WoW and Farmville are games that made a lot of money and Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo got nothing of that. Besides Final Fantasy XI, the big 3 missed the party on both of these money making genres.
It's true that both MMOs and F2P "games" will probably die before consoles. The problem is that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo aren't adaptable enough and so the money is going to the platforms that have less restrictions. If new ways of selling games to customers appear, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to have a business model and a platform that will support it. They can't keep basing their businesses on selling Call of Honor: Medalfighter 4 for $60 and expect to survive.
I don't really like the way this is written. It seems akin to calling the cellphone "dead" because we now have smartphones which do so much more than just make calls.
Exactly. Consoles will continue to evolve; the idea of not having to hook up some kind of device to my TV is not on the horizon.
iTunes, Netflix, Steam, xBox Live, Playstaion Network, Hulu...these are the new distribution channels, but they all still require a device in the living room, hooked to the TV, to run them. Consoles will become that, if they aren't already.
Well consoles will evolve certainly. I'm sure the primary distribution method for the next generation will be to download games rather than buy on a disc.
There is also the argument that as consoles do more things they are going to blur the lines between a general computer , a "media consumption device" and a dedicated games console.
The real killer feature of something like the XBox360 though is that it is designed for games out of the box, any compromises or decisions they made in the design always focused on games first.
Sure, tablets are becoming more capable in the graphics department, but the primary method of control is still a touch screen that prioritises usability for things like web browsing and navigating photo albums not shooting people in the head.
Tablets are also designed to be lightweight, thin and consume less power. This will always lead to tradeoffs with performance. The article seems to compare current tablets with current gen consoles whereas I'm sure next gen consoles will have significantly boosted graphics performance.
I'm also unsure of the market moving to a "free to play" model. It's true that this is becoming a more popular model; however would a game like skyrim be more compelling if you had to purchase each sword upgrade with real cash?
i agree with most of your points but not all.
Sure tablets are a compromise, but the pc/tablet/mobile hardware market is moving MUCH faster than the console market. Current gen consoles have been around since 2005/6, a time when even the iphone didnt exist and things like Free to play or digital distribution were a non-issue.
Today all of that has changed dramatically and the console makers reacted to it, but only very slowly and in general they are limited to adapt to these new markets.
The PC, tablets, mobile phones however have done a massive step in the same timeframe. Measured by todays standards, mobile gaming didnt exist in 2005, today its the biggest growth market in gaming there is.
Even though tablets are still much less powerful than a current gen console, many of todays top notch games on tablets dont look too far off of console games...
Of course touch controls are limited and games need to be tailored to those, but in the end its an issue about which market is more attractive to developers. Mobile and Free to play certainly has alot less risk than pay-upfront triple-A titles with millions of budget.
That being said i still see a good future for consoles as entertainment devices in the living room, in fact an Apple-TV like device with powerful hardware and Apps (including tripe-A free to play games) could be a massive hit!
The reason mobile gaming has major growth is because the market is rushing to fill a vacuum. Once things have settled a bit let's see how it compares then. Plus comparing tablets made today with consoles based on five-year-plus hardware is not a proper comparison. Let's see how they match up once the console refresh has happened.
Touch controls don't bother me because eventually bluetooth based controllers will be common once we get used to the idea of hooking a tablet to the TV.
True but still, even PC hardware todays evolves much faster than consoles because of their very long lifecycle and that is definately holding the state of high end PC games back because today you cant make a blockbuster game that isnt cross-platform.
Of course the next-gen consoles will be much much faster, but that doesnt stop their lifecycle from being very long compared to almost all other entertainment devices.
Well, I can't really disagree, especially about the part of PC games being held back because of consoles.
But I think that eventually the hardware refresh on mobile and tablets will taper off because they'll have to hit a wall at some point. Unless a breakthrough in battery technology happens you can only go so far in upping specs on mobile devices. Plus there's the heat aspect.
Plus, once the market is flush with devices, or when people who want a tablet gets one, will people toss out their old tablet to buy a new one that's better in some insignificant way that matters little to them? I have a tablet and I can't see replacing it anytime soon unless it breaks or I find a large enough amount of software no longer works on it. Although I'm not saying the market would follow my whims but it just seems likely there's a large enough group that thinks in a similar fashion.
