Slashdot Mirror
Console Games Sales Beat Out PC
ttol writes "In the Star Tribune, they write that "PC games fell 6.2 percent through the first 10 months of this year, making the first such decline ever." They go on to say that consoles will break record sales this year, and that there is a shift towards console gaming from PC. Is this due to the fact that there are now three major contenders (XBox, Playstation 2, Game Cube) and all the advanced features they offer (DVD ability on the first two etc)? I, for one, will continue with my Battlefield 1942 on my PC."
Given that a console costs a fair bit less than even the most basic PC, and is lot easier to look after (no BSOD or GPF on a console - yet), this should be filed under 'no-brainer'...
-MT.
A console (depending on which) will run you $150 - $200. 1/2 the price of the hottest PC video cards alone. There is no installing, no tweaking, put in the game and go. You simply cannot beat a console for ease of use. Not to say anything is wrong with PC gaming but Mom and Dad arent going to buy thier kid a $2000 PC when they can pick up a GameCube with Metroid for under $200, and it still looks *damned* good. When all ya need to worry about is 640*480 and identical hardware, life is much easier on the developer as well.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
I did just that. I dot tired of fighting with Windows and video card drivers. After having serious problems with GTA2 and Unreal (I had to downgrade GFX drivers to be able to play GTA2 and then updgade the drivers to be able to run Unreal) I decided to start searching an alternative to my crappy PC hardware. I ended up buying PS2 and installing Linux to my PC. I've been very happy computer user ever since.
Yeah... I don't know about any of you, but it really, really has been my experience that games on the consoles are far mor polished than their PC bretheren. For instance, Metroid Prime -- it really is a polished game. If any PC game manufacturers are listening, I look at this polish and completeness the first time I boot a game up. It is a nice feeling when Retro Studios/Nintendo think about almost every possible thing and implement it in the case of Metroid Prime. In contrast, take Unreal Tournament 2003 -- I found it rather ... blah, for a lack of a better word. I found UT's original interface far more original and understandable. The original's gameplay was also simpler and somehow more fun.
Anyway, my point is, I feel that console games on the whole go through the wringer far longer than PC games do (granted they are a closed platform and suffer less variability in hardware).
or anything, but could this have anything to do with the growing popularity of peer to peer programs and broadband? Its becoming a lot easier for people to pirate games than it used to be. Also, its more worthwhile to pirate a game in this way, for example if I was pirating a movie, it might take a couple days to download, and its over in a couple hours, but if you pirate a game in this way it lasts a lot longer. Just my 2 cents.
It's not very strange that sales are shifting more and more towards console games, many games are released several months earlier for consoles, and PC gamers have to wait. No wonder people who want to play the latest games buy the console version instead.
sj 3
$!
and I'm a PC gamer...well, I used to be.
http://drunkgamers.com/switch0001.shtml
Although I'll admit that cost, ease of use, and superiority of games are the main reasons for the trend (like most poeple are saying), I did notice another factor that hasn't been mentioned here or in the article. If you and some friends just want to sit down (in the same room) and play a multiplayer game, do you really have a choice? How many PC games do you know of that allow more than one player on a single system at once? The consoles have that market cornered. People like playing games against their friends, and they especially like it when they can do so just sitting next to eachother on the couch.
Online multiplayer is really a different animal altogether. It will only supplement social console gaming, not replace it. Even once the consoles of the future are seemlessly online, the "controller #2" will still get a LOT of use.
The videogame industry is on the cusp of widespread acceptance. In a hardware generation or two consoles might be seen as being just as indispensable as a TV. On the other hand, PCs and PC games are only growing in complexity, and it seems that they will be relegated to the hardcore segment only. This is not necessarily a bad thing; developers can make the big bucks off a multi-console release, but can realize their pet projects for the "advanced" PC audience. Face it, you're not going to see Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" at the local multiplex because the mass appeal just isn't there. Likewise, most people won't find the PC game Arx Fatalis under their trees this Christmas for the same reason. That's not to say that their won't be megahits on PC anymore, just look at any Blizzard game. It's the same with movies; arthouse can cross over to mainstream: think "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."
