Relying on NPD’s number blinds one to the ongoing evolution of PC game
distribution. The key insight, as summarized in a new report from IM Consulting
(the market-intelligence unit at Ignited Minds), is that "the PC game software
market is much more robust than a cursory glance at the data suggests…(our
analysis) becomes a call to publishers to recognize that the PC market can be a
very lucrative and profitable place to publish, if the games are done properly
in the right genres."

According to Lombardi, NPD's retail-sales charts are understating the strength
of PC games sales, and will increasingly understate that strength as the PC
publishing model moves online to alternatives like Steam.
...
2005 was a
year that proved our industry needs a newer and wiser perception of the PC
gaming market. As IM Consulting put it, "Instead of giving up on the PC game
market because retail sales are lagging, we urge publishers to adapt their
distribution strategies to the changing landscape."

So why does the PC get declared as a "dead" gaming platform every year for the last six years or so? There's a ton of reasons:

• There's no barrier to entry, so the market is flooded with games. Most of them crap. It's hard for the customer to wade through all that to find your game (assuming it's not crap).
• No planned obsolescence like there is for consoles - so you still face competition from older games (a lot of the guys in my office still play & love Starcraft!) Towards the end of their lifecycle, consoles face the same problem, but not nearly as bad.
• Tech support for a nearly infinite array of hardware AND software configurations is a nightmare. It sucks when the player blames YOUR game for crashes caused by some spyware he didn't know was on his system.
• Trying to support not only all the varying configurations but also player preferences (like graphics quality, screensize, etc) makes PC game development more expensive.
• Trying to create a cutting-edge game for the PC is a pain because hardware-wise it's a moving target. Guess wrong, and your game might be unplayable on all but a fraction of suped-up machines when it releases, or it gets dismissed as looking like "last year's games."
• Piracy is easier on PCs than on consoles.
• You don't get to take advantage of free marketing under a console's manufacturer as they convince players to buy their console plus a mess of games.
• Popular game styles between consoles & PCs are traditionally very different, making ports from PC to console and vice versa less viable as game budgets increase.
• The cost of maintaining a "Gaming PC" capable of keeping up with the latest, coolest games is about 3x that of consoles, leaving many gamers to "give up" on the PC market because they can't afford to keep up.
• Several of these factors combine to result in hit games for the PC selling significantly less than an equivalent hit on the consoles. Since ports don't work well, as a publisher you have to choose - do you want to take a risk on a PC game, which can only sell half as many, or on a console? Let's say you can only sell a half-million on the PC, but a million on console? What if you have to sell 600,000 to break even?
• Another factor of the "barrier to entry" is that players don't yet have had to worry about viruses and spyware infecting their consoles from games. This is perhaps the single greatest threat to the growth of online software distribution on PCs

One factor that USED to be a big deal but was changed as soon as the predictions of PC gaming's death started sounding was the larger size of PC game boxes. PC game boxes used to be HUGE. That meant that for the same 5 ft. x 5 ft. bit of wall space, a retailer could only possibly sell about a quarter as many games. The mini-game boxes that have taken over in the last three years or so have helped that.

These factors make things seem less and less interesting for PC game sales, especially with skyrocketing game development budgets. So why bother? For many publishers, it sounds like they are having trouble coming up with reasons. But here's my take:

• PC games have no royalties to the console developers, making each unit sold potentially more profitable.
• The Mouse and Keyboard are way better input devices for many games than the control pad. I'm thinking FPS games (I've yet to ENJOY an FPS with a console controller) and RTS games, in particular.
• PCs are approaching uniquitousness (is that the correct term?) While they aren't all rigged for gaming, people have 'em anyway, so it doesn't hurt 'em to stick a game or ten on there.
• There's no barrier to entry (yes, this is a good and bad thing)
• With online distribution, the Cost Of Goods Sold approaches zero, and thus becomes less risky. (This is also true of the new XBLA, too, so consoles are taking advantage of online distribution).
• HARD DRIVES. While this has regrettably led to a "release now, patch later" mentality in PC games, it also means you can support, improve, and KEEP CURRENT a title for an incremental cost to the consumer (or none at all).
• The fastest growing game consumer demographic right now is the older female population. If you are targeting that group with your games, I believe more of them are on computers than on the XBox 360. At least for now.

Do these offset the negatives? I think it depends upon the type of game you are doing, and the type of market you are going after. But the promises of online distribution. The above article and report suggest that there's not only signs of life, but that PC gaming is going strong and still growing. This is good news both for PC gamers (that's me!) and PC game makers (woah, that's me too!)

Labels: Indie Evangelism, Mainstream Games

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 1:17 PM (Permalink)