Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From bbc.co.uk

US video game sales 'dip' despite mega-launches


Strong sales of the latest Call of Duty and Halo sequels were not enough to prevent a drop in annual US video game sales, according to research firm NPD.

It suggests sales of hardware and software sold by retailers were down 11% on the year in November.

Nintendo's Wii U also launched that month and Assassin's Creed 3 had just gone on sale. The figure does not include digital downloads.

NPD linked the drop to weaker sales of titles outside the top five.

"Despite an overall retail video game decline of 11%, November had the smallest year-over-year decrease we have seen for dollar and unit sales so far this year," it said in a statement.

"Overall entertainment software units decreased by 15%, however, when comparing the performance of the top five titles from this year to last, we see a rise in unit sales of 5% - games outside of the top five sold less, leading to overall declines."

Figures may also have been depressed by the fact there were fewer releases this November than a year earlier when Uncharted 3, Skyrim, Lego Harry Potter 5-7 and Modern Warfare 3 were among titles that went on sale.

Blockbuster sales
Activision, Microsoft and Nintendo have all been touting the success of their new products over recent days.

Black Ops 2 - the first in the Call of Duty series to be part-set in the future - topped $1bn (£624m; 773m euros) worth of global sales in its first 15 days of release, said Activision Publishing.

It said it had achieved the milestone a day quicker than the movie Avatar did in 2009 - albeit with fewer individual units sold.

Microsoft has not provided a comparable figure for its Xbox-exclusive Halo 4, but has said that more than 50 million games in the franchise had now been sold.

Based on the firm's earlier announcements, that suggests about four million copies of Halo 4 were sold worldwide over its first 30 days.

Meanwhile, Nintendo has revealed that it sold 400,000 Wii Us and its bundled touchscreen controller during their first week of release in the US.

That compares to 600,000 units of the original Wii console during its first eight days on the market in North America.

The Japanese company has a target of 5.5 million Wii U sales worldwide by the end of its financial year in March.

While NPD's figures provide a useful snapshot of console and disk-based games sales, critics have pointed out that they may not offer a true reflection of the wider market.

The Penny Arcade website ran an editorial last month describing Valve's online Steam store - which sells PC games - as a "blind spot".

It also noted that sales of smartphone and tablet games were missed out.

However, NPD does provide a separate estimate for non-traditional game sales including downloads, subscriptions, mobile apps, and used and rented games,

The research firm suggested this grouping accounted for $410m of sales in the US in November, taking the month's tally to more than $3.1bn.

œ

The article does say, however, that those figures do not include digital downloads and are just for console and disk-based game sales in the US. Have downloads finally began to overtake hard copy as the preferred way to play

I think a combination of a lack luster release schedule, and increased use of things like Steam and Gamefly have been responsible for this. 11% though, that's a huge number.

Yup, 11% is a huge number indeed. I've yet to find the UK sales figure's for the last 12 months, but if they are anything like the US figures then people seem to be using digital download's a lot more over the last 12 month's. Seem's video games are going the way of CD's....

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Yup, 11% is a huge number indeed. I've yet to find the UK sales figure's for the last 12 months, but if they are anything like the US figures then people seem to be using digital download's a lot more over the last 12 month's. Seem's video games are going the way of CD's....

I haven't bought a hard copy of a PC game in about 3 years. Consoles for the most part I still buy the discs though.

It likely does not take into account trade-ins either, which is going to make up a large part of "Black Ops 2's billion dollar" sales figures.

NPD reports are useless because they exclude the digital market, which is huge by now.

 Soladrin wrote:
NPD reports are useless because they exclude the digital market, which is huge by now.

Except this particular NPD report also stated that they performed a separate study of Mobile Games, Apps, Downloads, Used and Rented Games that added another $400 million dollars to the total, making it around $3.1 billion profit. The problem appears to be solid state sales...

I think the ios(and similar) market has really started to take a hold this year. The games now have much longer lifespans, 'Toilet Games' like Angry birds/fruit ninja etc have given way to things like 'Simpsons: Tapped out'. I have friends who have not touched an xbox in the past year yet have put countless hours into Simpsons: Tapped out. That includes numerous micro transactions. Now although these do not yet take a large portion of the NPD pie, people are spending a great deal more time playing them.

PC gamers i.e. 'Steam' as S-R-H rightly points with the stats is never gonna amount t a big chunk of the pie. PC gamers are NOTORIOUSLY stingy, only parting with their cash during the steam sales and before that Rampant piracy. The PC market is also saturated with low cost indie titles simply because 95% of 'Pc gamers' do not have a 'rig' on a par or better than an Xbox 360.

