Poll: CNN: Console Gaming is Dying

[Frezzato]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/tech/gaming-gadgets/console-gaming-dead/index.html

It's amazing how much of the CNN article gets wrong about gaming:

"...Gamers' tastes have evolved to include quick, bite-size gaming sessions -- something consoles have never been good at. (Gamers must go to the living room, wait for the console to power on, load the game from the main menu, wait for it to boot.) It's much slower than tapping an icon on the smartphone you already carry in your pocket."


I don't know about anyone else, but waiting for any of my consoles to power up is not going to make me want to give up and go play Angry Birds on my iPhone instead. Thanks, but I'm willing to wait for Uncharted or Halo to load.

"You would think that XBLA (Xbox Live Arcade), PSN (PlayStation Network), and the rise of 'free to play' would have opened a door to smaller games that can take more risks creatively, but right now they're just cut-down versions of box-product games, or retreads of games I played on the SNES (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)".

That ridiculous statement completely ignores the fact that there is an entire ecosystem of excellent indie games out there (Super Meat Boy, Braid, Limbo, etc.) that are making their developers plenty of money on all platforms except maybe the Wii. There's plenty of original PSN/Live games out there that I've bought.

"This partly explains why Nintendo, after five years of phenomenal Wii growth, is slumping. Industry experts say they're not in a position to meet the demands of most new social gamers."

No offense to Wii owners (myself included), but I think the main issue with the Wii is that the vast majority early adopters just weren't hardcore gamers. I own a Wii, but I also have a 360, PS3, and a few "antique" consoles, and I'm willing to bet that my fellow Escapists are the same way. The few people I know who own just the Wii bought less than 5 games for it.

Not trying to start a flame war here. I'm just amazed at the horribly misinformed Blake Snow at CNN.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Which is why 60$ games exist.

...???

Adjusting for inflation, video games have only ever gotten cheaper. Even without it...Super Mario 64, Starfox 64, Majora's Mask, and most other AAA N64 games were all $70~ on release and I distinctly remember Turok being $80~. Even as far back as the SNES, Chrono Trigger sent me back a pretty $60.

That's the reason you have ridiculous situations like where Dead Space 3 would have to sell more copies than the other two games in the series combined just to break even. Part of it is that they're putting too much money into graphics and voice actors, but the rest of it is that games are outstandingly cheap, considering it's probably the only form of media that has gotten cheaper while production values went up as time went on.

I have no idea why people are suddenly complaining about the price of games so much. A brand new AAA title will cost me about as much as a tank of gas. It's practically nothing.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Which is why 60$ games exist.

...???

Adjusting when inflation, video games have only ever gotten cheaper. Even without it...Super Mario 64, Starfox 64, Majora's Mask, and most other AAA N64 games were all $70~ on release and I distinctly remember Turok being $80~. Even as far back as the SNES, Chrono Trigger sent me back a pretty $60.

That's the reason you have ridiculous situations like where Dead Space 3 would have to sell more copies than the other two games in the series combined just to break even. Part of it is that they're putting too much money into graphics and voice actors, but the rest of it is that games are outstandingly cheap, considering it's probably the only form of media that has gotten cheaper while production values went up as time went on.

I have no idea why people are suddenly complaining about the price of games so much. A brand new AAA title will cost me about as much as a tank of gas.

On the PC, 60$ only happens on large AAA games. PC games were always cheaper yet they suddenly popped up into 60$ mark when the developers complain about not having enough money to break even.

People tend to see that quite easily.

I didn't really become a PC Gamer until quite recently, so I can't really speak for the price of PC games in the way back when. How much did Doom cost on release? I had it, but I don't remember what I paid for it.

 

[Vault101]

[quote/]"...Gamers' tastes have evolved to include quick, bite-size gaming sessions -- something consoles have never been good at. (Gamers must go to the living room, wait for the console to power on, load the game from the main menu, wait for it to boot.) It's much slower than tapping an icon on the smartphone you already carry in your pocket."[/quote]
yeah because angry birds is an expereince as rich and engaging as Mass Effect or Assasins Creed...actually no...its not

WHY THE FUCK IS THAT SO HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND!!???

a whole niche/market doesnt disapear...this is incredibly stupid...I'm not saying that there arent probelms (as Ultratwinkie pointed out...not sure I completly agree though) but if "core" games go it wont be because weve all decided we'd rather play angry birds

 

[Terminate421]

[quote/]"...Gamers' tastes have evolved to include quick, bite-size gaming sessions -- something consoles have never been good at. (Gamers must go to the living room, wait for the console to power on, load the game from the main menu, wait for it to boot.) It's much slower than tapping an icon on the smartphone you already carry in your pocket."

yeah because angry birds is an expereince as rich and engaging as Mass Effect or Assasins Creed...actually no...its not

WHY THE FUCK IS THAT SO HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND!!???

a whole niche/market doesnt disapear...this is incredibly stupid...I'm not saying that there arent probelms (as Ultratwinkie pointed out...not sure I completly agree though) but if "core" games go it wont be because weve all decided we'd rather play angry birds[/quote]

It's CNN. There is your reason.

Anywho, they are wrong. Notice how Halo 4 is selling phenomenally

 

[The Madman]

I didn't really become a PC Gamer until quite recently, so I can't really speak for the price of PC games in the way back when. How much did Doom cost on release? I had it, but I don't remember what I paid for it.

The original DOOM was a shareware game... wow, that's a term not used very often anymore. It's been absolutely ages so I might be wrong, but as I recall unlocking the full version was something in the 20 dollar range.

Boxed PC games have traditionally been around 40-50 dollars with a couple exceptions in the 60+ range. Generally speaking however PC gaming has always been cheaper (In terms of buying games) than console gaming.

 

[Do4600]

They aren't seeing this clearly. Angry birds and Assassin's Creed III aren't competing for business. Just because browser and cellphone games are something like 95% of "video games" played doesn't mean that the niche for large budget video games is disappearing, it means that every asshole with a cellphone plays bejeweled in line at the post office. They're totally different markets.

 

[krazykidd]

Just take out voice acting and "cinematic EVERYTHING " and we are good to go .

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of gaming news?

 

[Kopikatsu]

Ever notice its always the BIG AAA games that ask for 60-80$? Never middle games which make profit even as low as 25 bucks?

...You're asking why the games with the largest production costs BY FAR cost more than games that don't even have a fiftieth of a AAA budget?

Did Hotline Miami make a ton of money while being priced at $10? Almost certainly. Did Hotline Miami cost at least 1/6th of what AAA games did to develop? Hell no.

Which, as mentioned, is part of the problem. Production values are too high on some AAA games to even make a profit at charging $60 anymore, like Dead Space 3. Carl on Duty: Black Cops 2 can get away with it because it will break every sales record known to man and then some (if it hasn't already).

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Its dying because its getting expensive. Microsoft, and Sony pass the costs of production down on developers and THEN consumers. Couple that with higher complexity tech and you get a perfect storm.

Which is why 60$ games and high dev costs exist. Consoles have become big business and far too big to be successful.

Adjusting when inflation, video games have only ever gotten cheaper.

On the PC, 60$ only happens on large AAA games.

Um. Kopikatsu was referring to your comment about Sony and Microsoft allowing costs to trickle down to the consumer, which, in your opinion, is why games are "expensive" at $60. Not sure why your response involves the PC since that is unrelated... unless you are blaming consoles for PC game prices (which is bull shit).

Kopikatsu is correct. Games are cheaper then they ever have been.
I used to pay $99 in Canada for the newest installments of Final Fantasy on the SNES. Most games hovered between $70 and $100. Hell, N64 games were as high as $120!

With games being a stable $60 in Canada for many years, adjusting for inflation, games are cheaper now than they have ever been. Not sure what you're on about.

If PC game prices have risen, maybe it's due to the fact that they were too low (to make a profit) to begin with? But that's another thread...

