Will the future of gaming platforms be decentralization?

[themistermanguy]

First, let me give an allegory. Back in the early days of television, the big 3 broadcast networks monopolized most of the content on television. You had 3 main networks, and you picked one for all your needs from Dramas, Sitcoms, Sports, News, and Children's entertainment. That was how TV largely worked. But by the mid-late 80s, Cable TV systems started reaching mainstream adoption rates. The benefit of Cable allowed for new channels to be created to cater to a specific niche. You can have MTV, a channel that was dedicated to just music videos. You can have HBO, which focused on movies and other box-office events. You can have a Golf Channel, Home channel, Children's channel, and a host of other new networks that focused on catering to a specific audience and niche. even allowing for the creation of new types of programing as well. ABC, CBS, and NBC no longer held a monopoly on content anymore, because now that content could be spread out to channels dedicated to that stuff.

That brings me to Video Games. Currently, PS4 and Xbox One monopolize the mainstream gaming content (I'm leaving the Switch out of this since its still relatively new and sort of caters to a different market, which I'll explain later). PS4 in particular has basically become every developer and gamer's one stop gaming shop. You want AAA? PS4 Usually gets the best versions. Indie games? Even now, PS4 still has them in spades. Japanese and niche titles? If they exist, there's more than likely a PS4 version. VR? PlayStation VR's been doing pretty well for itself. Exclusives? PS4 has plenty of those. Regardless of what you like, you can find something on the PS4 that'll scratch that itch. While I do think consoles like the PS4 will still have their place, we live in an internet age now, and content creation and distribution has never really been easier. With that in mind, what if the future of gaming platforms wasn't just all-in-one content hubs, but rather a cluster of platforms focused on a dedicated niche. Be it hardware or software based platforms, there's a lot of potential that could be explored. You could have a platform that's focused on Retro games, and archiving as many of them as possible. You could have a system that's purely designed for fighting games. Making sure it's the best way to play them for hardcore fans. A platform for RPGs, Simulators, Party games, etc. The main benefit of such a future is that platforms dedicated to special interests have the chance to be completely designed and optimized around that category, allowing the experience for games of that category to be the best it possibly can. It also can allow for unique hardware and control inputs that work well with those genres as well.

We do have a hint of what this could be like. The Nintendo Switch for example, isn't geared towards someone who wants the best place to play all the latest blockbusters, but rather is aimed at an audience who just wants some of the best games on consoles, plus exclusives and smaller niche titles like Indies, to play on the go with friends. Another example is the recent wave of retro mini-consoles, giving consumers a good selection of retro titles for an ultra cheap price, which is great for retro gamers or people who want to get into retro gaming.

Of course, the main problem I see with this would be one gamer trying to keep up with all these different platforms and hardware ecosystems at once. That's certainly a problem, but then again, the big 2 will still be around to fill that niche as there will always be an audience of people who just want a console that does a solid job at playing everything that's released. Will a decentralized landscape be the form game platforms take in the future? Who knows, but I do think that Sony and Microsoft need to start thinking about what the future of gaming platforms will be like, because someday they won't have a monopoly on the latest in gaming.

 

[Trunkage]

I'd also add that Steam has a monopoly and then people get pissed when Epic tries to break it.

One could only hope that rent seekers like Sony, MS and Steam get cut out so gaming isnt as expensive

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

That would be awful, just like cable is awful. You know why people liked Netflix? Because it had everything and people hated dealing with cable packages. Now all of the different media companies want their own streaming service, and we're going back to the cable version of doing things. No one wants to pay for 9 different streaming services, they want one, and they want it to have everything.

The same goes for games. People want all of their stuff in one place, they don't want to have to buy a bunch of different devices to play all their games.

The number of people who have multiple consoles from a single generation are a minority, and further splintering of exclusives would in no way have a positive effect on the industry.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I'd also add that Steam has a monopoly and then people get pissed when Epic tries to break it.

People aren't pissed about that, they're pissed about the way they're doing it, if you can even call it ''breaking the monopoly''. Epic themselves said the way they're doing it is not sustainable.

 

[bluegate]

That would be awful, just like cable is awful. You know why people liked Netflix? Because it had everything and people hated dealing with cable packages. Now all of the different media companies want their own streaming service, and we're going back to the cable version of doing things. No one wants to pay for 9 different streaming services, they want one, and they want it to have everything.

The same goes for games. People want all of their stuff in one place, they don't want to have to buy a bunch of different devices to play all their games.

The number of people who have multiple consoles from a single generation are a minority, and further splintering of exclusives would in no way have a positive effect on the industry.

All of this, really.

 

[Worgen]

I'd also add that Steam has a monopoly and then people get pissed when Epic tries to break it.

One could only hope that rent seekers like Sony, MS and Steam get cut out so gaming isnt as expensive

Does it really have a monopoly? Sure its got the largest market share but there are a bunch of other digital store fronts. Plus, they never really leveraged being the biggest, I mean they didn't demand exclusive deal, they don't really discriminate much on who can be in the store (for good and ill) and they have made a pretty good service even with being the biggest around.

What do you mean rent seekers? Cause this statement makes no real sense.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

To paraphrase the three-eyed raven, how do you know there is a future?

 

[Meximagician]

Niche consoles (outside of portable ones) hasn't worked historically. I don't think many companies can justify the cost of designing and manufacturing a computer-in-a-box, and a controller, and then publishing a software library around their particular box to begin with. Even the consoles we have now are starting to have standardized CPU and memory chipsets (remember the PS3 cell processor? Remember how it was the bane of devs everywhere?).

Although, niche controllers with a good software library which also works with other software/hardware might be more likely. All that's needed is for the leading manufacturers to set standards, like what happened with PC controllers. That, and console manufacturers allowing competition to build compatible controllers (eg: Nintendo allowing people use the XBox Adaptive Controller with the Switch for accessibility).

 

[Squilookle]

So like Arcade cabinets that only play one thing? Those things that got absolutely destroyed when home consoles appeared with the ability to play a range of different games?

No, just no. I'm a fan of different genres, and I'm not buying a separate console/PC for each and every one of them.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Epic themselves said the way they're doing it is not sustainable.[/quote]Well it's a bit early days to say. They're gambling by exchanging money for exclusives. The point of any exclusive is to bring customers to your platform and sell them games. Sony sold the PS3 at a loss in order to get the hardware into peoples' homes, because it was a way to boost the popularity of blu-ray. Epic is getting their platform downloaded and getting players invested, in the same way HL2 and TF2 did for Steam in the mid-late Naughties.

They may break even (or even profit) on sales, they may draw other publishers across if they see the "benefits", they will get more people using their platform. It is short-term spending for long-term gain. Sony has exclusives, Microsoft has...Sea of Thieves. Nintendo is successful based solely on their first-party exclusives. Wait to see...I suspect Epic will succeed where Origin failed.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Well it's a bit early days to say. They're gambling by exchanging money for exclusives. The point of any exclusive is to bring customers to your platform and sell them games. Sony sold the PS3 at a loss in order to get the hardware into peoples' homes, because it was a way to boost the popularity of blu-ray. Epic is getting their platform downloaded and getting players invested, in the same way HL2 and TF2 did for Steam in the mid-late Naughties.

They may break even (or even profit) on sales, they may draw other publishers across if they see the "benefits", they will get more people using their platform. It is short-term spending for long-term gain. Sony has exclusives, Microsoft has...Sea of Thieves. Nintendo is successful based solely on their first-party exclusives. Wait to see...I suspect Epic will succeed where Origin failed.

I don't think people will actually start using the Epic launcher for anything besides a couple games, when people are done playing Metro Exodus they go back to Steam, when people are done playing Outer Worlds they will go back to Steam and so on. It'll be as successful as Origin/Uplay if not less.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Well it's a bit early days to say. They're gambling by exchanging money for exclusives. The point of any exclusive is to bring customers to your platform and sell them games. Sony sold the PS3 at a loss in order to get the hardware into peoples' homes, because it was a way to boost the popularity of blu-ray. Epic is getting their platform downloaded and getting players invested, in the same way HL2 and TF2 did for Steam in the mid-late Naughties.

They may break even (or even profit) on sales, they may draw other publishers across if they see the "benefits", they will get more people using their platform. It is short-term spending for long-term gain. Sony has exclusives, Microsoft has...Sea of Thieves. Nintendo is successful based solely on their first-party exclusives. Wait to see...I suspect Epic will succeed where Origin failed.

I don't think people will actually start using the Epic launcher for anything besides a couple games, when people are done playing Metro Exodus they go back to Steam, when people are done playing Outer Worlds they will go back to Steam and so on. It'll be as successful as Origin/Uplay if not less.

Pretty much this.

There is no reason to use the Epic store for anything you are not being forced to use the Epic store for. The epic store is AWFUL and so far epic has done nothing to make it work better.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

This is a terrible idea

 

[CaitSeith]

On one side, there is a reason why smartphones replaced beepers, single-purpose cellphones, PDAs and portable MP3 players. On the other, releasing a game in every platform of the same generation just makes game development way more expensive.

