The Angry Birds Want To Kill Your Console
The birds are angry, and they have acquired a new target: the console.
According to the Associated Press, Angry Birds and other similar games are hitting Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo hard. Sales are down across the board. Gamestop, which the piece says is the “world’s largest video game retailer,” has seen its revenues drop, too.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to the market.
Consider: mobile devices continue to spike in popularity. Apple churns out a new product every five seconds, and it is always gobbled up by consumers. These devices can be used to play games. People love to sit and play these games during a boring meeting or class or in the waiting room. They’re great because in our busy world people are always on the go. Not everyone has the time to sit down and put hours into a console game.
It looks like the gaming world is on the cusp of a new trend and a reverse seems unlikely. Companies are looking for cheap-to-make products that have the greatest return in investment. A lot of them see that people like to play these “time-wasters.” They recognize that they’ll make money.
One such company is Disney.
The big three — Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony — should take note. They should make sure that the next generation of consoles blows consumers out of the water.
Or else that style of gaming will go the way of the birds.
Mr. Bishop you’re engaging in a bit of a bait and switch.
First off, the article you linked to makes no mention of how Angry Birds contributed to any of the Big Three console makers or developers decline in revenues. I think bigger things, such as the still flagging economy, are having a bigger effect on sales than Angry Birds.
Secondly, you conflate the goals of Angry Birds with that of what the traditional video game makers. You correctly state that Angry Birds is a timekiller, but it is in no way a substitute for a traditional game, where gamers want immersive storytelling and intricate gameplay. These are two separate markets and there will always be more than enough appeal in each to attract gamers.
I’m willing to bet that as soon as the economy picks up videogames will as well. I don’t think Angry Birds will be enough to knock out any of the traditional console makers.
I give up. Why do you let this man (kid?) keep writing about a market he understands nothing about??
Games are down, because:
*It’s the *natural end* of a console cycle. This happens *every* 5-7 years as the market becomes *saturated* with consoles (220-odd million at this point, worldwide, which is 70-odd million *more* than the previous console generation managed).
*The Wii, which was driving the market for the past several years has seen a marked slowdown in new software, yet Just Dance keeps on selling millions upon millions of copies each year.
*The economy *sucks*.
If you really and truly believe that Angry Birds is going to replace Mario and Master Chief, Jesus, I don’t even know what to say to that.
As I’ve said before, the 3DS has sold millions of units of software @ $40/pop, and is selling *faster* than the DS, which sold ~150 million units–if that’s a market doomed to failure because of the iPhone et al, well, I’d like me a piece of that DOOM, heavy on the carnage.
(Note: you can have it both ways: games that cost $5 bucks or are free can co-exist with $40-60 games, as the latter almost always has waaaaay more bang for your buck.)
Also: please, please, stop writing about video games! You have no idea what you’re talking about, nor do half the analysts–who are nearly always wrong, historically*–beating the same drum.
*The Wii was going to tank and put Nintendo out of business being the greatest hit from that sorry coterie of ‘experts’, followed up by the PS VIta is going to crush the 3DS and the 3DS is doomed, all of which went in the exact *opposite* directions.
I believe what Jon Bishop is really describing is the issue with investment for console games in the future. First and foremost Jon Bishop states the word “console” yet the sales statistics you use to most strongly support your argument surround the 3DS, which is in fact a mobile device. Yes the DS and 3DS have sold/sell very well, yet they are not consoles. There was never strong market evidence to support the PS Vita doing well, especially considering it is ultimately a more advanced PSP, which we all know was dominated by iterations of the DS.
ECM, your opening comments are valid right NOW it is the natural end of a generation, the economy is down, etc. yet you then say that “$40-60 games almost always have waaaaaay more bang for their buck.” What on earth is this based on? Games release literally every week that struggle to break even on money spent creating it. Sure the big names everyone knows make plenty, but games have to drop cost 20 bucks after a week because nobody actually bought the game, so they rush to make it somewhat marketable in hopes of making any profits. If you spend 1 million dollars over 2 years to make 1.1 million over another 2 was that investment worth it? Let’s compare to when a phone game like Angry Birds or facebook game like Farmville cost virtually nothing to make over a few months and then have millions of downloads at $1 within another few months which one is getting more bang for the buck? They don’t even stop there, publishers flood these games with ads, which are free to employ and can only make more money. If you were an investor, which games would you invest in – the ones that can potentially take years and large quantities of money with slow payback or a lucky hit that makes plenty? Or would you invest in games that can be made by a handful of people in somebody’s basement in a few months and potentially earn millions of downloads? A perfectly good example as to why mobile platforms are more lucrative – within the first year of PS3, the cost to manufacture individual systems was greater than the $600 price tag, so money was lost every sale. Hmmmm…
There are analysts now that project lower sales http://games.ign.com/articles/122/1223836p1.html
and some (though probably extreme) say next generation consoles will be the last http://www.vg247.com/2012/01/19/next-generation-of-console-hardware-will-probably-be-the-last-says-paradox-ceo/
There are growing concerns with limited moves forward with technology while mobile devices will soon be as powerful as consoles.
NVIDIA projects by 2014 mobile devices will be more powerful than xbox360 http://www.anandtech.com/show/5762/nvidia-plots-mobile-soc-gpu-performance-surpassing-xbox-360-by-2014
Forbes posts about rumors for next gen to make really no advances in technology and use previous graphics cards http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/06/will-next-gen-consoles-run-on-last-years-graphics-cards/
To top it all off there are rumors for next-gen consoles to utilize “anti-used game” technology in the form of permitting used games only in trial form. Purchasing used games is an enormous piece of Gamestop’s sales, yet the publishers and developers make virtually no money on the resale of a game, so again the issues revolve around how investors and companies want to do what they can to make more money. Even now as of 2012 37% of heads of households play games on a wireless device, not a console. The social/mobile medium is on the rise and next generation CONSOLES will take a hit.