Support NeoGAF

[KevinCow]

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.

I don't think you understand the point of this thread. The worry isn't about how much talent or how many sales there are. It's about games being ridiculously expensive to make. If a game isn't a runaway success these days, the developers may not even make the costs of their game back. And when that happens... well, we've already seen a number of developers shut their doors thanks to one or two games that sold below expectations.

A jump to the next gen would mean even higher costs, and an even greater risk of failure.

 

[legend166]

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.

Well then can you offer another explanation as to why this gen we've seen higher revenues but much lower profits pretty much across the board?

 

[civilstrife]

The writing has been on the wall for a while now, and the companies that foresaw this inevitability stand the best chance to survive and even benefit from it.

Nintendo, Valve and Blizzard, I'm looking at you.

 

[Yagharek]

Can't we just stick with these systems for a while? Please? I'd hate to think that this gen is already halfway over. That would suck. Feels like it's barely even started to me.

Agreed.

I think instead of moving too soon to the next round of hardware, maybe they should focus on getting as much as possible out of this current lot. Wii has shown flat out that market success is not dependant on visual fidelity. 360 has shown with NXE that the features of a system can actually be fundamentally reworked via software updates. Both MS and Nintendo have a means or a reason not to move on just yet, or anytime soon.

Sony probably would do well out of this, because I doubt they want to move on from PS3 anytime soon, and if it keeps selling decent numbers then it will still have a large userbase that wants to buy software. There is absolutely no reason why these 3 machines should not be viable for at least another 3-4 years, hopefully more.

Granted, they probably will be superceded by 2011, but I just hope that none of them get prematurely dropped like the first xbox was.

 

[anandxxx]

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.

Jesus, what a depressing sentiment.


You know what already does a pretty amazing job of replicating real life??

REAL LIFE.

 

[RurouniZel]

I think it'd be smarter if new systems didn't come out for another 10 years.

But that won't happen.

Jesus, what a depressing sentiment.


You know what already does a pretty amazing job of replicating real life??

REAL LIFE.

This needs quoting.

 

[Yagharek]

I think it'd be smarter if new systems didn't come out for another 10 years.

It would certainly be interesting, and not a bad thing.

I know it might be a tired cliche, so I want to make it clear I am not trolling here, but the fact Wii is succesful and does not have visuals much removed from those capable of 8 year old machines really goes to show how good art, good game design and an emphasis on enjoyable gameplay are timeless. That is not to belittle the immersion of games on PS3/360/PC, but it is to say that good gameplay is independant of hardware muscle.
This is made even more evident by extremely enjoyable games coming out such as Let's Tap, Bit/Trip Beat and a large portion of XBLA/PSN games like N+, Pixeljunk and so on.

Really - I am tiring of artificial console cycles. I want to see every possible gameplay idea and gameplay trick and concept eeked out of the systems we have before moving onto the next. As far as I am concerned, even PS2s life was cut short by the new-gen transition. The potential for PS2 to be a profitable platform for many devs into the future should have been a dead certainty.

I hope one of this gen's machines manages to outlast the PS2 lifespan.

 

[codecow]

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.

Actually Valve has also been working on new multicore technology for quite a long time.

In my opinion (as a developer) the Wii is not something I am interested in. In fact, if not for my wife I wouldn't even own one.

 

[yurinka]

I think like in every new gen, the first 2 or 3 years or so everyone is struggled. In the current gen both Sony and Microsoft now are starting to show good numbers, and the developers are starting to be experienced and to have good engines.

Let's say, games like Uncharted 2, or Resident Evil 5 would have a lot more expensive 2 years ago. I supouse the huge investment in previous projects that used their engines helped them to have a "smaller" budgets. In the case of RE5 is 2000 million of yen (like $20 million).

 

[RurouniZel]

In my opinion (as a developer) the Wii is not something I am interested in. In fact, if not for my wife I wouldn't even own one.

