NPD March 2008

[AlphaWolf]

2.2 x 12 x 13 = 286?

oops, for some reason I must have calculated using the Julian calendar. My bad.

It's still not putting the PC ahead of consoles in the US.

The market for console downloads is booming. According to an October report released by financial analyst IDC (IDC), online console revenue in North America—including downloadable software sales—was expected to total $583 million in 2007, up from $133 million the year before.

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jan2008/id20080114_737476.htm

Seems the online sales for consoles isn't that low.

 

[fearsomepirate]

US subscriber revenue for WOW was ~$450 million and has ~50% of the US MMO marketshare, which put total MMO revenue at ~$900 million in the US.

NPD tracks sales, not rent. Renting something for 8 months does not turn one game into eight, nor does it turn one gamer into eight.

What would really be interesting is video card sales. Every time I see a number for the latest line of GeForces or Radeons, it's always shockingly low. Those numbers are generally pretty rare, but should give a much better idea of how many actual gaming PCs are out there than just going by dollars alone.

 

[aaronspink]

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/jan2008/id20080114_737476.htm

Seems the online sales for consoles isn't that low.

Unfortunately those number are a little vague cause we don't know the game/video-audio content breakdown.

one of these days, it would be nice if steam release revenue numbers.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

PC game revenues are very small compared to Console game revenues. Look at what publishers are doing if you don't believe it. EA, Epic, Valve etc... all focusing on Consoles. Blizzard is about the only PC-centric dev left because they struck it big with WoW. If they hadn't they were about to start getting into Consoles with Startcraft: Ghost.

That tells the whole story right there. This fantasy PC games taking over scenario is ridiculous and tired IMO.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

PC game revenues are very small compared to Console game revenues. Look at what publishers are doing if you don't believe it. EA, Epic, Valve etc... all focusing on Consoles. Blizzard is about the only PC-centric dev left because they struck it big with WoW. If they hadn't they were about to start getting into Consoles with Startcraft: Ghost.

That tells the whole story right there. This fantasy PC games taking over scenario is ridiculous and tired IMO.

While EPIC has seen a surge in the percentage of their efforts dedicated to Consoles, they haven't focused on consoles. They gain most of their revenue from licensing the Unreal Engine. And most of the devopement there is focused first on the PC and then adapted to consoles. Games are basically their way of marketing to other devs and keeping the Epic (Unreal) brand relevant with gamers. Thus you'll see them attempt to periodically release a title on all platforms they license an engine for.

Valve is still a majority focus on PC gaming first, console porting second. I'm struggling to think of a Valve developed title that reached consoles first or one that is in developement with consoles as the primary target.

BTW - Neither Epic nor Blizzard are publishers. EA is however. But they don't publish solely console first titles. For example the Battlefield series and Command and Conquer series just to name a couple are PC first titles. And while they have titles that are only on console they also have titles that are only on PC.

Just like there are major console devs that focus on console first and PC second, there are major PC devs that focus on PC first and console second. Although with the ease of porting from X360 to PC and vice versa, the convergence of console and PC is a lot closer than in the past.

The one major trend you do see is that there are more PC devs that are porting to consoles than there are console devs porting to PC.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Now add in all the online PC game revue from things like steam, direct2drive, etc and you are looking at over 25% of the US market. Which considering the PS2 still has/had healthy game sales likely puts the PC on top of the US gaming market...

I myself would love to see some sales numbers from Steam, Direct2Drive and other competing online delivery services.

I no longer buy physical packages of games from brick and mortar stores either locally or online if there is an electronic direct download version available. And many of the people I know that play computer games do similarly.

Out of the computer gamers I know, probably 75% of them purchase direct delivery software. And that ratio skyrockets when it comes to MMORPGs with perhaps 90% of the people I know in those games buying the direct download versions.

I still think console software revenue would still come out ahead, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty close.

