Was really hoping someone had posted a good summary ...
First, title is misleading. Reads like a state of the state to me.
Second, "Can console makers really continue as they have for years, releasing updates only every once in a while and dealing exclusively with preferred developers?"
For the former, I sure hope so. The more time goes by the better quality the games tend to be. Instead of gimics to test the system they know what's good and they use it.
For the latter, I suppose he's referring to indie developers, but I read an interesting article elsewhere that mentioned that no one is releasing sales numbers (save the big winners) which leads to the suggestion that you can make more than you do.
Also interesting was his talk about the WiiU; made me think his answer was going to be 'no' instead of 'who knows, we'll have to see.'
I am no gamer but this article is rather ridiculous:
> The opportunity for either company is to be the console that gets back to being about games. While players love Netflix and other video on console, they generally don’t care about meta-stuff like social networking.
Can we see some references to back up this statement? Even if you are right, one can make the argument that social networking on gaming devices hasn't been done right and done right it could be a big money spinner.
> Windows 8 enables free-to-play games to the desktop, much as iPad enabled CSR Racing. That by itself is a really big deal.
I am sorry but how is this different from me going to a free game site and installing a game on any one of the Windows devices since 1995?
> I also think 2013 will be difficult for Steam. Steam is overwhelmed by its catalogue and not included as a part of the default Windows 8 dashboard. Its audience may stay fixed, or even decline, depending on the impact of the Windows Store. Steam is – and will always be – great value for the kind of indie PC gamer who loves his games, but it may have reached its zenith.
You really need to start backing these statements with some evidence as to why Steam is "getting overwhelmed" or why the PC gamer is magically going to switch to using Windows considering that a lot of people are locked in Steam. Also, the fact that gaming communities are tightly knit should likely mean that more people are going to join a platform that has most of their friends locked in.
I also like that I can watch Netflix on my PS3 or 360, much for the same reason I like that my PS3 allows me to watch DVD and Blu-ray, and my 360 DVD: convenience.
2013 aside, as someone who works at an mobile game startup, all of us believe that the future of video gaming truly is mobile.
Just think of this: within three years the iPhone and Android-phones will likely be more powerful than the Xbox360. Give another generation and they will likely be more powerful than the PS3. They already boast more features (geolocation, social integration). At that point, we may well be hooking up our smartphones to a larger screen to play our "console" games.
Within three years, there will also be a new Xbox far more powerful than the 360. I'm not denying that mobile gaming is going to eclipse the handheld market and possibly even part of the console market, but it's going to be a LONG time before you sell consumers on "hook up your phone to a TV to play games!"
There's also entrenched franchises on consoles. Activision doesn't want to make Call of Duty for iPhone - $60 is a bit more enticing of a price point than $1. That's not to say they won't maybe make mobile versions in the future, but certainly not versions intended to replace the console versions (similar to how handhelds already have had CoD spinoffs). And that's just one example, of course.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong on where the market's going, long-term. But I think that it is a long term, at least ten years or more, until we see consumers saying "why would I buy an <Xbox Next> when I already have an iPhone and AirPlay?"
Obviously, I don't disagree that top-end PCs and cutting edge consoles will always be more powerful than mobile devices. But just because there will always be something faster does not mean consumers won't flock to mobile from consoles. There's a reason the Xbox 360 is 7 years old. It's because the Xbox 360 was good enough for 7 years and there weren't many games that strained the Xbox 360's power (ditto for the PS3). By the time the next Xbox is released, the Xbox 360 will have had a 10 year cycle. At a certain point hardware no longer becomes the biggest limiting factor. Within a few years smartphones may have eaten everything that consoles occupy perhaps except for hyper-photorealistic more-than-1080p games. There will always be a market for consoles, but that market is shrinking at the same time that the mobile gaming market expands.
As for your second point, it's simply wrong to assume that all mobile games cost $1 and will continue to do so in the future. Part of the prevalence of $1 apps is because those apps are casual and very basic. There is no reason that higher-quality games can't charge more in the future. Final Fantasy Tactics (a PS/Game Boy Advanced/DS game) was released on the iPhone for $16. If and when smartphones rival consoles, there is nothing stopping Activision from charging $60.
