This has been bugging me for quite awhile and I can't really think of an acceptable reason for it. Why don't game developers continue making stuff on these older platforms like the PS2, rather than moving on to the newer generation systems like the PS3 or the Wii?
I mean if you think about, these older systems are pretty well established. Documentations for their development should be all over the place. It should be really easy and cost-effective to be making games for them too - if you gotta go on a new system, you take a significant amount of time to research and and make a new engine for the game. So your profit margin might be significantly reduced.
If you argue that people don't want to buy games on these older platforms, why not? Why is it that people tend to not buy games that appear on the PS2 compared to the PS3? You can say that most of these games have just been reduced to junk and shitware, only supported by those unheard-of developers trying to make a quick buck. But what if those bigger developers continue pushing games for the older systems? Let's not talk about N64 or PS1, as no one would probably have one by now. But a PS2 or maybe a GC, some (or maybe most, if development didn't halted for those systems) people might still hold onto those.
As a gamer I really don't want to see game visuals not evolving, but if I think like a money-making businessman, shouldn't this path be the most logical to making shit tonnes of money? What do you guys think?
Same reason people don't buy old versions of iPod Nanos when there's a newer one in the market: people follow the flow. Everyone will go for the newest version of something, and that makes the older versions seem inferior. That's why games won't sell as well on the PS2, which is an old platform, than the newer PS3.
Plenty of games are still released on the PS2, and the Dreamcast still sees at least one or two releases a year.
Edit: Also, it's a hard sell, trying to convince buyers that it is worth spending a $50 price tag on something for a dated, and mostly obsolete piece of hardware.
Most older platforms are either: Completely dead. or, use cartridges which cost lots to produce.
That said, people are still putting out PS2 games by the dozens. You just don't read about them too often. In fact, it's an open platform now, you don't need to pay Sony money to release for it (another possible contributor to people not releasing for other platforms, I suspect MS/Sega want license fees for released games just like current consoles at $8/disc)
The other thing I have to say on the subject is this:
I do! Or will be. For my dissertation project starting in august I am going to be making an Atari 2600 game, from design through to production and if time/budget allows for it, actually putting it onto a cartridge. It's going to be both highly enjoyable, and a complete nightmare, that machine is an utter utter freak of a computer.
There are also various hobbyists that put out games for older machines from time to time, like homebrew apps, or the Atari scene who release new games every year. There was also Beggar Prince for Sega Genesis/Mega Drive released in 2005 (which I bought a copy of :D )
newer systems have much more capabilities than the previous generation. developers can add much more into their games to really make them shine. i mean, games like Uncharted 2, GTA IV and hell, even Red Faction Guerrilla wouldn't of been as impressive as they are now, if they were on older systems.
Why don't you want to talk N64 or PS1? I've been playing copious amounts of SFII on the Sega Genesis lately, why not develop for that? Or the Dreamcast?
The long and short of it is because that's not how development cycles work. Companies want their new products to sell, and in the end it's their call to say "We're not supporting that hardware anymore." Not a whole hell of a lot that game developers can do from that point. Either they make stuff for the new platforms, (edit: or it's entirely on them to advertise whatever they have made and pray that anyone in the world cares about old/obsolete hardware anymore), or they don't make anything. I'd certainly buy games for older systems, but how many other people would? How many kids, arguably the target audience for most marking in the world, give a shit about anything that was produced before they were born? Probably nowhere near enough to make any kind of profit off of them.
" Why don't you want to talk N64 or PS1? I've been playing copious amounts of SFII on the Sega Genesis lately, why not develop for that? Or the Dreamcast? The long and short of it is because that's not how development cycles work. Companies want their new products to sell, and in the end it's their call to say "We're not supporting that hardware anymore." Not a whole hell of a lot that game developers can do from that point. Either they make stuff for the new platforms, or they don't make anything. I'd certainly buy games for older systems, but how many other people would? How many kids, arguably the target audience for most marking in the world, give a shit about anything that was produced before they were born? Probably nowhere near enough to make any kind of profit off of them. "
Who said anything about kids? You realise the average age of a gamer nowadays is in his late 20s and early 30's right?
