The Console Gaming Demographic
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 14, 2005 10:11 AM EST- Posted in
- Anand
Just one week to go before Xbox 360 launches, and I'm sitting here trying to figure out whether my ridiculously overpriced pre-order bundle will ship on time or not.
The idea offering pre-orders only in bundle format is particularly interesting, mainly because I wonder what it does to the accessibility of these new generation of consoles to younger gamers. Take the bundles that ebgames offered: you had two options, you could get the core 360 bundle for $599 or the premium bundle for $699. I remember back to when I was a kid, and there was no way I'd be getting a $700 present for any day of the year. I've proposed the same question to a number of others, and no one seems to have a good response other than "my parents wouldn't have bought me a $700 console bundle when I was a kid." So I truly wonder, who is going to buy the supposed 1 million Xbox 360s that will be available in the US on November 22nd?
There is the possibility that expectations for parents have changed in the past 10 - 20 years, and that if your child wants a $700 Xbox 360 bundle, that it is a reasonable expenditure. I tend to find that hard to believe, as $700 could very well be two car payments, a rent check or pay all utilities for a month, and I do find it hard to believe that parents today would easily spend that on what essentially amounts to a single present.
The more likely option (in my opinion), is that unlike what I had originally expected, console gaming isn't hitting the new generation of kids like it did previous generations, rather it is growing up and getting to kids later on in life. Once you hit your early teens then the possibility for folks to at least start contributing to the price of a $700 bundle becomes possible. Is it just that gamers these days are forced to start later in life because of the sheer cost barrier?
Or am I totally off base here and is $700 just not considered a lot of money anymore? Hmm, if it is the latter option then that would make this the very first "I remember when _____ used to cost _____ in my day" post of my life. Not good.
The idea offering pre-orders only in bundle format is particularly interesting, mainly because I wonder what it does to the accessibility of these new generation of consoles to younger gamers. Take the bundles that ebgames offered: you had two options, you could get the core 360 bundle for $599 or the premium bundle for $699. I remember back to when I was a kid, and there was no way I'd be getting a $700 present for any day of the year. I've proposed the same question to a number of others, and no one seems to have a good response other than "my parents wouldn't have bought me a $700 console bundle when I was a kid." So I truly wonder, who is going to buy the supposed 1 million Xbox 360s that will be available in the US on November 22nd?
There is the possibility that expectations for parents have changed in the past 10 - 20 years, and that if your child wants a $700 Xbox 360 bundle, that it is a reasonable expenditure. I tend to find that hard to believe, as $700 could very well be two car payments, a rent check or pay all utilities for a month, and I do find it hard to believe that parents today would easily spend that on what essentially amounts to a single present.
The more likely option (in my opinion), is that unlike what I had originally expected, console gaming isn't hitting the new generation of kids like it did previous generations, rather it is growing up and getting to kids later on in life. Once you hit your early teens then the possibility for folks to at least start contributing to the price of a $700 bundle becomes possible. Is it just that gamers these days are forced to start later in life because of the sheer cost barrier?
Or am I totally off base here and is $700 just not considered a lot of money anymore? Hmm, if it is the latter option then that would make this the very first "I remember when _____ used to cost _____ in my day" post of my life. Not good.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
punko - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
As a father of two, there is no way I would spend $700 bucks on a single (even if considered combined) present.This pricing is just for the nutcases that can afford it. Wait until the price comes down and you're in. Mind you, I have no intention of ever getting a console for the boys. If they want one so bad, they'll have to get it themselves, but they'd also have to count on buying a TV as well, because there is no way they're strapping that thing to my TV (its dedicated to hockey, and whatever mindless home improvement shows the wife watches)
As a note, I won't pay $700 for a video card, even if it is my hobby. I keep one step back from the bleeding edge and do just fine, thank you. My CPU is 4 years old, and everything works just fine (it is near the end of its life, though). I've made 2 video card upgrades over that time, both times for less than $250.
"Gaming" means boardgames (not the old crap like Monopoly and Risk, but real ones that actually cause you to think) and PC games. I won't support a habit based on that repetitive pap that shows up on consoles.
overclockingoodness - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
Goes on to show how much American parents care for their children, and by that I don't mean not buying them a $700 present.I don't know about you, but that's just disturbing. Right from the beginning, you are seeding differences in your children.
Double standards, eh? So PC Games make you think, but console games don't. Well, that's a verifiable theory. Just admit the fact that you can't afford the latest gadgets (neither can I, by the way) instead of hiding behind stupid excuses.
Bubbacub - Friday, November 25, 2005 - link
he has a point, console gaming is generally a bit dumbed down compared to pc gaming (admitedly the first xbox put the ps2 to shame for games which required more than button bashing)glennpratt - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
I do hope you see the irony here, when the cost of playing latest and greatest games on PC is approaching astronomical. Not to mention the ever moving target (I can play the latest Xbox game on my 4 year old Xbox, but can I play the latest PC game on my 4 year old video card? NOPE.)Another point, kids are getting games much younger because there is much more choice in the system. You can still get Dreamcasts and N64 at you local game store for chump change, so really young kids are just no longer the forefront of gaming, which is a good thing IMO.
George Powell - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
I do agree but only to a point.One of the things in PC gaming that has required a lot more power from the graphics card is resolution. Remember that a console only has one resolution, and that is very low. Also a console only ever has to acheive a certain frame rate - 30fps.
If we still played games at 640 x 480 then we would not need such powerful and expensive setups.
High definition for TV (as in resolution) has already been achievable on PC monitors for many years.
BenSkywalker - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
You know the 360 runs 1280x720 w4x AA right? The PS3 is going to run 1920x1080. Even the current gen has some high def games, next gen it is standard for all titles not headed for a Nintendo console.AxemanFU - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link
I think it's funny that 6 months ago, they were talking about how these new gen consoles were goign to crush the life out of PC graphics cards, and make PC gaming obsolete, and already, before they're even released, we have a new generation of grpahics cards out from the 2 big boys that are signifigantly more powerful than that of these new consoles, and they're only going to go up from there. By 2 years into these console's lifespans, they'll have obsolete graphics relative to a PC, but because that's all there is with the console, the programmers will innovatively push what they have to work with to the max. Yes, the nex gen consoles will be very nice, and also very expensive, but in a couple of years a budget PC video card will put them to total shame grpahically. It's always been this way, and until they make more upgradeable consoles (coming with the complete merging of consoles and PCs in the next generation after this one I imagine), then the console will always start to look dated after a year or two. Frankly, I was never really impressed with the original xbox graphics either, because I was seeing PC game demos and hardware already putting it to shame back before it was released as well. 1 thing for consoles: They always work and almost never crash, and you don't have to worry about compatability and upgrading, cause the games will never push the hardware beyond practical capability. Now if they could just get a good mouse/keyboard solution for us REAL FPS players..... :)Gannon - Thursday, November 17, 2005 - link
In my opinion games have been hitting the law of diminishing returns for me for the last few years. I've been gaming for 15 years ever since 1985-87 since the NES days. Gaming in almost every arena has been getting less exciting as we get sequel-itis out the ying-yang. Sure we get excited about new consoles and games, but I really do wonder after we get this round of consoles and their games just how excited *we'll really be* or if it will be more of a Pyrrhic victory (A victory achieved at great or excessive cost; a ruinous victory). While our consoles or games collect dust or sit in their shrink wraps as we purchase things we collect more often then play, or are more disinterested and find a lack of depth and enjoyment.Pythias - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Exactly. Lets hope they dont go designing new consoles every 18 months :P
Pythias - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link
Certainly beats spending 700 bucks on a video card. At least you know with a console, you're good for 5 years worth of playability.