hydrophilic attack
Member
pachter was right
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NPD: Mobile is now the most popular platform for gaming among children aged 2-17
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
lyrick
Member
And in the long term that's probably going to ripple right along and hit the Sony & MS consoles.
Nintendo basically groomed child consumers into console gaming then Sega, Sony, and Microsoft target marketed (straight up Burger King style) those consumers into their own eco-systems. I'm not convinced that Sony & MS are capable of leading a Marketing campaign to get consumers not groomed for consoles to jump ship to into console gaming.
In order for the Sega, Sony & MS (18-35) Marketing to work, those companies required a competitor that desires to protect its Family friendly image. The new Market competitors Apple & Google don't have that issue to exploit. Comparatively it's Sony & MS console advertising that looks childish by comparison.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Bah, I played plenty of Atari 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision, etc during that age range!
Bolivar687
Banned
Nintendo's going mobile. Now they'll outlive PlayStation and Xbox.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
How do you know mobile isn't just increasing the total number of gamers on the planet? What if the number of gamers are growing due to the mobile space, while console and PC gaming remain great?
Isn't that the more likely possibility?
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Astral Dog
Member
what was before? PC, Play Station?
it makes sense
it makes sense
RichiRamjag
Member
Every time those release, people complain. Not many consumers put their money where their mouth is.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
And playing games on mobile is easier than ALL of those.
Because of the price. The Wii U is too expensive.
And what is this console priced at?
You guys aren't addressing my other points. Not to mention that titles like Disney Infinity and Skylanders represent the exception to the rule.
Obviously, but it starts with handheld. 3DS' successor is probably the last dedicated handheld we ever see. No Vita successor, a gaming themed Xperia instead like the Play.
lyrick
Member
Have you seen the last 5-6 years of NPD?
InsaneZero
Member
That's a pretty big leap between free, simple to play games on a multipurpose device (a phone) and $60 complex games that require a dedicated device costing hundreds of dollars.
If people thought like that, then cameras wouldn't be nearly extinct.
On this end I feel f2p games are actually the bigger issue for them.
Like, I can see the argument that the people playing Candy Crush and Call of Duty don't have much overlap, at least in terms of satisfying the same wants from the same customer.
However, I find it notably harder to believe that games like Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2, League of Legends, and Hearthstone don't make a dent in the audience for $60 MP competitive games.
The other type of popular game these days - incredibly expensive AAAA open world action adventure/RPG titles - primarily have to contend with ever inflating comically high budgets on a relative stagnant total audience size. As it stands, the sales of the games have often increased to match the production values, but at some point that gets harder to do and presumably either the costs have to plateau, or the audience will.
That we can reduce to these two broad genres in terms of top shelf budget games for the most part says a lot as well.
Hcoregamer00
The 'H' stands for hentai.
People complain about $20 SquareEnix and Capcom games that are full experiences for goodness sakes,
Even if those versions are far superior to their console versions (Example: Ace Attorney 5)
You bring an interesting point.
Crappy smartphone and tablet "cameras" have replace point and shoots, even if the point and shoots have better image quality and are generally better. But the extreme high end, large sensor Mirrorless and DSLR's are shrinking at a smaller rate and will always have a market because image quality will never be the same as one with a larger sensor.
That is a lesson for the rest of us, Cameras will never be replaced with "Cameras" in the smart technology, but they are good enough for most people, and there is a big enough niche that it can survive on the high end.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yeah. And I'd blame Nintendo for some of that. Not all. The Wii should have been HD with better 3rd party support and the Wii U was almost dead on arrival.
The experience between a camera phone and a dedicated phone isn't that big of a difference for most people. I wouldn't say the same thing about the difference between a console game and a mobile game.
There's no MGS5 comparison when it comes to a smart phone.
I've made this point about mobile convergence plenty of times and used cameras as an example of an extreme shift.
I don't see console to mobile being that extreme anytime soon but who knows.
I think people have an odd barometer for market segregation. People seem to think in binaries; either two products are in the exact same market and are absolute competition for one another or they have nothing in common and these markets are entirely separate.
For instance, some people seem to treat PCs and console the same, because they have significant overlap in games. However, there is a huge variety of people who buy PCs and play games on them that have nothing in common with an Xbox or PlayStation. PC/Xbox/PS platforms are in competition, but these aren't perfect analogues, either.
On the flipside, some people treat mobile phones or handhelds as absolutely and entirely different, as if no customers at all who could have bought a console are buying a handheld or phone instead.
