David Jaffe Predicts Next Console Generation Will Be the Last

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

On the other hand, if you look at how graphics have progressed through time, the changes have been getting smaller and smaller. Lets compare games of the same series.
Half Life was released in 1998. I'm not too familiar with games from this period but I'm pretty sure that HL was considered good looking for its time. HL2 comes out 2004, 6 years later. Completely different graphics engine and physics engine. I seem to recall thinking when playing HL2 that graphics couldn't get much better from this point. The terrain and objects were all detailed and the people all looked like people. I could see that there was room for higher resolution textures and better special effects, but I would still give it a very decent 8 out of 10.
Now we are 6 years on again and Valve are still putting things out on the same engine. Now, HL2 was the best looking game at the time whereas now their games look merely good rather than mindblowing. But think how if you tried to sell a game with HL1 graphics in 2004 you would be laughed at, whereas most of us are planning to shell out for Portal 2, still using a version of the HL2 engine (although somewhat upgraded).

You could similarly compare Far Cry (2004), Crysis (2007) and Crysis 2 or Morrowind (2002), Oblivion (2006) and Skyrim.
In all these series, the improvement between the first and second games is far greater than that between the second and third.

I think if you go back and look at some of your examples, you may find that it's not as good as you remember it. I went through this with Oblivion. I got it when it first came out, and it looked amazing and it pushed the graphic envelope. I lost my copy, and I had a hankering to play it, so I bought it again on a Steam sale, and boy was I floored. I almost couldn't believe how bad it looked, it didn't match up to my memories at all. But, that is the way it always is. Skyrim looks better by leaps and bounds.

And the HL2 engine has lasted a retardedly long time. But, as you pointed out, they update the engine quite often. The last major update was when they released that top down shooter game. With that, they added a bunch of elements that the engine didn't previously have. The most standout things to me were better AA and Depth of Field. But, they are due to try something new, and I believe they have this planned with Half Life 3.

Also, Far Cry and Crysis had basically the same engine. CryEngine2 could push more out, but was so poorly optimized it wasn't even funny. CryEngine3 is a large leap ahead though as far as graphic details and optimization are concerned. Also, it runs with DX11 features which are ridiculously better when it comes to light and shadows.

But, I can't disagree that the graphic leaps are not always huge. But in general, computer technology works like that. There are years worth of small advances in capabilities, then BAM, something huge happens. This can be seen with the release of Oblivion and Far Cry. They were massive leaps from what was available previously. And, not much has happened since then. Small advances. But the tech behind it has increased probably five fold. So,it's only a matter of time before someone releases another big leap. And the current generation definitely won't be able to handle it.

Haha, I am ready to eat my words though, no worries about that. Time will be the deciding factor in this. But realistically, anytime anyone calls the death of a medium, it's almost laughable. I think the problem is, they live within that media, and can't see it from the outside. They know their tree and their leaves, but they totally fail to see the forest of development out there. Sure they see pieces of it, but being on the inside in situations like this gives people tunnel vision. I think so anyway. One man's opinion.

 

[Nazrel]

I can see this current generation being the last. Not because it's dying, but because there's really nowhere to go.

What are they going to do? More graphics and processing power? They can't use what is currently available and are driving themselves into the ground trying.

Barring some dramatic change in the very nature of game play, there's really no reasonable reason to have one.

I second this opinion. I know there's a recurring theme in history of people claiming that there isn't much further we can go in a certain area before being proved horribly wrong (see "I see a day when the world will only need 5 computers"). Games can render entire worlds in great detail nowadays. It's impossible for graphics to improve like they did when they stepped up from PS2 to PS3. Graphics and physics engines need only fine tuning, a major step forwards would be impossible. Even the recent changes in the nature of play seem to have been accounted for with peripherals, for example the shift from controller to motion control.
The only thing I can imagine there being a need for an upgrade would be, say accurate AI simulations (could the AI race be the new graphics race?).

As it stands now, Consoles are at least a generation behind current PC's. Consoles could use a new iteration. I think the same thing about graphics every few years myself though. They couldn't get any better than they are now, or Just a few minor tweaks and it will be perfect. In the 90's, FMV games were all the rage, and I thought that would be the epitome of what games would become, but now you couldn't even watch those FMV games, it would be painful. There is always room for improvement. And substantial improvement at that. Graphically, DirectX 11 completely blows away DirectX 10, and I didn't see that coming at all.

You seem to have missed the "driving themselves in to the ground trying" part.

Here's the bottom-line for EA for the last 3 years.

Year end March 31, 2010: Loss of 677,000,000
Year end March 31, 2009: Loss of 1,088,000,000
Year end March 31, 2008: Loss of 454,000,000

and Activision is being kept aloft by a 7 year old game that never ends with dated graphics.

Spending increasingly more money for increasing less gains, is not a viable business model.

 

[Falseprophet]

I could see a greater movement towards more "episodic" gaming. Right now, the gaming industry mostly limits themselves to "feature films": you have AAA titles with development costs of $15 million+ and development times of 2-4 years retailing for $60, providing 10-30 hours of play. It'd be cool if gaming starting developing "television series" as well: regularly releasing short episodes in the same setting with most of the same characters--say 5 hours of content for $5.

Half-Life 2 and Siren Blood Curse (and arguably DLC missions for open-world games and RPGs) are early experiments in this, with mixed results, but maybe in time the model could be made functional. (We were told eBooks would replace print materials 20 years ago, but they're just taking off now, for example.) Releasing 5 hours of content for a popular game franchise every month or two might be preferable to 30 hours every 2 years. Basically aiming for the sustainability of an MMO without needing all the other requirements of MMO play.

 

[Worgen]

I think that really the next consoles from microsoft might be the last ms one, sony might have a couple more, nintendo..... well nintendo is a strange one, they are the only company around that could have a console sell really well and people would only buy the games that nintendo made on it so I think nintendo can have a console pretty much as long as it wants

 

[Ekit]

He's just a man-child doing games for himself: power fantasy with over-the-top violence.

God of War is not just a regular power fantasy with over-the-top violence.

Yes it is, with the exception of the first game in the series.

Since David Jaffe only made the first game it was that one I was referring to.

 

[mjc0961]

I know it won't be Onlive or something similar that wins. There's a reason we all hate always-online DRM in our PC games: among many other problems with it, if your internet connection dies, you can't play anymore. Since Onlive would be running the game and not my computer, it seems that the same thing would happen. And screw that, the only time I should get kicked from a game if my internet connection dies is if I'm playing multiplayer.

 

[James Raynor]

We might be heading towards another video game market crash.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

"a digital platform like Steam"

So, what he's saying is....PC GAMING WILL OUTLAST CONSOLES?!?!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ku6SPRq8054/TGnWBQfBKJI/AAAAAAAAAvM/5bwQGaKCneo/s1600/divided%2Bby%2Bzero.jpg

 

[Baresark]

I can see this current generation being the last. Not because it's dying, but because there's really nowhere to go.

What are they going to do? More graphics and processing power? They can't use what is currently available and are driving themselves into the ground trying.

Barring some dramatic change in the very nature of game play, there's really no reasonable reason to have one.

snip

snip

You seem to have missed the "driving themselves in to the ground trying" part.

Here's the bottom-line for EA for the last 3 years.

Year end March 31, 2010: Loss of 677,000,000
Year end March 31, 2009: Loss of 1,088,000,000
Year end March 31, 2008: Loss of 454,000,000

and Activision is being kept aloft by a 7 year old game that never ends with dated graphics.

Spending increasingly more money for increasing less gains, is not a viable business model.

I would not use EA or Activision as examples, no offense to your choices. EA and Activision have a very poor business model. A better company wouldn't get caught in the diminishing returns cycle. And these examples are only two of the hundreds, if not thousands out there. Also, with the way technology has progressed, it's become perfectly viable for developers to publish their own games. The need to have a big name, money spending publisher is diminished with things like Steam out there. Hell, Mojang published their own game by selling it via Paypal. They have netted millions in profits, which they are very wisely investing back into the company itself.

WoW is not technologically advanced at all, you're right about that. Only, they have 12 million subscribers a month throwing $15/month at them. That is proof that the game itself is more important than the technology to push more out.

Also, think of it this way. As long as there is a company that can bring in $180 Million per month, there is going to be people trying to emulate it, and compete with it. I'm not afraid to say that I am reasonably sure with a high degree certainty (confusing, I know, but it's fun to say) that David Jaffe is suffering from lack of vision. He was behind God of War, three of basically the same game with better graphics each time, and Twisted Metal. The ladder wasn't nearly as successful as the former, but the last iteration did very poorly because he failed to change the game for the times. Not the industries fault, and certainly not the foreseeable end to the industry based on his past experiences.

As a final note: MS and Sony have poor business models, where Nintendo by comparison has a much better one. The Wii, though far from the most popular among gamers, is still the highest sold one. They turned profits on the Wii from day one. And the DS, and the DSi, and now the 3DS. MS and Sony (to a degree anyway), took hits to put the biggest baddest thing out there and rape publishers for money for the "right" to put software out on it? Those companies will fail in the video game market. But Nintendo isn't going anywhere by my reckoning.

 

[Manji187]

Since graphics has reached a pretty high point then maybe, maybe! We can start spending more money on writers and such and make better games, not just visualized orgasms.
The day of gaming has just begun...

Damn....I sure hope you are right.

 

[Nazrel]

I can see this current generation being the last. Not because it's dying, but because there's really nowhere to go.

What are they going to do? More graphics and processing power? They can't use what is currently available and are driving themselves into the ground trying.

Barring some dramatic change in the very nature of game play, there's really no reasonable reason to have one.

snip

snip

You seem to have missed the "driving themselves in to the ground trying" part.

Here's the bottom-line for EA for the last 3 years.

Year end March 31, 2010: Loss of 677,000,000
Year end March 31, 2009: Loss of 1,088,000,000
Year end March 31, 2008: Loss of 454,000,000

and Activision is being kept aloft by a 7 year old game that never ends with dated graphics.

Spending increasingly more money for increasing less gains, is not a viable business model.

I would not use EA or Activision as examples, no offense to your choices. EA and Activision have a very poor business model. A better company wouldn't get caught in the diminishing returns cycle. And these examples are only two of the hundreds, if not thousands out there. Also, with the way technology has progressed, it's become perfectly viable for developers to publish their own games. The need to have a big name, money spending publisher is diminished with things like Steam out there. Hell, Mojang published their own game by selling it via Paypal. They have netted millions in profits, which they are very wisely investing back into the company itself.

WoW is not technologically advanced at all, you're right about that. Only, they have 12 million subscribers a month throwing $15/month at them. That is proof that the game itself is more important than the technology to push more out.

Also, think of it this way. As long as there is a company that can bring in $180 Million per month, there is going to be people trying to emulate it, and compete with it. I'm not afraid to say that I am reasonably sure with a high degree certainty (confusing, I know, but it's fun to say) that David Jaffe is suffering from lack of vision. He was behind God of War, three of basically the same game with better graphics each time, and Twisted Metal. The ladder wasn't nearly as successful as the former, but the last iteration did very poorly because he failed to change the game for the times. Not the industries fault, and certainly not the foreseeable end to the industry based on his past experiences.

As a final note: MS and Sony have poor business models, where Nintendo by comparison has a much better one. The Wii, though far from the most popular among gamers, is still the highest sold one. They turned profits on the Wii from day one. And the DS, and the DSi, and now the 3DS. MS and Sony (to a degree anyway), took hits to put the biggest baddest thing out there and rape publishers for money for the "right" to put software out on it? Those companies will fail in the video game market. But Nintendo isn't going anywhere by my reckoning.

This in no way refutes my argument that we've reached the limit of what fiscally reasonable. Hell it supports it. The Wii didn't focus on graphics or processing power; it's technically inferior to the other 2. It focused on a unique interface.

P.S. David Jaffe only made the first God of War, he had nothing to do with the others.

 

[SinisterGehe]

With both consoles and PC's gone... What then?

Tabletop?

Nah, I think this is the situation like "Which company will take over the world, Apple or Microsoft. Pepsi or Coca-cola..." Etc.

At the end of the days someone will end up being right, other will die and other will stay. And I wont name which one will be the one going...

But I think expensive games will be gone soon, people are more willing to pay monthly fees scattered in wide spread of time. And small Indie companies are pushing big bugs with cheap games in which the content is the primary.

Pff... Everyone know the answer to which company will take over the world Pepsi or Coca-cola is.... neither Dr Pepper rules all.

I am not sure why industry insiders get a kick out of Doom saying. Gaming will be here until the end the gaming device it takes place doesn't matter.

Consoles are a huge market right now and I don't think anything can kill it unless it is a better platform.

Gaming will never die, there have been games for all ages in all forms since the start of history, Dice games, board games, stick and stone - and what not... We just found computers to be a good platform to play games on. Long as there are people willing to play games in any form, there will be games and longs as computers are our day-to-day objects there will be games on them. Now unless next gen consoles are designed to be something more than just gaming platforms they will persevere and exist.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

He really thinks that pirates and bargain hunters and making up 550,000 sales? REALLY?! Maybe it's just me, but that sounds absurd. There's also the fact that new games eventually disappear from shelves and the only place to get them is by buying them used. If publishers really want to combat that, they need to do what DVDs do. Have the game out for full price for a bit, then lower it to fifty, or maybe even forty. I can guarantee that, if given the choice between a used copy and a brand new copy that both cost the same, most people will pick the brand new copy.

The day console gaming dies is the day I am no longer a Gamer.

 

[Zom-B]

While I agree with Jaffe to some extent, he sure is saying a lot without saying anything. I've been thinking that the $60 game model can't last much longer either, but I don't think that means console gaming is dying, I just think it means publishers have to find ways to lower prices by $10-$20 or provide some sort of extra value to make spending $60 on a game attractive for more people.

I will have to take exception to Jaffe's odd numbers on game sales when used sales are involved. How he he figures that with out used sales more people would purchase a given title than with, is beyond me. Seriously, if a game that sell 300,000 copies and every single one of the people that bought that game trade it in, and every single copy then resells we're still only at 600,000 units sold. How he thinks the elimination or reduction of used sales would equal an extra 150,000 units sold is mind boggling.

Unfortunately for all those people that hate it, used sales are here to stay. There will always be people that will get rid of or no longer have use for a title once they have finished it and there will always be people who are unwilling to pay full retail or unable to and those people will happily purchase those cheaper, 2nd hand copies.

I've said it once in this comment and I've said it many times before, but I don't mind saying it again: Game publishers need to find a way to do one of two things, or both, for that matter. One, they need to lower prices. As it stands now, the only games selling well at $60 are the big AAA franchises like your Halos, CoDs etc, that already have a built in user base who are willing to shell out for the day one purchase. All the other top selling games we're seeing seem to be coming from the casual gaming end of the spectrum, where we have, of course, Angry Birds and Bejeweled. These games are cheap and engaging and that's an easy sell. Clearly the market prefers cheap and fun over an expensive possible dud (DA2? haha)

The second option for the game publishers, imo, is to give extra value for that $60. I for one think there's room for two or more editions of a game. We could have a bare bones edition that comes with only a generic label/box art and no manual (but with online availability) that could be purchased for between, say, $25 and $40. Then publishers could also offer deluxe or premium editions that come with added materials- posters, art books, free DLC, custom controller bundles, etc. If they could add that extra bit and keep prices in the $60 to $70 range, consumers may feel less ripped off because they spent $60 on a game that's full of bugs (F:NV) or just plain bad (That's a big list of games).

Without some sort of change, we'll see the games market skewing more and more to casual gaming titles. We'll still have the regular $60 AAA titles, but less copies will sell and less games will be able to compete in that market. At least, that's what I believe.

 

[Baresark]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

This in no way refutes my argument that we've reached the limit of what fiscally reasonable. Hell it supports it. The Wii didn't focus on graphics or processing power; it's technically inferior to the other 2. It focused on a unique interface.

P.S. David Jaffe only made the first God of War, he had nothing to do with the others.

Was that your point? Fiscal reasonabilty? Your right, diminishing returns is a shitty situation. But that isn't because the market or technology is limited, it's because the companies invest irresponsibly. They put more money into products that don't/won't benefit from more money, or they pump more money into the wrong parts of projects. My point is that Nintendo is fiscally responsible, and have had very few failures in regards to consoles. Jaffe thinks that the next console generation will be the last. What do you think he is basing that on? The fiscal misgivings of EA and Activision? No, he doesn't see things getting better than they are reaching a technical peak. Well that is not true. Back when all this back and forth first started, we talked about how technology doesn't progress by leaps and bounds every successive generation. But there are occasional instances where it advances by large leaps. He doesn't see it happening based on what? Current tech? That is poor vision. You don't see it happening based on what? Not based on EA or Activision I hope.

The one thing I agree with him on is that the $60 game model is broken. He is right, I've been saying that since this current generation first came about. EA and Activision have the balls to try and sell games for $60 on the PC. That is failing from the beginning. I can assure that the price tag of Dragon Age 2 has hurt it. The cycle will go like this:

-Pump money into a Triple A release like DA2
-try to sell it to customers for $60
-customers don't buy, so they will pump more money into future products and sell them for $60 at an even greater loss
-customers won't pay $60 for a product they don't see as worth that much.
-spend even more money, trying to make the products worth it, market it for $60
-People still don't want to pay $60 for a game they aren't sure they are going to enjoy.

On and on it goes. Each and every step needing to sell more and more units to break even/make money. They hurt themselves when the problem is they all they try to do is sell big titles at high price tag. That is nearly the definition of fiscal irresponsibility. No, they need to streamline the creative process. Produce more quality, less expensive titles more often.

And the tech, gets cheaper as it progresses. It all gets streamlined, making more advances easier. I bought my current processor for the same price I got my Pentium 4 back in the day. But it's light years better. It can do 10 times the work at half the heat. Now there it talk of I9 and I11 generation processors, which are light years ahead of my I5.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

The powerhouse of wisdom that is David Jaffe has spoken!

Heed his words and despair.

Nah, kidding of course, this is the guy who thinks artistic games are a waste of space and lauds God of War as how the industry should look in the future.

 

[Sporky111]

I've been saying this for quite a while, so I'm glad some industry people are saying the same thing. The $60 game model was shit to begin with. It's just too much, people aren't willing to take risks and are much more likely to buy preowned or just pirate. If the average game sold new for $30, then people would buy more games new instead of taking the risks of getting games other ways.

 

[AdamRBi]

My Prediction?

Microsoft and Sony will make the jump to Digital Download only consoles, right along side Onlive with or without the Netflix style rental system. Nintendo may or may not follow suit, they're usually late for the new format, but as that's usually because of price. Digital Download will cut manufacturing costs for the games, They may just adopt this system to offer games at cheeper prices.

And then the players are outraged that the consoles don't have backwards compatibility (because that's just the way we are).

 

[GreyKnight3445]

yay, another big game developer bitching to gain media attention between remakes.
when will the fun ever end?

 

[SpaceCop]

Uh, yeah, publishers? If you want to lose less of your market to preowned sales, charge less for your games and eliminate the only advantage they have over you.

This is an argument for high prices, isn't it?-- "As long as we continue to buy new games for $60 a pop we are supporting the current pricing; we vote with our dollars! The system isn't going to change unless consumers start buying differently!"

And this is another one, right?-- "The losses incurred by the preowned sales market are forcing companies to charge more to offset costs!"

...Well... Which fucking is it? Whatever we as consumers do, companies will just keep upping prices--regardless of the excuse they use--because they know they can. And don't get me wrong, we're talking about a recreational activity here, not a life necessity. But fuuuuck, as a consumer I'm still pretty pissed about ever-increasing costs for not much more in returns.

Didn't Movie Bob suggest that it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the next Playstation to cost over $1,000? Can anyone genuinely argue that?