Yes, that's already happening. It's called mobile/social/iPad gaming. Those are the new opportunities that are arising and where the consumers are going. Is that the direction you think the industry should go? Do you think super-high-end consoles will somehow abate that trend?
It is, unfortunately, not about what I want
If the ability to host middle/lower tier games becomes commoditised and available in lots of places other than console boxes, and people vote with their wallets for these alternatives, that's how it is.
The question for home consoles is how to stand out here. For starters, I don't think reducing the technical ambition of games would help.
I'm not sure why you're assuming a level of supply that is satisfactory to the market.
If there isn't a satisfactory supply one of two things will happen:
1) people will stop buying games
2) companies will shuffle their cost base and targets and float more games on the market at reduced cost per game
If an equilibrium can't be found, then there isn't a market for those games anymore.
But I personally think an equilibrium would be found. If people aren't satisfied with the mid-tier or the type of gaming available on other devices, then there's a market, and I believe people will find ways to meet it at a profit. If that can't happen, there's no market.
My point is, if there's a market for what home consoles can offer, then the market and competition between developers can find that spot. I don't believe hardware needs to drive that. Hardware should do the best job it can because wherever that 'sweet spot' is, it'll be a better one for the same $ investment with better hardware.
You're basically arguing for the same model as the Hollywood studios,
for which I have roughly the same amount of contempt.** When only a handful of studios all decide to chase after the same market segment and direct their attention to the same shallow, formulaic tripe at the expense of innovation and new concepts, the industry stratifies and stagnates while the money only flows to a few major players. In general, I don't see that as healthy for the industry, or for product.
To which you will say that there are loads of opportunities for low-cost, indie, niche titles on the PC, which is absolutely right. (In fact, I don't even own a console and am unlikely to buy another one as I use a PC, so this discussion is mostly academic to me anyway.) The problem, however, is that the industry is consolidating into a strict two-tier space where the graphical horsepower is becoming increasingly important at the expense of everything else, which relegates developers who can't compete on that front to the indie/XBLA scene, whereas it was previously viable for companies to try somewhat more experimental and unrefined ideas while still maintaining a respectable level of graphical fidelity and still be sold on the same shelves as the AAA blockbusters, and not immediately be written off by gamers as incompetent solely do how the game looks.
**Though, somewhat paradoxically, the root cause there is the exact opposite of the game industry's, in that Hollywood is trying to target the broadest, global audience possible and make films appealing to every culture and audience. Or at least, the male under-25ers in every culture.
On the first paragraph, I don't think that's actually happening. I for one have spent more money in the last couple of years on micro-developed and small no-name games than I ever have previously.
There's a difference between acknowledging that not everyone can compete at $60 and saying that small devs can't turn a buck and push out innovative ideas.
On the second paragraph, the industry has never been more diverse - the $60 home console model does not have to fit all, and should not be massaged to fit all via hardware limitations, IMO. So what if everyone can't compete for your $60? Would you really prefer a 'managed' market that limited developers so everyone could sell you a middle ground of game at that price point?
Hardware always artificially imposes limitations on developers, by virtue of the fact that it's hardware and it has limitations. There's nothing inherently less artificial about the Wii's hardware than there was in the 360's 3-core, 512 MB design in 2005, when you consider that PCs had quad-core 2GB systems at the same time.
(And this is to say nothing of the physical limitations that will come up with trying to shoehorn the horsepower you want into a console-sized box).
When I talk about 'artificial limitations' - I mean ones driven by concerns other than what can be put in a reasonable console box at a reasonable price. I think they should do the best they can in those constraints. Bad choice of word on my part, perhaps, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Indeed. That must really suck for them.
It seems to me you're being contradictory. You can't simultaneously argue that the market will decide who wins and who loses and we should just accept that without putting any constraints on anyone, while also arguing that the console makers have an obligation to put out the most powerful, capable machine possible, cost be damned. They play in the same market as well and have an obligation to balance their desire to gain market share and sell product at a cost-effective price point with their desire to make money.
I don't see how I'm being contradictory when I never said the bolded, and said from my first post that they've a responsibility to balance this against price for consumer accessibility and to attract an audience for software. I'm saying that within that constraint they should aim for the best they can offer and shouldn't shirk from something 'too powerful' because company A might not be able to justify a price point for their product anymore vs company B's.