The rest of it is fine though, yeah, developers want their games to sell and have pride of place in stores that actually stock the recent consoles games, and they want to have media attention and support from the console producer (MS for example, probably don't want you making a game for the Xbox because they make more money from you if you make it for the 360)
Because most older platforms can be emulated with current platforms. Why make a game directly for SNES or PS1 when you could do the same game on NDS or PSP plus more? I'd rather see more retro throwbacks (or whatever they're called) of newer titles alongside more Noscons. I fucking love 2D gaming/graphics and think things like Odin Sphere are both behind and ahead of their time. Behind in the sense that we should have kept more 2D when the 3D explosion happened in the mid 90's, but ahead in the sense that 2D will see a revival in the near future much like LucasArts style adventure titles and Infinity engine style RPGs are trying to do.
@devotfeige: Well the only reason why I don't wanna talk about the N64-gen of platforms is cause they are REALLY stupid old. Anyone who had one probably has lost it, or its broken. Some might have thrown it away because of the lack of games that came out once the PS2-gen of platforms started rolling out.
I'm just trying to make the topic relate better by using recent stuff. I'm not talking about super old stuff that predates the millennium.
@cstrang: Because people don't buy them right? Because of the stigma of it being old and dated? I kinda thought of that myself but isn't it weird how that works? How the pressure of wanting the latest the greatest controlling our spending power? That is my question; why are we like this?
Also you have to account for the new development tools available for newer consoles, for example, developing for a NES or Atari, you have to work directly in assembler code, whereas more modern consoles you can use game engines, tools, editors, and other time saving, game-enhancing products. These products get better every couple years and when new consoles can make better, more efficient use of these products developers want to get stuck in.
@The_A_Drain: That doesn't mean they should be left out as a target audience, though. I realize that gaming has sort of "grown up" with its original audience, but it's still worth considering that I know eight year olds with more games than I have, and they tend to have less eye for scrutiny or sales.
@White: "REALLY stupid old", really? Really? That seems unfair. Mostly because I still play those systems on a regular basis, and know quite a few others who do as well. Is it really so bizarre to, y'know, take care of your shit and appreciate all the stuff you've bought for it over the years? Not everyone immediately threw out every last one of their VHS tapes the instant that DVDs were on the rise.
" @The_A_Drain: That doesn't mean they should be left out as a target audience, though. I realize that gaming has sort of "grown up" with its original audience, but it's still worth considering that I know eight year olds with more games than I have, and they tend to have less eye for scrutiny or sales. "
What? Who should be left out?
Games are a big enough medium that producing for multiple target audiences is commonplace, a huge amount of games are made for the 18+ age range (Gears, Uncharted, Modern Warfare, etc etc etc etc, and if kids are playing those, then parents ain't doing their jobs properly) whereas other games are made specifically for the children demographic.
Sure there are kids who game, but primarily, it's those in the age range of 18 - 32. So if anything, kids should be left out of the demographic if you want to drop the smaller demographic (not that the childrens demographics is small, i'm just saying that 18-32 is the biggest one)
" Why don't people make VHS? Why don't people make cassette tapes? Why don't people make black and white TVs? Why does society have to progress? "
As an interesting point (I know you didn't mention it) Betamax is still used by the television industry very heavily. God knows why, i'm sure there is a good reason, but people are still frequently asked to submit masters for commercials etc on Betamax.
" @The_A_Drain: That doesn't mean they should be left out as a target audience, though. I realize that gaming has sort of "grown up" with its original audience, but it's still worth considering that I know eight year olds with more games than I have, and they tend to have less eye for scrutiny or sales. "
What? Who should be left out? Games are a big enough medium that producing for multiple target audiences is commonplace, a huge amount of games are made for the 18+ age range (Gears, Uncharted, Modern Warfare, etc etc etc etc, and if kids are playing those, then parents ain't doing their jobs properly) whereas other games are made specifically for the children demographic. Sure there are kids who game, but primarily, it's those in the age range of 18 - 32. So if anything, kids should be left out of the demographic if you want to drop the smaller demographic (not that the childrens demographics is small, i'm just saying that 18-32 is the biggest one) "
Well to be fair, yes, most of the kids that I am including in this assessment are jerkoffs with parents who really shouldn't be allowed to raise their own children.
