console gamers would be tempted to switch over to a streaming-only platform, then turn around & lump the console gamers in with the streaming-only players. You can't have it both ways. Second, you may not need top-tier graphics capability to run a streaming-only service, but I can just about guarantee that you'll want as fast of a broadband connection as possible...& despite some companies offering Gigabit or faster connections to consumers around the world, the fact is that those offerings are extremely limited in their available markets, let alone their penetration in those markets. For the vast majority of consumers, a 100Mbps broadband connection is the most common "fastest" tier available to them. Heck, there's still a significant minority of consumers out there that are stuck with DSL connections, or have to rely on satellite broadband, because there just aren't any ground wires in their areas. And last time I checked, the fastest "average" connection for a country was still under 50Mbps. Beyond this limitation, however, is the issue with processing the data. Sure, Google Stadia (or other services) might handle the graphics processing & a lot of the CPU processing...on their side. But sending that data to you over a broadband connection isn't like sending a rendered game from your GPU to your monitor. Once that data hits your system, it will need to be reprocessed before being displayed. And no, that's not going to be as simple as displaying the video feed from a cable program or streaming service like Netflix, because you're not just watching a video feed; it's a 2-way data stream that's sending your inputs back to the server to be processed. And that brings up, of course, how your typical smart TV is going to be able to receive control inputs on your side. Sure, they generally have a USB port on them...for attaching a flash drive to look at photos/saved videos, but I highly doubt a smart TV will know what to do with a joystick or gamepad plugged into that port. And good luck with the standard keyboard/mouse style of gameplay, which requires two USB ports on a PC. If anything, I would expect gaming streaming services to see a rise in PC sales, because assuming you can actually get by with even a mediocre PC system, that means you can buy a cheap "home" PC (minimal RAMm

AnimeMania said:

This is the major factors to consider, Game streaming requires zero to low commitment to hardware and a huge requirement for high speed internet. PC gaming requires a huge commitment hardware and zero to low requirement for high speed internet.

I think there are 2 important considerations that can sway this in either direction.
Net Neutrality might determine the speed at which your internet traffic flows and which company's pipeline is faster than another.
You Internet provider, will they add data caps, charge high prices when you use large amounts of data, provide high bandwidth internet at reasonable prices, create high bandwidth internet in locations that currently are under represented.

If I had to guess, I predict the Internet providers are going to get greedy and game streaming, along with mass-market 4K video streaming is not going to become main stream. Game streaming services are going to focus on mainstream titles and ignore the indie game titles where a lot of innovation is occurring.

Well, Cox is already introducing it (read here): an extra $15USD/month to "guarantee" less lag, jitter & ping spikes... & it will only take effect on the connection for online gaming (so apparently it isn't even just a speed boost, but rather "optimization" of your connection).

1. Moore’s Law
This is just very old observation on increasing CPU performance and dosnt take into account the multicore design of todays CPUs. Also high end PC will always have superior specs to consoles, because consoles are made from mid to low tier custom PC hardware.
With futures multi chip designs, performance is going to double and more.
= Dose not make me want to switch to console.

2. High GPU Prices Could Negatively Affect PC Gaming
Thats why there are multiple cards with different prices, so u can buy the card u can afford. If u buy card with 300$ and couple of years later buy card with 300$ again and get better performance, where is the problem?
= Dose not make me want to switch to console.

3. Game Streaming On Smart TVs
Latency, latency, latency, streaming will not be better than playing on hardware. Also PC is not just for gaming. Also u could just use the old PC to play streamed games and not buy new console for it.
= Dose not make me want to switch to console.

Andrew Harding said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.videogamer.com/amp/features/pc-gaming-is-dead
I'd look for something older but 12 years will do :)

And of course, they primarily focused this argument on supposedly low sales of Crysis, a game that EA announced had sold over a million copies a little over a month later. It's possible that those were copies sold to retailers, since these would have been mainly physical copies at a time when many were starting to transition to online distribution, as the game didn't come to Steam until the following year, but it seems like worldwide sales for the game were likely decent enough.

Plus, the game had abnormally high system requirements, and wouldn't run all that smoothly even on high-end hardware of the day, which likely impacted initial sales. In some ways, Crytek was probably treating the game as a tech demo to show off what their game engine could do for future titles, hoping to license it to other studios. Even if initial sales might not have been as great as some console games, the game undoubtedly sold well in the years that followed, as Crysis became something of a de facto benchmark to measure PC hardware performance by.

As for Unreal Tournament III, many simply considered it to not be quite as good as prior installments in the series, or at least to not do enough new to justify buying another rendition of the game. And while it wasn't nearly as graphically demanding as Crysis, it was a lot more demanding than prior installments, which for a competitive shooter could turn many away.

Back to this article, I'll just quote what I wrote about game streaming in another thread yesterday...

...As for Stadia, it's yet another game streaming service, which have been around for years, and have never really caught on, and in some cases have gone out of business, leaving their customers without their games, or even save files. The biggest issues with streaming games tend to be latency and image quality, which can both be pretty poor relative to playing games natively. Maybe google can do better than the other companies that have failed in the past, due their large number of server locations and resources, but I wouldn't count on the experience being as good as playing games on even a lower-end gaming PC. Unless you live right near an urban center where they have servers, expect input lag to be poor. Also expect 1080p gaming to probably look more like 720p in motion.

Game streaming will likely become more common as internet connections improve, but I don't see PC gamers jumping ship en masse for game streaming anytime soon. If anything, it seems like console or smartphone gamers would be more prone to trying game streaming services.

Lucian Armasu said:

Jon Peddie Research says that 20 million PC gamers will switch to some form of console or TV-based gaming by 2022.

Millions To Shift From PC To Console Gaming By 2022, Says Research : Read more

Most hardcore gamers will have both consoles and PC. PC for the graphics and consoles for the exclusives. You got to applaud Sony on the quality of their exclusives. I gave up and bought a PS4 just for the exclusives.