In reality, all of these exist on a spectrum. For instance, perhaps only 10% of mobile gamers are using mobile as a substitute for console gaming. That's a relatively small overlap, but over the course of hundreds of millions of gamers might mean 20 or 30 or 40 million people who used to buy consoles are satisfied with mobile instead.
And that's really the market we're seeing for consoles today. No single platform is a perfect analogue and steals 100% of all console gamers or anything like that; but lots of platforms, such as PC, iOS, Android and Facebook have all stolen 5% or 10% at a time, collectively and relentlessly chipping away. And the number of gamers on those platforms is growing all the time. That's the long term threat; not a single big bully coming in and totally stealing the market away from consoles in one swoop, but various distinct competitors slowly chipping away at the margins.
For instance, some people seem to treat PCs and console the same, because they have significant overlap in games. However, there is a huge variety of people who buy PCs and play games on them that have nothing in common with an Xbox or PlayStation. PC/Xbox/PS platforms are in competition, but these aren't perfect analogues, either.
On the flipside, some people treat mobile phones or handhelds as absolutely and entirely different, as if no customers at all who could have bought a console are buying a handheld or phone instead.
In reality, all of these exist on a spectrum. For instance, perhaps only 10% of mobile gamers are using mobile as a substitute for console gaming. That's a relatively small overlap, but over the course of hundreds of millions of gamers might mean 20 or 30 or 40 million people who used to buy consoles are satisfied with mobile instead.
And that's really the market we're seeing for consoles today. No single platform is a perfect analogue and steals 100% of all console gamers or anything like that; but lots of platforms, such as PC, iOS, Android and Facebook have all stolen 5% or 10% at a time, collectively and relentlessly chipping away. And the number of gamers on those platforms is growing all the time. That's the long term threat; not a single big bully coming in and totally stealing the market away from consoles in one swoop, but various distinct competitors slowly chipping away at the margins.
Father_Brain
Banned
Odds are they'll do just that with NX. But even a $200 console isn't exactly an impulse buy, and that does nothing to address software pricing, which might be an even bigger problem.
Chû Totoro
Member
Makes sense and not really surprising.
I don't like mobile gaming but I clearly understand why a lot of other people would enjoy it. Now I just hope that a good part of these people start to look at video games like we know and like them so they could see all they can have on dedicated systems. They'll end up being gamers like us
My little 3 yo girl is playing educational games on iPad but she enjoys watching me playing Super Mario Maker or Splatoon. I hope she'll play with me in a few years but I'm ok if she doesn't like video games but still plays some "shit" f2p mobile games. I'll just explain her that even if she finds the game to be good, the way its monetized is just not fair and doesn't lead to creativity and better games. Again a lot of media have the same types of customers yet both can co exist.
It's Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and every publisher/developper to make the best video games so it could still be a viable business even if this means me having to keep paying 59 for games.
And it's our role to show that our community is open minded and constructive but knows when to decide that something has not its place in the products we buy.
I don't like mobile gaming but I clearly understand why a lot of other people would enjoy it. Now I just hope that a good part of these people start to look at video games like we know and like them so they could see all they can have on dedicated systems. They'll end up being gamers like us
My little 3 yo girl is playing educational games on iPad but she enjoys watching me playing Super Mario Maker or Splatoon. I hope she'll play with me in a few years but I'm ok if she doesn't like video games but still plays some "shit" f2p mobile games. I'll just explain her that even if she finds the game to be good, the way its monetized is just not fair and doesn't lead to creativity and better games. Again a lot of media have the same types of customers yet both can co exist.
It's Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft and every publisher/developper to make the best video games so it could still be a viable business even if this means me having to keep paying 59 for games.
And it's our role to show that our community is open minded and constructive but knows when to decide that something has not its place in the products we buy.
Are you going to blame Nintendo for all publishers producing far less but far more expensive games, with much more fleecing via MT, DLC, predatory pre order policies, etc?
Outside japan? If you believe that then I don't think you're actually ok with mobile doing so well worldwide and even better in japan. Mobile is so big there it has led to the traditional market hitting a 24 year low in revenue, mobile software sales surpassing the combined revenue of traditional hardware and software, and the 3DS peaking two years out of the gate.
When handhelds in japan retake their position as the most popular platform to play games on the go and their largest gaming convention stops being a de facto mobile trade show, then you can claim the traditional japanese market hasn't been MOST affected by mobile's increasing relevance.
mobile 3rd party. They're not making a phone.Yeah, like BlackBerry or Nokia
Going to mobile doesn't mean they will be fine. It's pretty competitive market.
