Poll: CNN: Console Gaming is Dying
- Thread starter Frezzato
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Case in point, the number one item on my Christmas list this year is a no-contract smart phone. I don't intend to activate it[footnote]well, not for six months to a year until I've graduated college and moved out of my parents place; once I've done that, I'll have enough money that what ammounts to an extra $15 a month (which doubles the cost) over what I'm already paying for a basic feature phone won't be such a pointless luxury[/footnote], it's just that there's no Android equivalent to an iPod touch that isn't significantly more expensive than the kind of lower-mid range phones I'm looking at. Anyway, I've always been a fan of open systems, and it doesn't get much more open than android. I got a little $50 android phone (absolute bottom end of the market here) earlier this year that I intended to replace a dead mp3 player for about what I'd be paying for a mid-range dedicated mp3 player, and the darned thing replaced my DS while I was at it. Not that it can run anything more complicated than a Gameboy Color emulator at full speed (for Android specific games it can run a port of Nethack and that's about it) but between the e-reader, the comic book reader, the music player, and the web browser (which works on wi-fi even though the phone hasn't been activated) I feel no need to carry around my DS anymore. Upgrading to a more powerful phone just adds portable gaming to the list of things I've condensed to a single device.Moderated said:
And by the way, if you think everything on the android market is stuff along the lines of Angry Birds, you're not too knowledgeable about what's available. I was thinking the best thing would likely be a PS1 emulator, but looking up videos of people reviewing phones showed a surprising number of core games. Things like a port/spinoff (not sure which) of Deadspace, and a couple different first and third person shooters. Those are just the ones that were turning up in videos, too, so I'm sure there's more where those came from.
You know, I hear this argument a lot. It isn't correct. Well, in a way it is, but not to the extent people make it out to be. Yes, accounting for inflation shows that console games are technically the cheapest they have been in quite some time for individual consumers. No, this is not why developers are failing.Kopikatsu said:
Even though console games are the cheapest they have ever been, they are also selling considerably more than they have ever been (if you exclude the used game market). I don't know if you noticed this or not, but every year or two there is a new "best selling release ever" game to come out. This isn't because X game is better than ever, or more valuable than ever, it is because gaming as an entertainment medium is now larger than ever.
So please don't blame failing developers on the low costs of games (this statement isn't actually pointed at you, as I didn't see you saying that). If developers wanted to, they could easily hold back from increasing the ever growing army of workers it takes to develop a AAA title. In the short term we would have very slight increases in graphics and advancement (actually not much change in how its been the past 5 years) and the costs of development would steadily decrease, yielding a greater profit from the seemingly cheap 60$ game.
On top of that, the 60$ price tag is a well researched number and it has absolutely nothing to do with development costs (I can prove that just by pointing you to the digital download medium, you can't tell me that it costs the same amount to skip all the physical development costs and let the player download the game), and it has everything to do with the estimated "magic number". This magic number is the price that the developers think they can get the greatest gain on by estimating the number of people able to afford it, vs how much it costs.
OT: The article has a minor point, but they are way off on the fact that it is killing gaming. The gaming industry is losing casual players to the cell phone market. Many of the people who would use their console to load up some casual game to pass a few minutes here or there are buying more cell phone games due to the costs. Why pay 60$ for a game when I can get this game for 5$. Hell I have Dead Space and Mass Effect on my Droid, and they are not bad games at all.
I don't think that the core gamers are going anywhere though. If I'm sitting at home, there is no way I'm playing a game on my cell phone. I have my PC and my consoles for a more engaging experience.
The question, however, is, just what is the ratio of "core" versus "not-core" gamers? The question becomes important because that's also the answer to the question who brings in more revenue for the publishers, and therefore, who the publishers are more likely to try and keep appeased if they are pressed against the wall and need to make a choice.barbzilla said:
In other news:
Peoples' tastes in motion pictures have evolved to include short, 30 minute show blocks -- something traditional cinema has never been good at. People must drive to the cinema, buy tickets, and wait for the movie to start. It's much slower than turning on the TV you already own in your house, and flipping to your favorite channel.
This is why, since the invention of television, Hollywood has stopped producing full-length feature films altogether, and all brick and mortar cinema establishments have gone out of business.
