Only 20% of the households in US are on broadband?

[Yuriy O]

I have read white papers of IGDA for 2004. They showed a chart where it was showing that only 20% of households in USA have broadband connection.
Is that true? Sounds pretty low to me.

[Jason Chong]

You'll have to ask the definition of 'broadband' in usa.

Does that include Cable TV ?

20 percent is better than below 1 percent in my country. hehehe.

[bmtshareware]

I have read white papers of IGDA for 2004. They showed a chart where it was showing that only 20% of households in USA have broadband connection.

a different set of numbers, not based on households, but on the percentage split between broadband/narrowband users...

http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/pr/pr_040818.pdf

[James C. Smith]

First of all, that information is already out of date. But you also have to be careful to take note of what is being compared. Many of the people without broadband have no Internet at all. Recent reports indicate that 51% of the US households on the Internet are using broadband and 49% use narrow band. But that is very different than saying 51% of the US household have broadband. I think that number would be closer to 35%.

[arcadetown]

Plus would expect broadband penetration to continue growing as dsl and cable providers continue to get into the more affordable range. In the LA area here dsl providers now have low end offerings in the $25 - $30 / month range. Getting right there in the AOL dialup price range. Our dsl had problems and went back to dialup for couple weeks just recently... drove home how precious that dear broadband really is :cool:

[Yuriy O]

Yes, I was referring to the Internet Service percentage of all households in US.
I believe around 30% would be more correct now days...

[Sunshine]

No, that can't possibly be correct. 20% is way too low.
I just moved from an area where you could get broadband (DSL) for 29.99 per month, and I had Cable for 39.99 per month.

As comparison, only a few years ago just the dialup alone was 19.99, and some still pay that today.

Of course another thing you have to take into account is that some people just don't want it. I for instance use dial-up and it works just fine [plus keeps me off the UnrealTournement ;) ]

[anothersomething]

In LA (around the Thousand Oaks area) you can get SBC DSL for 26.95 monthly. But what would really be useful is not what percent of internet users have broadband, but what percent of gamers have fast connections.

[princec]

I think the Steam survey gives a very good indication of that demographic.

Cas :)

[Dominique Biesmans]

I think the Steam survey gives a very good indication of that demographic.
Cas :)

The Steam survey can tell you something about the average FPS player, but surely not about the average gamer?

[princec]

I make a (fairly reasonable) assumption that FPS players also play most other kinds of retail game. There will be some error in that assumption but it's a reasonable base to start from. The demographic is probably slightly different to most indies here and very different to the kinds of people that buy Dexterity-style games.

Cas :)

[BongPig]

I thought the avarage gamer is a FPS gamer?

All of my game playing friends play shooters. I would think they *are* the avarage gamer. FPS sell in millions.

As hard is it might be to swallow, people that enjoy casual games such as bejeweled etc are in the minority.

[tolik]

I thought the avarage gamer is a FPS gamer?

All of my game playing friends play shooters. I would think they *are* the avarage gamer. FPS sell in millions.

As hard is it might be to swallow, people that enjoy casual games such as bejeweled etc are in the minority.

Have you asked yourself the number of Bejeweled and Magic Ball copies sold worldwide? :)

[BongPig]

O, come on!
Do you honestly believe ( no matter how well an individual title has sold ) that casual gamers make up the majority out there?
Are you mad? :confused:

[BongPig]

.. or to put it simply,

Does anybody actually believe that more casual games are sold every year than FPS?

( let alone 3D racing games, which is generally the other thing FPS gamers like to play. )

[nalenb]

My guess is that usage is pretty high in big cities where dsl and cable are offered and even have competition, but there are huge areas of the US where broadband isn't even offered. I'm hardly 40 miles outside of Boston and there's no DSL and only 1 cable provider.

[Jim Buck]

In an article pointed to in another thread:

http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=570

broadband users in the U.S. are 51% of total internet users in the U.S.. Whether they are game-buying is another story..

[James C. Smith]

A agree that the Steam statistics are mostly irrelevant to developers of Indie and downloadable games. I do not care what “gamers” have. My target market is not “gamers”. There may (or may not) be more “gamer targeted games” sold than “casual” games. But most of these “gamer’s” are not going to buy downloadable games. They expect more contents and high production values. Most Indie and downloadable games sold are casual game. And people who play casual game are a very different crowed than gamers who play FPS games.