And this isn't necessarily limited to smartphones. With much more powerful tablets, the trend towards mobile gaming replacing consoles will be even more accelerated than I described.
It will be a long, long time before you convince me to give up Skyrim, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Halo, Fallout and Eve in favour of Angry Birds and Tiny Tower. Those are games that simply cannot be replaced by anything on mobile.
To believe that mobile is about to completely wipe out the gaming sector is simply deluded.
I bought Far Cry 3 the other day, but had some problems playing it. Specifically, there are bugs in the key bindings mechanism, where some vehicles are stuck on the default key maps, even though the keys are configured differently in the preferences.
I looked into the key map preferences file, and it's fairly clear how the key mapping is implemented in the game: the defaults are hard-coded in, and "mapping" is implemented by basically having a search-and-replace filter on the incoming key stream. It's no wonder there are bugs; it seems that not all places that check for input run the input through the filter. What's missing is an indirection between the concepts of a keystroke and a command.
But the particularly revealing thing was when I went onto the Ubisoft forums to discuss the issue. The forum for Far Cry 3 Console has about 15x as many posts as the Far Cry 3 PC forum.
If revenues are similarly lopsided, it would explain why the PC version - the HUD and input system in particular - is such a crappy console port. It's because PC players are an afterthought, a minor bit of loose change to pick up after the bulk of the market has been addressed.
And in turn, the PC experience, from opening the box to getting the game running, is so unpleasant it turns more and more gamers away from the platform. It's not available on Steam in the UK, so I got the package in the mail. Ubisoft didn't even use proper plastic for the DVD box, it's all floppy and squeezable, like the plastic used for tomato ketchup or mayonnaise bottles. Ubisoft did almost everything they could to show their contempt for PC players.
So I am not optimistic for the future of PC games.
All other platforms but for Linux have much more user-hostile leaderships - and Linux is user-hostile for different, more incidental reasons. The only platform with hope for the user is Android, and it's not clear how it's going to play out in the long term, whether rooting will be tolerated or clamped down upon when in the presence of DRM.
I believe there is a vicious cycle that is occurring in PC gaming with the AAA game developers and publishers (Ubisoft and Rockstar come to mind) where PC ports will often be available a significant amount of time after console, or be of shoddy quality, or both. Perhaps as a consequence, PC sales are weak. And because of weak sales, there is less incentive to really push for simultaneous PC release for games or at the level of quality and polish that PC gamers demand, possibly affecting sales again.
I'm not sure how accurate pre-orders is as a sign of platform popularity, but with Assassin's Creed 3, (and if the numbers are accurate,) it seems like PC only makes up about 9%~ of pre-orders[1] with the rest being dominated by XBox 360 and PS3. That's an incredibly poor number to justify any sort of effort in PC gaming.
But of course, there are so many variables at play that these numbers could mean almost anything. Heck, I could even attribute it to AC3 being far more comfortable to play with a controller/console than a keyboard/mouse. And of course, they did release it 21 days after the console, so there's that.[2]
Agreed. I have yet to have a year where gaming on my PC "sucked". Sure, Far Cry 3 was a little disappointing, but look at The Elder Scrolls, Starcraft, DotA, Diablo, Counter-strike, Half-Life, Doom, etc.
The list could go on. And on. (I didn't count any MMOs, for example) Just because the more generic blockbuster franchise titles are focused on consoles doesn't mean PC gaming is having a hard time. The best games I've ever played (aside from the pre-XBox generations) have been on PC, and most likely will continue to be.
Steam has been a gateway into PC gaming for many people, and I don't think anyone has apparently been paying attention to MOBA games. DotaA 2 and LoL are massive right now, and DotA is still in beta. Both (will be) free-to-play, as is TF2, another blockbuster on Steam.
I think there's hope yet. The interaction model of a keyboard and mouse is phenomenal, and I don't see it being topped any time soon.