While I can understand this sentiment (I too am an artist and love working with the best tools available), I would think that especially in this hard economy, it'd be worth making a couple of sacrifices to keep costs down and profits up. I got very sad when I read about EA cutting 1,000 jobs, and Microsoft cutting their Flight Simulator studio.

I don't want any other hard working videogame developers to suffer the same fate, and you're no exception to this (whoever you are). ^^

The Wii is incredibly successful, it's not hard to develop for and keeps costs down, it can churn out some really pretty games (Metroid Prime 3, Mario Galaxy, Zak and Wiki for example), and there's a greater userbase of people who want/need more games. I just don't understand why a developer wouldn't want to take advantage of this. I am an artist too (albeit not a great one), but there's something to be said about the idea that just because there are better tools out there doesn't mean you have to use them to create a great piece. Most people would argue that oil paints allow you to capture the most detail and color depth, but there are several water color painting that are equally beautiful in my opinion. It's just a different type of beauty.

/2 cents

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

The next-generation will most likely be a "HD refinement generation", same resolutions (720p, 1080p) with better image quality.

And MS and Sony won't completely drop their traditional audiences/games and just build a Wii, they will do what they always do: Take bits and pieces from what the competition is doing, and come up with their on take on it. (i.e. NXE)

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Jesus, what a depressing sentiment.


You know what already does a pretty amazing job of replicating real life??

REAL LIFE.

Ditto graphics are referred to the ART-STYLE for a reason. Ugh how I'd loathe if all games went the route of Beowolf's craptacular CG fest.

 

[AColdDay]

I remember nerding out one day and reading a transcript of a Nintendo investor meeting that Iwata had with either the media or the board of directors (It was hard to determine). Anyways, whoever he is speaking to, they ask him a barrage of questions, which have little to do with the software side of things, but more so the business side of things. He talked about the theory of constraints and how Nintendo adher to it. For non-business majors, the Theory of Constraints was introduced in Eli Goldratt's landmark business novel "The Goal".

What is The Goal? "The Goal of any company is to make money." This sounds simple, but its a much deeper corporate strategy that requires all or almost all components of a business sound be profit producing. In the book this was illustrated by a manufacturing plant obsessed with cost accounting, which bought huge quantities of parts at a discount. This lowered the cost per part, but the company wasn't selling enough machines for it to matter.

That is part of a "Push" strategy, where you try to dictate what the market wants. The american auto industry has used a Push strategy for years, overmanufactering far past what the market needed. The opposite is Pull strategy, where you let the market dictate how much and what you want and produce to that. You try to have nothing left over or "zero inventory", and that is probably why Wiis have been constantly under supplied.

Anyways, the Xbox and Playstation were dreamed up by overzealous marketing executives. Any accountant worth his CPA would look at the break-even point of these machines and cringe. Third Party publishers should of recognized the statistical unlikelihood of profit in this climate. Watching the competition crush you in profitability, coupled with the collapse of acclaimed publishers and studios makes me believe that the next generational transition will be completely different and that the HD twins will follow Nintendo's lead in making consoles that can flourish being something else besides a "loss leader".

I hope that this is the case, because this happened wayyyy back in the auto industry, when a Japanese vehicle was synonymous with shoddy quality. Toyota's Taichi Ohno developed the Pull strategy, and American automakers have been left in the dust because of stubbornness, ego or both. I think we are through, at least for the next decade, with what Sony exemplifies this generation: extremely expensive consoles and towering dev costs.

I believe that in the end, more lessons will be learned from Sony's failure than Nintendo's success.

 

[codecow]

I just don't understand why a developer wouldn't want to take advantage of this.

What's wrong with the Atari 2600 then or being less obviously stupid the Gamecube or original PS2? There's tons of PS2s out there. You can make a great game on the PS2. So why not PS2? Everyone already has tools and tech for PS2...

It's because you can do a lot more with more memory, nice graphics hardware, 720 or 1080p (more information to the user).

Wii does have it's niche for sure. It got mom to pretend to bowl in the living room. To me that is not gaming.

