Video games dodge tough economy

http://uk.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=92390&videoChannel=5

yep I know. In recession people go out less and buy games and watch DVDs etc. Bodes well for me.

Games are expensive, and to most families suffering from financial shortfall these days, I'd say they'd be the first to go where the budget is concerned.

I think it has more to do with the fact that the job security of the tech sector (programmers, developers, professional computer geeks, etc.) hasn't been affected nearly as badly as other professions (at least so far.. knock on wood...)

Because we have more disposable income, and are "into" that sort of thing by the very nature that we're computer geeks, the game industry benefits from one of it's largest target audiences.

Hmm, not sure I agree there. On a cost per hour basis, games are still the cheapest form of entertainment, when compared to DVD's, cinema, going bowling, theatre, etc....
A good game will get around 50-60 hours play time for approx £30, so you're looking at anything as cheap as 50p per hour of play. A DVD is approx £10 for 2 hours, so £5 per hour, cinema is £6.50 for 3 hours, so £2.16 per hour.
And also, you can sell games once you're done with them for a good price normally, unlike DVD's, which drop like rocks in value, and don't even get me started on cinema.

No that's not true as games last quite long and have replayability if you are a little kid. So what goes first are the nights out in restaurants/pubs/cinema etc.

Wait a minute, that's just bad math. You were comparing entertainment value, not "time spent". If that were the case, my job would win hands down, as I get paid (approximately) 50 bucks an hour, and have to work there 37 hours a week!

I paid about 10 bucks to go see The Dark Knight and it was 2,5 hours of entertainment. I paid about $60 for Mass Effect, and while yes it was 6 times as long, it was not 6 times as intense, and a significant portion of the time was spent driving around barren planets getting into the odd fight now and then.

So even though a good game will last you longer (in time) than a good book or a good movie, it's nowhere near as entertaining. Besides with the economic recession most people are going to have to get paying second jobs, so won't have as much time their current second job playing videogames.

Yeah they last longer, but are they more fun? Is any normal person seriously going to go play World of Warcraft instead of going out with their real friends for a night at the pub? Just because it's cheaper by the hour? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.

Measuring enjoyment in "cost per hour" is absurd. No real people do that. If they did, there would be no prostitution.

> Measuring enjoyment in "cost per hour" is absurd. No real people do that.

I must be a nut, I do that all the time.

Define "normal"... cause ten million paying subscribers may disagree with you.

I've been playing Call of Duty 4 online lately, and that's much more entertaining than most films,and more intense. It's enhanced by playing against people you know in real life, so yes, it's cheap entertainment that lasts a long time.

Really? You put a price tag on fun? So you're like "No, I'm not going to spend five bucks on that roller coaster, when I can watch paint dry for cheaper". Yeah. I'd say you're a nut then.

10 million is still a huge minority (even for the socially challenged). That's like what? New York City's worth?

Besides not everyone who has a World of Warcraft subscription would chose to play it, over having real fun over a game of pool or two.

Well in that case I'd agree. Maybe my friends are just too diverse to decide to all want to play a video game, never mind agreeing on a genre or actual game to play.

> "No, I'm not going to spend five bucks on that roller coaster, when I can watch paint dry for cheaper".

Since I'm deathly afraid of heights, yes I would rather watch paint dry. (and indeed have done so numerous times with my models)

More to the point - If there is a choice between two things I would like to do, I generally choose the more cost effective of the two.

As an example, I rarely go on trips - I would rather buy something I can use repeatedly instead. In the end, the amount of money and time I have is finite and I try to make the best use of it.

@ Flameduck

Your point about games vs. film is subjective. Most people will agree it is fun to play a game or go see a film. Your logic assumes the privilege of having enough money to be picky. Mathematically speaking you do get more "fun escape time" for your money with a game.

Fair enough. I'd chose the most fun one. In the end the amount of fun you have is also finite, and I want as much as I can get.

That's the same as saying that mathematically you get more for your money with manure than doughnuts, but if you have to live on it, it's really not the same and I don't think entertainment is much different.

Like I said I think we can all agree that games and movies are fun. A strong contrast to manure being inedible if your goal of the manure or doughnuts was to eat them.

I think you can say that cost is definatly a factor in the decision making process but you have to compare sufficiently similar products to make a valid comparison.

All lesiure activities are going to be effected by how much money you have, and this is ONE but my no means the ONLY factor you will consider when choosing how to spend your lesiure time.

You cannot compare a night at the opera (which could easily cost £150 for 3 hours) to buying a pack of chewing gum (which could easily last for 4 hours).

However because I do have less money available I am using my postal renting account to rent movies for ~£1 a time rather than paying for the cinema (which can cost us as a family £25). This is a particularly valid comparison because if I do one more I will do the other less, for obvious reasons.

Darkheart

My assertion wasn't to crap all over the obvious benefit to all of us that the video game market is flourishing.

I was merely implying that unaffected disposable income levels of the household are probably more tied to flourishing game sales than the perceived accrued entertainment value. I think Flameduck was the only one seeing where my logic was going.

Games are lucky enough to straddle the line of the IT industry and entertainment industry. And if IT folks are buying games, it's self-feeding to a certain level.

If I'm incorrect, and it's not tied to those with unaffected disposable income, it will probably be a short-lived victory in the months to come.

Not many little kids buy games. Their parents do. If you watch kids in the game aisle at the local retailer trying to convince their parents to buy a game for them these days, it's a really hard sell.

Then again, some parents use games as a babysitter. At which point, it becomes VERY cost effective.

But that's a different topic. :)