Even if there is a bigger marker for FPS games, you can’t compete in that space unless you have a publisher and a 3 million dollar budget. If you want to make Indie and downloadable games you will have to start looking at what types of games sell in that market and who buys them and what Internet connection they have. Forget about what FPS games have and how many of them there are. (you could also decide to focus on a niche and make hard core games. That is also a fine strategy for a small Indie. Just don’t compare apples and oranges when looking at statistics)

[BongPig]

Look, im not trying to start a debate as to what people should be making or buying. Just that most gamers in the US that are on broadband, are likely to be interested in HL2. So steams survey would probably give us a better idea of how many *gamers* are on broadband then the original broad statistic of 20%.

I was *trying* to stay on topic for once. :D

[Chaster]

.. or to put it simply,

Does anybody actually believe that more casual games are sold every year than FPS?

( let alone 3D racing games, which is generally the other thing FPS gamers like to play. )

YES

The number of casual gamers far outweighs the hardcore gamers. Ask any reputable publisher.

[princec]

I'm afraid that although I'd like to agree intuitively I also have to disagree. The retail market, bulk of which is made of non-casual games, is a vast sprawling money making empire, and the indie games scene, even with the big portals now fighting over the pie, is just a winnet on its backside.

Cas :)

[tentons]

One difference is that even if casual gamers outnumber "hardcore" gamers, the hardcore players are more ravenous and make many more purchases each compared to a casual player. So I agree with princec; look at sales, not population.

[princec]

Aye. I wonder how many of these "housewife gamers" have only ever bought one game ("Alchemy" or some such mindless timewaster) and had their gaming fix sorted for the next 3 years?

Cas :)

[Gmicek]

Quick, name some of the highest selling games of all time. Doom may be up there, sure, but at the top you've got Myst, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and the Sims.

[BongPig]

Gregory,
Please. Tell me youre all winding me up here!

Myst is a single game. No competition from anybody. Same with the Sims. How can you compare that with whole genres with dozens of competing titles coming out every year, each of which sell very well? Wheres the competition for Sims? No wonder it sells so well.

If casual gaming was the larger sector, where are all the casual game websites? Why is 90% of the online gaming community non-casual. Why would there be 10 profitable non-casual websites for every single casual site.

Is everybody stupid? Is there a huge gaping unexplored sector just waiting to make casual developers rich? Dont be silly.

As Cas said, it is but a whinnet on the ass of the gaming sector as a whole.

[Wayward]

All of these sales figures apply to the retail sector (and not to us indies) but the current debate seems to be using retail games as examples.

According to 2004 Sales, Demographics and Usage Data (pdf) (http://www.theesa.com/EFBrochure.pdf): essential facts about the computer and video game industry, the best-selling (by units sold) computer game genres of 2003 were:
Strategy (27.2%)
Shooter (13.5%)
Children's (12.2%)
Family Entertainment (10.0%)
Role-Playing (8.7%)
Sports (5.9%)
Adventure (5.2%)
Racing (4.3%)
Simulation (3.5%)

I found this interesting (from the above source): What kind of games are played online most often?

Puzzle/Board/Game Show/Trivia/Card (54.7%)
Action/Sports/Strategy/Role-Play (21.1%)
Shockwave/Flash/Browser-based Mini Games (13.1%)
Persistent Multiplayer Universe (7.8%)
Other (3.3%)

From the ESA's 2003 Consumer Spending Poll (http://www.theesa.com/industrysales.html):

Top-Selling Console Games

Action (27.1%)
Sports (17.6%)
Racing (15.7%)
Roleplaying (8.7%)

Top Selling (Retail) Computer Games

Strategy (27.1%)
Children's (14.5%)
Shooter (13.5%)
Family Entertainment (9.5%)

The IDSA's Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry (pdf) (http://www.theesa.com/IDSABooklet.pdf) has the top (retail) computer game sales of 2001 by genre as:
Strategy (25.4%)
Child (14.2%)
Family (11.5%)
Action (10.1%)
Role-Playing (8.8%)
Sports (8.1%)
Driving (5.6%)
Simulation (5.6%)
Adventure (4.5%)
Arcade (3.4%)

Top Ten Selling PC Games (http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=9302004-125519) in the US for the week ending on September 18th, 2004:
The Sims 2 DVD Special Edition by Electronic Arts
The Sims 2 by Electronic Arts
Call of Duty: United Offensive by Activision
Madden NFL 2005 by Electronic Arts
EverQuest: Omens of War Expansion by Sony Online Entertainment
Doom 3 by Activision
The Sims Deluxe by Electronic Arts
Call of Duty by Activision
World Poker Championship by ValuSoft
Tournament Poker: No Limit Texas Hold'em by Eagle Games

According to comScore Media Metrix, in May 2004, there were 82.4 million unduplicated game website users & players in the US, this represents 52.7% of the total US Internet audience (from RealArcade Factsheet (pdf) (http://gamedevs.realarcade.com/GameSubmission/RealArcade_factsheet.pdf)). This wired article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/gaming.html) also claims there are 82.5 million players in the casual gaming sector (probably the same source).

