The Life Cycle of a Gamer - is gaming changing forever, or eternal?

[Johnny Awesome]

I've been wanting to post this for awhile, but haven't had the time. These aren't fully fleshed out arguments, but here goes:

This is mainly about non phone-only gamers.

I see a typical gamer starting on a Switch when they are about 6 years old, then eventually transitioning to a console at 12 years old or something, then later either getting their next console and/or switching to PC.

Getting this idea right is crucial to understanding what's happening in the market and it's complicated. Very complicated.

So for example, what happened to the Xbox 360 gamer over time? Let's not worry about how Joe360 became that to begin with for now.

My basic theory is that 80 Joe360s became 50 JoeX1s, 25 JoePS4s and 5 JoePCs. Now there was maybe 7 new Joe360s that came of age, so to speak for a total of 57 JoeX1s, but MS pretty much permanently lost the rest to Sony/PC during the X1 era.

Sony on the other hand went from 80 JoePS3s to picking up 25 JoeX360s and adding another 12 million new entrants. They got more new entrants than MS because of their dominant position at the time.

This basically means that due to digital ecosystem lockdowns MS starts the gen with 57 million fans and Sony starts 117 million fans. Sony probably had some bleed to PC, but probably less than MS.

3.5 years in MS is sitting at 25 million and Sony at 50 million. The question in an other thread that's being debated is whether or not MS is bleeding to Sony right now like they did in the X1 era?

I don't really think so. MS is more or less on track to hit 50 million by 2028 if the gen lasts that long and Sony is slowing down as well and is likely on track for more like 110 million or something. They're both pretty much on track to keep 90% of their fans.

My current theory is that there are less new entrants than previous as many are going straight from Switch to PC and that PC bleed is increasing a little.

That's why I don't judge Phil as harshly as some of you do. I don't think a lot of it is under his control. I really believe the absolute best case scenario for Xbox Series was a 70/100 split with Sony. Not enough new entrants, larger PC bleed, and digital ecosystem lockdowns were all mountains to overcome for MS.

I think that even if Halo Infinite were a 9/10 instead of an 8.3 and Starfield were a 9/10 instead of 8.3 and the Series S had more RAM and Redfall fiasco hadn't happened (all things Phil had control of) that MS would be lucky to be at 35 million units to Sony's 45 million. Really lucky.

Discuss. How do you see the typical gamer evolving over time? Are as many new gamers being created over time? Are other competing things like social/streaming media causing less new entrants to be created? etc...

 

[digitalwanderer]

What if they started on Pong and their first console was a 2600?

 

[Cyan]

where I live any parent that purchase a Switch to his/her child was usually a classic console gamer in his adolescence who purchases the Switch out of nostalgia. My best childhood friend who had the Megadrive and then the PS1 then the PS2 then X360 and now has a laptop PC, purchased a Switch for his son when he was like 6 years old and a year ago he got a PC for his -now 10 y.o.- son.

Most kids these days follow streamers and influencers that usually play on PC.

In our era people had the arcade machines -where people played and many of them didn't have a console at home-, Windows 95 PC, Megadrive, PS1, etc.

Consoles were selling at an all time high 'cos they offered great graphics at a good price. I wouldn't probably be a gamer or I'd simply become a console gamer weren't for the fact that I lost the spleen when a car hit me and it wasn't my fault so I gave the compensation money to my parents but asked them if I could buy a computer.

Back then people frown on consoles. At least most people I knew treated them as toys. But computers had started to become a revolution when Windows 95 came out and people thought of them as productivity and entertaining machines.

Regarding how many people left the Xbox for the Playstation, I can think of a few but in that sense the biggest transition happened during the Xbox One era.

Playstation and Xbox are battling for loyalty, specially in an era where console sales are doing ok but have become stagnant compared when the sales reached their peak. Dunno what will happen in the future, but console wars doesn't seem to be a thing anymore, when the hardware is so close and the winner(s) is obvious.

 

[Cyan]

and btw, regarding the console wars..

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671885020578091008

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I wonder if Sony will even get to 100 million PS5s with the way sales are slowing. Mobile, other media and PC might be eating their lunch more than people think.

MS was hoping for 60/100 Xbox/PS5 split and we might be looking at a 45/90 split or something along those lines.

While I've generally believed that console gamers haven't bled in droves to PC, I do believe more new entrants are starting on PC.

 

[Sonic]

Without being able to reduce the costs and price to reach a wider audience there's a point where sales stagnate. It seems we're at that point. If costs can be lowered then it would probably have a positive impact on sales for either of the machines. It's not like there's less people to buy these things these days so if yoi factor in the population increase things kinda look a little more dire.

Then again this gen is far from over and the juggernaut that's coming might be enough to send console sales on an upward trend again.

 

[Cyan]

I wonder if Sony will even get to 100 million PS5s with the way sales are slowing. Mobile, other media and PC might be eating their lunch more than people think.

MS was hoping for 60/100 Xbox/PS5 split and we might be looking at a 45/90 split or something along those lines.

