Yeah I'm right there with you. we are the 22% of US game players that are not directly discussed in this article, the ones that are price sensitive but still buying games on a semi-regular basis. Mat Piscatella suggests that it's that most frequent 14% at the top that are propping up the legacy industry these days, and he's probably right. I'm inclined to believe that those of us in the next 22% still account for a decent chunk, but more and more of us are shifting towards spending money on live service games only. Idk how some people can afford to spend money on every new game as they come out, that cohort must be almost entirely wealthy folks at this point.

I don't think this is about enthusiasts buying less games, though. We're not talking about the average number of purchases the consumer makes. This is more evidence that there are a lot more casual players out there, who will make their 0-2 large game purchases a year and play their games over a long time. The college guy who literally only buys a couple sports games that they play online with a friend. The burnt out parent that can only make time for their 2 open world adventure games all year. I know a few people in my life who own a Switch, Mario Kart and Animal Crossing, and that will be literally the only two games they load all year. And this is to say nothing of people who strictly play F2P tirles, which apparently are 33% of players.

"US game players purchase 1-2 games a year on average" is not the same thing as "the bottom 60% of purchasers only purchase 1-2 games a year." This is evidence that, one, the medium is reaching a much more widespread market and, two, the casual market is often more engaged with F2P titles.

I think if we looked at enthusiasts and hobbiests, there would still be a decline in purchases. I don't think this is evidence that games have become too expensive for most.

At this point I'm lucky if there are two games worth paying for in a year. Just bland boring empty soulless games every time.