PC gaming should rock, but as long as the AAA end of the industry is plagued by rushed-out-before-the-holidays titles full of bugs, graphics driver and other hardware compatibility problems, "anti-cheating" and "copy protection" software that is little more than malware in nice clothing, and you-don't-really-own-anything licensing set-ups where most/all of the value of a game can be arbitrarily taken away from me, I'll spend my money somewhere else.
That somewhere else might be small/independent PC games makers, or GoG, or puzzle game apps on a tablet, but most likely I find it's nothing to do with computer gaming at all. It wasn't the games that killed the fun for me, it was all the abusive junk almost everyone started including with them, and that only seems to be getting worse with time.
I'm around thirty and I have no friends that would think of PC as a device for playing games. All of them have PS3s and are happy to spend on ever-growing LED TVs.
But they like to play FIFA mostly (or God of War) and I like FPS.
And FPS only works for me with keyboard and mouse... So for me to play FPS is on PC and lonely.
(I wish this wasn't the case because I don't enjoy the activity of assemblying gaming PCs, worrying if some video card performance will be good enough etc.. -vs- buying a console).
The article gets one thing right. It's about the games. That said, IMHO consoles are going the way of the dodo. Too many console games feel like the same experience. I've been a gamer all my life. It feels like some of the best game developers are engaging in more shenanigans than usual. I think this is because of one thing .. profits over anything else.
Let me provide examples:
- Diablo 3 ... the DRM and market place issues; inability to play a single player game without a network connection.
- StarCraft 2 has issues similar to D3. But I found them to be less severe.
- I bought the 3DS on the first day. The glasses-free 3D made me feel sick. On top of that, Nintendo lowered the price big time (which didn't upset me). They claimed to reward early adopters by giving them a number of free games. Few people neglected to mention that the free games were from a small list of classics/oldies (this really ticked me off).
- Few innovative games on each of the consoles. Lets face it ... if you are a gamer, you likely have all three top consoles. The reason is there are 3-4 amazing titles for each console. There's a pretty long tail of crap out there.
- Motion control makes arms tired. This is true for the tech used in all three consoles.
- I don't want to tell all my Facebook friends what I am doing in my games. I really don't.
- Games again ... there are entire genres of games that have been devastated due to lack of profit. This isn't game developers being evil. It costs a fortune to make most hit games these days. What surprises me is why this is the case. These days there are far fewer platformers out there. New space based flight sims? Forget about it! Real-time strategy? The winners are set .. no new entrants please. You know what we have tons of? First person shooters!!
Sorry for the somewhat ranting post. I just feel very letdown by console gaming. I'm going to go play "where's my water" on my ipad to calm me down :-p
The biggest issue right now in the console/pc gaming discussion is hardware stagnation. Very few companies make games with a PC first model; CD Projekt RED being the premier (in my opinion) PC first studio - anyone who has played the Witcher 2 and took a cursory glance at the graphics configuration menu knows why. Sony's PS3 and MS's Xbox 360 came out more than half a decade ago and the hardware upgrades to these consoles have been nominal in comparison to what's been going on in the outside world on desktop PCs; the Wii also took a drastic turn for the worst in terms of hardware progression on gaming consoles.
Due to the Wii's success with motion based controls Sony and MS have also become distracted by the interactive game market with motion based platforms such as the Kinect and Move, only serving to further delay the next gen of consoles.
I've actually built what I refer to as my steambox, which is just a desktop computer hooked up to the tv in the living room. It's got a few 360 controllers plugged in and we've been playing games on that instead of the 360 that's also there. Stuff like dungeon defenders and Jamestown actually have great splitscreen, but we can also grab our laptops and have a 4 player game with each of us getting our own screen.
It's more flexible.
Also it's way easier to play youtube or whatever since it's actually got a keyboard.
Not to mention that Steam sales are great. PC is cheaper.
22 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 53.8 ms ] threadFirst, title is misleading. Reads like a state of the state to me.
Second, "Can console makers really continue as they have for years, releasing updates only every once in a while and dealing exclusively with preferred developers?"
For the former, I sure hope so. The more time goes by the better quality the games tend to be. Instead of gimics to test the system they know what's good and they use it.
For the latter, I suppose he's referring to indie developers, but I read an interesting article elsewhere that mentioned that no one is releasing sales numbers (save the big winners) which leads to the suggestion that you can make more than you do.
Also interesting was his talk about the WiiU; made me think his answer was going to be 'no' instead of 'who knows, we'll have to see.'
> The opportunity for either company is to be the console that gets back to being about games. While players love Netflix and other video on console, they generally don’t care about meta-stuff like social networking.
Can we see some references to back up this statement? Even if you are right, one can make the argument that social networking on gaming devices hasn't been done right and done right it could be a big money spinner.
> Windows 8 enables free-to-play games to the desktop, much as iPad enabled CSR Racing. That by itself is a really big deal.
I am sorry but how is this different from me going to a free game site and installing a game on any one of the Windows devices since 1995?
> I also think 2013 will be difficult for Steam. Steam is overwhelmed by its catalogue and not included as a part of the default Windows 8 dashboard. Its audience may stay fixed, or even decline, depending on the impact of the Windows Store. Steam is – and will always be – great value for the kind of indie PC gamer who loves his games, but it may have reached its zenith.
You really need to start backing these statements with some evidence as to why Steam is "getting overwhelmed" or why the PC gamer is magically going to switch to using Windows considering that a lot of people are locked in Steam. Also, the fact that gaming communities are tightly knit should likely mean that more people are going to join a platform that has most of their friends locked in.
I also like that I can watch Netflix on my PS3 or 360, much for the same reason I like that my PS3 allows me to watch DVD and Blu-ray, and my 360 DVD: convenience.
(Betteridge's law of headlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...)
2013 aside, as someone who works at an mobile game startup, all of us believe that the future of video gaming truly is mobile.
Just think of this: within three years the iPhone and Android-phones will likely be more powerful than the Xbox360. Give another generation and they will likely be more powerful than the PS3. They already boast more features (geolocation, social integration). At that point, we may well be hooking up our smartphones to a larger screen to play our "console" games.
There's also entrenched franchises on consoles. Activision doesn't want to make Call of Duty for iPhone - $60 is a bit more enticing of a price point than $1. That's not to say they won't maybe make mobile versions in the future, but certainly not versions intended to replace the console versions (similar to how handhelds already have had CoD spinoffs). And that's just one example, of course.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong on where the market's going, long-term. But I think that it is a long term, at least ten years or more, until we see consumers saying "why would I buy an <Xbox Next> when I already have an iPhone and AirPlay?"
As for your second point, it's simply wrong to assume that all mobile games cost $1 and will continue to do so in the future. Part of the prevalence of $1 apps is because those apps are casual and very basic. There is no reason that higher-quality games can't charge more in the future. Final Fantasy Tactics (a PS/Game Boy Advanced/DS game) was released on the iPhone for $16. If and when smartphones rival consoles, there is nothing stopping Activision from charging $60.
And this isn't necessarily limited to smartphones. With much more powerful tablets, the trend towards mobile gaming replacing consoles will be even more accelerated than I described.
I'm very optimistic and excited about this, ever since I played several games hooked up to my tv using my Android.
Give me the ability to use the mobile as a console more than a touch screen haptic device (let me use my DS3) and ill give you 20$ for a good game.
To believe that mobile is about to completely wipe out the gaming sector is simply deluded.
I looked into the key map preferences file, and it's fairly clear how the key mapping is implemented in the game: the defaults are hard-coded in, and "mapping" is implemented by basically having a search-and-replace filter on the incoming key stream. It's no wonder there are bugs; it seems that not all places that check for input run the input through the filter. What's missing is an indirection between the concepts of a keystroke and a command.
But the particularly revealing thing was when I went onto the Ubisoft forums to discuss the issue. The forum for Far Cry 3 Console has about 15x as many posts as the Far Cry 3 PC forum.
If revenues are similarly lopsided, it would explain why the PC version - the HUD and input system in particular - is such a crappy console port. It's because PC players are an afterthought, a minor bit of loose change to pick up after the bulk of the market has been addressed.
