Slashdot Mirror


Games Industry Downturn is a Myth

Gamers with Jobs has a piece on the supposed industry downturn, stating plainly that any problems are figments in the minds of analysts. From the article: "I concede, things are not bright sunshine and frolicking puppies for the gaming industry at the moment. There's a less-than-stellar Xbox 360 launch, a lot of very proficient people pocketing pale pink slips, a disappointing sales sheet from the most recent holiday season, and a lot of industry insiders wailing and gnashing their teeth. Now is the winter of our discombobulation. In short, gaming seems to be at its own throat lately, and from the cheap seats, watching happily, cackle the pundits, cheering the bloodletting ... It's baloney. What isn't being talked about is the fact that consumers are buying more games than they ever have. They are just spreading the money out a bit more, putting dollars into the used market, into handheld devices, into services like Live Arcade, and into direct downloads. The handheld market alone, which just cracked into the billion dollar range in 2004, soared 62% to 1.6 billion for 2005 on the backs of the ever sturdy GBA, the largely successful launch of the PSP, and the coming of age of the DS."

8 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's not a downturn... by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Other than the the fact that there have been 0 amazing PC releases since Half Life 2 came out. The industry is ripe for another revolution.

  2. Not a downturn? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What isn't being talked about is the fact that consumers are buying more games than they ever have. They are just spreading the money out a bit more, putting dollars into the used market, into handheld devices, into services like Live Arcade, and into direct downloads.

    So there's no downturn because consumers aren't really abandoning games, they're turning to older , more nastolgic games and don't buy the new stuff? Hmm... I think there's a flaw in the logic there.

    In my mind, if gamers aren't paying for new games to be developed, that means the industry is experiencing a downturn. The fact that gamers are buying older and used games only signifies that they don't want the new stuff that's being produced.

    1. Re:Not a downturn? by thaerin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that gamers are buying older and used games only signifies that they don't want the new stuff that's being produced.

      I fall right smack into that catergory. I haven't bought a new PC game since WoW launched and looking at what's in the pipeline, don't see that changing anytime soon. I refuse to buy anything shipped under the EA flag because I've gotten burned far too many times on poorly launched titles that never got properly supported. I miss the days of Lemmings where I could spend hours on end trying to rescue the barely discernable figures as they marched along to their ultimate doom. Hopefully the gaming industry some day realizes it can't survive on eye-candy alone forever, eventually there'll have to be some real substance to their games besides stamping a new name on last years top seller.

      --
      If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
    2. Re:Not a downturn? by Alcilbiades · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say you have your ideas confused. A market collapse would be more along the lines of people no longer buying any games and the market would be shrinking. However, more people played games this year than last.

      What it comes down to is a market shift. Of the current style of games they really haven't improved much of anything in the past 3 years. So, what is happening is gamers are not willing to pay a premium price for games that are exactly the same as the ones 3 years ago except with enhanced graphics. Remember for a market collapse their has to be a shortage of demand. I would argue demand is higher than it ever has been, but the game corps are simply not filling it.

  3. Re:It's not a downturn... by Pxtl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep. Growth has it's limits. Eventually you hit all the people who just aren't gamers and haven't played a 3d game ever - I don't think anybody will be reaching them until the Revolution comes out.

    Plus, WoW is really hurting the PC gaming industry. I know a lot of gamers who've just stopped playing any game that isn't WoW.

    Finally, Half-Life was a great game. The first time. The second time someone made an "immersive FPS adventure - like playing a movie!" it was pretty cool. But now they've all but pushed out half the industry, and the gameplay in those titles is pretty tired. Conversely, the online multiplayer FPS and RTS games are getting increasingly ferrocious learning curves that block anybody but hardcore teens from playing.

    Plus, there is a real, massive demand for educational titles for young kids (not toddlers) that just isn't being exploited. I know tons of parents who're wondering where the next "The Incredible Machine", "Carmen Sandiego" or "Sim Earth" is.

    But as long as everybody's trying to make the next Half-Life AAA blockbuster, they're stuck.

