Consumer attitudes to gaming are slumping
by Conrad Quilty-Harper 
{ Feb 24th 2006 at 4:30PM }
According to the latest report
from research firm Forrester based on a 10,000 household mail survey (the same report we blogged about earlier),
consumer interest in video games is falling. According to the survey results, 43% of North American consumers agreed
that they play less games now than they did two years ago, compared with 34% that disagreed. The reason for this fall
in interest could be partially attributed to the transition between previous and next-generation consoles, but there
are some deeper problems that should be addressed.Firstly, a gender mismatch within the gaming industry still exists. 20% of males consider themselves active gamers, compared to 11% of women that say the same. This is certainly an improvement over previous generations (where the ratio was more like 10 male gamers to every female gamer) but the inequality is still evident today. Our prescription: more games made by women, for women. We'd go as far to suggest that a form of affirmative action within the games industry should be implemented.
Secondly, 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. Fortunately, the report provides evidence that advertising in games is acceptable to around 25% of respondents, providing that it meant cheaper games and provided that they don't interfere with gameplay. Publishers - take the hint.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
C. Grant @ Feb 24th 2006 4:21PM
That's one of the ideas behind episodic gaming; lowering the barrier to play. Most people don't beat the games they play, and don't want to spend $50.
dsub @ Feb 24th 2006 4:42PM
I find it funny that these surveys keep saying people are playing less games, yet total yearly sales keep increasing. I will agree, that yes I spend "less time" playing video games, but I definately don't spend less money, I used to just rent games and rarely buy them, now it's the opposite, I don't have to rent anymore because of the XBOX live demo downloads, so I just buy the games I try and like...if anything I spend more money on games now just because I get sick of games so quickly.
Jago @ Feb 24th 2006 4:51PM
I believe it...fresh and original games are few and far-between. All we see now are sequel after sequel, the same old FPS games and the same old RTS games.
I could be wrong but this might actually might be the best time for Nintendo b/c they will offer something fresh and a different way to play games at home.
/waits for people start being childish and start calling me a fanboy
Gonzo @ Feb 24th 2006 4:53PM
They really just have to stop publishing crap. I really love the burnout series but there's no way I'm buying the DS version.
There are plenty of games that are worth the money. The problem is that there are way too many more that aren't. I've bought some of the one's that aren't but I waited to get a good used price.
I would have to say I play games more now than I did two years ago; I mostly played just a couple of games on my computer and my gba during my commute.
Now I read ebooks & listen to music on my gbm (yea my wife got me the tiny upgrade), get the music & blog on my computer, and play games on my ps2.
I'm always gaming but the medium changes.
I even play some of those old games like chess & go, where there's no screen involved at all.
vidGuy @ Feb 24th 2006 4:58PM
"We'd go as far to suggest that a form of affirmative action within the games industry should be implemented."
God, please no. Affirmative-action-style approaches result in reverse discrimination. For the VG industry, it would likely be implemented by requiring certain quotas, such as every one in five games must be targeted at a female audience. This might work if enough research was done to determine actual interests of female gamers... but I suspect we'd just be flooded with more "Barbie" and "My Little Pony" games.
I think the VG industry should invest some cash into the research, because the first developer to really attract the average girl is going to hit a jackpot.
pr0cs @ Feb 24th 2006 4:59PM
I wondered how long the keywords of "fresh, different, Nintendo" would appear in this thread, though they're as guilty as the next company of milking popular trends.
SuicideNinja @ Feb 24th 2006 5:08PM
Games don't seem to be evolving fast enough to keep up with consumer interest.
Gamers only have their best game experiences to relate other titles to. One person may really enjoy a particular FPS, but when he/she plays a different one it will often fail to provide the same good experience as the first. The same goes for any genre.
For me, after playing Ninja Gaiden, God of War wasn't really that exciting...just temporarily amusing. While I find myself wanting to play Ninja Gaiden again, I have no desire to touch God of War again. However, this could easily be reversed for someone who played GOW first and NG second.
