Console gaming, stop clinging to the old and adapt.

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.

AnnoyedDragon

I agree with you then.

[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.

Theres one key element you fail to account for here; in these exclusives it is Sony/Microsoft putting up the funding for the titles. On an exceptionally big budget title, eventually, its true, they might not recoup the costs from the games sales. However, Microsoft/Sony draw additional profit/revenue in from the "fallout" of the game rather than just from the games sales itself. Increased console sales, increased accessory sales, in Microsoft's case more XBL subscribers, heck even further down the line, more game sales just from the increased number of consoles. This is why the 3rd party companies can't afford to make these exclusives; they soley draw profit from the sale of the game and no where else. Microsoft/Sony however, can recoup the costs of the game in other ways simply because of the potential increase in userbase.

Max visual quality, not max settings. I use a custom config file.nmaharg

Theres one key element you fail to account for here; in these exclusives it is Sony/Microsoft putting up the funding for the titles. On an exceptionally big budget title, eventually, its true, they might not recoup the costs from the games sales. However, Microsoft/Sony draw additional profit/revenue in from the "fallout" of the game rather than just from the games sales itself. Increased console sales, increased accessory sales, in Microsoft's case more XBL subscribers, heck even further down the line, more game sales just from the increased number of consoles. This is why the 3rd party companies can't afford to make these exclusives; they soley draw profit from the sale of the game and no where else. Microsoft/Sony however, can recoup the costs of the game in other ways simply because of the potential increase in userbase.

Inger1

That's the result of anything that draws users to the platform, not just big budget exclusives. It would be better for them to figure out how to attract that sort of attention using other means rather than rely on increasingly costly measures.

At the end of the day Microsoft and Sony are making more money from the sale of 3rd party cross platform games than their blockbuster exclusives. The reason being self funded exclusives require an initial investment of millions; were as 3rd party games are paying the 1st party for the privilege of releasing on their platform, self investment being optional.

The 1st and 2nd party games are simply a means of differentiating yourself from the competition. Something to attract people to your platform, people who will later spend money on the things that do make a decent profit. If the cost to make these exclusives is steadily rising then they will eventually reach a point were they are just losing money on most of them, they would be better off in the long term financially finding some other means to differentiate themselves.

Nintendo figured this out before this generation even started, they found their gimmick/method of differentiating themselves without relying on big budget development, now Sony and Microsoft have to figure something out.

[QUOTE="nmaharg"]Max visual quality, not max settings. I use a custom config file.TheDuffman26

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

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.

AnnoyedDragon

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.

I didn't know that Activision spent that much on advertising MW2. Wow. But even taking that into account, the $1 billion in sales it's generated roughly splits 60:40 (360: PS3) according to VCchartz (I know... VGchartz lol) so let's say $400 million on the lower selling platform - that would presumably imply some level of profitability after things like platform licensing fees.

Single platform development would presumably imply lower development costs.

So even big budget titles can potentially be profitable on single platforms. But I don't disagree that 3rd parties are best served going multiplatform purely to maximise profits.

[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]

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.

AnnoyedDragon

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.

All this really means is that developers need to improve their efficiency, or find alternatives to ever increasing graphical fidelity to pull in consumers.

For the Activision&Developer(IW) to make money(sizeable profit) after all costs with MW2 , they would need to sell 5 million console copies to break even. Then if you include the Pc version too selling an esimated million which turns in more profit per copy then console copy. So them selling almost 10 million copies total just made them almost 2x the money they spent making it. Now if it was only on one console it would have broke them. This is what AD is trying to point out,exclusive games are going to be a rare thing because their isnt enough demographs with just with one console. And costs will keep going up and they will have to ethier raise game prices or move to multiplatform to make money.

[QUOTE="Hathesulacon"]

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

HavocV3

it could be better.

So could pc gaming

[QUOTE="SwagSurf"]

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

stereointegrity

I didn't know that Activision spent that much on advertising MW2. Wow. But even taking that into account, the $1 billion in sales it's generated roughly splits 60:40 (360: PS3) according to VCchartz (I know... VGchartz lol) so let's say $400 million on the lower selling platform - that would presumably imply some level of profitability after things like platform licensing fees.

Single platform development would presumably imply lower development costs.

So even big budget titles can potentially be profitable on single platforms. But I don't disagree that 3rd parties are best served going multiplatform purely to maximise profits.

shinrabanshou

Although I know PC gaming didn't play a big role in MW2 sales; VGchartz still shouldn't have excluded it entirely and pretended this was just a 360/PS3 title...