While I've generally believed that console gamers haven't bled in droves to PC, I do believe more new entrants are starting on PC.

in that sense, Nintendo is doing pretty well, with 141 million consoles sold, and a expected 13,5 million sales this year, it all seems to indicate that it is going to be the most sold console ever, surpassing the PS2 -which sits at 155 million sales-.

Also Nintendo has having record profits. Most amazing is that the profits of Switch exceed the profits/losses of the Playtation division since its birth, also of EA, Activision and Xbox, also of EA.

Double awesome is that it surpasses the profits of all those companies combined in their entire history.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1787771803600883867

 

[Cyan]

Without being able to reduce the costs and price to reach a wider audience there's a point where sales stagnate. It seems we're at that point. If costs can be lowered then it would probably have a positive impact on sales for either of the machines. It's not like there's less people to buy these things these days so if yoi factor in the population increase things kinda look a little more dire.

Then again this gen is far from over and the juggernaut that's coming might be enough to send console sales on an upward trend again.

yup, that's worrisome in a world where the human population is at 8 billion people already. Something is amiss.

That being said, the vast majority of users of the most successful consoles are what we call casuals. The one who buys the Play to only play Fifa on duty or the Switch to play Mario Kart and little else.

Without this audience, the consoles would sell at most 20/30 million units (what successful AAAs sell in general). Unsuccessful non-existent consoles are those that do not attract this audience.

Furthermore, PS5 is selling very well, the problem of the PS5 isn't sales but a model that, due to costs, no longer works and is exploding in their faces and on top of that the general public doesn't seem to miss it either.

If you sell well, you don't make profits and, conversely, you end up closing studios even though you are selling well, you are doing something wrong.

The reality is that Switch is doing very well in sales (and profits for Nintendo), its concept has settled very well with practically the entire world and on top of that its catalog is very good. In this sense, it is one of the best machines that the company has launched (I'd say that the best because of the greater support from third parties, if you compare directly with some legendary machines like SNES or N64, it is not close to the amount that is on Switch)

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Well Nintendo has perfected the art of making the Switch most new entrants' first console, to tie this into the Life Cycle theme of this thread. That's the key to their success I think.

 

[BoardBonobo]

It's an interesting theory but this ball started rolling way before the switch was even a doodle on a piece of paper. When Sony brought the PS1 to the market 100% of that market belonged to other players like Sega. But they still broke that market and made themselves a foothold after that it was just a steady stream of great games that pulled in their market share.

Many gamers were born during this time that played on the consoles their parents had and they stayed with that. When MS entered the market with the OG XBox there was a kind of tiredness that had set in. I bought one because I was bored of just Sony stuff (I also bought a 3DO and a Saturn - but no games).

So fatigue with a product plays a factor, but mainly the games that are available. When Sony screwed up the PS3 that was MS's chance to do what Sony did to Sega, and they partially did. But then they just threw it all away. After being handed it on a plate.

MS are just masters of making bad decisions when it comes trying to be creative. Making excuse for them doesn't change the fact that they've had plenty of chances to dominate this market and they have screwed it up every time. They're not a creative or artistic company and they don't get gaming. That's their biggest problem.

 

[Cyan]

Well Nintendo has perfected the art of making the Switch most new entrants' first console, to tie this into the Life Cycle theme of this thread. That's the key to their success I think.

their profits are out of the charts. The key is that they create good games that cost 5 to 10m dollars to make, like the recent princess Peach game, and their "AAA" games cost around 30 to 40m dollars to make, like the Super Mario games, but their model is very cost effective.

 

[Nesh]

Well Nintendo has perfected the art of making the Switch most new entrants' first console, to tie this into the Life Cycle theme of this thread. That's the key to their success I think.

It's everything. Less costly games, quality, affordability, accessibility.
Everything PS1 and PS2 were.

 

[Cyan]

There has been a generational schism among video game players, which is seriously affecting the great franchises and historical consoles.

[MODEDIT: Large photo adds nothing to the discussion...]

The young people who turned video game series like Diablo or League of Legends ( LoL ) into myths are still playing these games, 20 or 25 years later. The problem is that you no longer have the free time you used to , and you can't spend hundreds of hours getting a unique item, or training to climb the rankings.

The creators of Diablo and LoL admit, in different interviews, that the players of their games are getting older, and are failing to attract younger players.

And the fact is that children and teenagers today are not interested in Diablo or LoL . Nor other mythical series like Final Fantasy or Mario . They only have eyes for Fortnite and Roblox .

In these games you have to literally invest hundreds of hours "grinding" (fighting and exploring scenarios to level up), in order to access the most valuable weapons and items in the game. But they are getting a lot of complaints from players who are parents and have jobs and responsibilities, and can't put in hundreds of hours to get a legendary sword.

At 16 years old they dedicated all their free time to the game. Now, at 40 or 50 years old, they continue playing, but they want those treasures to be obtained faster .

