Slashdot Mirror
The Current State of the Games Industry
Joystiq has drawn some interesting tidbits out of an in-depth Forrester report on the current state of the games industry. The report's conclusions? The PC Game market is healthy. For example, "39% of all households use PCs for playing video games - this group makes up the vast majority of the 48% of households that have any sort of video games hardware." The report details what Microsoft and Sony has to do to dominate the U.S. market. The report details tactics for each side of that competition. Finally, the report finds that overall consumer interest in games is falling. "In the mindset of consumers games are still too expensive. According to 48% of gamers games still fail to offer good value for money. The report finds this surprising when considering a comparison to movies (games typically offer 30 hours of gameplay compared to a 3-5 hour movie with extra features) but we suspect the problem is more a matter of quality rather than quantity."
Besides that most sequels generally suck?
Does solitaire count as a video game?
&
Doesn't Miscrosoft already dominate the PC gaming market?
With due respect to the amount of time, effort, man hours, development tools and cold hard cash that goes into making a modern game, they are still way to expensive.
A modern games costs about $60-70, depending on where you are. DVDs right now are around $10. And yes, I will by 6-7 DVDs before I buy a new video game. Why? Because the movies are cheaper, and my risk of purchasing a lousy one is spread out more.
With a modern video game, especially if you're a causual gamer, there's always a risk when you purchase a new game that you'll end up with a flop, or at leats one you don't like. Spend $60 on a game only to find out it was sub par, and you won't be so eager to purchase another so flippantly. That game for me was GunGrave. Nice game, but far, far to short to be $70 worth.
If they want to sell more games, developers and publishers are going to have to abandon this fixed price regieme. To set the price of a game before the first concept art drawings are even created, is an invitation for a sloppy implementation, as there is no incentive whatsoever to put any polish at all on the game. It won't jazz up the price, and you can sell more units with marketing cheaper than you can go about improving the quality of the end product and customer satisfaction.
End result of fixed price games is mediocrity and customer dissatisfation, and hence, less demand for the product. Sell me something $60 that isn't buffed to a replayable shine and I'll have a sour taste in my mouth. I pick up the same title for $20 in a bargin bin and I'm a satisfied customer. Satisfied customers come back for more.
Burnt fingers are hesitant to fork over dough. Will the game industry listen? No. They take their cue from the music industry. Fixed, artificially high prices, despite the ease of reproduction. Well then; witness hesitent, artificially skeptical consumers. Cry me a river.
May the Maths Be with you!
Games are interactive, movies aren't so much. The whole point of a game is that you are in control of the story, and there should be several ways to affect that story and varying outcomes. There is also an element of skill, where you might replay the same portion a few times until you master it.
I don't compare the fun of a $60 game to the entertainment value of four $15 movies. I compare a $60 game to other games. The latest whiz-bang console release from EA will probably entertain me less overall than a more deeply involved title such as an RPG or well orchestrated FPS. It has nothing to do with play length or how many long boring levels there are. Halo was fun why ? Because it had satisfying moments and the challenge was well balanced, plus I'm a sucker for co-op multiplayer ever since the original Doom. NHL is fun because, well, it's friggin hockey and you get to cram three of your best buddies in front of the TV and shove them when they pull a hat trick on your goalie.
Everyone has their favorites, and those games are worth every penny. It's all the other stuff that falls short, when you buy a game and regret your purchase that same evening. Take for example Mark Ecko's horrible "Getting Up" game, which is like Jet Set Radio minus the skating, plus a bunch of pointless "gangsta shit". It looks like it's 5 years too late, plays worse than a 2 week old tech demo, just a ginormous disappointment.. a modern-day Daikatana. Is it worth the same as Half-Life 2 ? Not to me anyways. So then why do they cost the same ?
That's why I like non-blockbuster games.. look at the Popcap model, or those cheesy $15 titles at Staples like computerized board games and whatnot. Yes, they're cheap, both in price and design, but you don't curse yourself for blowing $15 because you know exactly what to expect from it. When you blow $60 for a game that's less fun than that umpteenth Mahjong clone, you want to punch someone.. HARD.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I really wish people would stop equating entertainment to how much it costs per hour. It really doesn't work that way. It's not like we're filling up the gas tank and shopping around for best miles per gallon. By that logic, nobody should ever do anything except walk outside, because it's free.
Besides, the time of fun from a movie, game, etc., doesn't immediately stop when it's over. I don't see people reminiscing with their friends about Super Mario Bros. 2 (though it does happen) nearly as much as I hear people crying to "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
Sorry, not quantifiable like that.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Finally, the report finds that overall consumer interest in games is falling.
The overall consumer interest in sequels is falling.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.