The videogame industry is going through some serious growing pains with the fracturing console market and the lower PC game sales, but it'll come out stronger and more focused at the end of it, and it will have mass appeal equivalent to the movie industry. IMHO ;-)
In 1996, I bough the Nintendo 64 console and a PC (133 MHz or so).
In 2002, I still play Nintendo 64. Guess where's my 133 MHz PC?
I'm keeping the name to myself because I don't want to get fired, but trust me.. we're a major national player.
We support several platforms in our store... PS2, PS, X-Box, Game Cube, PC, GameBoy Advance/Color, N64, and Dreamcast. Our slowest moving platform out of them all is definatly the PC. The only PC stuff that moves are MMORPGs and The Sims. Sports titles on the PC are dead. We shrank our shelf-space for PC titles to make room for the other platforms. No one is buying PC hardware from us ( video cards, sound cards, network cards, joysticks ). None of it is moving this Christmas.
Meanwhile, all the consoles are hopping. You see... everyone's tried of all the problems you get playing PC games: Graphics too slow, Windows full of bugs, hard drive full, downloading patches, need a frickin network for multiplayer, etc. It's bullshit.
OR, you can shell out $200 and get a nice console w/ DVD functionality. Open tray, insert game, close tray, and that's it! You're off and playing. Games are no more expensive. They're bug-free compared to PC games. Want multiplayer? Buy a second gamepad.
PC games are collecting social security... and picking out thier casket and plot. They're not DEAD, but they are dying fast.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Don't have to worry about piracy?
A friend came to my house the other day with a very large spindle of CD's. Every dream cast game every produced.
Sig.i>
Anyone else notice the same game being made for gamecube, xbox, ps2, and pc? All being released simulatenously or very closs together? Well if this is the case then the PC is outgunned 3 systems to 1. Right now console's graphics power is beginning to be eclipsed by PC's power. PC games will peak up after Doom3 and games based off that engine and other "NextGen" engines come out.
I remember my first and last console, the Atari 2600 and its great (well, compared to the Apple ][ potentiameter joysticks) joystick.
The consoles I've played (PS2, mainly) suffer from what I'd call awful controllers. They're hard to control from a reaction standpoint. Their size and awkwardness is compounded by the games' reliance on a lot of other, small buttons that are hard to press while still controlling motion *and* actually holding the controller.
A true joystick can provide 3 axis of movement and allow you to hold onto the controller, freeing a hand to operate other buttons without conflicting with basic movement or controller handling.
Obviously based on sales alone, this isn't a major stumbling block for other people, but I know I'd like a PS2 a whole lot more if there was a controller I could wrap my hands around.
Oooo, three major contendors. That's so very different from the last generation of consoles, when it was only Sony, Sega, and Nintendo...
As for advanced features, there are some extremely cheap DVD players on the market that sell for little more than the consoles' DVD remotes.
As for the reasons... consoles are cheap, they don't come with the endless hassles of PCs, and many more people run BSD/Linux/OS X and can no longer play Windows games on their computers.
As for why the change is happening now, who knows? Perhaps recently a new demographic that prefers consoles has been pushed into the gaming market.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Umm if any of you noticed, very recently PCs have become very popular. The problem is that people wanted bargain PCs, so they rush out and buy some $500 E-Machine and expect it to run everything they throw at it, never run out of space, never break, and run insanely fast. Well, that never happens, the comptuer runs 40% of the stuff you install, crashes every day, runs out of space in a week on morpheus (and broadband) and runs slower than dirt, and dirt's pretty slow! In comes the console, each console has standard hardware, whenever you buy a PS2 it's going to be like every other PS2 ever created (well there's extra stuff you can buy but the games run the same), any game you buy for that console will work and you ALWAYS get a decent framerate.
It also doesn't help that games have become way more advanced recently. I remember when I had a 50MHz 486 with 16 megs of ram (which was alot at the time), it wasn't fast, but it ran every game I installed on it (C&C Red Alert, Quake 2, Dark Forces, Journeyman Project, more that I can't remember). Now there are games like Doom 3 (which doesn't seem to work nicely on any hardware but it's just beta), B&W, UT 2003, all of them require a decent 3D card. Unfortunately the average computer today doesn't come with a decent 3D card, or in some cases enough RAM. So anyway, while alot of computers may have been bought recently, and alot of pretty good games have come out, people don't have the computers needed to run these games (or the money to buy one) so they get angry and go out to buy an xbox or a PS2 or whatever and 10 games for $700 (which is still cheaper than the PC required for most games to run smoothly.)