Kiddy Dong
Member
It's going to be extremely interesting to see what this generation of kids expects from gaming once their tastes have matured. They're growing up in a world where microtransactions, touch screens, social integration, and <$10 prices is normal, even preferred. A game without an internet connection will be foreign to them. To someone raised on mobile, games will likely be perceived as completely disposable experiences.
It's not like this is inherently bad, though. Times are just changing. Saying the younger generation is trash is a misguided and ironically immature thing to say. Imagine the older generation back in the 70's: "Games on your TV!? That's ridiculous. Board games are REAL games!" Grow some perspective you guys, or grow up.
The inevitable nostalgic phase of the mobile generation will be interesting too, as the servers that hosted the digital/online-only games of their childhood may or may not still be around.
It's not like this is inherently bad, though. Times are just changing. Saying the younger generation is trash is a misguided and ironically immature thing to say. Imagine the older generation back in the 70's: "Games on your TV!? That's ridiculous. Board games are REAL games!" Grow some perspective you guys, or grow up.
The inevitable nostalgic phase of the mobile generation will be interesting too, as the servers that hosted the digital/online-only games of their childhood may or may not still be around.
lyrick
Member
It doesn't matter who you blame, at the end of the day NPD numbers since 2009/2010 show that the Dedicated console market sure as fuck isn't growing.
CosmicQueso
Member
It is. Absolutely, without question.
Separate PC and Console. PCs are multi-use, somewhat ubiquitous devices that do not have the same kinds of cost barriers that a Console presents. PCs were playing games before anything else, they'll also be the last things playing games.
So, let's look at Consoles only.
You're only looking at the Demand side of the equation, not the Supply of content. What drives sales of Consoles? Quality gaming content.
Who provides that content? Developers and Publishers. But what's happening in the space? Developers and Publishers have left big Console development in droves versus just a few years ago.
So the demand might be there, but who's to provide the content? You have a market of potential Billions on the Mobile/f2p/PC side, and a market of maybe 100-200 million on the Console side. The Billions side has lower upfront risk and faster dev cycles. The Console side has seemingly never ending increasing costs, longer and longer development timelines and feeds an audience that is much more demanding and, frankly, merciless if desired quality bars aren't hit. Where would you put your own money if you had to choose where to develop?
Over 70 publishers released a game on a disc in 2009. Last year, it was under 40. In 2009, nearly 800 disc based games were released. Last year, it was just over 200.
The Supply of content to the Consoles has become more and more niche, targeted more and more on the Core Console audience base.
Why would that trend change?
So, how does the Console then attract new audiences? With Big Shooter 7? Or 50 hour long RPG sequel 5?
That's true too. They've demonstrated tiered prices with their first party games, but I don't think it's enough. I'm not saying they should race to the bottom, but they should somehow find a middle ground. I feel like retailers are partly to blame with this.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Are we sure publishers are producing far less games? Or are we just getting more self published games that are sold over the internet and not using hard copies? Because it "feels" like more games are being made than ever before.
Good point, but what if the total number of gamers are also increasing? The raw number of console gamers could remain static, while the the percentage of console gamers drop.
Or maybe that's the point you were also making.
That's inherent to my point.
Let's say there are 100 million mobile gamers, 10 million of whom used to own consoles but don't anymore because mobile is good enough, and 50 million who also own consoles and play both.
That's 40 million (100 - 10 - 50) new gamers who weren't playing anything at all before. To be more specific, in my simple example, the net effect is 40 million new gamers, 10 million who have dropped consoles entirely, and 50 million who play both console and mobile.
The raw number of console gamers could remain static, while the the percentage of console gamers drop.
Or maybe that's the point you were also making.
Yes, that would require an absolute 0% overlap between these two markets with absolutely no consumer competition. I think that's extremely unlikely, because economic realities are always more complicated, but it's possible. I think so far the evidence supports my position. We may be able to know better in the future: if you are correct, the current consoles should sell ~270 million units before they stop selling, as that would represent 0% contraction (and 0% expansion) compared to last generation. If I am right, the consoles this generation will sell less than that, perhaps 10%, 20%, or 30% less.
Nintendo finally losing the stigma. Your turn Samsung and Apple
Well, the 3DS did sell alright.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But is it less because.......
1. More people aren't interested in "console" type of games?
2. Because Steam and PC requirements makes it easier to be a PC gamer?
3. Due to Nintendo messing up with the Wii U and selling their worst console of all time?
If console interest remained perfectly steady as you suggest, then those who were playing on Nintendo's platforms would shift over to Xbox or PlayStation instead. You can see that in, for example, the NES generation, or the PS1 generation; in both those cases, Atari and then Nintendo sold fewer systems than they did before, but the overall market was growing rapidly. People weren't losing interest in consoles, they were just shifting from one console platform to another.
If they aren't doing that, then that means that console owners are leaving and are better served by mobile (or PC or other social platforms) instead. They are no longer shifting from one console to a different, more successful console, as they did in the past; they are shifting from consoles to mobile and leaving consoles entirely.
At least, that would be the case if I end up being correct about market conraction, which I may not, of course.
... you can definitely feel console gaming is in decline. PC gaming has declining since the middle of the last decade. Mostly because the consoles took what was great about PC gaming a cloned it during the 360/ps3 days. The decline is not in the sales figures. It feels like as more people have left gaming less and less have taken their place. Feels like it peaked with the millennials, who were in HS during last gen, now more of them are getting older and starting families.
Also a lack of innovation. This gen is 2 years old and its been atrociously boring. Remixes and reboots. This is the first gen that lacks a killer app type game, and also the first gen I've seen where all the games where possible on the previous gen hardware. Also these consoles are weak and lack the power to inspire the masses over last gen. It smells like the end of an era.
Also a lack of innovation. This gen is 2 years old and its been atrociously boring. Remixes and reboots. This is the first gen that lacks a killer app type game, and also the first gen I've seen where all the games where possible on the previous gen hardware. Also these consoles are weak and lack the power to inspire the masses over last gen. It smells like the end of an era.
InsaneZero
Member
So the different experience alone is going to get the gaming youth to stop playing free mobile games that they're already happy with and expend the additional effort to spend significantly more money and adjust to more complex control schemes?
You give people far too much credit in fighting inertia.
MikeE21286
Member
I'm assuming there are more total dollars being spent on mobile than any other segment at this point too? Not just usage.
Has that happened?
Has that happened?
I'd argue additionally that many people's preference for consoles is based on inertia as well. I've met many people who avoid PC gaming, for instance, who will freely admit that PCs can produce a higher fidelity experience (which is something they often care about, although I don't, personally), and can produce more controller options with a greater number of buttons, but who can't make the shift to PC because they can't be bothered or because it just feels weird to them.
Which is totally fine -- I'm not trying to say this is bad. It's clearly part of how humans operate. But the same way many PC or console gamers may stay put because that's what they're accustomed to will lead many mobile gamers to do the same in turn.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Maybe I am giving them too much credit. And I'm biased in a way, because I watched my now 9 year nephew go from only playing on smartphones and tablets, to now playing NBA 2K15 for like 2 hours a day on his PS4.
I guess deep down I'm just hoping that other kids graduate like he did (and he's still playing games on his "yes I said his" smartphone too).
CosmicQueso
Member
Not quite yet. At the moment, annual spending on Mobile content is estimated by companies like IDG to be within half a billion or so of total spending on Console & Handheld Hardware & Software combined.
By 2016, Mobile game spend is projected to exceed the Console & Handheld total market by a few billion.
The digital content you're describing can (and is already) available across a number of devices. Many digital games being created for the Consoles are also being made for PC, Mobile, and will be on set top boxes. Easy substitutions for that content can be found. It's why I disregarded it and will continue to do so. There's no need for a $300 dedicated box to play Valiant Hearts. A big, disc based AAA Console game, however, can only be played on Consoles and gaming PCs.
Niches can still be very profitable. I'm not saying Consoles will die tomorrow. But the decline of these boxes is inevitable.
Bolivar687
Banned
I don't think counting disc-only games is the right barometer when more titles than ever are releasing every week on Xbox Live and PSN. I know others like to discount digital games but I don't think you yourself have that luxury when you're discussing the consoles' position with respect to other digital platforms.
I mentioned this previously but we've seen the opposite of what you're saying happen - some of the most renowned and successful PC developers have migrated to consoles and some of them have made the most money there.
I also think you're distorting the perceived risk of console vs mobile development and I know developers who have told me it's not anywhere near as simple as you're saying. If it was, publishers would have given up on AAA in favor of PCs in the 90s, social games in the 2000s, or motion controls last generation.
MikeE21286
Member
Thanks!
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
I think there is still a market for younger gamers on consoles outside of Skylanders and it's clones. I feel like a lot of publishers way back when just completely gave up on the demo and this is the bed they have made.
And that right there is exactly why you're missing the point.
You're treating the Wii like an anomaly when you're forgetting that the Wii was a console with people playing console games.
If the market was staying the same then the total number of consoles sold this gen would remain the same because the Wii audience would migrate over / the people moving out of console gaming would offset the number of people moving in but that's not the case at all.