backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by Radnor.. on Jul 8 at 10:20 AM


A new study from market researcher firm Nielsen looks at how gamers are reacting to the recession.  (Source: The Nielsen Company)

Overall, gaming hours, game rentals, and used game sales have all risen during the recession, the study found.  (Source: The Nielsen Company)
Used game sales and gaming hours saw highs during the height of the recession

The recession has affected us all, and that includes gamers according to a new study.  According to The Nielsen Company, a leading market research firm, the recession had deep effects on gaming habits.

From September 2008 to March 2009, one of the worst stretches of the current recession, gamers put in above average hours.  For example, in October 2007 gamers played an average of 16.5 hours per week, compared to 15.2 hours in 2007 and 15.5 in 2006.  In January 2009 the hours were particularly long, with gamers averaging approximately 18.7 hours, compared to approximately 16.5 hours in 2006 and 2007.

Meanwhile sales of used titles are being propelled to "record-breaking totals", the firm says.  The firm says that used game sales are at their highest since it began tracking them.  The company comments, "Overall, the uncertain economy has not hurt gameplay and may have accelerated it as gamers look to get more value out of the games they own."

During the recession, casual gaming led to the increase in gaming hours, Nielsen believes.  Michael Flamberg, director of client consulting, Nielsen Games writes, "Primarily, we believe mainstream gamers are playing more of the broadly appealing games (i.e Wii Fit, Guitar Hero and Rock Band) pushing their hours of gameplay up.  The social aspects of these games have engaged them. We don't believe hardcore gamers are driving up the usage averages we've observed. Second, gamers may be looking to stretch their entertainment dollar further through playing games they own more. The importance of value for them is evident in the findings on used game purchase."

Game rentals, through services such as GameFly are also growing in popularity, the study says, which marks yet another tool gamers are using to get their gaming fix more affordably.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

oh noes!
By smackababy on 7/7/2009 9:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
While I think this is an interesting trend, I certainly fear that it will lead the major publishers to market even more toward casual gamers instead of hardcore ones. The true decline of gaming is upon us. Last thing we need is everyone going the Nintendo route and abandoning your hardcore fans in favor of 50 million consoles sold.




RE: oh noes!
By sxr7171 on 7/7/2009 9:23:52 AM , Rating: 3
Oh well, it happened already when the Dreamcast died.


RE: oh noes!
By meepstone on 7/7/2009 9:26:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The true decline of gaming is upon us.


What half wit columnist did you get this idea from?


RE: oh noes!
By GaryJohnson on 7/7/2009 9:36:39 AM , Rating: 2
Two things I think that make the casual gaming market not so appealing to developers & publishers:

#1 is that casual games don't generally sell for as much as traditional games. The very nature of casual gaming is such that people don't want to pay as much for the games. And there are alot of casual games that are available for free on the web (flash games). How do you price competitively with *free*?

#2 is that casual gamers don't generally seek out hardware upgrades and new versions. Once they have a Wii and Wii Sports, they're not as compelled to pick up a Wii2 and Wii Sports 2.


RE: oh noes!
By smackababy on 7/7/2009 9:54:28 AM , Rating: 4
You points would seem valid, except that the Wii sold 50 million consoles. It is completely geared towards the casual gamer and it is crushing the more "hardcore" systems. How can systems geared for the more hardcore gamer expect to stay that way when both put together hardly equal that of the casual.


RE: oh noes!
By The0ne on 7/7/2009 10:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
His comment might have been in future tense, like when ps3 and 360 catches up to that 50million mark. That is before next versions of the consoles come out.


RE: oh noes!
By smackababy on 7/7/2009 10:10:02 AM , Rating: 1
I do think once the Wii hits the saturation point of those who want them, it will drop off the sales chart like a rock. Nintendo will probably continue to sell games and addons though. I think the next iteration of consoles might end but being far worse as far as hardcore support. Thankfully, the PC is where it will never leave.


RE: oh noes!
By xsilver on 7/7/2009 10:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
Saturation point? All systems reach saturation point - did ps2 reach saturation point? It still had great sales late into its run.

I think nintendo is on a winner because all they have to do is wait for the right time to release the next gen system with a new/improved "gimmick" for casual gamers and everybody that has a wii will instantly be potential customers.

Its hard to shift a consumer base that is used to buying one brand over another. It really had to take the ps3 to somewhat drop the ball for microsoft to gain a lot of ground.


RE: oh noes!
By GaryJohnson on 7/7/2009 12:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
There are only so many good gimmicks. How many consoles, some with gimmicks some without, did Nintendo create before they found a gimmick that would sell?

