Well keep on adding more DRM, online passes, preorder bonuses, and DLC that should have been part of the original game. Screwing over your paying customers at every turn is just plain old good business.

/oblig

FTA:However, NPD's figures do not include the fast-growing category of online game sales and subscriptions.

Well, that was certainly a waste of time, NPD. I'll bet you wouldn't count BJs in a hooker's sales either.

You mean sales of entertainment items drop in bad economic times?

Farkn Yaj Yenrac: Well keep on adding more DRM, online passes, preorder bonuses, and DLC that should have been part of the original game. Screwing over your paying customers at every turn is just plain old good business.

You forgot about selling the same game over and over again with minor tweaks.

One of these days people will realize that businesses can't just grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and that measuring business success should not be hinged on apparent growth forever. God forbid you maintain your level of success! How many industries and investments have gotten the cold shoulder in recent years because they weren't growing "fast enough"? They're growing! idiots.
O no! Sales only went up 1%! WTF are we going to do? We thought it would go up 20% forever and all time! Dang, at least you'd be in the black if you planned on minor growth at most. But this is capitalism, right?

/gives self 3/10 at most

Reverend Monkeypants: One of these days people will realize that businesses can't just grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and that measuring business success should not be hinged on apparent growth forever.

Hahahaha, now I know you trollin', because that is obviously the opposite of true.

WHY MUST REVENUE ALWAYS INCREASE?

WHY IS IT A FAILURE IF REVENUE MAINTAINS?

WHAT IS GAINED BY MORE, MORE, MORE?

/why the fark am I emboldening this? the answer is greed, it always is and it kills everything special and precious.
//which is why there are hipsters, and why everyone hates them.

Reverend Monkeypants: One of these days people will realize that businesses can't just grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and that measuring business success should not be hinged on apparent growth forever. God forbid you maintain your level of success! How many industries and investments have gotten the cold shoulder in recent years because they weren't growing "fast enough"? They're growing! idiots.
O no! Sales only went up 1%! WTF are we going to do? We thought it would go up 20% forever and all time! Dang, at least you'd be in the black if you planned on minor growth at most. But this is capitalism, right?

/gives self 3/10 at most

Eh,I didn't interpret that as troll. It makes sense, companies only look at immediate short term gains, they assume growth will always be high. Theamine of growth many companies are assuming if quite literally unsustainable. We would be much better off if companies looked more for long term gains and setting goals based on those.

the_rhino: Eh,I didn't interpret that as troll. It makes sense, companies only look at immediate short term gains, they assume growth will always be high. Theamine of growth many companies are assuming if quite literally unsustainable. We would be much better off if companies looked more for long term gains and setting goals based on those.

Theoretically the market should grow at least as fast as population growth, which is exponential. Let's also not forget inflation, currency devaluation, etc.

/hot

Markets generally grow. Since population grows, you're going to have an ever broadening pool of potential customers. As technology improves, the supply of goods is going to increase, which means the supplier must find a way to make demand increase in line with the supply.

That last bit is really interesting. Advances in technology do one of two things: they create an entirely new class of product or they make an existing class fantastically cheaper to produce. Reducing the production costs of a good, in a relatively free market, is going to dramatically increase the supply of the good, thus reducing the prices of the good. Lower prices means a larger potential pool of customers, which all boils down to the fact that all established businesses are looking for a way to keep prices up by inflating demand.

And that's why big budget titles all revolve around being "Call of Medal of Duty: Band of Battlefiesdenstein: The Moderning". There's an established demand, and the heavy reliance on multiplayer means that the customers become the leading source of marketing, too. "I'm playing MW3, you gonna join? What do you mean you don't have it? Bro', you've totally gotta get it. It's wicked sweet." Just like with cinema and TV, you're going to see an endless repeat of the same ideas because a huge section of the industry is dedicated to expanding the market.

Cybernetic: Where I grew up, it was always between the one kid who always wrote "FUK" and the other kid who always put "YYZ".

That and what about AAA?

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Cybernetic: Where I grew up, it was always between the one kid who always wrote "FUK" and the other kid who always put "YYZ".

That and what about AAA?

And A2M

It wouldn't surprise me if Blizzard/Activision alone weren't responsible for this drop. Wow has lost something like 15% of its subscriber base over the past 3 quarters.

The_Time_Master: WHY MUST REVENUE ALWAYS INCREASE?

WHY IS IT A FAILURE IF REVENUE MAINTAINS?

WHAT IS GAINED BY MORE, MORE, MORE?

/why the fark am I emboldening this? the answer is greed, it always is and it kills everything special and precious.
//which is why there are hipsters, and why everyone hates them.

