The number of people playing video games in the U.S. is declining due to shrinking audiences in every gamer segment except for mobile and downloadable/online, according to the NPD Group.
Gamer Segmentation 2012: The New Faces of Gamers, the market research firm's latest report, estimates that 211.5 million people in the U.S. are playing video games in 2012 -- that's around two-thirds of the country's population, but close to 12 million fewer (5 percent less) than in 2011.
Most gamer segments that NPD tracked have contracted: core console gamers, light PC gamers, avid PC gamers, and family and kid gamers -- the last category took the biggest hit, shrinking by 17.4 million players.
However, the digital gamers (those playing downloadable and online titles) and mobile gamers segments grew significantly. The mobile category now makes up the largest out of all the groups, gaining 9 percentage points and taking 22 percent of the total share, edging out core console gamers.
NPD analyst Anita Frazier says these shifts in the gamer segments aren't surprising, considering the longer life cycles of the current home console generation, and the increasing installed base of smartphones and tablets.
The changes come at a cost for the industry, though -- NPD notes that core console gamers spent more on retail titles than any other segment in the last three months, an average of $65, compared to a $48 average across all game purchasers (and $16 for those buying digital titles).
I'm willing to bet "family and kid gamers" took the biggest hit because "normal" people are just that bored of the Wii at this point.
I'd also like to point out to all those publishers, investors, and studios that number about dollars spent per "gamer type". Those console types spending 60+ per month are your long-term money, not the mobile section.
Matt would know about family gaming and getting tired of Nintendo Wii. ;)
But I think that applies to other consoles too, just to a lesser degree. At this stage of a generation of consoles this trend is fairly normal.
If this is the trend 1 or 2 years after the next generation of consoles is released, that would be cause for alarm.
That being said, gamers only stop playing games “period” when they grow older and “move on with life”. Aside from that, actual gamers may not be happy with the state of current games, but they still play them.
If the number of gamers is decreasing, it means those gamers who moved on with life are not being replaced by younger gamers.
And with the state of games these days who could blame them?
Think about what attracted you to games as a child. FarmVille may be popular, but when you get home from junior high are you really going to rush into your bedroom to water crops? It’s for adults, not kids.
Mobile games are on the rise, but how many 6-year-olds own their own iPhones? Having a parent let his or her kid play Angry Birds once-in-a-while is not the same as getting home from school, rushing to your room, turning on your Super Nintendo Entertainment System, and doing a 20+ combo on Eyedol for hours every day after school. Or beating your older brother in Super Mario Kart. Or the countless hours we all spent playing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on Nintendo Entertainment System. Maybe that was a bad example…
Then there is the fact that back in the day parents may have been willing to spend $199 on a Christmas present, but not the $400 and up that new consoles will cost now, especially in this economy.
The industry is shifting towards social games because that is where the money is now, but it is not doing much to recruit a younger generation of gamers to replace the ones who will, eventually, stop playing.
"NPD analyst Anita Frazier says these shifts in the gamer segments aren't surprising, considering the longer life cycles of the current home console generation, and the increasing installed base of smartphones and tablets."
I don't know, what the life cycle of the current home console generation should have to do with the shrinking number of console gamers, it should be the opposite.
People aren't stopping playing console games, when the 6th birthday of their console arrives, they stop playing console games, when publishers stop to publish games that interest people and don't feel like update patches to last years predecessors.
But Anita Frazier and the NPD are known for morphing things obvious to anyone into something completely different, not surprising, they won't anger their clients. In the end, the whole NPD gaming studies are financed by the same people, that drove the industry over the cliff during the last 5 years.
Here's my theory ... The economy took a crap a few years ago. People lost jobs and went home... they discovered they had more time for games. they "invested" in gaming because they needed something to fill their time. while the rest of the economy crapped out over the last few years, games grew.
2012. the economy is marginally better, but people are getting hired. anyone home is tight on cash...
It all makes sense to me. if anything maybe this slump is a good thing. a sort of normalizing.
The numbers were probably inflated from the Wii/DS crowd. Now that casual gaming is moving over to 99¢ phone apps (and the Wii hasn't had a major release other than a couple of super hardcore JRPGs in months), it makes sense that the market would shift like this.
Well let's look at the entire casual market. The Wii, and DS has been done for almost 2 years now. Your only consoles that were growing the industry this generation. All the so called casual games from Wii Sports types, Wii Fit types, Guitar Hero/RockBand, and Dance. All are pretty much dead except for The Dance genre. Now we through in the decline in JRPGs, Fighters, 2D Platformers, and Sports games. All we have left are FPS, and your yearly AAA titles that launch in the last part of the year. So the entire market has shifted due to only one group being supported aka FPS Console/PC gamers.
"Most gamer segments that NPD tracked have contracted: core console gamers, light PC gamers, avid PC gamers, and family and kid gamers -- the last category took the biggest hit, shrinking by 17.4 million players.
However, the digital gamers (those playing downloadable and online titles) and mobile gamers segments grew significantly."