OP:
Yes, casual games like Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja will TOTALLY replace full blown console games... I mean, that TOTALLY makes complete sense. My attention span is only about 3 seconds, so I can't wait for a game to load. Heck I can't wait for this sentence to end... too late. I'm bored already.

Okay. I'm going to play some Angry Birds then post about all the cool shit in the game on the gaming forums. No, that'd be too time consuming. Ooh, something shiny! [/sarcasm]

Note: I don't even own a fucking cell phone, tablet/ Ipad or whatever the fuck the kids are using to play these shitty little bite sized time wasters. I myself would rather use my PS3, Wii, PS2, PS1, SNES, PSP, DS, PC and Gameboy Advanced to play much larger, meatier, tastier, more satisfying time wasters.

PC gamers pay more because developers use the PC as padding to ensure maximum market penetration. Since console gamers will pay 60$, whats stopping PC gamers from doing the same? Ever notice its always the BIG AAA games that ask for 60-80$? Never middle games which make profit even as low as 25 bucks?

If you can't make profit on steam, no one can help you.

Also its worth noting that even with inflation, pay hasn't grown all that much in America. In fact, all the jobs that are being added since the recession is low paying jobs.

"games are cheaper" means nothing if payroll is not growing with inflation.

To a market where very good games cost 10-50$, in a post-steam world, 60$ is practically extortion. Especially since those 60$ games are mere 13 hour campaigns at best.

To PC gamers, the differences are jarring.

Thank you for this post. I see that "adjusted for inflation, games are cheaper hurr durr" thing all the time around here, and it really gets annoying. Especially because the old games people list as being expensive are not only cartridge games, which had a huge premium on the unit price over disc based games thanks to manufacturing costs, but usually special cartridge based games that had either larger than usual ROM chips (think SNES RPGs) or special onboard processors (like the Super FX chip). Not to mention, the market was much smaller back in those days, so they didn't have the economy of scale going like we do today. In other words, those games had a darned good reason to cost as much as they did, while modern games really don't.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Ever notice its always the BIG AAA games that ask for 60-80$? Never middle games which make profit even as low as 25 bucks?

...You're asking why the games with the largest production costs BY FAR cost more than games that don't even have a fiftieth of a AAA budget?

Did Hotline Miami make a ton of money while being priced at $10? Almost certainly. Did Hotline Miami cost at least 1/6th of what AAA games did to develop? Hell no.

Which, as mentioned, is part of the problem. Production value are too high on some AAA games to even make a profit at charging $60 anymore, like Dead Space 3. Carl on Duty: Black Cops 2 can get away with it because it will break every sales record known to man and then some (if it hasn't already).

False. If you want to see huge budgets in entertainment, go look at what it costs to make a blockbuster movie. AAA games tend to cost about $50 million to make. Blockbuster movies start at around $100 million. Yet they make their profit back charging no more than $20 (the cost of a DVD; movie tickets are much cheaper) a pop. The publishers are just using that excuse to hose us.

 

[Avaholic03]

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I voted "no" in the poll. As misguided as this attempt was to cover gaming, at least they're willing to give some attention to the subject and probably start some discussion in places other than just this gaming-related website for a change. Isn't that better than keeping it as some fringe pseudo-culture that some people are still ashamed of?

 

[oliver.begg]

considering you have to sit down, install a game, download patches, etc now days for a console the only differences between consoles and pcs seems to be some exclusive titles, and consoles use controllers by default.

i can see what CNN are saying and when you start getting deep, involved games on things like tablets, etc consoles will loose their main advantage to them and thats plug and play

this is a point that has been coming up more and more, why buy a console, when a decent laptop is the same price as a console + TV (which are becoming less main stream among young people), yet can often play games better, and do so much more?

also the games are cheaper, often by sizeable ammounts.

now consoles arn't dead, but its very understandable people saying they are dieing, 8 years without significant hardware changes, and a extreme unpreformence is not helping either.

the best part is that unlike the last generation of consoles the new ones are looking to be less powerful then a mid range PC, yet will launch for more (for 1200 NZD (the PS3 launch price) + 600 (the TV i would need) i can pick up a amazing gaming rig

 

[katsabas]

CNN. Gaming ? Really ?

Anywhooo, I gave up on consoles after witnessing what a gaming PC rig can do. This gen was defined mostly by games that were released on the PC first and on the consoles second. A number of games looked phenomenal on PC but had crazy frame drops on PS and XBOX.

For me, these are limitations to hardware built specifically to play games. PS3 and XBOX are built just for that. When they can't even do that correctly (which shows in cases of most PC ports, like Fall Of Cybertron), yeah, one can see why consoles should be dying. They are not however, because of the awesome exclusives.

As long as we keep having things like RDR, Infamous, Gears, Halo 4, God Of War, Uncharted, Forza, consoles will stay alive.

 

[Giftfromme]

Thank you for this post. I see that "adjusted for inflation, games are cheaper hurr durr" thing all the time around here, and it really gets annoying.

$60 in 1997 represents a higher sum than $60 in 2012.
Salaries were also lower on average in 1997 than 2012 so the $60 represented a greater portion of one's expendable income.

That's basic economics and not at all "hurr durr derp" as you claim.

Especially because the old games people list as being expensive are not only cartridge games, which had a huge premium on the unit price over disc based games thanks to manufacturing costs, but usually special cartridge based games that had either larger than usual ROM chips (think SNES RPGs) or special onboard processors (like the Super FX chip). Not to mention, the market was much smaller back in those days, so they didn't have the economy of scale going like we do today.

I've been gaming for far longer than you've even been alive, so I think I know that cartridges (chips) cost more than disks, as well as a smaller market caused those games to be more expensive.

And what of it?
Does this change the fact that games are cheaper today than they were then? (No)
Does this change the fact that even without inflation adjustment $60 is less than $70 - $100 we used to pay? (No)

So what was the point of your post again, cause I don't see one.

False. If you want to see huge budgets in entertainment, go look at what it costs to make a blockbuster movie. AAA games tend to cost about $50 million to make. Blockbuster movies start at around $100 million. Yet they make their profit back charging no more than $20 (the cost of a DVD; movie tickets are much cheaper) a pop.

Really? This is your argument? Really!? (rolls eyes)

I'm just going to use your quote from above:
"Not to mention, the market" is "much smaller"

Honestly, your entire argument is childish.
The $60 price tag that has been stable since the days of the PS1 (lowered from the 16 bit era) is a fair price.

If you don't like it, that's fine. I don't often buy newly released games. Older games have price drops. Wait 6 months and most games will see their cost slashed in half. If that still doesn't do it for you, I hear iPhone games like Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja are inexpensive...

Edit: I will agree on one point (I assume you agree). DLC is overpriced garbage that should be provided at no extra cost. Most DLC bullshit this gen was unlockable content in previous gens (extra characters, colours, stages, etc). You unlocked it by playing well, or by completing the game, or through a code.

Now it's "gimme $5 and you can unlock this extra costume!"
Fuck that noise.

Yeah all your points are fine but are negated by the fact that Owyn_Merrilin is an intellectual genius and deserves praise for being such a mastermind. I agree that games should not cost $60!! THATS OUTRAGEOUS. They should $20 AT MOST because we all deserve games and cannot live without them. Development costs are an invention of someone else's mind and don't compute in my reality. The cost of making a game SHOULD NOT be factored into price! That's just bad business and Owyn Merrilin is here to save this industry from itself. Someone hire this man please

Ever notice its always the BIG AAA games that ask for 60-80$? Never middle games which make profit even as low as 25 bucks?

...You're asking why the games with the largest production costs BY FAR cost more than games that don't even have a fiftieth of a AAA budget?

Did Hotline Miami make a ton of money while being priced at $10? Almost certainly. Did Hotline Miami cost at least 1/6th of what AAA games did to develop? Hell no.

Which, as mentioned, is part of the problem. Production values are too high on some AAA games to even make a profit at charging $60 anymore, like Dead Space 3. Carl on Duty: Black Cops 2 can get away with it because it will break every sales record known to man and then some (if it hasn't already).

dude you need to realise ultrawinkle has all this figured out. He has worked in the industry and knows how the pricing works. Game companies SHOULD NOT be making money for their investors because really they're different when you think about it. When they charge $60 a game, well those developers are just plain evil and are in bed with the devil. That is why everyone is taking a stance on those games and no one buys them anymore. Over the next few years games will drop in price BUT the production value will go up and we shall enter a golden age of gaming and everyone shall rejoice. This will of course be on advice from ultrawinkle because he already knows all the sums. So yeah don't try arguing with him, it's no use, he has already won

 

[xPixelatedx]

...Gamers' tastes have evolved to include quick, bite-size gaming sessions -- something consoles have never been good at. (Gamers must go to the living room, wait for the console to power on, load the game from the main menu, wait for it to boot.) It's much slower than tapping an icon on the smartphone you already carry in your pocket."

ROFL OMG! No, not even close... So, wait, let me get this straight. The new kids (I use that ironically) on the block who entered this gen purely on the appeal of exercising with the toy their grandchildren bought them; they're getting bored of it? ...THIS is what spells the end for console gaming? CNN, I think you are forgetting something.. like, oh, I don't know, how about the people who have been buying video games since the days of the NES and even prior: the people who choose to sit down and spend 10 hours straight on the newest title from the franchise they enjoy? They do this not because it's quick and cheap, yeah, they do it because they love to willful and purposely spend their time this way. Do you know why these people will ensure consoles won't die? Because I do... and if you really want to know come close...

...closer

Spoiler

Angry birds isn't enough

People who really enjoy gaming aren't satisfied with the cheap, quick-bangs for little bucks phones provide. If phone games were the only games, gaming would lose most it's audience. There are people out there spending THOUSANDS on top-of-the-line entertainment centers just to expand the home-experience further. Gaming on consoles has been around long before the phone games, and it will be around long after, because it is fundamentally an entierly different experience. They are not competing, because if they were phones would have to be offering an equivalence of some kind to Gear/Halo/CoD/etc. They aren't... I haven't even seen a decent iSo Mario competitor for crying out loud, and it seems like that would be the first easy thing to emulate. Nintendo is pretty safe.

Perhaps CNN should actually investigate why wii's aren't selling instead of just looking at numbers and then making broad assumptions. Could it be that the core releases are far and few? Could it be the mountain of shovel-ware the wii is now famous for? That's what killed Atari, after all. It could also be that Nintendo stopped supporting the wii after Zelda, and some people could argue they weren't supporting it much right before then, either. or hell, most people who wanted one might *drumroll* actually have one already. There is only so many people interested in wiis, and now that everyone has one somewhere in their family, it seems pretty unrealistic to believe they would still be selling like they were when they were new. Anyone in the business will also tell you that hardware sales aren't quite as important as software, to which Nintendo is making none for the wii right now. The wii's decline makes absolute perfect sense, and in no way should be feared. Even Nintendo is fine with it, they have a new console coming out and a rejuvenated library and new exclusives on the way.

 

[Twilight_guy]

CNN makes a lame and report that boils things down more then it should and is somewhat ignorant. Yawn. News reports do this all the time. I think this just got to you because it was game related.

 

[Eddie the head]

Just take out voice acting and "cinematic EVERYTHING " and we are good to go .

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of gaming news?

Since when has CNN been a valid source of news? As John Stewart pointed out the only people who watch CNN are the people at MSNBC.

 

[Doom972]

I don't think that they should stop, but they should definitely get people who actually know what they're talking about. Console gaming isn't dying because of smartphone games. Smartphone games are for casual gamers - people who's main hobby isn't gaming, but play videogames occasionally, while console games (like PC games), are for core gamers. With consoles slowly becoming limited PCs, I don't think that there will be more than 2 generations of consoles after this one.

 

[Defenestra]

Console gaming is dead, PC gaming is dead, Cthulhu is dead...

Whatevs. I say you call it dead after it's stopped twitching, not while it's still juggling huge bags of money. But hey, what do I know?