[geeks] Second Life is not a game?

[Doug McLaren]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:44:55PM +0300, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
| On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:22:27AM -0500, Doug McLaren wrote:
| > $1500 / 12 months / 2 games per month = $62.5 per game.
|  
| > I realize that $60 is the new price for `hot' console games, and maybe
| > you're including tax, but there's lots of games that cost less.  And
| > then there's the bargain bin, used games (though you did say `new
| > games', so maybe they're not included), etc.
| 
| That was for "high end" games.

OK, but that's not what you said.  It sounds like you mean `certain
families' not `the average family'.  Perhaps you meant `families who
bought games on a regular basis?'

| They often bought more of the cheap ones too.

... then that would drop the average down.

| I figured $62.50 as an average. Most games are around $50 each, some
| or more. If you add in postage/shipping from an e-tailer or sales
| tax from a store in the mall, it comes out around there. Where I
| lived in the states there was a 7% sales tax, which would bring a
| $59.95 game to that point.

The math still doesn't add up.  (And note that most US Internet sales
still don't include tax, though the governments are trying to fix
that.)

| > Isn't the PS2 still selling the most games of any console?  It's games
| > are generally a lot less than $60.  I know the PS2 sold more units
| > last Xmas than the Xbox360, PS3 or Wii.
| 
| I don't know. The PS2 is an old device bought by people who are not
| on the leading edge of gaming.

i.e. most people who play games?  Most game players are not `on the
leading edge of gaming', and I'm guessing that your casual gamers
spend a lot more on games than the relatively few `hardcore gamers'.

| Why is Microsoft Vista's most expensive version the gaming one?

Microsoft has a gaming edition of Vista?

The most expensive version I'm aware of is Vista Ultimate.  The only
thing I'm aware of that makes it `special' for gamers is that it comes
with a Texas Holdem poker game and a `Game Performance Tweaker'
whatever that does.  I think that gamers are one of their targets, but
it's hardly a gaming edition.

In spite of Microsofts intentions, the `Windows gaming edition' is
still ... XP.

| People who buy a $1500 PC are more likley to buy a new one in a year,
| while $200 PC purchasers will use it until it dies. 

... which often happens the first time it gets a worm or virus,
because they can't fix it themselves.

Do you have any citations for these claims?

| > (Are PC games still included in these figures?  They tend to be
| > significantly cheaper, as they don't have to pay
| > Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony/etc to write a game for their console.)
| 
| Not really. All of the "hot" games are for at least one console and they
| at first try to keep the PC games at the same price.

Um, no -- PC versions are usually about $10 cheaper when they first
come out.

Cases in point, all from Amazon --

Bioshock.  Not quite out yet, but very soon.
$60 for the 360 version, $50 for the PC version.

Madden NFL 08 -- $40 PC, $50 PS2, $60 360, PS3.

Elder Scrolls Oblivion -- $30 PC, $60 360, $50 PS3.

Lost Planet -- $40 360, $38 PC.  (It just came out on the PC, but the
360 version has been out for a while, so that might explain the
difference.)

Overlord -- $55 360, $38 PC.

Get the idea?  Can you find me *any* examples of `hot' PC and console
games coming out that come out at the same price?

| > Also, I believe that the US video game industry brought in $12 billion
| > in 2006?  That's about $40/person in the US.  Even assuming that
| > everybody is in a five person family, that's only $200/family.
| 
| Meaningless. Most people don't buy games. Many buy them from the discount
| bin, which is not counted in the those numbers.

Then you should present the numbers differently.  As presented, your
claim --

   Our market research showed that the average U.S. family bought 2 new
   games a month. That was about $1500 a year just for games.

was very misleading.

| > Also, that $200/family figure includes the consoles and accessories --
| > not just the games.
| 
| But how many people actually have consoles? The general guestimate is
| that a hot handheld device will sell 10 million over the life of the unit,
| and a console a lot less. Even if they sell 10 million units in the U.S.
| that's 1 in 30. If they sell a million that's 1 in 300. 

The PS2 has sold 120 million units worldwide, and according to
Wikipeda it sold 37 million units in the US as of the end of 2006.

Also note that you said `families' not `individuals'.  Not that you
defined family, but there can't be 300 million families in the US.

Assuming that families average 4 members, everybody in the US is in a
family, and no familiy has more than one (big, unwarranted
assumptions, I know) that means that *half* of the families in the US
have a PS2 -- and we're not even looking at other consoles, though
they're far less popular.

In any event, console games are *not* rare in the US.

| > On a side note, the idea that video games are `bigger than Hollywood'
| > is wrong too -- they're only looking at box office receipts, when in
| > fact most money is made elsewhere.  But give it time -- video games
| > will probably beat Hollywood `for real' soon enough.  I know you
| > didn't make this claim -- I think it was Jon Gilbert who did.
| 
| No, but they make a lot more profit and often they gross more than
| the movie does in the theaters.

Yes, but he said `bigger than Hollywood' -- looking at only part of
Hollywood is misleading.

-- 
Doug McLaren, dougmc at frenzied.us
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone.
"I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.