A few years ago I got a game called Creatures. Then Creatures 2 and Creatures 3. Played the game itself like a maniac for a few months. Then while playing C2 one creature I wanted was going to die because of genetic defects. Not sure why but I spent a month writing a plugin for the game that could monitor the game and optionally inject creatures to prevent them from dying. I also wrote a program to read the game's image files and draw the creatures from the game. Currently it's being used to put images of them in web sites. And all this information I needed was on the official site.
None of this would have been possible on a console of course. I've heard it's been ported to gameboy advance, but I never heard anybody talk about it much. It can't be the same thing. What I want in a game is first that it's good of course, and second that I can poke around when I get tired of the normal game.
If anybody is feeling curious, the latest version is available for free here, and there's a Linux version.
On the flip side, buy a computer (or components to make a PC), spend the afternoon (or day) putting it together, install OS, tweak OS, download drivers/bios updates, install game.... usually at this point there is a crash somewhere (BSOD or GPF), look for a patch to the game, look for the beta drivers that will let you play the game with your hardware.... and on and on and on.
You get the picture. I have to admit to having built a monster PC, but still playing games on my PS2. Sure the hardware on the PC is more suited to playing games, but it just is not worth the hassle of trying to get the games to run. I stated this in a letter to the editor of Maximum PC and got ripped for it.... but it is true....we are from the government - we are here to help...
I'm using my computer now as much as I used it before. But I'm playing more games with the console than I've used to play with the computer. The console has made playing games so much easier that it encourages me to play more. And at the same time, NOT playing with my computer gives me more time to do useful things with it and not to fight with driver dependencies. A win-win situation, I would say.
My first game was U5. On a PC. Soon after I started learning programming. For me it did *go* hand in hand. be creative and play.
If people by only console to their kids it will remain just that : A toy. PC have the enorm advantage that you can use them for some, anything, else.
My bet ? My generation had a lot of kido starting learning programming on PC. The next won't, Console will be widespread, and thus less and less kids will go for the IT industry.
And console don't make a kid/teen/young adult get acquinted to technology per see, as using a MW oven don't make you acquinted with Electromagnetic physic. Our Kids will be as "technology analphabete" as our aprents...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Of course if you want to buy something, turn it on and play few new games - console is probably better choice than PC. But which console give you so much possibilites (just in games!) as PC?
I like consoles as much as the next guy and the XBox itself shows a lot of promise when it comes to mixing traditional PC and arcade titles, but sticker shock is starting to get to me. I don't know if it's irked anybody else, but $50 for each and every brand new game is getting a little tedious. $50 for each and every game no matter what it is. It's a very disturbing trend IMO. Halo? Ok, no probs. $50 well spent. Whacked? There is no freaking way that title is worth $50, Live or no Live support. But it was, for the sole fact that it was new. And it's like that every game. PC games aren't like that. Would Worms Aramageddon for the PC, a signifigantly better title, have rated that much at launch? Never. I never saw the price above $40.
It's just a very disturbing trend in my eyes, one that brings home the fact and maks it super obvious that they're making all their money on the back end, not off hardware. It's enough to turn me into a late adopter and wait for the prices to hit more realistic levels, something I'm not used to. I mean, I realize early adoption comes at a price, but damn.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
And I didn't even own a console untill 2001!
Probably about 6 years ago I was given a Matrox Mystique Video Card for christmas - the latest and greatest there was. It's magical stuff supported the three games that came with it (MechWarrior 2, and two others I can't remember), but nothing else that I could find / cared about.
Within 6 months it was already too slow for the latest junk that didn't support it's special chipset (which was every new game, the standard never caught on).
So I stopped playing games simply because I couldn't run them. Period.