@devotfeige: Hard to believe, but I understand that your kind still exists. I used to be one of them, until the point the hardware dies on me and it's beyond expertise to fix it, but I also understand that we are a niche. VHS is a pretty old thing and time would have caused it to phase out. A PS2, on other hand, is more recently. It's more likely for people to have it. Get what I'm saying? A significant number of people might still have a PS2, especially in other regions of the world in which buying a Xbox 360 or a PS3 is insanity because of it's price.
@The_A_Drain: To add to your point, in my study I've read some companies still use tapes as a backup medium because it lasts longer, albeit much, much more costly than DVDs.
@devotfeige: Haha I hear you on that one, but that wasn't really the point I was making.
I meant kind of like how you see Lion King and Saw on DVD. They are on the same format but that doesn't mean both demographics shouldn't be included, it's the same with games consoles, both demographics are included but catered for seperately.
" @devotfeige: Hard to believe, but I understand that your kind still exists. I used to be one of them, until the point the hardware dies on me and it's beyond expertise to fix it, but I also understand that we are a niche. VHS is a pretty old thing and time would have caused it to phase out. A PS2, on other hand, is more recently. It's more likely for people to have it. Get what I'm saying? A significant number of people might still have a PS2, especially in other regions of the world in which buying a Xbox 360 or a PS3 is insanity because of it's price. "
Lots of people do still have a PS2, it's install base is fucking massive. Which is why you still see a huge range of sports games and kids games released for it.
But developers know that most people in the older demographic will own a more recent console, so they release those games for the modern consoles. That's how it works, if the PS2 had a smaller install base, it would have been ignored.
Because moving forward is much better than moving backward. Seriously, it's not that hard to understand. Games are coming out on curret gen consoles because nobody is going to buy them on last gen consoles. Basically, current gen > last gen
A lot of older platforms have enough games that it really doesn't matter if new stuff comes out for them, anyways. And really, if you're interested enough in older hardware to want to buy new games, research on the many games for that platform you probably never played before. If you've never played it, it's new to you. I'm still finding stuff from the cartridge era of gaming that I've never played before that are pretty fun.
On that same note, some platforms don't have that luxury. 3DO :(
Man, you people talk about new systems like we're scared sheep, bullied into buying the newest stuff. I had an Xbox for years, and when the new one came out, I was excited to get it, and excited to play new games on it. Most people want to move on to the next thing because it's interesting and somewhat different.
They still make games for the Ps2, besides the kids, sports games and third-party games. But if developers begin to support more of the older platforms, not much people will buy their games on that console and it would be a waste.
New games are still coming out on the PS2 - but the problem is that on the whole people just aren't buying PS2 games anymore. Most people have moved on. That's why you see most stuff coming out on PS3, 360 or Wii.
As someone else already said, it's because these consoles are forced into becoming obsolete. There's absolutely no reason why the last generation couldn't have lasted longer and the power of those systems been tapped more and more, but companies want to sell you new product to replace the old one and they also don't want to be seen as falling behind the competition. So therefore, they continually push the ideal that "true gaming" is only possible on these newer systems to strong-arm you into buying the new console, and companies release their games for those systems hoping to make the next "big hit" in a less crowded market. And since the producers move on, the gamer is essentially forced to move on if they want to keep current, since retail also gives more shelf-space to the more recent stuff. I promise you: if Best Buys gave PS2 games more shelf space than a couple columns in between the PS3 games and accessories, I can guarantee you that people would think to make more "meaty" experiences for that system.
It's just a sad truth, and one that we can hopefully avoid by this generation hopefully lasting way longer than previous ones on account of no one wanting to move on. Games have become so expensive to make that I think we'll be seeing Xbox 360 and PS3 around for a long time, which is great if I say so myself.
@iAmJohn: " power of those systems been tapped more and more,"
Ok, for certain consoles this is true (Gamecube, Dreamcast) but for some you gotta be batshit crazy if you think they could have been pushed any further graphically (Atari 2600, NES, SNES, PS1, PS2)
I mean just take a look at God of War for the PS2, Ninja Gaiden for the Xbox as example. It's really not possible to make something look any better than those on their respective consoles, they are pushing the machines to their absolute limit.
@The_A_Drain I'm talking specifically about last-gen, which as we all know ended quickly simply because both Nintendo and Microsoft were fucked and wanted it over with ASAP. And how do we know that God of War and Ninja Gaiden were the technical ceilings for those systems? We could never find out if they could've gone further (and a lot of developers have been quoted saying that systems like the Xbox, for example, could've gone way further) because no one tried.
@iAmJohn: Ok the Xbox i'm not sure on, but having done a lot of technical research into the PS2 for a couple of uni projects, i'm fairly certain any advances made would not have been able to give any meaningful advancement over God of War and other things of a similar quality.
Microsoft I can't speak for but Nintendo were hardly 'fucked' people keep saying this, again and again I hear it "omg gamecube was teh failz0r" but in fact, it made a good profit, and it made it quickly, and Nintendo were very happy with it.
" Microsoft I can't speak for but Nintendo were hardly 'fucked' people keep saying this, again and again I hear it "omg gamecube was teh failz0r" but in fact, it made a good profit, and it made it quickly, and Nintendo were very happy with it. "
This is another debate for another time, but while GameCube was definitely profitable, it also saw them lose even more marketshare and mindset than they did during the N64. As someone who was GameCube-only until the 360 came out, I definitely remember how support for the system dried up in 2005, since I ended up playing far more PC games than I even do now. I mean, the fact that the Wii is what it is cements that fact - instead of staying the course and putting out the more powerful system that might have lost them even more marketshare, they decided to do something completely different like the DS... and it worked.
But all this is beside the point. Maybe they were closing in on the ceiling, I don't know. But I would have rather found out instead of being strong-armed into buying more expensive shit.
The Gamecube would have lost support around 2004/5 with or without new consoles coming out, and the PS2 continued to see almost every major multiplatform release coming out for it until late 2008. I'd say they had a pretty good run.
They can't all be the Atari 2600 and last for.... Oh wait! That only lasted for 6 years before the NES came out. And nearly 2 of those it was floundering with almost no support whatsoever. So i'd say we've done pretty well the last generation. Although to be fair, the Atari support did pick up again later on and continued into the early 90's. But, no advancements were made beyond Pitfall! really, the machine just can't handle anything more, and the support wasn't very much.
Well some smaller studios can't afford to make games on newer systems. But in the case of Sakura Wars on the PS2, the game was already made, and just took years to port XD. Sports games are still being made for the PS2 because I guess old people still have the PS2? idk why though.
Since newer platforms exist and the userbase that owns the older platforms are the same people that owner the newer ones that is why they don't cannibalize their business that way.
" This has been bugging me for quite awhile and I can't really think of an acceptable reason for it. Why don't game developers continue making stuff on these older platforms like the PS2, rather than moving on to the newer generation systems like the PS3 or the Wii? I mean if you think about, these older systems are pretty well established. Documentations for their development should be all over the place. It should be really easy and cost-effective to be making games for them too - if you gotta go on a new system, you take a significant amount of time to research and and make a new engine for the game. So your profit margin might be significantly reduced. If you argue that people don't want to buy games on these older platforms, why not? Why is it that people tend to not buy games that appear on the PS2 compared to the PS3? You can say that most of these games have just been reduced to junk and shitware, only supported by those unheard-of developers trying to make a quick buck. But what if those bigger developers continue pushing games for the older systems? Let's not talk about N64 or PS1, as no one would probably have one by now. But a PS2 or maybe a GC, some (or maybe most, if development didn't halted for those systems) people might still hold onto those. As a gamer I really don't want to see game visuals not evolving, but if I think like a money-making businessman, shouldn't this path be the most logical to making shit tonnes of money? What do you guys think? "
I like how there was no mention of Microsoft...at all....
Your logic is sound my good sir. The public will always want the newest shiniest thing, and I certainly wouldn't mind having it either.
On a somewhat related point though, there are plenty of old PC games that still have thriving modding communities. It's not making new games per se, but it is a similar idea. There are some pretty crazy Baldur's Gate 2 mods out there.
Log in to comment