Slashdot Mirror
Analysts Predict Consoles Sales Peak Reached
Thanks to Yahoo News for reprinting the press release regarding financial analysts' predictions that the current videogame console cycle has peaked. According to a spokesman for U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, "We believe spring 2003 marked the midpoint of the current video game cycle", suggesting 2003 "will be the peak year for unit sales of current generation hardware." This may mean leaner times before the next generation of console hardware debuts, predicted by Piper Jaffray for "autumn 2006", and meanwhile, the company is forecasting "...that 22.3 million hardware units will be sold in North America in 2003, a modest increase from 21.1 million units in 2002 and will subsequently decline in 2004 to sales of 20.3 million units as the installed base of video game hardware becomes saturated."
This may mean leaner times before the next generation of console hardware debuts
Not really. Even the companies that don't lose money on their console sales aren't making a whole lot. Game sales are what is important, and the larger installed base should help those.
Super Nintendo had some of the best games ever. Illusion of Gaia, Final Fantasy 3(6), Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World...Not to mention the Super Scope. Shooting your TV with a bazooka is just... ok, retarded. I'm done now.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Who are these guys? Do they speak with any authority on this subject? I read the article and as far as I can tell they're a bunch of financial analysts. Do they have a history of predicting this kind of thing accurately? Is there any reason to listen to these predictions?
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
I suppose a 10% decline is quite steep, but considering the console itself isn't the money maker for the companies, aren't they still expecting huge profits? Consider...if each console owner purchases 1 game per year, with sales as they are you're talking about an increase of ~20 million games per year. This compounds each year of the consoles' "life" such that after 5 years worth of sales like this, you'd be expecting 100 million games sold per year, with a yearly increase in the number of sales. That seems like a decent profit margin.
--trb
Also, with so many people having computers these days, why have a console? Sounds like redundant spending to me.
Sigh. We've been through this many times. Consoles offer different thing than computer games: less online play for the most part, less download mods, and less customization in general, but bigger screens, a different and in some ways much more varied selection of quality games, good standard controls for many games (less so for FPS and RTS) and a pretty much iron clad guarantee that the game will work. The cost is comparable or possibly much less than the cost of keeping a PC up to date w/ video cards and what not.
And despite stuff like the N-Gage and random barely-better-than-homebrew systems coming out, roughly speaking, this generation is defined by consoles released on or before the end of 2001.
(PS2 2000, Xbox, GC 2001, GBA 2001, maybe DC 1999) Every other console has been a day late and a dollar short.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Consoles are cheaper than computers for gaming, I don't care what funny math you freaks pull up. =)
I bought my PS2 for $75 a year ago. It will continue to play brand-new popular games until 2006 when the PS3 comes out. That's 4 years of gaming vs. the 6 months to a year of a video card twice the price. Not counting keeping up with the rest of the hardware and the headaches that come with analyzing system requirements. It's just cheaper and easier to get a console.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
In other news...
The major console companies all had a post-peak cigarette today. Nintendo was quoted as saying, "Hold me."
Unfortunatly, the lovefest came to a quick end when Sony and Microsoft got into a fight over who would have to sleep in the wet spot.
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
It was announced today that IBM will be making processors for Nintendo's next generation console. So that means IBM will be involved in developing the processors for all 3 next-gen consoles. Sony obviously has its own thing with the Cell processor, but what about Nintendo and Microsoft. Is it possible that they have basically decided to team up (against Sony)? It is possible that they will both use a PowerPC-type processor on their next console, as well as an ATI graphics core. Could it be that a) they are going to develop one XBox/Nintendo console, or b) that they will make their hardware so similar that porting a game from one to the other would be child's play? Option a) seems very intriguing to me. There would be no question that I would get the XBox/Nintendo console over the PS3-- especially if I could play both Gamecube and XBox games on it.
Also, in an interview with Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights, he said "...it wouldn't surprise me if sometime in the future there is a collaboration [between console makers]. It doesn't mean that there's a less-competitive environment, but it would mean that everyone could worry about making good content instead of the technology. And I think that would be a huge positive shift for our industry." Denis Dyack is very close with Shigeru Miyamoto, and is likely to have some insight and input on Nintendo's plans for the next generation.
What does everybody else think?
PS2s use a regular USB keyboard, by the way. As for control, some games are better with a keyboard and mouse (FPSs, Civ, etc.) while others (Final Fantasy, Tony Hawk, Dead or Alive Beach Vollyball) would be really hard and a lot less fun without a controller. I personally find controllers easier and more comfortable than keyboards and mice for games.
As for bugs, I rarely see any. Enter the Matrix was a terrible game, badly rushed and a horrible waste of money. Same with Tomb Raider Agel of Darkness, the other famous recent bug-fest. As for the good games, bugs are few and far between.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
Every mention of sales so far this year says that year-to-date sales of consoles are lower than they were last year. GameCube sales are up, but that's not enough to counter a large drop in PS2 sales combined with a small drop in Xbox sales.
Check Nintendo's recent press releases. I think the PS2 year-to-date sales are down 17%, Xbox 5%, and the GameCube up a few percent or so.
Looks like 2002 might've been the peak, unless something unexpected happens next year to drive up sales.
I said the 80's, not the 1600's... ;)
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
So, uhh, basically what they're saying is in about a year i'm going to have to purchase a Playstation 3, a Gamecircle, an XBox2, and upgrade my graphics card/processor to keep current with the video game market.
Between owning 3 PCs, an Atari 2600/7800, NES, SNES, Genesis, SegaCD, Dreamcast, a PS, PS2, a Gamecube, and tons and tons of games over the last few years, I can honestly say this hobby is more expensive than a crack addiction...
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
I think a lot of it may have to do with PS2 market saturation. There are so many PS2s in living rooms around the world that even if the next must-have game comes out for PS2, there aren't that many people who want one and don't already have one.
GC and XBox could see a spike, but it would probably get swallowed up by the overall decline in PS2 sales. This is talking about the market, after all. Nintendo and MS could easily have a banner year in 2004 while the total consoles sold goes down.
Bite the hand.