New Console Generation Brings Fear

[Andy of Comix Inc]

One pertinent example is Cthulhu Saves The World, which managed to sell more in one week on Steam than it did in one year on the Xbox Live Indie Marketplace.

I'd argue that this might be due to the Indie marketplace being unavailable outside NA.

It's there in the UK, I dunno if it's different in NA but in the UK it's fucking impossible to find, but it is there.

Hm, couldn't find it on the Australian dashboard but maybe I didn't look hard enough.
(Oddly appropriate captcha: Make a bee-line.)

We don't have XBLIG on the Australian marketplace, it'd be against the law. Any game published here has to have been rated first, and XBLIG bypass OFLC ratings, so Microsoft's cunning plan is to just fuck it and cut it out entirely. Those stallions.

So yeah it's a bummer but what can you do? I mean besides grovel and complain.

 

[Craziplaya21]

At least for a week or so until the next new graphics card comes out.

Too late, that was today =D

GTX 680 ^_^

Too bad they use PCIe 3.0, I would need to replace a whole board. Just gonna wait for the 500's drop in price and snatch 2 580's or 590's.

PCIe 3.0 cards are backwards compatible with PCIe 2.0 boards.

 

[Therumancer]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses. For the most part the heavy lifting is already done by the time the developers get the product. Basically we'll see a couple of competing physics and graphics engines created, and then the entire game generation will be run off of those, and the gameplay will tend to standardize due to them all coming from the same tool sets.

 

[rapidoud]

My worry is about what was enunciated at the beginning of the article: the fact that publishers are gonna take even less risks. They're already cutting off and dumbing down the market a lot as of now. I can't see that with a good eye

Yet another reason for PC gaming =D

"Our market isn't *completely* full of homogenized crap"
-unlikely marketing tag for Steam

Guys, this is not a console vs PC thread, each has their advantages and disadvantages without who saying christianity is better than scientology.

FYI, Morrowind to Skyrim, the latter on the new generation. IIRC Morrowind came out on console a month after PC, which is essentially the time to get past MS's testing as well as freeing up their publishing to manufacture the new disks.

 

[The Wooster]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

 

[viranimus]

Good god! I had just got into bed.

Thanks for that. I think I just got paid back

 

[isometry]

I think an obvious possibility that people are ignoring is that console manufacturers can include satellite internet chips like those found in smart phones ("3G", etc) in order to effect required activations, or even always-on DRM.

Amazon has used a similar system on some Kindle models (on a sub-$100 device, without charging any monthly fees).

Note I'm not talking about digital distribution. I'm talking about buying game disks but needing to activate them by connecting to the internet (similar to buying a physical copy of Skyrim for PC but needing to connect to Steam to activate it). The amount of bandwidth and data needed for activations is very minor.

Consumers will try and resist, but forcing consumers into new forms of DRM is Microsoft's specialty. Windows XP was the first mass-market software to require online activation, consumers tried to resist, but look at how that turned out. Just 3 short years later Half-Life 2 required Steam activation, and within a few years required online activation became the norm for PC gaming.

So yeah, it's going to happen. Microsoft is going to introduce required online activations to kill used games and the nascent console piracy scene. Sony will follow. Nintendo will get pirated to the moon and back until their next-next console sometime around 2018.

 

[Therumancer]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

All of that still comes down to your toolbox and paying the guy who sits there with it to create that stuff. It costs more money because the graphics dudes sitting there and says "well despite sitting here for 8 hours a day anyway if you want me to do this I demand more money for continueing to sit here for 8 hours a day making graphics". There isn't any real inherant resource here other than the people, and the fee to get the engine which by it's nature is a tool to make creating that stuff easier.

It's not like we have guys sitting there individually placing 20 billion micropixels by hand, and even if we did, it still comes down to that guy sitting there doing it an how much he demands to get paid. More expensive means the people developing the games demanding more money for their work.

I understand the third party toolboxes are not cheap, but they ARE cheaper than doing all that programming from scratch, which is the entire point. Their price is also based on what the market can bear, since they want people to buy their product I doubt they are going to radically raise their prices.

 

[infohippie]

Finally! It's way past time, the current generation of consoles are ancient technology and have been holding back PC gaming for a long time!

 

[ResonanceSD]

My worry is about what was enunciated at the beginning of the article: the fact that publishers are gonna take even less risks. They're already cutting off and dumbing down the market a lot as of now. I can't see that with a good eye

Yet another reason for PC gaming =D

"Our market isn't *completely* full of homogenized crap"
-unlikely marketing tag for Steam

"We took a glorified boring visual novel and fooled gamers into thinking it was "the next evolution of art in videogames.""
-other unlikely marketting tag for Steam.

Didn't buy Dear Esther.

Winsauce =D

 

[unindexedsearchengine]

I've been gaming on a PC from the start, but i've been looking to get into console gaming for a time now (not a complete migration, but play both PC and console at the same time) but i have been waiting on the next-gen releases...

this still ain't enough info to convince me of anything, so i remain hopeful

 

[lacktheknack]

At least for a week or so until the next new graphics card comes out.

Too late, that was today =D

GTX 680 ^_^

Ooooh! Shiny!

Now, is it worth the upgrade from a 580? I can run all my games at full with minimal problems.

 

[malestrithe]

May the weak perish swiftly.
http://www.dabok.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/wii_1.jpg

Sorry, but the Wii won the console war this generation, with almost 100 million units sold. The other two had their wii also wireless gimmicks and no amount of but that is not a true platform will change that.

Also, obvious troll is obvious.

 

[The Pinray]

May the weak perish swiftly.
http://www.dabok.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/wii_1.jpg

Don't you mean "May the Wiieak perish swiftly?" *Get's shot*

On topic: Whatever, the PC Elitists will ***** and moan and try to tell other people how to enjoy themselves like they always do and the console players will ignore them and play their games on their fancy plastic boxes. Nothing changes.

Whew, when did I become so jaded? D:

 

[The Wooster]

It seems clear that indie games, at least those that don't have the words "mine" or "craft" in the title [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/XboxIndieGames], seem to fare far better on the PC or iOS than on consoles. One pertinent example is Cthulhu Saves The World, which managed to sell more in one week on Steam than it did in one year on the Xbox Live Indie Marketplace.

You missed the words Braid, Trine, and Flow, off the top of my head. And when are PC gamers gonna stop fooling themselves that Cthulu's problem was a lack of exposure and coverage the first time around by the press, not any kind of problem with console gaming?

I missed those words because Braid and Trine sold far more on PC than they did on Xbox live. Flow never went on sale for the PC, but downloads of the Flash version far outstrip downloads of the PSN version. Super Meat Boy sold half as well on XBLA as it did on PC, despite being out for longer and having a substantial ad push. Dungeon Defends, last time I checked, was selling about four times as well on the PC as it was on XBLA.
There's simply a far larger market for smaller games on the PC and iOS.

 

[The Wooster]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

All of that still comes down to your toolbox and paying the guy who sits there with it to create that stuff. It costs more money because the graphics dudes sitting there and says "well despite sitting here for 8 hours a day anyway if you want me to do this I demand more money for continueing to sit here for 8 hours a day making graphics". There isn't any real inherant resource here other than the people, and the fee to get the engine which by it's nature is a tool to make creating that stuff easier.

Do you have any experience in the gaming industry at all? Or any experience with 3D modeling, texturing or light work? Because you're way off the mark here. More work = more time = longer development cycle(or more staff) = more wages = larger budget. It's really that simple. I'd suggest you give this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places] a read.

 

[MorganL4]

Well im gonna skip this next gen I think, I mean at this point my 360 is used to play DVDs when I wanna watch them on a screen bigger than 24" ( which isn't that often) and Halo 3 when one friend of mine comes over. So yeah, im a PC guy when it comes to gaming.... just wish Journey existed on the PC.

 

[Arina Love]

all i can say i will never go back to pc gaming is any foreseeable future. PC just don't have any games that of any interest to me and i don't care about better graphics. In fact i can't even remember last time i played single player game on PC.
now excuse me while i go back to playing Graces F.

 

[RA92]

I think this is kind of sad actually. There is no real reason for development costs to go up with the new hardware. With most of the cost in developing games going to human resources this seems like the industry basically saying that it wants a pay hike (again) and to pass it down to the consumers and a new console generation is a good time to do that. Sure it's new hardware, but the graphics guys are still working all day making graphics... only now they are saying they are going to want more money when the product is already $60 plus DLC costs.

To me it seems like a subtle way of trying to plant the idea of an upcoming hike in game prices somehow being nessicary.

That's my thoughts at any rate.

Better hardware means higher graphical fidelity. Higher graphical fidelity means more work. It's simple and true.

Not as true as you might think because nowadays graphics are rarely created from whole cloth, the guys doing the consoles produce developer tools, and you have a handfull of guys who in turn make their own graphics engines and toolboxes which everyone then uses.

You're talking about licensing a third part engine but you're missing the point. Even if you do license an engine (which itself cost a substantial amount) you still have to create assets. Stronger hardware requires more detailed, and more numerous art assets. Higher poly models, more lighting effects and with the advent of DX11, tessellation effects. They all cost money.

All of that still comes down to your toolbox and paying the guy who sits there with it to create that stuff. It costs more money because the graphics dudes sitting there and says "well despite sitting here for 8 hours a day anyway if you want me to do this I demand more money for continueing to sit here for 8 hours a day making graphics". There isn't any real inherant resource here other than the people, and the fee to get the engine which by it's nature is a tool to make creating that stuff easier.

Do you have any experience in the gaming industry at all? Or any experience with 3D modeling, texturing or light work? Because you're way off the mark here. More work = more time = longer development cycle(or more staff) = more wages = larger budget. It's really that simple. I'd suggest you give this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places] a read.

I'm actually rather curious about the costs of optimization for current gen consoles. It took years of engine development to make Rage and the original Crysis be able to run on the PS3 and XBox360. More powerful hardware surely means less resources spent on optimization?

Also, as far as I know, asset developers actually first create high res textures and high poly models and then downscale them accordingly, so I don't see costs rising in the area of asset development that much.

 

[The Wooster]

It seems clear that indie games, at least those that don't have the words "mine" or "craft" in the title [http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Games/XboxIndieGames], seem to fare far better on the PC or iOS than on consoles. One pertinent example is Cthulhu Saves The World, which managed to sell more in one week on Steam than it did in one year on the Xbox Live Indie Marketplace.

You missed the words Braid, Trine, and Flow, off the top of my head. And when are PC gamers gonna stop fooling themselves that Cthulu's problem was a lack of exposure and coverage the first time around by the press, not any kind of problem with console gaming?

I missed those words because Braid and Trine sold far more on PC than they did on Xbox live.

And to back this up you have what, exactly?

And Trine wasn't on Xbox Live, so thats not much of an achievement.

VG Chartz is down at the moment, but take a look when you get a chance. Trine was out for months on PC before being ported to PSN.