[HEADING=1] Introduction[/HEADING]
Right before you read my post I want you to watch this video
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2124-Kinect-and-Move
Now notice at 6:20ish he states that both have "a pretty tough road ahead of them" which I will explain why it is more likely that these add ons will fail and at 6:30ish we are in for some bad times ahead and this got me thinking
Since the industry is now much larger, games consoles are more mainstream and games are much more expensive to produce, there is a lot more risk involved in making new an interesting game opposed to a generic sequel
[HEADING=2]What costs are involved making a game[/HEADING]
For example Modern warfare 2 cost $40-$50 million to produce (see article below). This means that the company spent that much money on making a game that should be profitable.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18
Every shareholder has a decision of "Yes" or "no" when a game idea comes through. Since the original Modern Warfare sold a lot, even more than massive titles such as Grand Theft Auto 4 and Halo 3 (see sales figures below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare#Sales
So what the share holders do is find out what their target market consumer likes best and add more into it. Like making a chocolate cake more chocolatey.
These games require a lot of money, especially on things such as; advertising, development, copyright, obtaining information from the target market and all the jobs within the business (such as accountants and human resources).
This is the problem that comes from big companies and high definition games is that they cost a shit load to make. So they make something they know the market will like.
A games company could take a leap of faith and create a game sell amazingly well such as guitar hero (originally, not the sequels) or they could create an innovating game that the industry doesn't want, isn't ready for and sells badly like Ico. This creates an element of risk that many of the share holders do not want because games are so expensive to make, arty and innovating games are much higher risk and more difficult to make.
[HEADING=2]Risk[/HEADING]
This risk factor isn't applied so heavily to a game that is "generic" because many consumers do not want to play games that could turn out to be terrible and want something they safely know will be fun. That is why you see so many fps's on the 360, many Wii bowling/family game clones and sports games on all 3 major consoles.
These are games guaranteed to sell well but will never do anything to the industry and chances are, will not be played much after the next instalment because they have shown to sell well in the past. Most of them are made almost from a mathematical formula
However what I don't think that Microsoft, Sony and a lot of 3rd party game companies realise is that some gamers want ideas that are "new" and "fresh" or more commonly known as "Innovation"
[HEADING=2] New Markets [/HEADING]
Take the Wii for example, many thought that it was going to sell badly because they thought the market weren't ready for motion controls. Look at the sales figures now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generation%29#Sales_standings
The Wii has almost internationally got the sales of the ps3 and the xbox combined. This is why both Sony and Microsoft have made the Move and Kinect respectively in an attempt to lengthen the life of their consoles and tap into this new market.
[HEADING=2]Why games companies won't want to design for them[/HEADING]
The two largest companies who have put so much money, effort and time into making these two add ons may draw out from the next generation. However, I get the feeling that 3rd party game companies will opt for making games that don't require kinect.
Why?
You need an xbox to play xbox games while to play kinect you're going to need an xbox and a kinect. Why should they add extra risk on top of the one I have already mentioned
If you make a game that's compatible with the kinect then the market is already limited to who has bought a kinect add on, while if it's a game made for just the xbox, the can hit the full market potential
The only possibility is that because there aren't that many games on the kinect, if one company makes an above average game for the kinect, most users will buy it because they are starved of decent titles.
From this, I remain sceptical of kinect, I don't think Microsoft have enough knowledge of this kind of market to make a game that's above average so all they can do is hope that a 3rd party developer makes a decent game
[HEADING=2]Relating it back to my title[/HEADING]
Now why is related to this potential video game apocalypse?
As I said, the two largest companies have both invested into these two add ons, they are relying on it to sell well otherwise they have to either find someone way to lengthen out the life of their consoles more because the two companies have made losses from their initial sales. If they don't lengthen out the life then Sony and Microsoft could with draw from the market
[HEADING=2]Loss per sale and less sales[/HEADING]
The chances of this happening is very realistic, Sony for a long time made a massive loss on each unit they sold of the PS3 and got most of their return from game sales and dlc. This is pretty common in most generations of consoles but since games also cost more and they are cheaper than they used to be (see article below)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104157-Cheer-Up-Games-Dont-Cost-You-As-Much-As-They-Used-To
They are going to get less return per game sale than they used to in previous generations when they were cheaper to make and still sold. Comparing the best selling ps2 game sales to the ps3 game sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PlayStation_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PlayStation_3
As you can see, the top 10 game sales from the ps2 are much higher than the ps3 and take a look at the bottom figures on both. Total game sales
Total PlayStation 2 games sold as of December 31, 2009: 1.51 billion
Total PlayStation 3 games sold as of June 30, 2010: 315.3 million
Now you could argue that the ps2 has been out for a lot longer however the ps3 has been out almost 4 years and it hasn't even come close to half the game sales and there's nothing in the pipe line bar the move to improve sales. This means that Sony were relying on the move for those extra sales which is has to provide to recover costs from the initial design costs
[HEADING=2]Other factors[/HEADING]
There is also too much competition from Microsoft. In the ps2, the xbox came out far too late it didn't sell nearly well enough (I would give figures but it is common knowledge that the ps2 obliterated the xbox) However this generation, consumers have a choice so the core market is split. While the casual market has the Wii and that's it
It is also unlikely for consumers to spend almost the same amount on an add on to the xbox (which they still have to buy) or they could just buy a Wii. Which I personally think, they are destine to fail. So Sony and Microsoft drop out right?
Wrong! Just Sony will drop out (In my opinion)
[HEADING=2]Why Sony could drop out[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]Competition and sales[/HEADING]
Xbox 360 sales are much better than the original xbox (see links below) which means Microsoft can only do better and since I predict Sony will drop out due to initial costs, low sales and extreme competition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Sales
Since Microsoft have got more sales each generation, they will continue on creating consoles. They have known this for a while, which is why they bought exclusives for a set period of time and dlc ownership for a set period of time. Exclusives sell consoles, that's why they exist, if everything was multi platform there would be little point to having the two consoles. Microsoft have understood this and it's why the Xbox is leading against the very similar ps3 (not in terms of hardware, in terms of games)
[HEADING=2]Why this is a bad thing for everyone[/HEADING]
Now hold your horses 360 gamers, this is a really bad thing. With the core gaming market in one place again we can only accept what is given out to us by Microsoft and we know how money grabbing Microsoft can be. We need competition, it's why prices are low in super markets and why game companies are constantly trying to make games at a higher quality
if it is just Microsoft, we may be looking forward to an era of games we have to pay for constantly (like the COD premium online) or games with much lower quality. Imagine a console generation with nothing but gears of war and gears of war clones, which is what it will be like. Nothing original, nothing fresh, just clones because they are almost guaranteed to break even with the costs. Just grey first person shooters with some brown which is kinda like the apocolypse many imagine
In all seriousness though this could cause the next generation to be very dull very samey and turn many away from gaming
[HEADING=2]What you should take from this post[/HEADING]
This is not a prediction, this is a warning of what could and realistically happen. I hope you have enjoyed my post, please discuss your thoughts and feelings on; my post, what could happen, what you can do to help and what are the alternatives
Also if it does happen, I called it
Right before you read my post I want you to watch this video
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2124-Kinect-and-Move
Now notice at 6:20ish he states that both have "a pretty tough road ahead of them" which I will explain why it is more likely that these add ons will fail and at 6:30ish we are in for some bad times ahead and this got me thinking
Since the industry is now much larger, games consoles are more mainstream and games are much more expensive to produce, there is a lot more risk involved in making new an interesting game opposed to a generic sequel
[HEADING=2]What costs are involved making a game[/HEADING]
For example Modern warfare 2 cost $40-$50 million to produce (see article below). This means that the company spent that much money on making a game that should be profitable.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18
Every shareholder has a decision of "Yes" or "no" when a game idea comes through. Since the original Modern Warfare sold a lot, even more than massive titles such as Grand Theft Auto 4 and Halo 3 (see sales figures below)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare#Sales
So what the share holders do is find out what their target market consumer likes best and add more into it. Like making a chocolate cake more chocolatey.
These games require a lot of money, especially on things such as; advertising, development, copyright, obtaining information from the target market and all the jobs within the business (such as accountants and human resources).
This is the problem that comes from big companies and high definition games is that they cost a shit load to make. So they make something they know the market will like.
A games company could take a leap of faith and create a game sell amazingly well such as guitar hero (originally, not the sequels) or they could create an innovating game that the industry doesn't want, isn't ready for and sells badly like Ico. This creates an element of risk that many of the share holders do not want because games are so expensive to make, arty and innovating games are much higher risk and more difficult to make.
[HEADING=2]Risk[/HEADING]
This risk factor isn't applied so heavily to a game that is "generic" because many consumers do not want to play games that could turn out to be terrible and want something they safely know will be fun. That is why you see so many fps's on the 360, many Wii bowling/family game clones and sports games on all 3 major consoles.
These are games guaranteed to sell well but will never do anything to the industry and chances are, will not be played much after the next instalment because they have shown to sell well in the past. Most of them are made almost from a mathematical formula
However what I don't think that Microsoft, Sony and a lot of 3rd party game companies realise is that some gamers want ideas that are "new" and "fresh" or more commonly known as "Innovation"
[HEADING=2] New Markets [/HEADING]
Take the Wii for example, many thought that it was going to sell badly because they thought the market weren't ready for motion controls. Look at the sales figures now
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generation%29#Sales_standings
The Wii has almost internationally got the sales of the ps3 and the xbox combined. This is why both Sony and Microsoft have made the Move and Kinect respectively in an attempt to lengthen the life of their consoles and tap into this new market.
[HEADING=2]Why games companies won't want to design for them[/HEADING]
The two largest companies who have put so much money, effort and time into making these two add ons may draw out from the next generation. However, I get the feeling that 3rd party game companies will opt for making games that don't require kinect.
Why?
You need an xbox to play xbox games while to play kinect you're going to need an xbox and a kinect. Why should they add extra risk on top of the one I have already mentioned
If you make a game that's compatible with the kinect then the market is already limited to who has bought a kinect add on, while if it's a game made for just the xbox, the can hit the full market potential
The only possibility is that because there aren't that many games on the kinect, if one company makes an above average game for the kinect, most users will buy it because they are starved of decent titles.
From this, I remain sceptical of kinect, I don't think Microsoft have enough knowledge of this kind of market to make a game that's above average so all they can do is hope that a 3rd party developer makes a decent game
[HEADING=2]Relating it back to my title[/HEADING]
Now why is related to this potential video game apocalypse?
As I said, the two largest companies have both invested into these two add ons, they are relying on it to sell well otherwise they have to either find someone way to lengthen out the life of their consoles more because the two companies have made losses from their initial sales. If they don't lengthen out the life then Sony and Microsoft could with draw from the market
[HEADING=2]Loss per sale and less sales[/HEADING]
The chances of this happening is very realistic, Sony for a long time made a massive loss on each unit they sold of the PS3 and got most of their return from game sales and dlc. This is pretty common in most generations of consoles but since games also cost more and they are cheaper than they used to be (see article below)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104157-Cheer-Up-Games-Dont-Cost-You-As-Much-As-They-Used-To
They are going to get less return per game sale than they used to in previous generations when they were cheaper to make and still sold. Comparing the best selling ps2 game sales to the ps3 game sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PlayStation_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games#PlayStation_3
As you can see, the top 10 game sales from the ps2 are much higher than the ps3 and take a look at the bottom figures on both. Total game sales
Total PlayStation 2 games sold as of December 31, 2009: 1.51 billion
Total PlayStation 3 games sold as of June 30, 2010: 315.3 million
Now you could argue that the ps2 has been out for a lot longer however the ps3 has been out almost 4 years and it hasn't even come close to half the game sales and there's nothing in the pipe line bar the move to improve sales. This means that Sony were relying on the move for those extra sales which is has to provide to recover costs from the initial design costs
[HEADING=2]Other factors[/HEADING]
There is also too much competition from Microsoft. In the ps2, the xbox came out far too late it didn't sell nearly well enough (I would give figures but it is common knowledge that the ps2 obliterated the xbox) However this generation, consumers have a choice so the core market is split. While the casual market has the Wii and that's it
It is also unlikely for consumers to spend almost the same amount on an add on to the xbox (which they still have to buy) or they could just buy a Wii. Which I personally think, they are destine to fail. So Sony and Microsoft drop out right?
Wrong! Just Sony will drop out (In my opinion)
[HEADING=2]Why Sony could drop out[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]Competition and sales[/HEADING]
Xbox 360 sales are much better than the original xbox (see links below) which means Microsoft can only do better and since I predict Sony will drop out due to initial costs, low sales and extreme competition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Sales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Sales
Since Microsoft have got more sales each generation, they will continue on creating consoles. They have known this for a while, which is why they bought exclusives for a set period of time and dlc ownership for a set period of time. Exclusives sell consoles, that's why they exist, if everything was multi platform there would be little point to having the two consoles. Microsoft have understood this and it's why the Xbox is leading against the very similar ps3 (not in terms of hardware, in terms of games)
[HEADING=2]Why this is a bad thing for everyone[/HEADING]
Now hold your horses 360 gamers, this is a really bad thing. With the core gaming market in one place again we can only accept what is given out to us by Microsoft and we know how money grabbing Microsoft can be. We need competition, it's why prices are low in super markets and why game companies are constantly trying to make games at a higher quality
if it is just Microsoft, we may be looking forward to an era of games we have to pay for constantly (like the COD premium online) or games with much lower quality. Imagine a console generation with nothing but gears of war and gears of war clones, which is what it will be like. Nothing original, nothing fresh, just clones because they are almost guaranteed to break even with the costs. Just grey first person shooters with some brown which is kinda like the apocolypse many imagine
In all seriousness though this could cause the next generation to be very dull very samey and turn many away from gaming
[HEADING=2]What you should take from this post[/HEADING]
This is not a prediction, this is a warning of what could and realistically happen. I hope you have enjoyed my post, please discuss your thoughts and feelings on; my post, what could happen, what you can do to help and what are the alternatives
Also if it does happen, I called it
