Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
arrowPress Releases
April 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM TechWeb sites:


Analysis: Little hope for short-term U.S. game retail turnaround
Analysis: Little hope for short-term U.S. game retail turnaround Exclusive
June 18, 2012 | By Matt Matthews

June 18, 2012 | By Matt Matthews
Comments
    37 comments
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing, Exclusive



The U.S. retail video game market is sick, and it's likely that nothing can be done in the short term to turn it around.

At least that's what I see in the latest retail video game sales estimates released by the NPD Group for May 2012. It's true -- my previous analyses have been similarly gloomy, but I simply cannot find a shred of good news for the retail industry as a whole, looking at these latest figures.

There's still plenty more to be said about this declining market. Let me give a couple of examples of just how bad it has gotten. In 2007, five years ago and the first full calendar year for the Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation 3, software sales across the entire U.S. retail market crossed the 50 million unit mark sometime in April.

In each of 2008, 2009, and 2010 the 50 million unit software point was crossed sometime in March. That is, software sold more briskly.

But in 2011, it fell back into early April, indicating a significant slowdown. This year, unit sales just crossed 51 million units at the very end of May. That's edging away from slowdown and closer to collapse.

Year to date, the software unit sales are 30 percent off from the level at the same point in 2011 and over 40 percent down from the peak of the retail market in 2008. The chart below shows the trend in retail software sales through the end of May for each year since 2007.



At least part of this accelerated degradation has to be attributed to the number of active platforms on the market.

Last year at this time, you could make an argument that there were three relevant consoles - Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PlayStation 3, and Nintendo's Wii - but this year the Xbox 360 and PS3 are far and away generating the most software revenue.

In the past 12 months, for every $50 that the Wii generated in software sales, the PS3 generated $66 and the Xbox 360 generated over $100.

For the sake of comparison, had we done the same measure a year ago, we would have said that for every $50 at retail in Wii software, the PS3 was moving less than $45 in software while the Xbox 360 shifted around $65.

With each month that passes, with fewer and fewer releases, the Wii is simply waiting to be replaced by the Wii U later this year.

Likewise, there is a similar situation going on in the handheld market. Last year's PSP software revenues are barely being replaced, and slightly supplemented, by software revenues on the PlayStation Vita. The Nintendo 3DS is slipping into the place formerly occupied by the Nintendo DS, but it still needs a larger base and more core Nintendo titles to truly fill that gap.

What's going on here? The primary challenge facing the traditional video game industry today is that it is losing active consumers faster than it is adding new ones. This is an idea we've heard before, but most recently from Michael Olson and Andrew Connor of Piper Jaffray, who wrote that casual console gamers "are not actively using their consoles anymore and are therefore no longer included in the total addressable market for future console-based video game sales."

Consider the following figure, which shows the number of PlayStation 2, Xbox, and GameCube consoles sold in the U.S. between October 2000 and April 2007, and compares it with the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii systems sold in the U.S. between November 2005 and May 2012. These are comparable 79-month periods of time from the beginning of each generation.



This isn't a perfect comparison, since the time periods overlap by about 18 months, but the differential is pretty clear: approximately 30 million more systems have been sold in a comparable period this generation, than last.

Yet, during May 2012, an estimated 5 million units of software were sold for those three platforms. That's far fewer than 10 percent of the base of hardware receiving new software, even if we allow for a generous amount of hardware failure. If only 1 in every 15 of the systems in homes are actually engaged in the video game market, then the audience for brand new $50 and $60 games is far smaller than the actual base size would otherwise suggest.

I've spoken before about how I believed that Wii consumers in the U.S. were active for a short period - maybe six months - after they purchased their consoles, but then went dormant again. So when Wii hardware sales were white hot for a couple of years, the software sales followed at an equally torrid pace.

Software and accessory bundles, like Wii Fit, Wii Play, and Guitar Hero, helped fuel these sales, but eventually consumer demand was sated. If anything, Wii systems appear to have become popular as Netflix clients if not gaming systems, and it will finally crawl across the 40 million system line just as the Wii U launches later this year.

There is no one reason that the Wii market collapsed, but we can see the effects clearly: hardware, software, and even accessory sales have dried up. If my estimates are correct, Wii software sales were the weakest since the system launched in November 2006.

The remaining systems, the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, now appear to be on a similar trajectory. Hardware sales are falling, and have been for several months. For example, the Xbox 360 has shown year-over-year declines in hardware sales for nine of the last twelve months. The same is true for the PlayStation 3, although the specific weak months are different.

Except for the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita, hardware sales are down so far in 2012 for every other platform. The figure below shows that these aren't modest declines, either.



In a similar way, software has been down on the HD platforms in seven of the last 12 months.

To tell it chronologically, each significant source of revenue has collapsed over the past few years. The music games died in 2009, then the PlayStation 2 finally became irrelevant in 2010, and then the Wii and Nintendo DS began final descent in 2011. Now the two HD platforms appear to have peaked, and are beginning to decline as well, and games that are typically big on these platforms like Call of Duty are also beginning to wane. Meanwhile, the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita haven't begun to substantially replace the consumers and revenue streams that have fled.

To return the industry to growth, it will have to reverse trends that have been in motion for several years. It can try to wring new revenue out of the existing base, or it can entice consumers to buy more systems and then sell them as much software as it can while they're active.

I've been advocating for a while now that Sony and Microsoft drop the entry level price for their consoles, and attract new consumers. Microsoft, in particular, hasn't budged from its $200 baseline system since it announced that price back in September 2008. Sony just reached $250 in August 2011, which means the PS3 has only dropped $50 in 22 months.

Microsoft will clearly win over some new consumers with its $100 console bundled with a two year Xbox Live Gold subscription, due to roll out to GameStop and Best Buy this month. I'll reserve more comment on Microsoft's situation for later this week, when I have a column dedicated to the Xbox 360 and Kinect.

For Sony, the situation is becoming more serious. Despite launching a year after its prime competitor, the system has failed to consistently distinguish itself technologically. Sony-bred games like Uncharted or God of War are top-line exclusive PS3 titles that push the console's complex hardware, but consumers have continued to vote month after month for the Xbox 360.

More alarmingly, Microsoft is achieving this while selling its system at a higher average price. The Xbox 360 has sold for $287 on average so far this year, according to data provided to me by the NPD Group, while the PS3 has sold for about $269 on average. For the PS3 that's almost exactly a $50 drop from where its average stood prior to the August 2011 price cut.



To my mind, there is clearly a market out there for a console more advanced than the Nintendo Wii at a price significantly below $200. Consumers have $200 to spend on technology - sales of iOS and Android tablets tell us this - but clearly consoles are not making their value argument as well as those other devices.

I don't think adding more value - in the form of bundled games or services - is going to make the case at the current price levels. It makes more sense to me, just from the perspective of gaining active users, to get in at a lower price.

The longer Sony and Microsoft wait, the harder it gets to justify the cost for the system. Yes, consumers are dropping $500 and more on Apple's iPads, but these devices are cutting edge. When you tell that same consumer that they can have the very best living room technology from 2005 for $200, it simply doesn't pass muster.

Microsoft may feel it has made its price cut, with the new $100 hardware plus service offering. Will Sony wait until August again to make its next cut? If so, I fully expect the company's PS3 sales to drop to below 100,000 units for the month of July, a level not seen since the summer of 2007.

Later this week, I'll look more closely at the individual titles in the software sales for May 2012 and I'll also dig into what we know about Microsoft and its Kinect business. Stay tuned.


Related Jobs

SG North
SG North — Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[04.23.14]

Director of Live Production
Turbine Inc.
Turbine Inc. — Needham, Massachusetts, United States
[04.23.14]

Director, Analytics Platform Development
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Sr. Front-end Web Developer
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Sr. Software Engineer, Back-end










Comments


William Johnson
profile image
I agree that games are just too stupidly expensive. I don't understand how these companies have not learned from the past.

