Support NeoGAF

[TomShoe]

Well, some people believe that losing ~100 million gamers between last gen and this gen doesn't matter because they weren't the right sort of gamer, this will be an 8 year gen and Japans just waiting for the right DQ / Musou / Dating Sim to appear before buying 30 million PS4s.

I thought there were more gamers than ever, and that the majority of new ones are casual gamers concentrated in the mobile industry.

 

[StevieP]

I thought there were more gamers than ever, and that the majority of new ones are casual gamers concentrated in the mobile industry.

More people are gaming than ever before. Just not on consoles (which is a dwindling and contracting market)

 

[patapuf]

I thought there were more gamers than ever, and that the majority of new ones are casual gamers concentrated in the mobile industry.

The gaming industry is indeed growing.

If consoles is your prefered platform, fewer people playing on consoles could be trouble in the future though.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I thought there were more gamers than ever, and that the majority of new ones are casual gamers concentrated in the mobile industry.

I was replying to a post specifically talking about console gaming, and was replying as such.

 

[theprodigy]

hey guys, let's take a break and listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxkEr-3GCGU

Spoiler

this isn't a hint at anything, is it Aquamarine

 

[GamerSoul]

Damn nice BL made the top 10. I didn't think it was gonna happen lol

 

[CosmicQueso]

Nevermind. Misunderstood.

And AniHawk... Great analysis and post. Completely agree with you.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Nevermind. Misunderstood.

EDIT: nvm.

 

[Ty4on]

hey guys, let's take a break and listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxkEr-3GCGU

Spoiler

this isn't a hint at anything, is it Aquamarine

Aqua likes Marasy as well? Awesome!

 

[Stilton Disco]

More people are gaming than ever before. Just not on consoles (which is a dwindling and contracting market)

Maybe. We're just starting a new gen really, so let's give it a few years before declaring a full market contraction. The PS4 is selling amazingly well, and there's no reason to assume it won't do as well as the PS2, with the WiiU and XO making up the difference. None of us know what's around the corner, and emergent markets in Asia and SA are a complete unknown right now.

But even if we talk about just the traditional western console market, even then, a contraction doesn't necessarily mean a less healthy industry.

Want a good example of what I mean: PC Gaming.

PC sales have been nose diving since the iphone hit the market. Tablets only heightened the problem. But PC Gaming is bigger and better than ever. Steam gains users and revenue by the day, specialist hardware manufacturers like Nvidia are raking it in, DOTA and the like are some of the biggest games in the industry and all the while, PC's in general are selling less and less. Smaller overall audience, more people there for dedicated gaming.

Absolutely no reason the same can't be true of Consoles, especially with something as straightforward as the PS4. Sure, it has the multimedia stuff, you can ditch the Blu Ray player and streaming box with one, which is important, but first and foremost, it's a games machine. Good value, good variety of titles, all the big blockbusters, all at your fingertips out of the box with the minimum of hassle. We know how appealing that's been so far.

Sure, maybe we lose the casual market from the PS2 era, the old folks from the Wii era, and overall numbers might be the lowest in decades. If that still includes as many (or potentially more) 'hardcore' game fans looking for a more dedicated gaming gadget, buying multiple games, niche titles and obscure genres as well as the FIFA's and BattleCOD's, if we can get some of those low end PC and mobile gamers looking for a bit of a more substantial gaming experience, then where's the problem?

We can loose overall numbers and still have a healthy console market.

Hell, just look at the music, TV and book markets to see how disruptive new mobile tech can be a boon for an industry overall and not kill of traditional mediums and markets.

I mean if the flipping vinyl market can still thrive in the era of digital music subscription, then so can a healthy, traditional console one. Even if it is smaller, which again, too early to call.

 

[Game Guru]

my belief is there's still value in the xbox name, and it's something they'll use going forward even if it means doing it without the set top box they had planned for back in 1999.

valve is a first-party game developer at this point, with their platform being steam. i don't think they were viewed as such when steam was first launched, but that is honestly the way of things now. steam is also huge, accessible, and growing every year. it's this model i think microsoft thought they could emulate in a physical sense with the xbox one earlier in 2013. they had the right idea but the most dismal execution. there wasn't even a trade-off for losing your physical copies of games (basically). like if you could share your games with friends, that might have been something to really set the xbox apart and make always-on drm kind of worth it to a lot of people. but it was either their vision for the platform or nothing at all.

it's a better thing for them that they didn't go through with it, at least in the short-term. i mean even with some incentive, it was still pretty half-assed. it should have been a steam-like platform with a huge hard drive and a controller if they truly wanted to shake things up.

elsewhere we see others starting to reject the traditional model. square-enix, warner bros., ea, and ubisoft all have some sort of alternative distribution method. japan as a whole is mostly leaving the market for mobile, even former giants like capcom and the square side of square-enix. sega is making larger strides to join the pc than ever before, and they're no longer investing in new ips specifically for the console or handheld market (hero bank seems to be the last one - world end eclipse is a vita game, but it's also on the pc and for mobile devices).