I don't get the categories, they make no sense, they are:
- core console gamers
- light PC gamers
- avid PC gamers
- mobile gamers
- digital gamers
- kids and family gamers
The first 4 categories are defined by the device that the games are played on and in the case of PC gamers by the type of gamer, playing on the device. The other 2 categories aren't defined by the device the player uses, but instead by the distribution way of the game (digital gamers) and the social enviroment the games take place in (kids and family gamers).
From a methodological point of view, it's impossible to compare these groups, because kids and family gamers and digital gamers are most likely a part of the other groups as well. Bad methodology.
You're assuming these groups are being compared against eachother. In the full report, they'll have different sections that slice up the market in different ways. Platform will be one section, distribution another, "hardcoreness" another, and so on.
They are used in a comparative way in the article and all I assume is, that the author of the article, who read the wole report, is able to summarize it's contents correct.
That's the level of professionalism I usually find on Gamasutra.
You can easily see, that the groups are exclusive groups and not inclusive groups, the article states:
" The mobile category now makes up the largest out of all the groups, gaining 9 percentage points and taking 22 percent of the total share, edging out core console gamers."
That's a clear comparsion, which would make no sense, if the groups are belonging to different measurement perspectives. In this comparsion, the core console gamers make up 21% maximum, both groups combined can't be more then 43%, leaves 57% for groups beside "core console gamers" and "mobile gamers". We know for sure, the other groups have to be smaller then 21%, which makes it impossible to reach 100% with only PC gamers left.
The other 2 groups (digital gamers and kids and family gamers) have to be counted in besides the other groups, unless the NPD has more hardware defined groups besides console, mobile and PC gamers, but I can't think of other groups, at least, last time I checked, Arcade gamers weren't a relevant group any more.
Without seeing the report I can't say for sure, but "kids and family gamers" seems like it would come from a different comparison section. Alternatively, it could have been more specifically described as "kids and family console gamers", since "family" games are almost entirely console, and lumping kids and family together could extrapolate the connection with being a subgroup of console users. Either interpretation is valid.
That said, you can hardly consider the article to be a summary of the report. It just points out a few data points that support a particular conclusion.
While I feel that this trend is likely to occur any time you have a disconnect between what gamers want and what they are being offered, I have to agree with Christian that the methodology of this analysis is too weak to merit drawing any conclusions from it. Obviously digital (including mobile) distribution is superior to older methods which are slow to adapt to market trends for a number of reasons.
Welcome to the effects of "big" games targeting an ever narrowing market while mobile games target an ever broader market. If the type of game you want doesn't exist in the big, triple A quality, well a close enough type thing for $3 is good enough yeah? Why spend $50 on the latest Mario that's just the same when Temple Run is good enough?
Not a good example used there. Assassin Creed, Uncharted, Tomb Raiders are Big games that targeting narrowing market. You can't get more mainstream than Mario, and he has the numbers to prove.
" Why spend $50 on the latest Mario that's just the same when Temple Run is good enough? "
Why spend $16 for an Avengers movie ticket, when there's a VHS of the 1990 Captain America movie in the $0.99 bargain bin of your movie dealer? Why spent $20 on the latest Ice and Fire book, when there is The Queens Blade by T.C. Southwell as an ebook for free on Amazon? Sure, the author is not known for anything, at least, when it comes to my reading history, but who cares, it's fantasy.
Most people lost interest because it is harder to start these days. Gone are the days of starting a console and playing - instead you have to login to your account, find the game in a cluttered menu, start the game, wait for all the preview logos, and then finally start gaming. - or, turn on TV, watch your favorite channel.
Also where is the peer pressure of playing games. With hardly anything BUT Wii games being easy to play localmultiplayer games who wants to do this other than the 'forever alone' people or the people that are at the right age group that they all moved online about the same time? Kids are going to grow up with throw away single player experiences on their phones with leader boards at best... that is hardly anything to drive a culture with sticking power.
Then again, the simple explanation would be this is year 6-8 or the console cycle right? will it ever die and spark new excitement.
It's good to see an article that confirms reality instead of denies it. Mobile/social/digital revenue is not replacing what we are losing in the console and traditional retail space.
I've been staring at NPD data for 14 years. Was on one of their advisory panels recently. You do realize that they're missing all the Digital Distribution Sales & F2P markets right?
When looking at NPD - which covers Retail US - across all platforms - yes - you'll see this sort of a 'constriction' effect. However; when you throw in all the other market shifts occurring amongst the platforms and business models. I think what's really happening is that there's actually small growth occurring. The 'Core' gamers haven't really shrunk... but have moved.
Just an example that supports your conclusion, but currently, if you are an MMORPG player and don't feel like playing World of Warcraft, you're almost entirely stuck with F2P games right now. As I understand it, NPD data wouldn't even register the existence of these customers.
I'd also like to point out to all those publishers, investors, and studios that number about dollars spent per "gamer type". Those console types spending 60+ per month are your long-term money, not the mobile section.
But I think that applies to other consoles too, just to a lesser degree. At this stage of a generation of consoles this trend is fairly normal.
If this is the trend 1 or 2 years after the next generation of consoles is released, that would be cause for alarm.
That being said, gamers only stop playing games “period” when they grow older and “move on with life”. Aside from that, actual gamers may not be happy with the state of current games, but they still play them.
If the number of gamers is decreasing, it means those gamers who moved on with life are not being replaced by younger gamers.
And with the state of games these days who could blame them?
Think about what attracted you to games as a child. FarmVille may be popular, but when you get home from junior high are you really going to rush into your bedroom to water crops? It’s for adults, not kids.
Mobile games are on the rise, but how many 6-year-olds own their own iPhones? Having a parent let his or her kid play Angry Birds once-in-a-while is not the same as getting home from school, rushing to your room, turning on your Super Nintendo Entertainment System, and doing a 20+ combo on Eyedol for hours every day after school. Or beating your older brother in Super Mario Kart. Or the countless hours we all spent playing Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on Nintendo Entertainment System. Maybe that was a bad example…
Then there is the fact that back in the day parents may have been willing to spend $199 on a Christmas present, but not the $400 and up that new consoles will cost now, especially in this economy.
The industry is shifting towards social games because that is where the money is now, but it is not doing much to recruit a younger generation of gamers to replace the ones who will, eventually, stop playing.
L. Spiro
I don't know, what the life cycle of the current home console generation should have to do with the shrinking number of console gamers, it should be the opposite.
People aren't stopping playing console games, when the 6th birthday of their console arrives, they stop playing console games, when publishers stop to publish games that interest people and don't feel like update patches to last years predecessors.
But Anita Frazier and the NPD are known for morphing things obvious to anyone into something completely different, not surprising, they won't anger their clients. In the end, the whole NPD gaming studies are financed by the same people, that drove the industry over the cliff during the last 5 years.
- Did the population of the US jump to 600 million in the last few weeks?
2012. the economy is marginally better, but people are getting hired. anyone home is tight on cash...
It all makes sense to me. if anything maybe this slump is a good thing. a sort of normalizing.
And the games cost up to $5 vs $50
However, the digital gamers (those playing downloadable and online titles) and mobile gamers segments grew significantly."
I don't get the categories, they make no sense, they are:
- core console gamers
- light PC gamers
- avid PC gamers
- mobile gamers
- digital gamers
- kids and family gamers
The first 4 categories are defined by the device that the games are played on and in the case of PC gamers by the type of gamer, playing on the device. The other 2 categories aren't defined by the device the player uses, but instead by the distribution way of the game (digital gamers) and the social enviroment the games take place in (kids and family gamers).
From a methodological point of view, it's impossible to compare these groups, because kids and family gamers and digital gamers are most likely a part of the other groups as well. Bad methodology.
That's the level of professionalism I usually find on Gamasutra.
You can easily see, that the groups are exclusive groups and not inclusive groups, the article states:
" The mobile category now makes up the largest out of all the groups, gaining 9 percentage points and taking 22 percent of the total share, edging out core console gamers."
That's a clear comparsion, which would make no sense, if the groups are belonging to different measurement perspectives. In this comparsion, the core console gamers make up 21% maximum, both groups combined can't be more then 43%, leaves 57% for groups beside "core console gamers" and "mobile gamers". We know for sure, the other groups have to be smaller then 21%, which makes it impossible to reach 100% with only PC gamers left.
The other 2 groups (digital gamers and kids and family gamers) have to be counted in besides the other groups, unless the NPD has more hardware defined groups besides console, mobile and PC gamers, but I can't think of other groups, at least, last time I checked, Arcade gamers weren't a relevant group any more.
That said, you can hardly consider the article to be a summary of the report. It just points out a few data points that support a particular conclusion.
Means people are tired of paying for the same game over and over again.
Why spend $16 for an Avengers movie ticket, when there's a VHS of the 1990 Captain America movie in the $0.99 bargain bin of your movie dealer? Why spent $20 on the latest Ice and Fire book, when there is The Queens Blade by T.C. Southwell as an ebook for free on Amazon? Sure, the author is not known for anything, at least, when it comes to my reading history, but who cares, it's fantasy.
Also where is the peer pressure of playing games. With hardly anything BUT Wii games being easy to play localmultiplayer games who wants to do this other than the 'forever alone' people or the people that are at the right age group that they all moved online about the same time? Kids are going to grow up with throw away single player experiences on their phones with leader boards at best... that is hardly anything to drive a culture with sticking power.
Then again, the simple explanation would be this is year 6-8 or the console cycle right? will it ever die and spark new excitement.
I've been staring at NPD data for 14 years. Was on one of their advisory panels recently. You do realize that they're missing all the Digital Distribution Sales & F2P markets right?
When looking at NPD - which covers Retail US - across all platforms - yes - you'll see this sort of a 'constriction' effect. However; when you throw in all the other market shifts occurring amongst the platforms and business models. I think what's really happening is that there's actually small growth occurring. The 'Core' gamers haven't really shrunk... but have moved.