Sunday, October 09, 2005
Videogaming on the Decline (again?)
The game-related bit from a recent Piper Jaffret survey:
"The students were also surveyed on video game products and other consumer electronics. Results of the survey point out 79 percent of student households have at least one video game platform and 58 percent of students stating that they are occasional game players (playing at least monthly). In addition, 65 percent of student households own Sony's PS2, 50 percent own Microsoft's Xbox and 26 percent own Nintendo's GameCube. GameStop was recognized in the survey as the leading retailer for pre-owned video games with 60 percent market share and 29 percent market share for teen video game purchases. The survey also pointed out that 75 percent of teens say their interest in video games is declining and 78 percent indicated they spent less time playing in 2005."
What does this mean? Heck if I know. Nintendo has commented extensively about how videogame sales in Japan have been in decline - now, a couple of years later, is it happening in the U.S. as well? Nintendo's stance as to the reason why was something I'm not entirely in agreement with (but they've been in this biz a lot longer than me, so I fully acknowledge that I could be wrong) - that flashy graphics aren't enough of a gimmick to keep players coming back for more. So they are inventing new controls to be the next gimmick. (The use of the term "gimmick" is me putting words into their mouth, BTW).
I agree completely that for years the cooler, more detailed graphics have been the driving force in games. For all the talk of gameplay (and arguments over what that word really means), when people vote with their wallet, it tends to go towards the prettiest pictures. That's not the entire equation - otherwise Hollywood would have taken over in the mid-90's when FMV technology became a reality like they tried to do. But each new generation of graphics is becoming less and less impressive to the jaded consumer. ESPECIALLY when the new games coming out are merely graphical retreads of the same game that has been pumped out for the last five-to-ten years.
But did people quit reading books because the novelty of books wore off? No. Granted, a bunch of people never bother to read because there's more passive media available (the television in particular). But look at the feeding frenzy that surrounded the last Harry Potter releases - proof that there's still some powerful life left in that medium! Yet it's nothing that couldn't have been written thirty years ago - the written word hasn't depended upon technology much since the invention of the printing press.
are we going to continue to slave videogames to technology for success? Now that we're hitting the stage where the average player can't discern the qualitative difference in a scene from three-year-old technology and the latest technology (nevermind those differences doubled our budget to create!), are we going to run out of ways to show players something they've never seen before?
I don't think that's necessary. Yeah, I think we'll have a tougher time sustaining the growth in sales we are used to seeing. But that one simply CAN'T continue forever - I mean, if 79% of student households have videogame consoles already, there's not a lot of room to expand that particular market. Your maximum growth is 20%. You either need to branch out to other markets - foreign markets and different demographics - or you need to think twice about doubling the budgets of next-generation games.
Of course, the poll could be incorrect as well. And it could simply be indicating the usual slump that occurs just before a new generation of consoles hits the market. So who knows?
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:56 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
And in somewhat related news... I missed this comic when it first came out:
http://www.gucomics.com/archives/view.php?cdate=20050916
I actually hope this isn't the case... I kinda like the concept, at least, of Nintendo's new controller. But I'm gonna refrain from judgement until I have had a couple of days to play with it.
http://www.gucomics.com/archives/view.php?cdate=20050916
I actually hope this isn't the case... I kinda like the concept, at least, of Nintendo's new controller. But I'm gonna refrain from judgement until I have had a couple of days to play with it.
I'm skeptical about this interpretation of the poll results. Teens saying that their interest is waning brings to mind two questions. First, is their interest really waning just because they say it is (they could be trying to convince themselves that they are "maturing"). Second, isn't that a normal process--for a teen's interest in video games to wane as they "mature"?
I know that many people who play games when they are younger don't when they are older. I think that is probably normal. Which necessarily makes you and me abnormal, but then, we knew that already...
I know that many people who play games when they are younger don't when they are older. I think that is probably normal. Which necessarily makes you and me abnormal, but then, we knew that already...
Traditionally, yeah, but the average age demographic for games is now actually a lot older than it used to be. I think the average console gamer is 21, now, instead of 14 like it was 20 years ago. (I'm pulling the numbers not entirely out of the air, but I don't remember the details of the last report I read about it.)
And the slump in sales in Japan reported by Nintendo are real, AFAIK. They experienced an actual, honest-too-goodness shrinking of the market. Whether that was real or a result of competition, I can't say.
Anyway, so while the poll MAY be teenagers trying to state that they are getting "too cool for videogames," I wouldn't completely dismiss it.