 Perkustin wrote:
PC gamers are NOTORIOUSLY stingy, only parting with their cash during the steam sales and before that Rampant piracy.

...

I get the sense you don't actually use Steam or track piracy trends at all. But that's okay. You've bought into the lies Publishers have been pushing for the last decade so you've done a good job accepting their distorted version of reality where PC gamers are douches and they aren't to blame at all for declining PC sales.

If anything, sales will decline because I challenge you to find more than 1 or 2 blockbuster title selling millions of copies that doesn't have a # in its title. Franchise exhaustion is gonna catch up to the industry sooner or later.

Honestly not surprised that sales are down: the economy is still not great, and each year that it hasn't improved drastically is another year with less money for people. Following that, GameFly and Redbox allow for cheap rentals, and if you don't mind waiting, used games can be gotten pretty cheaply. I'm not surprised that they're down. Pity though. We really can't handle losing the industry-losing video games...I don't want to live in that world.

Oh don't feel the doom and gloom Video games aren't going to disappear from the face of the earth.

The Industry exploded massively over the last decade (well beyond any ability to be long term sustainable). It's inevitable that it would shrink back to a manageable level sooner or later. I'd actually propose the industry currently faces the opposite problem it had in the 1982. Rather than an over saturated market with too many options, the market has too few options due to the dominance of the mega publishers and franchise titles (the current problem isn't as severe of course).

There is also the factor of game piracy, While the sales may be in decline the amount of gamers is not.
I would estimate atleast 50 to 70% of PC games are pirate versions (i do not call them illegal/stolen but thats just a matter of opinion.).
This is due to either people not being able to afford to buy them or just wont bother, also like LordofHats baldly stated: "[...]the market has too few options due to the dominance of the mega publishers and franchise titles.".
And the other thing is how easy it is to download games of the enternet, probably even easier than buying the game in some cases.
Also there is the case of how some publishers treat their customers (EA not to look far), their marketing practices (Day one DLC, "map packs" and "true ending DLCs) and in some cases extreme anti-piracy systems (Im looking at you AC2!).


Thats not to say im trying to endorse or promote piracy. Im just stating my view on it.
Of course most of you will say im a prate myself, and yes i admit ive done it on a couple recent occasions mostly due to the gak i had to take from a few game publishers. But thats a story for another time

Cheers
-Daemonhammer

AC2 is Ubisoft.

The "true ending DLCs" (I'm assuming you're referring to ME3 here) are generally free.
All of ME3's multiplayer DLC has been free. You do not have to spend a cent on ME3's multiplayer, unless you choose to buy packs with Microsoft Points, BioWare points, or real money via the Playstation Network.

"Map Packs" are a fact at this point. They're not going away anytime soon.

AC2 is Ubisoft.

I know
Dont think im hatin' only on EA. There are a few others i hate. (Emperor damn you THQ!)

The "true ending DLCs" (I'm assuming you're referring to ME3 here) are generally free.

Indeed it was, but Asura's Wrath had that too and it was paid. Im afraid it will become a common thing.
Also Bioware kind off had to make it, the ending literally ruined the franchise. Atleast for me.

All of ME3's multiplayer DLC has been free. You do not have to spend a cent on ME3's multiplayer, unless you choose to buy packs with Microsoft Points, BioWare points, or real money via the Playstation Network.

Thats also true, but im not talking just about ME3. DoW2 for example had a lot of gak DLC especially the Tau commander. i could go on like that.

"Map Packs" are a fact at this point. They're not going away anytime soon.

What happened to the good old days when extra MP maps or Sp missions were added with patches?

 Daemonhammer wrote:

AC2 is Ubisoft.

I know

Then why bring it up after "pointing at EA"?

The "true ending DLCs" (I'm assuming you're referring to ME3 here) are generally free.

Indeed it was, but Asura's Wrath had that too and it was paid. Im afraid it will become a common thing.
Also Bioware kind off had to make it, the ending literally ruined the franchise. At least for me.

They didn't "have" to do anything.
They chose to do it. And really, the "Extended Cut" doesn't change anything. It adds one more choice for the ending (if you call "refusal" a choice, that is) and some cutscenes which flesh out some rather logical things that gamers really should have been able to deduce themselves.

The fact that they chose to do "Extended Cut" put back the release of "Omega" and "Leviathan" quite a bit...and "Leviathan" actually answered a lot of the questions that were brought up with the original ending.