And in turn, the PC experience, from opening the box to getting the game running, is so unpleasant it turns more and more gamers away from the platform. It's not available on Steam in the UK, so I got the package in the mail. Ubisoft didn't even use proper plastic for the DVD box, it's all floppy and squeezable, like the plastic used for tomato ketchup or mayonnaise bottles. Ubisoft did almost everything they could to show their contempt for PC players.
So I am not optimistic for the future of PC games.
I'm not sure how accurate pre-orders is as a sign of platform popularity, but with Assassin's Creed 3, (and if the numbers are accurate,) it seems like PC only makes up about 9%~ of pre-orders[1] with the rest being dominated by XBox 360 and PS3. That's an incredibly poor number to justify any sort of effort in PC gaming.
But of course, there are so many variables at play that these numbers could mean almost anything. Heck, I could even attribute it to AC3 being far more comfortable to play with a controller/console than a keyboard/mouse. And of course, they did release it 21 days after the console, so there's that.[2]
[1]: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250519/usa-preorders-chart-2...
[2]: http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassins_Creed_III
Shitty console ports and "release to console six months before PC" however, do not.
The list could go on. And on. (I didn't count any MMOs, for example) Just because the more generic blockbuster franchise titles are focused on consoles doesn't mean PC gaming is having a hard time. The best games I've ever played (aside from the pre-XBox generations) have been on PC, and most likely will continue to be.
Steam has been a gateway into PC gaming for many people, and I don't think anyone has apparently been paying attention to MOBA games. DotaA 2 and LoL are massive right now, and DotA is still in beta. Both (will be) free-to-play, as is TF2, another blockbuster on Steam.
I think there's hope yet. The interaction model of a keyboard and mouse is phenomenal, and I don't see it being topped any time soon.
PC gaming should rock, but as long as the AAA end of the industry is plagued by rushed-out-before-the-holidays titles full of bugs, graphics driver and other hardware compatibility problems, "anti-cheating" and "copy protection" software that is little more than malware in nice clothing, and you-don't-really-own-anything licensing set-ups where most/all of the value of a game can be arbitrarily taken away from me, I'll spend my money somewhere else.
That somewhere else might be small/independent PC games makers, or GoG, or puzzle game apps on a tablet, but most likely I find it's nothing to do with computer gaming at all. It wasn't the games that killed the fun for me, it was all the abusive junk almost everyone started including with them, and that only seems to be getting worse with time.
But they like to play FIFA mostly (or God of War) and I like FPS.
And FPS only works for me with keyboard and mouse... So for me to play FPS is on PC and lonely.
(I wish this wasn't the case because I don't enjoy the activity of assemblying gaming PCs, worrying if some video card performance will be good enough etc.. -vs- buying a console).
Let me provide examples: - Diablo 3 ... the DRM and market place issues; inability to play a single player game without a network connection.
- StarCraft 2 has issues similar to D3. But I found them to be less severe.
- I bought the 3DS on the first day. The glasses-free 3D made me feel sick. On top of that, Nintendo lowered the price big time (which didn't upset me). They claimed to reward early adopters by giving them a number of free games. Few people neglected to mention that the free games were from a small list of classics/oldies (this really ticked me off).
- Few innovative games on each of the consoles. Lets face it ... if you are a gamer, you likely have all three top consoles. The reason is there are 3-4 amazing titles for each console. There's a pretty long tail of crap out there.
- Motion control makes arms tired. This is true for the tech used in all three consoles.
- I don't want to tell all my Facebook friends what I am doing in my games. I really don't.
- Games again ... there are entire genres of games that have been devastated due to lack of profit. This isn't game developers being evil. It costs a fortune to make most hit games these days. What surprises me is why this is the case. These days there are far fewer platformers out there. New space based flight sims? Forget about it! Real-time strategy? The winners are set .. no new entrants please. You know what we have tons of? First person shooters!!
Sorry for the somewhat ranting post. I just feel very letdown by console gaming. I'm going to go play "where's my water" on my ipad to calm me down :-p
Due to the Wii's success with motion based controls Sony and MS have also become distracted by the interactive game market with motion based platforms such as the Kinect and Move, only serving to further delay the next gen of consoles.
1) Steam 2) The fact that the current generations of consoles are nearly 7 years old with no hints of any upgrade