Slashdot Mirror
Interest in Console Gaming on the Decline
An anonymous reader writes "The results from a teen shopping behaviour and branding survey by Piper Jaffray & Co state that teen interest in playing video games is on the decline, as well as those that do play video games saying that they spend less time playing them." From the article: "The students were also surveyed on video game products and other consumer electronics. Results of the survey point out 79 percent of student households have at least one video game platform and 58 percent of students stating that they are occasional game players (playing at least monthly). In addition, 65 percent of student households own Sony's PS2, 50 percent own Microsoft's Xbox and 26 percent own Nintendo's GameCube. GameStop was recognized in the survey as the leading retailer for pre-owned video games with 60 percent market share and 29 percent market share for teen video game purchases. The survey also pointed out that 75 percent of teens say their interest in video games is declining and 78 percent indicated they spent less time playing in 2005."
The PS2, X-Box, and Game Cube have been out for a while now. No surprise that interest is declining. This time next year when Revolution, 360, and PS3 have been released there'll be interest in console gaming again.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
But no mention of the rise on adult interest in playing video games ? ,definitely after the introduction of the PS, gaming has become more and more mainstream, and less of a 'kiddy thing' :
The latest surveys (not something to put all your trust in, but at least an indication) says that the general age of console owners is now around 27 years (and still, of course, mostly male) : It's funny to see how the last few years
Whereas I am a gamer at heart (grew up with a Vic20 and an Atari 2600), I don't know yet if this development has brought me more pros or cons. Let's find out in the future, when adaption of games by the masses will even become bigger :
With Nintendo's Revolution I can even imagine my grandma picking up the controller and giving it a try : It's so much more intuitive than a controller is.
Generally speaking, towards the end of each console's lifecycle you will see a decline in interest. That's why it is the end of the lifecycle. You saw that between the 2600 and the NES, the NES and the Genesis / SNES, the Genesis and the Playstation, and the Playstation and the PS2. If popularity of a console wasn't declining, they likely wouldn't replace it.
Likewise, it is well known that consoles and gaming in general do better during economic downturns. As we seem to be coming out of a deep recession into a reasonably good economy, it's not surprising that highly escapist forms of entertainment are less attractive, compared to traveling or spending time in the real world.
Third, an annoying thing that tends to speed up the decline of consoles at the end is that the publishers are all refocusing their attention and development resources on the upcoming platforms. There just isn't much to buy. What is Microsoft releasing for the Xbox this year? Has anyone managed to squeeze real development dollars out of SONY for the PS2 in the past year?
This is the normal cycle of the gaming industry. I'm not surprised. Things will pick up again in two to three years once the next console wars has really kicked off.
The ______ Agenda
The video game industry produces more than $10 billion dollars a year. That's more than the Hollywood. I don't think interest is on the decline, and I really don't think they care if teenagers aren't interested - Who says their target market is teenagers anyway??
a more mobile generation/society where a typical 16th birthday gift for kids is at least a used car.
Maybe in Belaire. I have news for you - most kids still work for their own cars - if they get one at all. The average gift for a 16 year old is certainly NOT a car of any sort. You've been watching far too much "Super Sweet 16" on MTV.
And cable isn't responsible for taking kids away from videogames. Television viewing is on the decline among the young. And how many young people are smart enough to figure out how to use streaming video or webcams and all that other crap? Sheesh. The average teenager today can barely figure out how to operate AIM so they can join chatrooms and A/S/L everyone.
I would like to point out, that there might be similar declines in music and movies. Lots of consumers seem wary about the quality of newly released movies and music. The industry giants, dealing in art, wish to make product and profits more concrete and attempt to fabricate and force trends onto the public--it's my belief that the music industries stance on P2P software is that it enables the consumer to choose aged music versus the latest and greatest from the studios, eliminating their control over what people purchase.