I'm not sure it's correct to say that the consoles haven't evolved. The fixed hardware hasn't changed since 2005/2006, but the software has been very nimble, especially on the 360, which has had 2-3 very different iterations of its OS as it transitioned from games console to full multimedia device.
This console generation has been unusually long and one of the reasons is that the console makers got so much right this time that its taken a long time for the consoles to feel dated.
Since today anyone has to make cross-platform games to make a profit, the consoles are the lowest common denominator which enables them to stay in the game. On the other hand its holding the PC gaming market and hardware development back in a sense.
I agree that the Software has enabled some innovation but still their ecosystem is still very hard to get into for developers compared to the iOS world for example.
Consoles are not really holding the PC market back. Apart from fancier graphics, the big areas where the PC wins is fast mass storage[1] and fewer restrictions over net access[2]. Sure we could fill 4GB of memory somehow and find interesting ways to saturate as many CPU cores as we're given, but PC games so far haven't done anything really interesting with the extra power they have.
[1] Data for a 360 game needs to fit on and run from one or more DVD; the PS3's larger blu-ray storage is slow. Cross-platform console games need to deal with those two constraints.
[2] MMOs and social gaming are restricted on consoles.
I don't believe the correlation that the popularity of Angry Birds or Farmville spells disaster for the console. Those games tapped into a different audience than your normal gamer. Not to say that "different" audience is not more lucrative, but the groups are discrete.
As long people are still buying big screen TV's the consoles will sell well. The XBOX and similar devices will evolve into home-entertainment hubs -- hopefully replacing the long-outdated cable set-top boxes.
If the PC is "dead" it means consoles are at their top of performance. If consoles are "dead" it means the current console generation is getting old and in a few years new consoles will appear, their hardware artificially low priced because manufacturers expect to make more money from licensing.
It's interesting to read an article like this. As a PC gamer, for most of my life I'm accustomed to seeing articles telling me that my hobby is dead and I might as well buy a console. It's different to see one that claims the console as we know it is dead. I see it as the console is finally catching up with the PC in terms of functionality. But I admit that could just be me.
But I find parts of the article confusing or maybe I just outright disagree.
I don't understand this common comparison of mobile games with console games. They are not the same thing and not the same market. The mobile game market is in serious growth (except for Zynga, one example of the article) because, as the article points out, it is a new market and there's a vacuum to fill. This has happened before and not just in the gaming sector. Once things have settled let's see how that market holds up. But to constantly compare these two markets just feels wrong. To me it would be like saying since the Honda Accord has such strong sales then clearly Ferrari is destined to fail and die.
Consoles used to do everything best? In what dimension did this happen? Most PC games didn't require messing with "finicky settings" since Win95, yes indeed they just "worked". Well, maybe not Games for Windows Live games. Especially with the release of Steam, which the article points out but doesn't seem to make the connection. High end games that push the hardware may require some love and care but there's not many of those. Braid, Super Meatboy and others like them, that do make money for their developers, just work.
How is Ubisoft going to squeeze money from their customers by offering a $120 collectors edition with a $30 season pass? Is that the only option or maybe most people will get the regular $60 version and maybe buy the DLC later? What about people like me who are willing to wait for those wonderful Steam sales?
It's funny to me that article says that AAA games are getting more and more expensive to produce, which is true, and then just a few paragraphs later it describes EA's massive campus. So, does most of EA's budget go towards game development or nice expensive, unneeded office space? Do the large salaries of managers who are not involved in development nor know the first thing about development involved in that equation? Assassin's Creed III involves five Ubisoft offices around the world and just costs too much? How much of its budget is actually for development?
What is an AAA game title anyway? Who defines that? Maybe the publishers should rethink what they think a AAA title is and the market think it is. If AAA refers to quality then Super Meatboy is a AAAA title and was primarily made by two guys with contractors.
Everything they mention about the dark days of PC gaming is pretty much true. But they fail to mention that the big publishers attempted to treat the PC game market the same as the console market, which you cannot do and the market reacted. Once they failed in the PC game market they then started a campaign of blaming their customers. Don't get me started on the stupid DRM schemes that punished paying customers more than pirates. Maybe DRM is what's responsible for those finicky PC games that don't "just work"? That's one reason why the indie market and alternatives like Steam work, they understand their market. Which is really funny is that the big publishers were hesitant to adopt to the market and now all of the sudden indie developers and Valve are just geniuses. The market was screaming years ago what we wanted and we were ignored.