I doubt the Wii II or whatever they decide to call it will bring anything new to the table. Only evolutionary changes, nothing revolutionary.


RE: oh noes!
By StevoLincolnite on 7/7/2009 12:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
For allot of developers, they have already hit the "50 Million Mark".

For instance if I were to design a "Hardcore Gamers Game" I wouldn't target a single console, I would target Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, with that in mind...

The Xbox has sold 30.20 Million consoles, the Playstation 3 has sold 22.73 Million consoles, The Wii has sold 50.39 Million consoles.

30.20 + 22.73 = 52.93 Million consoles that your Cross-platform "Hardcore Gamers Game" is targeting, compared to the Wii's 50.39 Million consoles, so in the end you are targeting a larger amount of systems if the game is multi-platform. (And there are allot of those).

Then you have game attachment rates, The Xbox 360 has an attachment rate of 8.3, the PS3 has an Attachment rate of 6.5, and the Wii has an attachment rate of 6.2.

So the Xbox has sold 250.66 Million games, the PS3 has sold 147.754 games, and the Wii has sold 312.418 Million games.
(Console sales * Attachment Rates)

Thus if we add 250.66 and 147.754 for the Xbox and PS3 we end up arriving to 398.414 Million games for both the Xbox and the Playstation 3.
Which is still more than the Wii's 312.418 Million games sold, so it seems that gamers on the 360 and PS3 are more likely to purchase games than those who own a Wii.

I can tell you, if I was a money hungry game developer, I would be targeting the PS3 and 360 if sales was my number 1 concern.


RE: oh noes!
By clovell on 7/7/2009 11:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's a business model. Wii being mainstream does nothing to hurt hardcore gamers. Take Macs - they cater to a nice market, but they haven't abandoned that market.


RE: oh noes!
By GaryJohnson on 7/7/2009 11:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
The Wii sold 50 million consoles, but there is something like 450 million devices that are running Flash right now. So who's really on top in casual gaming?


It's a way out
By superPC on 7/7/2009 8:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
well it is a way out, if only temporary. and who knows with microtransaction becoming more and more popular, maybe it's a new source of income!




RE: It's a way out
By bubbastrangelove on 7/7/2009 10:02:50 AM , Rating: 4
As a former hard core gamer I can say that mirco-transactions killed the game for me. It's basically an 'easy button' to get the gear you need and finish quests that were once a challenge.

Die in a dungeon? Buy a rez cake from the store, you never even have to leave the dungeon.
Need that uber weapon from the tough raid? Buy million spell point pots from micro transactions.

And so on and so forth. I don't play anymore but I did have fun actually be challenged and I played quiet a bit in the winter.

Oh well, once again destroying things in the name of progress and the all mighty bottom line.


RE: It's a way out
By EricMartello on 7/7/2009 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a former hard core gamer I can say that mirco-transactions killed the game for me. It's basically an 'easy button' to get the gear you need and finish quests that were once a challenge.

Oh well, once again destroying things in the name of progress and the all mighty bottom line.


So what are you suggesting? Game devs spend time and money making a game then let you play it for free and don't try to make money at all? A bit out of touch with how THIS world works, aren't we?

The games that allow you to buy items are typically designed with that intent from the get-go, and most of them are those lame MMOs from Asia like Flyff or Perfect World. They cost money to run, and they make money by selling in-game credits for real-world currency. It is a great business model...and if you want to be "challenged" then you simply don't buy the items. A large amount of the items are vanity/convenience items anyway so a lot of what you are saying is irrelevant.


RE: It's a way out
By elgueroloco on 7/7/2009 2:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
Once I have purchased a game, yes; I feel I should be able to play it for free.


RE: It's a way out
By Smilin on 7/7/2009 6:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Same.

It also annoys me to no end when there are expansion packs that fragment the user base. The battlefield series was notorious for this. It became nearly impossible to find a good server and play unless you also purchased all the expansions. The expansions caused your initial investment in the game to be useless unless you fork over more money. I voted with my wallet and moved on to QuakeWars and TF2 instead.

Left4Dead is basically about to do this as well. The number of playable servers will drop like a rock once Left4Dead 2 comes out. Seeing as I just bought the game in the past year it irks me that my $49 investment is going to lose much of it's worth.


RE: It's a way out
By elgueroloco on 7/8/2009 5:27:03 AM , Rating: 2
I make an exception for WoW because of the amount of service/new content you get with your subscription. However, any standard type of video game I should be able to play for free after I purchase it. This is why I won't be buying SC2, because I know they are gonna make me pay to play it if LAN is not included.


RE: It's a way out
By Smilin on 7/8/2009 9:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
I'd make an exception for most MMOs. I understand that there is back end infrastructure that needs maintained.

You won't be paying for SC2 though. Battlenet has always been free.


RE: It's a way out
By bubbastrangelove on 7/7/2009 3:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
The game I am referring to is DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online) and they (Turbine) just announced the are switching to a free to play/micro-transactions format from a monthly fee based system.

I was a beta tester and long time player before they switched formats so in this particular case it is relevant. Probably should have been more specific about what game I was referring.


Causation vs. Coorelation
By ericmaly on 7/7/2009 9:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
It is possible that this may simply be a coorelation -- twice as many people unemployed as previous years; and many more with cutback hours/wages.

If you find yourself with 40+ hours per week of extra free time, odds are you have more time to engage in gaming activities. Turning to games for "solace" in times of stress may not really account for a significant portion of the increase (then again, it may - but the evidence presented doesn't take into account other possible variables).

On a brighter note: Gaming is a great escape for many and it could very well be that more people are discovering this in a bad economy.




RE: Causation vs. Coorelation
By sxr7171 on 7/7/2009 9:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's cheap, a used game at $39.99 is the cost of 2 going to the movies for one 2 hour movie + popcorn + drink. That or 20+ hours of intense gameplay. People already sold their souls to the credit card companies to get a big flat screen.


RE: Causation vs. Coorelation
By driver01z on 7/7/2009 5:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
I've had a crazy theory brewing for a little while now after hearing about the bad economy yet the games industry is still strong (and being an avid gamer myself) - maybe its the other way around. Maybe the economy is bad BECAUSE people are playing more games?! For example, why would I buy a $50,000 sports car - which I could use to get stuck in traffic and guzzle gas and maybe drive at high speed only to get a ticket or get myself killed - when I could buy a $20 game and drive like 50+ cars at top speed, perhaps over jumps etc, and with other people online?

Any takers? Anyone?


RE: Causation vs. Coorelation
By Radnor on 7/8/2009 9:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
I have both. 2 Street Versions of Rallye B series, and my 4850 CF just makes GRID beautiful.

The two things are completely different. Different like watching porn or facking.

You get the point.


Healthy alternative
By Arramol on 7/7/2009 9:36:15 AM , Rating: 4
If the pundits were paying any attention, they might note this as a positive aspect of gaming. There are far worse things people can (and often do) turn to for solace. For all the hysteria about video games and violence, I'd be willing to bet everything I had that far fewer wives get beaten after their husbands played too many video games than after said husband had too much to drink.




Not very surprising
By ku on 7/7/2009 9:12:19 AM , Rating: 3
I've written this in various other sites around the web: it's just a great value for leisure. You can go spend $12 for a movie ticket which provides 2 hours of entertainment, or you can spend 5x that amount ($60) for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50+ hours of entertainment and perhaps even more if it has great replay value.

Despite the "casual" gaming community's growth, I don't think publishers could ever abandon the hardcore gaming route. First, it is possible to develop games that appeal to both of these communities. Second, there is still a fair amount of revenue to be had from this channel: i.e., licensing of their software for use in leagues and tournaments and what not (omgomg starcraft 2 has no LAN play zOMG). While not as lucrative as the former, I don't think they'll see what's happening in Korea as just a pipe-dream... they'll want in should competitive gaming ever gets big.




Online Games
By bubbastrangelove on 7/7/2009 9:14:52 AM , Rating: 2
I used to be an avid DDo (Dungeons & Dragons Online)player but it's been almost a year since they (Turbine) released any new content. Screw those guys, for $15 bucks a month you think we'd get a new map 2x a year.

Reverted back to Valve Games (L4D, TF2, CSS) and I'll give Dragon Age a try when it comes out.

Definitely a good cost to entertainment ratio investment in most games if you do your homework and research what you buy.




RETARDED study
By medavid16 on 7/7/2009 9:53:36 AM , Rating: 2
Of COURSE people will turn to video games. It's the most low-cost entertainment. Stay at home, watch tv, play a video game. Or, go out and shovel out $20-30 a night (and that's on the cheap end).

Why not do a study about how much TV is watched? I bet you it shows that goes up too.

Very misleading study. For epidemiologists, or academics alike, the bias or error experienced here is a component called CAUSALITY.




funny...
By captainBOB on 7/7/2009 9:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
I happened to pick up my PS2 controller after 2 years and played some Kingdom Hearts, man I forgot how good that game was....




Questionable conclusion
By Danger D on 7/7/2009 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
This shows that more people are playing games every year. The only connection to the recession is that it doesn't appear to have slowed that steady growth. That's a far cry from saying "People turn to video games for comfort during recession."

I do not see "deep effects on gaming habits" from the recession. I see no effects on gaming habits from the recession.




Wait just a second.
By Smilin on 7/7/2009 11:30:15 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone else see something wrong with that graph?

First, it does not show any growth due to a recession. Instead it shows a year over year gain.

Second, it appears bogus altogether. Why does the line ending 2008 not meet up with the line beginning 2009 ?

Shenanigans.




By borowki2 on 7/7/2009 5:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of getting their stimulated selves out in the real world and effect some economic activity, Americans choose to spend time in a simulated world instead. This won't do at all. The administration needs to immediately appoint a Get-A-Life czar to combat this phenomenon. Joe Biden, whom no one messes with, should go to the homes of geeks and dorks and personally gird their loins.




this is bad..
By chalupa on 7/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: this is bad..
By nvalhalla on 7/7/2009 9:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Says the guy who spends his valuable time reading a tech blog.


RE: this is bad..
By chalupa on 7/7/2009 9:23:03 AM , Rating: 1
slow day at work...


RE: this is bad..
By TSS on 7/7/2009 9:33:01 AM , Rating: 5
so posting a message on the internet that will be forgotten within 2 days is alright but playing a game which you'll most likely have fond memories of your entire life, is pointless?

go ask your boss for more work.


RE: this is bad..
By Hiawa23 on 7/7/2009 9:52:25 AM , Rating: 3
News flash, when in a recession or humans are stressed they turn to whole lot of things like, food, weed, drugs, yes videogames, movies, beer, sex for some, anything to make em feel better as it seems to be human nature atleast for many to try to self medicate.

I am 35, have owned every console since the Atari 2600, have all three current gen consoles, so I enjoy me games, but just because you enjoy games, doesn't mean that your IQ will drop or you will get fat like someone put it. I work 50 hours a week, rtaise my 11 year old, & household & enjoy my games when I get home & I am fit. I look at games like anything else, you have to keep it in it's proper place, have a proper perspective & all should be good. Now if you chose to just eat like there is no tomorrow, don't exercise or take care of yourself, you may have other issues other than games, but so say some are getting fatter, & dumber I think is ridiculous. Yeah many are but for many different reasons.


RE: this is bad..
By The0ne on 7/7/2009 9:58:53 AM , Rating: 3
Similar to you but older and without the latest 3 consoles, I'm the same. People do stereotype gamers. Gaming doesn't "have" to mean you're fat, lazy or dumb. That depends solely on oneself. You can blog here and still be dumb, for example :)


RE: this is bad..
By fleshconsumed on 7/7/2009 10:43:54 AM , Rating: 1
Good post. I've got no problem if people chose to stay at home and watch a movie or play a video game instead of going out because they are tight on money.

I'm also not going to mindlessly bash gamers just because they game and social stigma attached to it, it's a recreational activity just like any other. However, like you said it needs to be in check, and 19 hours a week is too excessive.

There are 168 hours in a week. Assuming 7 hour sleep, that's 50 hours a week, 8 hour workday with one hour for lunch, and one hour for commute, that's another 50 hours a week, assume another 10 hours for miscellaneous stuff such as grocery shopping, cooking, washing clothes, doing dishes, etc, and you're left with less than 60 hours a week to yourself. And that's a very very optimistic estimate. 19 hours comes out to one third of 60 hours. Wasting one third of your life playing video games is asinine.


RE: this is bad..
By Hiawa23 on 7/7/2009 11:02:33 AM , Rating: 4
And that's a very very optimistic estimate. 19 hours comes out to one third of 60 hours. Wasting one third of your life playing video games is asinine.

If someone wants to spend all day doing whatever, that really isn't any of my business. I am not one to judge, so if some want to spend 19hours playing games more power to em. I am sure most waste their lives doing alot of things in life, but it's their choice, & they can live it as they see fit. What's asinine to you or me may not be for someone else. Comments like these kind of remind me of the religious folks who want to put their views on everyone else. Not me, I have a live & let live policy, I can only control my own actions.


RE: this is bad..
By callmeroy on 7/7/2009 12:37:38 PM , Rating: 2
I've played games 20 hours out of a week, I've also had weeks where I spent less than 5 hours playing games (hell this past week I played WoW for a whopping 3 hours last night....first time in a week).

I make think folks waste their time if they do almost anything over excessive, however its really now my authority or right to judge them...not to mention its pointless because if folks are really over doing something, normally karma will punish them sooner or later for it and it'll be more disheartening or hurtful than anything you can type on a forum would be.

Its only with kids that I'd agree on someone reigning in playtime -- so long as you are their parent or guardian. Outside of that if you are an adult --- and you chose to toss your life away on games, hey that's YOUR problem...just don't cry to the world after years go by and realize you have no friends or love life or close ties to family members, etc.