    Console games are pretty much still mainly aimed at university/teenaged/preadolescent guys. The heavy focus on T/M titles (adults don't need blood, tits, and heavy metal to buy games) demonstrates this. Eventually, you hit the point where you've got every teenaged boy in your market - and then what? I think they hit that point and are still trying to grow, not realising that they've fully exploited the target market.

    Every game that breaks out of that market and gets a little momentum going becomes an unparalleled success. The trick is (a) getting out of the market that all your developers fit into, and (b) getting that momementum outside of that market when all your marketting people think like teenaged boys.

  4. Re:Why the holiday season sucked: by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The strategy is a little more sophisticated than you appear to believe. Currently, the bottom line is Microsoft loses money on the hardware. Every time they sell Xbox 360, they take a loss. They recoup the loss when Xbox owners buy their game software.

    Microsoft cannot afford a casual game buyer. A parent that buys an Xbox and then purchases one software title means Microsoft bleeds red. (A guy who buys the Xbox and pirates the software is worse.) They are "gaming" their production numbers so that the guy who actually buys an Xbox is more a bit more rabid enough to be more likely to buy software titles.

    Why not jack up the price of each Xbox? Because they've cracked out their mini-max programs and figured that at a certain price, it will discourage parents from purchasing the xbox based on the initial cost investment. Lets say those parents make up 80% of the purchasing market. They're not going to raise the purchase price of the box by $50, and chase off 80% of their purchasers.

    Does it mean they will lose maximal potential market buy introducing early scarcity? Yes. But these guys do this for their living. They better know what they're doing. Too bad for the "poverty" stricken console gamer junkie.

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  5. Inflation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's this bit in Alice Through the Looking Glass where one of the characters talks about having to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.

    Imagine that a company said "we're doing better, we made more money this year than last!" and then pointed out that their "profit" column this year has more dollars in it than their profit column last year-- but, they don't mention that the dollar is worth slightly less this year than last year, and the profit column isn't as large as last year's if you count in last year's dollars. By not taking inflation into account, this hypothetical company made a loss look like a gain.

    Or imagine that a congressman stands up and says "our federal budget increases the size of medicare", and points out that the number of medicare patients they've allocated funding for is bigger than the number last year-- but, they don't mention that since people are being born all the time, the number of people demanding access to medicare is rising, and so you have to increase the number of medicare patients by a certain amount just to keep the same level of coverage. By not taking into account the inherent need to constantly expand the program to accomodate the growing population, this hypothetical congressman made a reduction in the size of medicare look like an increase.

    This editorial here stands up and says "the game industry is doing better", and points out that the industry sold more games than last year-- but, he doesn't mention that since people are being born all the time, the number of potential game buyers is increasing. It's quite possible for gaming to simultaneously be doing badly and reducing in popularity, while the absolute number of games sales is increasing, so long as the number of new customers is rising slower than the population of potential new customers. The appearance of new potential customers can mask a decrease in the percentage of customers who want to buy, and this is something that Nintendo, one of the main "zomg gaming sucks now" soothsayers of doom, has been in particular harping on-- pointing out the number of households that exist is vastly larger than it is in 1982 but the number of households with video game systems has stayed pretty much constant. By not taking this into account this article has made a downturn look like an upturn.

    Of course, it all depends on what we're measuring here. Why do we care if there's a "downturn"? Well, if we're gauging whether it makes sense for EA and Activision and whatnot to be laying off people, then aw hell no. The game sales went down last year but they're going up over longer periods of time, EA's dip in fortunes is just a result of mismanagement and misallocated resources. But if you're looking at things in terms of "do video games have a problem?" or "does something fundamental about video games need to change?", then absolutely yes, the gaming industry has a problem and a number of things about it need to reform. The game industry is running as fast as it can and it's barely staying in place.

    1. Re:Inflation by kniLnamiJ-neB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just *had* to go and post this AC... You'd probably get modded through the roof for this, man... I know you'd have 1 from me.

      They're trying to accomplish with quantity what they lack in quality. If they'd devote time to quality games, they wouldn't have to worry about the quantity. As it stands, we get Tired Sequel XLVIII: The next-to-the-next-to-the-next-to-the-Last of the $VIDEOGAMEHEROES. Why? Because they're not allowing their people to get creative.

      Don't work harder, work smarter.

      --
      Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!