All of ME3's multiplayer DLC has been free. You do not have to spend a cent on ME3's multiplayer, unless you choose to buy packs with Microsoft Points, BioWare points, or real money via the Playstation Network.

Thats also true, but im not talking just about ME3. DoW2 for example had a lot of gak DLC especially the Tau commander. i could go on like that.

Again, not EA.
THQ.

And again, you didn't "need" any of it. The Tau Commander was a DLC character you could purchase for "The Last Stand" game mode. The skins were completely optional.

"Map Packs" are a fact at this point. They're not going away anytime soon.

What happened to the good old days when extra MP maps or Sp missions were added with patches? :(

What "good old days"?

I cannot think of any games where they added single player missions with patches. MP maps as well, barring a few games like Team Fortress 2 and others which are largely community driven with a large map making community.

We could always go back to "Expansion Packs"...

I haven't actually paid for a video game since I bought Metroid Prime 2 back in 2005.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Daemonhammer wrote:

AC2 is Ubisoft.

I know

Then why bring it up after "pointing at EA"?

I said "EA not to look to far". I was merely using EA as an example.

The "true ending DLCs" (I'm assuming you're referring to ME3 here) are generally free.

Indeed it was, but Asura's Wrath had that too and it was paid. Im afraid it will become a common thing.
Also Bioware kind off had to make it, the ending literally ruined the franchise. At least for me.

They didn't "have" to do anything.
They chose to do it. And really, the "Extended Cut" doesn't change anything. It adds one more choice for the ending (if you call "refusal" a choice, that is) and some cutscenes which flesh out some rather logical things that gamers really should have been able to deduce themselves.
The fact that they chose to do "Extended Cut" put back the release of "Omega" and "Leviathan" quite a bit...and "Leviathan" actually answered a lot of the questions that were brought up with the original ending.

Thats largely a matter of opinion. It is true that they didnt have to do anything BUT we shouldnt be praising them for adding a few minutes cutscenes to the ending.
And since it was free i dont mind it as much. But looking at Asura's Wrath im afraid its going to become a trend in games.

All of ME3's multiplayer DLC has been free. You do not have to spend a cent on ME3's multiplayer, unless you choose to buy packs with Microsoft Points, BioWare points, or real money via the Playstation Network.

Thats also true, but im not talking just about ME3. DoW2 for example had a lot of gak DLC especially the Tau commander. i could go on like that.

Again, not EA.
THQ.
And again, you didn't "need" any of it. The Tau Commander was a DLC character you could purchase for "The Last Stand" game mode. The skins were completely optional.

Of coure they are optional. DLC is always optional. Except for 12$ (IIRC) we got a single character for LS. And they also sold singleplayer wargear. try and tell me thats not gak.

And what are you saying "Again, not EA.THQ.". l used EA merely as an example if you read my post carefully.

"Map Packs" are a fact at this point. They're not going away anytime soon.

What happened to the good old days when extra MP maps or Sp missions were added with patches? :(

What "good old days"?
I cannot think of any games where they added single player missions with patches. MP maps as well, barring a few games like Team Fortress 2 and others which are largely community driven with a large map making community.
We could always go back to "Expansion Packs"...

Neverwinter Nights:

The original release of Neverwinter Nights includes the game engine, a game campaign that can be played as single player or in multiplayer mode, and on Windows releases, the Aurora toolset used for creating custom content that would run in the same engine. Three expansion packs were subsequently released for the game: Shadows of Undrentide in June 2003; Hordes of the Underdark in December 2003; and Kingmaker in November 2004. BioWare then began selling premium modules through an online store in late 2004.

Any "patches" which added extra MP maps/SP missions were fan created which BioWare then published.

Can't find any worthwhile information about Spellforce, but it likely is the same way there.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Neverwinter Nights:

The original release of Neverwinter Nights includes the game engine, a game campaign that can be played as single player or in multiplayer mode, and on Windows releases, the Aurora toolset used for creating custom content that would run in the same engine. Three expansion packs were subsequently released for the game: Shadows of Undrentide in June 2003; Hordes of the Underdark in December 2003; and Kingmaker in November 2004. BioWare then began selling premium modules through an online store in late 2004.

Any "patches" which added extra MP maps/SP missions were fan created which BioWare then published.
Can't find any worthwhile information about Spellforce, but it likely is the same way there.

Some of them were, yes but not all since the Aurora toolset required a lot of skill to use.

