Labeling consumers in the games market *spawn*

Entropy

Veteran
This is the sales trend of another industry that has been strongly affected by the mobile revolution.
20160909_digital_cameras.png

Not only the trend, but even the volumes are eerily similar to total console sales.
What may be interesting in this context is how the camera industry tries to adapt. It moves upmarket. Selling more expensive gear to the remaining deeper committed market, note growth of interchangeable lens cameras which are in themselves creeping upwards in ASP.
That might be an option for console hardware (?) but is it even theoretically possible for software?
 
Of course, I'm seeing more and more steam games that cost 7000 Yen vs ~ 5000 Yen not that long ago. The same appears to be happening on consoles. Aren't some BF or CoD editions pretty expensive? Apart from that publishers are already changing how they sells games. Plenty of games these days ship with half the content with the other half being available as DLC where as before it would all be in one game.

I don't think the same thing that is happening to cameras will happen to game consoles. Smartphones/tablets will probably take away the casuals from consoles but they will never the "hardcore" because you won't get your GTA, CoD, Assasins Creed etc on those devices. At least not the same experience.
 
I dont think it's directly comparable to core gaming. In my opinion, mobile cant currently truly take the place of core gaming, period. Touchscreen controls are not precise enough, besides the lack of graphical ability. And many other factors such as small screens, drastically shortened battery life when gaming, lack of stands, etc. Bluetooth physical controllers are an option, but as they're not default wont gain serious traction. Besides, if you now have a physical controller, a stand, and your phone plugged in, might as well use a console.

I do think mobile can fray core gaming around the edges, it can grab some share at the margins. Instead of 100% of the original core gaming pie, mobile may take 25% that aren't that serious, but that still leaves 75% that is untouchable (figures pulled out of my butt to illustrate the point). I think the sales figures bear that out, core gaming is still selling very solid in many ways, PS4 is one of the better selling consoles ever. OTOH, there's been some modest decline.

But I dont think you will see anything like that camera chart, a near total destruction.
 
Interesting that both of you mention a "core" or "hard core" part of the market. That's exactly the demographic that is left to, and targeted by, the camera industry. It remains to be seen if moving upmarket will generate sufficient revenue to justify continued R&D expenditure, and will sustain the remaining players long term.
The reason I raised this was that I can't really see ASPs in console/gaming space increase by a factor of three or up. I believe a contraction to the core audience has to be handled differently.
Cutting costs is one way. The XBox One and PS4 are much more straightforward than their predecessors, and their successors, the PS4 Pro, and Scorpio didn't cost much effort on the drawing board, drastically cutting the volumes that need to be sold to recuperate development cost.
As mentioned, increasing up front software costs, selling downloadable content to the same game, pay to win/accessorize are all likely. How far can that go without reducing the audience further though, strengthening a downward spiral?

I don't really feel that I have any good answers, I simply see issues with the long term viability of the current model.
 
How far can that go without reducing the audience further though, strengthening a downward spiral?

There is no downward spiral, there was only one anomaly, the Wii skewing all the charts and frankly also your conclusions . Other than that the sales charts aren't even remotely similar.

There is also this chart, showing something very different type of curve. Sony, Microsoft, nVidia and the PC-markets in general aren't currently going down in the way you are interpreting "the curve"

ubisoftmarket00u13.png


High enough quality cameras in a pocketable cell phone is far more overlapping feature against a pocket camera than cell phone gaming vs home consoles/PCs. Just because the sales of the Wii haven't been replaced by some other home console, you can't predict demise to the other guys, especially when their individual performance is pretty good. Wii was just a unique moment in that particular time.
 
Ok, so
There is no downward spiral, there was only one anomaly, the Wii skewing all the charts and frankly also your conclusions . Other than that the sales charts aren't even remotely similar.

There is also this chart, showing something very different type of curve. Sony, Microsoft, nVidia and the PC-markets in general aren't currently going down in the way you are interpreting "the curve"

ubisoftmarket00u13.png


High enough quality cameras in a pocketable cell phone is far more overlapping feature against a pocket camera than cell phone gaming vs home consoles/PCs. Just because the sales of the Wii haven't been replaced by some other home console, you can't predict demise to the other guys, especially when their individual performance is pretty good. Wii was just a unique moment in that particular time.
You're in denial. (And your chart illustrates something completely different.)
Even if you remove the Wii entirely from the peak year 2008 (obviously unreasonable), there was still 75 million other consoles sold. So far this year, there are roughly 20 million consoles sold. And yes, sales peak before and during christmas, but any reasonable prognosis indicates that total volume of consoles will shrink again this year, in spite of three new models being introduced.
Doesn't mean that the trend has to continue. That said, I see nothing from Sony or Microsoft that can reinvigorate the market. They are basically promising "same thing as now, with somewhat refreshed silicon" for the foreseeable future. And the console market seems quite price sensitive, so using the camera market escape route would appear difficult.
As I said, I can't see the future beyond extrapolation. But extrapolation doesn't paint a bright picture for consoles.
So - how enthusiastic do you guys feel for the Switch? ;-)
 
Interesting that both of you mention a "core" or "hard core" part of the market. That's exactly the demographic that is left to, and targeted by, the camera industry.
And what is a core gamer? There are people who pour hundreds to thousands of hours into games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans, dwarfing times people put into COD and Destiny. By those standards, most console gamers are casuals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, so

You're in denial. (And your chart illustrates something completely different.)
Even if you remove the Wii entirely from the peak year 2008 (obviously unreasonable), there was still 75 million other consoles sold. So far this year, there are roughly 20 million consoles sold.
So - how enthusiastic do you guys feel for the Switch? ;-)

Removing the Wii is not unreasonable, because it was an anomaly and too different to the others. It played in a different market. Grouping together handhelds and home consoles as a basis of your opinion is not reasonable imo. Your theory is far more applicable to the handheld consoles as cellphones and other mobile devices are overlapping much more with them, like they are with cameras. Home consoles are too largely in a different market and your trend lines and interpretations don't apply to them. Home console gaming hasn't seen a downturn if you remove the Wii out of the equation. Sony, MS and PC moves quite a bit of hardware each year.

As for the chart. It does seem a bit counter intuitive to me that the major publishers are seeing their profits go up while the market is in "downward spiral"

I like the Switch concept, but I need to know the price first to have an opinion on how it does and some more general info would be welcome as well, including the launch lineup of games. I do think the system looks fun, but the battery life is a bit of concern to be honest.
 
And what is a core gamer? There are people who pour hundreds to thousands of hours into games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans, dwarfing times people put into COD and Destiny. By those standards, most console gamers are casuals.


EA or somebody actually had a definition I saw a couple years ago somewhere that was genre based, which I thought was a bit novel. Core gamers were thus people who play RTS, FPS, and I dont recall all the other genres.

So by that measure Candy Crush doesn't count.

I tend to think of it basically in terms of demographics, it's basically younger males. That want highly complex and graphically rich experiences. And FPS.

I think clash of clans is something that is more "core" than candy crush. In that males are probably the chief ones interested, who it is marketed too, etc.

Still, without a controller for complex and precise twitch inputs, it's water under the bridge in terms of competing with consoles per se.

I dabbled with some of the COD knockoffs on phone a few years ago. Controls are the problem. Do they still make those?

Do you think you can give me a Destiny experience on a phone? I'm certain it cant be done! Think of all that differentiates it from a mobile game. A large stationary screen. Precise controls. Complex raids that definitely need those things. Twitch COD-like multiplayer. To name a few.
 
Still, without a controller for complex and precise twitch inputs, it's water under the bridge in terms of competing with consoles per se.
That can't have any bearing on core gamers. Epic RPGs played with mouse etc. can be mapped onto touch screens just fine. God games would be awesome if only someone made good god games! Quite a bit of the 16 bit Amiga genres could map okay.
 
Still, without a controller for complex and precise twitch inputs, it's water under the bridge in terms of competing with consoles per se.

If you are talking competition then consider that Clash of Clans has brought in billions of dollars in revenue for Supercell and has had a steady user base that dwarfs Asian MMOs and makes Destiny look like a social wasteland.

I think 'core' is just a term some people use to describe their preferred gaming experiences. I've never understood some gamers need to try and define other gamers.
 
And what is a core gamer? There are people who pour hundreds to thousands of hours into games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans, dwarfing times people put into COD and Destiny. By those standards, most console gamers are casuals.

So, if someone reads Mr Men books for hours a day, they can consider themselves more of a "reader" than someone who reads Dickens for half the time?
 
So, if someone reads Mr Men books for hours a day, they can consider themselves more of a "reader" than someone who reads Dickens for half the time?

The word 'reader' is a noun, so yes. But if you're one of those people who likes to think that your personal preferences for something is superior to other people's choices and that the noun actually has an unwritten highly subjective qualitative distinction then feel free. Your crazy isn't harming anybody other than yourself.

Same goes for games and 'gamers'.
 
I agree, but at the same time people are wanting a qualitative distinction for which, typically, we use the general term and limit it to a subset of more avid users. So for 'readers' we tend not to mean 'someone who reads' as much as 'a more capable and avid reader.' Same for 'gamers'. These distinctions are needed for whatever reasons, and it's just a shame no-one's come up with better words to categorise. In the case of reading I think we do have casual readers and hard-core readers.

From a design and development POV, the audience that plays CCS or CoC is very different to the audience that plays COD and GTA. 'Casual' and 'core' may not be accurate, but they serve the job, no? What other terms could be used instead?
 
expert gamers vs gamers maybe.
Ot everyone wants to spend 10000 of hours learning how to play overly complicated games for the sack of it...
Some just want instant fun.
 
I agree, but at the same time people are wanting a qualitative distinction for which, typically, we use the general term and limit it to a subset of more avid users. So for 'readers' we tend not to mean 'someone who reads' as much as 'a more capable and avid reader.'

The problem there is that you assume that the person who likes reading Mr Men books isn't a more capable reading that the person reading Dickens. As somebody who read Dickens in school, I'd take the Mr Men over Dickens any day of the week. I read for two reasons; to learn or be enlightened (increasingly less) and to be entertained (increasingly more).

About ten years ago I decided to work through the Guardian's Top 100 books of all time which gave me the revelation that the literary elitists who compile such lists are miserable fucking bastards who hate joy. You get the same types of personality in all areas of entertainment so you'll see them arguing about books, movies, comics, games etc. People who absolutely believe that their preferences for entertainment is superior to others, or in some way more fulfilling or worthwhile.

Same for 'gamers'. These distinctions are needed for whatever reasons, and it's just a shame no-one's come up with better words to categorise. In the case of reading I think we do have casual readers and hard-core readers.

I think these distinctions are only needed if you're dead set on putting labels onto people. I mean how would you classify me as a gamer? Often I won't play any a game for weeks at a time, some weeks I'll hit a game for an hour or so every evening or game on my commute on my 3DS, Vita or iPhone. On rare occasions (Witcher, Fallout 4) I'll take a few days launch leave around launch and play 15 hours of day. Other times I'll grab a few hours on weekends. I like FPS, 3rd person action/adventures, platformers, puzzle games, simulations, RPGs, MMOs, RTS and turn-based strategy games. I play just about every genre apart from sports games. I game on Nintendo, Sony Microsoft and Apple platforms, on mobile devices, home consoles and PC.

expert gamers vs gamers maybe.
Ot everyone wants to spend 10000 of hours learning how to play overly complicated games for the sack of it...
Some just want instant fun.

Expert generally implies skill. While more hours spent on something generally leads to better skills, my ten years playing World of Warcraft left me convinced that this wasn't the case at all and that many people are just plugging away with no desire to learn or improve. As you say, some just want instant fun and don't care not for their perceived skill level.

This is like the 'objective best graphics' discussion that crops up periodically. It's only a problem for those seek to define things, isn't something that there will never be widespread agreement on because key factors are subjective and because people have different views on what is and isn't important. These are variants of Sorites and Thesus paradox.
 
I think these distinctions are only needed if you're dead set on putting labels onto people
The labels are necessary for clarification when talking about specific sets of subject when relevant. Human beings name everything so that we can talk about everything with clarity. We have animals, and then sub divide that into mammals, reptiles, etc, and further subdivide, and use the relevant depth of clarity as needed for the discussion. If we didn't want to 'label' animals, we couldn't differentiate between reptiles and mammals in conversation unless we start describing them - 'those animals that have cold blood and scales.' 'Those animals that are hairy and give birth to live young.' We can't be arsed with such lengthy clarifications so use a name as a reference.

When it comes to games there are definitely different subsets of gaming habits, which of course a gamer as an individual can mix, and it arises that people want to talk about these different subsets. There are people who game on mobile things like Bejewelled who have zero interest in consoles, and vice versa. If there was no interest in talking about these subsets, we wouldn't have people trying to find names to fit them like 'casual' and 'core' and 'hardcore'. So yes, we want a label to different gaming habits just as we want labels to define game genres. The only thing we're lacking is a decent taxonomy that people can agree on.
 
The labels are necessary for clarification when talking about specific sets of subject when relevant. Human beings name everything so that we can talk about everything with clarity. We have animals, and then sub divide that into mammals, reptiles, etc, and further subdivide, and use the relevant depth of clarity as needed for the discussion.

Classifying a biological organism by objective peer-reviewed scientifically-based criteria is one thing, labelling somebody based on their habits and preferences is something else entirely. It's also impossible which is why psychology is such a hit and miss branch of mental healthcare - for the record, my partner is a clinical psychologist.

When it comes to games there are definitely different subsets of gaming habits, which of course a gamer as an individual can mix, and it arises that people want to talk about these different subsets. There are people who game on mobile things like Bejewelled who have zero interest in consoles, and vice versa. If there was no interest in talking about these subsets, we wouldn't have people trying to find names to fit them like 'casual' and 'core' and 'hardcore'. So yes, we want a label to different gaming habits just as we want labels to define game genres. The only thing we're lacking is a decent taxonomy that people can agree on.

And that is the problem - this is the Sorites and Thesus paradox. There will never be agreement, just argument. You're attempting to devise an objective definition for something entirely subjective on which there will never be widespread agreement. Like 'best graphics' but to describe human beings who are prone to adapt to new habits and preferences easily.
 
I doubt too many people bought an iphone mainly to play Clash of Clans or Candy Crush, but if you buy a dedicated gaming machine, it is ear marked to do a purpose: gaming, that makes them more "core gaming" to me. For handheld devices whether a console or a phone, the overlap simply is so large that hopping from a handheld console to a phone is a very small step. Playing Candy Crush and Gears of War can both scratch an itch, but it's a different itch.
 
I disagree. You don't need to pigeon-hole people but just clarify different subsets where you can easily have overlap. In general discussion there's a fairly clear difference between 'casual' and 'core' gamers such that the terms are meaningful and helpful. And doing away with such distinctions means we literally can't talk about aspects of the industry. When Sony or whoever sets about looking at the gaming market, do you count up everyone who plays games and says, "our console is targeting 2 billion people"? Or do they differentiate and say, "our console is targeting 'core gamers'"? PC and console. Core and casual. Mobile and handheld. All qualifiers that are, IMO, fairly meaningful generalisations.
 
Back
Top