Console gaming, stop clinging to the old and adapt.

The big budget blockbuster exclusive died a few years ago. What we are seeing today is costly attempts by console companies to keep them alive with self funding, short term solutions to a long term problem.

What? Are console companies going to keep supplementing their line-up forever? Every game isn't a GT5 that is popular enough to cover its massive budget, you cannot blow $60 million on development costs alone and expect a single platform to make the game break even.

Big budget games in the future will be exclusive to cross platform titles, as they should be, as with any other mass audience entertainment medium.

Films and music are massive international industries, the games market hopes to be as big one day, they only got that way and were able to sustain it by being accessible to very board audiences. You cannot invest that sort of money then limit the product to only one of several audiences that could buy it, that's why films need linear progression of formats and cannot maintain multiple standards at once.

We have DVD right now and are moving to Blu-ray, we couldn't have both Blu-ray and HD-DVD because the competition would segregate the market and restrict audience size. Film makers spend far too much money to restrict themselves to one of several formats, they want one format their entire potential audience can access. That's why we need standard film and music formats that are accessible to everyone, gaming is no different.

Blockbuster exclusives are far too cost retrained by their audience size to justify such massive budgets, inevitably at some point it won't be possible at all. Yet time and time again both Microsoft and Sony splash out $10s of millions in an effort to produce these games as exclusives. As I said, short term solutions to a long term problem that they will eventually have to deal with one day; whether they like it or not.

So are they actually going to adapt to this changing market and figure out how to differentiate themselves outside of blockbuster exclusives, or are they going to keep spending until these games can no longer break even and they panic?

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

I don't think I would ever be a PC-Only gamer. I just like consoles better

Glad to be a PC......and PS3 gamer :P

I don't think I would ever be a PC-Only gamer. I just like consoles better

BPoole96

Who said anything about becoming a PC gamer?

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

Hathesulacon

it could be better.

[QUOTE="Hathesulacon"]

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

HavocV3

it could be better.

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

Hathesulacon

What exactly is the point of this thread? Console manufacturer funded exclusives exist to draw people into buying that console. It's a short term loss with long term profitability in mind.

[QUOTE="HavocV3"]

[QUOTE="Hathesulacon"]

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

Hathesulacon

it could be better.

we're discussing Verizon now? what a change of pace.

So...Are you against console gaming? Or big budget games? Doesn't the PC a a ton of those? Don't tell me games like Crysis didn't cost a lot of money to make. clubsammich91

[QUOTE="Hathesulacon"]

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

rolo107

So...Are you against console gaming? Or big budget games? Doesn't the PC a a ton of those? Don't tell me games like Crysis didn't cost a lot of money to make. clubsammich91

This argument isn't against big budget games or console gaming. Big budget games can work as cross platform games, just not as exclusives. The same applies to Crysis, Crysis is a big budget title; so it went cross platform to accommodate its development costs.

I pick on consoles in particular because they are not dealing with the situation, they just keep putting the issue off by supplementing their line-up. Rather than figure out how to differentiate themselves and compete without relying on $20+ million budget titles; they just fill in the places were the 3rd party used to be.

The point of the argument is it's a natural evolution of any entertainment medium to eventually expand into a broader audiences, you cannot keep increasing your costs while restricting your audience. This is a problem the console companies are going to have to deal with one day.

Not only is it wrong, but it's many times illegal.clubsammich91

Glad to be a PC......and PS3 gamer :P

SwagSurf

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]So...Are you against console gaming? Or big budget games? Doesn't the PC a a ton of those? Don't tell me games like Crysis didn't cost a lot of money to make. AnnoyedDragon

This argument isn't against big budget games or console gaming. Big budget games can work as cross platform games, just not as exclusives. The same applies to Crysis, Crysis is a big budget title; so it went cross platform to accommodate its development costs.

I pick on consoles in particular because they are not dealing with the situation, they just keep putting the issue off by supplementing their line-up. Rather than figure out how to differentiate themselves and compete without relying on $20+ million budget titles; they just fill in the places were the 3rd party used to be.

The point of the argument is it's a natural evolution of any entertainment medium to eventually expand into a broader audiences, you cannot keep increasing your costs while restricting your audience. This is a problem the console companies are going to have to deal with one day.

I must have misread your post. But, if every game was multi-platform than there would be no point in buying one system over another, then one company will decide to pay a game maker big bucks to make a game just for their system so people want to buy said system. See what I mean? clubsammich91

That's the problem, if all systems share the same games why pick one over the others? That is something console companies have to figure out.

Paying companies to make big budget titles and keep them exclusive is just a temporary and expensive solution, this is a long term problem and it is going to require long term solutions.

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

shinrabanshou

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

TheDuffman26

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

topgunmv

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]I must have misread your post. But, if every game was multi-platform than there would be no point in buying one system over another, then one company will decide to pay a game maker big bucks to make a game just for their system so people want to buy said system. See what I mean? AnnoyedDragon

That's the problem, if all systems share the same games why pick one over the others? That is something console companies have to figure out.

Paying companies to make big budget titles and keep them exclusive is just a temporary and expensive solution, this is a long term problem and it is going to require long term solutions.

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

topgunmv

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"]Halo definitely throws that theory out the window.nmaharg

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"]Halo definitely throws that theory out the window.TheDuffman26

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

Nice, that's the same cooler I have.

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]I must have misread your post. But, if every game was multi-platform than there would be no point in buying one system over another, then one company will decide to pay a game maker big bucks to make a game just for their system so people want to buy said system. See what I mean? AnnoyedDragon

That's the problem, if all systems share the same games why pick one over the others? That is something console companies have to figure out.

Paying companies to make big budget titles and keep them exclusive is just a temporary and expensive solution, this is a long term problem and it is going to require long term solutions.

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

shinrabanshou

It's more a matter of common sense than solid data.

Developers went cross platform in mass because rising development costs threatened their ability to bring in a decent amount of money. Now take a game with a large budget and keep it exclusive to only one platform, needless to say that game won't make as much money.

A game that targets three platforms instead of one will have a higher sales potential and lower risk of not breaking even. As costs continue to rise; it will be increasingly harder for a big budget exclusive to break even compared to a cross platform big budget exclusive.

Some games can get away with it, GT and Halo for example, games that will sell millions on name alone. But good luck doing that with a new IP or a less popular title, what works for a popular minority isn't a sustainable model for a entire platform.

I see, so what you're saying is that the market needs to basically treat consoles like PCs in that all consoles can play the same format, so that a wider audience can purchase games and justify bigger budgets. Or at least make them all multiplat.

To what extent are you suggesting this? Are you saying that consoles should essentially be like DVD players, and people will just choose to buy Sony or MS but it won't make much of a difference in the game library they can buy from?

I see, so what you're saying is that the market needs to basically treat consoles like PCs in that all consoles can play the same format, so that a wider audience can purchase games and justify bigger budgets. Or at least make them all multiplat.

To what extent are you suggesting this? Are you saying that consoles should essentially be like DVD players, and people will just choose to buy Sony or MS but it won't make much of a difference in the game library they can buy from?

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

TheDuffman26

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] The real question is why pair it with a 9400GT?nmaharg

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

Is there any solid data to indicate that console companies owning first-party studios, developing games internally and publishing them can't be a profitable venture?

AnnoyedDragon

It's more a matter of common sense than solid data.

Developers went cross platform in mass because rising development costs threatened their ability to bring in a decent amount of money. Now take a game with a large budget and keep it exclusive to only one platform, needless to say that game won't make as much money.

A game that targets three platforms instead of one will have a higher sales potential and lower risk of not breaking even. As costs continue to rise; it will be increasingly harder for a big budget exclusive to break even compared to a cross platform big budget exclusive.

Some games can get away with it, GT and Halo for example, games that will sell millions on name alone. But good luck doing that with a new IP or a less popular title, what works for a popular minority isn't a sustainable model for a entire platform.

While profitability is of course high on the list, first-party developers of course have different priorities.

Even disregarding Halo, which was at one point a new IP, the likes of Uncharted and Forza are examples of new IPs from first parties that have done well for themself.

I can easily see how third-parties will gradually all move to a multiplatform development and publishing approach, if they haven't already, but I don't really see why console makers need to "change with the times" if they're first party studio ventures are successful enough.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Are you using a stock cooler for your i7 or aftermarket?

TheDuffman26

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] The real question is why pair it with a 9400GT?stereointegrity

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] The real question is why pair it with a 9400GT?stereointegrity

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"]Waiting for Fermi...nmaharg

So what is your solution to all this?clubsammich91

That's for the console companies to figure out.