Then about three years ago I finally had a job, and bought the latest and greatest video card, top of the line ATI-All-in-Wonder-Rage-128-PRO. Supported almost everything, so I looked into some of the latest game, but within I think three months a new breed of games came out, and it was again too slow. I had the Rage chipset, they needed the Rage2 chipset for optimal performance. Little did I know that I bought the Rage chipset on the ass-end of its existence
Thank God for consoles. I bought the PS2 summer of 2001 pretty much just for GT3, and it still runs just fine. No upgrades, no new chipset standards every few months.... Couldn't be happier. Games are fun again, and I never have to worry as to whether or not the hardware will drive the latest games.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
...Mars bars are more popular than Ginseng, and Microsoft have decided to start charging for software.
I'm confused - the article and many comments here seem to give the impression that the PC was king of the block, but this report shows that it's now starting to lose.
The PC has been losing to consoles for a long time. I'm talking years and years. Console game sales have beaten the hell out of PC games for a long time. Some of the most successful console games sell millions of copies - Games like Donkey Kong Country etc sold in excess of 5 million units world wide. A million selling console game is doing pretty well - a million selling PC game is extremely rare. Super Mario Bros 3 sold over 7 million copies in the US alone. Nintendo sole about 9 million copies of Mario 64, 7 million copies of GoldenEye, and about 6 million copies of Zelda 64. I can't think of many/any PC games that approach those sales levels. And remember those are N64 games, and the N64 did not do nearly as well as the Playstation. I remember reading that a million copies of Starcraft (for PC) had been sold in Korea alone, and that was a stunning figure for anyone involved in PC game development/distribution.
As for advertising, I've always thought that adverts for console games have always been much more dominant than those for PC, especially on TV/at the cinema - but maybe this is specific to the UK?
In short, what's the fuss? Console games have always been more profitable/better selling, and it's not like it's news. PC game sales have been declining significantly for at least two years - that's certainly the message developers get from publishers, who are increasingly looking for PS2 games above anything else.
2p.
Tim
I think the single most important reason why console game do well is exactly the single most important reason why cellphones do well: They are easy to use. Switch it on, press a couple of buttons and off you go. No matter how much easier computers have become they are still very difficult to use when compared to gadgets.
I think both microsoft and sony will attempt to make their consoles more and more capable in that they will go online, do surfing, mail, messaging etc without the user having to wait eons for the programme to load. They might even start integrating stuff like office (XBOX version) eventually. If it still works like a gadget people will use it and like it.
Another factor in gaming is that there are extremely few really innovative games. Most follow well known genres because the publishers are afraid of taking risks.
Mario World and all the other kiddie games
A significant fraction of people who have enough free time to spend a significant amount of time and money on video games are people who have not graduated from high school. Thus, kiddie games make money.
Even if you leave out the fact that most children can save up their allowance and afford a console but not a PC, most of the PC titles available nowadays are first-person shooters, real-time tactical sims, or massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Most FPS games are rated M for graphic violence; stores will card buyers, and many parents will shy away. Most RTS games require more concentration than the average elementary or middle school age player can handle; kids won't want them. Most MMORPG games are rated M for signing a contract and paying real money every month; kids can't buy them.
Oh man, the console games just blow the PC games away in terms of depth and playability...
If you intended this as sarcasm, then you probably haven't played many good console games. Have you played Super Mario Sunshine? But have you actually played it, or are you answering based on your preconceptions of what a "Mario" game is like? There's more depth in Sunshine than in some of the more mindless FPS games.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I think the loss of computers that boot into BASIC
Line-numbered BASIC? Ecch. The overuse of GOTO constructs in programs for old 8-bit BASIC interpreters has been known to stunt the growth of a sense of structure in some programmers who started out on such a system. Luckily for me, I used Logo (Lisp without the parentheses and with a plotting library) before BASIC.
will lead to far fewer kids picking up programming for fun.
What about computers that boot into a terminal and have perl and gcc available?
Will I retire or break 10K?
There are more console games that are making me say "Hot Damn Jim!" than there are PC games.
Oh boy, UT2003. Wow plays just like UT except with prettier eye candy and it costs $40 more.
Now, Mechassault on the XBox! Cool, a mech game that looks better than the latest Mech game released for the PC. "Steel Batallions", what's that? I need a special $150 controlloer for it that includes foot controls and a eject button? That's cool! Exepensive but cool!