Regards,
SB

 

[aaronspink]

I myself would love to see some sales numbers from Steam, Direct2Drive and other competing online delivery services.

I no longer buy physical packages of games from brick and mortar stores either locally or online if there is an electronic direct download version available. And many of the people I know that play computer games do similarly.

Out of the computer gamers I know, probably 75% of them purchase direct delivery software. And that ratio skyrockets when it comes to MMORPGs with perhaps 90% of the people I know in those games buying the direct download versions.

I still think console software revenue would still come out ahead, but I'd imagine it'd be pretty close.

Oh I think total console revenue will still come out ahead but I think that including online PC is probably at 25% of the market.

I just don't think console gamers really understand that most PC buyers got comfortable buying games online years ago. No physical media to worry about, no stupid serial numbers, etc. It just makes so much sense! but it is still new to most console gamers because it was just this generation that it was even an option.

I honestly don't think the next generation will have playable physical media. For so many reasons it just doesn't make sense, when you look out and see how cheap HDs will be in that time frame, online authorization/delivery coupled with physical delivery only seems like the way to go. You are likely looking at ~50-60 for a 1-1.5 TB HD in the timeframe that the next generation consoles go on sale. Not to mention actually being able to enforce street dates and much much better copy protection than is offered by physical media.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Most UE3 games are for consoles, really. Some get PC versions later, like Mass Effect, but they sell better on the consoles and thus those are the focus of the development.

 

[Xalion]

I just don't think console gamers really understand that most PC buyers got comfortable buying games online years ago. No physical media to worry about, no stupid serial numbers, etc. It just makes so much sense! but it is still new to most console gamers because it was just this generation that it was even an option.

No offense - but this comment is at best purely inflammatory given the context of the thread.

I am a PC gamer first. I always have been. My first "personal computer" was the Trash 80 back in 81 where I proudly played Dungeons of Daggorath with the best of them. I started playing the x86 series of games with Sierra, and was even a part of their online service back when 14.4 was considered blazing fast and 2400baud was the standard. I went through the Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, and Unreal Tournament progression. I remember the advent of Civilization and all of the clones it spawned. I remember the revolutions that were Diablo and Star Craft. I remember muds and mucks on the internet when Archie was still the search engine of choice and a home connection was unheard of. I have seen online distribution go from the public bulletin boards of the 80s to steam in the new century. I still have a $2500 custom built PC that I carefully researched and selected the parts for, then spent hours putting together and running the cables to make sure it was not only functional but cool looking. I remember Anandtech, Hardocp, Sharkyextreme, and other similar sites before most of the world knew what overclocking was.

You can try to play the "he is just a console gamer and doesn't understand" nonsense all you want. The reality of the situation is that I am and always have been a PC gamer first.

I know very well the reality of online game services. Simply put though unless you are willing to let your own personal bias cloud your judgment there is no way a reasonable person could believe that PC game sales are anywhere close to console game sales in the current market. All evidence points the other way. Even at your 25% figure, console games would be outselling PC games nearly 3 to 1. This flies directly in the face of the claim that the console market is "insignificant" compared to the PC market made earlier in this thread.

If you review the discussion, you will find that this was the context in which the discussion on PC vs. Consoles was started. Let me help you. This was the comment I posted initially referring too:

You can take one look at the Sims sales for the PC, and see even the very casual gamer, counts, and more than console gamers. There are other such games that the "walmart" crowd buys, and out does even the best selling console games.

It was addressing that claim that caused NPD numbers to be posted. In that context it has been shown that even accepting the rather dubious claims about PC sales that PC games still do not begin to make console games "irrelevant". Even if we accept your claims about PC games making up 25% of the market, that statement is still false.

