Core games remain "best investment" for publishers
Survey recognises growth in online gaming but not at expense of AAA market; Move/Kinect not attracting new consumers
A new survey by Cowan & Company has concluded that software for the core videogames market is still the best investment for a traditional publishing company, despite the rise of online social gaming and multi-use devices.
Less than five per cent of 2301 respondents said that they had bought fewer console games as a result of increased time playing online, social or free-to-play titles, and games on hardware such as the iPad.
And although demand for motion controllers Move and Kinect is high amongst owners of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, the results indicate that demand from non-owners of the home consoles appears "tepid."
More favourable for non-owners would be a price cut to current hardware, found the survey, with respondents willing to pay around $30 less than current US prices of Xbox 360 and PS3.
"We believe that the hardware manufacturers have left unit sales on the table by not reducing price points from $199 to $179 and $299 to $249 for the applicable consoles, and that doing so would have driven a more significant boost to hardware sales than the release (for Microsoft and Sony) of new motion-sensing peripherals.
"We view continued stubbornly high hardware price points as one of the key factors dragging down software sales," said the report.
Other conclusions from the report were that 76 per cent of online console gamers had bought some form of downloadable content in the past year, with 46 per cent spending over $20.
"The results of our Fall 2010 Videogame Survey do not change our view that high-quality games for the core gamer remain the best investment for videogame publishers despite changes to the structure of the videogame industry," concluded the report.
Is this industry truly incapable of change?
That's not to say I don't enjoy new experiences (Cut The Rope, Trainyard).
They have a larger install base, faster adoption rates, and the titles are lower risk, lower barrier of entry, and faster and easier to create because they generally have lower consumer expectations of "production value", i.e. high-fidelity graphics, complex physics, AI and such. These may start to rise, but I honestly don't think it will ever come within spitting distance of an average console title's effort.
Does anyone expect publishers to read this report and say "hey look, 2186 people said they don't buy those games, let's shift more of our budgets back to AAA"? And what is their definition of a "traditional publisher" anyways? Most of the big publishers are already heading into these channels, and with hard ROI numbers, are in a better position to judge where to spend their time and money.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jeff Lindsey on 23rd November 2010 3:26pm
Can I just point out the problem I have with this line here. If a researcher still has a 'view' or 'belief' after undertaking thorough research, then that's not very convincing language to give me confidence that the research was particularly an honest or thorough, and wasn't looking to reach a pre-arranged conclusion.
Much in the same way our government would, for example, order a review on drugs policy and then simply conclude that they were right all along despite blatant evidence to the contrary.
You either know or you don't, and you'll either tell us straight or you won't.
Although I think a moderate price cut would do wonders for both Sony and MS's hardware sales, I'm not convinced it would have a particularly large impact on general software sales -- I think it would still be the same few games selling mammoth amounts, and most of the others slipping off the chart very quickly and receiving discounts from the retailers.
"And although demand for motion controllers Move and Kinect is high amongst owners of the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, the results indicate that demand from non-owners of the home consoles appears "tepid." "
I'm not surprised really; I've not actually seen nearly as much Kinect presence as I'd expected, and I think MS will have to try a bit harder to break the perception that the 360 is a console for men or boys who like shooting games. Move is a little different, as that doesn't seem to have been marketed at anyone really except current PS3 owners anyway, although I agree that it's unlikely to draw anyone into buying the console if they weren't already interested.
I guess we'll have to wait and see how both hardware performs in the run-up to Christmas (and what their software support is like in the coming months), but I don't think Move or Kinect are very likely to steal away the Wii's audience in the long term.
@Soeren Lund: I think you just described Atlus' business plan
In recent Namco Bandai financials, they revealed Enslaved had sold 800,000 copies, which were below expectations of a million. I would be interested to see what threshold they would be looking at to break into profit, as I want Ninja Theory to be successful. Enslaved was a top game in many regards, but I felt a few aspects kept it back from greatness.
"Less than five per cent ... bought fewer console games as a result of increased time playing online, social or free-to-play titles "
This bit doesn't add up. Certainly their playing time on console must have been down (I know mine was...), if not their purchases dropping off. In time, one leads to the other anyway. Which gets at the most bizarre bit of this - the underlying message: "Rest easy all - what's worked before will work in the future".
Is there anyone left in the industry that still believes that?
It has content, and that's what I look for in games nowadays - something that engages my imagination and provokes me to speculate on what lies ahead in the story, not just twitch my finger at the right moment.
You'll always see that one guy in a game shop hovering around a particular game (now marked down to a budget price) that never got reviewed or may have gotten a 7 (aggregated, argh) from a bunch of dopes who didn't "get" what the developer intended and instead shot the game down for not being "innovative" when it was actually a ton of fun. this guy usually plunks down that twenty plus tax, takes the game home and twenty minutes into it, he's calling or texting friends and babbling as if he's been hit in the head by a 2 X 4 made out of heroin-laced Peeps.
Of course, three to four months (or more) after the launch when the game is considered "dead" isn't the best for that studio that had to shut down because their game got savaged, but hey - a sale is a sale to some folks...