Classic_Gs
Member
I agree that next-gen will not be as big of leap hardwise as we are use to becuase the cost in making that type of machine is just to high.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Can the gaming industry handle another generational transition??
- Thread starter anandxxx
- Start date
Tallshortman
Member
We're getting to the point with consoles where we'll have one of the biggest flaws of PC gaming (although some may perceive this as a strength) unless something big changes. One reason most people don't play all the super modern PC games in all high graphical detail is because new hardware, namely graphics cards, is being released almost every 2 months or so.
In order to survive the next gen, the hardware makers will need to produce cheaper consoles without as massive a focus on a jump in graphics since diminishing returns in this category is already taking place.
I doubt the market is going to support another Wii anytime soon because those casual players who make up the bulk of the purchasers won't be too excited for a similar machine with better graphics.
In order to survive the next gen, the hardware makers will need to produce cheaper consoles without as massive a focus on a jump in graphics since diminishing returns in this category is already taking place.
I doubt the market is going to support another Wii anytime soon because those casual players who make up the bulk of the purchasers won't be too excited for a similar machine with better graphics.
Yeah, it's pretty apparent to me that next gen probably won't be a huge leap. The higher-ups have definitely taken notice of the Wii strategy, that the market-at-large doesn't necessarily need cutting-edge tech. And more importantly, third parties will be very reticent to jump into a new costly dev cycle when the current one has not yielded a sizable profit for them overall.
The problem with this is that Wii will also come out with a successor around this time also employing similar "previous-gen" tech to those, as it that tech will have come down to an acceptable price for Nintendo at that point, and Wii will be looking increasingly long in the tooth as HD adoption increases.
So the end result of this all is that you'll have 3 consoles on the market that are largely indiscernable from one another.
When we had a situation like that last gen (PS2/XB/GC), one was the runaway winner and the others mostly fought for the scraps. Will the market support another gen where one console gets the lions' share of the support like that? It's sketchy, especially if the odd one out is Sony once again.
The PC gaming market will also probably gain back a lot of clout as a result of this, as the consoles won't be able to deliver any incredibly WOW results with their dated tech, while the PC will.
My prediction will be that in the gen following that (2 gens from now), the market will be split into a more evenly segmented field of 2 choices: Another lower-tech machine from Nintendo to appeal to the casual consumer, and a higher-end console co-developed by a consortium (MS, Sony, and others) that appeals to the hardcore and attempts to capture back the afforementioned PC market defectors. Both of these machines will do very well and cohabitate much more peacefully than machines in previous gens have, as their roles are clearly obvious and distinct from one another.
The problem with this is that Wii will also come out with a successor around this time also employing similar "previous-gen" tech to those, as it that tech will have come down to an acceptable price for Nintendo at that point, and Wii will be looking increasingly long in the tooth as HD adoption increases.
So the end result of this all is that you'll have 3 consoles on the market that are largely indiscernable from one another.
When we had a situation like that last gen (PS2/XB/GC), one was the runaway winner and the others mostly fought for the scraps. Will the market support another gen where one console gets the lions' share of the support like that? It's sketchy, especially if the odd one out is Sony once again.
The PC gaming market will also probably gain back a lot of clout as a result of this, as the consoles won't be able to deliver any incredibly WOW results with their dated tech, while the PC will.
My prediction will be that in the gen following that (2 gens from now), the market will be split into a more evenly segmented field of 2 choices: Another lower-tech machine from Nintendo to appeal to the casual consumer, and a higher-end console co-developed by a consortium (MS, Sony, and others) that appeals to the hardcore and attempts to capture back the afforementioned PC market defectors. Both of these machines will do very well and cohabitate much more peacefully than machines in previous gens have, as their roles are clearly obvious and distinct from one another.
You know, I want to toss something out there. You realize the only way for a one console future would be for Nintendo to be the one console maker, right? I think they have enough money to continue running the way they are now, not sell anything, for about 30 years. Unless you are holding out till the 2030's for the one console future.
Shig said:
This isn't how it works. Nintendo's machine would capture the casuals and some core, then everyone in the consortium would wonder, "Why the hell aren't we selling our game on that system when it has just as many owners (if not more)? Why are we limiting our market so dramatically?" Targeting only one segment of the game-buying populace is a losing proposition; targeting everyone, as Nintendo has done, is the only truly viable method for creating a one-console-like future.
Besides, Nintendo wouldn't allow them to keep all the high-end toys to themselves. That's not how disruption works.
No matter how well Nintendo does, they can't out-stubborn MS. Neither is going anywhere unless one loses marketshare to the other 95%-5% or something ridiculous. And even then I'm not so sure on MS' part... We're talking about a company that's still supporting the Zune, here.Drkirby said:
The market is split between the casual side and the HD side. MS and Sony are splitting the HD market. I think MS will have a hard time appealing to the casual side since they don't have a history of franchises like Nintendo does. This won't stop them from trying, but unless they have a ton of exclusive pop-cap games, they will fail. I think execs know this and will be perfectly happy dominating the HD market (if they can again release earlier than Sony, they may have a chance to capture nearly the whole market), which right now is nearly as large as the Wii. Considering how much the industry has grown year to year, I think they would be perfectly happy with a system that does as well as the Wii or Wii HD and they can live in peace.
MightyHedgehog
Member
Yeah, the industry will 'handle' another generation transition, but I wonder just how many publishers will be left for the next generation. In the last twenty years, we've gone from hundreds to dozens (to, perhaps, less than ten by start of next one) of publishers that devs can go to. DD is starting to become the only affordable way to get in unless your project (or your outfit) is picked up by one of the few (mega)publishers left. It's difficult, at the moment, to see where the money is going to come from given the current and short-term outlook for credit. Thankfully, as long as there is money to be made, their will always be others who will jump in to bring titles to market. Problem is, these newcomers are just big shots from other industries who seem even more mercenary than the existing collection.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
I just want one console future.
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Sega
Team up and make the ultimate console!
Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo/Sega
Team up and make the ultimate console!
This generation is what is going to bring back everything into check. What happened to PCs will happen to consoles. We've seen with PCs how the hardware and software just evolved too fast, and the price of entry was just far too high for most people. These last few years, it was brought in check greatly. I think we'll see the exact same happen with consoles by making this gen last longer than last.
Oh, and development costs definitely go down as the gen moves forward. Developer experience is raised, there are better tools, some companies don't need to develop engines from scratch anymore. I don't think there will be a problem.
As for the generational transition, it depends heavily on one thing: whether or not the hardware manufacturers keep the same architecture. They should aim for the same hardware, but with faster speeds. Make it so that games are 100% backwards compatible with your new hardware (without the need to include old hardware). This has the advantage that any game can be easily ported from one system to the other, and developers don't need to re-learn everything, and don't need new tools/engines to work with the new systems.
Oh, and development costs definitely go down as the gen moves forward. Developer experience is raised, there are better tools, some companies don't need to develop engines from scratch anymore. I don't think there will be a problem.
As for the generational transition, it depends heavily on one thing: whether or not the hardware manufacturers keep the same architecture. They should aim for the same hardware, but with faster speeds. Make it so that games are 100% backwards compatible with your new hardware (without the need to include old hardware). This has the advantage that any game can be easily ported from one system to the other, and developers don't need to re-learn everything, and don't need new tools/engines to work with the new systems.
Well, they're targeting everyone now, they have that appeal now, yet the NPD top 10s contain plenty of non-Wii games.Vinci said:
And why are you assuming the consortium would keep publishers exclusive to one platform or the other? Consortiums are usually primarily comprised of hardware manufacturers, publishers don't necessarily have to go so far as swearing absolute fealty to have ties (Warner published Blu-rays even while they were under contract with the HD-DVD group, for example).
It's how it works until it proves itself wrong. Unless Nintendo's plan to produce hardware at a profit goes very wrong, they're not going to go the other direction entirely.
The route that makes most sense to me is going the Nintendo route. Not in the whole grand scheme of things but the idea that using a GC dev kit and developing for the Wii does work. I think next gen Xbox and PS will have very similar hardware to what they are using now but incremental increases in power. This creates a familiarity for the developers and will continue the trend of pushing costs down on the developer side of things.
While it isn't the best way to get more efficient developing. it does alleviate quite a bit of the headache that comes with all new hardware. I think with the implementation of multicore CPU's and a single dedicated GPU will be the standard. This way expansion is actually quite easy just adding more threads and slightly higher clocks.