There was a Planet Money podcast on why or why not economies must increase GDP every year. Worth a listen.

the_geek: the_rhino: Eh,I didn't interpret that as troll. It makes sense, companies only look at immediate short term gains, they assume growth will always be high. Theamine of growth many companies are assuming if quite literally unsustainable. We would be much better off if companies looked more for long term gains and setting goals based on those.

Theoretically the market should grow at least as fast as population growth, which is exponential. Let's also not forget inflation, currency devaluation, etc.

I'm by no means an economist, it just appears to my untrained eye that growth expectations are unrealistic. I understand your point about population growth, but even that has to have limits before complete saturation. If someone is selling widgets, and other companies are too, its entirely unrealistic to expect high growth when you have a bunch if other companies doing the same thing. Perhaps i'm also missing point...

Maybe charging $65 a game is not helping sales. Will the PS4 and Xbox 720 charge $75 a game?

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Cybernetic: Where I grew up, it was always between the one kid who always wrote "FUK" and the other kid who always put "YYZ".

That and what about AAA?

See, this one drove me crazy because AAA are actually my real initials. The Capcom games thought I was just lazy and kept replacing them with 'CAP' because fark you, me.

stuhayes2010: Maybe charging $65 a game is not helping sales. Will the PS4 and Xbox 720 charge $75 a game?

Pricing model has been largely unchanged for the past 10-15 some-odd years and hasn't outpaced inflation. And it's typically $60, and almost always has been.

In this economy they should be thanking god they havent lost money

Toquinha: stuhayes2010: Maybe charging $65 a game is not helping sales. Will the PS4 and Xbox 720 charge $75 a game?

Pricing model has been largely unchanged for the past 10-15 some-odd years and hasn't outpaced inflation. And it's typically $60, and almost always has been.

The prices I remember from SNES and Genesis was usually between $40-50. Same for PS1 and PS2. The $60 thing came about with 360 and PS3. Wii is still around 50. A $10-$20 price increase over 25 years isn't all that bad.

Also, I always look at the cost of games like this....

(Price+DLC price+Xbox live)/Hours played

I'm currently started playing MW3. I paid $60 for the game, I'll pay $30 for the bi-annual DLC, and $120 annually for xbox live, that's $210. I play online about 16hours/week or 832 hours annually. I'm paying 25 cents an hour to be entertained. It's worth it for me.

In other news, Skyrim players were outnumbering MW3 gamers on Steam 3:1 yesterday. I don't know if that's a statement about the success of the Elder Scrolls or how far Call of Duty has moved away from the PC platform.

Reverend Monkeypants: One of these days people will realize that businesses can't just grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and that measuring business success should not be hinged on apparent growth forever. God forbid you maintain your level of success! How many industries and investments have gotten the cold shoulder in recent years because they weren't growing "fast enough"? They're growing! idiots.
O no! Sales only went up 1%! WTF are we going to do? We thought it would go up 20% forever and all time! Dang, at least you'd be in the black if you planned on minor growth at most. But this is capitalism, right?

/gives self 3/10 at most

Eh,I didn't interpret that as troll. It makes sense, companies only look at immediate short term gains, they assume growth will always be high. Theamine of growth many companies are assuming if quite literally unsustainable. We would be much better off if companies looked more for long term gains and setting goals based on those.

I 3rd This.

This idea that growth is the biggest measure of success is crazy. It's also a big reason companies lay off, so their profit margins either maintain, or grow.

What's going to happen when you can only grow so much? Well, if there is a massive decline, you just lay off dozens and dozens of employees to justify the losses. What about in crappy economic times, you maintain your level of business? How about that? Or if there is an economic decline, your loss isn't as great...are you successful then?

The_Time_Master: WHY MUST REVENUE ALWAYS INCREASE?

WHY IS IT A FAILURE IF REVENUE MAINTAINS?

WHAT IS GAINED BY MORE, MORE, MORE?

/why the fark am I emboldening this? the answer is greed, it always is and it kills everything special and precious.
//which is why there are hipsters, and why everyone hates them.

This.

More than anything else, this is why the economy is farked.

Who puts ASS and POO? Anybody who wants to know my handle just has to look at me. And if they still don't know, they're not looking hard enough. Not TIE. Which one was I wearing yesterday?

Imperialism: [dilbert.com image 640x196]
/hot

I've mentioned this in other threads, but we had a data center management team that named their "disaster response" teams "Functional Area Response Teams."

/Uses poo­ssa­com as a default email for annoying forms
//I'd estimate it's already been used at least 33% of the time
///CSB

Seth'n'Spectrum: In other news, Skyrim players were outnumbering MW3 gamers on Steam 3:1 yesterday. I don't know if that's a statement about the success of the Elder Scrolls or how far Call of Duty has moved away from the PC platform.

Short answer Yes.
Long answer RPG's, even RPG's using a shooter game engine play better on the PC.

PanicMan: You mean sales of entertainment items drop in bad economic times?

Not only that, but we're at pretty much the nadir of the console release cycle right now -- the Wii/PS3/360 all came out about five years ago, and there's a part of the market that would rather wait for the Next Thing to come out (even if that's another 1-2 years away) than dive into this generation so late in the game.

poot_rootbeer: there's a part of the market that would rather wait for the Next Thing to come out (even if that's another 1-2 years away) than dive into this generation so late in the game

There's also the part that's waiting for the 360 (250GB) to drop under $200. Then I'll buy one. And heck, if I'm feeling flush, maybe I'll even by an HDTV to go with it.

//Goes back to playing the Mac port of Arkham Asylum.

Heh heh...subby said "ass"...heh heh!

/hot
//like poo

With total revenue for physical game sales up only 1% at just over $1 billion in October,

NPD's figures do not include the fast-growing category of online game sales and subscriptions.

To the author of this article,

Your article telling us that video game industry is struggling in 2011 doesn't include PC games sold online, Modern Warfare 3, Skyrim, Saints Row 3, or Assassins Creed Revelations.

Just one of those things (MW3) made $400 million on its first day of release.

You don't deserve a job.

Garada: Farkn Yaj Yenrac: Well keep on adding more DRM, online passes, preorder bonuses, and DLC that should have been part of the original game. Screwing over your paying customers at every turn is just plain old good business.

You forgot about selling the same game over and over again with minor tweaks.

and regardless of whether said tweaks are good or bad, still releasing 3/4 of the year's games in 2 months in the fall

Below the jump are the top 10 video games sold in the U.S. in October.

1. Battlefield 3 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel
2. Batman: Arkham City (Warner Bros.)
Sequel
3. NBA 2K12 (Take 2)
Sequel
4. Rage (Bethesda Softworks)

5. Just Dance 3 (Ubisoft)
Sequel
6. Dark Souls (Namco Bandai)
Sequel
7. Madden NFL 12 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel
8. Forza Motorsport 4 (Microsoft)
Sequel
9. Gears of War 3 (Microsoft)
Sequel
10. FIFA Soccer 3 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel


Hard to imagine what the issue is.

the_rhino: the_geek: the_rhino: Eh,I didn't interpret that as troll. It makes sense, companies only look at immediate short term gains, they assume growth will always be high. Theamine of growth many companies are assuming if quite literally unsustainable. We would be much better off if companies looked more for long term gains and setting goals based on those.

Theoretically the market should grow at least as fast as population growth, which is exponential. Let's also not forget inflation, currency devaluation, etc.

I'm by no means an economist, it just appears to my untrained eye that growth expectations are unrealistic. I understand your point about population growth, but even that has to have limits before complete saturation. If someone is selling widgets, and other companies are too, its entirely unrealistic to expect high growth when you have a bunch if other companies doing the same thing. Perhaps i'm also missing point...

According to economic theory, obviously we do not live in a perfect vacuum, nor am I trying to imply we do, at the equilibrium point, where quantity demanded equals quantity supplied, in a perfectly competitive market, profit = 0. Therefore, the only way to make profit for your company is to reduce your price and increase sales, which causes your competition to reduce prices, rinse repeat until you all net no profit or go out of business and the market no longer exists.

In reality there are thousands of influences that affect purchasing decisions and markets are not perfectly competitive. To answer your question about high growth if everyone else is doing it, video game companies are not only competing with video game companies, they are also competing with every form of entertainment that you could substitute for buying video games. Therefore, if the industry sales as a whole double, then a company has a better shot of growing their sales. That is why trade groups exist to promote certain industries, even though the individual members are competitors. High growth companies in high growth industries are always preferred by people who can afford to make money from money, whereas stable companies, Wal-Mart, are frowned upon by investors, since they are not growing the pie.

//Plus if you can restrict competition, you do not need to worry about market forces affecting your prices. See the AMA for the most egregious example, local power companies for another.

the_geek: Theoretically the market should grow at least as fast as population growth, which is exponential.

Only for microbes in a petri dish with unlimited food, and that's more hyperbolic. Anyway, there are many places in the world that aren't even at replacement birth rates (europe, china, japan). The world population as a whole has been growing at a remarkably linear pace since about 1960, far from exponential.

Unavailable for comment.

Next weeks headline:

"Video game industry blames piracy for declining sales"

magic_patch: [i10.photobucket.com image 208x225]

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Cybernetic: Where I grew up, it was always between the one kid who always wrote "FUK" and the other kid who always put "YYZ".

That and what about AAACAP?

FTFY

Seth'n'Spectrum: In other news, Skyrim players were outnumbering MW3 gamers on Steam 3:1 yesterday. I don't know if that's a statement about the success of the Elder Scrolls or how far Call of Duty has moved away from the PC platform.

Can't it be both?

animal900: Below the jump are the top 10 video games sold in the U.S. in October.

1. Battlefield 3 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel
2. Batman: Arkham City (Warner Bros.)
Sequel
3. NBA 2K12 (Take 2)
Sequel
4. Rage (Bethesda Softworks)

5. Just Dance 3 (Ubisoft)
Sequel
6. Dark Souls (Namco Bandai)
Sequel
7. Madden NFL 12 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel
8. Forza Motorsport 4 (Microsoft)
Sequel
9. Gears of War 3 (Microsoft)
Sequel
10. FIFA Soccer 3 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel


Hard to imagine what the issue is.

Not even sequels, they're graphics upgrades. Without a story element you're left with games like "NBA 2K12: More Basketball" or "Just Dancing 3: Some Other Songs You Can Dance To".

JNowe: animal900: Below the jump are the top 10 video games sold in the U.S. in October.

1. Battlefield 3 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel
2. Batman: Arkham City (Warner Bros.)
Sequel
3. NBA 2K12 (Take 2)
Sequel
4. Rage (Bethesda Softworks)

5. Just Dance 3 (Ubisoft)
Sequel
6. Dark Souls (Namco Bandai)
Sequel
7. Madden NFL 12 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel
8. Forza Motorsport 4 (Microsoft)
Sequel
9. Gears of War 3 (Microsoft)
Sequel
10. FIFA Soccer 3 (Electronic Arts)
Sequel


Hard to imagine what the issue is.

Not even sequels, they're graphics upgrades. Without a story element you're left with games like "NBA 2K12: More Basketball" or "Just Dancing 3: Some Other Songs You Can Dance To".

This is because of the consumer btw. Consumers do not reward original titles with sales. The cost of developing a console game with today's standards is too high to gamble on. Publishers are corporations who need to guarantee that they get a return for the money they spend. Making a cool original new game is a risk most are not willing to take. When sequels literally sell 2-5 times as many copies as original games do, it is not hard to understand why most games are sequels or serial games.

This isn't even necessarily bad. Some of the best games out there are games that have been made over and over. Basically the consumer is paying a subscription to an engine and the developer keeps advancing that engine. The most recent Madden is the best iteration of that game, the most recent Battlefield is the best iteration of that game, etc.

The fact of the matter is, gamers like to play the familiar and they reward the publishers with massive sales of sequels and so the publishers take notice and keep making sequels. There is no conspiracy to squelch creativity. Creativity is rarely rewarded. There are examples of new creative stuff catching fire and selling millions, but it is a large gamble. A publicly traded company in a poor economy can't go out and spend 50 million dollars making a cool new idea on a whim. Doesn't happen.

Barry McCackiner: This is because of the consumer btw. Consumers do not reward original titles with sales. The cost of developing a console game with today's standards is too high to gamble on. Publishers are corporations who need to guarantee that they get a return for the money they spend. Making a cool original new game is a risk most are not willing to take. When sequels literally sell 2-5 times as many copies as original games do, it is not hard to understand why most games are sequels or serial games.

This isn't even necessarily bad. Some of the best games out there are games that have been made over and over. Basically the consumer is paying a subscription to an engine and the developer keeps advancing that engine. The most recent Madden is the best iteration of that game, the most recent Battlefield is the best iteration of that game, etc.

The fact of the matter is, gamers like to play the familiar and they reward the publishers with massive sales of sequels and so the publishers take notice and keep making sequels. There is no conspiracy to squelch creativity. Creativity is rarely rewarded. There are examples of new creative stuff catching fire and selling millions, but it is a large gamble. A publicly traded company in a poor economy can't go out and spend 50 million dollars making a cool new idea on a whim. Doesn't happen.

Expanding on my own point:

That isn't to say no one ever makes original games. Sure they do. But it is with the intention of creating a new franchise. That is always the goal. Every game developer is jealous of Call of Duty's success. They have been releasing that same game now for 8 years and sure enough, it is the highest selling game launch ever with MW3. This game was barely an original idea either. It was originally just a Quake III license with some scripted moments. Call of Duty basically shows what is wrong with the gaming industry. First person shooters are the least interesting in terms of real game play (i'm not denying the cool-ness of scripted moments of war) and also the easiest to make. You make the game over and over again and the gamers eat it up. You have this game selling 6.5 million copies in a week. I bet everyone in this forum who is biatching about the game industry bought this game and is playing it now. You are the reason the gaming industry is the way it is.

Corporations are predictable. They will do whatever they can for money. Innovation must be rewarded and 9 times out of 10 it isn't.

animal900: Hard to imagine what the issue is.

I see your point, but a sequel doesn't necessarily mean it's gonna suck -- just look at Portal 2 or Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

The real problem is companies like EA that keep cranking out generic, soulless games.