Poll: CNN: Console Gaming is Dying

[RhombusHatesYou]

I have absolutely nothing against Aussies getting cheap games... in fact, I think games should be cheaper for everyone. In America, I think they should be about $40 cheaper (to match up to the cost of a new DVD release, which is $20-$25). My only problem with complaints from Australia is when Australians act like Americans pay next to nothing for games and tell us to quit whining about it, because we don't and it's not really whining.

That's just people spouting off out of ignorance, taking things at face value. I get that it gets annoying having to correct the same thing over and over again but you think most people are actually going to go and do some reading up? Fuck no, they'll ignore any reasoning and keep spouting away. Even when you explain the ins and outs beneath the surface you'll have at least a few who say something like "Just because their economy is in the toilet and their government thinks a living wage is communism is no reason I should be paying more for games." (a direct quote from someone in the boozer I was discussing the topic with)

As for broadband: you actually agreed with me. My point was it's not great in the US, and while we're pretty low on the list of countries with good internet, even the ones that have great internet have /got/ to have issues that keep full digital distribution for everything being economically feasible at the moment.

The current digital communications infrastructure only works now because not everyone uses it. Digital distro only works at the moment because the demand is lower than the infrastructure can provide - supply exceeds demand... and on the flipside of that, the trend of stuffing 3G/4G tech into everything is having a hugely detrimental effect on the mobile/cell infrastructure in some places because the demand exceeds what the infrastructure can provide - demand exceeds supply.

Suffice to say that if all major platforms went DD there are places that the digital communications infrastructure would basically shit itself from the demand. The infrastructure is not set up for constant high demand because at the moment building that amount of required bandwidth would be not only massively expensive but wasted most of the time... unless most people used wireless internet... in which case the system would probably go tits up and start crashing towers.

 

[J Tyran]

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.

Games on Steam at release are very often the same price as console versions, usually they are a little cheaper but not by much. Dishonoured for example was only £5 cheaper for the Steam version. If you wait 3-9 months after release both console and PC games come down in price, often at very similar prices. Some examples would be,

Crysis 2 (limited maximum edition), PC £24.99. Xbox 360 £21.99
Deadspace 2, PC £14.99. Xbox 360 £15.99
Skyrim, PC £19.99. Xbox 360 £24.99
Batman: Arkham City, PC £14.99. Xbox 360 £14.99
Deus Ex: Human Revolution, PC £14.99. Xbox 360 £16.79

These prices are all Steam for PC and online retailers for the Xbox versions. Interestingly PS3 versions can often be even cheaper. The only time the differences are "jarring" is when gamers go to rip off merchants like Gamestation or Gamestop, Steam prices are cheaper during sales but other retailers also have sales.

Steam has lots of games by smaller developers and indie devs that like you say are around £25 but again so do the consoles via XBLA or PSN. If gamers shop smart they can pick up console games for the same price as PC releases, then consoles have a huge advantage over PCs.

You can trade the games in.

You cannot trade games in you get from Steam but the console versions can be traded in, this can be a huge advantage for someone on a limited budget like a student or someone that just got their hours cut down at work. With ever increasing costs of living this will remain to be important for many gamers.

 

[MagunBFP]

You can trade the games in.

You cannot trade games in you get from Steam but the console versions can be traded in, this can be a huge advantage for someone on a limited budget like a student or someone that just got their hours cut down at work. With ever increasing costs of living this will remain to be important for many gamers.

You don't see that games being traded being an issue in determining price? If a publisher expects to sell a certain number of games but on sells 90% or 80% because rather then purchase new copies people buy pre-owned which is $5 - $10 cheaper. The stores win most because once they pay staff and deduct the $10 (for a recent AAA game) they paid someone the rest is pure profit. The customer wins a little because they got the game cheaper then full retail (unless they then have to buy an online pass) and the publisher looses completely because that was their game that was bought but they don't get a cent of it. So maybe next time the publisher will factor that in, and a game that might be $110 will actually be $120 (or for Americans $60 might be $66) which is a lovely vicious the Game retailers will get their fair(?) share of wiith pre-owned games again.

As for trading in games being a huge advantage for someone on a limited budget, given the pitance they pay the customer for these games it doesn't make that much of a difference unless its a great game and you're trading it in within a month of purchase, by Christmas the trade-in value of Halo 4 is going to be maybe $10, the value of a smaller less popular game is closer to $3 or $4 dollars. There's a reason why GameStop's profits for 2010, 2011 and 2012 calendar years were almost 50% due to pre-owned games.

http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/a-war-on-used-games-is-a-war-on-gamestop-here-comes-the-science

 

[J Tyran]

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.

Games on Steam at release are very often the same price as console versions, usually they are a little cheaper but not by much. Dishonoured for example was only £5 cheaper for the Steam version. If you wait 3-9 months after release both console and PC games come down in price, often at very similar prices. Some examples would be,

Crysis 2 (limited maximum edition), PC £24.99. Xbox 360 £21.99
Deadspace 2, PC £14.99. Xbox 360 £15.99
Skyrim, PC £19.99. Xbox 360 £24.99
Batman: Arkham City, PC £14.99. Xbox 360 £14.99
Deus Ex: Human Revolution, PC £14.99. Xbox 360 £16.79

These prices are all Steam for PC and online retailers for the Xbox versions. Interestingly PS3 versions can often be even cheaper. The only time the differences are "jarring" is when gamers go to rip off merchants like Gamestation or Gamestop, Steam prices are cheaper during sales but other retailers also have sales.

Steam has lots of games by smaller developers and indie devs that like you say are around £25 but again so do the consoles via XBLA or PSN. If gamers shop smart they can pick up console games for the same price as PC releases, then consoles have a huge advantage over PCs.

You can trade the games in.

You cannot trade games in you get from Steam but the console versions can be traded in, this can be a huge advantage for someone on a limited budget like a student or someone that just got their hours cut down at work. With ever increasing costs of living this will remain to be important for many gamers.

Trading in? The same thing that is popular because price hikes and slowly being phased out by more and more DRM on console games?

Trading in means nothing if you can get a AAA game for 10 bucks. Others as cheap as $2.50. Other preorders shaving as much as 10 bucks off the top of an already 50$ dollar game.

Steam has a daily sale on a random game. Meaning you don't have to wait months.

Some new games are as cheap as 25$ at launch, and that's the large multiplayer games.

Trading in only works if the games are expensive, PC gamers have steam, which makes games so cheap trading in makes very little sense since you ALWAYS get your money's worth.

If you can't afford 2.50$, you shouldn't even afford bills let alone a console.

You can trade the games in.

You cannot trade games in you get from Steam but the console versions can be traded in, this can be a huge advantage for someone on a limited budget like a student or someone that just got their hours cut down at work. With ever increasing costs of living this will remain to be important for many gamers.

You don't see that games being traded being an issue in determining price? If a publisher expects to sell a certain number of games but on sells 90% or 80% because rather then purchase new copies people buy pre-owned which is $5 - $10 cheaper. The stores win most because once they pay staff and deduct the $10 (for a recent AAA game) they paid someone the rest is pure profit. The customer wins a little because they got the game cheaper then full retail (unless they then have to buy an online pass) and the publisher looses completely because that was their game that was bought but they don't get a cent of it. So maybe next time the publisher will factor that in, and a game that might be $110 will actually be $120 (or for Americans $60 might be $66) which is a lovely vicious the Game retailers will get their fair(?) share of wiith pre-owned games again.

As for trading in games being a huge advantage for someone on a limited budget, given the pitance they pay the customer for these games it doesn't make that much of a difference unless its a great game and you're trading it in within a month of purchase, by Christmas the trade-in value of Halo 4 is going to be maybe $10, the value of a smaller less popular game is closer to $3 or $4 dollars. There's a reason why GameStop's profits for 2010, 2011 and 2012 calendar years were almost 50% due to pre-owned games.

http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/a-war-on-used-games-is-a-war-on-gamestop-here-comes-the-science

I only mention trading in as a bonus that gives a little extra value for money, as the prices are comparable between the two platforms in the first place its not a necessary advantage but it exists and is more relevant than either of you are obviously willing to admit.

The only time you can consistently save money is with the Steam sales, yet other retailers have sales and bundle deals too. These small savings can be completely wiped out by the cost of the PC hardware. Budget gaming rigs that do not have any real graphical superiority over a a console cost at least 50% more, if you look at the Steam survey the majority of the PCs used for gaming are mostly dual core CPU with a £50-100 or so GPU and 4GB of RAM. Before the price of an operating system and before the cost of a cheap 1080p monitor and all of the other gubbins you need a cheap gaming tower is going to set you back £150-250.

An Xbox will set you back £160, less than the price of a mid range GPU. Anyone wanting a top of the mid range or a high end PC is going to have to spend more, a lot more. Not including monitors and everything else I could buy six Xboxes for just the cost of my tower, PCs just simply cost more even just for something that matches the quality of the console let alone exceed them. Bear in mind these are costs are for self built machines too, think of the all the poor gits that are unable or unwilling to build their own (I know I do not understand why some people cannot build their own either, its not difficult and far more satisfying than pre built junk) They have to buy pre built desktops or laptops that cost considerably more than something you build yourself.

Unless someone buys a large amount of games, say a minimum of one per month the console will be cheaper even including Steams sales. I am not saying consoles are better or PCs are worse, in fact I am a PC gamer myself and will buy the PC version (apart from exclusives obviously) over a console version simply because I prefer it and nothing to do with the costs. What I am saying though its nowhere near as grim as either of you make out and neither platform overall has any real price advantage when considering all of the issues.

 

[invadergir]

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.

A long time ago, computers cost 4-10k per unit, even though they had no memory and its OS was floppy based. Technology became cheaper to produce even though inflation was rapidly out-pacing everything around it.

Even in the recent past,Neo-Geo was around $700 dollars and its games sold for $100-150 a piece. It failed due to an excessive price point. So we learned that the value of games will find itself centered on production costs and an acceptable price point.

Games and computers now are far less expensive then at any time in gaming history.

 

[MagunBFP]

The console market not as grim?

The problems with consoles is not the players or that they can't afford them. Its the publishers who can't even afford to have one game fail to make its money back.

No amount of trade ins will ever fix the fact that publishers are drowning and will continue to drown unless M$ and $ony take the damn financial hit.

Why only Microsoft and Sony? I'll be the first to admit I have no idea how the licensing or other fees are contracted between developers/publishers/Consoles but remove the pre-owned market and suddenly these publishers are making more money because all of the sales of their game are actually passing on some money, but the bricks and mortar stores wouldn't like that because its a sizable cut into their profits. You want to support a publisher then then buy a new copy of a game for a few dollars more and not a used version.

Just like any business game publishers have to do a budget, they have to promote their games, test their games for target audience wanting it, everything any business needs to do to stay a float. There are costs involved which M$ or $ony would be up front about wanting their share, as would anyone else. So the publisher has to balance his budget or go broke, just like any other business. Its not Microsoft's or Sony's fault if the publisher spends too much money and can't make it back on a failed game. If the costs were lower then the publisher would be bleeding less money after a failed game, but by that token the cost of the game would be lower to the consumers so they would be making even less for each game that actually did sold.

I'm not saying its not hard, or that it doesn't cost a shite load of cash to make a game, but put resonsibility for spending of a company on the company itself, no one said they couldn't make it a console exclusive, or it couldn't be a pc game, or nintendo game or that the game even had to be made.

 

[J Tyran]

The console market not as grim?

You are misrepresenting my post, my point was not about the wider industry and was aimed at the barrier of entry for the consumer. Things for console consumer are not as grim as you claim when you compare the cost of owning and operating either platform. The PC as a platform is not significantly cheaper than a console in any respect, the games generally retail for the same if people shop smart and the cost of PC hardware can rapidly outpace any perceived savings made during digital distribution sales.

As for the industry as a whole yes some publishers are going by the wayside but generally massive profits are still made by the successful publishers and devs. The overall industry has contracted but the causes of that are wrapped up in many issues, some of the causes are external and related to the wider global economic gremlins. Other issues arise because of the length of this console cycle and some stagnation in the design of games, new hardware might reduce the stagnation in design as devs will not be limited by the old hardware. Many of the people who would buy a console already own one, reducing sales. Many others that don't own one but might buy are unwilling to invest in a console with the next gen looming. Used games are also play a part, they are countless millions of copies of back cataloged used games available. 2006-2008 titles can cost just a few GBP, if someone wants a game they can pick up a really good game from a few years back for next to nothing instead of buying a brand new retail game costing ten times as much. Thats one of the symptoms of a long cycle, those huge back catalogues have time to build up to extraordinary amounts.

There is no single cause and some of them come from outside of the industry, they are also extremely complicated and interact in unexpected ways.

Personally I would be willing to bet that if the global recovery continues and the US and EU can get their fiscal issues in order that things will pick up next gen. Especially if the hardware prices are sensible and publishers can learn lessons from the smaller devs and publishers about keeping down the over inflated production costs.

 

[Savryc]

Holy shit it's gone full circle, quick someone whip up a "Console gaming, happily dying since X" jpeg

 

[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.

A long time ago, computers cost 4-10k per unit, even though they had no memory and its OS was floppy based. Technology became cheaper to produce even though inflation was rapidly out-pacing everything around it.

Even in the recent past,Neo-Geo was around $700 dollars and its games sold for $100-150 a piece. It failed due to an excessive price point. So we learned that the value of games will find itself centered on production costs and an acceptable price point.

Games and computers now are far less expensive then at any time in gaming history.

The Neo Geo? Please tell me you're joking. The Neo Geo home system was a total flop because it was an order of magnitude more expensive than its competition, even at the time. Even today, it's actually cheaper to but one of their arcade systems and games for it than it is to do it with the home system.

Video games are /not/ less expensive. They haven't gone down the way other electronic things have gone down. That's the problem.

 

[Nikolaz72]

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.

New releases used to be 40. I think it was a Doom/Quake special edition that got away with costing 60, and suddenly all games got raised up to that price.

 

[hoboman29]

I thought CNN was supposed to be the news because I already knew this. (I predict a second crash in about 5 years.)

Console gen 7 has been my least favorite because its more corporate and there's no innovation to me. Remember a time when a new console generation meant anything was possible? The jump from Mega Man classic to x or from Final Fantasy 1 to 6. Or how about that time when this new 3d thing was coming about? Sure it looks like shit but it was new and amazing. Then we vastly improved 3d with gen 6. Then....nothing just shinier graphics and DRM. The spirit of gaming is dying out because its such a soulless machine now more business than fun.
I leave with this one question. Where did the fun go?

captcha: walk the plank. Just like the game industry

 

[Jfswift]

console gaming is dying, but not for those reasons.

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.

Its why publishers are SCARED of taking risks, or they wont get their 50-100 million dollars back.

Its why they are SCARED of new IPs.

If the entire culture of console game developer doesn't change, we are looking at financial collapse. A collapse only Nintendo can survive.

Is that what people really want? A Nintendo only future?

I have said this time and time again for two years, that the next gen will be either biggest failure or the biggest change. It seems to have taken 2 years for this to catch on and become a regular talking point to the point even Jim Sterling and extra credits talk about it.

If MS and Sony don't stop and think, and just throw all their money on expensive console parts and pass down the INCREASING costs onto already cash strapped developers/consumers, console gaming will become a thing of the past because no one will be able to afford to develop for consoles.

The middle game is dead on consoles. If you are not indie, you are a huge AAA game. AAA dominates the console landscape. Even AAA developers are scared that AAA will just disappear into the night.

The true threat to consoles isn't piracy, second hand sales, or lack of players. Hell, its isn't even lack of innovation, blatant pandering, and sequel whoring. Its simple cost of doing business, dictated by huge corporations.

Simple as that.

I agree with you about pricing. I read that Darksiders 2 didn't sell very well. This didn't help THQ much. If it had been 30-40 dollars I would have snatched it up without a second thought. On that same thought, I almost didn't buy Dragon's Dogma because it was an unknown game going for 60 dollars. The only reason I picked it up was because of a one day sale dropping it down to about 50 bucks. I can't stand paying 60 and finding out a game sucks (which has happened before).

 

[Pulse]

Console gaming isn't dying, but it could implode.

The increase in gaming on other devices isn't mush of an issue. It may reduce the consoles' "gaming market share" but they aren't losing customers to other devices. The gaming market just increased in size, as it now includes people who wouldn't have otherwise bought a console but are happy to play on a tablet. It's not really a concern.

The issue is development costs. A vicious cycle of competing developers trying to be within the top 5 of everyone's list, as that's the most games anyone will buy at full price within a given time period. That means high development costs, which forces a higher price tag.

High development costs are also a product of having to increase the re playability of the game so you hold on to it for longer. One reason why pretty much every single game has multi-player these days is to encourage the player to hold onto the game for longer to prevent trade-ins. To a developer a trade in is money down the drain.

This has the additional effect of rising the price because customers who buy the game on release are not as affected by the price point, so it makes good business sense to charge as much as possible (given all the variables) on release.

As mentioned before, this results in many games being a big gamble if bad reviews come out, or a more popular game is released. To compete the price would have to be lowered, hen the number of games needed to be sold to break even would simply be too great given the market. The higher the standard price-point becomes, the more of a gamble it is. Also, ps3 and xbox gamers(me being one of them) usually shun lower rated games anyway, even at lower price points, which is where the wii created carved out its niche.

That's why I'm apprehensive about the next generation of consoles. The development costs will rise dramatically if they attempt to get the most out of them, which could be the end. I don't see why they didn't just delay the next generation, the quality of the games is still improving over this current one.

But I don't have a problem with the pricing. I think we as gamers tend to ***** a bit too much when you really consider what we're getting for 60$.

As for pc gaming, that's seen quite a hit from piracy, and many games are alongside console games for a bit of a revenue boost. I don't think it would really survive if console gaming died (apart from the already pc exclusives continuing).

 

[LooK iTz Jinjo]

Interesting, last week, PC gaming was dying, today console gaming. Tomorrow Mobile gaming will be found dead in the gutter and then next week all of gaming will be lost and no one will ever play a video game ever again and the ACL will rejoice.