Is the poor global economy going to break gaming?

[Paratech]

I've been very happy with the numerous good deals I've gotten on 3DS games, but its starting to scare me a bit. It seems both the 3DS and the Vita are getting great deals because they aren't doing too well. It makes me wonder what lies in store for the Wii U, and the next Microsoft and Sony consoles.

It seems with the global economy sucking, many people don't want to buy gaming systems and games, which I can understand, but it also makes me wonder about the future of gaming.

I love getting great deals on the few games I get, but I'm wondering if that will delay or discourage future development of games.?

So what do you think of the state of gaming at the moment?

__________________

Spoiler:

-Dreams of getting a new 360 XBOX in 201x.
-Current consoles:Wii, Slim PS2, also has 3DS / GBA SP and a PSP 3000

-PC: AMD Quad Core A8-3800 Accelerated Processor, 16GB DDR3 Ram, Radeon HD45xx 1 GB video card, 1 TB hard drive, 500 GB hard drive, Supermulti DVD Burner, Wireless Lan 802.11 b/g/n, Beats audio Studio Quality sound, Win 7 Home Premium

Yes, I like getting (primarily digital) games on sale @ bargain prices! don't like it? Just deal with it!

[runawayprisoner]

It's not the poor global economy that's to blame.

It's the rise in smartphone gaming. Smartphone gaming keeps increasing in profits day after day.

To your average Joe, iPod Touch for $199 + $0.99 a game (or sometimes FREE) is a much better bargain than any other gaming device can offer.

Only "hardcore" gamers care about 3DS, Vita, anymore...

[Princess Garnet]

The economy surely is partly to blame.

It won't break gaming as a whole, but big studio/publisher triple A games that take more to make, and an even larger part of that for marketing (while the game itself is usually half generic), while costing $60, are going to start becoming less of a sure thing. Indie games (and other, cheaper forms, as was said) are rising.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[Paratech]

I guess I don't like the "touch" games as I like controllers, although both the 3DS and the Vita pimp touch screen support.

I've also noticed what I've purchased on the 3DS are more 'casual' games, but I don't like the fact the Ipod Touch is lacking a controller.

__________________

Spoiler:

-Dreams of getting a new 360 XBOX in 201x.
-Current consoles:Wii, Slim PS2, also has 3DS / GBA SP and a PSP 3000

-PC: AMD Quad Core A8-3800 Accelerated Processor, 16GB DDR3 Ram, Radeon HD45xx 1 GB video card, 1 TB hard drive, 500 GB hard drive, Supermulti DVD Burner, Wireless Lan 802.11 b/g/n, Beats audio Studio Quality sound, Win 7 Home Premium

Yes, I like getting (primarily digital) games on sale @ bargain prices! don't like it? Just deal with it!

[@ruantec]

Smartphones/Tablets games are nice for few minutes but in reality they offer the crappiest way to play games hence why we still need real handhelds such as Vita and 3DS. Touch games can be categorized as OK but they won't replace real gaming as is like saying motion sensing will replace the old good mouse..... that won't happen that quick or at all i believe.

__________________

Current development tools:

Visual C++.net, Visual C#.net
Visual VB.net, Visual Webdeveloper.net
Bloodshed Dev C++, Borland C++
Visual Basic 6

[kakashi919]

Maybe it's just me, but I never saw the fun in smartphones/tablet gaming. They all seem pretty crappy to me. Tried a few and couldn't stand playing them longer than a few minutes... even the Angry Birds madness never sparked my interest.

Would console gaming die because of the poor economy? I don't think so... especially if the next gen has a lot more to offer than current gen. With that said, this is where PC gaming should be taken more seriously and get more love. A decent PC will last years and wouldn't cost much over the years, therefore people may actually pay for the games.

__________________

"Don't believe in the you who believes in me. Don't believe in the me who believes in you. Believe in the you who believes in yourself."

[Princess Garnet]

Originally Posted by @ruantec

Smartphones/Tablets games are nice for few minutes but in reality they offer the crappiest way to play games hence why we still need real handhelds such as Vita and 3DS. Touch games can be categorized as OK but they won't replace real gaming as is like saying motion sensing will replace the old good mouse..... that won't happen that quick or at all i believe.

It's common misconception that because gaming has grown to include a casual market, which is larger, that more involved gaming has declined. The target audience that people throw around was never there to begin with. Sure, this leads all developers to chase more that way (hence the more generic mainstream games), but there were always be games for the more involved, especially with the advent of indie gaming, where the involved are the ones making games because big publishers/studios are losing what they need to keep gamers interested and are instead chasing the short term dollar.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

It's all moving to the cloud anyways which means I'm out regardless of whether I get better net or not so I don't particularly care what the more immediate future holds.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M | Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit SP1

The Champ has retired but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet

It's common misconception that because gaming has grown to include a casual market, which is larger, that more involved gaming has declined. The target audience that people throw around was never there to begin with. Sure, this leads all developers to chase more that way (hence the more generic mainstream games), but there were always be games for the more involved, especially with the advent of indie gaming, where the involved are the ones making games because big publishers/studios are losing what they need to keep gamers interested and are instead chasing the short term dollar.

Well, you still can't deny the effect of the casual market, though.

The inclusion didn't mean a decline in the serious market, yes, but it made the pie a lot larger, and then developers and big studios started seeing the whole picture: casual gamers far outnumber serious gamers, and they are far better off financially.

I don't think it's a misconception rather than that it's a paradigm shift. Game studios and developers are still... at the very end of the day... businesses, and they all still need money.

If you can somehow prove that the serious gaming market still has money to offer, then I'm sure you'll be able to change their minds.

As it is, I'm quite certain they are sold to the casual market, just because they can make more money there.

Case in point: good ol' Paratech refuses to pay full price for most serious games (and hey, Paratech, no shame in that, I do that, too), so in the end, he doesn't pay big gaming studios what they ask for. If those big gaming studios don't get what they ask for, then they will be more hesitant to support the market.

It's simple, really.

And that's not even factoring in piracy. If a big serious AAA game title is pirated, then the developer/studio loses more "potential" money than they would if a casual game were to be pirated.

[snickothemule]

The economy has no doubt an impact on all business ventures, but 3DS sales have been pretty good. 19 million sales to date is nothing to sneeze at, Nintendo just need to put games on the damn thing for people to buy, and people are crying out for more games to get. What is hurting them the most is the poor online functionality in terms of buying games from the eShop and Playstation store. Valve are ripping ass with steam sales, Payday the heist saw 120,000 new players (which is great for them) whereas Nintendo and Sony have some good stuff available, they aren't really making it attractive to get stuff.

I've been saying it for a while, these two companies need to get their online shenanigans under control, have games available for $0.99 - $15, make it competitive with iOS and Android, continue to release bigger quality games and they'll do swell. People really want to buy things, but there isn't a huge amount to buy.

__________________

My grass is the greenest.

---

Last edited by snickothemule; July 30th, 2012 at 11:25..

[aceloop]

once the 3DS gets pokemon, the sales of the 3DS will go through the roof.

[Kaiser Sigma]

Originally Posted by snickothemule

The economy has no doubt an impact on all business ventures, but 3DS sales have been pretty good. 19 million sales to date is nothing to sneeze at, Nintendo just need to put games on the damn thing for people to buy, and people are crying out for more games to get. What is hurting them the most is the poor online functionality in terms of buying games from the eShop and Playstation store. Valve are ripping ass with steam sales, Payday the heist saw 120,000 new players (which is great for them) whereas Nintendo and Sony have some good stuff available, they aren't really making it attractive to get stuff.

I've been saying it for a while, these two companies need to get their online shenanigans under control, have games available for $0.99 - $15, make it competitive with iOS and Android, continue to release bigger quality games and they'll do swell. People really want to buy things, but there isn't a huge amount to buy.

The 3DS has sold that much because of the bias factor in Japan, just like they refuse to buy anything that has to do with Microsoft, they embrace anything made by Nintendo with open arms. Pokemon, which is the most stagnant / milked franchise ever sells millions in one week, that alone should be a clear example of what bias can do for a business~.

That said, outside of Japan, the 3DS is doing OK, but something a lot of people skip is the fact that not unlike the PSV, the 3DS doesn't have a rich library of games. It got a few AAA hits this year (RE: Revelations, Kid Icarus, Uprising and KH: DDD) but that's three titles in seven months. It's hardly what can drive a person to buy a system and the PSV is no different~.

However, I do agree that the casual market has dealt a very powerful blow to the industry as a whole, it pains me that because you can play Angry Birds for 2 USD we will see more casual games rather than all out productions like we saw / see on the DS / PSP / 3DS / PSV ~.

[Princess Garnet]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Well, you still can't deny the effect of the casual market, though.

The inclusion didn't mean a decline in the serious market, yes, but it made the pie a lot larger, and then developers and big studios started seeing the whole picture: casual gamers far outnumber serious gamers, and they are far better off financially.

Did I not say that though?

What I was getting at was that the more involved demand is still there. How many times do you see/read/hear someone mentioning how games are being watered down in a negative way, how they're not as in depth or involved as they used to be, how they're more generic, etc.?

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Game studios and developers are still... at the very end of the day... businesses, and they all still need money.

And their consumers are, at the end of the day, the ones ultimately feeding them money, and if they only focus on making money and put how they're doing it as a secondary focus, they will lose their way.

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Case in point: good ol' Paratech refuses to pay full price for most serious games (and hey, Paratech, no shame in that, I do that, too), so in the end, he doesn't pay big gaming studios what they ask for. If those big gaming studios don't get what they ask for, then they will be more hesitant to support the market.

That'sanother matter though. I can be the same way, especially when finances are tight and when you know games will go on sale, and especially in this day and age where big gaming studios are turning out more and more generic stuff (because they chase the casual crowd), so doing that is actually partly what's causing this other point you're raising.

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

And that's not even factoring in piracy. If a big serious AAA game title is pirated, then the developer/studio loses more "potential" money than they would if a casual game were to be pirated.

Piracy is hard to quantify, and it definitely has an impact, but we both know big name publishers are quick to whine about those "loses" (when a small percentage are likely genuine loses) while being quiet about their profits.

Take a friends' brother who I recently spoke to. He is into gaming on the PC now and he does a fair bit of piracy from what I understand. He would likely be buying very, very, very little of these games anyway (otherwise not playing them at all). Does that give him a right to play them, legally? No, not at all, but he's still not a lost sale either.

P.S. Paratech, no luck with that GeForce 8800 GT yet?

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[Paratech]

I have to get a power supply and spent most of my "fun" money on the 3DS, but I'll get the power supply soonish, there are some real life things going on at the moment that need my attention.

__________________

Spoiler:

-Dreams of getting a new 360 XBOX in 201x.
-Current consoles:Wii, Slim PS2, also has 3DS / GBA SP and a PSP 3000

-PC: AMD Quad Core A8-3800 Accelerated Processor, 16GB DDR3 Ram, Radeon HD45xx 1 GB video card, 1 TB hard drive, 500 GB hard drive, Supermulti DVD Burner, Wireless Lan 802.11 b/g/n, Beats audio Studio Quality sound, Win 7 Home Premium

Yes, I like getting (primarily digital) games on sale @ bargain prices! don't like it? Just deal with it!

[Dynamo]

I think a big part of why gaming has been slowing down is inflated development combined with lack of creativity with newer titles. These newer games that cost tens of millions in development aren't very good lately. Most people I know play older games on the newer hardware and that's about it; I don't see that going anywhere.

__________________

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet

Did I not say that though?

What I was getting at was that the more involved demand is still there. How many times do you see/read/hear someone mentioning how games are being watered down in a negative way, how they're not as in depth or involved as they used to be, how they're more generic, etc.?

Well, the point I'm making is this...

Considering prices (for things other than games) have risen, profits would go down if demand stays the same. How so?

Say, let's make an example. Let's consider that there is game dev A.

Game Dev A sold 10,000 copies of his game last year at $10 a piece. So let's say he made $100,000 last year from game sale.

Also, last year, he had to spend $24,000 on living expenses.

So in the end, his profits turned out to be $100,000 - $24,000 = $76,000.

This year, he also sold 10,000 copies of his game at $10 a piece. So he got $100,000 from sales.

But since prices have risen, he had to pay $32,000 on living expenses.

So in the end, his profits this year turned out to be $100,000 - $32,000 = 68,000, or less than last year.

So if the trend continues (his living expenses going up by $8,000 every year), then after 8 more years, he would only be able to make $4,000 in profits from the same customer base. After 9 years, he would be losing money.

What can he do to combat this? Well, he can raise his game's price by approximately 8% every year, so by the next 8 years, his game would be at 164% its original price.

So if his game sold for $30 originally, it would be approximately $45 or so after 8 years.

If his game sold for $60 originally, it would be approximately $90 or so after 8 years.

See what I'm getting at?

It's not bad economy. It's just that if their customer base stops growing, or if their customers refuse to pay more, then they are in serious troubles financially.

This is not justification for higher game prices, of course. I'm all against $60+ prices for games, but... I also understand the other side of the coin. Game devs have to make a living, too. It's not like they just live off of air.

[Radix865]

^If his sales don't go up in a decade he deserves to go bankrupt! And he could lower the prices in hopes to get more sales...

I'm definetly not a fan of mobile gaming, all the games just seem to be one trick wonders like angry birds, which I don't find very addicting anyways... But I guess it is for the simple folk

And I seriously don't think bad economy is going to kill gaming, as long as it doesn't crumble completely... It's already such a large business that there's no way a small or even a moderately large depression would be able to kill it off. And anything bigger than that and we'll have bigger worries than when is your next (copy-pasted) Call of Duty coming out...

__________________

[Princess Garnet]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Well, the point I'm making is this...

What you just into would be called economics, if I'm not mistaken? If so, then yeah, the changing economy (as well as the changing gaming landscape, perhaps among other factors) had a lot to do with it, which is what I said.

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

So if his game sold for $30 originally, it would be approximately $45 or so after 8 years.

If his game sold for $60 originally, it would be approximately $90 or so after 8 years.

See what I'm getting at?

The market and demand sets prices more than what the developer or publisher or whoever wants based on resource input. The example you gave apparently isn't sustainable in the long term.

The economy has played a part in that many consumers (even more involved gamers, not just casual gamers) demand cheaper games. They don't know/care about what goes into making it cost-wise, only what they have financially versus what they get for the price (and many games have become less despite saying the same price, so that could be argued as a reverse-price hike). With the growing split between between low budget and high budget gaming development (similar to the split in low income and high income in the economy... see the "coincidence"?), fewer companies can afford the triple A budget/title approach. Even those ones are just more closely rehashing the old more and more (and doing a generic job of it) versus original or edge cutting stuff in order to more guarantee profits.

Price is but one factor. The changing game landscape and economy are among two more of perhaps many others.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[runawayprisoner]

Well, it's not the economy that's changing. The economy changes only when many factors (prices, demands, resources, labor, etc...) change. When the economy stay relatively the same (as in... it's been "bad economy" for the past 4 years) then that isn't the same as "changing economy".

Consequently, if cost of living rises steadily at $8000 a year for the next 8 years, then that's not changing anything at all. It's just a straight and linear increase.

Also consequently, if you pay more for your food, that means food merchants earn more money, which means... it's "good economy" for them. That doesn't mean "bad economy".

Don't confuse "bad economy" with "unstable economy".

And that's what I'm trying to say. Even "good economy" has bad effect on gaming. In that case, I don't think it's fair to say that "bad economy" affects gaming adversely.

There are many factors that affect game sales, but if you look at the direct causes, it usually comes down to just 2 things: game price, and how many people are willing to buy the game.

Now, considering that bad economy may reduce the number of people who would be willing to purchase the game, you can say that bad economy does have an effect on game sales, but publishers can still choose to reduce the prices of the games to gain more customers. It's a two-way road.

The only thing that may prevent them from doing so is an imposed cost of production, where they can't reduce the price of the game past a certain point or they'd be taking a hit financially.

And yeah, I'd agree that the cost of production is the elephant in the room, but it's not the only deciding factor of a AAA game title.

Want an example? I'm sure FFIX would cost Square-Enix far less to produce than, say... FFXIII. And I'm also sure FFIX is the better game compared to FFXIII.

AAA game titles "can" cost that much to make, but that doesn't mean developers "have" to pay that much in order to make AAA games.

It's not a race to see who has more money to spare. Gaming is more about innovations and creativity, and of which, I have seen very little for the past decade. Certainly much less than the decade before.

That's more the fault of game devs and publishers than of pricing, of economy, or of customers.

Or in short: I think gaming is breaking because... there is no good game coming out! It's not because the economy is bad.

Blaming economy is the same as blaming pirates on losing game sales. I mean... seriously, if... a person could not afford the game to begin with, then he wouldn't have bought the game at all. That doesn't mean it's a "lost sale". And I am sure we have people who can't afford games regardless of whether the economy is good or bad.

[Princess Garnet]

I'm not pointing the finger at the economy and shouting it's all it's fault. I'm just replying and saying it's played a part (among others).

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."