Something went wrong. Try again later

yukoasho

This user has not updated recently.

2247 6076 42 53
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Harbingers of the End, and why they're so damned ridiculous.

There's been a bit of discussion... Actually, there's been a shit ton of talk about whether the eighth generation of consoles will be the last. The idea that we're never going to see a real PS5, Xbox Two or whatever nonsense Nintendo cooks up is an asinine one that is, unfortunately, shared by many short-sighted pundits (are there any other kind?). Let's examine three of the most prevalent reasons people are predicting the death of the console market.

Number 1: Cumulative console sales are down in 2014 compared to 2007.

Cumulative sales compared to 2007 are a bit of a false correlation, because it ignores something that was happening in 2007, mainly the mad frenzy that people had for the Wii. Seriously, that system was hard to find for much of the year, even going into 2008. In reality, as Machinema points out here, the PS4 and Xbox One have both outsold their predecessors quite handsomely, comparing the first four months of each system's life. There is a huge, HUGE demand for this stuff, so why would any company turn down free money? This is especially true of Sony, for whom the Computer Entertainment division is one of the few bright spots in a relatively bleak landscape.

Number 2: Smart phones and tablets are taking over!

Are they? Without concrete software/micro-transaction sales or ad revenue, it's hard to say, but for this statement to be true, it would have to be a guarantee that everyone buying smart phones and tablets are gaming on them. Obviously that's not the case. There's probably more than a couple of smart phone and tablet users who have no interest in playing games on them. Maybe they're using them for music, or movies, or web browsing in Starbucks, or - GASP - actually calling people and doing business-related things. While there may be some consumption of passive media on game consoles, people buy them mostly for gaming, as Microsoft is learning now as Sony builds a large, commanding lead in the race.

Furthermore, smart phone and tablet gaming is a different beast. The free-to-start model, as Satoru Iwata so eloquently termed it, is far and away the prevalent business model for phone and tablet gaming. The problem is that, rather than getting money from a large number of people, they tend to rely on whales, or people willing to spend a very large amount of money on a game. That's why so many phone/tablet games play similarly to Facebook games, with energy bars, absurd grinding requirements, or other ways to make actually playing without giving money on a continuous basis a chore. And the games that don't use that tactic? The "cheap app mentality" has been engrained in many people, and they won't buy something unless on the iOS/Android stores unless it's extremely cheap. It's even showing in PC gaming, where more and more people won't buy games at full price, opting instead to wait until some stupidly low Steam sale hits. These aren't really a problem in the console space, as AAA games rarely go on sale, and even more rarely end up selling for pennies on their original price.

In addition, while smart phones are becoming more and more powerful, are we truly to believe that more powerful home hardware won't come out to match? PCs are already more powerful than the PS4 and Xbox One if you're willing to pay a whole bunch of money, and in six-to-eight years time, those prices will come down enough for a stupidly awesome console to come out in the future.

In reality, smart phones and tablets haven't even killed off the handheld gaming market. The 3DS is a juggernaut. It's served to prop up Nintendo, who would be in a far, FAR worse position right now if not for the dominance of the 3DS.

Number 3: Digital distribution, cloud gaming, etc...

This is perhaps the greatest fallacy, that most users don't want to go to the store anymore. This despite hundreds of millions of CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays being sold yearly. The problem with many who make this particular argument is that they're coming from the view that most people are highly connected individuals like them, who have absolutely amazing internet and no trouble downloading or streaming anything at all. The problem with that is, in large parts of the US and much of the larger world, that internet speeds are somewhat lacking for increasingly bandwidth-intensive tasks such as HD streaming and game downloading. Also, there's definitely value in increasing the options for impulse buys and the like by having things on a shelf. Look at the Vita, for example. The system has a large, vibrant selection of digital titles, but the selection of physical titles is nothing less than abysmal. By contrast, the 3DS is the reverse: not a very great eShop, but a large selection of physical games. Perhaps its coincidence that the 3DS is so far ahead of the Vita that the latter isn't even worth discussing, but I can't help but wonder if the small selection of physical games, and the resulting smaller retail space it receives (seriously, go to a Wal-Mart or a Toys R Us, it's sad to see the Vita tucked away in a tiny corner like it is) are perhaps effecting exposure.

