New Consoles/Gaming machines

[Alexrd]

PC_Gaming_Master_Race.jpg

 

I had a good laugh with that one.

 

PC forever.

[Darth Avlectus]

I don't see the decline of the console industry simply because I know there's a lot of people who know nothing about how to troubleshoot when anything goes wrong on a PC.

 

Oh I wasn't indicating a decline--I don't see a decline either. I just see a subtle grab, to people 'on the fence' through appealing to what is cheaper in the present. What's easier. It's a small segment but the small things matter over time.

 

As for console manufacturers trying to reel in the PC gamers? They're not concerned at all, they don't need to try to do anything to attract PC gamers at all because the market they have no is huge and profitable.

 

I do agree their customer base is larger than ever, but I rather take a more catch 22 view. Sure for the most part customers are inert and tend to stick around in the same place "cuz it's easy". It's a long shot admittedly: If the general perception changes, though, so will behavior. That's how challengers pull off upsets.

 

 

The stress of trying to figure out all the various big and small things that go wrong with PC gaming <*brevity*> All they REALLY want to do is insert game and start. Which is all a lot of people want to do.

--->

In fact, they smart thing which they've done is try and go the other direction and attract people who don't generally play the video games that we all play. The so called "casual gamers" and "non-gamers"...

 

I hadn't considered how they'd get those customers outside the fray. Good point.

 

As to the rest, that's generally sort of what I meant about luring away current and future customers from PC, and those "on the fence" so to speak. As I said, they'll never lure away the hardcore PC gamers who took the plunge and are already there.

 

I was more getting at the persistence angle upon those already in the fray: Sure it's a huge customer base, but it didn't just get that way overnight. As the youngest customers get older, tastes change. But people are hesitant if not resistant to change too. Hence the general analogy "it's easier to remain the champ than to become one" regarding the industry.

 

Get it ingrained that easier IS cheaper which is good, and the NOW is best. People will stick around because it's so heavily in their subconscious. As the youngest get older, the companies stay persistent. Since people are resistant to change even in the "margin", odds favor incumbency.

 

The incumbents (consoles) would have to do whatever they can to ensure their main customers stick around, reeling them in from a young age away from other forms or mediums of entertainment (*NOT* just PC gaming I might add!). So far it has worked pretty well I think. They just don't have to work as hard *now* at retention as newcomers do at making a dent.

 

Still, it's about perception. I wouldn't underestimate it, and it doesn't look like consoles do either. To their credit.

[Lynk Former]

I don't think consumers are being reeled in and held by one or two specific sources of media and then miss out on other sources or feel that can have this but not that. The trend, now more than ever, seems to be that people consume media from a number of different sources and as they grow older they end up expanding to an even larger source pool... mostly because as people get older they become financially independent and can buy the media for themselves.

 

Everyone is going to spend money (piracy aside) on all of these different sources and the big thing that all of these different sources have to worry about isn't about capturing an individual so that they feel that they should only buy their specific product and ONLY their specific product, it's more along the lines of capturing their attention during specific moments... because throughout the year, that same person will end up spending money on console games AND PC games AND movies AND other things. So the key is to make maximum profit from the sale that they do get from that consumer who is consuming media from those multiple sources. This doesn't mean they'll buy less console games or less PC games in favour of a different source, it'll just mean that they'll buy MORE media overall.

 

The real challenge console manufacturers face are the developers themselves and who they choose to support based on various factors. We've seen this play out before with Nintendo and Sony as I mentioned before and also what happened with EA and the Dreamcast... As Steve Ballmer likes to say "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS..." which is why Sony is the power it is today and why Microsoft was able to become its own power. Sony was able to grab the developers that Nintendo alienated and Microsoft threw money at various developers and bought out others.

 

This is also very important when we talk about exclusive games since exclusives can become system sellers. Take Monster Hunter in Japan, Sony had it but then lost it to Nintendo and boy has it hurt Sony in Japan. Back in the day both Nintendo and Sega battled each other for third party exclusives and better versions of multi-platform games on their systems, and that trend continues with Sony and Microsoft today.

 

In terms of these new challengers appearing, the question that I've asked in this thread in previous posts is very relevant because I think it's what most people will be asking themselves. What does games does this system have that my current console and/or PC doesn't have? Why should I get this system if I already have stuff that can play video games right now?

 

I don't think the answer is "because you can get cheaper games on this new system" since scores of people around the world seem to be perfectly happy paying a premium for their games.

 

So yeah, I think we're looking at this from the wrong direction. Doesn't matter what the consumers are doing, doesn't matter what the console manufacturers are doing, it's about what the developers are doing.

[igyman]

Hentai games?

 

Where!?

 

But, on a serious note, I'm thinking of games like The Witcher 2, or even Battlefield 3, which (whatever you may think of them as wholes) are made on the PC for the PC and then ported to consoles, providing the best version on each platform. I'd even put Dishonored in this bunch based on how it plays on the PC, but at the very least it goes on the list of well-ported console games that came out in the last couple of years alone. Among them are The Darkness II, KoA Reckoning, Alan Wake (including American Nightmare), Sleeping Dogs (not counting the stupid decision to hard-code the arrow keys to certain commands, thus making them unmappable to anything else) and even the rather disappointing Assassin's Creed 3. So yeah, I definitely see an effort to increase the quality of PC games either by developing "for the PC first", or by doing a better job at porting.

 

On another note, I'm seeing comments that Ouya, Steambox and other newcomers aren't likely to achieve much against giants like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, but I'd like to remind you all that Sega used to be among the giants once and Microsoft used to be the newcomer with the first Xbox. Bottom line, I wouldn't count the newcomers out so easily.

 

So yeah, I think we're looking at this from the wrong direction. Doesn't matter what the consumers are doing, doesn't matter what the console manufacturers are doing, it's about what the developers are doing.

 

I definitely agree, but it's a shame many dev teams don't seam to realize the fact that without their games the consoles are nothing. Dev teams nowadays actually pay the console manufacturers "for the privilege of making a game for their console"! Doesn't make much sense, does it?

[Lynk Former]

On another note, I'm seeing comments that Ouya, Steambox and other newcomers aren't likely to achieve much against giants like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, but I'd like to remind you all that Sega used to be among the giants once and Microsoft used to be the newcomer with the first Xbox. Bottom line, I wouldn't count the newcomers out so easily.

The problem is that Sega existed in market that's only a fraction of the size of today's. Remember that both Sega and Nintendo were and are very small companies and the games they made were very cheap compared to how things are done now. Sega couldn't compete when things started to change, Nintendo could survive because Hiroshi Yamauchi is one hard edged bastard who knows how to run a business and made sure Nintendo never ran at a loss with anything they did.

 

Microsoft, as I mentioned many times before, bought their way in. They threw money at every developer they could and bought out others. The Xbox, the first one, was a financial disaster for them but they didn't care because their plan was to SPEND BIG, SPEND HUGE and then benefit from it later. Why? Because it's Microsoft, they can do that, they didn't stop at anything until they got what they wanted because in the market they introduced themselves too, the price of making games was going up and the developers they were trying to attract were very set in their ways.

 

It's even more so now. The industry, in many ways, is a lot more expensive and harder to break into and Ouya, Nvidia and Valve need to basically pull a bigger Microsoft than Microsoft did to get in. I believe Valve can do it without having to resort to such extremes, as for Nvidia and Ouya? Sorry, they don't have my vote of confidence. Of course Nvidia is fighting on a different front one that I can't see being a very good front to fight on considering how incidental and "on the train to work" a lot of android gaming is.

 

 

I definitely agree, but it's a shame many dev teams don't seam to realize the fact that without their games the consoles are nothing. Dev teams nowadays actually pay the console manufacturers "for the privilege of making a game for their console"! Doesn't make much sense, does it?

A lot of devs do realise this fact... in addition, there are a lot of developers who only want to have their main focus as consoles because that's what their company started off with. That said, out of the three console manufacturers, if there were to be this huge developer revolt that drives them all to PC, the only survivor would be Nintendo since they can pretty much survive with their own games on their own system.

 

As for the fees developers pay to console manufacturers, they do make sense because a company spent quite a lot of their budget and resources developing, releasing and marketing their console and have set in an array of specific features and an infrastructure built around those features.

 

You gotta spend money to make money and that small fee allows developers to sell, potentially, millions of copies of their games. Do you think Activision is really concerned about these fees when they're thinking about releasing the next Call of Duty on these systems? No, not at all.

 

That said... things have changed with this generation because they've also adopted the use of digital downloads as a method of distributing games instead of physical media. This, of course allows for the sale of games for more profit but less cost for some developers, and for indie developers, a reduced fee that is a lot more reasonable.

 

THEN you have to take into account all of the deals that go on with developers and console manufacturers. Remember, I said in my previous post that console exclusives are EXTREMELY important. How are these deals struck? With lots of money of course... lots and lots of money. Make your game exclusive for my console and I'll waive all the fees and thrown money at your face. Done deal.

[Darth Avlectus]

I don't think consumers are being reeled in and held by one or two specific sources of media and then miss out on other sources or feel that can have this but not that.

Hmm. Not one or two specific sources so much as...

 

So yeah, I think we're looking at this from the wrong direction. Doesn't matter what the consumers are doing, doesn't matter what the console manufacturers are doing, it's about what the developers are doing.

 

THERE! Yes. I completely agree with this, it's been the major factor.

 

You know what? Where I said consoles before I probably shoulda said developers... Argh. Now I just sound wrong headed. Thanks for bearing with me though.

 

it'll just mean that they'll buy MORE media overall.

True. This puts it into perspective and makes sense actually.

 

The real challenge console manufacturers face are the developers themselves and who they choose to support based on various factors. We've seen this play out before with Nintendo and Sony as I mentioned before and also what happened with EA and the Dreamcast...

 

Hey, I remember that. Yeah, there was this big discussion about whose roping in the most game producers. A huge debate everywhere on whether Sega Dreamcast, Sony Playstation, or Nintendo 64 would "win out" the "console war". I specifically remember being irked Megaman 8 and Megaman X4 were on PlayStation while I'd been a diehard N64 player.

 

Ah, we have proof again: Developers.

 

It was the late 90's and I had been curious, too, about twisted metal. So I got it. Then wound up with TM2 and TM3 in short order. Then learned about Duke Nukem and some others. By the time '02 rolled around I was an MvC fiend.

 

My interest in Nintendo just sort of...faded. Perfect Dark and a few other games were in my stash but that was it. I drifted because Metroid was getting no attention whatsoever and Wario...don't get me wrong, he was badass, but I just kinda didn't care for the more cartoony look after Warioland 3.

 

 

As Steve Ballmer likes to say "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS..." which is why Sony is the power it is today and why Microsoft was able to become its own power. Sony was able to grab the developers that Nintendo alienated and Microsoft threw money at various developers and bought out others.

True. My own vidya history would support that.

 

I predict SteamBox might have a good run IF it can sweet talk the well established devs. Small time devs might also stand to springboard from obscurity, rare as that is.

 

This is also very important when we talk about exclusive games since exclusives can become system sellers. Take Monster Hunter in Japan, Sony had it but then lost it to Nintendo and boy has it hurt Sony in Japan.

You're like, one of maybe 3 people I communicate with who know that game. A friend/bro IRL was raving about it on PSP and has been trying to get me into it. Nobody else had even heard of it.

 

Back in the day both Nintendo and Sega battled each other for third party exclusives and better versions of multi-platform games on their systems, and that trend continues with Sony and Microsoft today.

 

Yep. Never thought I'd see Sonic and Mario in the same game. Low and behold, it happened.

 

In terms of these new challengers appearing, the question that I've asked in this thread in previous posts is very relevant because I think it's what most people will be asking themselves. What does games does this system have that my current console and/or PC doesn't have? Why should I get this system if I already have stuff that can play video games right now?

 

Yes.

 

 

I don't think the answer is "because you can get cheaper games on this new system" since scores of people around the world seem to be perfectly happy paying a premium for their games.

 

Yeah. Not solely the answer anyway. One of many. Perhaps I was over generalizing.

The idea I was getting across was speaking to customer attraction, in reply to where you'd more or less said most people just don't want to deal with the hassle of custom computer rigs, they really just want to plug in/insert game, and play. But yes. Come to think of it, the devs are the ones attracting (for lack of a better term) the customers and keeping them. Definitely a good point.

 

And I suppose I was also thinking of...something I'd read of cognitive science regarding exploits of human brains. But no matter.

 

Where!?

 

...jlist maybe? They're sim style games for the most part.

 

 

But, on a serious note, I'm thinking of games like The Witcher 2, or even Battlefield 3, which (whatever you may think of them as wholes) are made on the PC for the PC and then ported to consoles, providing the best version on each platform. I'd even put Dishonored in this bunch based on how it plays on the PC, but at the very least it goes on the list of well-ported console games that came out in the last couple of years alone. Among them are The Darkness II, KoA Reckoning, Alan Wake (including American Nightmare), Sleeping Dogs (not counting the stupid decision to hard-code the arrow keys to certain commands, thus making them unmappable to anything else) and even the rather disappointing Assassin's Creed 3.

 

Most those names...just sort of roll over me. Sorry.

 

I never got into A.C. Not yet anyway. The only reason I'm considering AC3 is...well, it comes close to my heritage. Sorry to hear it isn't the best, though sequels and 3rd installments rarely match the original, let alone beat it.

 

So yeah, I definitely see an effort to increase the quality of PC games either by developing "for the PC first", or by doing a better job at porting.

 

On another note, I'm seeing comments that Ouya, Steambox and other newcomers aren't likely to achieve much against giants like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, but I'd like to remind you all that Sega used to be among the giants once and Microsoft used to be the newcomer with the first Xbox. Bottom line, I wouldn't count the newcomers out so easily.

 

Well, as Lynk said, it matters who can get DEVs into their hat. I'm inclined to agree because my own history of vidya reflects this.

Steambox stands a good chance along those lines. In fact I'm pretty sure that's the only real way it stands a chance.

 

I only see the other two as...peripherals, albeit good ones. Here's to hoping I am proved wrong.

 

I definitely agree, but it's a shame many dev teams don't seam to realize the fact that without their games the consoles are nothing. Dev teams nowadays actually pay the console manufacturers "for the privilege of making a game for their console"! Doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

"Tail wagging the dog", if you'll excuse the analogy. Many devs simply don't realize the power they wield.

[JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan]

Gaben calls Linux "The Future of Gaming"; teases possible Steambox announcement for next week.

 

Watched the video. A lot of exciting stuff to hear.

 

Also, I'm impressed by just how much respect Valve has for the consumers. Both their current actions and broader objectives are geared for benefiting gamers and gaming as a whole. This is why they're doing so damn well.

 

Imagine the innovation/progress that would be had if all the major players in the games industry had the attitude these guys have.