Fate of console gaming

Post Reply New Topic

That's because consoles are much easier to work with for idiots.

Then it sounds like that market isn't in danger of being replaced.

You know that has shrunk too, right?

The PC gaming market can't very well replace a market much larger than it.

And also, what was up with that article? I find its assertion that movies use a "centuries-old formula designed to engage the emotions" positively laughable. Why? Because it doesn't engage my emotions! As a movie viewer, I'm just an uninvolved spectator, whereas in a game, I essentially am the main character. As a result, the ending of Grand Theft Auto IV actually did manage that! The only time when anything, real-life, scripted, etc. has ever managed that was in a video game!

Furthermore, the writer says that history will repeat itself, with the market crashing. But last time, it was only crashed for two years and Nintendo swooped in and fixed everything!

But you say "console gaming"... Does that indicate that PC gaming will replace it? PC gaming is more expensive and more of a niche; it's not in any position to take over.

The reasons for the previous crash are different from the coming crash.

The previous one was a combination of lagging technology (which Nintendo fixed) plus a market lacking innovation (Atari produced all the game types possible on their system). The coming crash will be primarily driven by a shrinking population of game players. Just because some aspies and geeks wont grow up doesnt mean a critical mass will not.

And that dwindling population of game players will cross a threshold at which point profits will no longer exceed development/production costs. At that point, several companies will go out of business, and the rest will cease production of new machines and games.

In the late 80s and 90s, PC gaming walloped consoles. It was the golden years of gaming, with new games like commander keen coming out all the time. Those games were able to be much longer and deeper in plot than the consoles. However, in the last few years, consoles have perhaps exceeded PCs as a platform. Their specialized and consistent hardware allows a more uniform gaming experience that PCs. The only way the PC beat consoles is with screen resolution.

And now I see that lcd monitors are on their way to blending fully with big screen televisions. My monitor is actually larger(and better resolution) than my HDTV. Now that cable TV is fully digital in the states(And I assume elsewhere), televisions will no longer be manufactured with channel tuner mechanisms in them. They will depend on external devices like the DVD and satellite decoders. In this way, they are just giant monitors.

You can see the slipping of the console market in that the companies producing them are adding features like web browsing, and advertising the cost benefits over dedicated dvd devices and such. In that way they are colliding with the personal computer market, hoping to hold on to that market that is doing less gaming, more emailing.

Its a lot like how cell phones, mp3 players and tablet PCs carved up and stole the PDA market. Remember those things? You can still get them, but whats the point? You can get a cell phone that does all that.

Consoles are getting hit hard by the hand held game machines which have invaded the 3D game realm, and in turn they are overwhelming the PC market. But they are hunting in a market that is smaller than their traditional domain.

This of course spells trouble for Microsoft, which reported losses in at least one quarter of 2009. They capitalize heavily on 3 things: their operating system licence, Microsoft office, and gamers.

We already see that windows seven is selling for less, and with tons of opportunity for people to get special deals. Because of the low price of net books, the software licence for windows is a huge portion of the cost. It had to come down.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Google is going to go heavily into the net book market with their google chrome operating system. Linux will continue to try as well. Apple of course does a good job of hiding their cost with the advertised apple experience.

Microsoft Office is hurting for sales as well. At 200+ dollars, its an expensive purchase for net book users. Many will opt for open office if they hear of it.

And I already discussed games. Expect the game price point of ~60 dollars to drop off for consoles and personal computers. You can probably expect more cross platform games too, as the software companies gain leverage over the console makers. Microsoft may have trouble with their closed/licensed directX in that case.

You will then see more games on linux and Apple computers, though not enough to dominate against Windows. Instead, expect a more balanced market. I would not be surprised to see the rise of even newer types of operating systems.

The golden age of gaming is done, but the golden age of computing, of vast choice, is just begun.

Alright, first, I would like to point out a few more flaws in the article.
It's out of date. A new PS3 doesn't cost $600, it costs $300. That's a significant price difference.
Sony and Microsoft have introduced new motion-based control setups.
Gaming (pre-video) also uses a centuries-old formula. Gaming predates drama.
The writer also appears to be mathematically challenged, as demonstrated here:

Now, I was under the impression that the next generation wouldn't start until at least 2012, but the writer claims that it'll be over by 2011! Wow, that's some bad math!
Lastly, what would these former/would-be gamers do instead of playing games? Watch TV/movies? Personally, I stopped watching TV because it almost always fails to connect to me mentally, and it always, without exceptions, fails to connect to me emotionally. There are some shows that I like, but they're available on the internet.

Also, Commander Keen? Really? I found the first three games in that series to be awful.


Furthermore, sir, you have insulted me. I don't play video games because of a lack of maturity, I play them because I find gaming to be the only truly worthwhile medium.

I must apologise then. It was not my intent to insult you. If I imagined that I would, I would have spoken differently. I'm here jabbering because I like games too, and I will continue to like games.



The 'theory' goes that you spend more time on career, marriage, raising a family, and whatnot. This is what most people eventually do. Its not even a theory, its par for the course. Of course we aspies are different than most people.

But I dont play with my GI Joes anymore. I havent in more than 22 years. Thats the point. Most people change after a time. Even if you or I dont.

Regarding tv and movies: I think most people use it as an escape from thinking. Its not about connecting at all. They want to see Rachel reject Ross so they dont have to spend that time thinking about the annoying guys in their life that they cannot deal with.

Commander Keen: yeah, I admit, I picked a horrible one deliberately. If I chose a good one, I would have said Wing Commander. It was the first game with Hollywood production cut scenes. First done in animation, later with live actors. Or doom and Wolfenstein3D. The start of the FPS. Other great ones -I think- were the first and second system shock games.

Yay, an intelligent response! Not to imply that your other posts have been unintelligent, but your last one showed evidence of a thinking individual, rather than mere statistic-quoting.

Anyway, back on topic:

First, it is my experience that even after all of that, my parents have had time to watch TV. If you can watch TV, then you can play games.
Second, you did not address my mention of the would-be gamers: the new generation coming in. They are always coming, and if nothing else, then game companies can target them. But without games, what would these would-be gamers do?

Finally, since this topic is called "Fate of Console Gaming", I feel the need to define the four varieties of gaming:
Console gaming is done on a stable, standardized platform, located in the living/bedroom.
Handheld gaming is done on a stable, standardized platform, located wherever you want, but usually where there's air conditioning.
Arcade gaming is done on a stable, often custom-built platform, located in an arcade.
PC gaming is done on a variably stable, non-standardized platform, located at a desk.

Something that consoles have always had above PCs is their method of input. There are adamant defenders of the mouse/keyboard setup, and while I agree that the mouse is good, the keyboard is absolutely rubbish for games. WASD offers 8 directions at 1 speed. Adding another button makes it 2 speeds. A generic analog stick has a resolution of 256x256... See the difference?
The PC does, however, support just about any input device, but they aren't all really intended for desk use. One that is is the Novint Falcon (look it up). This thing is so cool that it made Half-Life 2 my second-favorite game.

Now, the Wii would not work at a desk. It just wouldn't be right. I've used my Wiimote on my PC, and I've found that I have to back up or it just feels wrong.

It is, however, possible to bring a PC into the living room. It's awkward, there's a giant black box staring at you from across the room, but it can be done. This is best, though, for games that were always meant to be console-style, for example, Arkham Asylum (a game that actually challenges my video card!).


In general, a computer is the thing that the common person uses to check their e-mail, gamers (not PC gamers...) included. People want to play in the living room on a stable platform, which is, by definition, console gaming.

I think the article used pretty bad arguments , an example would be :

Nintendo definitely doesn't need hard-core gamers to make money.

Also the fact the the video game markets was one of the few markets to grow during the current recession is a good indication that it is pretty solid. And consoles are slowly but surely moving towards a 100% downloaded content market. (you can see this clearly starting to happen) At that point they will be making 100% of the sales revenues and the only company that should worry is Game Stop. Also with the expansion of the internet worldwide I'm sure even some single player games will require players to be online which would probably make hacking games a lot harder.

What is a would be gamer without opportunity?

You are asking me to be a thinker, but you keep coming back to "there-is-nothing-to-do-but-what-I-want-to-do". Every post! That is, admittedly, a pretty aspie look at life, but please! There is a world of things to do, and people without access to games will do them!

I have a hard time(as in I dont) think of people having good days or bad, or of them having favourite this or that. But I know that they go home and do things that I dont do.

Those young people are not "would be gamers". They are just people. You have to see them that way. They do not have the same perceptions as you, the same view points and interests. In fact, they are not even part of our generation. This is theory of mind, and you are not succeeding at it in this case. They may never pick up an interest in games, just as we dont play whist and other games that our grandparents enjoy.

They will grow up to take part in activities that we will not, and assuming a dearth of gaming - which is what the topic is about - they will fill various portions of their time with other activities. Just like we did before the internet. I used to go to the library myself. Now I argue relentlessly on the internet.

Which is fun, but...

Now.. the relentless on coming generation. Its smaller! Much smaller. Its due to North Americans having less than 2.1 babies per couple(the rate that sustains population). 1/3 of all Americans alive today were born shortly after world war II. Thats not just statistic quoting, its fact.

So if 100 million Americans were born in the few years after the war(until about 1964), how big is the population from prior to that? 100 million, right? So that means in the time from '65 to 2009, only 100 million have been added. That is 44 years to generate as many people as were born in 20 (from 1945 to 1965). Simple math: the birth rate is only half what it was.

So unless our generation and the generation after us start pumping out more babies than our parents did, there will be less new gamers.

Its like linux. Why are there so few games for linux? There isnt enough users to justify development costs. There is no profit.

Okay, more statistics... Fact or not, it's still a statistic, but anyway...

It seems to me that something is being missed here:
There are many people with a casual interest in video games.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many lousy games for the iPhone. You'll likely have an argument for this, though, so I won't spend any more time on this point.

Next point: people play games, video or otherwise. Just think about all of the things that are games! Board games, card games, drinking games, games of chance, game shows, guessing games, mind games, parlor games, war games, word games, etc..
That's a lot of gaming. People aren't likely to suddenly not want to play games, and playing games on an electronic device is one of the most obvious things to be done with such a device, especially since it has already been done for the last 60 years!

There are definetly flaws in the article. Latest inovation in gameing has been some enormous increase in storytelling, in fact science fiction writers are getting more involved. This article seems kind of silly as I actualy coaught a bit of a news story that video games were becoming just as sucessful as Hollywood films and the consoel market is getting bigger then ever with Nintendo encouraging casuals into the market.

Sure inovation may become less and less, but there is always places to improve.

Something is being missed here.

Go to the store and buy me some Apple-jacks cereal. I really like it.

Whats that? You cant? They dont make it anymore?

But I protest! People still eat cereal! Thus, they will make apple-jacks just because I expect it! Just because a few of us insist.

But they wont. Because not enough of us ate it when they did, and they stopped. Because producing it cost them more than they made in profits.

How many of your parents television shows have been canceled? Did they cancel production of new 'All in the Family' episodes because Carol O'Connor died? No. I think hes alive to this day. They canceled it because people stopped watching it. And now, for similar reasons, television is not broadcast by radio on frequencies corresponding to channels 2-13. Technology can disappear from production.

Oh wait. They dont make neo-geo anymore, do they? They must. I really want them too.

You've misunderstood me. It takes nothing to quote statistics, and without citations, I don't know them to be accurate.


No, it's someone else's intelligent thinking... Unless these are your statistics. As I said above, it takes nothing to quote someone; I've done it twice in this post!(But with citations...) Oh, and no, I have not seen those commercials. As I said, I stopped watching TV. It bored me.


Neo-Geo can be obtained easily on eBay, and emulation is even easier. Again, many ways to play games. No end to the opportunities.

Also, people get bored. They start messing with things. You get stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_for_Two
And then someone markets it.


EDIT: In your argument regarding Apple Jacks, stores where I live still stock it, and, furthermore, the validity of the argument is questionable. Apple Jacks is one cereal of many, not a broad category like video games.

Last edited by X_Parasite on 17 Oct 2009, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was always under the impression people played video games to avoid those things? Surely people are more likely to try find another way to escape reality, right?

It seems I have. I apologise then.



Agreed. They are pretty common knowledge or I would have cited. 300 million(or so) Americans. Baby boomers born after world war two, biggest age group of people. Boomer women entered the work force; the birth rate dropped. Water is comprised of oxygen and hydrogen. Not everything needs to be cited.


Neo-Geo can be obtained easily on eBay, and emulation is even easier. Again, many ways to play games. No end to the opportunities.
[/quote]

Well sure. I have my old TRS-80 and a functioning coleco-vision, but the topic at hand is about development of new gaming systems. Will something come after xbox? That is the billion dollar question.




Darn. I havent had/seen them in years and I was really craving them! I'll have to look more carefully I guess.

The argument is valid though. Apple Jacks are to (Post Cereal?) as splinter cell is to Microsoft Xbox. In fact, I'll use that cereal up. Most people will only ever buy one copy of each game. The minimum number of customers buying that game is critical to ubisoft, who develops splinter cell. They have to pay their programmers. The number of customers is critical to microsoft as well, as they can use the sales to subsidize the development and production of the xbox.

If it did cost 500 million(who knows?) to develop xbox, then if you could only sell 2 million units, everyone would end up paying 250 dollars. Zero profit margin. Thats called a loss leader in sales, and it depends on people buying accessories and things(games in this case). Another good example would be 50 dollar printers that take 100 dollar ink cartridges. Do I need to cite those?

The quintessential American aphorism "build it and they will come" isnt necessarily true.

I'll give you a time based way to make the assessment of how things will develop. If prices of the console games rise steeply, there are fewer buyers (and I am right). If prices drop drastically, then tastes are simply changing(and I am wrong). If game prices stay constant, I am also wrong. I assume(and I think you will agree) that the consoles themselves will continue to increase in price. That is the price for refined features.

So 2 out of 3 that I am wrong. But I dont think I am. Its going to take several years to tell, so I am amicable to ending this debate.. we wont know in a timely enough fashion to continue.