Something similar happens in League of Legends . Pu Liu, an executive at Riot Games, says in an interview on PC Gamer that "our audience is aging. Honestly, it's not the same situation as it was 10 years ago, when you're in school or high school and LoL is the game which everyone talks about, which everyone plays".

Both executives do not complain that their players are already old. Video games are cultural entertainment as deeply rooted as movies or card games, and in the same way that there are older people who watch fantasy movies or play cards or dominoes, today it is normal for a 50-year-old to or 60 years old play video games , because there are them for all ages.

The problem with Diablo or LoL is not the age of their players, but rather that they fail to attract young users . It is something that I have verified myself, in my own family. I have five nephews between the ages of 12 and 20, and in the summer I leave them my Nintendo Switch with all the great Mario, Zelda, and other Nintendo releases.

I try to get them to play those games, but in the end the only thing they use the console for... is to install Fortnite and Rocket League . Along with Roblox , the games preferred by children and teenagers.

They are simple multiplayer games with quick games, far removed from the complexity and long hours that Diablo or LoL require .

Something similar happens in single-player games. The remakes of Final Fantasy VII , the reference Japanese role-playing game 20 years ago, are not selling as expected. Games of this type face an unexpected problem. One of my nieces, 12 years old, told me that she didn't like The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild , objectively the best game of recent years, because she "there is too much to read."

Today's children have grown up with mobile games : quick fun without arguments or complications. Great sagas that have reigned for decades, such as Diablo , LoL , Final Fantasy , Zelda , even the untouchable Mario, have a difficult time attracting them.

Original article -which has two links to both interviews-:

Los creadores de Diablo y LoL reconocen que sus jugadores se están haciendo viejos

Las míticas sagas de videojuegos que han reinado durante décadas, tienen un grave problema: a los jóvenes solo les interesa Fortnite o Roblox. Y poco pueden hacer.

computerhoy-com.translate.goog

Another article on the subject:

Are Diablo fans getting too old for the old-school item grind?

Devs say players no longer want the "very long chase" for rare drops.

arstechnica.com

 

[Cyan]

the original interviews the main article refers to.

"We definitely heard the feedback, we know people are excited about Paladins." Diablo 4 lead talks about taking a new direction with the Spiritborn class and more about Vessel of Hatred

"We definitely heard the feedback, we know people are excited about Paladins." Diablo 4 lead talks about taking a new direction with the Spiritborn class and more about Vessel of Hatred

We sat down with Rod Fergusson and Brent Gibson to chat everything Diablo 4: Vessel of Hatred

www.windowscentral.com

Senior Riot devs say the League of Legends playerbase is getting older, with fewer newbies jumping in: 'Candidly, it's not the same situation it was 10 years ago'

Senior Riot devs say the League of Legends playerbase is getting older, with fewer newbies jumping in: 'Candidly, it's not the same situation it was 10 years ago'

It's a common problem in long running live service games: how do you onboard new players into something this complex?

www.pcgamer.com

I fixed a typo where the article talks about a niece of the author and she says she doesn't like Zeldda BOTW 'cos there is too much to read in the game.

Similarly, I have VERY young nephews of 4 and 7 years old -turned 7 days ago-, and for example another thing that surprises me is that they are more fans of Sonic (they have some Sonic 50 to 100 pieces puzzles at home) than Mario.

They play on my computer sometimes, I start Mario Kart 8 and while they don't dislike it, they prefer Team Sonic Racing or Forza Horizon 5, or Paw Patrol Grand Prix (karts) and Rocket League.

I discussed about this quite a bit in thhe local co-op games thread.

 

[arandomguy]

The other side of this though is that while time goes down with age, disposable income tends to go up. Which is something I think people in general should be keeping in mind as to why the state of the industry and business approach is changing for their gaming compared to when they were younger.

Riot celebrates an esports legend with its 'most generous bundles to date' and the best cosmetics will only cost you a measly $500

"Riot chose to exploit our love for Faker for their own gain."

www.pcgamer.com

Riot is releasing limited-time League of Legends cosmetic bundles featuring new "Legend" skins for Ahri—the most expensive of which will cost you a whopping 59,260 RP. In other words, Faker has the unique title of being the first player Riot's honored with a skin that can cost damn near $500 USD. Congratulations!

 

[Davros]

today it is normal for a 50-year-old to or 60 years old play video games

They'll just have to wait 5 years until the player base reaches retirement age then they'll have plenty of time

 

[Nisaaru]

The irony is that I already thought Diablo 3's game design in 2012 was 5-10 years overripe

 

[pcchen]

Should this be surprising? I mean it's probably not even related to age, it's just simply that games are getting better and some older styles of games are no longer that attractive. For example, I can't imagine if someone release a old school Pac-man today and expect it to be very successful even with all those sentimental value for old people. It's just that people seem to be unable to accept the fact that Diablo is old.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Yet the mobile version is printing money.

 

[iroboto]

the gaming market is changing - developers are doing their best to meet that change. And some folks don't want to accept that change and effectively cheer when games trying to adapt to that transition fail to gain traction as justification for their own gaming desires not being met.