Let me get this straight, if I beat the GameBoy Advance version of Metroid Fusion, I can link it to the GameCube version of Metroid Prime and get another power suit to play with? Cool!
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
on PC you can play games from 1980s to 2002
You can't play games from 1981 to 1995 on a computer that primarily boots to a Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional operating system or a Microsoft Windows XP operating system without emulation or virtualization, because 1. NT operating systems have poor support for DOS apps, and 2. those DOS games that do work with NT may run too fast to be playable.
on PC you can use a lot of freeware/shareware games, Free Software is also much closer to PC than consoles
Same on GBA. Have you played Tetanus On Drugs for GBA?
Will I retire or break 10K?
- The two "new" consoles have been out a year now, and now have more than one game worth buying (especially GameCube), so it makes sense that they would be selling. There's only so much holiday buying money to go around, so the fact that the PC is down by only 6% is surprising.
- One of the things that PC's do well is Internet Multiplayer. All three consoles require you to purchase something (even Xbox which had it "built in" already) to get online. When you can play a game online, you'll play it more.
- For that matter, the PC has the MMORPG, something the consoles have only flirted with so far. Pehaps EverQuest isn't moving as many boxes as they used to but the 200,000 people paying $12.99 per month to play mean that the game is still making money. For that matter, when you have a game like an MMORPG that requires a large time investment and a monthly bill, you're less likely to go out and buy more games (which is why I don't touch 'em).
- PC games can be modified and extended. Check out Neverwinter Nights which you can pretty much play forever, especially online. Plus there's all the FPS modifications.
- By that logic, NWN debuted with a $60 price tag - makes sense, given the replay value. PC games are sometimes more expensive, which is hurting their sales.
- True, it's possible to pirate console games, but it's uncommon. Few if any fool with mod chips or have DVD burners (Joe Public, not Joe Slashot). PC game piracy is much more common.
- Finally, consoles don't need intelligence. Anyone can pop in a disc and fire up a game. PC games require installation, fiddling, and while people like me love this, Joe Public hates it.
Now I just got a GameCube and Metroid Prime, so I can swing both ways on this issue, but I do prefer PC games. However, console games will always have the apple of the public's eye.Schnapple
I know that I bought less games in 2002, because most of the major releases that I want to buy haven't been shipped yet. I'd love go out to the store and buy Rainbow Six 3, Simcity 4, and Doom 3 right now, but they're not going to be shipped until 2003.
That, plus the lack of any absolute "must buy" games being released this year, has cut down on my number of game purchases. Sure, Unreal Tournament 2003 and No One Lives Forever 2 were good, but they certainly weren't as ground-breaking as the original releases of those games.
Okay... here's what I just picked up from Dell a couple of weeks ago for a computer at the office.
I paid $714 shipped. Note that it came with a crappy video card. (Well, crappy if you want to use it to play games. We, of course, didn't.)
Go with XP Home instead of Pro (you don't need Pro unless you're running a domain or multiple processors) and you get $100 or so of that price to upgrade to a great video card.
Honestly, I think the people who are saying that PCs are $2000 haven't bought a computer in a while. It's now more cost-effective to buy a Dell, with all of its goodies like onsite warranties, than it is to build it yourself.
You're right -- most people would rather go to Dell than build it themselves. I used to build all my own PCs, but it's no longer worth it. The days of the $2000 PC are over. The days of the over-$1000 PC are rapidly approaching an end.
My boyfriend just picked up a 20.1" flat panel (yes, the equivalent of a 22" CRT) from Dell for $800 shipped. You want a $2000 PC? Get that plus a $1000 PC.
(No, damnit, I don't work for Dell, but I'm sold on their onsite service plan, and they build quality PCs that are affordable. Also, I use GotApex to find the best deals at Dell [and others]. No, I don't work for them either.
1- Consoles do not run Windows, and are therefore much more stable.
2- A console does not need a $350+ video card upgrade every 12 months to run the current batch of games.
3- Console games are not regularly released in a beta state by broke game companies that need sales to finish the code and release a giant patch.
4- The more time we spend parked 12" away from a monitor at work, the more we value gaming ten feet away on the La-Z-Boy.