Game sales have been steadily dropping over the past few years, or rather, it should be said that retail sales have been dropping. The social game and app markets are as strong, if not stronger, than they were when they first bloomed a little under half a decade ago now, but they are not directed at the hardcore gamer market. The lionshare of game making has always been the AAA title games, the 'God of War's the 'Grand Theft Auto's, the 'Warcraft's and 'Age of Empires' and 'Mario's of the game industry have always been the goal of all game makers. We want to tell stories and make vast sweeping games that give hours of enjoyment, not piddly little things that people play while on the bus or the toilet.
A rather interesting article came out yesterday from Daily Finance. The author gives some ideas on how one might produce results, and all of his ideas have pros and cons, but I think he's missing a fundamental point: The age of retail in video games has come and gone. It is a mockery, a false choice, an idiot's choice. Why would we ever want to pay for a physical object when the product is actually just bits of data that can be given to use over a line of copper and zinc and rubber. The online game market is where sales are happening now, where it is quick and easy and the purchase can be made right from the system you'll play it on, and a record is kept so that if you ever lose the data you can just download it again. You lose a disk? Your disk is lost, you have to buy a new one. Beyond this fact, he makes some very good points.
The game industry does need to lower it's prices, or more specifically, the retailers and publishers need to do so. So much of game sellers seem to forget that there are more poor people than rich people, and poor people are more likely to spend their money on things that will distract them from how hard life is, after all, their lives are usually harder than those of rich people, they need more distractions. I'm not saying drop the prices enormously, but dropping them to 30 or 40 dollars rather than 60 dollars is probably a good idea, you'll get more sales, and more sales means more investor confidence, and that'll help business all round, not to mention that you get yourself out there.
The next issue he brings up is a better kind of controller, and he might be right there, but at the same time putting in a new controller would alienate older players. I personally cannot stand many of the ways some games use touch screens, but there's no reason that they couldn't work. By using a small touch screen device that communicated with the game, one could alter the specifics of the control for the game.
The last point is the most important. Games need to change. They need to change and transform to be better for casual audiences, without losing their hardercore audiences. Games such as Mass Effect 3 with radically different player modes (narrative, rpg, shooter, plus the normal difficulty level system). Similar tactics will be necessary to keep games nice for both casual and hardcore players.
The point is that games are changing, our audience is changing, our methods of sale need to change. The way we think about and use and make games all need to change, but most of all, to change how we sell and distribute game. If we can handle that change, we will bounce back from this small dip in game sales and profits from retail.
Interesting post. I'm not a gamer, perse, but back when I rocked my PS3, $50 a game was at least a month's worth of allowance. There seems to be disconnect between the prices and who is actually buying.
ReplyDeleteYou say the age of retail video games is over? I wouldn't say so, just on a hiatus. As video game popularity boomed, and playing was linked to violence, a lot of research was done on whether or not playing violent video games actually led to becoming a violent individual. Contrary to popular belief, there actually is no causal relationship. The most they got was that perhaps people that already have a violent disposition seek violent games (hence the stereotype that such games create violence). But what they did find out is that video game playing increases problem solving ability and strategic thinking, assets becoming more and more valuable in our society.
I think the future of video games lies in education. As our traditional system continues to deliver poor results and we sort out different methods to better engage children, I think video games provide a viable solution. They are interactive, involve strategic thinking and problem solving, and can be designed to do much more.
I think part of the decline in console video-game sales lies in the staleness of the current generation of consoles. For many casual gamers, their interest in buying games lies not in the quality of the games themselves but in the novelty of playing the games and the public mention that they receive. We haven't even heard announcements for the next generation of consoles, as the technology that would make developing those consoles continues to lag behind. As such, without that thrill of something new, gamers are bound to be less interested for now.
ReplyDeleteComputer games, which benefit from rapidly improving technology in PCs, still have markedly high sales. Meanwhile, attempts by Microsoft (Xbox Kinect) and Sony (Playstation Move/Vita) to temporarily freshen the console experience and tide users over for the next-generation consoles have largely flopped, leaving the $60 games themselves as standalone attractions. Most of these games have meager marketing budgets, especially the best games, which are usually not the most publicized. You have to know where to look if you want quality reviews and suggestions on which games to buy, which is what people need nowadays to make those rather expensive investments worthwhile.
I wrote like 3 paragraphs commenting on this issue but then it got lost in the cloud (thanks blogger) so I'll try to sum up my points. I basically feel that the decline of of retail not only applies for video games for all of media as the trend towards digital access continues to grow. The popularity can be seen with the dominance of iTunes, Netflix, and other streaming services. However, like music and movies, I don't think we will see the end of gaming retail. People still like to have physical copies of their property. There is something about it that feels secure and tangible about being able to hold your property. I agree that the prices of the games can be lowered. I hate shelling out $60 for each game I want to try and end up paying for my system all over again after a couple of purchases.
ReplyDeleteThe controller issue. I think all hardcore gamers cringed when Tim Cook stated in his iPad keynote that gamers now preferred to play games on their tablets than on their consoles. Come on dude. Let's be real. Touchscreen gaming, as of now, is very cumbersome and lacking of the ease required in complex games. I think we will see much more advancement with the controller-less consoles such as Xbox Kinect, an incredibly under-utilized technology. The reason Kinect is not more widely used is because Microsoft hasn't developed any quality content for the system. Integrating it into deep story-driven games (which will increase in popularity) such as Mass Effect 3 has already been a great step into enhancing the interactivity of the game experience.
I agree that videogames have great potential for applications in education but gaming will evolve to where the money is. Its safe to say that the videogame industry is as big as the movie industry with blockbuster releases like Call of Duty and Mass Effect. These games already integrate extended cinematic sequences that throw players into an immersive story and gaming experience. I can see videogames continuing to move towards movies in genre (Red Dead Redemption, Dead Space, etc.)and content.
One thing I would like to comment about the video game industry is that they need to constantly be improving for the better and not the worse. One thing that is happening more and more frequently is the need of an always-online connection. These games require that the user of the game always be online to play the game, even if the game is a single player game. This infuriates me, I bought the game and it is clearly a single player game, so I should be able to play it when I do not have an internet connection, e.g., while on an airplane. When companies do this I often just pirate their game.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I would like to address is that it seems more and more big companies are focusing on console gaming more than PC gaming. As a PC gamer I find this saddening. There are so many more possibilities with PC gaming and you can really make the gaming experience so much stronger on a PC, but I feel that more and more companies are focused on making money than having their original dream come true in the digital world. Then again, it costs money to make these games and you want to make investors happy. I guess it is just sad that this is the way it has to work.
I think that game prices should definitely be lowered. I don't think controllers need to change; they change every time a new console or technology comes out so that's pretty much already covered. I also think changing the games is something that time and money shouldn't be wasted on because the industry is constantly improving and changing anyways to better fit gamers' needs. I broke out my PS2 not too long ago to reminisce with some of my old games, and I was surprised at how bad the storyline, graphics, and the whole game all around was in comparison to newer games (though not necessarily brand new) on my Xbox 360.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to make video games more available would be to lower the prices and make the products more accessible to a larger number of people. The app market may not have too many interesting (or fun) games right now, but I think more and more games are going to be going in that direction - selling them in an online market.