The New York Times just published an article about how PC games are bouncing back:
Anita Frazier, an industry analyst for the NPD Group, a market research firm, noted that in the first two months of 2007, domestic retail sales of PC games reached $203 million, a 48 percent increase over the $136.8 million in the period a year earlier. She noted that these figures do not include revenue generated by PC game sales online, or online subscriptions to play PC games.
“Yes, it does look like a fluke, doesn’t it?” Ms. Frazier said. “Rest assured it’s not.”
She said the bulk of this surge in sales is rooted in the role-playing video game genre that, itself, grew 43 percent over the same period last year. “The robust performance we’re seeing in PC game sales can be tied to several key titles across several genres,” she said, “but we’d be remiss not to address the continued success of World of Warcraft.”
--
PC Games, Once Down, Show Signs of ReboundAh yes, World of Warcraft. We'll get back to that later. Let's go back to the beginning of the article where the Times uses a 28 year old lawyer as an example of the nouveau PC gamer:
When I was a kid, I used to like Nintendo and used to play on consoles,” said Mr. Kirschner, a 28-year-old lawyer. “But right now I don’t have the time or money to invest in a $400 console and $50 in a game.”
He then buys
Civilization IV. Which costs $40 on Amazon right now. Many new games for the PC cost $60. And let's not even talk about how cheap $400 is compared to getting serious about your gaming rig. So I think the cost portion of this quote is something of a non-starter.
The genre is more pertinent. The "new PC gamer" is looking for titles which can be played at random intervals for random periods of time (some would call that casual, I'd say ...
sporadic). Console games are often more about sucking you in for at least an hour or so at a time. Although with things like Live Arcade, that's changing as well.
He continues about the kind of games on the PC that, "It’s not just killing unlimited enemies on a screen." Course, the problem here is that many PC games are becoming married to the console format. Even titles which aren't "just killing unlimited enemies on the screen" like
Knights Of The Old Republic or
Fable get their start on the Xbox and then port over.
Civ IV is just one example of a genre still pretty exclusive to the PC world. The other would be the MMO genre. Which brings us back to
World of Warcraft. As I mentioned
earlier - MMO's are moving into the console realm at a pretty decent clip. I wouldn't expect WoW to go Xbox on us anytime soon, but what happens when the console market gets it's own
World Of Warcraft? I mean, that's essentially the kind of hammer
Halo brought down. Sure,
GoldenEye proved to many that a console FPS didn't have to suck, but
Halo brought online multiplayer into the fray - proving that nearly all the advantages of a PC FPS game were workable on the console.
I mean geez, if Bungie produced a Halo MMO for the 360 - can you imagine the resounding soundwave?
Now let's look at these numbers:
The upsurge comes after some recent reversals. Over all, retail sales of PC-based games in the United States exceeded $970 million in 2006, an increase of about 1 percent of sales the previous year of $953 million, which represented about a 14 percent drop from $1.1 billion in 2004.
By contrast, according to the NPD Group, retail sales for console games in 2006 were $4.8 billion; another $1.7 billion was spent on games for hand-held devices like Sony’s PlayStation Portable.
A one percent increase after a fourteen percent drop is hardly a "reversal". The handheld market eclipses the PC numbers and the console figures simply swallows it whole. Consoles buyers are over
four times the size of the PC consumers and let's remember the bonus materials consoles give developers and publishers: much lower rate of piracy, easier hardware footprint and quality assurance.
So how exactly is the PC market poised for a resurgence when the console market still enjoys a far more viable customer base?
Games For Windows is trotted out as one factor. I still don't see how this Vista only offering will make much of an impact in the next few years. The Times then also talks about major gaming rigs like Dell's XPS monster, mentions how it costs
over five grand and then finishes with a quote about "the economics of the PC" that “everybody needs a computer.”
Sure, but if the PC gaming market shows anything - it's that not everyone needs a computer to game.
Again, I'm not looking for PC gaming to fail. Many of my fondest gaming memories were on a PC. I would love a PC game revival - but nothing in this Times article adds up to one.