The majority of gamers you're alluding to—the ones playing the same crap over and over—are also the ones who buy games on their parents' money. Now how exactly do you think they're going to convince parents they need another gaming system? Think of at least one solid thing beside "it has the game I want".
The majority of gamers you're alluding to—the ones playing the same crap over and over—are also the ones who buy games on their parents' money.
By the way, what proof do you have for this assertion? I'd expect some better argument from you than this.
Also, even if this were based in reality, and not factoids pulled out of your ass, there are consistently 4 million births in the US per year.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
We aren't living in the world of "Childern of Men." Kids are growing up, and asking for consoles for birthdays, christmases, etc. For every kid getting off his parent's money, there is another being born on to it.
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
The major sports franchises already have their successful mobile versions and also mobile phones aren't that far behind.
The next-gen consoles are gonna be an inevitable failure, I must admit.
If this were true, then the Nintendo DS and PSP would have killed the PS3/Wii.
Some people want to play on portable devices, and others want to play on TVs. Sorry, but there is no way the phone is going to take over a console.
I would agree that phones could eat into the 3DS/Vita market.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Uh, how about the fact that they've done this for 8 generations of consoles?
Most of these eight generations have had substantial improvements over each other, and not all of them started off at above 300$ by far, even when corrected for inflation. Not all of them happened to be released during the periods of economic recession, either. Here are the US numbers from 2010 released just recently, but you should know from the virtue of living in that country that things didn't considerably change for the better in the last two years. The dollar has never been as fragile in what, decades?
Considering the ungodly bills an average American households pays off—as most of them carry mortgage, credit card debt, and car-related expenses all at the same time—this doesn't leave a lot of freedom to throw away hundreds of dollars liberally. It's not really hard to pinpoint that the decision to buy a new gaming system typically becomes progressively harder to take as their amount in the household grows, even more so if it's as expensive as new systems are at launch.
DarkKobold wrote:
Oh yes they are. Both the gaming populace and manufacturing capabilities have been on the steady rise in the last 20 years, thanks to overall increase in population, the remains of the earlier generations of gamers, and considerably better penetration of new markets. Selling a 10 million units now compared to selling 10 million units in early 90s is a difference worthy of an order of magnitude, and the secondary market is as strong as ever these days, with easy availability of searching and trading used wares via the internet.
But let's take a look anyway.
PS3:
— started off at rather outrageous 599$ without options to decrease the price;
— was the cheapest Blu-ray player for several years;
— has been compromised several times;
— has had notable hardware problems (YLOD);
— was sold at a loss for at least the first four years of its life cycle;
— sold barely above 1/3 the units of its predecessor, which hasn't had new games released for it in five years or so.
Xbox 360:
— has had catastrophic hardware problems throughout most of its life cycle;
— is doing exceedingly poorly in some of the largest gaming populace regions (Japan).
Both systems have rather astonishingly poor libraries of exclusive retail games. Both systems are still being fully supported, updated, and have new input paradigms released mid-cycle, which in olden days would have warranted a new console entirely. Both systems have done more than enough to undermine the trust of paying populace: having your CC information compromised is hardly something you would want to deal with again. Neither is taking the system for a post-warranty period replacement. There are people on other forums I visit that have had their X360s die on them thrice. I'm surprised mine is still working, but then again I've only started using it in 2010.
Vita can so far be safely considered a flop: 1.5 million units in half a year is nothing for a handheld. Only Nintendo is still going strong, in part due to never selling its systems at a loss and due to having a vast pack of exclusive franchises that always sell reasonably well no matter how bad they are (Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc.).
DarkKobold wrote:
By the way, what proof do you have for this assertion? I'd expect some better argument from you than this.
This wasn't even dubious to begin with, but since you insist...
1. The minimum age for legal work in the USA is 14. Work-hours are limited for kids under the age of 16. [1] A foot paper route is expected to pay between 50$ and 200$. [2] Not all of these money are expected to go towards consoles and games.
2. Laws in most states mandate school attendance at least until graduation or age 16. [3]
3. Gaming consoles cost 200–600$ and new retail games go for 40–80$ (collectors' editions go higher, but we don't take that into account). Both are more expensive at the start of their respective life cycles.
4. If you study and work enough to not leave yourself much time to play, you can't be considered the core audience.
I trust you to put two and two together.
DarkKobold wrote:
We aren't living in the world of "Childern of Men." Kids are growing up, and asking for consoles for birthdays, christmases, etc. For every kid getting off his parent's money, there is another being born on to it.
It doesn't really contradict anything I've said. It doesn't change the facts either. Also, read that article I've linked to earlier.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
The majority of gamers you're alluding to—the ones playing the same crap over and over—are also the ones who buy games on their parents' money.
By the way, what proof do you have for this assertion? I'd expect some better argument from you than this.
This wasn't even dubious to begin with, but since you insist...
I don't think DarkKobold's point was about whether kids have enough money for games, but rather about whether it actually is kids and not grown-ups who buy these games. This is a valid point, considering that at least in the US the average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 12 years and the average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 35 (source). Children, or even teenagers, haven't been the main target audience of console games for a while now, and "will the parents buy it?" isn't as important a question nowadays as "will a technologically oriented young man in his twenties buy it?". From my own experience I'd say this is true especially for the aforementioned sports games; they are bought almost exclusively by young men who grew up with the first editions of the NHL and FIFA games. Teenagers seem to be way more interested in whatever's trendy (for example GTA 3 a few years back, Skyrim and Call of Duty games now).
One reason why I feel mobile game very well is taking more interest in consoles. The fact that in more recent years the US/Canadian Governments have decided not to give tax breaks to video game companies anymore. Alongside the costly "next gen" engine licensing. With mobile games, the dirt cheap engines which used to be expsensive very well make up for the government's nasty tax dips.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
DarkKobold wrote:
If this were true, then the Nintendo DS and PSP would have killed the PS3/Wii.
Some people want to play on portable devices, and others want to play on TVs. Sorry, but there is no way the phone is going to take over a console.
I would agree that phones could eat into the 3DS/Vita market.
DS and PSP are handheld consoles, not smartphones.
They have a very limited OS and only run 'honestly' applications approved by the developer.
If things stay as they are, these new consoles are gonna be crushed by the cheap little Ouya.
If people want super realistic graphics, they play games on their awesome PCs.
As that article moozooh linked says, they try to extend their device's lives with UFC or Youtube or NetFlix... but TVs are coming packaged with internet-ready hardware.
They have nowhere interesting to advance to.
Either they fail or they're gonna become the Macintoshes of the videogames.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
I don't think DarkKobold's point was about whether kids have enough money for games, but rather about whether it actually is kids and not grown-ups who buy these games. This is a valid point, considering that at least in the US the average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 12 years and the average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 35 (source). Children, or even teenagers, haven't been the main target audience of console games for a while now, and "will the parents buy it?" isn't as important a question nowadays as "will a technologically oriented young man in his twenties buy it?". From my own experience I'd say this is true especially for the aforementioned sports games; they are bought almost exclusively by young men who grew up with the first editions of the NHL and FIFA games. Teenagers seem to be way more interested in whatever's trendy (for example GTA 3 a few years back, Skyrim and Call of Duty games now).
The average age thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt—realistically it's about as telling as the average body temperature across the hospital. It represents the average age of everybody who plays anything regardless of the kind of games they play, what platforms they use, how often they play, how many games they purchase or how much they spend on their games.
Most of the bored office workers in developed countries play some simple little games when boss isn't looking—this has been the case since the 90s. My parents have played Minesweeper on my PC for nearly a decade. Technically that alone makes them eligible for ESA's statistics... well, would be if they were living in the US. But it doesn't exactly make them an "audience" for video games, let alone console games—something that requires a specialized controller and a user interface completely disconnected from routine actions such as browsing the internet. They don't actively explore the market, don't spend money on games, and generally play very few different titles—for instance, I've never seen my mom play anything beside Minesweeper. Based on my and my friends' experience, when an adult plays a console game, in pretty much all cases it either means they've been playing video games since at least their teen age, or they're playing them on a system bought for their kids—in which case they usually do it with their kids. My dad played Battle City and some SNES soccer game with me some 17 years ago. (Damn, has it really been that long?!) He had fun with them but wouldn't touch my consoles otherwise. It makes about as much sense to consider him a console gamer as it is to consider somebody who drinks a pint of beer at parties a few times a year an alcoholic.
ESA also makes a distinction between the average age of a game player and the average age of a game buyer. Let's look at the history:
Through 2007/2008: players at 35, buyers at 40.
Through 2009: players at 35, buyers at 39.
Through 2010: players at 37, buyers at 41. It's the year Angry Birds was released in, so the peak at around 40 is not particularly surprising.
Through 2011: players at 30, buyers at 35.
The buyer age fluctuates around the point where a person would be expected to parent a teenager. I don't think it ever went below 30 at any given time in videogame history, but it would be interesting to see the statistics for gamer age from, say, early 2000s. The ESA's site doesn't seem to have tracked it back then, if it even existed in the first place.
Another fact from the ESA: "parents are present when games are purchased or rented 90 percent of the time". 90%. Honestly, I don't see a single reason why a self-supporting person of age would invite a parent to a game-buying session or, better yet, send them off to buy the games.
Finally, let's face it, it's mostly kids and the unemployed who have enough time to devote to functionally complex video games without having to sacrifice more important things. Casual games, on the other hand, can be played everywhere, at any time, by everybody, on virtually any device with a screen and a couple buttons (Game & Watch, anyone?). They can be enjoyed by everybody who doesn't seek depth in their games, or just want something quick to pass time with. It's one of the two main reasons why Ouya is going to be a success. (The second is that casual games cost less than 5$ each.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I don't think this number has any validity whatsoever, given that it can't possibly take into account online purchases. Personally I have never ever bought a game from a store; I have ordered every single one of my games online, whether a physical disc or a digital copy. And I have bought a lot of games, I bought about 25 games just a couple of weeks ago during the Steam summer sale, as I'm sure did many other grown-ups.
EDIT: Actually, when I look at this document more carefully, I think that the 90% only refers to children buying games, i.e. in 90% of the cases where children buy games, parents are present. It is under the general heading "parents and games", and last time I checked, I wasn't a parent, so the 90% probably isn't even supposed to refer to situations where adults buy games for themselves.
Finally, let's face it, it's mostly kids and the unemployed who have enough time to devote to functionally complex video games without having to sacrifice more important things.
More important things than video games? Hah.. The sole reason I work/study/do anything else is so I can play more video games in the long run :P
But anyways, I actually kind of disagree on this one, a couple of hours a day (+ more on weekends) is more than enough to count as being more than a casual gamer, and most people who work normal hours can definitely squeeze that in if they want to, if they don't have kids or some other very time consuming hobby. And I'm pretty sure people who play more than, say, 12 hours a week definitely buy a lot of games.
More important things than video games? Hah.. The sole reason I work/study/do anything else is so I can play more video games in the long run :P
I mean making something for the living, taking care of the family and yourself, socializing, learning new things. You know, that kind of stuff that is, well, really more important but in many cases no less fun. :P
Kyrsimys wrote:
But anyways, I actually kind of disagree on this one, a couple of hours a day (+ more on weekends) is more than enough to count as being more than a casual gamer, and most people who work normal hours can definitely squeeze that in if they want to, if they don't have kids or some other very time consuming hobby. And I'm pretty sure people who play more than, say, 12 hours a week definitely buy a lot of games.
I see the hardcore/casual dichotomy a bit differently. For me, a casual gamer is the one who doesn't care much about the result. They see games as something to relax to, as a fun and careless experience, so they're likely to get frustrated at high difficulty, having to grind sections of the game; they largely disregard the competitive aspect of the game. A hardcore gamer, on the other hand, strives to learn ins and outs of the game, is goal-oriented, prefers higher challenge and doesn't mind repetition if it means better results—be it some rare in-game items, stat boosts, higher scores or better times. They care about being better at the game even if it means actual effort, because satisfaction from the result is great enough to offset that.
I think it's a pretty fair way to describe different approaches to playing games—and I by no means insist that somebody who plays some game casually wouldn't play another seriously. It's all good fun either way. But I do posit that you have to spend your game time damn thoughtfully and efficiently to achieve decent results in 12 hours a week. From my experience of playing shmups you need some 30 to 100+ hours of practice with the game depending on its difficulty and your experience with similar games. 12 hours will carry you through... 2/3 of the game, maybe.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
More important things than video games? Hah.. The sole reason I work/study/do anything else is so I can play more video games in the long run :P
I mean making something for the living, taking care of the family and yourself, socializing, learning new things.
Yeah I see what you mean. But especially the last two can definitely be done while playing.
About the casual/hardcore thing, I definitely agree with your definition, at least to some extent. However, competitive gaming and playing games that require competitive gaming -like practice is one thing, but I don't think those kinds of games and that kind of gaming alone constitutes hardcore gaming. You can certainly play games like Just Cause, Assassin's Creed or Skyrim in a casual way and in a hardcore way: Playing through games on the highest difficulty setting, getting 100% completion, getting all achievements and using different playable characters is, in my opinion, definitely not just casual gaming, even though it doesn't require hours of practice. I find that people who play over 12 hours a week (which is really quite a lot, even if you don't think so) very rarely play games casually, meaning just playing through them once and then abandoning them.
Nintendo consistently appears to be doing something incredibly stupid that then turns out to be brilliant -- at least in terms of success for their company.
Nintendo seems to be "the Apple of game consoles".
When Apple introduced the iPhone for the first time, many people doubted and laughed. "It will never catch on." "It doesn't even have a keyboard!" Now it's one of the best sold cellphones of all times, and every single other cellphone manufacturer has copied the idea.
When Apple introduced the iPad, many people doubted and laughed. "It's too large to be carried around, and doesn't have many uses." "It will never catch on." Now it's enormously popular, and almost every single cellphone manufacturer has their own tablet clone.
Apple has had its highs and lows during its existence, when it was/is highly popular, and when it was struggling with a waning (but loyal) fanbase.
Nintendo seems pretty similar.
Kyrsimys wrote:
You can certainly play games like Just Cause, Assassin's Creed or Skyrim in a casual way and in a hardcore way
I would never classify those games even close to "casual". Even what you consider "playing in a casual way" is hardcore from the perspective of an average consumer of actual casual games.
Say what you will about the Wii's motion control, it sold a crapton of consoles, including a bunch to people who had never played videogames before in their lives, and all at a profit.
But even though PS3 sold less than Wii, they probably made the same amount of money because PS3 cost twice as much.
moozooh wrote:
PS3:
— started off at rather outrageous 599$ without options to decrease the price;
Not really outrageous if you compare to what it cost here in Sweden at launch: 6800 kr, which is the equivalent of $1000.
Say what you will about the Wii's motion control, it sold a crapton of consoles, including a bunch to people who had never played videogames before in their lives, and all at a profit.
But even though PS3 sold less than Wii, they probably made the same amount of money because PS3 cost twice as much.
Actually Nintendo made way more money on the Wii because they always sold it at a profit, while Sony lost money per sold console for a long time (and had to make their money from games). Sony has basically been bleeding money for a long time now.
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
Cpadolf wrote:
Actually Nintendo made way more money on the Wii because they always sold it at a profit, while Sony lost money per sold console for a long time (and had to make their money from games). Sony has basically been bleeding money for a long time now.
But, Sony is not just the Playstation and it's games. They also make computers and other devices.
Link to video
That seems about right. The future is not going to be so good.
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war.
The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
I happen to like My Xbox. But then again, the only reason I have one is because all of my friends had one, so I can Play online with them! Hooray Peer pressure!
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
I haven't bought a console in quite a while. I've played some PS2 games but pretty quickly let my sister have it. The only console I really still play is the PSX (and I've got a ton of games for it, and I actually haven't even played all of the ones I have).
That reminds me I need to perform that AV hack on my Famicom to be able to connect it via standard composite cable. And then I'll need something that can properly capture and send that signal to my computer. Right now I have an external TV capture card that only works with PAL signals...
I mostly just play PSX games and computer games.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
I happen to like My Xbox. But then again, the only reason I have one is because all of my friends had one, so I can Play online with them! Hooray Peer pressure!