Peoples' tastes in motion pictures have evolved to include short, 30 minute show blocks -- something traditional cinema has never been good at. People must drive to the cinema, buy tickets, and wait for the movie to start. It's much slower than turning on the TV you already own in your house, and flipping to your favorite channel.
This is why, since the invention of television, Hollywood has stopped producing full-length feature films altogether, and all brick and mortar cinema establishments have gone out of business.
It wouldn't quite be right to say consoles are "dying", but there has been a definite move towards smaller games; with the advent of smart phones and social networks, quick time-wasters such as Angry Birds have proven to be extremely profitable. Following all consoles being connected to the internet and the rise of online gaming, other "quick cash grabs" such as DLC (particularly day one DLC and tiny add-ons like different player outfits) have also become extremely popular. In any event, publishers (and to a lesser extent, developers... I think) have made a push towards these smaller items which are just as (or more) profitable than the full game themselves.
How this relates to consoles mostly has to do with the fact PCs and smart phones are more adept at delivering smaller games, internet connectivity and all that; combined with their other functionality, they retain their other usefulness. Consoles technically have it as well, but their primary purpose has always been to deliver bigger games via cartridges or discs; if the bigger games go completely out of style, consoles are almost certain to follow.
However... the demand for big-budget grand adventures is one that will never completely die.
---
The thing with online gaming and other of these "quick cash grabs" is that they are notoriously transient, they don't last; sooner or later, players will crave something meaty to keep them occupied for a good while. Even MMORPGs, with their infamously long play-times, can't genuinely match the feeling of going an actual "grand adventure". In fact, we have at least three very successful examples from the modern era:
Dragon Age: Origins
Often heralded as a throw-back to Bioware's older series, Baldur's Gate; nevertheless, it delivers an adventure which spans all of Ferelden and is guaranteed to last upwards of 40 hours to complete (in fact, it can easily break 60 hours if you do some of the side content). Heck, it's even best on the PC.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Another game which is "best" on the PC, but I find that using a controller is better for the gameplay; easily done with a wired X360 controller, no other details required. Another huge game, a bit more free-form but still able to deliver over a hundred hours for the dedicated explorer.
Xenoblade Chronicles
The modern classic of what is commonly referred to as "JRPGs", the reminder of why so many of us loved the genre back in our younger days. To tell the truth, this could be the bigger than the two games above with everything taken into account; and it boasts the longest and best paced central story-line of the lot, at a minimum of 60 or so hours to complete (and the play-time could easily be tripled if you do all the side content). To think it's a Wii exclusive (with some rather lacklustre graphics as a result) and without any DLC is just the icing on the cake. Anyhow, people fought for this game to be brought over to this side of the Pacific; they succeeded, and it was worth it.
---
There's a reason classics are called such, they're something which lasts despite the formula being older than the audience... because everyone still finds something they like about it. The current generation of consoles has all but forgotten what these are with the rise of easy-money games, DLC, and online multiplayer; but those won't be the ones players will remember, it will be those which made the effort to be the grand adventure. A few tried to stretch these out over trilogies and that... but honestly, even those pale in comparison to the games which do it from start to finish (and without DLC to boot).
Regardless of what happens to consoles, the grand adventure will always be in demand for games; and despite the publishers trying to do something else about it, just about any developer wants to make these types games as well. This trend can even be traced back into forms of entertainment older than gaming; even literature and oral story-telling show signs of this.
The best part?
Gaming just so happens to be the best way of delivering this type of experience.
I guess that strays a bit from the bit about consoles dying, but the grand adventure is firmly rooted with them. At worst, they'll become unfeasible due to being effectively assimilated by PCs. But the experience they were best at delivering will remain eternal, an ever present feature of the medium.
How this relates to consoles mostly has to do with the fact PCs and smart phones are more adept at delivering smaller games, internet connectivity and all that; combined with their other functionality, they retain their other usefulness. Consoles technically have it as well, but their primary purpose has always been to deliver bigger games via cartridges or discs; if the bigger games go completely out of style, consoles are almost certain to follow.
However... the demand for big-budget grand adventures is one that will never completely die.
---
The thing with online gaming and other of these "quick cash grabs" is that they are notoriously transient, they don't last; sooner or later, players will crave something meaty to keep them occupied for a good while. Even MMORPGs, with their infamously long play-times, can't genuinely match the feeling of going an actual "grand adventure". In fact, we have at least three very successful examples from the modern era:
Dragon Age: Origins
Often heralded as a throw-back to Bioware's older series, Baldur's Gate; nevertheless, it delivers an adventure which spans all of Ferelden and is guaranteed to last upwards of 40 hours to complete (in fact, it can easily break 60 hours if you do some of the side content). Heck, it's even best on the PC.
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Another game which is "best" on the PC, but I find that using a controller is better for the gameplay; easily done with a wired X360 controller, no other details required. Another huge game, a bit more free-form but still able to deliver over a hundred hours for the dedicated explorer.
Xenoblade Chronicles
The modern classic of what is commonly referred to as "JRPGs", the reminder of why so many of us loved the genre back in our younger days. To tell the truth, this could be the bigger than the two games above with everything taken into account; and it boasts the longest and best paced central story-line of the lot, at a minimum of 60 or so hours to complete (and the play-time could easily be tripled if you do all the side content). To think it's a Wii exclusive (with some rather lacklustre graphics as a result) and without any DLC is just the icing on the cake. Anyhow, people fought for this game to be brought over to this side of the Pacific; they succeeded, and it was worth it.
---
There's a reason classics are called such, they're something which lasts despite the formula being older than the audience... because everyone still finds something they like about it. The current generation of consoles has all but forgotten what these are with the rise of easy-money games, DLC, and online multiplayer; but those won't be the ones players will remember, it will be those which made the effort to be the grand adventure. A few tried to stretch these out over trilogies and that... but honestly, even those pale in comparison to the games which do it from start to finish (and without DLC to boot).
Regardless of what happens to consoles, the grand adventure will always be in demand for games; and despite the publishers trying to do something else about it, just about any developer wants to make these types games as well. This trend can even be traced back into forms of entertainment older than gaming; even literature and oral story-telling show signs of this.
The best part?
Gaming just so happens to be the best way of delivering this type of experience.
I guess that strays a bit from the bit about consoles dying, but the grand adventure is firmly rooted with them. At worst, they'll become unfeasible due to being effectively assimilated by PCs. But the experience they were best at delivering will remain eternal, an ever present feature of the medium.
I've largely shunned casual games because the pick up and play style doesn't appeal to me, i want to be engaged with the games i play, i want stories, atmosphere, settings that inspire me or fill me with dread, i want to Experience games,not just play shallow physics puzzlers or farmville ripoff #367
time and time again we've seen casual games companies rise and fall as their schtick becomes old and casual gamers move on to the next shiny object that gets dangled in front of them, casual companies don't build up the legion of fans that the "Dying" developers have.
take Zynga for example, in one year how many clones of their more popular IP's put out? and how deep in the shitter are they, oh yeah, their stock plummeted from $14.50 in march to $3 a share by june. while oldschool Studio Rockstar Games put out two games in the last year and the recent info about GTA V is likely going to make take 2's stock balloon with the company expecting more than $10,000,000 in revenue in Q4 2012 - Q1 2013
Casual games as a business model are untenable because the target audience by definition isn't invested in customer loyalty, meanwhile studios like Gearbox, Bungie, obsidian and maxis have legions of fans who are willing to come back to their games year after year.
Consoles won't die, but they will be different. the next generation might see reduced production costs which means game development costs will drop, if microsoft and sony learn anything from this generation at all, which i'm hoping they do.
time and time again we've seen casual games companies rise and fall as their schtick becomes old and casual gamers move on to the next shiny object that gets dangled in front of them, casual companies don't build up the legion of fans that the "Dying" developers have.
take Zynga for example, in one year how many clones of their more popular IP's put out? and how deep in the shitter are they, oh yeah, their stock plummeted from $14.50 in march to $3 a share by june. while oldschool Studio Rockstar Games put out two games in the last year and the recent info about GTA V is likely going to make take 2's stock balloon with the company expecting more than $10,000,000 in revenue in Q4 2012 - Q1 2013
Casual games as a business model are untenable because the target audience by definition isn't invested in customer loyalty, meanwhile studios like Gearbox, Bungie, obsidian and maxis have legions of fans who are willing to come back to their games year after year.
Consoles won't die, but they will be different. the next generation might see reduced production costs which means game development costs will drop, if microsoft and sony learn anything from this generation at all, which i'm hoping they do.
Actually it isn't quite as simple as that. I don't know the actual statistics behind it, but I will try to give you some explanation of what I mean.Vegosiux said:
Even though we have a proportionately large amount of casual gamers (I mean most people age 50 and under have at least played solitaire on their laptops/pcs at this point), the casual gamers account for a relatively small proportion of the game industries sales market. Most casual gamers may purchase 1-5 games a year, while most core gamers purchase that a month. So for there to be an equal market share between the two, casual gamers would have to outnumber the core gamers 12-1 (not statistically accurate, just an example for my point).
On the other half of your question, casual games have the potential to be just a profitable if not more profitable from a cost/return ratio, with a much smaller overhead and production time. From a pure monetary stand point, it is more profitable for large developers to continue with the AAA market for now, but for smaller developers and indy developers to make smaller games.
Regardless of the idiocy CNN brings, console gaming is not dying. We're currently at a point where the maximum output of each console was reached a long time ago and developers are looking for the next console to explore. There will be a couple gems yet (hopefully), but console have reached the next stage. At least they will as soon as MS and Sony get their heads out of their asses and figure out how they can make a new console without just upping the video specs, the consoles have been on life-support for a while now.
I see what you mean.barbzilla said:
But I don't know. The "old school" gamers, those of us who have been gaming for close to or more than two decades, are getting older. We have other life committments now, we don't have as much time anymore, we can't crunch through as many games anymore without working up a rather intimidating backlog, or, ironically, casually scratching the surface of our games before moving on to the next one.
So unless we buy impulsively, we're not as profitable as we could have been 15 years ago with more time on our hands. And hell, I try to keep my new purchases within reason, not only financially but also regarding the fact that a day simply only has 24 hours, 8 or more of which I usually spend working, still need my sleep, and take care of all other kinds of stuff. Even if I could afford to buy every single new release, I simply would not have the time to play them.
And I expect more of a shift in that direction still.
So I'd still expect to the casual guy who gets done with the game quickly before moving on to next one would nowadays be more profitable than the one who digs deep into them to enjoy them to their fullest potential.
Looks like CNN forgot that "quality" exists.
Insert obvious joke about CNN's reporting quality here.
Insert obvious joke about CNN's reporting quality here.
I think we have different definitions of core and casual gamers. I worked for MSFT Xbox for a while (left due to ethical reasons, as in they had none) and the general terminology is Core/Casual/Social/Dabbler for your gamer types.Vegosiux said:
Core group are those that spend the majority of their entertainment hours playing video games, they know the terminology, are familiar with the hardware, and are typically the group of people who would finish games.
Casual gamers are those who might spend 1-5 hours a week gaming. They typically seek games that are easier to complete or play (rhythm games, sports games [though your hardcore sports gamers are core group], puzzle games, or even solitaire). They enjoy games, but it is typically just something for them to do to pass the time while waiting for something else.
Social gamers play games for a social experience. Well, actually they might not even play games at all, with MSFT social gamers also represented people who used their Xbox for the purposes of Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter (though the last two are gone now).
Dabblers are typical the parents of young core gamers. They use the Xbox here and there or watch their kids play. They may have tried a game or two, but are generally knowledgeable about games and/or hardware.
So we "Old School Gamers" aren't the only core group. Every year a whole new crop comes in, and those are who the major manufactures/developers are selling to now. The older group tends to pick up super AAA titles, nostalgic titles, or unique titles. We may not buy as often anymore, but we tend to have the most eclectic tastes. As such we are seeing less and less of the games we might consider good, as the devs cater to the newer younger crowds.
To put simply we aren't the target audience anymore. The targets are the kids/young adults who have the time to play lots of games, and use other people's money to purchase the games/dlc/addons ect. That is why you see so many micro-transactions now (well that and the developers trying to make money off of used games by selling parts of the game after its shipped).
.....
um...
I had a point here somewhere...
Oh yes, to put simply the casuals aren't in a position to push the market away from the AAA titles yet. As for the hardware... I see consoles eventually dying, and the console manufacturers selling what equates to emulators that you install on your PC so they can keep their "exclusive" titles. I just don't see it happening within the next 10 years.