I want to be fragging people in the best looking scenery possible, that's what I like. So giving me a NGC on steroids is not super exciting when I have a shiny PS3 or Xbox 360 sitting on my desk.

 

[AColdDay]

What's wrong with the Atari 2600 then or being less obviously stupid the Gamecube or original PS2? There's tons of PS2s out there. You can make a great game on the PS2. So why not PS2? Everyone already has tools and tech for PS2...

It's because you can do a lot more with more memory, nice graphics hardware, 720 or 1080p (more information to the user).

Wii does have it's niche for sure. It got mom to pretend to bowl in the living room. To me that is not gaming.

I want to be fragging people in the best looking scenery possible, that's what I like. So giving me a NGC on steroids is not super exciting when I have a shiny PS3 or Xbox 360 sitting on my desk.

You miss the fact that a lot of companies still DO develop for the PS2. Wii's audience niche? You've got to be kidding me on that, the audience for it covers the entire spectrum from the guy who has it along with his Xbox 360 and PS3 ALONG with the moms pretending to bowl in the living room.

Also, you don't get to determine what "gaming" is. What people buy determine what "gaming" is.

 

[~Kinggi~]

Media focuses on the lay-offs and closures too much.

Almost all of the studios out there are hiring. And many new studios have been established over the past 2 years.

As someone looking to get into the industry, i hope you are right. Being unemployed trying to follow a long time goal of mine in this economy is depressing as fuck.

 

[Shockgamer]

Jesus, what a depressing sentiment.


You know what already does a pretty amazing job of replicating real life??

REAL LIFE.

In which you've fought World War 2, no doubt. Or repelled an alien invasion. Or became a pro-wrestler, football star and guitar player at the same time. Or rescued the princess from the evil fire breathing monster, or street raced through Los Angeles, or, or, or...

Visual reality is the end game, deal with it or stick with the cartoons and anime games.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I remember nerding out one day and reading a transcript of a Nintendo investor meeting that Iwata had with either the media or the board of directors (It was hard to determine). Anyways, whoever he is speaking to, they ask him a barrage of questions, which have little to do with the software side of things, but more so the business side of things. He talked about the theory of constraints and how Nintendo adher to it. For non-business majors, the Theory of Constraints was introduced in Eli Goldratt's landmark business novel "The Goal".

What is The Goal? "The Goal of any company is to make money." This sounds simple, but its a much deeper corporate strategy that requires all or almost all components of a business sound be profit producing. In the book this was illustrated by a manufacturing plant obsessed with cost accounting, which bought huge quantities of parts at a discount. This lowered the cost per part, but the company wasn't selling enough machines for it to matter.

That is part of a "Push" strategy, where you try to dictate what the market wants. The american auto industry has used a Push strategy for years, overmanufactering far past what the market needed. The opposite is Pull strategy, where you let the market dictate how much and what you want and produce to that. You try to have nothing left over or "zero inventory", and that is probably why Wiis have been constantly under supplied.

Anyways, the Xbox and Playstation were dreamed up by overzealous marketing executives. Any accountant worth his CPA would look at the break-even point of these machines and cringe. Third Party publishers should of recognized the statistical unlikelihood of profit in this climate. Watching the competition crush you in profitability, coupled with the collapse of acclaimed publishers and studios makes me believe that the next generational transition will be completely different and that the HD twins will follow Nintendo's lead in making consoles that can flourish being something else besides a "loss leader".

I hope that this is the case, because this happened wayyyy back in the auto industry, when a Japanese vehicle was synonymous with shoddy quality. Toyota's Taichi Ohno developed the Pull strategy, and American automakers have been left in the dust because of stubbornness, ego or both. I think we are through, at least for the next decade, with what Sony exemplifies this generation: extremely expensive consoles and towering dev costs.

I believe that in the end, more lessons will be learned from Sony's failure than Nintendo's success.

Excellent post.

What's wrong with the Atari 2600 then or being less obviously stupid the Gamecube or original PS2? There's tons of PS2s out there. You can make a great game on the PS2. So why not PS2? Everyone already has tools and tech for PS2...

It's because you can do a lot more with more memory, nice graphics hardware, 720 or 1080p (more information to the user).

Wii does have it's niche for sure. It got mom to pretend to bowl in the living room. To me that is not gaming.

I want to be fragging people in the best looking scenery possible, that's what I like. So giving me a NGC on steroids is not super exciting when I have a shiny PS3 or Xbox 360 sitting on my desk.

Not entirely true developers go where the market goes. Even if the PS2 had a bigger audience during the 360's first year the 360 was no doubt seen as "the future" at that time and anyone who didn't jump on board early was in for a lost. This is probably why Capcom, Ubisoft, and Activision have such a strong foot in HD consoles because they were there since the beginning.

Not to mention that there are still a fair share of games being...what what the fuck did you just say that the Wii was a "niche audience"? :|

In which you've fought World War 2, no doubt. Or repelled an alien invasion. Or became a pro-wrestler, football star and guitar player at the same time. Or rescued the princess from the evil fire breathing monster, or street raced through Los Angeles, or, or, or...

Visual reality is the end game, deal with it or stick with the cartoons and anime games.

The point completely flew over your head.

 

[Shockgamer]

The point completely flew over your head.

If you don't want to play games that look like real life, then don't play them. But don't give me this garbage about videogames having to be abstracted and artsy because you don't like realistic looking games. Don't tell me that "real life is just outside, hurrrrrrrr," because nobody plays videogames to go to school, pencil push at work, and pay bills.

Wait, I have a better idea, how about I wait for the person to whom I was replying to respond instead of you? Yeah, that sounds good.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

I think like in every new gen, the first 2 or 3 years or so everyone is struggled. In the current gen both Sony and Microsoft now are starting to show good numbers, and the developers are starting to be experienced and to have good engines.

Let's say, games like Uncharted 2, or Resident Evil 5 would have a lot more expensive 2 years ago. I supouse the huge investment in previous projects that used their engines helped them to have a "smaller" budgets. In the case of RE5 is 2000 million of yen (like $20 million).

If you look at publisher's financial statements there is no drop off in cost over a generation. If there is savings from reusing engines, etc., then those are swallowed up by needing to provide better art assets for the tweaked engines.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

If you don't want to play games that look like real life, then don't play them. But don't give me this garbage about videogames having to be abstracted and artsy because you don't like realistic looking games. Don't tell me that "real life is just outside, hurrrrrrrr," because nobody plays videogames to go to school, pencil push at work, and pay bills.

Wait, I have a better idea, how about I wait for the person I was actually speaking to respond instead of you? Yeah, that sounds good.

When did I ever say "realistic looking" can't be artistic?

 

[camineet]

Those of you that are sure next-gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will follow in Nintendo's footsteps with a Wii-like strategy, do you believe that graphics will improve at all ?

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

To be truthfully honest, I am really concerned for next generation for many reasons. I really think that the companies should hold their next generation consoles back until you can release them at a reasonable price for consumers and make sure the development costs aren't devastatingly high. Even if it means no new consoles until 2013 or 2014, so be it. If people still can tolerate Wii/PS2 graphics after all of these years, I don't think there will be many complaints having to look at PS3/X360 graphics for several more years. Obviously, they must find a way to make development more cost efficient because the current strategy is failing miserably.

This generation still has plenty of life to it, so imo there is no reason to rush these consoles out. I don't want a slightly faster PS3 or X360, I and probably many others want a true generational jump that pushes the envelop and makes the previous generation look antiquated in comparison. If you are coming out with slightly faster consoles with a slightly enhanced specifications, then why not just stick with the current generation then which will eventually drop in development cost and have a higher userbase? Also, if they have to add motion controls, make it optional. Not everyone wants to get up from the sofa and practice actual kung fu or karate just to play Tekken 7.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Those of you that are sure next-gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will follow in Nintendo's footsteps with a Wii-like strategy, do you believe that graphics will improve at all ?