Even with sequels, developers are often unable to bring the same excitement that the original provided. Just like movies.
I think what games need to survive is more creativity and more consumer awareness. I think we miss a lot of fantastic titles just because we've never heard of them, or there was a lack of advertising.
Jago @ Feb 24th 2006 5:10PM
"though they're as guilty as the next company of milking popular trends."
That is true...I'll admit that...but people eat them up and for the most part they are still fun.
Darth Pixel @ Feb 24th 2006 5:17PM
People are going to keep buying games because publishers keep promising great things.
Most often, gamers buy the game, play for 3-4 hours, lose interest and feel depressed.
The question is: How long before gamers conclude buying a game for 3-4 hours of mediocre fun is a waste of money?
Until then, gamers will buy games, because they love games and they long for great games.
Rental services, such as GameFly, are a big help in this context.
Bascanuwegos @ Feb 24th 2006 5:17PM
The question is, my friends, are those people who play games more now than they did two years ago, people who started playing video games two years ago?
Jeff @ Feb 24th 2006 5:29PM
"I find it funny that these surveys keep saying people are playing less games, yet total yearly sales keep increasing."
a) barely
b) it depends on how you measure them, i.e. compared to what? Are we measuring Christmas of 2005 vs. June of 2005 or vs. Christmas of 2004?
By some measures, sales are dropping, not rising. And even according to the stats that say sales are rising, they're counting revenue, not units sold. That includes Xbox 360 games that cost $60 and the Xbox 360 console itself that costs $400 if you can get it bare, which you can't. So all those people who spend $800 on a bundle are included in those numbers, and that makes up for a HELL of a lot of people who just stopped buying games completely over the last year or so.
Personally, I totally believe this report. For one thing, it's not a huge disparity between those who say they're playing less and those who say they aren't. It's a 9% difference. So, those of you who still play and know a lot of people who do are perfectly believable. But that doesn't mean the industry doesn't have a problem.
If 9% more people say that they're playing fewer games, then by definition you are going to have a contracting industry. That may not show up right away in revenues because prices are going up at the same time. But as happened with the music and film industries, eventually that drop in interest starts to hurt. What the music and film industries did in response was to continue to raise prices further to try to make up the difference, and this went on to an insane degree - for a while CD's cost like $20, and movie tickets in my area are up to around $12 now (up for $6 just 10 years ago!). All that does is drive more people away, and now those industries are both in a world of hurt with no easy way out. You need to grow your consumer base; you can't continue to grow your revenues forever with a shrinking base of consumers. Price gouging only goes so far.
I think it's almost self-evident that there has been a lot of grumbling lately about the quality of games and the level of innovation in the industry. It's reached almost a fever pitch, and has gone beyond the standard hardcore gamer crowd. I mean you see it talked about *everywhere* on the net, from game-centric sites like Joystiq to mainstream media sites like CNN and MSNBC. And that attitude is borne out in this report. There is a widespread malaise about the current crop of games and systems. Yeah, no doubt part of that is just people getting sick of their PS2's or whatever and wanting an upgrade. But just browsing around as I do (and I've been doing it quite a bit lately, being laid-up after major lung surgery), I'm seeing what appears to be a much deeper level of discontent than simply a desire for more powerful machines and better looking graphics.
The industry is in need of a shakeup, and a shakedown. I think we're in a period right now where nobody can really predict what's going to happen to break the industry out of this slump, or even if it's going to happen before things really start to spiral out of control. About all you can say for sure is that the same old, same old ain't gonna cut it anymore.
mofomojo @ Feb 24th 2006 5:29PM
None of this "affirmative action" bullshit. Women can merge right into the games industry as it is.
The only thing worse than natural segregation (lack of woman making games) is forced segregation (men are filtered out for jobs so they can hire more women).
I, generally, see this as not only wrong, but also as unconstitutional. Equal rights means that no one gets special treatment, too.
Soothsayer @ Feb 24th 2006 5:39PM
In light of the recent decline in movie interests (due to overused formulas, much like the videogame industry), I'm very surprised that people consider movies more worth the money than video games. I think video games can be much more worth the money.
Someone above said that, for movies, one only needs to sit back and enjoy for entertainment, but gaming takes effort. That really is a reference to the declining quality of games. If there's one thing that all Nintendo games have in common in terms of gameplay, it's the gentle learning curves and the seamless integration of controls. New gamers always need to look down at their PS2 controller to figure out which button is the square button again, but while playing most Nintendo games, new gamers generally stop looking at the controller within five minutes. (The exception is the freakin' GameCube Z button, but that's just beating a dead horse.)
What I'm saying is, Nintendo games take much less effort to master than others' games. When I playing my first PS game, Dynasty Warriors 3*, after following Nintendo and Sega for so long, I found it rather difficult to do what I wanted. So I can understand when people think games aren't worth the money when they play so little and then give up in frustration because it takes so much effort. $40 for an hour of entertainment? Not much of a mystery when put that way.
Sorry for bringing this up, but you knew it was coming--the Revolution. The controller is bringing new levels of control integration impossible to achieve with sticks and buttons pushed and pulled by thumbs. We've been through this a googol times and more; the roll, pitch, yaw, and face direction cannot be approached, much less equalled, by conventional methods of control. Even this alone will, in my prediction, create much more interest in gaming. People won't be turned away by the complex control schemes, and people will realize that, if mastered, games actually are worth their money, and much more so than movies. Putting input into an entertainment device will be a GOOD thing, because it means different output and hence renewed gameplay and entertainment, whereas no matter how many times you watch a movie, it's always the same thing, and that will and does get boring.
* After mastering the controls the second time around, DW3 has since become one of my favorite games on the PS2. I'm not disputing the wonderful gameplay and entertainment value available on non-Nintendo platforms, I'm saying that it takes too much effort to get there, and that is what turns off non-core gamers.
Dt7 @ Feb 24th 2006 5:51PM
My advice- make some good games, and stop with the sequels. I'm looking at you "Sony's PS3 launch lineup".
superzapper2000 @ Feb 24th 2006 6:25PM
I have to agree with most of the posts here .The current crop of games are mediocre at best and there's not much on the horizon thats to change that.Maybe the PS3 will improve things ?.Obviously the Xbox 360 is not what the people want and maybe the PS3 won't be either.Both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 might be way beyond what consumers are looking for and the Revolution might be a breath of fresh air.I can't see any of the 3 making a difference at all.Same old same old.
Matthew @ Feb 24th 2006 7:00PM
Guys, you know this feeling of losing interest in games, Nintendo has been talking about this forever. Miyamoto, Iwata, etc... A big reason for the Revolution and DS is because of this "losing of interest in videogames." Here's an article from awhile ago.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/02/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/
brit @ Feb 24th 2006 7:13PM
Will the Revolution's software be cheaper? I'm excited about Xbox Live Arcade delivering a cheaper fixes of fun, from smaller developers, since I generally dont manage to finish most games cos I'm more of a casual gamer. Although I can't actually afford a new HDTV and 360 yet, so i'm priced out of the market for a while - essentially because partying and living in London use up my wages. $50/$60 for a 30 hour game might work out in the long run, but I rarely buy new games anymore because I'm a starving artist and can't really justify it.
The one thing I loved about the 80s was that I could buy a new game every weekend as a kid and it didnt matter if it was crap cos it was only £2! I don't expect those days to return (i love great visuals too much), but £40 or £50 per game is hard to justify at the moment - especially for what are essentially tweaked upgrades per sequel. ;-(
Jago @ Feb 24th 2006 7:41PM
"especially for what are essentially tweaked upgrades per sequel. ;-("
*cough* EA *cough*
aegies @ Feb 24th 2006 8:05PM
has anyone pointed out that this was a snail-mail based survey? doesn't this skew the results more than a bit?
GTG @ Feb 24th 2006 9:14PM
Before even getting to the article...
"We'd go as far to suggest that a form of affirmative action within the games industry should be implemented."
Of course, because a particular *hobby* is something that all people *must* like? So for every recreational hobby/interest, we're going to completely retool them until the participant base matches general population's demographics? That's interesting considering most hobbies start as one person thought ______ was interesting/fun and so they did it and a few other people happened to dig it too. I didn't know that hobbies had to have mass/universal appeal as part of their validity. I think people are starting to to forget/misinterpret that "all men are created equal" is meant to imply equal opportunity for all, not that all people should actually be equivalent.
I think you could pack 100 hours of gameplay into something, but the shock value of spending $50/$60 bucks might not wear off. It's also interesting since a concert or two can also run that much or more (mostly thanks to Ticketmaster's ****-you-b/c-we-can fees). Not that I like spending that much on games either, but who doesn't want something for less? Of course, that's were used games come in if you've got the patience to wait for the buzz to die down (which I often can). Of course, the scary thing is with the push for digital distribution of games, the used game market might disappear.
On to advergaming, I'd spend the extra $10 so that I don't have to hear Subway radio ads when driving around in PGR (assuming the radio DJ feature returns), etc.
brit @ Feb 24th 2006 9:28PM
god, i hadnt even thought about online distribution making used games a thing of the past. then they'll have us over a barrell
Ran @ Feb 24th 2006 11:38PM
This survey seems to represent my sentiment. I've been gaming since the NES days and my playing definitely peaked during the N64/PS1 generation. It's been in decline ever since and I find myself yawning at games more and more. Movies are definitely NOT a good replacement for me and I'm certainly not spending more money on games as others have suggested here either.
While I'm hoping the Revolution will shake things up, I'm still not holding my breath because this is a problem for the entire industry IMO.
Sloopydrew @ Feb 25th 2006 1:40AM
"in the mindset of consumers games are still too expensive."
That would be when Microsoft suggests a $59.99 pricepoint for third-party 360 games. One that almost every publisher has went with. Idiots.
LaughingMan @ Feb 25th 2006 3:21AM
After the 200th "death of videogames/death of originality/some variation of the two" I've read on Joystiq, it's becoming a bit fatiguing to read all this alarmist b.s. (my opinion) all the time. I mean I really enjoy this site and the off the beaten path bits of news and info that other gaming sites can't or won't give, but could you give the dead horse a rest for a while?
Conrad Quilty-Harper @ Feb 25th 2006 4:32AM
LaughingMan, we're only reporting what this survey is saying. We have plenty of readers from the industry that need to hear this kind of stuff - if only to give 'em a kick up the arse to sort themselves out.
Would you rather we only reported all the nice and fluffy stuff about the games industry?
Jonathan @ Feb 25th 2006 11:16AM
Keep in mind, most gamers that are the financial majority of the market (like myself) are aging, having kids, homes, jobs. All of these things consume time and push gaming to the side. I have to fight to get gaming in, and my gaming has definitely dropped over the last several years. I have a 6 year old, another one on the way, just bought my first new house etc. I am 30 years old. I believe THIS is why game time is dropping.
Ramza @ Feb 25th 2006 12:04PM
Yes, yes... too many games, too little time. I find myself swamped with so many great games that are half finished.
Matthew @ Feb 25th 2006 12:20PM
Ran, I 100% agree with you. The same thing that happened to you, in terms of your play time peaking then decreasing, has happened to me. This is a real problem, I'm telling you. I know lots of people who's game time has decreased. Unfortunately, some stopped playing altogether. Nintendo has been talking about this problem for awhile, but the "hardcore" gamers can't see it, since they're very much into games. I'm surprised that it seems Nintendo is the only one who has picked up on this issue. Not even the big cites like IGN, GameSpot, etc, seem to pick up on this. They know it's there, since Nintendo's been talking about it, but I don't think they see it as a concern. This is a real issue. It's real for me, and I swear to you, just about everyone else I know. I don't my friends see it as a problem, since they don't follow the industry like I do. They just stopped playing, or don't play as much as they used to. Not even close, unfortunately. After reading most of these comments, I'm definitely convinced now that this is an issue. And whether people know it or not, one of the big reasons Nintendo is developing the Revoluiton and DS is because of this sense of crisis. I don't think games will die, I hope not, but I do think everything will slowly calm down. I guess like the movie industry.
LaughingMan @ Feb 25th 2006 1:13PM
To Conrad:
What I'm trying to say is that articles critiquing the industry are great, more sites need to follow your example. But the frequency of articles on here proclaming another video game crash boarder on irrational, espically when everything I read says the exact opposite. But that's fine, it's your call. If this were a politcal site, I guess you would be, what, left winged and I would be more towards the right. And I think that's great. You can post all the articles you believe in and I (we readers) get to debate and challenge it.
calthaer @ Feb 25th 2006 4:04PM
Games nowadays do not even begin to approach the creativity and interest that they once did. Why play new games when there are classics like the Ultima series, XCom: UFO Defense, Deus Ex, etc. that have never been surpassed? I'd play through Deus Ex a 5th or 6th time before I ever touch a mediocre twitch-game like Black.
Tom @ Feb 27th 2006 4:20PM
I am in my late 50's. I have been playing games a long time. I find that I am playing fewer games because of 1) other things that require my time, 2) there are fewer games that I am willing to take a chance on, having been burned numerous times, 3) I do not seem to find the really good game as often as I used to, or enjoy them in general as much as I used to.
I like story lines that make sense. AI that makes sense, games that make sense even if it is fantasy. I like mature games that are not geared to teenagers. As a result, I am much more picky about what games I choose given the cost of each. The industry should wake up and develope product for the entire audience, not just teenage boys. If there were more "flavors" available, there would be more people doing the gaming. Why should really younger kids, females of any age and older gamers all like or even put up with game selection geared only for teenage boys?
I have been told that my new XBox 360 is ready for me to go down and pick up. I have had real second thoughts about even getting the thing. Few recent games have given me the joy and satisfaction of the earlier titles that I played years ago. I am afraid of it being more of the same-o, same-o.
I also think part of the problem is that for as far back as I can remember there have been the promises of "just wait, the games one day will be awsome, we just need more processing power". What we have gotten with our quantum leap in processing power over the years is buggier games, huge memory requirements and not much real improvement other than "eye candy". So basically, we are tired of waiting for the promises to be fulfilled. This industry could learn something from the phrase "under promise and over deliver" as opposed to the other way around which is what we have now.
Marc @ Feb 27th 2006 6:22PM
Anyone frustrated with the current state of video game offerings care to comment on camera for a report on cbs news? We are seeking to interview someone in the Los Angeles area. If so, please contact mlp@cbsnews.com
Marc @ Feb 28th 2006 3:30PM
Thanks for the help joystiq.com readers! We received an overwhelming response and I think we have what we need. We will be in touch with all of those who contacted us. Thanks again!
Francisco Martinez @ Mar 9th 2006 3:50PM
I love games as much as I love movies. Unfortunately, the game industry has become driven like te movie industry by dollars, PR, marketing, empty celebrities...and sadly, by companies like Microsoft (games at $ 60, what are they thinking ?). Innovation, 'art' and pure fun is not longer a premise, they just need blockbusters, and because of that there are so many mediocre productions. I can not justify to pay more for better technology when someone is forcing me to upgrade just for the sake of it. Whereas I still play games as much as I see movies, I have become a lot more selective, and always do my homework : reading the reviews, and even so, this do not guarantees that I'm going to be satisfied after reaching for my wallet.
Finally, I'm waiting for the PS3, I still hope that Sony can make it right.
Gareth @ Mar 24th 2006 7:18AM
#34, your whole post hints at a frustration with lack of innovation, sequels etc. and then in the final line you say you're waiting for Sony to make it right.
See if you can spot the similarity:
I'm tired of all the fascism, racism and hate in the world. I'm waiting for a German dictator to make it right.