Lets take a look in the way-back-machine to the 90's. The market was controlled by Nintendo and Sega. And here comes 3DO and Atari thinking they can take over the market by releasing new hardware. They thought they could offer more media functionality and offer a better value to consumers, so they charged more. No one bought that crap, even if the hardware was better and it could do more then the SNES or Genesis.

And then we look at the PSX, Saturn, and N64. Sega thought the Saturn would be perfect for their hardcore users, so they priced it at $400. Sony didn't know what they were doing, so they priced the PSX at $300. And Nintendo priced the N64 for $200. But games on the N64 were $70! While PSX games were $50. That means the more N64 games you buy the less value the console had.

There are a lot of other reasons why the 3DO, N64, etc failed, but I think the main point was price. The price of games and the price of the systems themselves. The console's biggest advantage compared to PC gaming used to be price. And now that PC hardware is pretty cheap, and that things like Steam sales or the App Store, games are cheap now too. So that means, if you are looking for cheap, consumable entertainment, people don't look for it on the consoles anymore.

If these three companies want their consumers back, they need to offer a better price, not more "value" (that no one wants) at the same price.

TC Weidner
profile image
disagree, prices for games have not moved for decades. They have gone down when taking in consideration inflation. I paid over 300 bucks for Intellivision back in the day, that would be well over 500-600 now. Games have been 50-60 bucks for almost 2 decades now. The price point has been established and its fine

Its the economy. we are basically in a world recession, and gaming is a luxury that is easily cut from family budgets. There is your answer.

Add to that, that many games are nothing but retreads of previous titles and add that to an industry who doesnt understand how to advertise and you have this perfect storm.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Eric Feliu
profile image
How exactly did the N64 fail? It was 2nd place to the Playstation and sold a respectable amount of units compared to the 3DO and Saturn. I think the price of the 3DO console and lack of quality games was the reason for that systems downfall. The problem with the Saturn was it could not handle 3D graphics as well as other systems of the day and the trend at the time was 3D graphics.

William Johnson
profile image
@TC Weidner
I don't think inflation effects technology in the same way it effects stamps or gas. $300 in 1979 would be almost a grand now. For $1k I won't be buying a console, I'd be buying an ultra book or desktop or something fancy. The other catch is that technology depreciates in value. If you bought $300 of gasoline in 1979, it'd be worth almost a grand now. But your Intellivision would be worth next to nothing because technology has advanced so much that it's rendered the Intellivision completely obsolete. So I honestly don't think its completely accurate to think that we should be paying more for games, just because of inflation.

@Eric Feliu
The N64 wasn't a success when compared to the PSX, thus making it appear to be a failure. This isn't to say that it was a financial failure, but I am just trying to say Nintendo no longer had the same sway it once had over the industry.

Also, there are a lot of reasons why 3DO failed. I recall a lot of distribution problems with setting up in the retail space as well as software support. Boiling their entire problem down to price is a bit naive, but I think that was their major problem.

Mike Griffin
profile image
Since the 2000s began, our consoles have integrated more "mainstream" consumer PC parts into their specifications via partners like IBM, Nvidia and ATI/AMD. As opposed to the more proprietary parts provided by hardware partners in older generation consoles.

This makes it a tad more difficult to accelerate price drops over time, as the console makers are spending the early years losing considerable $$ on each and every console they produce, as the hardware is comparatively expensive over that period.

... to the extent that it's taken 7 years into the generation before a giant like Microsoft can begin to consider radically lower-priced console bundles this summer. A smart way to clear out hardware overstock as we approach the generational brink.

With the next consoles set to spiking the technology curve again, and once again employing consumer PC-level parts, I believe we'll see the same pricing phenomenon occur in the next-gen arc. It's going to start very expensive, and pricing is not going to get "light user" friendly for at least 2 years -- likely into 2015.

Which is why the big 3 will be working double-time to monetize their integrated online and social services, and encourage loads of DLC, to help defray those early accepted losses on new hardware at retail.