Now, with movie's with more eyecandy than plot, with music with more glitz and glam than talent, we move onto video games. I own a GameBoy Advanced SP, a Sony PSP and a Sony PS2. The Sony PS2 has only been played a total of 2 hours, purchased while I was on a business trip to pass time while in the hotel. The PSP, serves more as a cheap and very nice movie player for trips, and as a bit of interactive benefit, it plays a few games too. The GameBoy Advanced SP, was only purchased inspite my ex, it's pretty much useless. OK, with those systems defined, I have purchased games for all. Many new games on the shelf, are modeled after the same movies in the box office. If the movies aren't worth a flip, why would a game based off that movie be any better? As it turns out, that flawed logic actually has weight in this circumstance. I purchased SpiderMan for the GB Advance and being an aged gamer who remembers the Atari 2600, Sega Genesis et al. I was stunned to learn I had beat the game. I had no idea. The game sucked, I was hoping it would get more difficult or exciting... then, with no forewarning, the glamorous presentation marking the games defeat showed and I was amazed. After telling my friend about this experience, he informed me that is what I get for buying a game based off a movie. A game that's crap, slapped together while the movie is still fresh in the consumers mind, no game play value whatsoever in favour of the image of conformance to what the movie presented.... trash, something to bleed the consumer for more money off on top of a 10 dollar ticket stub and 5 dollar drink at a mega cinema complex.
Gazing upon BestBuys shelves, noticing the implications of the covers to games, I noticed that a considerable number of games were based off of some movie. All the movies suck. If it were exciting to make music, they'd probably have a game based off of Britney Spears and then turn around and think that people aren't interested in gaming becuase noone wants to purchase the Britney Spears Dance game.
What happened to all the talented game developers out there? The guy who come up with PacMan? What about Tetris? Quake was a revolutionary game, Dungeons and Dragons? Have all the smart people, who are able to concoct a difficult puzzle working on the next release of Myst? What happened to the guy who wrote Burger Time? Did the guys who made the first Killer Instinct all retire? What happened to games like Zelda, and Super Mario Bros? Games are supposed to be fun (addictive), increase in difficulty to offer some kind of reward for the effort. But, todays games, simply lack both. Many games on the shelf are neither rewarding nor addictive. That's sad.
Sounds like a weird conclusion to draw from the data they got - it sounds to me more like teenagers play less videogames as they get older. Otherwise you'd need to compare each age vs each age in previous years, not have each individual rate if they play more or less games than they did a year ago. Of course you're going to play less games when you're 16 as opposed to when you're 17--- you can drive and aren't stuck at home.
-Nick
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
They use the fact that teens say they play less videogames this year than last year as evidence that gameplaying is declining, when I have NEVER seen any teen, hardcore gamer or not, actually increase the amount of time they play videogames increase as they get older. Most likely because lives only get more complicated as you grow, and as such there is less time for games. Try stacking up this year's teens against last years teens of the same age and maybe I'll start listening.
2005 hasn't been the golden year for video gaming in the first place. Halo 2 came out '04, Ninja Gaiden Black is nothing more than a 'gold edition', almost every successfully selling PS2 is a sequal of some time (I [heart] Katamari anyone?) and Nintendo is (still) off doing their own thing with slow, timed releases. PC gaming hasn't been much better with the RTS scene only getting a Dawn of War expansion, Guild Wars is arguably a niche game, Battlefield 2 is a buggy mess, and the only other highly noted games being released for the rest of the year is Serious Sam 2 which could suffer from lack of advertisement and Quake 4 which Doom 3 haters may end up passing up.
Sorry, but I grew up in a lowish middle class southern town. I got a car shortly after turning 17. It wasn't the greatest car, but I did drive it until I was 24. 80% of my peers had cars of some description as well.
:-)
I now live in a very rich area of California. Most of my co-workers' kids have cars (those who are 16+).
My experience doesn't match yours. And, like yours, means nothing statistically.
I wonder why people wouldnt want to play Halo 2, Resident evil 4, Burnout 3, or Madden 2006 unless they alread own Halo Resident Evil 3 Burnout 2 or Maddden 2005....hmmm
But seriously there are many original games out there that are not sequels, Fire Emblem for the Game Boy Advance, Katamari Datmacy for the Playstation 2, Forza Motor sports Xbox, Ninja Gaiden xbox (totally not a sequel I dont care what anybody says), Paper Mario 1000 year door game cube (yes kinda a sequel, but no one played the original), Pikmin game cube, Metroid Prime game cube, Metroid zero mission, Deus Ex 2 (xbox, pc), Shin Megami Tensi: Digital Devil Saga (PS2), Ape Escape 2 (PS2) Rome Total War, Star trek: Starfleet command 2 (pc). game boy advance, all these games are amazingly awesome and will glue you to the game as if life outside the game did not exist. (starfleet command made me lose a fiance).
There are a ton of awesome and original game experience, but no one ever buys them, they would rather buy something familiar rather than risky, because games are too expensive. If we could get a digitial distribution system where games cost $15 bucks instead of $50 mabey people would take more risks on good games instead of just buying madden and rainbow 6.
Just like the Game industry supposedly passes Hollywood in monetary gain, so to have the models been copied in the creation of content. So many of the games today, for any console, are hyped up, multi-million dollar crap fests. People scream "Mature!" and expect blood, gore, and sex, but it just gets tiring after a while.
The problem with the old consoles (from Sega and Nintendo) was that the high cost and propierty of cartridges made it hard for companies to break in, not to mention home brewers. While I can't say personally, the programming and effort required to create a AAA game back then is probably considerably less than what it is now. Compare production times and cost for Legend of Zelda: A Link To the Past with what is being pumped into Twilight Princess. I'm not saying the high cost/time isn't unwelcome- I have TP pre-ordered, and eagerly await it. I'm willing to pay for it, and so are probably a million other people out there.
But the fact remains that for every Twilight Princess, one might have been able to make three Link to the Pasts. People are so focused on 3D ultra graphics with realistic gore that gameplay is often forgotten (but not by Nintendo!) Rarely do you see a 2D game for consoles today. Viewtiful Joe proved that 2D gaming with 3D environments can be a blast. There was also this crazy little fighter, you might know it, Super Smash Brothers, which also used 3D environments but with 2D movements, a much easier feat to pull off.
Then we have the fact that many of the "hit" games are sequals. Burnout 3, GTA 4, Halo 2, the list goes on. The gaming market desperately craves new games and originality, but the producers (ala EA) refuse to put out, due to basically the high cost/time and how hard it is to recoup the money if a game sinks.
That's why I think Nintendo's Revolution is correctly labeled. With this new way to control games, a fresh thrust will be put into the gaming market. Entire new genres may be created (First Person Adventure, anyone?), and we will certainly see a lot more maneuverability and originality. Yes, they have the shell, but with the remote, companies will be booed by the press for not coming up with a way to use it and just reverting to the same old controller setup that other companies rely on. I would bet a small fortune that Microsoft and Sony will be copying Nintendo to some extent with their next-next-next gen "media stations".
Anyway, to increase the interest, the console runners (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) should reward originality. How they do this is up to them, but it needs to be done. Next, open up the consoles for homebrew. Don't want arbitrary code to run on the console? Fine, create your own pseudo-Java or C language (but you can bet the Linux guys will get something out of it, anyway), set up "micro" dev kits, and sell them to the masses. Look at the Dreamcast; it's been dead to the mainstream for a long while, but, to my knowledge, it's still a homebrewer's wet dream.
Finally, offer shorter games. Yes, yes, "Gasp!". Consider that, though the teenage market is a large one, it's still the younger adults (18-30) who are buying a good heap of the games. These people have nifty things like jobs, and many have families. Games that require 60 hours of input can be fun and all, but it's nice just to have something you can pop in, play for 10-20 minutes, and turn off without worrying about saving anything. What we need are games like tetris. But not tetris, because we've all played that already. Wario Ware is a good forray into this area; pick up, play a few rounds, put down. Auto-saves (I believe,) and simple.
I agree with every point you've made. I grew up in the 1980s when video games were a great novelty, which made even the bad ones seem great, now that we're inundated with them it's a chore to be bothered to find a good one. I'd be really interested in seeing surveys on how many people who used to be hard-core gamers are now down to short sessions that occur daily at most, and find out how many of them just got bored with playing the same old recycled game ideas and moved on to more rewarding hobbies.
I'm seeing a lot of kids who have nice cars, nice clothing, nice cellphones, and can't possibly work more than 20 or 30 hours a week.
Not that I'm saying nice things aren't important, and that they don't deserve them, but they just don't appear to appreciate them. Half the girls pull their cellphones out after class and start calling their friends to talk for the whole ten minutes between classes, and they all have at least decent cars.
Now, I don't have anything against rich people, I just think they should earn it.
I keep hearing this, but the games with original, interesting ideas just aren't bought.
If everybody hates Halo, why do you people buy it? If people hate corporate-produced pop, why do you all still buy Nelly CDs?
Somebody's supporting the industries. I'm not pointing fingers or naming names, but why don't you go buy some innovative shareware games or make your own or something?
All I'm hearing is "Gawd I hate the industry. Nothing original ever comes out! I freaking hate war sims! Argh!
Oooh, that new Final Fantasy X-4: the Second Mystical Vietnam War Quest video is out? Somebody link me to a torrent!!"
There are certainly plenty of spoiled children - and I wouldn't be surprised if half of all 16 to 18 year olds own or have access to a car - possibly even their own. However, I think that the number of people who just flat out buy a car for their child is slim. Perhaps as a graduation present - I don't know. I'd never buy one for my kid. Nobody ever bought one for me. My two siblings worked their asses off at low-paying crappy highschool jobs to afford their own used cars and most people I know both my age group and theirs (they're a decade younger than I am) paid for their own.
Now, the number of "necessities" for young people these days could be one aspect of why gaming is "down" (at least, in the context of number of hours the average person plays). That is, unless you come from an upper-middle class to wealthy family, your parents probably are not paying for your college, your car and insurance, your cell phone or any other activities. This means young people are working as early as allowed and putting in plenty of hours to afford the things they need and want to have.
When I was a kid (and probably you, too) - a cell phone was hardly a necessity. The bus system probably served us to get to and from our first jobs until we were a bit older. We set our sites on hanging out and doing things at the arcade or the mall or downtown with our buddies rather than going on vacation on the other side of the country with our friends and expensive accomodations.
I just get irked when I hear people talk as if most or even all kids are just given cell phones or cars or parents are just simply expected to dump $100k on their child's college. It does a disservice to all of the hard working kids out there who have to bust their asses for each and every one of those things - either because mom and dad are of modest means, are actually poor or maybe they just decided that Junior was going to have to foot his own bill in life if he wanted all those extra things.
Now, as far as the whole premise of this "study" - I think it's misguided. Gaming is more popular than ever. The average hours played may go down, but that's because of the number of new players getting into the world, dropping the average - because not every new gamer is going to be a 40 hour per week gamer like many of the older gamers would be.
This is just sensational crap to get some hits and attention, anyway.
There was a time ~1999-2000, when at every month at least one new innovative, fresh and enjoyable masterpiece of a game was guaranteed to come out.
In 1999 and 2000 was the end of the playstation lifecycle, and people were complaining about a lack of "innovative" games. People always complain not enough great games come out.
Last summers drought of halfway decent games was indicative of this malaise
And what about last holiday season, where there were lots of great games all coming out at the same time. I'm thinking the summer drought was more indicative that, because of increased expense, games need to be released during the holiday season.
fixation on online play(for more revenue),
Online play is something more and more gamers are demanding.
The survey questions may be leading to incorrect conclusions. As people grow up typically video games become less important. Asking a group if their interest in video games is declining, may just reflect that 17 year olds are less interested in video games than 13 year olds; not necessarily that 13 year olds in 2005 are less interested than 13 year olds in 2000.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73