This has nothing to do with console gamer vs. PC gamer. This is simply about believing the evidence in front of you or dismissing it based on pure speculation. The numbers in front of us tell us that pc games are a relatively small percentage of the current market. Everything we hear from the industry tells us the same thing. Even Epic's Tim Sweeny (yeah - you know, the Unreal guys) recently said that console games have left PC games behind. The notion that somehow "hidden" numbers for PC games make up the majority of ALL game sales is really ridiculous at face value. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

 

[aaronspink]

No offense - but this comment is at best purely inflammatory given the context of the thread.

then you are easily inflamed.

I know very well the reality of online game services. Simply put though unless you are willing to let your own personal bias cloud your judgment there is no way a reasonable person could believe that PC game sales are anywhere close to console game sales in the current market. All evidence points the other way. Even at your 25% figure, console games would be outselling PC games nearly 3 to 1. This flies directly in the face of the claim that the console market is "insignificant" compared to the PC market made earlier in this thread.

I would consider 25% for one platform close to the sales for other platforms, wouldn't you? As far as calling consoles insignificant, I don't believe I've ever done that?

It was addressing that claim that caused NPD numbers to be posted. In that context it has been shown that even accepting the rather dubious claims about PC sales that PC games still do not begin to make console games "irrelevant". Even if we accept your claims about PC games making up 25% of the market, that statement is still false.

I don't believe I've ever called console sales irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with console gamer vs. PC gamer. This is simply about believing the evidence in front of you or dismissing it based on pure speculation. The numbers in front of us tell us that pc games are a relatively small percentage of the current market. Everything we hear from the industry tells us the same thing. Even Epic's Tim Sweeny (yeah - you know, the Unreal guys) recently said that console games have left PC games behind. The notion that somehow "hidden" numbers for PC games make up the majority of ALL game sales is really ridiculous at face value. There is no evidence to support such a claim.

~25% of a market spread over 4-5 submarkets is pretty good. Its nice to lump all the consoles together but they each take individual development effort...

As far as EPIC goes, their games have been doing progressively worse in the PC market as time goes on because they keep rehashing the same thing and have very little if any story to make the same gameplay work. OTOH, the console market has not been exposed to their types of products to nearly the same degree as the PC market so things seem more fresh in that market, which would make their comments make obvious sense.

EPICs current problem is a wide variety of people can make games with snazzy graphics, but the PC market has moved beyond snazzy graphics as the be all and end all. In the days of Quake and unreal it was enough, but now people want actual stories and interesting gameplay, and just rehashing the same old thing in better packaging get old quick. Valve has had much better sales than EPIC on the PC with games that aren't as technically advanced because they've focused on gameplay and atmosphere and story.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[fearsomepirate]

EPICs current problem is a wide variety of people can make games with snazzy graphics, but the PC market has moved beyond snazzy graphics as the be all and end all.

That must be why no one here was much excited about Crysis.

I've noticed an interesting pattern to "PC dominates the gaming scene" argument:

First: Argue that one can build a PC far, far more powerful than any console, so gaming PCs will inevitably dominate/are dominating.
Response: Point out that sales console game & hardware sales dwarf those of powerful video cards and comparable PC games.

Second: Completely change up the argument to be about how much money WoW brings in with subscriptions.
Response: Point out that WoW is only one game, and that there aren't any other MMOs nearly as popular, so the "publish WoW" model is really only viable for one company.

Third: Vector off on a tangent about addictinggames.com, Yahoo Backgammon, pirating NES ROMs and text adventures from the late 80s, and assert that this makes PC games infinitely more popular games.
Response: Point out how those games aren't even in the same class as console games from ten years ago and aren't easily monetized so the entire character of the argument has changed from "Gaming PCs for playing games like Crysis are taking over" to "Flash games are more popular than big-budget console games."

I think if you want to argue that more people play Flash games than console games, you won't find much of a debate, but it's a bit like asserting that more people buy shoes than minivans. Or that Microsoft Word is more popular than Halo. If you want to compare apples to apples (i.e. a similar class of software), PC gaming just plain isn't as big as console gaming, not in terms of dollars, quantity of users or titles sold, or number and size of publishers.

