52% of US Video Game Hardware Buyers in Q4 2025 Had a Household Income of $100K+ - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 February 2026 / 8,370 Views
Senior Director and Video Game Industry Advisor at Circana Mat Piscatella on social media revealed the number of households with an income of $100,000 or higher accounted for 53 percent of all video game hardware sold in Q4 2025. This is a new record high and up from 40 percent in Q1 2022.
The average price of video game hardware in the US increased from $373 in Q1 2022 to $446 in Q4 2025.
"53% of US video game hardware buyers in Q4 '25 had a household income of $100k+ - a record high - and up from 40% in Q1 '22," said Piscatella. "The average price of video game hardware in the US was $373 in Q1 2022, jumping to $446 by Q4 2025."
One factor in the higher average selling price is due to the price increases for the Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 5, and Nintendo Switch 1, along with the Switch 2 being more expensive than the Switch 1.
He also revealed video game hardware buyers with a household income below $50,000 decreased from 31 percent in Q1 2022 to 19 percent in Q4 2025.
"Over that same period, the % of video game hardware buyers that had household incomes of <$50k fell from 31% in Q1 2022 to 19% in Q4 2025," he stated. "$50k-$75k HHs went from 17% to 14%, while $75k-$100k HH increased from 12% of total hardware buyers to 14%. Quite a shift over the course of the last 4 years."
Piscatella is expecting the price of video game hardware to keep increasing with more premium accessories as well.
"Anyways, expecting hardware prices to keep going up, for more premium targeted accessories to be made available, and for even more creative ways of packaging games into fancy editions at higher price points," he said. "Idea will continue to be to drive higher ARPU from a more concentrated console audience."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can follow the author on Bluesky.
More Articles
Gaming is quickly going from a luxury hobby to an ultra-luxury hobby.
True, but I wonder how much this is being skewed by the word "household"
The average American household has an occupancy of 2.51 people... or 3.41 people if looking specifically at rented houses. The total adolescent population is only around 20-25%
Assuming most households have more than a single income on average and knowing the average income in the US is just over 60K... 100K per household isn't super unrealistic
Gaming is certainly much more expensive than it was a few years ago but I'd still rather buy a $70 game than spend $20 to see a 2 hour movie lol
You would be correct. When looking at households from the Low Income to Low High Income range, the differentiator is predominantly number of earners. Low Income typically has 1 or less than 1 earner, the majority having less than 1 (so part time or persistently unemployed), Middle Income typically has more than 1 (so 1 full time, 1 part time), Upper Middle and up usually has 2 or more than 2 earners. When you get towards the very, very top things get weid, but for most of the range number of earners is a massive factor.
That's fair, but the article is specifically talking about gaming hardware. Not software. Something that is quickly becoming more and more expensive to the point the lower end purchasers are getting priced out of being able to buy a console. Especially if prices keep rising over time.
Many households will only be able to buy a single console at most, and then keep that console for years into a new generation because the next-gen consoles will become even more expensive. And as collateral damage, they won't be to buy anywhere near as many games as they probably would have. Something that we're already seeing taking hold.
Thanks to rich parasites like Elon and his orange ex boyfriend.
Just remember the "economy is doing better than it ever has" and that "Prices are super low".
...Because the American people hired an individual that is an expert at gaslighting.
Said individual should be doused in gas and set on fire.
The Party told you to ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
Sounds a lot more extreme without the context that 41-43% of US households have an income of 100k or higher, with the median household income being over 80k.
In fact, when looking at broad groupings of Low Income (35k or less), Middle Income (35k to 100k), and High Income (100k and up), the largest group is High Income. Followed fairly closely by Middle Income and then Low Income as a distant 3rd.
So the fact that Middle and High Income are close but with High slightly larger, and most new console purchases are likely to be by Middle and High income households (especially with cross gen having persisted for so long, making keeping a PS4 or Xbone a viable option for Low Income households to save money and still have access), the fact 52% went to that High Income group isn't terribly surprising, even if a bit high.
While accessibility is important, persistent cross gen development does increase that accessibility. It just also produces these kinds of distortions.
Also, as the percentage of households making 100k continues to grow, the percent of sales going to that cohort will also grow. The percent of households making over 100k has grown from just under 30% in 1990 to over 40% today, and that growth is very likely to continue over time.
It is an idnicator, for sure, but it's just not as extreme of an indicator as it at first seems. People think of high household incomes of 100k+ as something super rare, but it really isn't and hasn't been for some time.
I'm just cautioning against the hysteria these kinds of headlines cause. The full context is important for understanding the data.
I mean, hysteria is never a good thing lol. I do however think you are not aligning the data correctly to make a meaingful comparison. You are looking at a 10% growth in household income over the 35 year period and comparing it to change over 3 years. Thats not right at all. The data tracked by Circana here is change over the last 3 year. You are saying there is nothing to worry about because of change over 10x as long.
There is an 11% decreace in purchases in the <50k/year cohort over the last 3 years.
There is an 3% decreace in purchases in the 50-75k/year cohort over the last 3 years.
Are you implying that all of houeholds saw income increase to 75k+ in the past 3 years... Of course you are not and that why this is definintely cause for concern.
Its happening because income is not keeping up with the cost of living which predicitably impacts leisure spending.