I do see your point, I just don't see it being applied in a broad manner. Not every game can sell like MW2, just like I said earlier not every game can sell like Halo 3 or GT5. Arguably MW2 sold enough to make a decent return as an exclusive, but could we say the same for every game?

It's ok when you can control your development budget for expected sales, but that's the problem, developers are losing control of their budgets in order to meet modern standards. If you must make the big budget games to stand out then you must have the bigger audience to compensate.

The problem your citing seems more a generic problem with video game development, spiralling costs, rather than a problem for console makers. One can easily extend your argument and say that at some point in future gens development costs, coupled with advertising and distribution, will be too excessive to be recouped even with the game on every platform...

All this really means is that developers need to improve their efficiency, or find alternatives to ever increasing graphical fidelity to pull in consumers.

shinrabanshou

That is a possibility, one I have brought up when people talk about games ever advancing until we hit photorealism. I think game development is going to hit a cost wall long before we even start thinking about photorealism in games.

If you address the cost issue; all the concerns I have mentioned become irrelevant. But since no one has found a way to halt this problem then that leaves us here, so what are Sony and Microsoft going to do about it?

That is a possibility, one I have brought up when people talk about games ever advancing until we hit photorealism. I think game development is going to hit a cost wall long before we even start thinking about photorealism in games.

If you address the cost issue; all the concerns I have mentioned become irrelevant. But since no one has found a way to halt this problem then that leaves us here, so what are Sony and Microsoft going to do about it?

AnnoyedDragon

Another would be one that no one has as yet mentioned... raising prices of games.

Leaving aside addressing the development costs to ensure the sustainability of first party studios, I can't see what console makers would do beyond trying to introduce alternative control schemes - which seems to be the current approach - to differentiate their consoles besides simply spending bucketloads on marketing and branding.

Extremely well written post TC. And you were spot on with your reference to the movie industry. I agree with uthat the big budget exclusives are dying. I say we'll always have a couple big time ones like Halo, Gears, Uncharted, etc. But for the most part, devs and publishers need all the money they can get to support these huge ambitious games. You can't blame them.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

That is a possibility, one I have brought up when people talk about games ever advancing until we hit photorealism. I think game development is going to hit a cost wall long before we even start thinking about photorealism in games.

If you address the cost issue; all the concerns I have mentioned become irrelevant. But since no one has found a way to halt this problem then that leaves us here, so what are Sony and Microsoft going to do about it?

shinrabanshou

Another would be one that no one has as yet mentioned... raising prices of games.

Leaving aside addressing the development costs to ensure the sustainability of first party studios, I can't see what console makers would do beyond trying to introduce alternative control schemes - which seems to be the current approach - to differentiate their consoles besides simply spending bucketloads on marketing and branding.

I may be getting into semantics here, but technically, Sony and Microsoft have already differentiated themselves. True, it's not on the same level as Nintendo in that respect. But Microsoft has made Xbox Live synonymous with being the way to play with your friends. Sony has helped push Blu-Ray to the forefront with the PS3 the same way the PS2 helped launch DVD into the mainstream consumer market.

Are these things enough to differentiate them from the competition? That's debatable. But one has to realize that whether you choose to recognize it or not there are other mitigating factors that contributing to choosing one console over another.

How many times have we heard people say they regret getting a Wii or barely play it? I'm not trying to down the Wii here, my point is that separating yourself from the pack with a gimmick is the technological equivalent of making a pun and being considered a good comedian. The luster fades very quickly and you're back to looking for what makes it stand out.

Yes, Nintendo's sales have spoken for themselves. I get what you're saying, TC, and I'm not saying that it's illogical or without merit, I just think consoles need to play to their strengths. Namely, NOT being a PC. I say this without any contempt for the PC (I plan on getting a gaming PC as soon as money allows), but this gen is so focused on pushing the best graphics they can out of fixed hardware that they've lost sight of what was conceivably console gaming's BIGGEST positive:

Offline multiplayer.

That's probably as big if not a BIGGER reason why the Wii is doing so well. How many times have you heard things regarding PS3 / 360 games where people said, "I wish it had offline splitscreen." It happens a lot more often than it should.

So many games now only allow multiplayer online. At that point they might as well just be PC games. The whole draw of console gaming was simplicity and that you could invite friends over, share a couch, and a game. That's all but lost now.

I think this is less a case of consoles having to distance themselves from each other, but from the PC.

Get consoles back to what made them good and then they can worry about being different from each other.

...they've lost sight of what was conceivably console gaming's BIGGEST positive:

Offline multiplayer.

That's probably as big if not a BIGGER reason why the Wii is doing so well. How many times have you heard things regarding PS3 / 360 games where people said, "I wish it had offline splitscreen." It happens a lot more often than it should.

So many games now only allow multiplayer online. At that point they might as well just be PC games. The whole draw of console gaming was simplicity and that you could invite friends over, share a couch, and a game. That's all but lost now.

I think this is less a case of consoles having to distance themselves from each other, but from the PC.

Get consoles back to what made them good and then they can worry about being different from each other.

Ryan_Som

Getting rid of exclusives would be one of the most stupid decisions I'd ever see. Exclusives are made to draw sales, getting rid of them would mean we'd eventually have only one big console. That would be boring.

And the PC is doing the same thing, you know? Are you saying there aren't any big budget PC exclusives out there? Sims 3 would like to say hello. And if we look into the future, Starcraft 2 is one of the biggest games of this year (or next if delayed). There's nothing bad about that. It makes gamers proud to sport an exclusive that is worth something. Though the game may not rack in as much money by itself, having good exclusives will make more people buy the consoles themselves, meaning they get even more profits. But of course, people neglect that fact.

The most ironic thing here is that the reason I'm not a PC gamer is the fact that the exclusives on consoles interest me far more. Isn't that proof that exclusives play a big part in a console's popularity? Just because some people don't have the money to buy certain consoles doesn't give them the right to complain about their own problems.

Getting rid of exclusives would be one of the most stupid decisions I'd ever see. Exclusives are made to draw sales, getting rid of them would mean we'd eventually have only one big console. That would be boring.

calvinsora

Getting rid of exclusives isn't the argument that is being made, the thread is about producing games that are too expensive to do well as exclusives; and the impact of rising content development costs.

Since you have made a mistake on the subject of this thread; I have not addressed the remainder of your response. If there are any parts in particular you would like my opinion on feel free to ask.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Getting rid of exclusives would be one of the most stupid decisions I'd ever see. Exclusives are made to draw sales, getting rid of them would mean we'd eventually have only one big console. That would be boring.

AnnoyedDragon

Getting rid of exclusives isn't the argument that is being made, the thread is about producing games that are too expensive to do well as exclusives; and the impact of rising content development costs.

Since you have made a mistake on the subject of this thread; I have not addressed the remainder of your response. If there are any parts in particular you would like my opinion on feel free to ask.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your point, I most certainly didn't mean to do so. But if, in fact, the industry can't keep up many exclusives in the future, where are we heading? When money starts dwindling for the production of high-quality exclusives, the consoles themselves will most likely start to lose steam. I think it's important to keep exclusives coming, so as they don't disappear altogether.

I agree 100 percent TC.

This gen we've seen the move away from exclusives, I don't think there was even one big budget 3rd party exclusive on 360 or PS3 last year. So yeah, I think it's a possiblity we'll see a change in strategy at some point.

But I think it could go the other way too. With the lack of exclusive 3rd party support, they might try even harder to differentiate themselves from the competition with 1st and 2nd party games.

Gaming is propably the only area of entertainment where it works, thankfully, imagine if Sony made their movies so that they only work on Sony DVD and BR players, it would be ridiculous.

I agree, next gen it's going to be even more costly, not everyone has a KZ2 budget and Dev time and even KZ2 didn't do that well considering the costs. Console gaming will kill more and more devs and leave only established devs with established IPs left. The lack of risk taking this gen proves that.

I much prefer console gaming. PC gaming just doesn't appeal to me.racing1750

What does this have to do with this thread?

I would prefer one platform entirely so that all games will have to compete on one platform.

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?

AnnoyedDragon

I think you are completely wrong. The hardware is there simply as a delivery vehicle for the software. The solution isn't to narrowly differentiate the hardware. The solution is to eliminate the hardware. All the money that all of us are putting into consoles and gaming PCs is completely pointless. The entire concept of SWs is pointless. What any real gamer wants is to be able to play any good game. Forcing consumers into placing bets on which hardware platform to buy based upon what games they mightget access to over 5+ yrs into the future is ridiculous anda horridmodel for the consumer and a horrid model for the game developer.

We have been limited because of technological considerations, which has created a series of hardware iterations/generations. Fortunately, that business model is dying. This is why XBL is important. And it is why Onlive may be super important. Even what PSN has done is important. We are evolving to a model where everything occurs online (whether MP or SP is irrelevant). Ultimately, gaming is going to be a subscription based service. And it cannot come fast enough.

Would you rather pay $300 upfront to buy a PS3, 360, or Wii and then get access only to the games on that platform?

Or pay nothing upfront for hardware,but insteadpay an XBL type subscription of $50/yr to get access to ALL GAMES created?

The hardware is irrelevant. And the sooner we all realize this and get off that crack, the better.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

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?

SUD123456

I think you are completely wrong. The hardware is there simply as a delivery vehicle for the software. The solution isn't to narrowly differentiate the hardware. The solution is to eliminate the hardware. All the money that all of us are putting into consoles and gaming PCs is completely pointless. The entire concept of SWs is pointless. What any real gamer wants is to be able to play any good game. Forcing consumers into placing bets on which hardware platform to buy based upon what games they mightget access to over 5+ yrs into the future is ridiculous anda horridmodel for the consumer and a horrid model for the game developer.

We have been limited because of technological considerations, which has created a series of hardware iterations/generations. Fortunately, that business model is dying. This is why XBL is important. And it is why Onlive may be super important. Even what PSN has done is important. We are evolving to a model where everything occurs online (whether MP or SP is irrelevant). Ultimately, gaming is going to be a subscription based service. And it cannot come fast enough.

Would you rather pay $300 upfront to buy a PS3, 360, or Wii and then get access only to the games on that platform?

Or pay nothing upfront for hardware,but insteadpay an XBL type subscription of $50/yr to get access to ALL GAMES created?

The hardware is irrelevant. And the sooner we all realize this and get off that crack, the better.

I would prefer one platform entirely so that all games will have to compete on one platform.

Hexagon_777

Hell no. Competition is needed. There are more than just competition between games. While I don't care for the Wii direction as a piece of hardware, it as at least different and could stem change. Without competition, complacency is sure to set in.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]I would prefer one platform entirely so that all games will have to compete on one platform.-RPGamer-

What I am more referring to is what has already been mentioned, namely having one general platform sold by numerous different companies so as to still have competition, but the focus is now on games instead of the hardware.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]I would prefer one platform entirely so that all games will have to compete on one platform.Hexagon_777

What I am more referring to is what has already been mentioned, namely having one general platform sold by numerous different companies so as to still have competition, but the focus is now on games instead of the hardware.

Then you won't have the dual layer competition. You said the same exact thing as you said before, just replaced one platform with a generic platform sold by various companies. Again complacency is sure to set in for hardware with one platform, supported by one or many companies. You won't see movements like the Wiimote, wand, Natal, Live etc. if we have one console (whether or not you like these features is another topic).

There is no other way to differentiate themselves without exclusives. They all need exclusives to thrive and be unique. You can't simply mask them with fancy little features because that other console plays the same games just as good.

[QUOTE="Hathesulacon"]

lol, dont even try. Console gaming is great.

it could be better.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]Hell no. Competition is needed. There are more than just competition between games. While I don't care for the Wii direction as a piece of hardware, it as at least different and could stem change. Without competition, complacency is sure to set in.-RPGamer-

What I am more referring to is what has already been mentioned, namely having one general platform sold by numerous different companies so as to still have competition, but the focus is now on games instead of the hardware.

Then you won't have the dual layer competition. You said the same exact thing as you said before, just replaced one platform with a generic platform sold by various companies. Again complacency is sure to set in for hardware with one platform, supported by one or many companies. You won't see movements like the Wiimote, wand, Natal, Live etc. if we have one console (whether or not you like these features is another topic).

So how do the music industry and the film industry do it? They are doing just fine, people are not complaining, etc. Complacency does not sound that bad since it appears to work for other industries.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]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?SUD123456

We have been limited because of technological considerations, which has created a series of hardware iterations/generations. Fortunately, that business model is dying. This is why XBL is important. And it is why Onlive may be super important. Even what PSN has done is important. We are evolving to a model where everything occurs online (whether MP or SP is irrelevant). Ultimately, gaming is going to be a subscription based service. And it cannot come fast enough.

Would you rather pay $300 upfront to buy a PS3, 360, or Wii and then get access only to the games on that platform?

Or pay nothing upfront for hardware,but insteadpay an XBL type subscription of $50/yr to get access to ALL GAMES created?

The hardware is irrelevant. And the sooner we all realize this and get off that crack, the better.

Sounds good to me.

Really, its my opinion that companies just run themselves too poorly and now that tech is moving so fast and developmentt costs are rising it is biting them in the ass. Games don't need 20 million dollar budgets but since the industry is growing, evs can get away with it and make it back. I don't know how long they will be able to but eventually I think they may need to change. What I would like to see is devs simply be smarter with how they run. Then we can get big games (though it may be less) and have everything run fine. Use one standardized engine across all platofrms like Capcom has with MT framework. Utilize the handheld market early so that you haven't destroyed its potential like western devs did this gen. Work on smart DD games, don't blow your money but be smart in how its allocated. Don't send expensive games out to die. Don't create games you know will not sell (as much as I wish it weren't so). Devs should meet with the hardware makers. To be honest, I don't really see why there is so much strive for graphics king, the graphics king, itdoesn't normally make you much money over what you could have gotten. Maybe its just me but the reason I think we can't have blockbusters is because everyone wants to be a blockbuster first instead of a valuable wanted responsible budget pice of software. My thoughts.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

What I am more referring to is what has already been mentioned, namely having one general platform sold by numerous different companies so as to still have competition, but the focus is now on games instead of the hardware.Hexagon_777

Then you won't have the dual layer competition. You said the same exact thing as you said before, just replaced one platform with a generic platform sold by various companies. Again complacency is sure to set in for hardware with one platform, supported by one or many companies. You won't see movements like the Wiimote, wand, Natal, Live etc. if we have one console (whether or not you like these features is another topic).

So how do the music industry and the film industry do it? They are doing just fine, people are not complaining, etc. Complacency does not sound that bad since it appears to work for other industries.

I don't know, in theory it sounds fine but I don't think games is the same as a lot of other industries. Its really imossible to push a new think if you can't differentiate yourself from the competition. Also the standardized tech thing is nice in theory but with a bunch of generic hardware makers, where does the push for better things come from? Its basically been proven that you can't successfully launch new hardware on a system that is already growing so how does anyone really push anything. Its perfect for third parties nut I'm not so sure if I want all the systems to be the same. I always like to imagine the systems as tastes, you go to what suits your taste, if everything is the same taste, how do you find something for you if you don't fit in?

Just like the movie industry, you can have blockbusters and smaller low budget titles, and have both do well. I think the best bet is like you outlined, with smaller scale handheld/discount console games being the bread and butter, with the occasional blockbuster. The most successful companies this gen I think are the ones that diversify like that. Look at Konami, they have their blockbusters and smaller titles like the ds castlevania games. The ds games are great, sell less than half a million, but due to their low cost are profitable.

Really, its my opinion that companies just run themselves too poorly and now that tech is moving so fast and developmentt costs are rising it is biting them in the ass. Games don't need 20 million dollar budgets but since the industry is growing, evs can get away with it and make it back. I don't know how long they will be able to but eventually I think they may need to change. What I would like to see is devs simply be smarter with how they run. Then we can get big games (though it may be less) and have everything run fine. Use one standardized engine across all platofrms like Capcom has with MT framework. Utilize the handheld market early so that you haven't destroyed its potential like western devs did this gen. Work on smart DD games, don't blow your money but be smart in how its allocated. Don't send expensive games out to die. Don't create games you know will not sell (as much as I wish it weren't so). Devs should meet with the hardware makers. To be honest, I don't really see why there is so much strive for graphics king, the graphics king, itdoesn't normally make you much money over what you could have gotten. Maybe its just me but the reason I think we can't have blockbusters is because everyone wants to be a blockbuster first instead of a valuable wanted responsible budget pice of software. My thoughts.

ActicEdge

I don't know, in theory it sounds fine but I don't think games is the same as a lot of other industries. Its really imossible to push a new think if you can't differentiate yourself from the competition. Also the standardized tech thing is nice in theory but with a bunch of generic hardware makers, where does the push for better things come from? Its basically been proven that you can't successfully launch new hardware on a system that is already growing so how does anyone really push anything. Its perfect for third parties nut I'm not so sure if I want all the systems to be the same. I always like to imagine the systems as tastes, you go to what suits your taste, if everything is the same taste, how do you find something for you if you don't fit in?

ActicEdge

You are caught in the narrow paradigm that the industryhas been and thereforehas to be hardware driven. This is false. Theconsole hardware is irrelevantas it exists only because that was the only practical solution for software delivery in the past. That won't be the case in the future.

If you have the infrastructure to deliver the content via electronic pipe to your display device (TV) then the intermediary hardware becomes obsolete. The innovation then comes from the games software itself, the network code, and the input devices. The console hardware never was important...only necessary...and therefore was the limiting factor. Elimination of the limiting factor will lead to a gaming renaissance.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I don't know, in theory it sounds fine but I don't think games is the same as a lot of other industries. Its really imossible to push a new think if you can't differentiate yourself from the competition. Also the standardized tech thing is nice in theory but with a bunch of generic hardware makers, where does the push for better things come from? Its basically been proven that you can't successfully launch new hardware on a system that is already growing so how does anyone really push anything. Its perfect for third parties nut I'm not so sure if I want all the systems to be the same. I always like to imagine the systems as tastes, you go to what suits your taste, if everything is the same taste, how do you find something for you if you don't fit in?

SUD123456

You are caught in the narrow paradigm that the industryhas been and thereforehas to be hardware driven. This is false. Theconsole hardware is irrelevantas it exists only because that was the only practical solution for software delivery in the past. That won't be the case in the future.

If you have the infrastructure to deliver the content via electronic pipe to your display device (TV) then the intermediary hardware becomes obsolete. The innovation then comes from the games software itself, the network code, and the input devices. The console hardware never was important...only necessary...and therefore was the limiting factor. Elimination of the limiting factor will lead to a gaming renaissance.

I very much am caught up in the idea that the hardware is important lol. I think that the amount of immediate consumers you have that will be willing to pay will decrease if they cannot physically go and buy the median in a store. Especially for games. I don't think that companies can realistically say screw it to the hardware, find a somehow less expensive way of getting the games to the user (we'll see if onlive works), make all the money their games need cost wise through a subscription that people are going to be willing to pay (its going to be more than $50 for what you propose) and find game giving as a really easy thing to do or give. I think too much of the fanbase and reason gaming is growing is alienated by having to pay a subscription, kids can no longer do this, its going to be far harder to convince parents to pay monthly fees etc. I think there still needs to be some type of hardware but rather, it needs to be priced and created with the affordibility of the average person in mind. The PS3, 360 and even Wii aren't that to some degree. I think that people are going to rather wait 4 years for haardware to reach an affordable price than pay a never lowering subscription fee. That's just me though.

[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.

Console gaming is bomb!

This thread is a...

FAIL!

Not saying it'll happen, though. The competition is rather more complex. Sony wants to take over the living room. This threatens Microsoft's software dominance, so Microsoft is running interference.HuusAsking

This thread is a...FAIL!brickdoctor

Graphics = good games.

A console game can be just as good as a pc game

I very much am caught up in the idea that the hardware is important lol. I think that the amount of immediate consumers you have that will be willing to pay will decrease if they cannot physically go and buy the median in a store. Especially for games. I don't think that companies can realistically say screw it to the hardware, find a somehow less expensive way of getting the games to the user (we'll see if onlive works), make all the money their games need cost wise through a subscription that people are going to be willing to pay (its going to be more than $50 for what you propose) and find game giving as a really easy thing to do or give. I think too much of the fanbase and reason gaming is growing is alienated by having to pay a subscription, kids can no longer do this, its going to be far harder to convince parents to pay monthly fees etc. I think there still needs to be some type of hardware but rather, it needs to be priced and created with the affordibility of the average person in mind. The PS3, 360 and even Wii aren't that to some degree. I think that people are going to rather wait 4 years for haardware to reach an affordable price than pay a never lowering subscription fee. That's just me though.

ActicEdge

They said the exact same thing about music. A bunch of people will say no way, yet when faced with reality very few of them will exit the market. And the next gen of gamers which are growing up today and will be the hardcore gamers next gen won't know the difference or care.

The overall economics are easy; easier than the technology. Manufacturing out, Packaging out. Distribution out. Retailer out. The billions of $ wasted on hardware out. It is not hard to envision where the overall value chain costs less in the new model than it does in the current model. This is the case for basically every technology driven product/service, so why would gaming be different?

The subscription type fee would be to access the system/service/portal housing the games. There is no reason why you could not have multiple competing services acting as the hubs. Steam vs XBL 2.0 vs Onlive. Competition amongst the portals would drive innovation, like who is going to be your cell plan provider.

Software game companies could still charge one time fees or subscription fees for their products through the portals.

Everything in life is a monthly charge. Parents are conditioned for monthly charges. House, electricity, gas, cable, phone, internet. We live in a society conditioned for monthly payments. For many families this would be 'easier' than one time up front costs...which is precisely why everything is a monthly payment already.