Also of interest:
The Economic Impacts of the Demands for Playing Interactive Entertainment (pdf) (http://www.theesa.com/releases/EIS2001.pdf).
Wondering What Consumers Will Be Buying This Holiday Season? New IDSA Data (http://www.theesa.com/holidaybuying.htm) 2002.
Casual Games are Serious Business (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/tech_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=100053524 5)
Indies Show They've Got Game (http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,59728-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1) is a wired article that mentions PopCap and Pyrogen.
The BBC ran Games industry woos 'casual players' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3710209.stm), Industry 'ignoring' casual gamers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3620518.stm), UK turning into nation of gamers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3613916.stm), Women take a shine to video games (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3615278.stm), and Net games lure 'bored housewives' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3791983.stm).

[BongPig]

Well there we go. Some nice numbers.
Thanks Wayward.

Ok, from that first list alone, only Childrens, Family and *maybe* adventure could be considered casual games. The rest certainly are not.

The online play list is very interesting. Clearly, when it comes to playing online ( especially via a browser ) the casual sector has it licked. Quite suprising really, at least to me it is!
Gives us alot of hope though doesnt it!? :)

Console games... lets not even go there. Casual gamers are not represented.

Retail sales. Again, quite suprised me. Still clearly non-casual games are ahead, but not by the huge margin I thought. Still quite big though.

Same with the final list.

So, in conclusion. None of us were completely right. I certainly underestimated the scale of casual gaming. I conceed.
BUT, the larger market share by quite a margin is non-casual games.

[Chaster]

I thought the question asked was how many casual gamers there are vs. hardcore gamers....?

I believe there are more casual gamers. The statistics in the papers quoted by wayward do not include online distribution - which is the current primary distribution method of casual games. RealArcade alone has millions of subscribers who buy games at the rate of thousands per day. And according to Wired magazine, RealArcade is behind Yahoo/MSN/AOL in share for this market.

However, I also believe the statement "the casual gaming market may be smaller". There are several reasons:

1) casual gamers pay less for their games (on average $15-$20 vs. $50-$60).
2) casual games are often not included in "surveys of the computer gaming market" (especially the online games - which make up a sizeable bulk of the casual gaming market).
3) Most of the "big" publishers do not pursue the casual gaming market because they are dependent on the larger profit margins of the hardcore *RETAIL* gaming market. In order to actually make money in retail, a game must sell for a minimum of $30. Those $20 "budget games"? They are making almost zero profit, and often they are actually just losing money, but the publisher is trying to make back some of their investment by selling left over stock at a loss.

Here's the REAL question you (and every other developer - indie or not) should be asking themselves: Which genre makes the most profit for THE DEVELOPER?

Sales numbers are a nice thing to look at, but with the typical retail game having a less than 10% chance of becoming successful (actually, many publishers cite even lower chances) from a publisher's standpoint (i.e. they make back more money than they cost to produce) AND the fact that most retail developers are fighting it out in the same genres (how many FPS's are out there right now?....) AND the fact that most developers get raped by the publishers/distributors... well, y'all can just keep your "huge hardcore market" - I'll take the "tiny" casual gaming market myself... thanks very much. =)

[tentons]

Quick, name some of the highest selling games of all time. Doom may be up there, sure, but at the top you've got Myst, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and the Sims.

How many of those people also bought Doom 3? You have to exclude them from the equation since they aren't "casual."

More importantly, name how many other games each of those people bought since/before compared to how many games each person who bought Doom 3 purchased since/before. Again, look at unique sales--not just for a single title.

Let's say Ethel bought The Sims in 2002 because she liked Tetris and this looked really fun, too (since you've lumped those demographics together). Ethel has only bought 2 other games (a color matching game and a card game) in the 2 years since.

LeetKid, on the other hand, bought Doom 3 the day it came out. And bought 30 other games the day they came out (some he even pre-ordered) in the past 2 years because he's nuts about games. He goes to forums daily and builds buzz constantly to get his fix.

Who do you want as a customer?

The potential market might indeed be larger, but the generation of sales is really what puts money in the bank. That's why FPS/action and RTS games are the bread and butter of retail and why it's a multi-billion dollar industry.

So I personally am not interested in the casual gamer. I'm looking for someone in the middle. Somebody who will buy a lot of games, talk about them, and will be coming back for more. So my games will (eventually, ideally) be somewhere between a color matcher and Doom 3. :D

[BongPig]

Its a good point. I really thought there were more non-casual gamers, but in truth, there isnt. Its a suprising stat.

So, there ARE more casual gamers. :o
...but many more non-casual games are sold. :D

Im sure we can all agree on that.

[Wayward]

...only 20% of households in USA have broadband connection. Is that true?
George Gilder Says So

The chart from the IGDA Web 2004 (pdf) (http://www.igda.org/online/IGDA_WebDL_Whitepaper_2004.pdf) you referred to got its figures from a forbes article titled Korean Broadband Explosion (http://www.forbes.com/2003/08/27/cz_0827soapbox.html) by George Gilder (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=10&isFellow=true) and Charles Burger (http://www.gildertech.com/public/Telecosm%202003/SpeakerBios/Burger.html). Gilder is the author of many books (http://www.discovery.org/technology/gilderBooks.php), and editor of the Gilder Technology Report (http://www.gildertech.com/). As recently as April 28 2004, Gilder spoke on Telecommunications Policy (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2022) before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, where he said:

The U.S. now ranks eleventh internationally in residential "broadband" access. Using the FCC’s silly 200-kilobit-per-second definition, some now say that 25 percent of American homes have broadband. But by the standards of Asia—where most citizens enjoy access speeds 10 times faster than our fastest links—U.S. residences have no broadband at all. U.S. businesses have far less broadband than South Korean residences. South Korea, for instance, has 40 times the per capita bandwidth of the U.S. Japan is close behind Korea, and countries from China to Italy are removing obstacles to the deployment of vDSL, fiber-to-the-home, and broadband wireless networks.Read more articles (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=George%20Gilder&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all) (and more (http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~gaj1/ggindex.html)) by Gilder, or learn about the man himself (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive//4.03/gilder.html?person=george_gilder&topic_set=wiredpeople).

I'm not trying to say that this Gilder chap is right (he seems to have an agenda) but he knows his stuff.


20% Confirmed by the Census

A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/) is the sixth report released by the U.S. Department of Commerce examining the use of computers, the Internet, and other information technology tools by the American people. It confirms that only 19.9% of all U.S. households are on broadband.

The report, based on the U.S. Census, is available as html (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.htm), doc (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.doc), or pdf (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.pdf), and you can get the raw census data (http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/computer/computer.htm) too.

This topic is also discussed at the Slashdot Report: Broadband In US Homes Nearly 20 Percent (http://slashdot.org/articles/04/11/23/156224.shtml?tid=103&tid=1).


The Short Answer

Yes, it's true.


Updated Figures

Broadband steams ahead in the US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4120297.stm).

[princec]

That figure is enormous. Hurrah! That's over 50m people on broadband.

Cas :)

[Nutter]

[i]the best-selling (by units sold) computer game genres of 2003 were:
Strategy (27.2%)
Shooter (13.5%)
Children's (12.2%)
Family Entertainment (10.0%)
...



Ok, from that first list alone, only Childrens, Family and *maybe* adventure could be considered casual games. The rest certainly are not.

Console games... lets not even go there. Casual gamers are not represented.

Retail sales. Again, quite suprised me. Still clearly non-casual games are ahead, but not by the huge margin I thought. Still quite big though.
Pretty much that entire Childrens category is taken up by licenses such as Sponge Bob Square Pants and whatever else is the currently "in" thing. I'd be very surprised if there's anything other than licenses making up anything significant there, and those licenses are far out of the reach of indies. I'm not sure what's counted as "Family Entertainment", but it's probably a similar story.
Given that the console game market is far larger than the PC market, and looking at the two lists, it appears that the first list is actually the best selling PC games, despite that not being mentioned.

I'd be very interested to see the statistics for the second half of 2004 when they come out next year, as I know there's been far more hardcore games released in the last few months than there have been at any time in the last several years - definitely enough to show up on the radar.

[Martoon]

If casual gaming was the larger sector, where are all the casual game websites? Why is 90% of the online gaming community non-casual. Why would there be 10 profitable non-casual websites for every single casual site.


You can't really conclude anything based on this. I think the number of hardcore vs. casual websites is more a product of the difference in culture than the difference in numbers. A hardcore gamer lives, eats, and breathes games, and will spend substantial time reading game news, posting/reading forums, joining clans, etc., so there's a good market for websites that cater to this kind of player. Conversely, the casual player just plays Bejeweled on his coffee break, and doesn't think of games outside of that, so there isn't a need for an online community.

I agree that the hardcore market is a bigger market than the casual. But I think making conclusions from website quantities is an apples vs. oranges fallacy.