I'm also in the camp that this generation will go a bit longer. With the investment Sony and MS had in their consoles and the success Nintendo had none of them really want to make a move in haste. Things like new firmware and service upgrades (NXE ect ect) allow them to create new experiences and features without a whole new console. This hasn't been available in previous generations.
haven't heard that before. Lets just leave the millions of gamers that buy SMG. Oh yeah that just happens to be the best looking Wii game yet.
While it isn't the best way to get more efficient developing. it does alleviate quite a bit of the headache that comes with all new hardware. I think with the implementation of multicore CPU's and a single dedicated GPU will be the standard. This way expansion is actually quite easy just adding more threads and slightly higher clocks.
I'm also in the camp that this generation will go a bit longer. With the investment Sony and MS had in their consoles and the success Nintendo had none of them really want to make a move in haste. Things like new firmware and service upgrades (NXE ect ect) allow them to create new experiences and features without a whole new console. This hasn't been available in previous generations.
Log4Girlz said:
haven't heard that before. Lets just leave the millions of gamers that buy SMG. Oh yeah that just happens to be the best looking Wii game yet.
It sure can...and it is quite possible that games for next gen won't cost much more than they do now. Especially if it sounds like Sony is making the PS4 a PS3++ system, it will make an easy transition.
Also, please don't recommend portable gaming as a substitute for console gaming. We already have a console in portable form, the PSP. I would rather play my console games at home in my POWER HUNGRY HDTV (which I had professionally calibrated to be energy efficient) and 5.1 system than a tiny screen.
Also, please don't recommend portable gaming as a substitute for console gaming. We already have a console in portable form, the PSP. I would rather play my console games at home in my POWER HUNGRY HDTV (which I had professionally calibrated to be energy efficient) and 5.1 system than a tiny screen.
Tallshortman
Member
Shig said:
That stubbornness is also why they have falling from that near-invincible perch they once held as a monopoly wielding corporate giant. They have already been forced to refocus on more profitable businesses, hence the cuts to the Entertainment division. The same applies to Sony this generation but their wallets are hurting so they are actually making changes. Trust me, no matter how stubborn a company is, they can't fight the power of money.
Davey Cakes
Member
To be honest, I think the safest way to go would be to stop moving ahead in defined, generational intervals. The gaming industry needs flexibility.
The Bookerman
Member
Segata Sanshiro said:
Because some companies fear risk. It's easier to play it safe and release a sequel to an established franchise than release a new franchise.
charlequin
Banned
Another hardware generation will happen, and it won't be that much longer (but it will be a little longer) from the start of this one than normal.
It is true, though, that dev costs for good-looking HD games now are already unsustainable. If the industry doesn't look into some changes, things aren't going to look pretty for developers over the next few years....
It is true, though, that dev costs for good-looking HD games now are already unsustainable. If the industry doesn't look into some changes, things aren't going to look pretty for developers over the next few years....
If next-gen can deliver visual quality that looks like pre-rendered CG (instead of just an evolutionary improvement on what we have now) and if a new control interface can be developed that's truly revolutionary (much more so than Wii), and if the price of new high-end hardware can be kept to $299 (for basic SKU) and $399 (for bells & wistles SKU), with lots of inovative games that use the new hardware, then yes, the industry can handle another generational transistion. I think it won't happen until 2012-2013 though. Certainly not within the next year to 18 months.
dacuk
Member
-PXG- said:THIS x 100000000000000
Just look at the PS3. Not every developer has the support and budget to produce a game like Killzone 2. If it were possible to maintain high performance, but simplify the hardware, it would take less time and effort to write and optimize code, which in turn, would reduce development costs.
We really don't "need" more powerful hardware. Developers just need hardware that is easier to use, so they can get more out of it, without needing a massive budget, large staff or a long stretch of time for production. Of course, more memory would be nice.....
There are insane amounts of truth in this post.
lowlylowlycook
Member
shaft said:
One of these companies doesn't need the other 3.
camineet said:
If next-gen can deliver the visuals you're talking about, the development costs would be so high that the increase in sales would not cover their losses. Companies need to focus on incremental or backwards compatible upgrades, instead of going back to the drawing board for every console.
Back in the SNES days, people didn't seem to mind paying upwars of $70 USD for their games. Then the PS came out with the $40 games and everything asploded. It was the first time I owned more than 8 games for a system... I ended up owning 30+ It was a huge jump and even though we're spending more and more on each game with each generation, we're still not spending as much as we did when we were in elementary school.
gutter_trash
Banned
I hope the transition doesn't happen until 2014.
Damn the 1st party who prematurely sets it off
Damn the 1st party who prematurely sets it off
TheExodu5 said:
The same could've been said about the PS2/GCN/Xbox generation and the Xbox360/PS3 gen, before the consoles of those generations were revealed or even their specs known of. If we went back to the mid-late 90s and I told everyone what the next-gen consoles would do, they'd say the consoles would be far too expensive to manufacture, and it would be too expensive to make games for them. And if we were to go back to 2001-2002 and I told you what 360/PS3 would do, you'd say the same thing.
Keep in mind, I am not talking about feature-film movie quality visuals, but more like what you see in PS2/Xbox game intros.
That was pretty much exactly what I said when the 360 first came out. I felt like I was being dragged into the next generation when I didn't want to go and was already overloaded with a current gen--at the time--backlog. I knew it meant that I wouldn't get to enjoy my current systems for much more than another year unless I shelled out several hundred more dollars for the new ones. It was too soon and last gen was cut short.gutter_trash said:
I remember being so pissed at MS for doing that to us for their own personal gain. And then I got pissed at Sony for expecting people to pay $600 for their entry fee... I just felt like the gamers were being forgotten in a fog of profit margins and marketshare. It probably explains why I only had a Wii until late summer 2008.
I've only read the OP, but it sounds like all the problems being mentioned are answered with the Wii. The whole thing is built for lower budget gaming. But third parties are too inept to see that they could probably make a helluva lot more money on the Wii instead of their next $20 million dollar 360/PS3 game.
This whole thing makes me so mad. I feel like the industry is going to suffer. Only a few companies actually get it. Valve and Nintendo come to mind immediately. There's a reason Valve hasn't release another Source engine. Yet there's Epic boasting they've been working on the Unreal 4 engine for, like, years or something.
This whole thing makes me so mad. I feel like the industry is going to suffer. Only a few companies actually get it. Valve and Nintendo come to mind immediately. There's a reason Valve hasn't release another Source engine. Yet there's Epic boasting they've been working on the Unreal 4 engine for, like, years or something.
I believe starting this year, we'll see a huge shift of third party development efforts moving over to Wii, because
1.) 2+ years being on the market has created a massive userbase that rivals that of the combined 360/PS3 and will very soon surpass it.
2.) terrible economic conditions will make huge 360/PS3 titles with massive budgets less common. I'd look toward more XBLA, PSN, Wii, Wii Ware games, DS and PS2 games. Developers are lucky they have a range of low-end options for games at this point in time.
1.) 2+ years being on the market has created a massive userbase that rivals that of the combined 360/PS3 and will very soon surpass it.
2.) terrible economic conditions will make huge 360/PS3 titles with massive budgets less common. I'd look toward more XBLA, PSN, Wii, Wii Ware games, DS and PS2 games. Developers are lucky they have a range of low-end options for games at this point in time.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Ranger X said:
well.... that's pretty damn depressing to me.
I still remember seeing the NES (Castlevania, to be exact) for the first time after a few years of the Atari 2600 and thinking it couldn't get much better. Likewise with the SNES... then PS1... etc.
Graphics might not make a game fun, but I'll be damned if they don't get me fired up when I see talented programmers/artists do amazing things with new, advanced hardware.
TheJollyCorner said:well.... that's pretty damn depressing to me.
I still remember seeing the NES (Castlevania, to be exact) for the first time after a few years of the Atari 2600 and thinking it couldn't get much better. Likewise with the SNES... then PS1... etc.
Graphics might not make a game fun, but I'll be damned if they don't get me fired up when I see talented programmers/artists do amazing things with new, advanced hardware.
Imagine how you'll feel when the innovations come from HOW you play! The Wii remote is just the beginning, man. Motion control is the future, whether you like it or not--and if you hate "waggle," don't worry, developers will get it someday. The IR sensor is actually the biggest innovation of the Wii--at least as big as a control stick! A traditional pad will stagnate the market if it's the only thing used forever, and eventually graphics will hit a point where people can't distinguish between better or worse anyway.
This might sound awful to some, but I can't wait for a console to come where the way you play is so different from how we play now that you can't help but be blown away, just like you were when you played your SNES or PS1 games for the first time.
Also, you speak of talented artists and programmers doing amazing things on new advanced and advanced hardware. Art doesn't have to be on the cutting edge. Madworld proves this.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Whatever ends up happening, it is clear that the current way of doing things is murder.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
charlequin said:
Very true. I really don't think people understand how much work developers have to put into the 3D models they make today. Hell Snake's mustache in MGS4 has as many polygons as an enemy in MGS3. And let's not forget as 3D gets more detailed animation becomes far harder and some tricks that could have been done before no longer fly (I.E. copy and pasting previous character animation to another).
I see this similar to 2D pixel art games of the last 90's and turn of the millennium. The cost was just too much.
Oh and those are just the graphics never mind the environment details, A.I., multiple modes, and all that good stuff.
Also what happened to all of the small and medium sized developers making retail games? I see VERY few on the PS3/360 they've all seemed to move on to the Wii and portables. I wonder why?
camineet said:
Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to just create the graphics for those games? Hell the time, money, and effort in that would even put King of Fighters XII to shame.
Next-generation's tech jump isn't only delayed by consumers but costs for publishers and developers as well.
camineet said:
No that isn't remotely comparable at all. The difference in animation, detail, and texture is so massive I can't even begin to explain. The difference would between something like MGS4 and a CG quality would be like Chrono Trigger vs King of Fighters XII sprites. It just isn't textures anymore, but the animation, the detail in the characters and environments, etc which all completely change once you get into that level of detail and have to be done in a completely different light. Why do you think animated features cost at a minimum of $30 million dollars to create as well as publishers stating that a couple of minutes of CG costs a couple million to produce? That's because with that level of detail it is a completely different game when animating and applying textures (think of making a cartoon using flash or toonboom vs handdraw tools and tech Disney uses). The difference is just massive and would be far bigger then any jump gaming has made and this is coming from someone who animates as a hobby and has worked with both 2D and 3D. The line has been crossed already just look at how publishers are selling more games then ever yet losing more then ever, I don't remember seeing this any previous generation.
EDIT - I am aware you aren't talking Pixar quality (hence why I used $30 million as a basis) but trust me the step from now to CG would be pretty damn big because those little details those CG scenes have over games of today go a long way.
camineet said:
I agree with this. Hell it's already starting to happen.
Son of Godzilla
Banned
They've already bitten the HD asset bullet, which I really doubt was that huge a problem in the first place. Next-gen will allow for even more procedural generation too, and they should already have the databases for it. I'm sure there already are huge databases for sale too. Add in all the advances from stuff like Euphoria I have a hard time swallowing the "Dev Costs Are Rising To The Heavens" line.
Shockgamer
Banned
Yes, yes it can. It may come later rather than sooner, and the graphical leap may not be as big, but until videogames can perfectly replicate real life, there will be room for advancement.
charlequin
Banned
Son of Godzilla said:
So even though development costs have consistently risen every generation to date by significant margins, and while advancements in toolsets increase dev cost efficiency over the course of a generation they've never lowered cost enough to actually get back down close to the range of the last generation... despite this stuff, you think that the era of the PS4 and Xbox 720 is going to just magically buck history and not require massive cost increases in order to achieve the proposed level of graphical improvement?
Dreams-Visions
Member
Industry will be fine. Have you played Crysis? There is much talent in the industry, and new generations mean fresh interest, new gamers and new sales.
The next-generation of consoles will have to go beyond Wii in control / interface and beyond Crysis in visuals, and having a better, broader online network service than current Xbox Live. While at the same time being priced at Xbox 360 2005 launch levels: $299/$399, but preferably only having one SKU for $299. Next-gen should not start before November 2011, preferably Nov 2012, and as late as Nov 2013. Next-gen has to demonstrate a generational leap over current consoles, more than an evolutionary improvement, even if not quite a revolutonary one.