Business as usual! Are today's consumers ready for business as usual?

isaac pope
profile image
I disagree on the consumer level pc part statement. Both Sony and Microsoft will be implementing APUs from AMD. Considering how cheep APUs are (in the 100-$150 price range for all those non techies) the price drop will be fast as the technology they are looking at implementing is already depreciating. The fact is when we crossed the 30nm processing hump the cost of producing a decent gpu/cpu went down dramatically culminating in the current generation of gpus being cheaper at launch than the previous gen by almost 20%. pair this with the fact that neither company are looking into a discrete option even if they did that would put the cost of the next gen around 250-300 at launch pair that with the inescapable gravitational pull of digital distribution and the potential down force it can have on price models and the next gen offers a massive potential savings to the consumer.

Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
Again, Matt? The only people who should be worried about this are US game retailers. After I had to do 4 different stores looking for a PS3 copy of Dragon's Dogma on release week, since all the retailers understock new games to sell used copies and promote pre-orders, I dont have much sympathy for retailers and their practices. Let the ones who can't figure it out die.

E Zachary Knight
profile image
"since all the retailers understock new games to sell used copies and promote pre-orders"

I was not aware that Walmart, Target, Best Buy, COSTCO, Sam's Club, Fry's Electronics and many many other big box stores did that. What a strange world we live in where all stores facilitate a practice only taken by a fraction of the market.

Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
Most of these we dont have over here, but Best Buy had no copies except the ones for pre-orders. You would THINK that since they have enough storage space for fridges, they could stock 10 copies of a game without pre-order, right? But they dont. Its not a strange world, just a stupid one.

Even if its not all retailers, the business model I described is common enough that customers turns toward downloadable, piracy, or other forms of entertainment.

Nathan Mates
profile image
Why spend so long at local retailers, and not go online? Amazon and eBay carry that title, and after a little bit of frustration, I'd look online.

Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
@Nathan

Parcel delivery sucks over here.

@Christian

Publishers dont care about actual retail, they care about total sales and revenue per unit. If people switch over to downloadable, publishers still make business. And crash? We are seeing the normal end of a long cycle.

Manufacturers can't expect the consoles to sell as much after 7 years.

We should stop taking the US retail sales numbers alone and call a crash for the whole industry. Several things are happening and retail getting lower is fully to be expected.

Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
Are we talking about the same industry? This cycle has been the longest ever. And strongly declining sales at the end of each cycle have been the rule, with the exception of the transition between the 5th and 6th generation, because The Sims single-handedly covered the gap.

Bob Johnson
profile image
@Christian

This generation isn't over and the Xbox is at 7 years almost. And will go to 8 years at least.

8 years between consoles from the same company is longest ever I bet.

Ps3 will be 7 years at least before next console as long as the much more popular PS2 before it was replaced maybe longer. And the Wii will be replaced after 6 years which is Nintendo's longest gap between consoles.

The average lifespan of this generation per console before it will be replaced will be at least 7 years which is longer than any of the generations you mentioned.


Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
I wont bother to pretend that the 3DO and the Jaguar mattered. Its like talking about the Pontiac Aztek or the Toronto Leafs.

Bob Johnson
profile image
@Christian


NES wasn't released in the US until 1985. So it gets an asterisk.

So do the other generations you mentioned which were started by consoles that failed pretty much before the successful consoles were even launched. Plus the Dreamcast wasn't released in NA until fall 1999. Another asterisk to an asterisk. It was discontinued before the GameCube and Xbox were released.

Gameboy was a long one but it had no competition and wasn't a console.

I think the overall point is this is a long generation. We haven't seen new console hardware in 6 years from anyone. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

Bob Johnson
profile image
@Christian

A long generation contributes to stale games.

We haven't seen new hardware in nearly six years which I think is a record. The NES was only out for 6 years here in the US before the SNES was released. Very different from it being out here for 8 years.

Dreamcast has nostalgia going for it but that is about it. Was kaput in 18 months and before GC or Xbox came to market. It is like counting your still born slightly older brother as part of your generation. Apologies if you're disgusted by my analogy, but that is all I have off the top of my head.

You say folks don't want new hardware every 30 months (which no one disagrees with) yet you have no problem including every short-lived console when calculating the length of previous generations. :)

John Gordon
profile image
The game industry is in serious trouble, and right now it seems like no one doing anything to save it. Only Nintendo has 1/2 a clue and even then it is only 1/2. Right now if someone wants to play a game they can choose a $60 game from a company that is probably going to go out of business or a $1 game made by guys in their garage. What about something in between? What about a business model where a company doesn't spend itself out of business just to make a typical game? Remember the "good ole days" when selling a million copies meant you were guaranteed to turn a profit?

Releasing bigger and better consoles is not going to save the industry, because costs are already too high. There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way the gaming business is done.

Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
There is room for a variety of business models in this industry, and indeed they exist. I spend some money on 60$ console titles, but I also spend a lot of money on 20-30$ Steam titles, and other people spend a lot of money on cell phone games, and free-to-play is also there. The industry has been massively diversifying in the last few years and its awesome. Well, except for retailers, because the diversification implies that they lose a chunk of their (formerly massively dominant) position.

John Gordon
profile image
You inspired me to look up how much Steam is charging for Diablo 3. What I found out is that it isn't even sold on Steam. That doesn't speak well for the platform.

But I saw some new games like Max Payne 3 going for $60. That is pathetic. If digital downloads would have an advantage over retail it would be lower prices. Steam isn't charging lower prices. As a platform it's never going to outdo a console if it isn't giving better prices than consoles do.

Steam is a niche platform, and that is not going to change any time soon. The industry's bread and butter are consoles, but right now all the consoles are falling off of a cliff. If the console industry entirely implodes, then their is going to be a void, but Steam is not up to the task of filling it.

Bob Johnson
profile image
The product is old. Consumers need new experiences to keep them interested.

The iPad is a computer replacement first and foremost not a gaming machine replacement.

Kenneth Wesley
profile image
The biggest problem with game prices isn't the price point itself. As people have stated, it has been around the same price point for decades now. The biggest issue to me: there's a lot more quality games out now than it has been. Quality can be debated for months but there's just a lot more good games coming out every month through multiple avenues.

Bob Johnson
profile image
At the same time used games are cheaper than ever with a better and deeper selection than ever. And used consoles are also as plentiful and cheap as ever. Do you really need to buy a new console? Why pay $60 for a new game if you can get a used one for $10 that could easily be better than the $60 one?

That has to be hurting sales.

Then there are quite a bit fewer new releases. Some of it is less AAA games and some of it is less shovelware at least my gut says shovelware sells better at the beginning of a generation than at the end when it has to compete against a backlog of good games.

Last new old titles are at cheaper pricepoints which should hurt overall dollar sales of software too. Even if you stick to buying shrink wrapped games many will just buy the $20 title or less on sale instead of the newly released $60 title. Your risk is much less not just because you are only paying $20 but because the game has been vetted by a ton of gamers after years in the wild.

TC Weidner
profile image
I think we have seen the last of used games sales with this gen. The next gen will tie software to specific hardware and used games will be a thing of the past. From a business standpoint its makes sense. A game could be sold 4 to 5 times, yet the creator and so forth only see money from the first sale, I dont foresee them allowing that anymore.

Irwin Goodwin
profile image
Could retail be dying, not because less people are buying console games, but rather (or partly) from a developer "gold rush" resulting in fewer good console games on the shelf?