Firefall is a PC first-person shooter that is attempting to get hardcore gamers to accept free? WTF? There are already numerous games that follow this model accepted by hardcore gamers. Tribes and TeamFortress2 are two easy ones right off the bat. Firefall is a gorgeous game that's on graphical par with the best console shooters? WTF is this guy going on about? Did he even bother to do research on PC games before writing this?
Nice to know that the apps on the iTunes app store that mak...
I don't agree with the article's conclusions, but it offers a good look at the challenges facing the console industry.
At this point it's simply too early to write off the consoles. Sales are in a slump, but we're obviously at the end of the current generation, and exciting new stuff is yet to be announced. It's important to recognize that the hardware out there is from 2005.
If the next slate of hardware comes out without addressing any of the issues brought up in this article then they'll certainly be in trouble, but even Nintendo's Wii U, a product from a company with a history of being extremely conservative, is pushing things forward with interesting social networking ideas that I haven't seen elsewhere. I fully expect the next Microsoft and Sony hardware will introduce new ideas that will also keep them relevant.
17 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 57.9 ms ] threadThis article makes an odd, meandering case behind such a direct headline.
The points made are true of trends in the game industry in general, but in no way intrinsic to consoles.
He seems to want to equate a peak in console sales to death, but invokes properties (WoW, Farmville) which themselves have also peaked in doing so.
I expect the the popularity of carrot dangling non-games like some of those mentioned to die off long before consoles do.
It's true that both MMOs and F2P "games" will probably die before consoles. The problem is that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo aren't adaptable enough and so the money is going to the platforms that have less restrictions. If new ways of selling games to customers appear, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to have a business model and a platform that will support it. They can't keep basing their businesses on selling Call of Honor: Medalfighter 4 for $60 and expect to survive.
iTunes, Netflix, Steam, xBox Live, Playstaion Network, Hulu...these are the new distribution channels, but they all still require a device in the living room, hooked to the TV, to run them. Consoles will become that, if they aren't already.
There is also the argument that as consoles do more things they are going to blur the lines between a general computer , a "media consumption device" and a dedicated games console.
The real killer feature of something like the XBox360 though is that it is designed for games out of the box, any compromises or decisions they made in the design always focused on games first.
Sure, tablets are becoming more capable in the graphics department, but the primary method of control is still a touch screen that prioritises usability for things like web browsing and navigating photo albums not shooting people in the head.
Tablets are also designed to be lightweight, thin and consume less power. This will always lead to tradeoffs with performance. The article seems to compare current tablets with current gen consoles whereas I'm sure next gen consoles will have significantly boosted graphics performance.
I'm also unsure of the market moving to a "free to play" model. It's true that this is becoming a more popular model; however would a game like skyrim be more compelling if you had to purchase each sword upgrade with real cash?
Today all of that has changed dramatically and the console makers reacted to it, but only very slowly and in general they are limited to adapt to these new markets. The PC, tablets, mobile phones however have done a massive step in the same timeframe. Measured by todays standards, mobile gaming didnt exist in 2005, today its the biggest growth market in gaming there is. Even though tablets are still much less powerful than a current gen console, many of todays top notch games on tablets dont look too far off of console games...
Of course touch controls are limited and games need to be tailored to those, but in the end its an issue about which market is more attractive to developers. Mobile and Free to play certainly has alot less risk than pay-upfront triple-A titles with millions of budget.
That being said i still see a good future for consoles as entertainment devices in the living room, in fact an Apple-TV like device with powerful hardware and Apps (including tripe-A free to play games) could be a massive hit!
Touch controls don't bother me because eventually bluetooth based controllers will be common once we get used to the idea of hooking a tablet to the TV.
But I think that eventually the hardware refresh on mobile and tablets will taper off because they'll have to hit a wall at some point. Unless a breakthrough in battery technology happens you can only go so far in upping specs on mobile devices. Plus there's the heat aspect.
