You probably walk past a few every time you visit your local video game store. They might be wearing a NASCAR T-shirt, baggy pants, beige shorts and a Polo, or even the latest and greatest fashions. They are aged between fifteen, twenty, fifty, or anything beyond or before. They could be alone in the store, or a parent shopping with their young child. They can be seen scanning through the PS2, Wii, 360, or PS3 sections. They buy sports games, RPGs, Action Advernture titles, FPSs, and yes, even mini-game collections and titles like Wii Fit. They also tend to only want to spend around $30 on a game. They look just like you, but they are not you.
Who are they?
They are what I like to call the 'year-laters.'
A year-later is a person that only buys games that came out at least a year ago and have significantly dropped in price since their release. They are not clued-in to the latest game news and reviews. They don't read websites like this or game magazines. They are more likely to buy a title based on how many of their friends are playing it or just based on the games cover image. They are not 'hardcore,' but they are legion.
When I was working video game retail, I was staggered at how many year-laters there are. One week, I decided to unscientifically track how many customers I served that displayed the habits of a year-later, and got a rough estimate of at least four to one. Once I watched the phenomena, I became shocked with how much they games industry ignores this type of gamer.
Of course, there is a good reason they are ignored. First, they are more likely to buy used games or new copies of reduced-priced titles. Because of this, the total ammount of money earned from them is less than for people that buy new titles. Still, they often made up the bulk of the numbers of transactions I would go through in any given day. They tend to buy games long after its traditional profitability cycle is over. This makes me ask; if there are still dollars to be earned from this type of gamer, shouldn't we change the profitability model to include them?
Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon was only a modest hit when it released, but by continuing to sell albums, it has racked up a mind-blowing number of sales in the years since it's release. Why doesn't the video game industry take this type of a long term view of the games industry, rather than overcharging their most loyal customers in order to make a big profit in a short time and letting many of their titles disappear from store shelves after the relatively short, traditional, six-month window? While that question is in part answered by the previous paragraphs, let me throw one title at you to ponder; Tetris.
Tetris has managed to release on almost every platform that plays video games, and it has the title of best selling game ever because of that fact. Sure, not every game is going to have the draw of the simple fun of Tetris, but if I was still selling new copies of GTA IV, Gears of War, and Resistance years after their release at a bargain price with absolutely no continuing advertising: what could happen if the video game industry continued to advertise hit titles like these to customers that do not fit into the traditional model of a gamer? 2K Sports attempted to best EA's Madden by dropping the price of NFL 2K5 and was rewarded for this move by many year-laters. Then EA killed this move by buying up the rights to the NFL and effectively ruining our ability to see what a well advertised and truly AAA budget priced model could achieve. The recent trend of HD remakes and bargain-priced titles like THQ's next MX vs. ATV title are partly another attempt to take this longer view, but in my opinion these moves do not go far enough.
Over the last few years there has been a lot of discussion of how to capture the 'casual' market which I think has concentrated too much on mini-game collections and weight loss peripherals on the industry side, and too much on how "grabbing for the dollars of the casual gamer" has damaged the industry on the side many hardcore gamers.
I think we need to welcome this type of gamer, whether you want to call them the 'casual' gamers or the year-laters. I think to not do so, or to pigeonhole them to being attracted to one or two types of games is a perilous stance for the industry to take. Instead of taking a rush from Wii-like titles to social media games, I think we should take a longer, more inclusive view on how we market every type of game. Since they tend to have the best stock of explorable, available, and cheap games on the market, right now the one company profiting the most from the year-later shopper is GameStop. The more the industry and those who follow it try to capture the mass market by stereotyping the people that it consists of and neglecting to consider their spending clout beyond the narrow scope that is getting looked at now, the harder it will be for the industry to create titles which cross over these invisible and spurious boundaries.
What do you think?