PC gaming is a collective rather than a single leader that dictates the path of the platform, so PC gaming adapts at the macro level as individual developers react at the micro level. With consoles Sony and Microsoft have to come to a decision, Nintendo has already made their decision.

No one can force every game to be multiplat. or make one unified console. Personally I like things the way they are.clubsammich91

No one is forcing anything, the cross platform orientation of this generation is a direct result of 3rd party developer decisions, not someone getting up and making a decision for this to happen. You might very well be happy with the way things are but they cannot remain that way, consoles would be dealing with the problem today if it weren't for them supplementing their line-up to push back the issue.

They will have to deal with the problem eventually, it is just a matter of when.

I see, so what you're saying is that the market needs to basically treat consoles like PCs in that all consoles can play the same format, so that a wider audience can purchase games and justify bigger budgets. Or at least make them all multiplat.

To what extent are you suggesting this? Are you saying that consoles should essentially be like DVD players, and people will just choose to buy Sony or MS but it won't make much of a difference in the game library they can buy from?

hakanakumono

All games don't have to go cross platform, only the ones with a budget that exceed the capability of a single platform to accommodate the costs.

I'm not suggesting console gaming take up a DVD style model, though a couple of decades in the future; that may be what the games industry evolves into. All I'm saying is consoles won't be able to differentiate themselves in the future using blockbuster exclusives for the stated reasons. They need to figure out how they can stand out from the competition without relying on these games.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="stereointegrity"]i doubt its coming anytime soon....i thought also the fermi was not going to be a gaming GPU and more of a workstation one...correct me if im wrong

TheDuffman26

[QUOTE="nmaharg"][QUOTE="stereointegrity"]i doubt its coming anytime soon....i thought also the fermi was not going to be a gaming GPU and more of a workstation one...correct me if im wrong

TheDuffman26

i found this where it is talked about the fermi being thought for use in workstations

Link

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] Coming in march, they say. I already got my 5850, nvidia can kick rocks.stereointegrity

Multiplatform gaming is the only way 2nd and 3rd party companies can make any descent money unless MS or Sony pay them off. Look at Capcom,Bethesda or Bioware, and the countless others producing games across all areas of gaming platforms. The thing about console games is that no one is getting all the profit from it, it goes to through many hands/channels(fees from Sony,MS etc) before the the company that made the games gets the end money which is only 25-30% . Now on Pc there is not any channels or fees needed so the companies can get 70% of their profit after production costs.

This why a Pc games can sell one million copies and make more money for the company vs 3 million console sale numbers.

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"]

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"]Don't worry. Early adopters always get screwed.TheDuffman26

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"][QUOTE="nmaharg"] Coming in march, they say. I already got my 5850, nvidia can kick rocks.nmaharg

[QUOTE="nmaharg"]

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"]Don't worry. Early adopters always get screwed.TheDuffman26

[QUOTE="nmaharg"]

[QUOTE="TheDuffman26"]Don't worry. Early adopters always get screwed.TheDuffman26

Third-party developers have largely gone multiplatform because there is less inherent risk, you're right about that. At the same time often third-parties have simply gone multiplatform with solid bankable titles purely to maximise profits: MW2, GTAIV, Assassin's Creed II, Final Fantasy XIII, all would have been likely been profitable on either system as an exclusive. That's a third-party's prerogative, sales and profits.

shinrabanshou

Looking at the development costs of most of those games, I'd question their ability to make a decent profit as exclusives.

For example Modern Warfare 2 cost between $40-$50 million to develop, $200 million including advertising and distribution costs. GTA4 is said to have cost $100 million to develop, so while some of those games may have broke even on a single platform; I highly doubt they would have made a wortwhile return as exclusives.

While profitability is of course high on the list, first-party developers of course have different priorities.

Even disregarding Halo, which was at one point a new IP, the likes of Uncharted and Forza are examples of new IPs from first parties that have done well for themself.

I can easily see how third-parties will gradually all move to a multiplatform development and publishing approach, if they haven't already, but I don't really see why console makers need to "change with the times" if they're first party studio ventures are successful enough.

shinrabanshou

Supplementing their line-up with 1st and 2nd party titles can work now, but it isn't going to continue to work in the long term. Today Uncharted 2 cost $20 million to make, but how much would it cost next gen? Or the gen after that? If costs continue to rise; the same audience isn't going to be able to accommodate those costs forever.