While I don't promote hysteria, I think it is just as bad to ignore data like this. If we want to keep the industry around... we need to pay attention to state of the actual consumers.
Also, your comment about persistant cross gen development doesn't make any sense because this is about all industry spending, not just spending on new consoles. If I have a PS4 and still buy games for my PS4, I am putting money into the industry. This report is about a pure reduction in all gaming spending in those cohorts.
"53% of US video game hardware buyers in Q4 '25 had a household income of $100k+ - a record high - and up from 40% in Q1 '22," said Piscatella. "The average price of video game hardware in the US was $373 in Q1 2022, jumping to $446 by Q4 2025."
This whole thing is specifically about hardware. So no, lower income houses choosing to stick with last gen systems will impact these numbers because they aren't buying new hardware.
I didn't say it was meaningless. I said it was less shocking when you know the full data. Also, the data is a little weird anyway since it compares Q1 2022 to Q4 2025. The spending dynamics and sheer volume of spend are completely different in Q1s vs Q4s so I'm not sure why that was even used.
I do think this shows an economic concern, specifically the price sensitivity of middle income households. But the hysteria comes because people seem to think that the top 10% of US households are hoovering up most gaming products and that's just not true. But that's how some will spin it and that creates directionless anger that leads to all kinds of bad decisions in things like elections.
And it's not just costs of other things that's the issue, which I did point out elsewhere in the replies. It's also the uncertainty created through braindead trade policies and assorted nonsense. People, particularly the lower half of earners, can become quite price sensitive in environments like this and this should be a sharp warning to those currently in charge to change course.
From an industry standpoint, there are concerns here for sure, but the fact the higher income cohorts have grown in size and also become more intrrested in gaming is good as the industry can absorb hard times a bit more easily. But also, the fact this Holiday wasn't as lucrative will also provide a solid check, I would hope, against thoughts they can just raise prices without consequence.
So all I'm talking about is nuance, really. Also, those numbers I shared are inflation adjusted. The ACTUAL growth in straight dollar amounts since 1990 is far larger but inflation impacts over such a large span I thought would skew the data. It's also extremely hard to search such data because it's fairly useless unless you're trying to grift for some agenda or other.
Anyway, that's all. I wasn't saying this doesn't mean anything, just wanted to bring some perspective and nuance.
Possible recession indicator. Tariffs were definitely a cause of this. The hardware has gone up in price.
Way to go, conservatives. -_-
These issues have been ongoing since the 1970s (at least in the US), in fact initiated under Jimmy Carter. It’s a bipartisan issue, not merely conservative/liberal.
The cheap bastards need to raise minimum wage, because it's no longer livable.
Less than 1% of earners even work the minimum wage.
The issue in most low income households is too few workers, often less than 1 (in other words part time or persistently unemployed). These issues need fixing, but raising the minimum wage would have little meaningful impact.
As I posted elsewhere in this reply thread, incomes are not the issue. Costs are the issue, and predominantly costs in 3 areas do the bulk of the damage - healthcare (both insurance and medical services), higher education, and housing. These three have seen enormous adjusted for inflation cost increases. And these issues are driven by policies unrelated to wage laws. If these 3 followed the trajectory of, say, cars - so a modest rise over time - just tjat alone would solve most issues right there.
I'm not telling you not to be upset about these issues, but be sure your passion is correctly oriented towards solutions. Directionless anger over issues is how we wind up electing bad leaders over and over, it just opens you to manipulation.
Sad stat.... gaming should be affordable. Even the less well off, deserve a break and some escapism/joy of a good game.
Peasants go home!;)
so, 48% of US Video Game Hardware Buyers in Q4 2025 Had a Household Income of less than $100K.
we do low income work, and it seems almost every household with kids has a video game system and they have no income from jobs
Most home incomes in the US are like $80K-$120K. So this is more like a fun fact.
While the launch prices of current systems were fair, by this point in previous generations, the hardware was a lot cheaper, allowing for greater adoption by lower-income households. Even adjusted for inflation, older consoles were cheaper. This was the first generation with actual price increases, thanks to the economic chaos of the current decade. The price increases have caused obvious detrimental effects to sales volumes.
By the end of 2012, the PS3 had the Super Slim model available starting at $270, which is $380 in current dollars, while the standard 360 SKU stayed $300 ever since that price point was introduced, which for holiday 2012 would be $420 adjusted. The PS4 & XBO were reduced to $300 before they turned three, and remained that price even out to 2020. Adjusted for inflation, the PS4 & XBO's standard $300 price tag in Dec. 2018 (the end of their fifth full calendar year) was $386 adjusted. Older generations saw even lower inflation-adjusted prices in late life. In the years before they were replaced, the PS2 was $247 adjusted, the PS1 was $192 adjusted, and the SNES was $274 adjusted (with a game included!).
Meanwhile, the standard disc editions of the PS5 & XBS are currently $550 and $650, respectively. You have to go back to like the Neo Geo to find a system that cost this much this far into its life.
Give it another 40 years. At this rate, the only people who'll be able to afford gaming by then will be the 1% - And 99% of the 1% have absolutely, positively, no interest whatsoever in gaming.
Definitely depends how they did this. I don't imagine this information to be included in every sale, which means it's probably more survey based. That asks the questions of who responded to the survey and where they surveyed.