and there are now less games being made for the traditional market. there's just too much risk associated with the rising cost and rapidly dwindling userbase. i think that we've entered a sort of downward spiral where developers are becoming more fiercely focused on a lucrative segment of the market, making them spend more than ever before. they're doing so at the expense of reaching out to a broader demographic that could extend the reach of the traditional market.

so i don't know when all of these points will converge in the future, but given microsoft's direction early on, the reports of unhappiness within the board towards the xbox project, and the general outlook of the industry, it's hard to say what the next xbox will look like. i think the most likely scenarios are microsoft making a competitor to steam out of the xbox brand, followed by one more go at the console market, and lastly either spinning off the xbox company into its own thing or just shutting the whole thing down (that last one doesn't seem very possible). depending on sony's financial health five years from now, they might not see it worth it to make another box just to keep fighting an-already embattled company. i do think sony will make a very traditional playstation 5 next generation though, and it will sort of be like fiddler's green in the land of the dead, except with less dennis hopper.

I wouldn't be so sure about this future... Consoles and handhelds may be losing ground to PC and mobile at the moment, but there are issues that PC and mobile have or could that could drive people back to consoles and handhelds. PC gaming is dependent on Microsoft's goodwill which is something Microsoft could easily threaten. The whole Steam Machine project exists because Valve is naturally worried that MS is going to try to use their pocketbook to adversely affect PC gaming. As for mobile, success there is completely dependent on exploitative practices and seem driven by the luck of the draw. In addition, Nintendo who is the dominant handheld company has yet to make a handheld in response to mobile as a competitor. A console generation is a long time and I can see the greed of some PC and mobile developers causing the pendulum to swing back, but consoles and handhelds will need to integrate some advantages that PC and mobile have currently if they are to have a future.

 

[Ty4on]

PC sales have been nose diving since the iphone hit the market. Tablets only heightened the problem. But PC Gaming is bigger and better than ever. Steam gains users and revenue by the day, specialist hardware manufacturers like Nvidia are raking it in, DOTA and the like are some of the biggest games in the industry and all the while, PC's in general are selling less and less. Smaller overall audience, more people there for dedicated gaming.

PC sales are actually growing ever so slightly.

 

[pixellated_man]

Maybe. We're just starting a new gen really, so let's give it a few years before declaring a full market contraction. The PS4 is selling amazingly well, and there's no reason to assume it won't do as well as the PS2, with the WiiU and XO making up the difference. None of us know what's around the corner, and emergent markets in Asia and SA are a complete unknown right now.

But even if we talk about just the traditional western console market, even then, a contraction doesn't necessarily mean a less healthy industry.

Want a good example of what I mean: PC Gaming.

PC sales have been nose diving since the iphone hit the market. Tablets only heightened the problem. But PC Gaming is bigger and better than ever. Steam gains users and revenue by the day, specialist hardware manufacturers like Nvidia are raking it in, DOTA and the like are some of the biggest games in the industry and all the while, PC's in general are selling less and less. Smaller overall audience, more people there for dedicated gaming.

Absolutely no reason the same can't be true of Consoles, especially with something as straightforward as the PS4. Sure, it has the multimedia stuff, you can ditch the Blu Ray player and streaming box with one, which is important, but first and foremost, it's a games machine. Good value, good variety of titles, all the big blockbusters, all at your fingertips out of the box with the minimum of hassle. We know how appealing that's been so far.

Sure, maybe we lose the casual market from the PS2 era, the old folks from the Wii era, and overall numbers might be the lowest in decades. If that still includes as many (or potentially more) 'hardcore' game fans looking for a more dedicated gaming gadget, buying multiple games, niche titles and obscure genres as well as the FIFA's and BattleCOD's, if we can get some of those low end PC and mobile gamers looking for a bit of a more substantial gaming experience, then where's the problem?

We can loose overall numbers and still have a healthy console market.

Hell, just look at the music, TV and book markets to see how disruptive new mobile tech can be a boon for an industry overall and not kill of traditional mediums and markets.

I mean if the flipping vinyl market can still thrive in the era of digital music subscription, then so can a healthy, traditional console one. Even if it is smaller, which again, too early to call.

Completely agree. Some people seem to forget that the console audience was actually much smaller during the ps1 / n64 / saturn and ps2 / gc / xbox era's compared to the last generation of consoles. Can anyone say those era's were not healthy and lucrative times for console gaming? The Nintendo Wii was a one off and gave last generation a huge bump in terms of numbers, but it was a one off and we should stop expecting numbers like that again.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

But even if we talk about just the traditional western console market, even then, a contraction doesn't necessarily mean a less healthy industry.

Want a good example of what I mean: PC Gaming.

PC sales have been nose diving since the iphone hit the market. Tablets only heightened the problem. But PC Gaming is bigger and better than ever. Steam gains users and revenue by the day, specialist hardware manufacturers like Nvidia are raking it in, DOTA and the like are some of the biggest games in the industry and all the while, PC's in general are selling less and less. Smaller overall audience, more people there for dedicated gaming.

Absolutely no reason the same can't be true of Consoles, especially with something as straightforward as the PS4. Sure, it has the multimedia stuff, you can ditch the Blu Ray player and streaming box with one, which is important, but first and foremost, it's a games machine.

I mean, this is where your comparison falls flat; yes, consoles are dedicated gaming machines, and PCs self-evidently aren't.
If there were vast amounts of console purchasers who were buying consoles solely for their multimedia capabilities and who have now transitioned to a Chromecast or an AppleTV then the comparison makes more sense, but I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

It would also seem obvious that a device with declining sales that is still selling upwards of 300 million units a year has a much larger safety net of potential customers than a dedicated gaming device that would consider itself lucky to sell an order of magnitude less than that.

EDIT:

Completely agree. Some people seem to forget that the console audience was actually much smaller during the ps1 / n64 / saturn and ps2 / gc / xbox era's compared to the last generation of consoles. Can anyone say those era's were not healthy and lucrative times for console gaming? The Nintendo Wii was a one off and gave last generation a huge bump in terms of numbers, but it was a one off and we should stop expecting numbers like that again.

Selling 1 million copies of a title at $60 that had a production budget of $1 million is a vastly different proposition to selling 1 million copies of a title at $60 that had a production budget of $100 million in terms of a market being healthy and lucrative.

 

[misses bull]

So does this mean that alien isolation sold poorly or am I just stupid. I really hope it didn't seeing how it was my favorite game to come out this year and would like creative assembly to make another horror game.

 

[slit]

> 66k, probably around ~70k retail or so

Is it sad if I think that's actually good compared to what I was expecting?

 

[Stilton Disco]

PC sales are actually growing ever so slightly.

Just looked it up, and yes, 0.1% for one quarter! Sounds tiny but given the constant drop the last few years, still good news.

Actually ties in to what I was saying though, since the market has been stabilising in traditional sales, with a greater emphasis on specialist PC's, which obviously included the Gaming PC's I was making my point about. Emergent markets also helped, though not as much due to cheaper mobile equivelant a, something that I also see being a barrier to Consoles in those markets.

But yeah, proves my point nicely. You can have a drop in overall numbers and loose your casual market without the overall industry falling to ruin, and even see growth in the areas that truly matter.

 

[shinra-bansho]

so i don't know when all of these points will converge in the future, but given microsoft's direction early on, the reports of unhappiness within the board towards the xbox project, and the general outlook of the industry, it's hard to say what the next xbox will look like. i think the most likely scenarios are microsoft making a competitor to steam out of the xbox brand, followed by one more go at the console market, and lastly either spinning off the xbox company into its own thing or just shutting the whole thing down (that last one doesn't seem very possible). depending on sony's financial health five years from now, they might not see it worth it to make another box just to keep fighting an already embattled company. i do think sony will make a very traditional playstation 5 next generation though, and it will sort of be like fiddler's green in the land of the dead, except with less dennis hopper.

I thought Microsoft had tried (and failed) to develop a service model with GFWL.

I don't think the next PlayStation will be entirely traditional. PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now look to be forays into different routes of delivery and moves against the threat of smart devices. If the industry does move towards owned channels in terms of digital delivery with things like EA Access, I do wonder how well the different publishers will coordinate if at all.

On an aside, I'm interested to see how Project Ara (Google's modular phone endeavour turns out) as I wonder whether the model would work at all in the dedicated gaming space and whether any player, be it Microsoft, Sony, Valve, Amazon, could create a viable model based on a similar concept.

EDIT (originally to avoid double post, but too slow so whatever):

and there are now less games being made for the traditional market. there's just too much risk associated with the rising cost and rapidly dwindling userbase. i think that we've entered a sort of downward spiral where developers are becoming more fiercely focused on a lucrative segment of the market, making them spend more than ever before. they're doing so at the expense of reaching out to a broader demographic that could extend the reach of the traditional market.

On this point, do publishers actually not think that the broader audiences are an attractive and lucrative market, or do they simply not think that dedicated consoles are the appropriate method of reaching this lucrative and attractive market? EA's been making forays into mobile with things like Tapped Out, ActiBlizz has Hearthstone, Ubisoft grew its mobile revenues by like 200% H1/H1.

The gaming market is bigger than ever, but it's also heterogeneous in consumer preferences and needs. Perhaps it's pessimistic of me, but I'm just not as confident that in lieu of the blockbuster model focused on core titles, funding more projects at smaller cost towards attempting to broaden the reach of the traditional market would actually be particularly fruitful, at least when these boxes are $400 a piece.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I thought Microsoft had tried (and failed) to develop a service model with GFWL.

GFWL is a somewhat poor example, as it was an attempt to add a paywall to remove features that have historically always been free on an open platform where all competing services were also free - it only works in a walled garden where consumers have no other choice.

A better example of a service model for games would be something like Galkai or OnLive, but they were still not really there as a service as their pricing model was basically the same as paying full retail price for a rental title.

EA Access is probably the best example of games as a subscription service, and I'm not sure any other publisher outside of maybe Nintendo or Activision have the breadth of a back catalogue necessary to be able to offer such a service without getting other publishers involved (and likely hugely reducing profits or raising subscription fee costs to cover licencing from others).

A Netflix of videogames would undoubtedly be huge for customers, but it seems MS and Sonys efforts to do this are by offering "free" games that you 'own' but only if you are a member at the right time, rather than a larger catalogue of titles that you explicitly 'rent' on an all-you-can-eat tariff

 

[Stilton Disco]

I mean, this is where your comparison falls flat; yes, consoles are dedicated gaming machines, and PCs self-evidently aren't.
If there were vast amounts of console purchasers who were buying consoles solely for their multimedia capabilities and who have now transitioned to a Chromecast or an AppleTV then the comparison makes more sense, but I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

It would also seem obvious that a device with declining sales that is still selling upwards of 300 million units a year has a much larger safety net of potential customers than a dedicated gaming device that would consider itself lucky to sell an order of magnitude less than that.

Missing my point a bit. I know multi use PC's are different to a dedicated gaming console, and yes, the numbers involved aren't comparable, but that doesn't mean the 2 aren't facing the same problems and that you can't draw parallels to see why neither is going to suffer an irrecoverable collapse.

Ultimately both markets are finding themselves suddenly competing with emergent technology and shifting consumer needs and desires, be that businesses switching to tablets or casual players being satisfied with their smartphones.

That doesn't mean there's no profit to be made, and no market to sell to. Put PC gaming to one side, and instead go with my personal experience with work PC's.

I'm a biochemist, I basically analyse food for pesticides all day, and need some pretty bloody specialised hardware and software to do so. As my labs workload has expanded over the years, we've had to get more high end pc's and employ more specialist software developers. Conversely, my brother, a civil servant, has seen his department ditch their old, cheap desktops for tablets and smartphones, because they work just as well and are more convenient.

My work spends more on specialist PC stuff, his less. There's about as much money to make, but a smaller consumer base to make it from. But that consumer base wants more and better specialist merchandise than ever, so whoever can provide actually ends up better off.

The same can be applied to the console industry. Maybe the kind of people who did primarily buy for multimedia stuff are gone, maybe the casual audience that are happy enough with angry birds aren't coming back, but if there are more of the more niche enthusiasts buying, and spending more, then the lower numbers don't matter.

I'm not saying it will happen, or that it won't leave some in the console business unable to adapt (looking at you Nintendo and MS), but even if we see a decline in hardware sales this gen, there's no reason to fear for the ongoing sustainability of that market. Or, for that matter, see areas of it experience significant growth and increased profitability.

 

[pixellated_man]

Selling 1 million copies of a title at $60 that had a production budget of $1 million is a vastly different proposition to selling 1 million copies of a title at $60 that had a production budget of $100 million in terms of a market being healthy and lucrative.

Good point. Forgot that rather important detail! I think maybe the console industry needs a crash like that of the early 80's. A better and more sustainable console / dedicated gaming industry could emerge from that, who knows.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Missing my point a bit. I know multi use PC's are different to a dedicated gaming console, and yes, the numbers involved aren't comparable, but that doesn't mean the 2 aren't facing the same problems and that you can't draw parallels to see why neither is going to suffer an irrecoverable collapse.

I mean, fundamentally the difference is that there will always be a market for PC games as long as there is a market for PCs at all (and there is something of a chicken and egg scenario here, as games are made on PCs, so as long as games are being made anywhere there is a market for PCs).
For certain "light" PC usage tasks, the PC is completely redundant in a post-smartphone world - email, facebook, web browsing, powerpoint presentations.
But for certain tasks a PC is - and barring cataclysmic technological upheaval always will be - an absolute necessity; large scale databases and data entry, programming, animation, modelling, simulations.

The same can't be said about consoles to anything like the same extent; consoles are inherently dedicated gaming devices, and as such have a market ceiling of people who want to purchase a device whose raison d'etre is to play games.

To see a future where consoles are indispensable is to see a future where no other alternative purchase that also happens to play games is 'good enough', and where 'good enough' is a line drawn at the high end enthusiast level of "whatever power level the console manufacturer has dictated" (because the PC will always exist for genuine high end enthusiasts) and a line drawn at the bottom end of "whatever power level my phone / tablet is capable of".

Consoles inhabit this weird middle ground of Goldilocks style "just right" on price to performance, but in a world where the "too weak" level below them rises every year, and the "too expensive" level above them falls every year.

 

[shinra-bansho]

EA Access is probably the best example of games as a subscription service, and I'm not sure any other publisher outside of maybe Nintendo or Activision have the breadth of a back catalogue necessary to be able to offer such a service without getting other publishers involved (and likely hugely reducing profits or raising subscription fee costs to cover licencing from others).

A Netflix of videogames would undoubtedly be huge for customers, but it seems MS and Sonys efforts to do this are by offering "free" games that you 'own' but only if you are a member at the right time, rather than a larger catalogue of titles that you explicitly 'rent' on an all-you-can-eat tariff

Do consumers in this market care about gaming back-catalogues in the same way that Netflix subscribers do about old films and television shows? I'm sure some do, probably more so on a dedicated forum like this.