 

[Xalion]

then you are easily inflamed.

Once again, you missed the point. I will be much more specific this time.

Your statement served no purpose. It added no weight to your argument. It added nothing to the discussion. It only served to categorize and dismiss opinions you do not like. In other words, the only possible goal with such a statement was to inflame other people. I am trying to point out that you are doing yourself no favors by trying to lump everyone who disagrees with you into the "console" crowd, by claiming that others "just don't get it", or by trying to paint them as hypersensitive.

If you are under the impression that I am upset at all then you should also reverse that. I have no personal stake in this argument. The only reason I talked about my history with PC games is so that you could have context in which to understand that this has nothing to do with PC gamer vs. Console gamer. It is hard to respect your opinion when you continue to make statements and attacks like these.

I would consider 25% for one platform close to the sales for other platforms, wouldn't you? As far as calling consoles insignificant, I don't believe I've ever done that?
I don't believe I've ever called console sales irrelevant.

I think I am beginning to understand the problem with this discussion. I have a feeling you jumped in without understanding what was being discussed or what you were supporting. A brief review of the discussion seems relevant.

Another poster posted saying that console sales were irrelevant compared to PC sales. Several posters posted back - myself included - saying that evidence did not support that. I pointed out that evidence instead seemed quite in the contrary. As an example, I cited NPD numbers that demonstrated that console sales made up the larger percentage of the market. In reference to that another poster pointed out that there was error involved with the NPD numbers. I stated that this was true, however that the error would have to be so large to make the original posters statement true that Occum's razor at this point would seem to indicate the other position. At this point, I should quote exactly what you started arguing. This is one of the statements I made:

1) A slew of "not counted" games and numbers from other countries dwarfs the actual measured results from the NPD to the point to make console gamers "insignificant" as the poster claimed.

This is where you jumped in. If you review post 242, you clearly stated that you believed the NPD numbers fell into this category. In other words, this is the option that you would have supported given the current context of the discussion. This is where you began to support the notion that console games are made irrelevant by PC games. Perhaps you just did not read carefully enough before jumping in?

Note that this the option you dismissed:

2) While exact percentages vary, a world wide model that includes both console downloads and web downloads should produce a similar distribution to the worlds largest market.

Perhaps in your zeal to prove the NPD wrong you missed what you were really supporting? Notice that I did not give a margin for the amount that the percentages varied by. I also did not ever claim the NPD numbers were perfect. Instead, I just pointed out that even given error the NPD numbers still provided evidence against the original claim.

This discussion was never centered around deciding if the PC market had 14% or 25% - this discussion was always centered around the fact that the NPD numbers provide context against the original statement regardless of absolute scale. For your own good, I would review post number 242 where you clearly stated you supported the option whereby console games where made "insignificant".

If you review the posts after that in this thread, you will discover that all along the same point has been made. Even though I have a feeling Alphawolf and I would disagree on the scale of things, he also argued that the percentages missed could not be large enough to validate the first statement. Yes, people have pointed out flaws in the reasoning you have given regarding how large the actual missing sales segment is - but overall the central point has still been centered around the fact that the missing sales segment is not enough to invalidate the context the NPD gives for console games.

I really do not think you understand what you have been arguing for. I asked you to calm down and go back and reread the thread once before. I am going to do the same thing again. Your statements indicate that you really don't know what point you have been trying to make. While the jabs you have taken at "console gamers" and me in particular may seem like well reasoned material to you, they weaken any position you could be trying to support.

The reply button is often tempting. It is fun to just hit it and jump in without reviewing or thinking about what has been said and what you are jumping into. However, that does not lead to worthwhile discussion.

 

[dobwal]

The PC market is no where near what it use to be and you don't need NPD figures to see the current state of PC market is not as healthy as it was in the 90s.

Its true that the ways that PC games are distributed and sold to consumers have become very diversified over the last fews years. Whats not true is any one of these new distribution avenues alone or together have become a bigger distributer of PC games then the traditional retail model.

Steam is probably one of the biggest alternative distributors of PC software, yet its userbase sits around 15 million potential consumers. Traditional retail reaches in the number of 100s of million in terms of potential consumers. If the alternative models were anywhere near rivaling traditional retail, it would have been made known through the media by now. All evidence points to the situation where the revenue generated through these alternative avenues are but a fraction of revenue generated through retail sales.

There was a time when the PC market could sustain a number of high profile exclusive titles and high profile non exclusive titles where console ports were used to supplement PC revenue. This scenario is limited to basically PC MMOs like WOW where barriers to the console market still exists. However, in the online multiplayer FPS realm, once the darling of the PC market, has found bigger life in the console market. Now, outside of Crysis, FPSes are targetted for the console market and PC ports are used to supplement the massive amounts of revenue generated by consoles.

Its the console market cannibalizing the traditional retail games of the PC market that greatly affecting the PC market not mass migration to alternative sources of distribution thats somehow is creating a mass delusion that PC market is faltering.

Its understandable that NPD error rate is larger for the PC market than the console market given the more diverse methods of distribution in the PC market. Its rather a stretch to say that error rate is in the high double figures or worse triple figures ranges.

 

[aaronspink]

Its understandable that NPD error rate is larger for the PC market than the console market given the more diverse methods of distribution in the PC market. Its rather a stretch to say that error rate is in the high double figures or worse triple figures ranges.

Well, we know its at least off by 50% from just 1 single game, I'm not sure how much stretching is required.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

PC piracy forces Crytek to support consoles
http://www.videogamer.com/news/29-04-2008-8158.html

"Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore."

They're probably around 1-1.5 million units, and compare themselves to COD4's and Halo3's success. With all due respect I don't think Crysis could sell that well even on all console platforms though, but nevertheless, they pretty much seem to agree with the conclusions drawn on these forums. The PC gaming market on its own just can't support today's budgets.

 

[ninzel]

Some graphs on GAF showed 3rd parties doing well on Wii in EU and NA.I was really surprised by the balance.

Later....

 

[aaronspink]

PC piracy forces Crytek to support consoles
http://www.videogamer.com/news/29-04-2008-8158.html

"Similar games on consoles sell factors of 4-5 more. It was a big lesson for us and I believe we won't have PC exclusives as we did with Crysis in future. We are going to support PC, but not exclusive anymore."

They're probably around 1-1.5 million units, and compare themselves to COD4's and Halo3's success. With all due respect I don't think Crysis could sell that well even on all console platforms though, but nevertheless, they pretty much seem to agree with the conclusions drawn on these forums. The PC gaming market on its own just can't support today's budgets.

While piracy might of had some impact, in general Crysis just isn't that great of a game and a lot of the visual capabilities are just outside of what any hardware can currently do (ie, its basically farcry with better graphics but people can't generally use the better graphics). When you require 3/4 $400+ video cards to run at reasonable frame rates at reasonable PC resolutions, you really limit yourself.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm gonna nip this conversation in the bud before folk start discussing what Crysis can and can't do with how much hardware it needs. Suffice to say Crytek are seeing the consoles as necessary for their future.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

It wouldn't surprise me if EA's console sales were bigger than the entire PC gaming market.

 

[Teasy]

While piracy might of had some impact, in general Crysis just isn't that great of a game and a lot of the visual capabilities are just outside of what any hardware can currently do (ie, its basically farcry with better graphics but people can't generally use the better graphics). When you require 3/4 $400+ video cards to run at reasonable frame rates at reasonable PC resolutions, you really limit yourself.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

To be fair I think Crysis was definitely a better game then Far Cry, even without taking the graphics into consideration. Its one of the better FPS's of the last several years IMO and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't have sold well on consoles.