And the slump in sales in Japan reported by Nintendo are real, AFAIK. They experienced an actual, honest-too-goodness shrinking of the market. Whether that was real or a result of competition, I can't say.
Anyway, so while the poll MAY be teenagers trying to state that they are getting "too cool for videogames," I wouldn't completely dismiss it.
Is it possible that interest in video games is declining because there are so many other things to occupy their minds? A lot more web applications and websites are out now than ever before. They are probably finding myspace and livejournal to be a lot of fun, and video games would just take up time away from it.
They aren't watching television either. It's hard to say whether or not it is a real decline in games, but I only somewhat agree that games aren't as compelling as they used to be. The movie industry had a "surprisingly" bad summer box office, and people complain that it is the quality of the movies. I personally think it is the decline of the quality of the movie-going experience. It might just be that there are other things gaining fans rather than losses across the board.
They aren't watching television either. It's hard to say whether or not it is a real decline in games, but I only somewhat agree that games aren't as compelling as they used to be. The movie industry had a "surprisingly" bad summer box office, and people complain that it is the quality of the movies. I personally think it is the decline of the quality of the movie-going experience. It might just be that there are other things gaining fans rather than losses across the board.
From what I can see (as a video game consumer from the 90s), the decline in video game sales is due mainly to the fact that video games have become more and more action-oriented, while their public has changed quite a bit. And, the fact they've focused on the wrong thing.
Ask the average gamer what he likes, and he'll say "neat graphics". Heck, even I would say that. However, this is one of those "proactive" marketing points. Graphics ARE loved, but when I think you boil it down, the past crop of gamers are more into a more detailed setting.
Looking further into this, you can see that toward the end of the 90s, the games that hit it off had good graphics, yes. However, they also possessed more involved settings, things where the players had more involvement in resolving the problems presented before them. I'm not talking simple puzzles, I'm talking *involvement*. The BG series and to some degree, Neverwinter Nights (as well as Elder Scrolls) demonstrate this. Ask the older gen what the BEST game was, and you'll often get Fallout or Fallout 2, both of which had heavy player involvement in the plot as well as humor, dark and well done. They were thought-provoking games.
World of Warcraft also hit big, but I think they are beginning to die due to the lack of an actual "game". I know many of my friends have gotten tired of constant "get to 60, raid raid raid" which is prevalent in so many other MMOs.
MMOs DO have the positive point again of "involvement". You gt involved wit hthe world, the other players, and have goals to achieve (shiny items, whatnot).
If the video game moguls stopped listening to the public, and became proactive... wait, let me explain proactive here.
Proactive in this context means not just listening, but discovering what is needed. Microsoft did this well early on (and to some degree, with the .net software still do), meaning they thought up new ways the consumer never dreamed of using software and implemented it.
If hte video game industry does not practice this "proactive" approach, I see a dead market in the future, where it costs more to develop a game than it gets back from the consumer.
Post a Comment
Ask the average gamer what he likes, and he'll say "neat graphics". Heck, even I would say that. However, this is one of those "proactive" marketing points. Graphics ARE loved, but when I think you boil it down, the past crop of gamers are more into a more detailed setting.
Looking further into this, you can see that toward the end of the 90s, the games that hit it off had good graphics, yes. However, they also possessed more involved settings, things where the players had more involvement in resolving the problems presented before them. I'm not talking simple puzzles, I'm talking *involvement*. The BG series and to some degree, Neverwinter Nights (as well as Elder Scrolls) demonstrate this. Ask the older gen what the BEST game was, and you'll often get Fallout or Fallout 2, both of which had heavy player involvement in the plot as well as humor, dark and well done. They were thought-provoking games.
World of Warcraft also hit big, but I think they are beginning to die due to the lack of an actual "game". I know many of my friends have gotten tired of constant "get to 60, raid raid raid" which is prevalent in so many other MMOs.
MMOs DO have the positive point again of "involvement". You gt involved wit hthe world, the other players, and have goals to achieve (shiny items, whatnot).
If the video game moguls stopped listening to the public, and became proactive... wait, let me explain proactive here.
Proactive in this context means not just listening, but discovering what is needed. Microsoft did this well early on (and to some degree, with the .net software still do), meaning they thought up new ways the consumer never dreamed of using software and implemented it.
If hte video game industry does not practice this "proactive" approach, I see a dead market in the future, where it costs more to develop a game than it gets back from the consumer.
# posted by 
: April 24, 2006 5:51 AM
: April 24, 2006 5:51 AMLinks to this post:
<< Home