Then there's cloud gaming. Look at the sad state of OnLive right now. It's mostly been derided as a laggy, lower quality experience, and it never really caught on. PlayStation Now has had good reviews, but so far, the only servers people have tried it on have been in the convention centers where Sony's been showing it off. Where the rubber hits the road is whether someone in Miami, probably connecting to a server in St. Louis or something, can play lag-free Call of Duty multiplayer and not have the image look like someone smeared Vaseline on the television.

Of course, this all ignores the currently hazy outlook for net neutrality in the United States. If ISPs are given free reign to discriminate against certain types of traffic, the prospects of digitally downloading large games are going to look even bleaker for most Americans. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and the like fighting like mad for the right to extort internet services, mostly to protect their cable services, and the price might be too high for Sony, MS and even Valve to pay every single ISP the potential millions, if not tens or hundreds of millions of dollars needed to get on the "fast lane." Without that privileged access, downloading that 13GB Dead Rising 3 update's going to be a lot more of a hassle...

Put shortly, consoles (and physical games) are likely to be here for a long time to come. The pundits are making the classic mistake of assuming one thing will destroy the other, rather than compliment it. Remember when the Wii came out, and everyone was having a similar discussion? About how, rather than making large, immersive games, companies would instead focus on cheaper, gimmicky waggle titles? Did that happen? No, it didn't. TV didn't destroy radio, internet hasn't destroyed TV, and the prospects for tablets to kill off consoles are pretty damned low.

Put short, consoles aren't going away any time soon, and I'll see you all in six or so years for the PS5 launch.

6 Comments

6 Comments

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16685

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

Edited By Justin258

You could have just said "New consoles still do not play every game at what should be a standard 60FPS, 1080p" and you'd have an airtight argument for a PS5 and Xbox DOS. Please, please, please call it the XBDOS. That would be so great and so fucking stupid.

internet hasn't destroyed TV,

It sure as hell gave Blockbuster a right good fucking, which no one would have thought possible in the '90's. Still, tablets never were going to kill gaming. Even if they were able to kill AAA gaming somehow, we would have people who have the passion, ability, and resources to make games for the PC. We wouldn't get Uncharted-type games, but we would see plenty of games. I would almost like to see such a scenario, actually. Break the whole damn thing down and see what crops up. Almost.

Avatar image for yukoasho
yukoasho

2247

Forum Posts

6076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 7

You could have just said "New consoles still do not play every game at what should be a standard 60FPS, 1080p" and you'd have an airtight argument for a PS5 and Xbox DOS. Please, please, please call it the XBDOS. That would be so great and so fucking stupid.

internet hasn't destroyed TV,

It sure as hell gave Blockbuster a right good fucking, which no one would have thought possible in the '90's. Still, tablets never were going to kill gaming. Even if they were able to kill AAA gaming somehow, we would have people who have the passion, ability, and resources to make games for the PC. We wouldn't get Uncharted-type games, but we would see plenty of games. I would almost like to see such a scenario, actually. Break the whole damn thing down and see what crops up. Almost.

Well, Blockbuster is a whole lot more complicated. While the internet was a huge contributor, Blockbuster also had horrendous late fees, terrible customer service, increasingly dirty stores and very little in the way of variety (blockbusters were the only movies they got more than a couple copies of). Then of course there's DVD becoming so cheap (Why rent a movie for $10 when you can buy it for $15-$20?), and Redbox. No one thing by itself toppled Blockbuster. It was a cocktail of things that served to make it die.

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16685

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

@yukoasho said:

@believer258 said:

You could have just said "New consoles still do not play every game at what should be a standard 60FPS, 1080p" and you'd have an airtight argument for a PS5 and Xbox DOS. Please, please, please call it the XBDOS. That would be so great and so fucking stupid.

internet hasn't destroyed TV,

It sure as hell gave Blockbuster a right good fucking, which no one would have thought possible in the '90's. Still, tablets never were going to kill gaming. Even if they were able to kill AAA gaming somehow, we would have people who have the passion, ability, and resources to make games for the PC. We wouldn't get Uncharted-type games, but we would see plenty of games. I would almost like to see such a scenario, actually. Break the whole damn thing down and see what crops up. Almost.

Well, Blockbuster is a whole lot more complicated. While the internet was a huge contributor, Blockbuster also had horrendous late fees, terrible customer service, increasingly dirty stores and very little in the way of variety (blockbusters were the only movies they got more than a couple copies of). Then of course there's DVD becoming so cheap (Why rent a movie for $10 when you can buy it for $15-$20?), and Redbox. No one thing by itself toppled Blockbuster. It was a cocktail of things that served to make it die.

Rental stores in general, then. It's a throwaway line for a throwaway forum post.

More serious answer: We can't actually know for certain. If I were a betting man - which I'm not - I would bet my money on a generation of consoles after this new one. However, you have to remember that gaming has changed a lot since the 360, PS3, and Wii came out. Unlike the leap from the PS2 to the PS3 and Xbox to 360, there's not a ton of difference to the untrained eye on newer consoles. Oh, there is some difference, and people will notice it, but it's not mindblowing. It's more like "...oh cool. This looks nicer than that." At this point, though, the question "But does it look $400 nicer?" is on the mind of someone who was 18, foolish, and ready to blow all his money in 2006. Sure, there were plenty of early adopters, and there are a lot of "hardcore gamers" who will spend that much money on a new console without any reservations about doing so, but the console market has grown a whole hell of a lot since 2006. It now includes practically everyone, and as we've seen with HDTV's, it's harder to get everyone on board with newer consoles. That takes time. These new consoles might not be fully settled into everyone's homes until five or six years have passed. The demographics have changed quite a bit, and that's not even adding in the fact that Sony and MS traditionally lose money on consoles for a few years, which is why they didn't want to make new consoles for at least ten. They wound up getting 8 in the PS3's case, 9 in the 360's.

Also, we now have consoles equipped to properly handle the internet. Not only did the demographics for video games expand and grow massively, the market that games exist in has changed a lot. Who really paid attention to smaller and indie games in 2006? Not many people, really. These days, smaller and indie games are plastered on the front page of Steam everyday. Digital distribution has changed a lot about how we consume games and how easily available other games are. Bastion, Minecraft, and Dust: An Elysian Tail could never have made it in 2006. Those games were successful because the ever-adaptable PC changed to accommodate them and the consoles were pretty much updated and patched together to accommodate a world that's far more internet-ready than it was in 2006. I have no doubt that the PS4 and Xbox One were made with these things in mind.

So, with all of that said, are console makers guaranteed to have a reason to have new consoles out in 2020? That's not too far away. Aside from the growing difference between console games and PC games, is the market really going to change so much that console developers need to get a system out then? Or even two years later? Or even two years after that? I don't think that's entirely out of the question.

Again, I wrote all of that as a sort of devil's advocate kind of thing. I really do think we'll get a PS5 and a next Xbox, like you, but there are some reasonable things to say about not getting them anytime soon. We may have moved away from a 5 or 6 year console cycle entirely at this point.

Avatar image for yukoasho
yukoasho

2247

Forum Posts

6076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 7

@believer258: Well, there's always a possibility something will make a new console redundant, but I'm just shocked at the certainty some people have in saying consoles are done. In reality, the future is unwritten. We've been hearing about the death of consoles for decades, and instead, they become more, new hardware adapting to new environments. I just think people are jumping the gun way too hard.

Also, if you look at it, it only seems to be every OTHER gen that we get the true huge leap.

NES/Master System were lightyears ahead of Atari 2600/Colecovision/Intellivision. SNES/Genesis weren't as large a leap. PSOne/Saturn/N64 was the giant leap from that. DC/PS2/Xbox/Cube was more conservative. PS3/X360/Wii were revolutionary. And now we're in a more conservative generation. Makes me excited for what the next gen will bring if this pattern holds.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
Fredchuckdave

10824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

With that title I expected this to be a Dark Souls II thread

Avatar image for thunderslash
ThunderSlash

2606

Forum Posts

630

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By ThunderSlash
Loading Video...