Slashdot Mirror
More Americans Play Video Games Than Go To Movies
New research from the NPD Group has found that the number of Americans who play video games has surpassed the number who go to movies. In a survey of over 11,000 people, 63% had played a video game within the past six months, while only 53% had gone to a movie. They also found that the purchase of game consoles was on the rise, as were new methods of accessing the games themselves, such as playing over a social networking site or downloading a game onto a mobile phone. The report said, "the average gamer spent just over $38 per month on all types of gaming content" in the first three months of 2009, adding that "video games account for one-third of the average monthly consumer spending in the US for core entertainment content, including music, video, games."
It would be interesting to know, out of the folks that still go to movie theatres, how many of them go to see them in the imax format. With many families having big screen tvs at home, I'm sure many of them (as I do) wait until it comes out on dvd. The one exception to that is if its a movie I'm interested in watching and its at an imax theatre, as the imax experience with a 6 story movie screen is hard to replicate at home.
In my case, netflix and an HD TV.
The quality is great, I don't have to deal with jack asses in the theater, and it is cheap. Unless I really want to see it in the theater for some reason, then, I just catch it at home six months later.
a) In a good year now, I'll go to the cinema twice. Three times, tops. That isn't because I don't like the cinema "experience," either; I still love it. I don't, however, enjoy watching crap, and it is exceptionally rare for Hollywood to make good films these days.
The suits have taken over in Hollywood, and their thinking is actually what is going to possibly destroy the industry, even though for some inexplicable reason, everyone still listens when they insist their doctrine of making sequels and prequels and retreads over and over and over again is good business sense.
It isn't. When was the last time you saw a cinematic remake of a 60s TV show (other than Star Trek, of course; said for the sake of the legions of idiots who would respond with that, while thinking they were hilariously funny and ingeniously clever. Yes, I know you well, Slashdot) which made hundreds of millions of dollars? It doesn't happen. It's either the reasonably new or relatively innovative/risky movies that are the really big earners. The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight. If Hollywood wants to survive, the suits have to go, and the industry needs to learn that creativity is what really gets major money from audiences; not canned business as usual. We don't want repetitive garbage; we want to be surprised and emotionally impacted and made to think.
Please, film industry; start making good movies on a regular basis. I very much *want* to go to the cinema more, and if you make good films, you will get my money. I just refuse to pay to watch rubbish. Give me more films with the same level of quality as the Matrix (the first one, and to a lesser extent the second) and The Dark Knight, and I will go and see two of them a month if you make them that often. Most of the rest of us probably would too, I'm guessing.
b) The economic factor. For the full experience, I will spend $20 AUD at the cinema now; $12 approximately for my ticket, and the rest on popcorn and Coke. (Which is horribly expensive, but given that I do it so rarely I justify it on that basis. In previous years when there were good movies on more often, if I still wanted food, I'd get some shopping bags or a backpack and load that up with stuff from the supermarket; so the cinema still got the money for my ticket. I only pirate movies as an advance screening if it's something I *really* want to see, like The Dark Knight, and I still go and see them afterwards anyway, partly because I like cinema trips, and partly because cam quality is always bad)
The point though is that for maybe twice that, ($40 or so) if I've already got a console, I can buy a game which I can then play whenever I want. A cinema trip is a one off; it's fun, but you spend the $20 and then it's gone. $20 will also buy me a month's worth of playtime in World of Warcraft and a lot of other MMORPGs as well.
If you've got the money, a trip to the cinema every so often is one of the most fun things I know of to do; I've always loved it. If you don't have so much money, however, it doesn't make much sense to pay for a one-off experience, when the same amount of money could keep you entertained for a month (or longer) if you spent it a different way. Games thus tend to be more cost effective.
c) The immersion/interaction factor. I love a good movie. However, the unfortunate reality is that, no matter how good your movie is, it's never going to have the same amount of emotional impact for me that a game will, simply because with a game, I'm in control of the character on the screen, so it feels as though I'm actually inside it that much more. With a movie, I'm watching something. With a game, I'm doing something. The T4 movie means I'm watching Christian Bale shoot T800s. A T4 game means I'm shooting T800s. Which one do you think I'm going to want more?
There are reasons why games are going to be a more compelling medium, which Hollywood can't do much about. However, there is one thing Hollywood can do, and needs to do if it wants to survive; it needs to start making truly good movies on a regular basis again. One truly standout movie every 2-4 years isn't cutting it; there need to be at least that many in one year.
Agree. Being conducted online, it shows a bias to computer users who are more likely to be gamers. Now go do the same study by having people stand in a strip mall holding clip boards where there is a movie theater nearby.
Except that if the game sucks, I can either return it (in some cases), or sell it back/eBay it and make some of my money back. For a brand new game within 30 days of release, you'll probably make back 40-60% of what you paid, if you're smart when selling it.
If a movie sucks, I have no recourse. Maybe if the quality was really shitty I can complain and get my money back, but otherwise I'm S.O.L. I can't stand outside the theater shouting "Movie stub for sale! Half the movie, half the price!"
Because money should be made to be used, not to be horded. What's the use in making 50 bucks an hour when I never have the time or inclination to spend 25 cents an hour entertaining myself?