Although March saw strong sales of downloadable titles, DLC and mobile games in the U.S., the overall digital sales market was offset by the decline in social games and MMO subscribers.
Figures from metrics tracking firm SuperData show that digital game sales in the U.S. were $875 million for March, up only a "modest" 1.1 percent year-over-year.
The social games decline was mainly to blame, as the total number of monthly active social gamers dropped below 200 million for the first time in over a year, down by 10 million users year-over-year.
However, SuperData noted that conversion rates and figures for the average revenue per user were actually up year-over-year, suggesting that it is the less-committed players who are dropping off. Overall, the social games segment reached a new low of $124 million in total revenue for March.
Subscription-based MMOs continued to take a hit in March, with an estimated 289,000 subscribers lost across all pay-to-play MMOs -- although overall revenues remained relatively even at $86 million.
However, free-to-play MMOs are looking healthier in comparison. An additional 3 million players were picked up in free-to-play MMOs in March, while monetization in these MMOs saw a slight improvement year-over-year, causing overall revenues to grow to $195 million.
SuperData says that newer titles like Hawken, Strike Suit Zero and MechWarrior Online are helping the overall MMO market to maintain its health.
Mobile and download
The mobile and downloadable PC and console games sectors were where the digital sector picked up the pace, and offset the social games and MMO decreases.
Year-over-year mobile game revenues in the U.S. were up 7 percent during March, to $157 million total. Elsewhere, DLC sales on PC and console were up 19 percent year-over-year, to $312 million.
Overall, digital PC and console sales were up 9 percent year-over-year, thanks to strong DLC sales, and some big-name releases including BioShock Infinite and Tomb Raider.
These figures are in line with the predictions I made about the market in July of 2011 in my "Zynga Analysis" paper (http://gameful.org/group/games-for-change/forum/topics/zynga-analysis-1).
The problem is not social games per se, but the way they are being built and monetized. The same factors are also suppressing mobile sales, which is why growth is only 7% despite a massive increase in development in that space.
MMO's that can successfully make the move to F2P should perform adequately, with continued weakening of subscription based titles. Still, the method of F2P monetization is woefully sub optimal in all markets, so potential profits are great but just not being realized.
Exactly. Or in other words, making one giant category named "digital" is no more useful than a giant category named "retail". Retail is falling overall. But some publishers are making tons of money at retail with big-investment tentpole franchise games. Context is everything.
Well, let's be plain here. The Zynga approach has an ultra-limited appeal... pretty much the only people playing those are what would fit in the "ultra casual" approach who probably wouldn't even miss the lack of games catering to them much. "Facebook gaming," as it were, is becoming the butt of internet meme jokes for a reason; that's not to say there might be something good out there to suit more than just the tastes of those who don't want or can't play anything more intense than the typical 'cow clicker' and 'pay to not play' games... but Because the overwhelming majority of such games on Facebook's API are both like that, and intrusive with their requests for information and spamming of invites to people who don't (ever want to) play, of course it's going to get openly mocked.
Because the likelihood of a game/app on facebook sending me multiple invites is directly proportional to my desire to not ever touch it, I find myself wishing that Facebook would implement a "block by publisher" mode for their apps and games... and I'd love to see the statistics of which companies end up most frequently on such block lists because of their practices. There's a few I would fully expect to top that chart, or be at least in the top 5.
As far as social games as a whole, well... it goes back to my other point of contention with how Sony is handling things with the PS4. Yes, I have a facebook account, but that doesn't mean I want every single little thing I do on my PS3/4 to be showing up on it. Whether companies like Sony want to believe it or not, I am aware that most of those I am friends with on social networking simply either won't care or want to see what inane thing I did in a video game that the game publisher, developer, or manufacturer thinks is worth "like/retweet/share/instagram/pin this!" nonsense. And because it seems like this "always on" stuff is being used in the worst possible way (as basically some kind of cheap stunt at DRM), of course users and players alike are going to revile and hate these companies for trying to implement it, and of course they're going to want to either publicly voice or distance themselves as much as (in)humanly possible.
The problem is not social games per se, but the way they are being built and monetized. The same factors are also suppressing mobile sales, which is why growth is only 7% despite a massive increase in development in that space.
MMO's that can successfully make the move to F2P should perform adequately, with continued weakening of subscription based titles. Still, the method of F2P monetization is woefully sub optimal in all markets, so potential profits are great but just not being realized.
Because the likelihood of a game/app on facebook sending me multiple invites is directly proportional to my desire to not ever touch it, I find myself wishing that Facebook would implement a "block by publisher" mode for their apps and games... and I'd love to see the statistics of which companies end up most frequently on such block lists because of their practices. There's a few I would fully expect to top that chart, or be at least in the top 5.
As far as social games as a whole, well... it goes back to my other point of contention with how Sony is handling things with the PS4. Yes, I have a facebook account, but that doesn't mean I want every single little thing I do on my PS3/4 to be showing up on it. Whether companies like Sony want to believe it or not, I am aware that most of those I am friends with on social networking simply either won't care or want to see what inane thing I did in a video game that the game publisher, developer, or manufacturer thinks is worth "like/retweet/share/instagram/pin this!" nonsense. And because it seems like this "always on" stuff is being used in the worst possible way (as basically some kind of cheap stunt at DRM), of course users and players alike are going to revile and hate these companies for trying to implement it, and of course they're going to want to either publicly voice or distance themselves as much as (in)humanly possible.