But if things like for instance the growth of the used game market, front loading of game sales, rapid price collapse post-launch and response to really old titles being offered on those "free" game services is anything to go by the consumer craves newness. Games are still largely treated as a disposable form of entertainment, whereas you can syndicate some TV shows forever.

I think for games as a service to execute successfully, the key isn't in having a broad back-catalogue of old titles; it's having sufficient breadth of regular new releases to justify a subscription model. EA, Activision and Nintendo may have the development output to justify this alone, but I'm not entirely convinced as yet that there won't be a need for an intermediary platform holder be it Valve, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Google, Apple or whatever, to tie together a variety of publishers' outputs into creating a compelling offering.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Do consumers in this market care about gaming back-catalogues in the same way that Netflix subscribers do about old films and television shows? I'm sure some do, probably more so on a dedicated forum like this.

I would say that the 'core' audience values a back catalogue much less than the 'non-core' do actually. When I'm talking about a "netflix of games", I'm talking about a service aimed at the audience being lost to mobile, not as a retention aid to those already heavily invested in the console ecosystem.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Netflixs success isn't solely to cinephiles wishing to revisit experiences they have already had, but more to people who now have a large selection of titles available to them at a compelling price to value proposition, and thanks to Netflixs discovery options the opportunity to experience new things they might otherwise have overlooked or never been aware of.

If a similar service existed as a cross-platform subscription service, or if someone like Microsoft or Google or Amazon made such a service available on their own platforms, then paying $10 a month or whatever to access a huge selection of titles, and to be directed towards additional titles you would enjoy based on your preferences would be a highly successful service - even to 'core' gamers who would otherwise be dismissive of older titles.

 

[RexNovis]

Since it didn't chart I find myself exceedingly curious how much Sunset Overdrive managed to sell in October NPD. Have those numbers been hinted at or released yet? If so could someone send them my way either by way of reply or PM if it needs to be kept on the downlow. Much obliged.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'd agree that Netflix owes much of its success to attracting a broad audience with a large selection. But I still think across both core and non-core audiences that games are not treated in the same way as film (or music or books for that matter) are as an entertainment medium.

[For the purpose of this discussion, I'm going to separate the people we're talking about into "gamephiles," I guess the gaming equivalent to cinephiles, the "core" I guess as defined by the likes of NPD, the 13-15 year old majority male audience that fuels the AAA industry, and the "non-core" the market that fueled the expansion and whose exit has led to contraction.]

For gamephiles the back catalogues may actually be the primary subscription driver.

With regards to the core audience, while I can see having a substantial back-catalogue as a value add, perhaps order winning for competing services; it would still require a breadth of recent/new titles to actually present a viable service at all. And I don't know if any single publisher can sustain such an output.

And for the broader gaming demos - the "non-core", those being lost to mobile platforms - I don't really see what in their back-catalogue's would necessarily entice them into this sort of model. I think they still crave new content as much as the other segments. And not just any content, but content that caters to their specific needs of accessible convenient gameplay.

(Although I suppose I'd concede that discovery of old, but unplayed, could be considered new content to a degree.)

The problem with a subscription-based model aimed at trying to entice these people back is that they already have a bucketload of free or inexpensive content at their fingertips. And again, it's content that better meets their needs than the GoG selection, or old Crash Bandicoot games, or Grim Fandango. Does a mother of two that's playing a tower defense game on her commute to work need a $10 a month game service subscription?

 

[AniHawk]

I thought Microsoft had tried (and failed) to develop a service model with GFWL.

well that is really different from what i'm thinking. instead of asking people who never paid more than the price of admission to pay more to keep playing games, it would be asking people who already are part of a subscription process to give up a physical medium. the way in would be instantly familiar - a box and a controller, but it could also be spread around easier, sort of a reverse process for what's going on with valve and the steam machine.

I don't think the next PlayStation will be entirely traditional. PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now look to be forays into different routes of delivery and moves against the threat of smart devices. If the industry does move towards owned channels in terms of digital delivery with things like EA Access, I do wonder how well the different publishers will coordinate if at all.

the way playstation now functions needs to improve massively, but i agree. it is definitely a big step for sony as well. really, i feel that in ten years the industry will resemble the 80s with everyone trying their own distribution method as their own platform, with a couple different winners establishing themselves from the old norm of hardware manufacturers, valve perhaps leading the pack.

EDIT (originally to avoid double post, but too slow so whatever):On this point, do publishers actually not think that the broader audiences are an attractive and lucrative market, or do they simply not think that dedicated consoles are the appropriate method of reaching this lucrative and attractive market? EA's been making forays into mobile with things like Tapped Out, ActiBlizz has Hearthstone, Ubisoft grew its mobile revenues by like 200% H1/H1.

The gaming market is bigger than ever, but it's also heterogeneous in consumer preferences and needs. Perhaps it's pessimistic of me, but I'm just not as confident that in lieu of the blockbuster model focused on core titles, funding more projects at smaller cost towards attempting to broaden the reach of the traditional market would actually be particularly fruitful, at least when these boxes are $400 a piece.

and really that is just a failure of the model. or at least the failure of last gen. $600 and $400 platforms are not sustainable for the people they cut off. even now the ps3 and 360 are over $250. that should not happen when they're eight and nine years old. at least you see the 360 and even the wii still performing well with the family friendly market, particularly with lego games, skylanders, just dance, and disney infinity. the competition on those platforms was so completely lopsided that it excluded a ton of traditional gamers to the point that they sought content elsewhere (handhelds, steam, and to an extent, mobile).

 

[rambis]

Well, some people believe that losing ~100 million gamers between last gen and this gen doesn't matter because they weren't the right sort of gamer, this will be an 8 year gen and Japans just waiting for the right DQ / Musou / Dating Sim to appear before buying 30 million PS4s.

Um when did we lose 100 million gamers?

 

[Ty4on]

Um when did we lose 100 million gamers?

People are expecting PS3+360 sales so almost all of the Wii audience was lost.

Edit: I should clarify I don't expect those numbers, but I often see someone optimistically saying they will sell like their predecessors which would lead to a big decline. I doubt either console will live as long as the PS3 and 360.

 

[sörine]

Um when did we lose 100 million gamers?

Last gen saw nearly 500 million hardware sales between 360, PS3, Wii, PSP and DS. I don't think this generation is going to manage even close to half that. Maybe about a third if we're lucky.

Now, each platform sale doesn't mean a discrete gamer each but such a massive decline has to mean significant numbers of gamers lost on dedicated devices. And likely lost to convergence devices (computers, phones, tablets, browsers) given the rapid growth of gamer demographics there.

 

[Game Guru]

Do consumers in this market care about gaming back-catalogues in the same way that Netflix subscribers do about old films and television shows? I'm sure some do, probably more so on a dedicated forum like this.

But if things like for instance the growth of the used game market, front loading of game sales, rapid price collapse post-launch and response to really old titles being offered on those "free" game services is anything to go by the consumer craves newness. Games are still largely treated as a disposable form of entertainment, whereas you can syndicate some TV shows forever.

I think for games as a service to execute successfully, the key isn't in having a broad back-catalogue of old titles; it's having sufficient breadth of regular new releases to justify a subscription model. EA, Activision and Nintendo may have the development output to justify this alone, but I'm not entirely convinced as yet that there won't be a need for an intermediary platform holder be it Valve, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon, Google, Apple or whatever, to tie together a variety of publishers' outputs into creating a compelling offering.

I do think that it depends on the particular game if people want to go back to it. There is a reason why Nintendo is generally unaffected by the used game market, front loaded sales, and rapid price collapse trends that plague gaming at the moment. Games as a medium has only gotten more disposable over time. However, this trend is what will doom subscription services that aren't tied to online multiplayer. After all, what is the point of making new releases available in a timely manner on say a $60/month service when people are buying tons of $60 games every month. No, a service like EA Access exists to try to compete with the used game market. EA Access is meant to get people who originally bought their games used and thus gave EA no money to subscribe to the service and thus give EA money for access to older content they might have otherwise bought used. The front loaded sales and rapid price collapse trends exist in console gaming because of the used game market and the fact that most games are a one-and-done affair.

 

[rambis]

Last gen saw nearly 500 million hardware sales between 360, PS3, Wii, PSP and DS. I don't think this generation is going to manage even close to half that. Maybe about a third if we're lucky.

Now, each platform sale doesn't mean a discrete gamer each but such a massive decline has to mean significant numbers of gamers lost on dedicated devices. And likely lost to convergence devices (computers, phones, tablets, browsers) given the rapid growth of gamer demographics there.

Oh you include handhelds. Makes more sense.

Even then though, its still very possible that the PS4 and XB1 see growth over their predecessors. Nintendo, who has actively segmented themselves from the rest of the market maybe decline but when they have had shoddy at best third party support for almost a decade now, how big of a loss is that? Will the studios and publishers who neglected to ship on the Wiis/DS' of the world really take any losses from those platforms contracting?


There's a very odd narrative being painted around this situation. Don't see too much cause for concern yet.

 

[StevieP]

Oh you include handhelds. Makes more sense.

Even then though, its still very possible that the PS4 and XB1 see growth over their predecessors. Nintendo, who has actively segmented themselves from the rest of the market maybe decline but when they have had shoddy at best third party support for almost a decade now, how big of a loss is that? Will the studios and publishers who neglected to ship on the Wiis/DS' of the world really take any losses from those platforms contracting?


There's a very odd narrative being painted around this situation. Don't see too much cause for concern yet.

Just because they weren't the types of games you liked, doesn't mean a lot of people didn't make a lot of money on the Wii. It was calculated by sales-agers here months ago that approximately 2/3 of the 900 million pieces of software sold on wii were third party. Dismissing a large chunk of the gaming population going missing on traditional markets as an "I've got mine jack" statement ignores not only the reality of the traditional market contraction but actively dismisses the fact that without new blood the pie will continue to shrink.

I don't even think the ps4 will hit PS3 numbers when all is said and done (shorter generation, more core/young male-focused and front loaded). The other 2 won't even come close to their previous generation totals. Handhelds aren't healthy either.

 

[rambis]

Just because they weren't the types of games you liked, doesn't mean a lot of people didn't make a lot of money on the Wii. It was calculated by sales-agers here months ago that approximately 2/3 of the 900 million pieces of software sold on wii were third party. Dismissing a large chunk of the gaming population going missing on traditional markets as an "I've got mine jack" statement ignores not only the reality of the traditional market contraction but actively dismisses the fact that without new blood the pie will continue to shrink.

I don't even think the ps4 will hit PS3 numbers when all is said and done (shorter generation, more core/young male-focused and front loaded). The other 2 won't even come close to their previous generation totals. Handhelds aren't healthy either.

The vast majority of the third party titles Wii received were shovel ware. And I've rarely heard of any of those games being fruitful outside a small handfuls. Has nothing to do with games I like. Raw numbers mean nothing if there's no profit.

When developers stopped wholesale shipping mainline big titles on Nintendo platforms you knew that the opportunity cost had all but vanished.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

With regards to the core audience, while I can see having a substantial back-catalogue as a value add, perhaps order winning for competing services; it would still require a breadth of recent/new titles to actually present a viable service at all. And I don't know if any single publisher can sustain such an output.

Well, no, but just as Netflix might fully supplant going to the cinema or buying DVDs / BluRays for some, there are others who still go to the cinema and buy special edition BluRays on top of their Netflix subscription, in the same way I would envisage ludophiles would continue to purchase their $60 AAA experiences on top of their games-as-service subscription (and we only need to look at EA Access, PSN+ and Live Gold for evidence that people would do this).

Additionally, let's not forget that Netflix (and Amazon) commission new programming in addition to providing back catalogues from others; such a subscription based service could be the answer to the collapse of the mid-tier market, because while a traditional console gamer might balk at paying $60 for an online only multiplayer game, or at a 4 hour long singleplayer adventure, receiving such a title as part of a subscription package would only be perceived as a value-add.

Even then though, its still very possible that the PS4 and XB1 see growth over their predecessors.

"Very possible" is overselling that I think.
I mean, possible, sure. Just as it's possible the WiiU is the best selling console WW this holiday.

It's just not particularly likely based on any current evidence.

Will the studios and publishers who neglected to ship on the Wiis/DS' of the world really take any losses from those platforms contracting?

Yes, publishers who sold millions of units of software on those platforms are not super happy that they will not be able to do so any more.
I mean, really? Why would they be?

There's a very odd narrative being painted around this situation.

THIS I agree with, but am certain not in the way you mean.

 

[Ty4on]

The vast majority of the third party titles Wii received were shovel ware. And I've rarely heard of any of those games being fruitful outside a small handfuls. Has nothing to do with games I like. Raw numbers mean nothing if there's no profit.

I don't have the exact numbers, but worldwide the Wii managed ~900 million software sales and ~50% of them were from third party games. It had some big third party titles like Just Dance and Skylanders.

 

[rambis]

Well, no, but just as Netflix might fully supplant going to the cinema or buying DVDs / BluRays for some, there are others who still go to the cinema and buy special edition BluRays on top of their Netflix subscription, in the same way I would envisage ludophiles would continue to purchase their $60 AAA experiences on top of their games-as-service subscription (and we only need to look at EA Access, PSN+ and Live Gold for evidence that people would do this).

Additionally, let's not forget that Netflix (and Amazon) commission new programming in addition to providing back catalogues from others; such a subscription based service could be the answer to the collapse of the mid-tier market, because while a traditional console gamer might balk at paying $60 for an online only multiplayer game, or at a 4 hour long singleplayer adventure, receiving such a title as part of a subscription package would only be perceived as a value-add.



"Very possible" is overselling that I think.
I mean, possible, sure. Just as it's possible the WiiU is the best selling console WW this holiday.

It's just not particularly likely based on any current evidence.



Yes, publishers who sold millions of units of software on those platforms are not super happy that they will not be able to do so any more.
I mean, really? Why would they be?



THIS I agree with, but am certain not in the way you mean.

Eh both consoles currently outperforming their predecessor is evidence to support that these platforms may see growth. This great recession that every body keeps predict in hasn't happened yet.

And shipping titles on a platform does not mean that there is any profit being made. If anything, the sweeping decision to stop supporting the Wii points to a lack of profit and opportunity cost for the platform.

 

[ZSaberLink]

I wouldn't be so sure about this future... Consoles and handhelds may be losing ground to PC and mobile at the moment, but there are issues that PC and mobile have or could that could drive people back to consoles and handhelds. PC gaming is dependent on Microsoft's goodwill which is something Microsoft could easily threaten. The whole Steam Machine project exists because Valve is naturally worried that MS is going to try to use their pocketbook to adversely affect PC gaming. As for mobile, success there is completely dependent on exploitative practices and seem driven by the luck of the draw. In addition, Nintendo who is the dominant handheld company has yet to make a handheld in response to mobile as a competitor. A console generation is a long time and I can see the greed of some PC and mobile developers causing the pendulum to swing back, but consoles and handhelds will need to integrate some advantages that PC and mobile have currently if they are to have a future.

MS wouldn't ever follow through with that imo. Their ultimate goal for the PC case is sales of Windows thus far, and if gaming is a big draw to get people spend money on Windows, they won't go and impede. Valve was just being risk-averse and hedging.

 

[Badlucktroll]

Is Sony gonna get a big Ps2 sized stranglehold on this generation?

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Eh both consoles currently outperforming their predecessor is evidence to support that these platforms may see growth. This great recession that every body keeps predict in hasn't happened yet.

And shipping titles on a platform does not mean that there is any profit being made. If anything, the sweeping decision to stop supporting the Wii points to a lack of profit and opportunity cost for the platform.

 

[AstuteClass]

Is Sony gonna get a big Ps2 sized stranglehold on this generation?

All depends on the NPD result next month. If practically giving the X1 away isn't enough to stop Sony's advance, and MS only wins Nov by something like 100k, or even more shockingly the PS4 somehow wins...

Well, I predict a lot of Xbox fans will view that news as a sort of "Execute Order 66" moment because I personally cannot see where the X1 can go from there. It's had a good line-up this latter half of the year as well as insane price-cuts, but it won't even have that until later next year because all that goes away until then.

But on top of that, Sony is finally getting their games and right away from the start of the year, as well as their own price-drop ace-card up their sleeve.

 

[Ty4on]

Eh both consoles currently outperforming their predecessor is evidence to support that these platforms may see growth. This great recession that every body keeps predict in hasn't happened yet.

The 360 had a very poor launch thanks to supply constraints, but after that it sold 3.9 million its first year (2006). The XB1 is at >1.8 million 2014 YTD so it needs 2 million this holiday to match the 360.

When looking at numbers from 06 and 07 in a vacuum it is easy to forget the PS2 was still selling well and often outperformed the 360. I don't see why these consoles should take off when the market is in poor shape.

 

[Mory Dunz]

Wii U Smash won't get combined with 3DS Smash in press releases right?

So we can know how much it individualyl sells too? In addition to total sales. I think they'll keep it separate, since Smash should do well.

 

[rambis]

The 360 had a very poor launch thanks to supply constraints, but sold 3.9 million its first year. The XB1 is at >1.8 million so it needs 2 million this holiday to match the 360.

When looking at numbers from 06 and 07 in a vacuum it is easy to forget the PS2 was still selling well and often outperformed the 360. I don't see why these consoles should take off when the market is in poor shape.

With the way Microsoft has been prone to overship I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Still Xbox 1 has sold at a faster clip than 360 at a higher launch price than 360 and a higher price than its competition. And it's yet to have a killer app from MS. I think it'll be fine once they can really lower the price and steadily provide games.

And then there's PS4.

 

[ZSaberLink]

The 360 had a very poor launch thanks to supply constraints, but sold 3.9 million its first year. The XB1 is at >1.8 million so it needs 2 million this holiday to match the 360.

When looking at numbers from 06 and 07 in a vacuum it is easy to forget the PS2 was still selling well and often outperformed the 360. I don't see why these consoles should take off when the market is in poor shape.

From Aqua: "360's LTD after 12 months was 2.89 million". What timeframe are you using for the 360 and XB1? Are you just talking about the calendar year?

 

[Ty4on]

From Aqua: "360's LTD after 12 months was 2.89 million". What timeframe are you using for the 360 and XB1? Are you just talking about the calendar year?

Sorry for that. I meant first full year so 2006 YTD.

Edit: I can see how it looks like I meant launch was included.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Not sure if posted already but also from Aqua, we have January 2010 [first month] sales of Bayonetta 1 in the US for the 360 and PS3

[360] 102k
[PS3] 64k

So looks like Bayo 2 performed better than Bayo 1 on the PS3 at least, still not good numbers by any means though

 

[Game Guru]

MS wouldn't ever follow through with that imo. Their ultimate goal for the PC case is sales of Windows thus far, and if gaming is a big draw to get people spend money on Windows, they won't go and impede. Valve was just being risk-averse and hedging.

MS would certainly impede on others if it meant they could make more money for themselves. I mean, just look at MS's history concerning internet browsers for proof. Just last year, they initially thought the future for gaming was online-only DRM and forced Kinect integration which was a dumb idea that badly hurt their initial impression.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Not sure if posted already but also from Aqua, we have January 2010 [first month] sales of Bayonetta 1 in the US for the 360 and PS3

[360] 102k
[PS3] 64k

So looks like Bayo 2 performed better than Bayo 1 on the PS3 at least, still not good numbers by any means though

Against the PS3 was the fact Bayonetta PS3 was outright broken, but For the PS3 was the bigger installbase and proven audience for character action games (Heavenly Sword, DMC, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, GoW, et al) so... I don't know if Bayonetta 2 beat estimates or not.

 

[Trust me. I'm a PhD]

Against the PS3 was the fact Bayonetta PS3 was outright broken, but For the PS3 was the bigger installbase and proven audience for character action games (Heavenly Sword, DMC, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, GoW, et al) so... I don't know if Bayonetta 2 beat estimates or not.

The 64K was for US, so it's install base was much smaller than 360, especially in 2010. Unless you mean smaller than WiiU?