In other words (and overly simplistic terms, and one personal rant... #5):

1) Apple does it's thing, a fart game makes a lot of money.
2) Time goes by, free to play evolves, new infant companies make the big 3's profits seem like peanuts.
3) Developers/publishers/whoever realize they can spend a fraction of the cost, put out shovelware, and make 10 (maybe 100?) times what they could on a a "blood, sweat, and tears" AAA console game.
4) Small studios change focus, big studios align their business strategy to catch whales.
5) The people who really care about and actually make the games wonder, wtf just happened? And why is this pre vi/gcc ancient broken tool called xcode being forced upon me?
6) Fewer and fewer good console games get made, less quality and quantity on the shelf.
7) The people in #5 realize it's a blessing in disguise and that they have just inherited a viable market, and with services like gog and steam, it's now more feasible to become independent.
8) Retail dies.

And really, I'm just asking. There's probably other reasons, I don't know. But I'll always remember the day Insomniac partnered with EA to make a facebook game.

wes bogdan
profile image
Yes first we must pay bills and times are worse than i ever expected to live in however if you remove wii and it's shovelware(sure there were good games but far too many quick buck n done) leaving only ps3 and 360 to duke it out things wouldn't be so bleak.

Wii was the best/worst thing to happen to gaming since virtuial boy. It created an audience out of non gamers but with sporatic good releases they went back to their other hobbies only dusting off the wii when something multi player arrived like mario kart or smash.

I hope wii U isnt rinse n repeat of course i fear wii uis going to be replaced 2-3 years after ps4 and 720 land.

Nintendo would then be on the way out of home hardware.

James Hofmann
profile image
The nature of collapses is that everyone assumes business-as-usual, albeit with increasing tension, until suddenly everything moves at once.

We're definitely in the movement stage; we're pretty aware of all the sources of disruption, even if our statistical picture is incomplete. If there's a turnaround from this, it's probably going to come in the form of another disruption that reworks the basic value propositions of consoles.

Although the big 3 have all applied some form of convergence strategy now, convergence itself has eroded traditional advantages - plug in a controller to the new wave of "smart TVs" that integrate a phone/tablet OS, and you've got the essentials of a console. Plug-and-play, easy setup, online with digital downloads. Input standards will remain a nagging problem, but there's already movement on that front through a gaggle of third-parties.

A console isn't going to escape this by having better specs; The extra effort to max out the hardware is predicated on the symbiotic entangling of the blockbuster AAA model, the health of the retail market, and the dominance of console manufacturers. The latter two are already eroding - and while AAA is still likely to be made, it will lack the old rationales to remain exclusive. We'll end up in a cycle which strongly prefers cross-platform technologies, erasing most advantages of spec.

The most promising strategy, from this standpoint, is to pioneer a truly niche platform like Sifteo. Sifteo will never host a AAA game, because it's basically designed out that possibility - but since its hardware is so unique, it reopens the possibility of being a platform in its own right. However, innovating like that is not straightforward in the slightest, and it negates the perceived assets of console makers like old IP and codebases. Even Nintendo has favored an incremental approach by taking their existing console models and adding on one or two new things.

Harlan Sumgui
profile image
From my perspective, very few games hook players like they did back in the day. Most people who get into gaming in a big way do it because the have had certain experiences that are really engaging and intense, and that has nothing to do with production values, voice acting, etc.

What I'm talking about is those moments when time seems to fly, when your attention is 100% focused, when you're holding a controller and your body is unconsciously twisting as you focus like a laser on trying to accomplish something. It's a special feeling, and people who experience it will actively seek it out again and again: total immersion in gameplay.

And I just don't see many big time projects with big time marketing budgets working towards creating those experiences, experiences which emerge only from actual gameplay. What I see instead is a market saturated with cutscene riddled games that push story over gameplay. Max Payne 3 being the most recent example. Actual gameplay is relegated to a standardized formula that eschews challenge, depth, or difficulty.

Another recent (i.e. in the last 5-7 years) trend that takes away from total immersion is designing games around multiplayer. Multiplayer when not done locally is a huge impediment to total immersion.

Anyway, so what has happened is that the traditional gaming audience is one that is not being given games with gameplay designed for total immersion; and as such, the actual playing of a retail game offers nothing substantively different by way of experience than non-interactive entertainment.

Further, I would go so far as to say that supposedly simple games like angry birds or defense grid offer a more intense gaming experience than any of the big release in the last couple of years.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Matt Cratty
profile image
I don't have any data, so I realize my opinion isn't very useful to a factual discussion.

But, I can say that the number of games I must play each year has gone from 10-15 back in the early 2000s to maybe 3 in 2012. I'm grateful if there are 5 games released a year that I feel I must buy at retail. And its not because of my age. I can get sucked into a great game just as much today as I could 15 years ago.

Part of the problem is that I'm not a console gamer and have no use for the current design paradigm and spend a lot of my time with exceptional titles that occasionally come out of nowhere on the PC. I also find myself buying a ton of very old games to tide myself over and really enjoying them.

I'm not the market the publishers care about for sure, but I know that I used to regularly go to the store just to look around, as there was a good likelihood of something good being on the shelves in the PC section. Now? I just stay home and browse steam once in a while and keep my ear to the ground.

What does all that mean? Probably nothing, as I'm not a good marker for the common market. But, I do know that there is essentially NOWHERE for the niche gamer to go except steam or the past. Maybe that's a small part of where all the money is going?

Bob Johnson
profile image
Sounds like your age is a big factor.

John Gordon
profile image
@Matt

I don't think you are alone. There is a reason why sites like Good Old Games exist (or the Virtual Console). There is a whole lot of talent in the game industry that is wasted toward making another shooter game that is only slightly different than all of the other shooter games on the market. What is really nuts is that most of these shooter games don't turn a profit.

One might think that there are a whole lot of potential gamers out there just waiting to spend money on a game that is of good quality and not a shooter. Hell there is even room for more variety in shooters (like say a spaceship game). There is a lot of money left on the table from customers just waiting for someone to make a game for them.

Harlan Sumgui
profile image
you are in the minority in so far as those who feel like you usually just stop playing games. The industry really has shrunk the base to the point that the only people buying retail games are fps fans and those under 18.

David Glenn
profile image
Like Video killed the Radio Star, Facebook and the phone/iPad app has killed off the consoles - add a taste of a very bad economy and Wala!

Note: there might be some hope with the PS:Veta but it might be too little to late!

gstarr W
profile image
I find it funny how people on this site like to blame everything on the economy. Funny how the economy isn't stopping people from buying iPads and iPhones. Let's see. How much money have I spent on my consoles (PS3 and Wii) the last 12 months? About $100. How much have I spent at the Apple store in the last 12 months? Let me add it up... A 64g iPhone 4s, two 64g iPads w/ cellular, 1 AppleTV, 2 smart covers, 5 phone cases (wife has a iPhone 4 not purchased in the last year), 1 leather iPad case for the wife from Sena, two iPad stands, a second car charger.... I'm in over $2600. The public has money. I have money. I don't like first person shooters. And that seems to be all that is for sale on consoles. I'm hoping that the WiiU brings something interesting to the table. It's fun to buy a new game, grab some craft beers and just play. Hello you developers! Have money. Will spend. JUST MAKE SOMETHING WORTH BUYING...

gstarr W
profile image
I find it funny how people on this site like to blame everything on the economy. Funny how the economy isn't stopping people from buying iPads and iPhones. Let's see. How much money have I spent on my consoles (PS3 and Wii) the last 12 months? About $100. How much have I spent at the Apple store in the last 12 months? Let me add it up... A 64g iPhone 4s, two 64g iPads w/ cellular, 1 AppleTV, 2 smart covers, 5 phone cases (wife has a iPhone 4 not purchased in the last year), 1 leather iPad case for the wife from Sena, two iPad stands, a second car charger.... I'm in over $2600. The public has money. I have money. I don't like first person shooters. And that seems to be all that is for sale on consoles. I'm hoping that the WiiU brings something interesting to the table. It's fun to buy a new game, grab some craft beers and just play. Hello you developers! Have money. Will spend. JUST MAKE SOMETHING WORTH BUYING...

gstarr W
profile image
Sorry for the double post!!


none
 
Comment: