Pachter: This Is The Final Generation
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
Calling this generation the last is overzealous at best. If OnLive or something like it is actually able to take off, then it'd probably need at least a generation to catch on. Developer/publisher support would almost definitely switch away from consoles if it does, leaving them dead in the water.
Not every damn milestone in consoles were a "generation" Atari was not a generation, was simply a milestone.Indigo_Dingo said:
The first true generation so to speak, in that multiple companies had similar systems, around the same time, would be NES/Mastersystem. Skipping right past SNES/Genesis - the first time I actually heard the word "Generation" apply to gaming was actually for those more obscure CD driven systems (CDi, Jaguar, SegaCD), they were considered the "next Generation" as they supported video playback. Then again we had another Generation when entering in 3D consoles, and had one since with every major system upgrade.
But hey, what do I know. I mean I actually remember playing the Atari 7800 in the 80s, but I've never worn a T-shirt with an NES controller that says "retro", so clearly I'm not an authority on the matter.
In the end who cares. I can see Sony and Microsoft riding out the global recession with the current consoles. But in all likelihood Nintendo is going to have to make a console that actually fits into this current generation, because Wii is more of a novelty than anything which seriously hurts its long-term viability.
Based on the technology limitations of the current next gen consoles alone, this is complete bollocks.
1st of all, the Playstation won't "dominate" the marker unless Sony cut's down the price and makes an online system worth rivaling whit Microsoft's(Xbox Live is...well pretty good, apart form the kids, they shouldn't be allowed to have microphones). If they do that, then they will be able to rival Xbox and hell even Wii sales. But right now, Sony just put to much effort into that console and didn't think that gamers don't need a top of the line console, since it will cost a shitload of cash and most people aren't going to spend that much on...well a gaming console.
That aside...Yes indeed with the release of OnLive it could be the end of...well gaming consoles all together. There would just be no need for them. So, by the looks of it let's enjoy this generation 'cause it might has well be the last. Then again OnLive might fail, and if that's so...well then I wonder what Nintendo's next console will be.
That aside...Yes indeed with the release of OnLive it could be the end of...well gaming consoles all together. There would just be no need for them. So, by the looks of it let's enjoy this generation 'cause it might has well be the last. Then again OnLive might fail, and if that's so...well then I wonder what Nintendo's next console will be.
My opinion is this, consoles are generally inferior to PCs in strict capabilities and usually wind up using "older" components for the system. PC fascists have been talking about this for a while. When the next generation of consoles hits, they will probably be using the same tech that PC gaming rigs (which are arguably superior) are using right now, which will be older technology and thus a lot cheaper to manufacture.
This is to say nothing about the markup on the cost of electronic components to begin with, they don't cost that much to manufacture comparitively speaking. Years ago remember the markup on the price of RAM for computers for example? That should give you some idea as to how much of the cost of all those boards and chips is pure profit for the creators. An electronics company like Sony or Microsoft can probably make a lot of it's own stuff in house and buy the rest of the junk in bulk. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if making a PS-3 or 360 actually winds up costing the company less than $30. I mean heck, we all know/know of people who have made their own PCs for a couple hundred dollars with pretty good gaming stats and that's before in-house manufacturing or bulk discounts using a large scale business market.
What's more part of the success of Consoles is linked to this, because gamers simply do not want to have to go "oh well, a new game is coming out. My two year old PC can't run it. Time to go invest $100 in a new graphics card, and $250 in a new mother board". In a lot of ways upgrades costing someone as much as a console a lot faster than consoles cycle. Also consoles by using standardized hardware allow for things to run a lot smoother. You generally don't get people trying to play a console game and getting some messed up error that makes no senses given what your system is running because some developer didn't bother to properly test and debug the program for your specific system.
Consoles also make money through the games/software more than the decks themselves, and I can't see all the developers going belly up or not wanting consoles to continue to succeed. There is more to it than just the deck manufacturers themselves.
Truthfully I suspect game decks are going to be a part of civilization for as long as it continues. Right now we are seeing a recession/depression and everything is gloom and doom, but it's not likely to last more than 10 years or so.
Honestly the only real way I can see the console market dying is if the USA really does fall (unlikely, since we have the firepower to destroy the world 10x over and will probably take the world with us as we go down, just out of spite if nothing else), and no nation steps up to pretty much become what we are now. Business is increasingly international so is likely to survive the collapse of nations in some form or other. So in the end you'll still see the demand, it will just be primarily marketed at wherever the biggest global economic trading house is.
The bottom line is that this generation of consoles (or the next one) might last longer than normal simply due to the economy, but I doubt it's "the end".
>>>----Therumancer--->
This is to say nothing about the markup on the cost of electronic components to begin with, they don't cost that much to manufacture comparitively speaking. Years ago remember the markup on the price of RAM for computers for example? That should give you some idea as to how much of the cost of all those boards and chips is pure profit for the creators. An electronics company like Sony or Microsoft can probably make a lot of it's own stuff in house and buy the rest of the junk in bulk. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if making a PS-3 or 360 actually winds up costing the company less than $30. I mean heck, we all know/know of people who have made their own PCs for a couple hundred dollars with pretty good gaming stats and that's before in-house manufacturing or bulk discounts using a large scale business market.
What's more part of the success of Consoles is linked to this, because gamers simply do not want to have to go "oh well, a new game is coming out. My two year old PC can't run it. Time to go invest $100 in a new graphics card, and $250 in a new mother board". In a lot of ways upgrades costing someone as much as a console a lot faster than consoles cycle. Also consoles by using standardized hardware allow for things to run a lot smoother. You generally don't get people trying to play a console game and getting some messed up error that makes no senses given what your system is running because some developer didn't bother to properly test and debug the program for your specific system.
Consoles also make money through the games/software more than the decks themselves, and I can't see all the developers going belly up or not wanting consoles to continue to succeed. There is more to it than just the deck manufacturers themselves.
Truthfully I suspect game decks are going to be a part of civilization for as long as it continues. Right now we are seeing a recession/depression and everything is gloom and doom, but it's not likely to last more than 10 years or so.
Honestly the only real way I can see the console market dying is if the USA really does fall (unlikely, since we have the firepower to destroy the world 10x over and will probably take the world with us as we go down, just out of spite if nothing else), and no nation steps up to pretty much become what we are now. Business is increasingly international so is likely to survive the collapse of nations in some form or other. So in the end you'll still see the demand, it will just be primarily marketed at wherever the biggest global economic trading house is.
The bottom line is that this generation of consoles (or the next one) might last longer than normal simply due to the economy, but I doubt it's "the end".
>>>----Therumancer--->
Given the later article about Pardo of Blizzard being in discussions with MS about their next console WHICH IS ALREADY IN DEVELOPMENT, I'd say Pachter needs to give up making predictions and do something he is more qualified for. Flipping burgers, say. Nothing like being shown up as wrong mere days after making such bold statements. Of course, just because the console is in development doesn't mean it will be made, but it sure seems to be tending that way right now.
Bullshit. Consoles are just computers optimised for gaming and simplified to preform that function, they shall always exist.
It's like saying: "By 2012 no one will want to play games anymore!" "Why?" "Because... um... technology will advance?" "Doesn't that just mean bigger better consoles?" "Um, no..."
It's like saying: "By 2012 no one will want to play games anymore!" "Why?" "Because... um... technology will advance?" "Doesn't that just mean bigger better consoles?" "Um, no..."
Aha got quoting to work finally.SmugFrog said:
Such an animation would be cute.
I wouldn't quite expect things to happen quite like that IRL though. The basic idea of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrant. Ie: you don't threaten us or what we have or we either destroy you or guarantee your coming with us. They are also a first strike weapon something you don't deploy once fighting has started in earnest and your going to hit your own troops overseas with.
I guess what I'm saying is that a depression is one thing, but if the US and the American Lifestyle was truely beginning to suffer in the long term we'd have to look at the other countries receiving that wealth (the resources have to go somewhere) and however we justify it or propagandize it will say "cough it back up, or die" for all intents and purposes, even if they are a nuclear power since an exchange means they die too.
Right now the US isn't on the warpath really, and for all of our whining we haven't been in these straights very long, hence the gloom and doom.
However, if it came down to a matter of the US truely falling, it would come down to a desician to go down with a whimper, or a roar, and honestly I think most people given the abillity are going to choose the former.
A little more explaining than I intended for such a flippant comment.
A flash animation like that would be an amusing bit of dark humor simply because while it could happen it's unlikely things would ever come to that.
My thought process is largely based on the fact that I was born during the 1970s and grew up during the 1980s. The US economy has always been "about to tank" ever since I was a kid and every threat is "like nothing else before it". We've also had recessions before. Honestly the Japanese never really took over the US, and have had their share of economic problems, right now the big threats are China, and to a lesser extent our very self-interested european "allies" who would like to quietly replace us with their growing economy. However wars are usually fought for underlying economic reasons, and so far there hasn't been much more than saber rattling.
Predicting "OMG, the America Economy is going down, and that will mean no more game consoles" is a bit much.
Besides I heard Obama is a Final Fantasy Fanboy who plays competitive Gears Of War. What's good for gamers and consoles is a top-line item on his policies. I'll leave it to your imagination how I know this.
>>>----Therumancer--->
is this the same Michael Pachter who said
?Warcraft is so good and so good-looking that it got this immediate attraction; everybody who would ever consider playing an online game said, 'This is the one. I gotta try it.' And what'll happen is inevitably, like the health club model, after you pay your 30 bucks a month for 3 or 4 months and you only go once a week, you realize it's not worth it and you split. That's what will happen with Warcraft ... I think it's going to roll back to a million. I'm not predicting it's going to happen in three weeks; I'd guess it has a half-life of 6 months to a year,?
Because if so Game set Match
We will be having a new console every year for the next 5 years.
Ok Maybe not.
Microsoft just met with the guys at Blizzard to try and figure out what they need to do to make their next gen system work with blizzards games.
When an RTS is as good on my console as my PC they will be done.
I thought they had reached nirvana with the xbox 360 and Just Cause but then I saw crysis and new it wasnt over.
Guys they have been building cars for a 100 years are they through building new ones yet. or better yet they have been making music for thousands of years do you think there will never be a new instrument?
By the way for the generational Debate
Pong was first generation
Atari, intellivision second generation
Coleco vision 3rd generation
Nintendo, 4th generation
and then it gets cloudy.
What is Obamas Screen Name for gears? Potus the locust
The Cloud Thing in a nutshell (most of the computing power is handled out of a central location your computer basically works as an input device and somewhere all the hard core crunching is going on and sending you back pretty pictures.
?Warcraft is so good and so good-looking that it got this immediate attraction; everybody who would ever consider playing an online game said, 'This is the one. I gotta try it.' And what'll happen is inevitably, like the health club model, after you pay your 30 bucks a month for 3 or 4 months and you only go once a week, you realize it's not worth it and you split. That's what will happen with Warcraft ... I think it's going to roll back to a million. I'm not predicting it's going to happen in three weeks; I'd guess it has a half-life of 6 months to a year,?
Because if so Game set Match
We will be having a new console every year for the next 5 years.
Ok Maybe not.
Microsoft just met with the guys at Blizzard to try and figure out what they need to do to make their next gen system work with blizzards games.
When an RTS is as good on my console as my PC they will be done.
I thought they had reached nirvana with the xbox 360 and Just Cause but then I saw crysis and new it wasnt over.
Guys they have been building cars for a 100 years are they through building new ones yet. or better yet they have been making music for thousands of years do you think there will never be a new instrument?
By the way for the generational Debate
Pong was first generation
Atari, intellivision second generation
Coleco vision 3rd generation
Nintendo, 4th generation
and then it gets cloudy.
What is Obamas Screen Name for gears? Potus the locust
The Cloud Thing in a nutshell (most of the computing power is handled out of a central location your computer basically works as an input device and somewhere all the hard core crunching is going on and sending you back pretty pictures.
Umm, yes? That's exactly what PCs do.L.B. Jeffries said:
"What is a new PC part going to do? Increase RAM? It doesn't need that much. Increase the HDD? Just compress stuff. Better graphics cards? Pshaw, games don't need graphics! A better keyboard+mouse? Pah, my 10 year old keyboard covered in doritos and soda is just fine!"
Why is it so out of the question that consoles can't also advance hardware wise? Are PCs the only ones limited to upgrading? Just becaues it may seem like a miniscule advancement doesn't mean it is.
It's not out of the question, it's just a cash dump. In order to sell the console with better hardware, they have to cut back the price and take a loss until the tech becomes cheap to manufacture. Unlike the PC market, which is accustomed to paying proper value, people with consoles tend typically expect to pay less since it's a limited device.Jumplion said:
So you can either do like the Wii did and just use cheap tech keep production cheap, stick with the consoles that are out now, or go through another console cycle where you risk millions and hope you come out alright.
Just saying I'm not shocked that no one is keen on doing the third option anymore.