Plus, once the market is flush with devices, or when people who want a tablet gets one, will people toss out their old tablet to buy a new one that's better in some insignificant way that matters little to them? I have a tablet and I can't see replacing it anytime soon unless it breaks or I find a large enough amount of software no longer works on it. Although I'm not saying the market would follow my whims but it just seems likely there's a large enough group that thinks in a similar fashion.
This console generation has been unusually long and one of the reasons is that the console makers got so much right this time that its taken a long time for the consoles to feel dated.
[1] Data for a 360 game needs to fit on and run from one or more DVD; the PS3's larger blu-ray storage is slow. Cross-platform console games need to deal with those two constraints.
[2] MMOs and social gaming are restricted on consoles.
If the PC is "dead" it means consoles are at their top of performance. If consoles are "dead" it means the current console generation is getting old and in a few years new consoles will appear, their hardware artificially low priced because manufacturers expect to make more money from licensing.
But I find parts of the article confusing or maybe I just outright disagree.
I don't understand this common comparison of mobile games with console games. They are not the same thing and not the same market. The mobile game market is in serious growth (except for Zynga, one example of the article) because, as the article points out, it is a new market and there's a vacuum to fill. This has happened before and not just in the gaming sector. Once things have settled let's see how that market holds up. But to constantly compare these two markets just feels wrong. To me it would be like saying since the Honda Accord has such strong sales then clearly Ferrari is destined to fail and die.
Consoles used to do everything best? In what dimension did this happen? Most PC games didn't require messing with "finicky settings" since Win95, yes indeed they just "worked". Well, maybe not Games for Windows Live games. Especially with the release of Steam, which the article points out but doesn't seem to make the connection. High end games that push the hardware may require some love and care but there's not many of those. Braid, Super Meatboy and others like them, that do make money for their developers, just work.
How is Ubisoft going to squeeze money from their customers by offering a $120 collectors edition with a $30 season pass? Is that the only option or maybe most people will get the regular $60 version and maybe buy the DLC later? What about people like me who are willing to wait for those wonderful Steam sales?
It's funny to me that article says that AAA games are getting more and more expensive to produce, which is true, and then just a few paragraphs later it describes EA's massive campus. So, does most of EA's budget go towards game development or nice expensive, unneeded office space? Do the large salaries of managers who are not involved in development nor know the first thing about development involved in that equation? Assassin's Creed III involves five Ubisoft offices around the world and just costs too much? How much of its budget is actually for development?
What is an AAA game title anyway? Who defines that? Maybe the publishers should rethink what they think a AAA title is and the market think it is. If AAA refers to quality then Super Meatboy is a AAAA title and was primarily made by two guys with contractors.
Everything they mention about the dark days of PC gaming is pretty much true. But they fail to mention that the big publishers attempted to treat the PC game market the same as the console market, which you cannot do and the market reacted. Once they failed in the PC game market they then started a campaign of blaming their customers. Don't get me started on the stupid DRM schemes that punished paying customers more than pirates. Maybe DRM is what's responsible for those finicky PC games that don't "just work"? That's one reason why the indie market and alternatives like Steam work, they understand their market. Which is really funny is that the big publishers were hesitant to adopt to the market and now all of the sudden indie developers and Valve are just geniuses. The market was screaming years ago what we wanted and we were ignored.
Firefall is a PC first-person shooter that is attempting to get hardcore gamers to accept free? WTF? There are already numerous games that follow this model accepted by hardcore gamers. Tribes and TeamFortress2 are two easy ones right off the bat. Firefall is a gorgeous game that's on graphical par with the best console shooters? WTF is this guy going on about? Did he even bother to do research on PC games before writing this?
Nice to know that the apps on the iTunes app store that mak...
At this point it's simply too early to write off the consoles. Sales are in a slump, but we're obviously at the end of the current generation, and exciting new stuff is yet to be announced. It's important to recognize that the hardware out there is from 2005.
If the next slate of hardware comes out without addressing any of the issues brought up in this article then they'll certainly be in trouble, but even Nintendo's Wii U, a product from a company with a history of being extremely conservative, is pushing things forward with interesting social networking ideas that I haven't seen elsewhere. I fully expect the next Microsoft and Sony hardware will introduce new ideas that will also keep them relevant.