 

[themistermanguy]

That would be awful, just like cable is awful. You know why people liked Netflix? Because it had everything and people hated dealing with cable packages. Now all of the different media companies want their own streaming service, and we're going back to the cable version of doing things. No one wants to pay for 9 different streaming services, they want one, and they want it to have everything.

The same goes for games. People want all of their stuff in one place, they don't want to have to buy a bunch of different devices to play all their games.

The number of people who have multiple consoles from a single generation are a minority, and further splintering of exclusives would in no way have a positive effect on the industry.

There will still always be a market for general purpose gaming platforms. Like you said, people will always want something that covers everything. But, I do think there is a market for niche platforms aimed at special interests. Just like how there's websites, cable networks, and streaming services based around specific themes and audiences. Both can co-exist I feel.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Well for one thing, in a post-net neutrality media landscape, game publishers won't be the entities to worry about in a couple years. It'll be the service providers, and publishers aren't exactly endearing themselves to service providers at the moment. Look for instance at the situation between Blizzard and AT&T over the provider's bandwidth throttling, for instance. Even taking that into consideration, online gaming service provision is moving closer to the shape of streaming service provision: that is to say, a cartel.

That said, EGS isn't the harbinger of doom for gamers. As EGS is, it's a one-trick pony that's leveraging Fortnite's massive financial success to muscle itself into the market via licensing exclusives. And, for the fact Epic is waiving UE4 royalties so long as developers publish on EGS, I'd fully expect that UE5 licensing will come with an exclusivity provision.

And for all that's worth, EGS is a fart in the oncoming hurricane. Amazon is about to move on the online gaming market by releasing its own platform and virtual storefront with integrated AWS cloud services, Twitch streaming, Lumberyard for in-house development and publication, and Prime integration for subscription-based gaming services and licensed games.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

How are current consoles today any different from getting a cable box and subscription with the same handful of channels from your local telecom giant?

You only need one machine to do everything. There's no reason to create consoles just for one genre because there is no hardware specialization. You're paying for a DRM machine. It's like buying a washing machine that only accepts Sony brand clothing, and another one for Microsoft brand clothing. Why would you need a console for retro games? They're just running emulators.

I mean, it would be nice if Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo made plug-and-play hardware that could run anything, but how else would they make absurd profits through unnecessary royalties and online subscriptions?

The same goes with online stores. All you're doing is using different DRM licensing software. There is no specialization, it's just software companies wanting royalties, or wanting to not pay royalties.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

That would be awful, just like cable is awful. You know why people liked Netflix? Because it had everything and people hated dealing with cable packages. Now all of the different media companies want their own streaming service, and we're going back to the cable version of doing things. No one wants to pay for 9 different streaming services, they want one, and they want it to have everything.

The same goes for games. People want all of their stuff in one place, they don't want to have to buy a bunch of different devices to play all their games.

The number of people who have multiple consoles from a single generation are a minority, and further splintering of exclusives would in no way have a positive effect on the industry.

There will still always be a market for general purpose gaming platforms. Like you said, people will always want something that covers everything. But, I do think there is a market for niche platforms aimed at special interests. Just like how there's websites, cable networks, and streaming services based around specific themes and audiences. Both can co-exist I feel.

But in what way would a purpose built console specifically for rpgs, or specifically for fighting games be better? What kind of technical improvements could it possibly have that wouldn't be available on a general purpose console or on a PC?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I don't think people will actually start using the Epic launcher for anything besides a couple games,

That's all it takes, and that's what they're banking on. A player will get a free game from their fortnightly giveaway, buy an exclusive like Outer Worlds or Metro, play Fortnite, whatever. The launcher gets installed and the player gets invested to whatever degree. That's how it starts.

I first installed Steam when it was a free weekend or something in TF2, way back when it was "Meet the Sniper" (for anyone who remembers that whole thing). Around 2008 at any rate. It was the freebies, and admittedly the novelty of digital distribution, that got me to install the thing. On closer inspection, I realised it was actually better than "piracy" in many ways, and I don't mean because of the legality of it. When you're competing against "free" you need to offer something better, and Steam did that in convenience, social features, ease of use, etc. That when Steam started taking off.

Epic have Fortnite money and they're using it to get exclusives. It's not ideal, I don't care for it since I'm quite well tied into Steam, but I get it. When EA decided to hold their crap hostage on Origin, I said fine then, I won't play EA games anymore. Epic is a different story and could succeed where EA didn't. At least the exclusives are timed and not forever hostage like Origin. All it takes is to get people invested and the launcher installed. Valve did it with HL2 and TF2, Origin tried it with ME3, this is how Epic is doing it.