I buy maybe over a dozen games a year, but sometimes spend less than the price of two fill priced titles. Benefit of patient gaming, and leads to not needing the latest and greatest hardware as a result saving me more money.
So when people complain about optimization of recent triple a titles I have not yet encountered those issues due to being behind.
Yes, I’m also surprised it’s so low, if only because during sales you can get like 3-5 older indie games for $15. Those games are often shorter and have more controlled scope as well, meaning more folks would actually have time to play them.
On the other hand, it means folks are only buying games they’ll actually play, which is good.
There is a difference between saying something is too expensive and that it won’t sell. Otherwise live service games wouldn’t be billion dollar industries and NVIDIA cards selling out.
“Too expensive” means "beyond what the market will bear. Objectively, the Switch 2 didn’t cost enough — there was some other higher price that would have given Nintendo numbers such that while it might not have sold quite as well, what it would have sold would have made up for it. Would the market bear a $500 Switch 2? Maybe. $600? That, I doubt. $450 was a bit high for my liking, but the market bore it just fine and now it’s thriving.
I think skins and lootboxes are too expensive but they make billions so pointing to financial success doesn’t mean much aside for companies which we are not.
I think switch 2 would sell fine at 500. Bigger issue for me is them wanting to raise the price of games, but that is once again different from me not willing to buy it at the price and me making claims about if it will sell.
Product sales and whether you think the product is a price you are fine with are very different things. People are usually talking about their perception of price than a market prediction.
to be fair, people were VERY excited about those two new games. I can see how someone can talk themselves into splurging for it, especially if the Switch is their only handheld. Prices of consoles seem to be going UP over time instead of down, so if you think you’ll want one when there are more games, it’s actually more frugal to buy NOW before chip shortages and tariffs drive the price up even higher.
The only Switch 2 game I even have right now is Deltarune. But I know I'm buying Kirby Air Riders, and I figured it'd be best to make sure I get the console right away in case tariffs fuck anything up by then.
This is me. In my country it cost a lot more to buy here so i imported mine. I just wanted a new Mario kart but the new one kind of suck and donkey kong is… Well it is a game but not very interesting after the novelty has worn off. I play more on my steam deck and kind of regret the buy of a switch 2. Got a huge backlog of switch 1 games too but I never get to the TV to play, too much focus on the computer.
To be fair, Ubisoft isn’t in a good position right now, to be able to experiment or do whatever they want. So the cancellation is understandable, if they expect it to be controversial and flop because of that. In the end, its the fault of the people who had political issues with prior games. I wish people would stop, so that companies can experiment and be more creative.
Which does not change how logical a decision from a company is. To me, the decision to cancel the game makes sense. I wish they would not, but I understand why. And my understanding is not affected by my feelings about how much I like or dislike the company.
They have gone the safest path for over a decade now, making reskins of the same three games over and over to the point where Assassin’s Creed and FarCry which used to be real innovations in their fields are now just boring copies of copies. They haven’t taken a single risk since AC2.
They got negative feedback to including Yasuke - a real historical figure who did exist in the era the game depicts - and now they’d rather preemptively cancel their own game than tell a story about freedom and rebellion from an unusual perspective.
If you don’t really have time to play and you buy as you play, that’s quite understandable. I also noticed this from my Steam friendlist: The people who play less and have fewer games, don’t care if there is a sale or not. They buy games if they want and start playing right away.
The only games I can think of where you fight back against racists as a Black person are Mafia 3 and Assassin’s Creed Freedom Cry. Maybe Dustborn too, if you count alternative history fascism. It’s wild that there isn’t more after so many years of video games. It makes the news of the cancelation incredibly sad.
I used to buy a ton of games. Its now hard to justify with the price of everything going up so dramatically. I still buy more than average, but probably more along the lines of one every few months and never full price releases.
Yeah I’m right there with you. we are the 22% of US game players that are not directly discussed in this article, the ones that are price sensitive but still buying games on a semi-regular basis. Mat Piscatella suggests that it’s that most frequent 14% at the top that are propping up the legacy industry these days, and he’s probably right. I’m inclined to believe that those of us in the next 22% still account for a decent chunk, but more and more of us are shifting towards spending money on live service games only. Idk how some people can afford to spend money on every new game as they come out, that cohort must be almost entirely wealthy folks at this point.
I’ve played live service games with the one I’ve been playing being The Finals, but I’ve spend 0. But, have all the BP just from the multibux I saved up for free.
I’ve wondered what percentage of live service gamers are like me spending no money on them.
I have been a massive fan of Overwatch since launch day. I haven’t spent a dime on it since the original purchase of the game. I haven’t spent anything on any Live Service game either.
I don’t think this is about enthusiasts buying less games, though. We’re not talking about the average number of purchases the consumer makes. This is more evidence that there are a lot more casual players out there, who will make their 0-2 large game purchases a year and play their games over a long time. The college guy who literally only buys a couple sports games that they play online with a friend. The burnt out parent that can only make time for their 2 open world adventure games all year. I know a few people in my life who own a Switch, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing, and that will be literally the only two games they load all year. And this is to say nothing of people who strictly play F2P tirles, which apparently are 33% of players.
“US game players purchase 1-2 games a year on average” is not the same thing as “the bottom 60% of purchasers only purchase 1-2 games a year.” This is evidence that, one, the medium is reaching a much more widespread market and, two, the casual market is often more engaged with F2P titles.
I think if we looked at enthusiasts and hobbiests, there would still be a decline in purchases. I don’t think this is evidence that games have become too expensive for most.
You’re right! The guy that published the info had a funny disclaimer:
Pro-tip, before replying, know that even seeing this post likely puts you into that hyper enthusiast bucket, so the actions of you and your immediate cohort likely do not match those of the general gaming audience.
I have a console. The games I bought (on sale or no) in reverse order are:
expedition 33 (31?)
It Takes Two
Baldur’s Gate
CP2077 (discount)
No man’s Sky (discount)
Days Gone (discount)
Diablo IV
Jedi: Outcast
Horizon: Forbidden West
And it came with the latest(?) god of war, but I’ve never played it.
So if you’re talking about AAA brand new games, my average is under 2 per year. But I have so many hours logged between BG, DG, and NMS it’s ridiculous.
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne