Digital Games Make 3x As Much As Physical In US, Says Report

[Flojomojo]

"Mobile gaming to represent more than half of total game revenue by 2020."

 

http://toucharcade.com/2017/04/26/mobile-gaming-to-represent-more-than-half-of-total-game-revenue-by-2020/

[Tanooki]

That makes more sense if you consider all the Overkill dlc out there piece by piece with pricing and then the coining whale fools on mobile.

[Mord]

Many people here at AA will agree with you, but remember, the members of a classic video game site aren't like NORMAL people.

 

Indeed, we're use to games that are worth going back to, or keeping around to replay unlike the toilet paper mentality used to make most games these days.

[Schizophretard]

Also, the average gamer is now 35 years old! The *average*! That number just keeps going up... I remember 10 years or so ago, it was 28. (Though that also implies that gaming is not attracting young people like it once did.) Will gaming one day seem to young people like something "old people" do?

 

Or it could mean that people are living longer with a higher average age of people in general, people having less children, more games being catered to a mature audience with a mature rating, the parent who bought the game being counted as the gamer and not their children that they share the game with, and/or a combination of many things.

[Flojomojo]

That makes more sense if you consider all the Overkill dlc out there piece by piece with pricing and then the coining whale fools on mobile.

Overwatch?

[Flojomojo]

Or it could mean that people are living longer with a higher average age of people in general, people having less children, more games being catered to a mature audience with a mature rating, the parent who bought the game being counted as the gamer and not their children that they share the game with, and/or a combination of many things.

I don't have the facts, but I'm attracted to the "big tent" idea, that gaming is growing and normalized now, not something that nerds do in their parents' basements.

 

I reject the idea that seemed popular when the Wii hit big last decade, that casual players are somehow destroying gaming.

 

It's cool that there are Just Dance kiosks outside Microsoft stores and AppleTV has controller-based games, all happening in shopping malls that haven't hosted arcade games for almost two decades.

[Schizophretard]

Why would it be? You're mainly paying for the content, not the medium.

You are also paying for ownership of that content with the benefits that come with that. Digital is just a rental. The movies I watch on Netflix are cheaper with its monthly subscription than if I bought everything I have watched on Netflix on DVD and/or Blu-ray because I am renting them. Same movies with the same content but cheaper because they are at lower rental like prices.

[Schizophretard]

I don't have the facts, but I'm attracted to the "big tent" idea, that gaming is growing and normalized now, not something that nerds do in their parents' basements.

 

I reject the idea that seemed popular when the Wii hit big last decade, that casual players are somehow destroying gaming.

 

It's cool that there are Just Dance kiosks outside Microsoft stores and AppleTV has controller-based games, all happening in shopping malls that haven't hosted arcade games for almost two decades.

 

I think it has always been normalized. When I was growing up I don't recall gaming being associated with nerds except maybe kids into playing Chess and games like that. It was what the average kid did inside when we weren't riding bikes, climbing trees, etc. It was the kids that weren't into gaming and into other things that we would consider nerds or at least odd in some way. The only major change I have noticed is that gaming is being less associated with being childish from adults' perspective because we are the adults now.

 

I'm not even sure what the difference between casual and hardcore gaming is. It is how much time, money, and resources you invest in it ,what you choose to play, and/or other things?

[godslabrat]

 

I think it has always been normalized. When I was growing up I don't recall gaming being associated with nerds except maybe kids into playing Chess and games like that. It was what the average kid did inside when we weren't riding bikes, climbing trees, etc. It was the kids that weren't into gaming and into other things that we would consider nerds or at least odd in some way. The only major change I have noticed is that gaming is being less associated with being childish from adults' perspective because we are the adults now.

 

I'm not even sure what the difference between casual and hardcore gaming is. It is how much time, money, and resources you invest in it ,what you choose to play, and/or other things?

 

I'm going to disagree with at least the first thing you said, that gaming has always been normalized. I remember clearly, growing up in the 80s, that video games were a fringe hobby for a long time. News shows (when local news meant something) were full of stories dissecting this "suspicious" trend, and parents were often warned to keep their kids away from games entirely. Kids that did play games were thought to be prone to behavioral problems. Bear in mind, this was ten years AFTER the release of the 2600, so video games had been around for a while, and society STILL couldn't trust them yet. And if parents said that gaming was "weird", kids often parroted it.

 

"Casual' and "hardcore" are labels that seemed to appear in the early 2000s. I've never seen a clear example of what the distinction is, my suspicion is that "hardcore" is a marketing term used to appeal the egoes of people who are inclined to spend discretionary income on gaming first, before considering other options. "Casual" gamers are more likely to weigh the purchase of a game against alternative forms of entertainment. In conversational use, "hardcore" gamers seem to ironically be narrowly focused on particular genres and platforms, whereas "casual" gamers are less biased.

[moycon]

 

In conversational use, "hardcore" gamers seem to ironically be narrowly focused on particular genres and platforms, whereas "casual" gamers are less biased.

In my eyes, and casual gamer is someone who will occasionally want to bowl in their living room with their family, or will play some rounds of Candy Crush while they drink their coffee in the morning before moving on to the news. A lot of their free time is spent watching crappy TV shows, reading the "news", following sports teams and politics, cleaning up after their kids, etc... They don't care about collecting video games. They don't care to read about video games. They don't discuss games with anyone because video games are an afterthought.

 

A hardcore gamer will sit down and play one or more games for hours+ at a time. They frequent video game websites to get a lot of their news and post on video game forums so they can talk to other hardcore gamers (which are few and far between in the real world). They read video game related books and magazines. The collect video games, often time having hundreds or thousands around their house. (99% of which collect dust) They don't have one or two video game systems, they have 10 or more. Some even have video game tunes uploaded to their music players. A lot of their free time is spent... looking for video games, and playing video games.

 

In the end they are technically both gamers. But to me their is a big difference between the two.

[moycon]

You are also paying for ownership of that content with the benefits that come with that. Digital is just a rental. The movies I watch on Netflix are cheaper with its monthly subscription than if I bought everything I have watched on Netflix on DVD and/or Blu-ray because I am renting them. Same movies with the same content but cheaper because they are at lower rental like prices.

That's how it used to work, and why people get upset I guess. You used to walk into a store, pay for a product and then own the product. It's slowly going away from that business model because there is no longer a need to get the content to consumers via physical means these days, but mainly because the game industry hated that model. It allowed you to purchase their creation, enjoy it, and then sell it off allowing someone else to enjoy the content without them getting a dime. Now that it's possible to move away from that, they aim to change the practice is my guess.

 

The benefits of ownership would indeed go away, but their are benefits of DLC as well. You can watch or play anything shortly after a press of a button. You don't clutter up your house with physical games (I know most people here wouldn't understand the benefit of that but remember what I said, we here aren't most people) and as far as only renting what does that mean? Every game I've ever bought off Live in the last 11 year I can still play, are you saying that is going away? If anything in a day of software networks, cloud computing and massive storage capabilities, storing and accessing digital content should be easier than ever. Not sure why you see it as renting. Another thing to consider is that DLC drops in price and goes on sale all the time (Something the old timers used to say would never happen) I've bought newer, complete games for less than $5, I guess those people were way off about all this.

 

People can say it's wrong, or that DLC should be cheaper and give 5 reasons why, but it doesn't change anything. Doesn't matter if a disk and case cost $2 to produce and ship or $10. When you buy DLC you are paying for the intellectual property, not the physical. The fact that it isn't cheaper and is still happening should tell people something, I agree in theory it should be cheaper, seems like maybe most gamers today don't care. The way to try to combat the practice would be to refuse to do it. Don't buy into it. In a world where kids are growing up learning they can be instantly gratified by a press of the button, seems unlikely it'll change anything. I have no doubt though that in the future there will still be places like "Limited Run Games" who will produce physical copies at a premium price for those that demand it.

[Flojomojo]

In my eyes, and casual gamer is someone who will occasionally want to bowl in their living room with their family, or will play some rounds of Candy Crush while they drink their coffee in the morning before moving on to the news. A lot of their free time is spent watching crappy TV shows, reading the "news", following sports teams and politics, cleaning up after their kids, etc... They don't care about collecting video games. They don't care to read about video games. They don't discuss games with anyone because video games are an afterthought.

 

A hardcore gamer will sit down and play one or more games for hours+ at a time. They frequent video game websites to get a lot of their news and post on video game forums so they can talk to other hardcore gamers (which are few and far between in the real world). They read video game related books and magazines. The collect video games, often time having hundreds or thousands around their house. (99% of which collect dust) They don't have one or two video game systems, they have 10 or more. Some even have video game tunes uploaded to their music players. A lot of their free time is spent... looking for video games, and playing video games.

 

In the end they are technically both gamers. But to me their is a big difference between the two.

I wonder what I am? Not that labels are important or even that interesting ... but I think about games a lot, probably read about them more than I play them. I buy a LOT of them, but finish very few of them.

 

I think I'm super casual, and maybe a little eclectic since I like retro and mobile best, and maybe just a little dash of modern games on top. But I don't really care what label applies. Probably "whale." Sigh.

[moycon]

I wonder what I am? Not that labels are important or even that interesting ...

There probably are 12 flavors of gamers these days, 10 years from now 27, us old timers will never "get it" though.

On a similar note, I remember when there was like 12 genres of music (classical, rock, punk,easy listening) , now there is like 807 (art punk, deathbilly, techo k-pop, christian metal).

[Schizophretard]

 

I'm going to disagree with at least the first thing you said, that gaming has always been normalized. I remember clearly, growing up in the 80s, that video games were a fringe hobby for a long time. News shows (when local news meant something) were full of stories dissecting this "suspicious" trend, and parents were often warned to keep their kids away from games entirely. Kids that did play games were thought to be prone to behavioral problems. Bear in mind, this was ten years AFTER the release of the 2600, so video games had been around for a while, and society STILL couldn't trust them yet. And if parents said that gaming was "weird", kids often parroted it.

 

That sounds similar to modern news shows because according to them I should have already raped at least one feminist and shot up a school just because I play video games. Anyway, I don't consider something normalized when all talking heads agree it is good because it is like politics and sometimes actually is because it is about who is pro-gaming, anti-gaming, if and how it should be regulated, how to protect the children, etc. Besides, I definitely haven't seen things on the news that paints gamers as nerds because to adults being a nerd doesn't have the same negative connotation as it does for children who are more concerned about being cool. To parents they want their kids to be nerds. So, if gaming was associated with being nerds on the news then parents would associate it with positive things like getting straight A's. Anyway, by normalized I mean during the 80's and 90's all my memories of gaming was it being socially acceptable and something the cool kids, instead of the nerds, were into. I mean, I don't recall people getting bullied for being nerds by gaming being the thing that identified them as nerds. It was more like the kids with the most games were more popular because of them.

[godslabrat]

Anyway, by normalized I mean during the 80's and 90's all my memories of gaming was it being socially acceptable and something the cool kids, instead of the nerds, were into. I mean, I don't recall people getting bullied for being nerds by gaming being the thing that identified them as nerds. It was more like the kids with the most games were more popular because of them.

 

Well, then we clearly had different experiences. In my grade school, there was a pretty clear distinction between kids who played Nintendo and kids who didn't. And being a Nintendo fan didn't necessarily make you unpopular, but it sure didn't help. You really wanted to have something else going for you, like watching the same TV shows or following the same sports team.

[zzip]

There probably are 12 flavors of gamers these days, 10 years from now 27, us old timers will never "get it" though.

On a similar note, I remember when there was like 12 genres of music (classical, rock, punk,easy listening) , now there is like 807 (art punk, deathbilly, techo k-pop, christian metal).

I'm pretty sure there are at least 807 subgenres of metal alone More subgenres than bands!

Edited April 28, 2017 by zzip

[Mord]

I'm pretty sure there are at least 807 subgenres of metal alone More subgenres than bands!

 

If there's more subgenres than bands, then someone's making shit up somewhere. But I wouldn't disagree, as a metal fan, that there's probably a subgenre for every band - since every band will invent a word to describe their own version of metal.

[Stewart_Pidd]

There probably are 12 flavors of gamers these days, 10 years from now 27, us old timers will never "get it" though.

On a similar note, I remember when there was like 12 genres of music (classical, rock, punk,easy listening) , now there is like 807 (art punk, deathbilly, techo k-pop, christian metal).

I love disco punk bluegrass!

[Austin]

 

Well, then we clearly had different experiences. In my grade school, there was a pretty clear distinction between kids who played Nintendo and kids who didn't. And being a Nintendo fan didn't necessarily make you unpopular, but it sure didn't help. You really wanted to have something else going for you, like watching the same TV shows or following the same sports team.

 

Pretty much this from my experience. And if you didn't watch the same shows or didn't follow sports, you were pretty much guaranteed to be picked on.

[BydoEmpire]

I suspect this figure also includes downloadable content for "physical" games (like FIFA Ultimate Team cards, etc), although I don't know how much of the total, industry-wide "digital" revenue that accounts for. That kind of content does make a ton of money YoY.

 

I'll also take this opportunity to cringe at the phrase "digital games." All video games are freaking digital... almost by definition (I realize there are a few exception from the very beginning of the industry). They run on a computer. It's all digital. *shrug* I suppose "Downloadable" doesn't have the same marketing ring...

[Keatah]

It's a generic term like Kleenex. Gimme some Kleenex means get me a snot rag or anything to clean up dribble'n'drool.

 

Digital software means you don't have to suffer through dick'n around with physical media.

 

[Flojomojo]

"Digital download" is amusingly redundant.

[Keatah]

Especially when you back it up.

[Schizophretard]

Well, then we clearly had different experiences. In my grade school, there was a pretty clear distinction between kids who played Nintendo and kids who didn't.

 

 

Same here. The clear distinction was those who played Nintendo and those whose parents said,"No!"

 

And being a Nintendo fan didn't necessarily make you unpopular, but it sure didn't help. You really wanted to have something else going for you, like watching the same TV shows or following the same sports team.

Of course you had to have other things going for you. I'm just overgeneralizing to make the stereotype more clear. I'll put it this way, I don't remember anything while growing up indicating that owning video games was something like owning a pocket protector and a calculator watch. It was considered owning something cool. It was just the thing you would do when hanging out inside. When outside you would play basketball, ride bikes, build forts in the woods, climb trees, etc. but while inside it was the main thing you would do while sitting in front of a TV when not watching TV shows and movies. I even remember it being one of the main contributing factors towards the shift in the culture from having just one TV in the family room towards each kid getting their own TV because most of the time when I would see other kids with their own TV it was because they had an NES, Super NES, Genesis, or whatever. However, that TV and video game console was the only thing the bedrooms would have in common because one room may be filled with rock posters, another room with baseball cards, another room with nerdy things like planets hanging from the ceiling, etc. In other words, if I was to find every gamer in my neighborhood, schools, and other places I would find other kids it would look more like the collection of kids from The Breakfast Club instead of The Revenge of the Nerds.

 

The only stereotype I noticed being universally applied was that gaming was seen as being childish like a toy but like the last toy you would get after action figures and so forth but right before you moved on from toys altogether. So, as you would go through Junior High and especially High School you would look more and more childish and immature. However, most of this would come from preppy girls because for whatever reasons they seemed more concerned about appearing more mature and adult like than everyone else. But now that we are all grown up things seemed to have shifted from gaming being immature to the kind of game you are playing because now games are either thought of as mature games or kiddie games and instead of this coming from preppy girls it is from other dudes. I don't remember this stereotype existing at all while growing up. For an example, playing Super Mario World wasn't more "kiddie" than playing Mortal Kombat II. They were just different genres. But today playing any Nintendo game at all is viewed as more "kiddie" than say GTA 5 but if I was my 80's and 90's kid self today then I wouldn't be able to tell the difference because back then it didn't matter how violent and mature the content was because if it was a video game it was "kiddie".

[Schizophretard]

I suspect this figure also includes downloadable content for "physical" games (like FIFA Ultimate Team cards, etc), although I don't know how much of the total, industry-wide "digital" revenue that accounts for. That kind of content does make a ton of money YoY.

 

I'll also take this opportunity to cringe at the phrase "digital games." All video games are freaking digital... almost by definition (I realize there are a few exception from the very beginning of the industry). They run on a computer. It's all digital. *shrug* I suppose "Downloadable" doesn't have the same marketing ring...

 

The same with physical games. Regardless of how the games are distributed they end up stored on physical medium of some sort.