RE: this is bad..
By TSS on 7/7/2009 8:38:25 PM , Rating: 1
why is everybody so set on seeing videogames as a "waste of time"?

if i didn't have video games when i was bullied off highschool by real life people, i would've either killed myself or those people, most likely both.

if i didn't have video games in my social isolation i would have never made any friends at all. instead, spending 2 years online, making friends because of my skills and insights into games, i managed to scrape my mind back together, face my demons (AKA go back to school) and got a degree.

if i didn't have video games, i would've become a TV junkie just sitting around never excercising my mind and just absorbing all that mindless MTV garbage for 18 hours a day. looking at that with a relatively sane mind, i'd rather take heroine. but i dont have to, i got video games.

if i didn't have video games, i would never have turned down "a friend" who came around and offered me weed when i was 13. eventually i did start using it (because society nigh drove me to suicide again by showering me with incompetence), but only after really thinking through what could, should and would happen, 4 days before my 19th birthday.

because of video games, my fastest reaction time i've ever measured is 0.075 seconds. human average is about 0.2 seconds. hell i'm even faster then my friend who did several years of kickboxing.

because of video games, my english is better then 50% of the people living in america. this is not me talking, this is what several americans have told me over teamspeak.

because of video games, i've developed tactics and looked at stuff in a ever increasing "out-of-the-box-thinking" manner. this has carried over to real life and allows me to look at stuff and fix problems, most people don't seem to be able to fix.

i have talked to more people spread over this globe then anybody not "wasting their time".

i've got hundreds, if not thousands of fond memories of all kinds of games and all kinds of situations within those games, which to this day bring a smile to my face. and honestly, not much does that anymore.

and most important of all: because of various crashes, trying to find cheats/trainers, optimizing my system to get a few more frames per second so the games would run just a bit more smooth, going all the way back to editing config.sys and autoexec.bat to free up more memory, has taught me everything about PC's (at the very least windows) i need to know to handle them in any situation. which in this day and age is very handy to have.

and this is all on (in some periods of my life, it's down now) from gaming 19 hours *a day*, not a week.

have i wasted my time? i think not. however your oppinion on the subject may be, for me, 1 thing is certain: without video games, i wouldn't have any time to waste any more. because of real life people fucking over my mind any chance they could get. and with the gigantic load of tactics in my head, i've made sure that'll never happen again.


RE: this is bad..
By Radnor on 7/8/2009 10:20:20 AM , Rating: 2
I have to somewhat agree with this fellow.

I started cracking PC Games with PC Tools (and a lot of work) at the age of 13. Hexadecimal code FTW! There were no internet at that time, so it was hard work.

PC Gaming was a reason for people to gather up. At 15 years old i was mounting my first token ring network. So we could play blood and other titles. We ended making a backbone and the big problem was the cost of the terminator and coaxial cable.

We went to the beach by day, and LAN by night. Carmageddon, Blood, Quake and Unreal. We ended up with a record of 11 persons in my attic at that time.

Ive got my first work at 16 (summer job) repairing and mounting PCs. Payed for my first 8 Port RJ45 Switch, Surf Board and a bunch of crap. A switch by that time was expensive. A 10/100 Mbit none the less.

Ive been working in IT for so long now, working for a big brand, doing what i like. I still play a good 15-20 hours normally a week. I still don't have kids (life didn't steered that way), wife, 2 classics cars and homeowner. I'm not trashed in debts and i get along pretty good.

Playing games isn't wasting time. Doing it in multiplayer is good fun. In my attic back in parents home, the record of simultaneous computers was 16, playing COD2 at the time.

I still make those Lans at my current house, albeit with fewer players. It is still great for socializing. It is still a great way of having fun. I guess i will never stop being a PC gamer. Whatever my age is. Or will be.


RE: this is bad..
By bighairycamel on 7/7/2009 9:49:32 AM , Rating: 5
I would venture to say that many are supplementing time for video games that would otherwise be used watching TV. Who wants to watch reality TV for 18 ****ing hours?

So American's will stay as fat and lazy as they are now, but with better reaction times and coordination.


RE: this is bad..
By crystal clear on 7/7/2009 10:19:16 AM , Rating: 1
Ever thought what you would do if you were unemployed, to spend those long hours with nothing much to do for many months ahead.

Consider yourself lucky you have a job...you could loose it anyday...ever thought about it.

No job is secure today unless ofcourse you are working in a Govt dept.


RE: this is bad..
By smackababy on 7/7/2009 10:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
Horray for Gov't work!


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki