Gamers Largely Clueless About Next-Gen Console Media Capabilities
By Steve on Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 at 10:19 AM PST In Game Consoles, Game Platforms, Game Related Science, Games Industry, Microsoft, Sony
It truly seems that buying a console is eerily becoming similar to the experience of buying a car. In a future scenario we’ll be strolling into Circuit City, where we’ll be greeted by Dave, the electronics ambassador. Dave, of course, will have a relentless smile and reek of 4 cups of Starbucks. After compressing his entire life story within 60 seconds, oh-so-chipper Dave will then proceed to do somersaults whilst convincing you that owning the “UberBox 2160″ electronic gaming device will truly complete your life. If that doesn’t work, he will then proceed to convince you that owning the stylish “Pay-station WalletBeater Zero” will bind you infinitely closer with your loved ones. And so on and so forth, until one of you pulls off a finishing move out of Mortal Kombat game…
A brief list of keywords consumers are almost sure to see/hear when buying a future console: brand, model, year, revision, color, water-proofing option, kid-proofing option (a fortune to be made here), turbo package, family package, bling package (spinners!), neon-light kit, carbon-fiber optical tray, carbon-fiber case, carbon-fiber buttons, carbon-fiber-neon-light buttons, old console trade-in value credit, background credit check, insurance, insurance of insurance, insurance of insurance of repair insurance, a written guarantee from the president of the company that your broken console will not be stopped by shortage of boxes, and of course free complimentary air freshener.
Ok, so I got carried away there. On a more serious note, a new study from the NPD Group has shown that gamers are largely clueless when it comes to what their console really is capable of. This naivety in itself isn’t totally new as Gaming Today covered a similar topic in a previous yet unrelated report. This particular survey consisted of 6,260 responses from next-generation console owners (assumably 360 and PS3), ages six to 44. Anyway, on to statistics that matter:
- 50 percent of gamers in the study knew the system featured high-definition graphics
- 30 percent of gamers knew about the high-definition function of the 360
- 40 percent of PS3 owners knew that the system even had Blu-ray built-in
- only half of those people had played a Blu-ray movie in the last ten times they turned on their PS3
I still find it highly disturbing that a considerable chunk of consumers either don’t know or don’t care that their brand new console is HD capable. Sony would have you believing otherwise, assuming you listen to their Blu-Ray rhetoric. The obvious conclusion drawn from these statistics is that consoles are still viewed primarily as gaming devices, with media capabilities taking a severe back seat (more like the trunk). The success of the Wii only fortifies the theory that simple and cheap sells best.
Can the average consumer keep up with the increasing complexity of a modern console platform? I always come back to the analogy of a family purchasing a Hummer H2 to transport their family back and forth to school and/or work, all within a 10 mile radius. Paying a considerable amount of money for a console and not using its full HD potential is pretty much the same.
Next I’d like to see an advanced study of so-called hardcore gamers and their ability to tell the difference between a 720p and 1080p display.
Via Arstechnica
Your argument is based on the assumption that PS3 and Xbox 360 formats will prevail. Any argument based on assumption is a poor argument. I think Consoles need to stay simple. Otherwise the line between Home Computer and Video Game Console is dissolved.
“40 percent of PS3 owners knew that the system even had Blu-ray built-in…
only half of those people had played a Blu-ray movie in the last ten times they turned on their PS3″
Which means 20% of PS3 owners are using it regularly to watch BluRay films. And people think this is bad?
I find these statistics highly unbelievable however. How can early adopting PS3 owners not know it has a BluRay drive? It’s games are on BluRay discs, it’s sold in deals with BluRay films, it has BluRay logos on the packaging, it talks about BluRay in the manual and it’s an option in the onscreen menu.
The report also states that “71 percent of PS3 owners and likely purchasers, rate backward compatibility as the most important PS3 function”
WTF?????
I don’t know a single PS3 owner that would even put that in the top 10 reasons to buy.
If that doesnt make you see this report as the steaming pile of shit it is then I don’t know what will.
http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_070809.html
I’m afraid that this article’s perspective is extremely one-directional and most certainly biased (and for its purpose, poorly). This is the same sort of argument people toss out analogous to ‘There’s something wrong with you if you don’t DL and play the demos and watch the movies available on Steam if you own Half-Life 2′, which again is completely absurd. I respect that with consoles with the kind of functional ability as a PS3 (and if I may posit, PS2) or an XBox 360, that the console market is a) diverse and b) quite strong, I do not fear nor suspect that console gaming will ever replace- or if I may say so, will ever be superior to- desktop PC or Macintosh gaming. Look at games like ‘Black’, released only a year and a quarter ago with two spectacular trailers (one of which I still watch on a regular basis, it bluntly was that good) but because of poor marketing was (as I have gathered over the past year) quickly a complete failure. The problem? No PC version. If there had been one, I think Black would still be strong in the market, and I know just from the trailers I’d've bought a copy. I have no desire to blow $400-$700 (comparing the +/- price for a PS2 and PS3) on a proprietary gaming system that will be old news in a year or two (if not sooner) and can pretty much only be used to play games made for that system (which inidividually are more often than not considerably more expensive that a similar (or same port) PC game). I would much rather invest in a computer upgrade (a top-of-the-line NVidia VPU wouldn’t set you back further than the cost of a PS3, and AFAIK an ATI even less) than that.
To enucleate and conclude, I have nothing personal against consoles. Nor do I suspect I will absolutely not invest in one someday. But right now for the gaming _and_ work I do, an IBM PC is worth a great deal more to me as a tool and gaming platform combined than any console system. What’s important is what you really want and need to do with your rig (or console), and chastising users for not immediately replacing their DVD collection with Blu-ray versions because they have a PS3 or downloading and installing every bit of freely supplied online content on XBox Live will do nothing more than piss them off.
Regards, Worker.
I was going to get a Wii based on the cheap-price tag and the oh-so innovative gameplay, but then I realized the system did not have a decent line-up worth waiting for and planned out my money for a camera instead. Is this one of the first times that the Wii was SO appealing to a broad public demographic that it didn’t appear to a gamer because of their overly casual “Wii-fit” and Wii sports?
“I would much rather invest in a computer upgrade (a top-of-the-line NVidia VPU wouldn’t set you back further than the cost of a PS3, and AFAIK an ATI even less) than that.”
The trouble is that to keep playing the latest PC games at any kind of decent quality you have to shell out the price of a console on a new graphics card every year or so. I bought a $700 X1900XTX at launch last year and it wont run the newest games at a decent FPS on highest settings. If you spent $500 on a console however you would actually see an improvement in graphics year after year with the same original hardware.
“I have no desire to blow $400-$700 (comparing the +/- price for a PS2 and PS3) on a proprietary gaming system that will be old news in a year or two (if not sooner)”
Yet you advocate doing so on a GPU that will be out of date even quicker?
I love PC gaming but unlike you I’m not blinded to the fact that console gaming offers vastly better value for money for the simple reason that developers get the best they can out of the hardware.
If these statistics are true and unbiased, wouldnt it prove that the games make the console? People buy consoles because of the games and not of what the console can do.
People buy consoles because the games are easier to play than PC games. In terms of, just placing a disc in the tray, and being able to go, instead of determining if your drivers are compatible, your processor, and the like. It’s ridiculous.
“pfft, facts are meaningless, you can use any trivial statistic to prove anything that is remotely true, 14% of all people know that”
-Homer Simpson
Statistics are always fun to throw around and abuse. That’s why I tried to cushion the report with tongue placed firmly in cheek. You can’t take these kind of statistics too serious, because they can’t explain the mental state of the individual at purchase. I can almost guarantee you 10 to 20% of consoles are bought because of subtle messaging and strategic advertisements. I kid you not, companies have researched how certain colors, sounds, and words affect the brain. I wouldn’t be surprised if TV and magazine ads had subliminal messaging in them. Tin Foil Hat anyone?
The great thing with consoles right now is that we have choices. I consider this a very good thing. I just hate exclusivity.
The premise of this article leaves me with the desire to throw out my DVD player and QUICKLY replace it with a PS3… So I can watch movies??
I think the author hit the red button with the statement; “The obvious conclusion drawn from these statistics is that consoles are still viewed primarily as gaming devices, with media capabilities taking a severe back seat (more like the trunk).”
Thank goodness journalism still has the ability to be sharp and observant on occasion.