Slashdot Mirror
BBC Ponders Another Games Industry Crash
weirdguy writes with a link to a BBC article that poses the same question asked by journalists every couple of years: is the games industry headed for another crash? "Yes, gamers are snapping up the new generation of games consoles — Microsoft's Xbox 360, Nintendo's Wii, and Sony's Playstation 3 [PS3], but at huge cost to the industry. Hardware makers are losing hundreds of dollars on every console sold, and games publishers face an "increasingly difficult environment, as rising development costs and small user bases [mean] that return on investment in next generation games development is unlikely to be achieved before 2008," according to media analysts Screen Digest. More importantly, though, the video games publishers are facing a revolution of their business model."
Nintendo figured out the secret to not losing money. They make money. Crazy I know.
Nintendo doesn't take any loss when someone buys the Wii.
This would be where Nintendo laughs on it's way to the bank.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
I was under the impression that most consoles have been loss-leaders for some time now, at least at launch, with the real money coming from licensing.
Hardware makers are losing hundreds of dollars on every console sold
Since the Wii allegedly only costs about $158 to make and is sold for $200, I don't find a compelling reason to take the rest of the article seriously.
Sign me up!
Well, okay. I don't actually wish ill on game devs, but I am kinda blase about the hardware end of the business. And the article fails to note that Nintendo doesn't sell its hardware at a loss, correct?
Canthros
Microsoft and Sony are losing hundreds of dollars on each system sold, while Nintendo makes a profit on every console. This just seems like a sky-is-falling article that doesn't take into consideration the massive growth of the online and casual markets, as well as the huge growth of portable.
That's odd... I thought Nintendo was making a profit with every sale. Nice researching, BBC.
Though Sony and Maybe microsoft (not sure on MS) may be losing money on the hardware, Nintendo is making a profit on their hardware. It's not being sold at a loss (neither the DS Lite nor the Wii).
I don't think the industry could crash again like the Atari crash. The market is just completely different, not to mention the Atari crash was America only, and the Video game market is now a global market.
Even IF Nintendo would be losing any money and all this doomsaying actually came true, there is still our beloved PC platform. If consoles turn out not to be profitable anymore (which i seriously doubt), in my opinion the developers won't just sit there like lemons but will jump ship and go back to the oldest harbor that kept them safe for all these years.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
The main problem stems from the fact that there is just a constant deludge of first person shooters and racing games. The Xbox 360 is by far the worse offender in this regard. There seems to be little else on the platform worth looking at.
The other issue is that the cost of development is becoming so high now that devs are less willing to take risks on new IPs and gameplay styles. Look at Clover Studios - They made Viewtiful Joe, Okami and God Hand, all great games that did nothing but cause the company to fold.
I wouldn't be surprised if as this console generation moves on developers make more money from the smaller downloadable games on Playstation Network, etc. than from the big box retail ones.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
There will be no Video Games Industry Crash. However, we may see a dramatic shift in the industry.
What we are seeing is the end of hardcore dominance of the industry, nothing more or less. The perceived demands of the hardcore are insustainable, driving companies to make consoles that lose them money in order to gain some ill-defined future benefit. Whether it is the companies or the hardcore themselves that are to blame for the previously shrinking industry is uncertain and largely irrelevant.
What we are seeing is the introduction of video games as a true form of mass media. Talk to anyone on the street and you will be hard pressed to find someone in this nation who hasn't read a book, watching a movie, or viewed a painting or photograph. What's more, each of these forms of media has subsections that cater to particular tastes. Video games have not been mass media because they didn't reach everyone, only an elite few who knew what was going on. Now the "casual" gamers and even those who do not game at all have been targeted, and they will be the driving force in the future.
Right we are in transition, and it's confusing people. Depending on the person, some hardcore gamers are afraid that the Wii and DS are the harbingers of the end. Will games like Guilty Gear, Counter-Strike, and Armored Core survive in an industry focused on the majority? Having been catered to for decades, the prospect of losing attention is frightening. However, the fear is unwarranted. Despite the fact that games like the Sims, Bejeweled and all manner of "casual" games have invaded and perhaps dominated the PC, we still see games such as Supreme Commander, Hellgate: London, and the odd MMORPG tax video cards in SLI and quad-core CPUs.
In the future, the majority of games will be like summer blockbuster films. This is not bad, because the volume of games will increase such that we will still see the same number of "hardcore" titles, including AAA ones.
There will be no crash, but there will be a paradigm shift/revolution.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I was an avid gamer about 6 months ago, and I have been excited about a few games to come out recently, but I just don't see a reason to buy them anymore. The games I was excited to see come out this quarter I could live with or without now. Am I.. growing up?!? nooOO!
ok.. so heads you lose tails I win. right?
Outdated business models? Costs that aren't offset by the revenue? Prices that don't match the value?
Usually, when those stars are aligned this way, the culprit is someone copying the content.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah, the perennial "is another game crash around the corner?" article. Always a good bet if you can't think of anything substantive to say.
The answer, of course, is no. The "game crash" of '83 marked the end of the game fad. Electronic games had become a novelty, and virtually anything would sell...and then the novelty wore off. And like the end of any fad, what was once cool became decidedly uncool for a time.
But something is only a fad once. Videogames are now just one more form of entertainment, competing with movies, TV, music, etc. The industry is transforming. Improved technology has driven up the cost of development, so that game production is more and more characterized by the same hit-driven economics that is typical of the entertainment industry as a whole, posing new challenges for the industry.
But at least we don't have to worry that everybody is going to simultaneously lose interest in videogames.
The BBC article seems pretty well thought out, and only mentions the word "crash" once, under a picture of Burnout Revenge. For the most part, it's an article about the alternative revenue sources that have been rising up to defray the additional costs of development, including advergaming, Korean-style online accessory sales, and cell-phone game tie-ins. They even go out of their way to point out that total game sales are expected to rise by 800 million dollars this year, even if the console transition will make it difficult to break even on a next-gen only title.
This isn't the worlds most accurate article about the state of costs and revenue sources in gaming, but it's a good overview of how things probably look from within a large publisher.
The ______ Agenda
Heres something which really caught my eye: Players will be able to create new levels for games and share them online. "Users could create revenue for games," says Mr Barton. "The potential for this is absolutely enormous". Step 1. Community makes maps, mods, skins etc.. for a game.
Step 2. Publisher claims it as there own IP
Step 3. Profit
This really annoys me. They can go **** themselves if they think I'm going to spend 40 hours programming something interesting for a game I enjoy just to have them take it and make money out of it to subsidise the inadequacies of their retarded business model.
This is another succesfull attempt at disinforming the masses.
We all know the reason for next gen consoles, excluding the Wii. They are here to satisfy another agenda.
Microsoft: Monopolise the gaming market. (DX 10, VISTA, Entertainment system)
Sony: Monopolise the DVD format market.
Move along nothing to see here.
I will use my personal observation about the DS in a small family reunion of my girlfriend. During one of the long boring speeches, a few of her cute cousins reached into their purses for a DS. About 5 DS were used to network Big Brain Academy. Now, I was shocked since it's semi rare for me to see females with video games. It's even rare when I see CUTE females with them. Usually, they would be too cool and play cell phone games. It's even weirder that one of the cousins is in a sorority. My point is that video games are decoupling from the typical nerd stereotype.
Every geek has some sort of website, programming or computer project. Here's mine: www.youtasteit.com . What's yours?
I suppose you guys who are saying the Wii is profiting Nintendo directly actually have some sources to back that up?
That $158 figure doesnt say anything about how much the stores are purchasing them for, and how much cost is between the manufacturer and distributor. Put your sources where your mouth is.
... right after the "Movie" crash....
There is a war going on for your mind.
There is always a shakeout between game companies at the beginning of each new generation. A few things combine to make this happen every time:
1. Many people stop buying games for the old system since they already have decided to buy the new system... as soon as it falls a bit more in price. This makes a gap in the market until the next generation has moved enough units. Many developers and publishers don't have enough cash to survive this.
2. Timing is hard. When should you stop developing for the old system and start developing for the new? With 18-24 months time-to-market it's hard to know if your new game should be made for the old or new generation. Make the wrong choice and you might find yourself move as much as two years too early or late.
3. Every new generation has so far demanded higher budgets and larger teams. Many companies that are too small will fail to make the switch.
4. It takes time and costs money to learn a new system and you will also need to develop new tools and engines. Either you will have to invest extra heavily in your first title for the new platform or settle for lower quality, which is likely to give you less sales...
I've been working in the industry for almost ten years (not anymore now though) and I'm surprised that everyone seems to be caught off-guard every time it happens....
PC games
2006: $3.9bn
2007: $3.7bn
I wonder if they have factored in World of Warcraft in these figures, or its imminent demise in the next 9 months. The game is like swarm of locusts on the PC games market at the moment (still after 2 years). More people play WoW than people who have PS3s, XBox 360s and WIIs (according to the Times Online). This is stifling all competition in the PC games market making it stagnant. It appears with the new expansion, the playerbase is slowly dying away though, which could actually be beneficial for other games producers.
Of course you could argue a lot of people who play WoW simply wouldn't play games on their PC otherwise.
I've had a Wii for a while now, and while I enjoyed it, my personal opinion, alone, hasn't convinced me, one way or another, what the draw of the console will be. Last night, this question was proven to me, once and for all.
I brought it to a BBQ that another friend of mine was hosting. Half of the people there were gamers, and half of the people there were decidedly NOT gamers (Chinese students, a few hippies, some others). At first, all my gamer friends screamed for some "SMASH!" and that went on for about 45minutes in the other room while everyone else went outside and sat around jawing.
Then I pried the GameCube controllers away from the gamers, and stuck in Wii Sports. The other half of the party suddenly rushed inside and grabbed controllers. They'd obviously never played or seen the games before, since they had no idea what to do, but within 5 minutes, everyone had made their own Miis, and were smacking tennis balls around to their hearts content. We alternated Wii Sports and WarioWare for the next few hours. By the end, many of the non-gamers were coming up to me, asking me how much the Wii cost, and where they could get them. I was pretty shocked, myself. I'd heard stories like this before, but hadn't really witnessed it in person, and was pretty amaized at the degree of involvement everyone had. Also, it was a party... none of us were sitting around, alone, brooding over a scummy screen. We were joking with eachother, making cracks all the time--we were interacting with each other even more than if we'd been doing most other normal party activities. In the end, the host came up to me and thanked me profusely, saying that everyone there had had a blast, and bringing the Wii was exactly the thing we needed.
Just the other night, NBC news ran a piece on how retirement communities were getting into games... although the only games they showed were Wii games, there was no mention of PS3 or 360 titles. It's clear, the Wii is a phonominon, like no other we've seen in videogame history. We are entering a period of unknowns, in gaming... this is the LAST time to be making doomsday prophecies for the game industry.
This guy from the BBC needs to get out more, see what exactly is going on in the world. He sounds as closeted as a 15-year-old gamer in his mother's basement.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
This gem tucked away at the end of the article: 'As it turns out, software piracy can be good for you. "We have extremely strong brands [in Asia] thanks to the pirates; they have created millions of consumers - not customers,"...' That's why copy protection / prevention has been so weak in Microsoft products for years, and will probably remain so as long as 'free' alternatives exist. Quoting St. Francis Xavier: ''Give me the children until they are seven and anyone may have them afterward'. (Sometimes mis-attributed to Joseph Goebbels, albeit in a deformed way). In other words, get 'em young and they'll be asking for Vista & Outlook instead of Ubuntu & T'bird...
...in which for some reason Nintendo seems to be the one that survives, and pulls the industry back on its feet. Back in the Atari-age video games crash, it was the NES that got the industry back up, after all.
I think Microsoft and Sony might just be learning a lesson... there's a reason hardware doesn't just rush to 20million cores and 8x SLI: there's costs involved that prevent it from just jumping there, regardless of whether the technology gets researched and released easily.
The 360 was supposed to be, just like the original Xbox, the top console in graphics. Sony raised the bar by matching (give or take) the 360's prowess. That's why the current video game market is divided by people into the 360/PS3 market and the PS2/Wii/portables market. Oh, and guess what? The PS2, the DS, and the Wii are the ones that are actually making any money out of this deal.
Nintendo is selling oodles of consoles and games, which is obviously their game plan. I don't think anyone doubts that they're happy with this generation so far.
Xbox 360 is selling decently, they're well on their way to being the "mainstay" system for hardcore gamers, and they're selling all sorts of crap that used to be free through their online service. Plus, they've got some great exclusives lined up (Mass Effect woo!) and they haven't even played the Halo card yet.
Sony isn't selling as well as they might like, BUT they seem to have achieved their primary goal with the PS3: leveraging the console to push Blu-Ray over HD-DVD. Their console sales may suffer, but for some reason Sony seems to think that achieving Blu-Ray dominance is paramount, so I wouldn't guess they're disappointed quite yet.
So really, while Sony and MS might each prefer to be grinding all opposition beneath their iron heels, it's not like they're failing at what they set out to do here.
I think for the most part the analysts are lying when they say Microsoft or Sony is losing hundreds of dollars on each console. When you look into all these pricings, they generally including costs that are comparable to retail.
3 30,00.htm
Not to mention that when you look at this article:
http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/167
It claimed a $100 loss if Sony sold at $500. But the retail is closer to $600 suggesting at worst Sony is breaking even.
But then you look at this article:
http://news.cnet.co.uk/gamesgear/0,39029682,49285
Which suggests at $600 Sony is losing $240.
I say it's all nonsense. I think Sony & Microsoft like this analysis of pricing because people lap it up and think "Oh gee, for $600, I'm getting something worth almost twice as much! What a deal!". It plays on greed.
The only people who know how much the console makes (or doesn't make) aren't saying. Everybody else is talking out of their ass. Everybody.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The video game industry crashed back when video gaming was a rather less developed market... also, video games where so simple that it was easy to make a knockoff. (A knockoff of space invaders was almost exactly like space invaders... A knockoff of half-life, or halo, or splinter cell, will not be remotely enough like those games to steal their market). Now that the video game industry is larger than the movie industry, and there are several generations of people who grew up with video games, home video games aren't going anywhere.
What we might see is a slow down in hardware advances, and video game production budgets going down. Maybe the current gen of hardware is used for the next 8 years instead of the next 4 years. We might see the life cycle for a video game platform be more like a movie platform (how long has DVD been around). But there is no video game crash coming.
Nice try, Troll.
You seem to be pretty sure about Microsoft's profit margin. I don't think they ever announced anything in that regard, have they? Frankly, I doubt they're making money on console sales. If they did make money, they would probably lower the price, given how the sales numbers of the 360 aren't exactly spectacular.
Either way, as you say, Microsoft's console gaming division most certainly doesn't make money, all things considered. And not only due to their investment in games: They have a lot of investment to get back from developing the 360 itself, too. Not that it matters - Microsoft will gladly put billions into this whole idea just to destroy Sony.
We could, if it weren't true. It's still early after launch. The PS3 launched a few weeks ago in Europe. I bought mine a week after launch and had no trouble finding one - most electronics shops had them in stock (although the store I bought mine in had no Sixaxis, so I bought one of these crappy Logitech pads with a freaking hairdrier inside them).
It's not like Sony manufactured 6 millions of these. By all rights, they should be sold out.
And while we are on this topic, can we also please drop the 'I don't know anyone with a PS3 but I know for a fact that everyone on earth wants a Wii'I don't think anyone said that, but if you mean to imply that the Wii doesn't have more mass market appeal than the PS3, you must have been sleeping for the last few months. Good morning, I hope you had a nice dream, because you're not going to like reality :-)
1) You'll see less "fluff" in-game.
The companies that will remain are the ones that control unnecessary costs. Aside from RPG's, you're not going to see CGI movies in games. It's unnecessary and costly.
2) You'll see less "fluff" to buy.
As the novelty of paying $5 for horse armor wears off, you'll see these silly products go by the wayside. They'll be replaced with full-fledged expansion packs like Shivering Isle.
3) You'll see more *good* DLC/Full Games.
EBGames should be scared. The future of the gaming industry is to get more $ out of the consumer to support higher development costs. The industry hasn't been able to raise the price on games enough to support this. The solution is to sell games at the same price, but through digital distribution. It cuts out the middle-man, and more importantly cuts-out used game sales.
http://www.korexz.com/2006/11/18/new-argument-cont ent-technology/
Why is the BBC more important than me ;)
Let's be honest here, Sony's lost 1 engine, and in a tail spin, they're likely going to crater or step out of the industry, they have given us no reason to remain and arn't looking like it in the future, but Microsoft is the young up and comer who's going to follow's sony's example (last generation it was Sony who was pulling a Microsoft, mega sales, great games, nothing could go wrong.)
Nintendo has the key to avoiding another 1983 level crash. They sidestep all the problems and go in a new direction. A direction that lowers development cost (most development cost is to get better graphics or bigger games). Instead of a race to climb the next mountain they are going around the mountain.
Essentially the problem with this generation is everyone wants more content, more game, more graphics, and they want them all to look bigger and better. The problem is this costs money. GTA style games are big bucks now but they are even bigger budgets because you have to make a huge world.
I don't see a 1983 crash happening, however I do see Xbox struggling next generation, Sony being driven to a sink or swim level, but Nintendo's the fuzzy factor, if the industry starts working with the Wii, and developing lower budget but more innovative titles then you can see millions saved just from that move and the market is saved, otherwise you're going to see an epic level crash when we get to the question "what's next" after the 360? Better physics, better graphics? We're just killing ourself with every step we take on that path because the gameplay which has always mattered is ignored yet again.
Personally it's getting to that point. What's the difference between command and conquer 3, Company of heroes and Warcraft 3? Different motif, pretty much same game. What's the difference between Halo 2, Half-life 2, and Doom 3? Most JRPGS? Kotor 1 vs Kotor 2 vs fable vs the next western RPG. Most SRPGS based on disgaea typed engines (not even just nippon ichi titles)?
We are getting the same game over and over with slight changes and slight modifications and people are starting to realize that not every game is a completely unique and new experience, and from the sound of it we are getting pissed.
Haha! I bought 3 consoles with no intention of buying any games, just to spite the console manufacturers. I know you all did the same!
but they're raking in the profit on software licensing.
They get paid a "per unit" fee for licensing. and don't forget how much the sdk costs to license.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Nintendo ISN'T losing money on every console sold.
Maybe Sony and Microsoft need to take a look at the Wii's success and figure out that gamers don't want pretty graphics at outrageous prices. We want to have FUN.
There is absolutely nothing, in my mind, to justify paying $600 for a video game console. If I wanted ridiculous graphics, I'd go outside. I hear the resolution is FANTASTIC.
I find it hard to believe that many game industries like Playstation would produce something like the PS3 knowing that they would loose money on it. What did they hire the team of monkeys from career builder. Maybe blueray dvd in the PS3 was not a great idea after all. At least Capcom is making shit tons of money from their awesome games like dead rising and lost planet.
OK, maybe that's a gross exaggeration, but seriously, can I just get a good game or two? The only thing keeping me off of Linux was a lack of good games, but then I realized there weren't really good games out for Xbox, PS3, or Windows, either, so......
I mean, is there a single game out that is better than the old Nintendo games in emulation? You give me a game as fun as Mario Kart 64, and I'll consider buying it, a console, and 4+ controllers.
Till then, my friends and I will keep playing Mario Kart and Urban Terror like we do now.
It's funny to watch the same corporations who are failing in the music industry duplicate their failed efforts in the video game market. They don't understand the product, they don't understand the consumer, it's a wonder they EVER made money if you ask me!!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Graphics, controllers, sounds they all are secondary to one thing, having fun. If there is one word that should be on the wall of every game developer it's "FUN".
You can achieve this without spending a 100 million dollars in development.
Quoth your sig:
It's never been proper typography to put two spaces after sentences in any type that doesn't use a monospaced font. Double-spaces are an unfortunate carryover from typewriter (i.e. monospaced) days, and the HTML folks were doing the right thing in abolishing them.
You should check out The PC is Not a Typewriter or The Mac is Not a Typewriter for more bad computer habits that make designers cringe.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Incorrect. See my reply to the GP.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
My NTDOY stock is up enough to buy me a second Wii if I sold. (And I got in after Christmas.) I'm promising myself that I'll buy more stock every time I buy more games to keep myself from frittering away too much money. Ooooh, did somebody say Brawl is coming out soon? What was that brokerage password again...
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Sony painted itself into a corner with PS3: each new Sony console is a quantum leap, technologically speaking, from the previous one. But it is very hard to sustain that model. Unless they find a way for the PS4 to have the power of Deep Blue, I just do not see it possible. And then, of course, it would mean more nightmares for the programmers. That's Sony's crash, not the videogame industry's...
* Nintendo don't loose money on Wii hardware.
* Wii development cost aren't significantly higher than gamecube ones, and significantly lower than the other current consoles.
* The screendigest graphic is totally false and give a false picture of the market.
It seems as Xbox 360 PS3 and Wii were released simultaneously, which is of course false.
And the ratio between teir marketshares is untrue as well.
On a correct graphic, Wii market share would look a lot more spectacular, in term of absolute market share and of progression. The forecast wouldn't be credible at all.
It's like the incorrectness was intentionnaly introduced in the graph to make the forecast seem realizable.
All in all, the points made seem to apply to the Xbox360 and the PS3, definitively not to the Wii.
Maybe as the article suggests Sony and MS are in a dead-end (IMHO it's doubtful), that's definitely not the case of Nintendo.
XBox/360 is more than the console; XBox Live has got to be the biggest money loser for MS; there's advertising, promotions, and all the stuff that builds the entire ecosystem for XBox.
I don't believe MS or Sony loses money selling individual consoles. But it's likely that MS has lost money overall on videogame sales.
That's why video game sales numbers have been rising the past two months and are predicted to remain about the same this month; it makes perfect sense, the video game industry is heading towards a crash. Why anybody turns to the BBC for news with "insight" like this is beyond me.
So your point is that you think that the Wii Attach Rate Statistics are outdated. Well, I linked to a google search on "wii attach rate," to which you replied with "Yes, Nintendo had a far better attach rate... in december 06... troll."
In this context, "attach rate" refers to the number of games sold for each console ("The game attach rate is defined as the average number of games purchased per game system, calculated by simply dividing the total number of games sold by the total number of consoles sold," as defined by arstechnica). Now, this number has an interesting property: It typically only ever goes up during the lifetime of a console. The reason is simple: The older a console is, the more owners you have who have owned the console for a longer time, and have thus had more time to buy games.
Or, in other words, you're very likely to own more games for your 5-years-old PS2 than for your brand-new PS3.
So, back to your argument: You're claiming that the attach rate from 4 months ago is useless. Now lets go back to what the original argument that sparked the discussion was:
The claim was that people who buy Wiis don't buy other games. But even the attach rate of a few months ago - which has only gone up since then - disproves that.
You still have not explained to me how what I wrote is wrong in any way. I have no idea why you keep ranting on and on about the PS3 or the Xbox or the Wii's success. This discussion has got nothing to do with success or failure, with the "console war," with crashes, with Oblivion, with game styles, with "Nintendo Fans," or with which console comes out on top. In fact, I actually own a PS3 and very much want it to succeed.
I only said that the original claim - that Wii buyers only play Wii Sports - is wrong.
In fact, I still don't quite understand what made you so angry, and why you keep ranting on and on about all those things, about which I have claimed nothing at all.
Frankly, I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to tell me. You sound a bit like a anti-Nintendo fanboy, jumping at every chance he gets to rant about how bad Nintendo is.
I grew up through the first crash so I'll be ready this time. I've got the basement stocked with MAME and a bunch of cds full of ROMS in addition to my FPS and RPG games. As a final backup my web browser has links to a bunch of free online java/flash games. I have a generator for my desktop and a modem to back up my DSL line. Clothing-wise I have 1 pair of faded black jeans and a too small t-shirt that says "Drow Do It In The Dark". My food supply consists of a few months supply of fruit leather, Goldfish crackers, Diet Coke, and boil in a bag dinners. I also have a cache of virtual weapons online to protect myself against any orcs or AK-47 tot'n enemies. For hygiene I have a bottle of Listerine, a bottle of Purell, some handwipes I got from a BBQ place and a stick of deodorant. Finally, I have a comfy desk chair with a built in bedpan for extended gaming sessions but I've already had that for a while.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning