I'm too messed up right now to understand that. Do those facts completely refute my point? Explain it to me like I'm 12 because I can't process those charts right now.

Just think of the console market in terms of ocean tides. High tide (peak sales) is towards the middle of a generation, while low tide is during the transition from one generation to another. We are at low tide right now.

This has been the norm since forever. The current decline in sales is perfectly normal and has little to do with the advent of certain "undesirable" forms of DLC. It was going to be like this regardless of anything else because the console market is cyclical like the ocean tides. If history is any indication, we'll be back at high tide around 2016.

It seems like everybody's got a price. Makes you wonder how they sleep at night. When the sale comes first . . .

I give up. I can't do youtube embeds.

Instructions

2006? I think your numbers are a bit off.

Read my correction. My wording was bad I'M TALKING ABOUT GAME SALES NOT HARDWARE SALES.

Software sales follow the same cycle.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1303.pdf
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3soft_sale_e.html

I'm too messed up right now to understand that. Do those facts completely refute my point? Explain it to me like I'm 12 because I can't process those charts right now.

2006? I think your numbers are a bit off.

Read my correction. My wording was bad I'M TALKING ABOUT GAME SALES NOT HARDWARE SALES.

Software sales follow the same cycle.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e1303.pdf
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3soft_sale_e.html

You want videogames to be the biggest, freeest sandbox in the universe, and there are some games trying to do that, but they can't all. It's one of the most basic rules of art: restrictions force interesting choices. On my own, I might never have come up with the awesome costume my hypothetical City of Heroes superhero wears, but because I'm restricted by what is available, I'm able to make it personal and badass using tools that somebody else made.

Hardly an expression of uniqueness, and is really just its own sort of conformity.

Yes well, so is spending the money on the game in the first place. But then, conformity does not always equal bad.

The irony of this sort of customization is that it's expression in the worst possible way, in the sense that you're expressing yourself through consumption rather than creation.

You think that bacon skin makes you unique? There's thousands of other people who have it too. All you have to do is spend $1. Hardly an expression of uniqueness, and is really just its own sort of conformity.

Yeah, I don't think most people are trying to be unique though honestly. For example, I don't think anyone is under the impression that the Master Chief armor they bought for their XBox Live Avatar is "unique" they just think it's cool. Buying it because people do or do not have it seems ridiculous. If you like it and have expendable money that's the reason to buy it. The main reason I've never bought something like that is because I've never thought the skins or anything are cool enough to justify the $1-$5 that various games and services charge for them. A major part of that being I think they should be unlockable in the game anyway without having to pay.

Guardians of Destiny pointed out a video talking about this very subject by MoreConsole on Youtube that pointed out what Activision has done in the past. While I don't like the idea, it wouldn't ruin the game for me if what he talks about was implemented.

The irony of this sort of customization is that it's expression in the worst possible way, in the sense that you're expressing yourself through consumption rather than creation.

You think that bacon skin makes you unique? There's thousands of other people who have it too. All you have to do is spend $1. Hardly an expression of uniqueness, and is really just its own sort of conformity.

2006? I think your numbers are a bit off.

Read my correction. My wording was bad I'M TALKING ABOUT GAME SALES NOT HARDWARE SALES.

The decline in sales of games would have something to do with the RELEASE of those consoles at around that time.

What you're seeing now is the long tail at the end of a console lifespan, where people buy less because they're less hyped. You end up with a few big releases, instead of people buying everything and its mother.

When the PS4 and next XBox come out, you'll see that spike again. But with gaming becoming more and more mainstream, it's always interesting to see when consumers throw up their arms and give up buying new specifically-branded boxes for under their TV...

Let's see. Since 2006 console sales have been declining (and PC sales have been going up). I don't recall aggressive microtransactions in many, if any, games prior to 2005. People hate them.

So putting 2 and 2 together… is it possible that sales are slumping because people are tired of this microtransaction DLC bullshit that's common on consoles, but NOT on the PC?

It seems to me that it is not that successful from that perspective. Do they have anything to do with one another? I don't know, but it's not impossible.

2006? I think your numbers are a bit off. The Wii's annual hardware sales numbers didn't peak until 2008 and the PS3 didn't peak until like 2010 and the 360 not until 2011. I haven't done the math (and I'm not including the DS or PSP here), but total annual console sales for this generation peaked in 2009. That total consoles sales are declining is perfectly normal. As I explained a few weeks ago, the console market is cyclical. The transition period from one generation to another is always a low point. New systems always start off with slow sales, then sales pick up speed, peak several years after launch (usu. 2-3; the PS3 and 360 are outliers in that they peaked 5 and 6 years after their launches), and start to decline, and then the next generation starts to renew the cycle. All told, more consoles have been sold during this past generation than in any prior generation (254 million vs. 211 million combined for all four sixth-gen consoles). Console sales are declining because nearly everyone who wants any of them has bought them. If the normal pattern holds — and it has held for every post-crash generation — console sales will start to rebound by the end of next year and reach their next peak somewhere about 2015-2016.

Given the cyclical nature of the console market, the rise of microtransaction-based DLC is obviously not a cause of the decline in sales, but it might be a symptom of it (or the two phenomena may be unrelated entirely). While DLC for console titles emerged during the sixth generation, it was the seventh generation that really saw it take off; you not only didn't see microtransactions before 2005, you didn't see much if any DLC at all for console games (the first Halo 2 map packs, which are the first notable pieces of console DLC I'm aware of, were released in April 2005). Microtransactions are just the latest evolution of DLC, and like all DLC is, at least in principle, created to generate more revenue to compensate for increased development costs and declining inflation-adjusted retail prices of software ("AAA" games can cost 100 times more to develop than their 16-bit counterparts, whereas in the past 20 years, inflation-adjusted game prices have declined by upwards of 50%). Whether said type of DLC is actually worthwhile and benefits the customer is another question altogether. We can argue the relative merits of microtransactions and other forms of DLC all day long, but it is clear that none of it is to blame for declining console sales. Console sales always start to decline several years into a generation, and the PS3 and 360 experienced steady growth long after the typical peak.

While I rather not see see microtransactions because I feel they cheapen the experience, if the core gameplay experience is rewarding I would probably overlook any horse armor in the game.

I give up. I can't do youtube embeds.

Also, re: upgrading your PC? I get a good 5-6 years out of a machine before it needs an upgrade, especially these days when the tech-plateau seems to be leveling off, at least for games. Unless you're trying to get games from the classic era to work, gaming on a PC isn't any more complicated than gaming on a console.

even talking about what MAY go wrong with the game gets me excited about it.

Haha, I know what you mean. Even though I look like a crazy person arguing on this forum sometime I enjoy myself thoroughly.

Let's see. Since 2006 console sales have been declining (and PC sales have been going up). I don't recall aggressive microtransactions in many, if any, games prior to 2005. People hate them.

[Bold is my emphasis]

If you are referring to the number of Computers purchased vs. that of gaming consoles you may be correct, but overall PC sales are actually going down. Desktops in particular are in decline and laptops are not fairing much better due to the popularity and versatility of tablets (not just ipads, but android and windows systems).

Sorry my wording was bad. Game sales for consoles are going down, where game sales for PCs are on the rise. Not the hardware.