Spellforce 1 had two expansions, but no 'world builders' of any kind.
The Second game did have 1 Expansion and a world builder so in a way you are correct.
Another thing is that barely anyone patched the games, they had similar population to the current retri population.

But the point is that they actually did something rather than milk the gamers with "DLC map packs"

Other than y'know...
The three expansion packs and "Premium Modules".

 LordofHats wrote:

 Perkustin wrote:
PC gamers are NOTORIOUSLY stingy, only parting with their cash during the steam sales and before that Rampant piracy.

...

I get the sense you don't actually use Steam or track piracy trends at all. But that's okay. You've bought into the lies Publishers have been pushing for the last decade so you've done a good job accepting their distorted version of reality where PC gamers are douches and they aren't to blame at all for declining PC sales.

If anything, sales will decline because I challenge you to find more than 1 or 2 blockbuster title selling millions of copies that doesn't have a # in its title. Franchise exhaustion is gonna catch up to the industry sooner or later.

They are to blame for declining PC sales over the years. I was stating a fact. Why wouldn't publishers want another market? It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's better to Publish games for platforms where people, ya'know, PAY for their games. Publishers have slowly found more Lucrative ways to harness the PC market and the effort and money put in blows your flimsy argument out of the water. Publishers dont hate PC gamers, Publishers just want a return.

I Commend you for being a PC gamer who Pays for legitimate copies of his games.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Other than y'know...
The three expansion packs and "Premium Modules".

The Expansion packs were very cheap at their release for what they offered. And i never heard of those premium modules...

The biggest reason the pc market is dying is because microsoft sony and nintendo get to keep almost all the money from console game sales and go out of their to prevent things to get on the pc market.

Maybe instead of making grossing flase grand generalizations you should educate yourself. This is a fact: What the publishers have always done is monitor sites like Pirate Bay and other torrenting sites and compare the number of downloads to their number of sales and then make widely outrageous claims like 90% of the players have pirated copies. I seriously hoping I don't have to explain why this faulty math.

 Perkustin wrote:
Why wouldn't publishers want another market? It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's better to Publish games for platforms where people, ya'know, PAY for their games.

No. They'd rather publish for the consoles because the consoles are 1. Standardized in hardware which makes testing infinitely simpler. 2. Have pre-packaged development kits produced by the console makers which saves the costs of starting from ground 0. 3. Because the consoles are just easier to market than the PC. 4. Consoles have a lowest entrance cost than PC making them more widely available to consumers. 5. Microsoft and Sony in particular, WANT consoles to be a larger market than PC. Especially Microsoft.

It has NOTHING to do with pirating. That's just a myth publishers have inventing over the past years to explain why they don't bother making decent PC games anymore (which is itself a major reason why piracy has increased). The shift to consoles happened awhile ago and when PC gamers asked why they were being saddle with crappy ports rather than insult them and say "we don't care about you anymore" they said something more insulting "stop pirating."

Publishers have slowly found more Lucrative ways to harness the PC market and the effort and money put in blows your flimsy argument out of the water.

A flimsy argument is superior to an fantasy.

The piracy argument is a myth produced by Publishers for some reason to explain away dwindling PC sales when the reality is a sad fact: No one gives a gak about the PC as a platfrom anymore and they stopped caring well before piracy of video games became an issue. Take Ghost Recon Future Soldier as a recent example. The PC version of the game listed its controls as XBox 360 controls. Yes. Players were told to use the left bumper to reload on the PC and to press left trigger for ADS. Assassin's Creed II had one of the most invasive DRMs ever that made the game unplayable when not having an internet connection (Notch famously said pointed out that for the first time ever, the pirated copy of a game (ACII) was superior in performance to a legal copy). Then there's Splinter Cell Conviction which didn't even have text chat, a sever browser, or a proper matchmaker on PC. For older examples I cite nearly every block buster title produced after 2002, which when ported to PC is poorly optimized, generally has less than perfect controls, or has been dumbed down in controls and mechanics to better function on a console alienating PC gamers from them.

What happened is that someone 'brilliantly' (sarcasm) invented StarForce and when PC users cried foul over its existance the myth began that they must be pirates. Why else would they oppose DRM? Its not like StarForce did anything really harmful (and it really doesn't) but then Origin isn't exactly spying on people's every PC key stroke and reporting it to the mother ship. People just don't want junk on their computer, especially back in the days of RAM being a short resource for many PC users. But Publishers just assumed that piracy was to blame while having no real evidence and carried on with Secu-Rom, and Ubisoft's infamously horrible U-Play system.

Publishers dont hate PC gamers, Publishers just want a return.

They do now (they didn't use to). Publishers have blown the issue of pirating horribly out of proportion to how bad it really is (which is very relative by region) and have used the excuse to push forward the more profitable console market.

I Commend you for being a PC gamer who Pays for legitimate copies of his games.

I commend the majority of PC gamers for paying legitimately and pity all the idiots in the world who continue to treat them like they are all criminals based on the fake statistics continually put out by publishers and developers. They have no evidence for how bad piracy is. No one does. They throw out numbers and when asked how they compiled the data their only response is "various sources." And Sony has gone on the record as claiming that piracy is as bad as 90%* (which is so absurd it should really call them into question on its face). Ubisoft is the worst, having had employees going so far as to openly call nearly all PC gamers pirates (as you have).

Here's something you'll enjoy:



This chart was produced by the BSA (And it notes ALL software including Operating Systems). And not that while more reliably compiled than the data often thrown out by publishers, even this data is likely flawed (leaning towards overstating the problem as its impossible to account for multiple downloads/installs by a single user).



The above will of course include used games and mostly be based on console markets but it should tell you plenty about which region is the biggest individual market. Here's another showing combined revenues of just a few Publishers:



The mass break out of piracy, is very recent until the turn of the century:



Interesting isn't it? The increasing rate of piracy correlates to the increasing consumer power of the third world (which doesn't have easy access to markets to buy legitimate copies, and the nature of those markets often make the cost absurd). Most piracy exists in the third world, not the first yet the statistics for this smaller market are continually cited as world wide, ignoring that the companies hit hardest by Asian piracy are Sony and Nintendo, and Eastern European piracy is Ubisoft. Which should raise some very obvious questions. Why would the US, the richest market in the world, be the lowest for piracy rates? We have more disposable income, easier access to high end machines, better internet connectivity.

Piracy is not some thing that people do just because they can. It happens because Microsoft (conspiracy theory AHOY!) reduced the cost of Window's Operating Systems in Asian markets by $100 US, large amounts of very cheap but capable performing hardware are available in Asia, and most Asians just don't have enough money to actually buy games or good access to the market. The result is rampant piracy that happens in specific regions for specific reasons that then gets turned around and applied to the world market as if its true everywhere.

The only crime PC gamers really seem to be guilty of (and when I say this I mean the large US and Western Europe PC gamer base) is not wanting to be treated like trash but as you've aptly demonstrated they are regularly treated as such since the mid-90's when piracy first became an issue even though it wasn't a problem worth noting on PC till the 2000's. But it's okay. I'm sure most people will continue to to drink the kool-aid EA, Activision, Ubisoft and Sony have been handing out.

As a final note:

The Peak record total for concurrent users on Steam is 6,000,000.
The peak record total for concurrent users on XBL is 3,000,000.

If only those PC gamers weren't pirating everything. Oh and to preempty any crap about Indie games, the record for a single game on Steam is held by Skyrim, which peaked 1,000,000 concurrent users on its release week.

EDIT: Pics have gone out. Working on getting replacements.

Great post Lordofhats except for one thing

This is a fact: What the publishers have always done is monitor sites like Pirate Bay and other torrenting sites and compare the number of downloads to their number of sales and then make widely outrageous claims like 90% of the players have pirated copies. I seriously hoping I don't have to explain why this faulty math.

Ever heard of packet encryption?

But besides that i agree with you fully

Omnisiah protect

This year kinda blew hard for Video Games. The only real contenders for GotY were The Walking Dead, and Mass Effect 3. Most everything else that came out was just the yearly addition to the big gaming franchises, most of those didn't add too much in the way of new features.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people that hate on a sequel just because it was just a good sequel and didn't try to reinvent the wheel, but we had A LOT of really kickass games last year. Plenty of good contenders for GotY in 2011. More games will sell when more really good games come out.

Speaking of The Walking Dead didn't it just get GOTY at Spike's award show?

 LordofHats wrote:
Speaking of The Walking Dead didn't it just get GOTY at Spike's award show?

I think it did. Im kinda suprised, i heard it was a good game but a GOTY award? guess there was nothing better...



Omnisiah protect.

Am I the only one thats blown away Black Ops 2 made over a billion dollars in 2 weeks? Thats just crazy to me.

I thought people were getting sick of the same exact game being released ad nauseaum?

Nope, cause the ignorant masses are ignorant.