Cliffy B Describes Games Industry's "State of Turmoil"

[kajinking]

Oh, and Minecraft on a console? That totally already happened. In fact, Minecraft is one of the biggest sellers on the Xbox Live store. Microsoft has no problem with getting indie games on Xbox Live. In fact, they have an entire section of the store devoted to indie games.

I think he meant a smash indie hit like Minecraft being developed on the console first. The implication is that consoles don't lend themselves well to small indie games whereas on the PC they're welcome and can easily get their footing. I'm not sure about that though since I know a decent ammount of indie games do get made for the consoles however if I remember right a sizable portion of those are though company hosted programs where they are given special treatment and advertising so anyone who isn't hosted or a triple A game might be out of luck,

 

[Little Gray]

This extended console generation has helped PC gaming soooo much. It's amazing what it has done for PC gaming. All the console makers were trying to save money by doing the extended generation but I think maybe they shot themselves in the foot for short term profits over long term gains. I really doubt it was intentional though. I doubt many people could of predicted just how much of an effect on the PC market that the extended console generation had.

I think console games continually selling more and more copies every year disagrees with you.

 

[LordMonty]

Nitentedo are the weakest they have been in years but CliffyB may be over doing it. Slow selling handhelds and a dead hardware waiting for the other next gem consoles hurts your income. And sony and microsoft going at each other? well duh.

But yea his general point stands, unfortunately we live in intresting times in gaming as much as the real world and we shall see what the future brings.

 

[GAunderrated]

This extended console generation has helped PC gaming soooo much. It's amazing what it has done for PC gaming. All the console makers were trying to save money by doing the extended generation but I think maybe they shot themselves in the foot for short term profits over long term gains. I really doubt it was intentional though. I doubt many people could of predicted just how much of an effect on the PC market that the extended console generation had.

I think console games continually selling more and more copies every year disagrees with you.

One or two games may have increased sales continually every year such as CoD. But overall game retail sales have been dropping massively. However, PC gaming (at least on steam) has continued to grow and as cliff stated is going into a rebirth. Although even that term is factually incorrect as in order for there to be a rebirth something had to die.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Yes, yes, I know, PC is the ultimate gaming machine, nothing will ever compare to it, and consoles are all pieces of crap.

Looking at the main part of what he is saying though...I don't think he understands that console games are still selling really well. I mean, why would Nintendo go software-only when Skyward Sword, the most recent Zelda game, has sold 3 and a half million copies on a system that was on the verge of being replaced by the Wii U?

I don't think CliffyB means right away, but he does have a point. Even with Skyward Sword selling 3 million, Nintendo is still losing money. Their profits have been shrinking for the last 2 years. 1 game selling 3 million isn't going to offset that. Especially as one of very few games on the Wii in recent memory to sell that well. I think CliffyB is saying that this gen is going to be a dealbreaker for all 3 and that Nintendo's Wii reputation put them in a disadvantage.

Speaking of the Wii U, the latest Mario game on it has sold 1.5 million copies. That may not sound like much, but the number of Wii U sales is, with a generous estimate, about 2 million consoles. That means nearly everybody who bought a Wii U also bought New Super Mario Bros. U. Why would Nintendo give that up?

Because, again, a few games selling well doesn't save a company from bad profits. Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss right now (for the first tme in a while) with 3 million units actually sold. Super Mario Brothers U is the ONLY game to sell that well on the Wii U. Why? There's nothing else to buy on it with that appeal. There's also a long wait before anything worth looking at on the Wii U is coming out. Nintendo can't rely on one Mario game to make up the losses.

As for saying that Sony and Microsoft should give up focus on AAA games and focus on indie devs, that is a nice sentiment, but the figures don't lie. Out of the 10 best selling games last year, 10 were sequels, and 7 or 8 of them were AAA games (not sure if Borderlands 2 is a AAA game). Indie games definitely sell, don't get me wrong. Notch and his pile of money can attest to that. But saying that there isn't as much of a future for AAA games is...not exactly accurate.

