This Generation - Same Process or Something Different?

Avatar image for otacon
Otacon

2337

Forum Posts

846

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Otacon

    Francis Fukuyama once said that with the end of the Cold war came 'the end of history', meaning the end to countless fighting for different political ideology as liberal democracy had proven that it was the best form of governance. That sentence has only a slight relevance to what I am blogging about today, but I am knee deep in politics revision and it is difficult to switch off. What I am going to be addressing today are the differences between this generation of consoles and those that have come before it, concluding that there are some differences that make this generation more of a mainstay in the homes of the many (even exam speak is rubbing off on me). 

    Of course this isn't the 'end of history' for games consoles, far from it. If anything this generation is a massive step in getting games into the mainstream, it has placed a gaming console into more homes than ever before, widened the demographic that play games and given a real social aspect that hasn't been evident before. Where is my argument  you may ask, a wider market has been penetrated surely they want more. This isn't necessarily  the case, everyone reading this plays games as a hobby, 'core fans' we seem to be called. Before we were the ones wanting more processing power to have better looking games without major overhauls in interface. Especially given the economic climate, I doubt Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo are vying to get the next powerhouse out of the door, especially given the difficulties that Sony have had with the PS3. Business sense doesn't seem to come with power anymore and if people are happy enough with their consoles power to price tag ratio right now, new machines don't seem to be on the cards for a while. Another argument would be that general consumers aren't going to see just a graphics upgrade as a sole means for buying a new machine, perhaps they are going to want something different and inventive to make them give up their current system. 
    To me it doesn't seem like good business sense to be unveiling new machines for at least a few years from now, things like XBL and PSN give systems a bit more longevity and graphics continuously seem to satisfy still. Perhaps I'm thinking ahead of time anyway but to me when expansion to a more casual new market meets an economic recession, creating a new machine that consumers are willing to pay for becomes much more difficult, and this is why I think that this generation of consoles will be the longest we have seen so far. Then again sales of the DSi worldwide seem to be evidence against my claims, with millions rushing out to buy a new system with slightly larger screens, two cameras and an SD slot, not exactly an overhaul. Tell me what you think the future is for this generation in the comments.
Avatar image for otacon
Otacon

2337

Forum Posts

846

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#1  Edited By Otacon

    Francis Fukuyama once said that with the end of the Cold war came 'the end of history', meaning the end to countless fighting for different political ideology as liberal democracy had proven that it was the best form of governance. That sentence has only a slight relevance to what I am blogging about today, but I am knee deep in politics revision and it is difficult to switch off. What I am going to be addressing today are the differences between this generation of consoles and those that have come before it, concluding that there are some differences that make this generation more of a mainstay in the homes of the many (even exam speak is rubbing off on me). 

    Of course this isn't the 'end of history' for games consoles, far from it. If anything this generation is a massive step in getting games into the mainstream, it has placed a gaming console into more homes than ever before, widened the demographic that play games and given a real social aspect that hasn't been evident before. Where is my argument  you may ask, a wider market has been penetrated surely they want more. This isn't necessarily  the case, everyone reading this plays games as a hobby, 'core fans' we seem to be called. Before we were the ones wanting more processing power to have better looking games without major overhauls in interface. Especially given the economic climate, I doubt Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo are vying to get the next powerhouse out of the door, especially given the difficulties that Sony have had with the PS3. Business sense doesn't seem to come with power anymore and if people are happy enough with their consoles power to price tag ratio right now, new machines don't seem to be on the cards for a while. Another argument would be that general consumers aren't going to see just a graphics upgrade as a sole means for buying a new machine, perhaps they are going to want something different and inventive to make them give up their current system. 
    To me it doesn't seem like good business sense to be unveiling new machines for at least a few years from now, things like XBL and PSN give systems a bit more longevity and graphics continuously seem to satisfy still. Perhaps I'm thinking ahead of time anyway but to me when expansion to a more casual new market meets an economic recession, creating a new machine that consumers are willing to pay for becomes much more difficult, and this is why I think that this generation of consoles will be the longest we have seen so far. Then again sales of the DSi worldwide seem to be evidence against my claims, with millions rushing out to buy a new system with slightly larger screens, two cameras and an SD slot, not exactly an overhaul. Tell me what you think the future is for this generation in the comments.
Avatar image for chartor
Chartor

34

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Chartor

I'm almost worried about the fact that gaming has now hit a much wider market.  I mean yes, it is good that the industry is growing and more people are playing etc - but with a boom of casual gamers, couldn't this also give rise to a boom in games which are shorter, less impressive in terms of graphics, and overall feel like they have less effort put into them, because the huge majority of new gamers may not know the difference - and those who don't play often won't neccessarily know what is possible anyways?  Game companies could make easy profits selling cheaper games to larger audiences, rather than focusing on expensive well made titles that might only be truly appreciated and bought on-mass by "core fans".