Sure there will be improvements, but I'd rather see the next generation be a refinement of what's available this generation. Let's get it all running at 60fps with no tearing. Let's get it running at 720p or 1080p, and drop this 576p upscaled stuff we've been seeing.

Of course, that's not what we'll see. We'll get the bump in processing power, but instead of using it to make games run smoother and steadier, it will be used to add more polygons to Snake's mustache.

 

[Shockgamer]

When did I ever say "realistic looking" can't be artistic?

Uh, when did I say you did? Look, I'm not going to argue over nitpicks and split hairs.

The general arguements a person can make against better graphics/realism are:

1. "Videogames should be abstracted and surreal instead of vying for realism."

That's for the studio to decide and the consumer to support or dismiss. Cartoony, abstracted games exist alongside realistic games now and it's not going to change in the future, no matter how much more powerful consoles and computers become.

2. "If you want reality so bad, then go outside."

If real life were as interesting as videogames, then nobody would be playing them. Videogames allow the player to experience scenarios and situations impractical or impossible in real life. Should I really have to explain that on a video game message board?

3. "Think of the developers and publishers! Studios will shut down or merge if graphics keep moving forward!"

The strong will prevail, the weak will fail. Studios who can survive putting out games of such graphical quality will survive and prosper, while those who cant will either reign in their graphics, move onto platforms with less risk, or put out a game they can't make their money back on and shut down. There have never been more venues to put out games, so it's hard to have sympathy for studios who overreach themselves and pay for it.

Regardless, costs will drop, new developing tools will come out, technology will continue to advance and the graphical abilities available to a studio will continue to improve. If there is a message to be taken from this generation in regards to graphics, it would be that we were given too much, too soon and at too high a price, not that there isn't more to achieve.

4. "Well I liked gaming best when I was playing X console, X generation with X style of graphics. It should remain that way forever!"

That's nice. I'm sure there are plenty of people who loved silent films, black and white and standard definition as well. Just accept that besides throwbacks that purposefully use nostalgia as a selling point, your preferences are largely outdated.

Those of you that are sure next-gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will follow in Nintendo's footsteps with a Wii-like strategy, do you believe that graphics will improve at all ?

They'll be able to run Crysis. I don't know how much better they'll be than that.

 

[AColdDay]

Those of you that are sure next-gen consoles from Sony and Microsoft will follow in Nintendo's footsteps with a Wii-like strategy, do you believe that graphics will improve at all ?

I believe that marginal improvements will be made in graphical technology, but we will see vastly different methods of input. Frankly, I would bet that the jump in graphics would be the leap from Gamecube to Wii (Greater than it gets credit for, but not a complete revolution) and that the big 3 will implement tools that will allow for less costly development. In all honesty, I don't know how you can make these beautiful HD games any cheaper to produce. My business acumen greatly surpasses my programming knowledge, but perhaps the big 3 could develop a broad, very customizable vanilla engine and license it out on the cheap to third parties to encourage development.

That being said, I don't know if this generation's visual eye-poppers are completely tapped out yet. I'm convinced that this will be a longer generation than usual and we will see more and more wringed out of the current consoles before it is all said and done.

 

[duk]

Not in the next 3 years, no. Doesn't make sense to developers who are making less money now in general.

 

[AColdDay]

Well, not all developers will put out epic eye candy. However, what you can play on a high-end PC is more impressive than anything on the 360/PS3 front. I would have never of thought that some of the things I have seen this generation would ever be anything more than a teenage boy's dream.

If your assumption is that a lot of developers (even most) will curtail the amount they spend to create unseen beauty in the graphics department, I would agree. Will this stop developers who ARE seeing success, though? Some developers like Epic have found success and will continue to push visual boundaries.

 

[camineet]

I don't want a slightly faster PS3 or X360, I and probably many others want a true generational jump that pushes the envelop and makes the previous generation look antiquated in comparison. If you are coming out with slightly faster consoles with a slightly enhanced specifications, then why not just stick with the current generation then which will eventually drop in development cost and have a higher userbase?