Here's the thing with that. Indie games have a much better profit margin than AAA games. And also, since the figure don't lie, the figures also show that console software has been selling worse and worse for the past few years, with indie titles on the rise. Indie titles have the PC to thank for that, as its a pain in the ass to get an indie game on consoles. Look, we're seeing a game studio or 2 close at least once a month. We just saw THQ go bankrupt and Blizzard, Activision, and other big publishers have been laying people off. High sales don't mean profit. Big gaming companies are spending more and earning less.

Oh, and Minecraft on a console? That totally already happened. In fact, Minecraft is one of the biggest sellers on the Xbox Live store. Microsoft has no problem with getting indie games on Xbox Live. In fact, they have an entire section of the store devoted to indie games.

Microsoft has no problem getting indie games on XBL. That's one of the most laughable things I've heard in recent memory. Did you not hear of Indie Game: The Movie? While not the best way to look at how indie games are made, what that movie does illustrate it the massive difficulty of indie developers getting their game on the consoles. The costs of patches to be done on the Xbox Live Market alone kind of destroys your point there.

$10,000 for a patch. Look up the MS dispute with FEZ.

The gaming industry is going through some major shit right now. CliffyB knows what he's talking about. He's spent more man hours in the industry in his 20+ year career than both me and you have spend playing games.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Nintendo going software only (maybe handheld hardware) would be a great for gamers.

How? Not even "how is this a good idea" more like "how the hell could a catastrophic series events like that happen in the first place?" Clifford's problem is that he is literally pulling that assumption out of his ass. He has nothing to back it up. This is just him running his mouth again.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

This extended console generation has helped PC gaming soooo much. It's amazing what it has done for PC gaming. All the console makers were trying to save money by doing the extended generation but I think maybe they shot themselves in the foot for short term profits over long term gains. I really doubt it was intentional though. I doubt many people could of predicted just how much of an effect on the PC market that the extended console generation had.

I think console games continually selling more and more copies every year disagrees with you.

I think that sales reports on game sales for the past 5 years would disagree with you.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Replace "Nintendo" with "Sony" and then we have a more probable scenario given recent developments regarding Sony's "junk status" and their selling of their US HQ building just to get more money. Of the three console makers, I'd say Nintendo is the safest off and has been so for quite some time.

I both agree and disagree with the rest of the points.
On indie devs, I would think the competent ones would stay on PC and keep pumping out quality titles (on Steam or otherwise) without having to stoop to shovelware level (a fair portion of XBLA arcade games) or have to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to issue a patch (if what the Fez creator said of XBLA was true).

 

[Atmos Duality]

I agree with all of his general points, but I want to know why HE agrees with them after spending the height of his career in the AAA console market.

Edit
Aside: Hey Cliff, how about Shadow Complex 2? I'd even settle on porting Shadow Complex to PC.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Replace "Nintendo" with "Sony" and then we have a more probable scenario given recent developments regarding Sony's "junk status" and their selling of their US HQ building just to get more money. Of the three console makers, I'd say Nintendo is the safest off and has been so for quite some time.

God, someone could write a BOOK about how badly Sony has been managed over the years. That's what really gets me about these Nintendo claims is that the numbers tell a COMPLETELY different scenario and it's this: Nintendo is by FAR the most successful of its competitors and not only is not laying people or restructuring, it's EXPANDING. They're making a whole new building for new teams.

 

[GAunderrated]

Replace "Nintendo" with "Sony" and then we have a more probable scenario given recent developments regarding Sony's "junk status" and their selling of their US HQ building just to get more money. Of the three console makers, I'd say Nintendo is the safest off and has been so for quite some time.

I both agree and disagree with the rest of the points.
On indie devs, I would think the competent ones would stay on PC and keep pumping out quality titles (on Steam or otherwise) without having to stoop to shovelware level (a fair portion of XBLA arcade games) or have to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to issue a patch (if what the Fez creator said of XBLA was true).

Yes nintendo is the strongest of the three. Also someone earlier said that WiiU is selling at a loss but the thing is they become profitable with one game sold. Considering that Super Mario Brothers WiiU sold 1.5 million out of the 2 million WiiU units sold, that means that majority of the consoles sold right now were in profit.

Also the 3DS is kicking ass right now and with the new fire emblem game, its really taking off strong.

However, one thing that bothers me is think about who has the most exclusive content. Right now Nintendo has the most exclusive titles that arn't on steam that I want to buy. Both Sony and microsoft have maybe one or two exclusives that I like but nothing worth plunging into the next gen BS.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Replace "Nintendo" with "Sony" and then we have a more probable scenario given recent developments regarding Sony's "junk status" and their selling of their US HQ building just to get more money. Of the three console makers, I'd say Nintendo is the safest off and has been so for quite some time.

I both agree and disagree with the rest of the points.
On indie devs, I would think the competent ones would stay on PC and keep pumping out quality titles (on Steam or otherwise) without having to stoop to shovelware level (a fair portion of XBLA arcade games) or have to pay tens of thousands of dollars just to issue a patch (if what the Fez creator said of XBLA was true).

I'd say that the Xbox is in the most trouble by a long shot. They have no exclusive franchises and still think charging people for online use is ok. Seriously, all but Gears, Halo, and Alan Wake were ported to the PS3. There's no reason to grab the next Xbox unless a lot of new big exclusive IPs are announced.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Yes nintendo is the strongest of the three. Also someone earlier said that WiiU is selling at a loss but the thing is they become profitable with one game sold. Considering that Super Mario Brothers WiiU sold 1.5 million out of the 2 million WiiU units sold, that means that majority of the consoles sold right now were in profit.

I highly doubt that Nintendo's cut of what Super Mario Brothers Wii U is completely covering the losses being made with every Wii U sold. That's unrealistic, its one game. Nintendo doesn't take a %100 stake off all the profit made off of Super Mario Bros Wii U. Nintendo may be the strongest now, but we'll have to see if the Wii U can handle competition, because as it stands now it has none, and Nintendo has already rolled back sales expectations more than once. If the Wii U has no games worth looking at by this coming Christmas, they are in trouble. Hell, they've been reporting losses for a while now. That could also be thanks to the 3DS' massive price cut so soon after its launch.

Nintendo selling the most consoles in the 7th generation doesn't really make up for the whooping that they got in the 5th and 6th by the Playstation. Not saying that they've been week, but they haven't been strong for a while, and the Wii wasn't Nintendo's best effort.

Honestly, I think that MS is the weakest if the 3 in terms of the gaming industry. Coming in last place 2 generations in a row HAS to look bad. And losing almost all of the 360's exclusive franchises to the PC and PS3 really does make work on the next Xbox harder.

People make it look like Nintendo is walking on sunshine when they are in just as big of trouble as MS and Sony in the console world.

 

[medv4380]

Because, again, a few games selling well doesn't save a company from bad profits. Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss right now (for the first tme in a while) with 3 million units actually sold. Super Mario Brothers U is the ONLY game to sell that well on the Wii U. Why? There's nothing else to buy on it with that appeal. There's also a long wait before anything worth looking at on the Wii U is coming out. Nintendo can't rely on one Mario game to make up the losses.

It's only a loss for the 8 gig model, and it makes that loss back with ONE single game sale. Nintendo is Ultra Conservative and masters of making consoles make money even if they "lose" the war. Only Nintedno can get this kind of a head line "Nintendo [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j134LCcyCG3HkAatvCIyhETMpskA?docId=CNG.3635386fb91e249bdbefa9c459b6b22c.6c1] boosts profit forecast, cuts Wii U sales target". How do you INCREASE your profit forecast when each unit sold is at a loss. The only way is to be making a profit on each unit sold. If you take the 3 Nintendo published games on the Wii U (Mario, Nintendo Land, ZombiU) it comes to 3.5 million games. That vastly exceeds Nintendos minimum for profitability of the system.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

"The PC is going through a wonderful renaissance right now."

Oh, really? Because I thought that us barbarous PC gamers were too busy pirating everything for the platform to be worth a damn. Just a shame he wasn't called on that so he could have a foot in mouth moment.

 

[GAunderrated]

Yes nintendo is the strongest of the three. Also someone earlier said that WiiU is selling at a loss but the thing is they become profitable with one game sold. Considering that Super Mario Brothers WiiU sold 1.5 million out of the 2 million WiiU units sold, that means that majority of the consoles sold right now were in profit.

I highly doubt that Nintendo's cut of what Super Mario Brothers Wii U is completely covering the losses being made with every Wii U sold. That's unrealistic, its one game. Nintendo doesn't take a %100 stake off all the profit made off of Super Mario Bros Wii U. Nintendo may be the strongest now, but we'll have to see if the Wii U can handle competition, because as it stands now it has none, and Nintendo has already rolled back sales expectations more than once. If the Wii U has no games worth looking at by this coming Christmas, they are in trouble. Hell, they've been reporting losses for a while now. That could also be thanks to the 3DS' massive price cut so soon after its launch.

Nintendo selling the most consoles in the 7th generation doesn't really make up for the whooping that they got in the 5th and 6th by the Playstation. Not saying that they've been week, but they haven't been strong for a while, and the Wii wasn't Nintendo's best effort.

Honestly, I think that MS is the weakest if the 3 in terms of the gaming industry. Coming in last place 2 generations in a row HAS to look bad. And losing almost all of the 360's exclusive franchises to the PC and PS3 really does make work on the next Xbox harder.

People make it look like Nintendo is walking on sunshine when they are in just as big of trouble as MS and Sony in the console world.

Well since you didn't believe me here is an article about it. I used google because I didn't feel like using the escapist search bar even though I know they published the same article.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/wii-u-only-needs-to-sell-one-game-per-system-to-make-a-profit-1115427


Also Microsoft in no way came in 3rd considering it outperformed the Ps3 (as much as I love it) sales wise not only in the console consistently but they made bank through xbox live. In 2012 there were over 40 million users registered in xbox live gold accounts. Even if it is only 40 million over a period of time that is some strong bank that was for over 6 years. The kinect while I think is useless sold something like 24 million units while the PS move hit like 15 million.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/16/playstation-3-sales-70-million-units/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-12-xbox-360-worldwide-sales-top-76-million


http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entertainment-brief/60687-xbox-live-users-topple-40-million

Also your theory about saying that sony beat them 2-3 generations ago is not applicable I am afraid. This current console generation Sony was the one that got dominated by both parties and a few scandals (linux removal, hack attack bringing PSN down for a MONTH). The Wii while my least used console still broke records for the first 4 years of console sales and except for the last 1.5 years of this console cycle has dominated and made profit per system sold.

There is no statistical proof you can provide that would suggest that Sony is not in the most trouble compared to Microsoft and Nintendo. When you have to sell an HQ to keep out of the red, you are in big trouble.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/sony_sells_hq_bldg_for_iqeTsssvfEcW3D033MzLCL

Also I love my vita and especially persona 4 golden but it has also underperformed massively and isn't helping Sony right now.

All in all said I love my Ps3 but I am not blind to what is really going on.

 

[TJC]

Another key issue for future consoles will be supplying fixes and patches for games as soon as possible. Bleszinski recounts the story of Gears of War 2, which had a number of multiplayer issues out of the starting gate. "It took us three months to get an update out," Bleszinski laments. "By that time, the majority of users had moved on to the next game or had traded it in. If Microsoft and Sony are to do well in this next generation, they are going to need to reduce that time as much as possible." He points out that PCs and tablets already do this well, so there is no reasons why consoles shouldn't offer similar functionality.

You know what would be a key issue? Developers finishing their games BEFORE release, rendering patches and fixes obsolete. But I guess that's too much to ask for, now is it.

In any case, nothing he says sounds too unreasonable but then again, I don't see most of it happening either. Someone in the industry lets out his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Well it's hard to say the wiiU will fail, which is basically what he just said. The 3DS is doing very well, and there aren't any games out on the wiiU yet. You know what other console was basically a giant black brick when it first appeared? The PS3; it sold great when it launched, but then went straight to the crapper. There was no reason to own one at launch aside from wanting to be the first with something new and shiny, and that only sells so much. It didn't pick up sales until years later when MGS4 came out. Now it's doing just fine! Even if the wiiU does somehow fail, it won't stop Nintendo. The Gamecube didn't sell very well either, but they still made the wii the gen after.

 

[medv4380]

Snip

Also Microsoft in no way came in 3rd considering it outperformed the Ps3 (as much as I love it) sales wise not only in the console consistently but they made bank through xbox live. In 2012 there were over 40 million users registered in xbox live gold accounts. Even if it is only 40 million over a period of time that is some strong bank that was for over 6 years. The kinect while I think is useless sold something like 24 million units while the PS move hit like 15 million.

Snip

There is no statistical proof you can provide that would suggest that Sony is not in the most trouble compared to Microsoft and Nintendo. When you have to sell an HQ to keep out of the red, you are in big trouble.

Snip

I think what you have here is a perspective issue.

Did the 360 out perform the PS3?
Maybe, maybe not. PS3 outperformed the 360 is Europe and Japan but lost in North America.
Did the 360 sell more units?
Technically by 1M give or take. However, I have to take this point away from MS. From launch they've had a High failure rate. I refused to even consider it when I it came out that it exceeded 50%. Everyone I know who has had a 360 has had it fail. Several of them failed after the extended warranty. How many of the 70+ million units were replacements for a prone to fail system. Finally at the End of Life they've got the failure rate down the the PS3 level, but no one has any way of knowing how many units sold were as replacements.

However, they sold more games per unit. 750M vs 650M and that counts in their favor, and have an unbelievable game to system ratio if any significant portion of sales were replacements. Thats not too hard to believe since the xbox had a similar high ratio.

I'd agree that Sony is in a financial disaster, but nether really made any money this last generation. They both lost money when you look at their entertainment divisions over the last 7 years.

Sony doesn't really have a choice. It's a hardware company, and has to make devices to sell to the public or die. I'd put money on them collapsing as a company though. They need something to make money sooner rather than later. That something used to be TVs.

MS, on the other hand, has a choice, and it maybe forced to choose. Windows 8 is a complete disaster. It's truely worse than Vista, and MS bread and butter (Businesses) are in a revolt against them. OEMs like HP are abandoning them for Google of all things. They have no choice but to make Windows a success or Die. We'll see in the next year if they can correct things, but if they continue this way then they maybe forced to get out of gaming to focus on their Bread and Butter. If they don't fix Windows they may find themselves in the same situation as Sony try to hock 3D Television.

It's all a mater of perspective with Sony and MS. Nether of them is a clear victor, and they both lost a lot in the fight. At least one of them can walk away and live, but the other has to fight and/or die.

 

[SecondPrize]

Does Nintendo have the same ginormous development cost problem as devs and publishers working on other systems? They've been making games for a lower powered system this entire generation, and making each game for one system only (two at most, I dunno if they've made any that simultaneously release for wii and DS.) Their games eschew the expensive reach for photorealism for their unique aesthetics. The wii-u isn't selling like hotcakes yeah, but Nintendo's first party titles are guaranteed system sellers. When new Zelda and Mario titles hit stores, wii-u will sell. They got their early install base of wiis as a fad type deal with the system exploding out of stores, but they went most of the last generation on the strength of their own titles, with most third party devs working on the wii putting out shit at best.
The industry may be in for rocky times, but I don't think Nintendo is positioned so poorly as B. says.