Right on, very much agreed.

 

[JoeMartin]

The problem with the hardware advances is that the uncanny valley effect is only going to get exponentially worse unless you have the people and resources to mocap and animate to such a ridiculous extent that AAA games will be such an expensive endeavor that only a few handful of teams can pull it off.

I'm not so interested in seeing hardware just put up bigger numbers as I am seeing it make the developers live's easier. Easier development = less capital required, less time needed, more focus put into game quality, not to mention more frequent releases.

Hardware specs need to first and foremost be developer friendly, not a marketing bullet point.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

There is a lot to be said for this gen lasting longer than normal. It will be a while before next gen systems can be made that both are a sufficient upgrade on the current ones and can be launched at a price that has any chance of leading to an eventual install base that could support the kinds of games that could be made for them.

One question is whether Sony and MS could use extra time to turn around their consoles financially. Are there any examples of consoles that lost a lot of money for their first two years but then managed to turn things around?

A lot of this will have to do with how their sales trend in the next few years. Can they keep up their sales at this level? Seems that a pretty big price cut was needed by MS just to keep sales at basically the same level as last year. Both Sony and MS had worse financial results this holiday season than last year. How long do they want to keep that up.

Then there is next gen to consider. The longer the Wii dominates in sales the more likely 3rd parties will bit the bullet and migrate. That will mean 3rd party mindshare will be theirs to lose for next gen. Also I think that if Sony and MS somehow let Nintendo launch first, they will have a very hard time competing.

All of this could be disrupted by some kind of new approach, of course.

 

[AColdDay]

There is a lot to be said for this gen lasting longer than normal. It will be a while before next gen systems can be made that both are a sufficient upgrade on the current ones and can be launched at a price that has any chance of leading to an eventual install base that could support the kinds of games that could be made for them.

One question is whether Sony and MS could use extra time to turn around their consoles financially. Are there any examples of consoles that lost a lot of money for their first two years but then managed to turn things around?

A lot of this will have to do with how their sales trend in the next few years. Can they keep up their sales at this level? Seems that a pretty big price cut was needed by MS just to keep sales at basically the same level as last year. Both Sony and MS had worse financial results this holiday season than last year. How long do they want to keep that up.

Then there is next gen to consider. The longer the Wii dominates in sales the more likely 3rd parties will bit the bullet and migrate. That will mean 3rd party mindshare will be theirs to lose for next gen. Also I think that if Sony and MS somehow let Nintendo launch first, they will have a very hard time competing.

All of this could be disrupted by some kind of new approach, of course.

I believe that someone is going to mimic Nintendo. I don't mean copy the Wii remote, but instead, try out something that is truly disruptive. It is incredibly difficult to be disruptive without alienating someone. Nintendo originally attempted to appease everyone with games that relied heavily on motion control, some games that didn't require it at all (Classic Controller support) and many that coupled the two. However, for every step forward you make by making the cost of entry easier, you lose ground by having to make multiple control options. Otherwise, you WILL alienate someone.

I think Sony will come out with some weird hybrid controller and Microsoft will more closely ape Nintendo while bringing new things to the table to one-up them. I would wager that Nintendo will actually change the least, as the concept of the Wii remote as well as the Wii name are too valuable to them right now. I think they will continue to refine their experience rather than reinvent it.

Regardless, Sony and Microsoft are doomed to repeat their current performance if they don't learn to cater to the wider audience. All the motion control in the world doesn't make a difference if the game is too complicated for the average girlfriend.

 

[Guled]

of course, but the middle budget games will most likely be restricted to downloadable titles. A blockbuster movie budget is 4 times bigger then a AAA game budget, the big games will still be made.

 

[AColdDay]

of course, but the middle budget games will most likely be restricted to downloadable titles. A blockbuster movie budget is 4 times bigger then a AAA game budget, the big games will still be made.

Downloadable? I don't think that the majority of publishers see that as a viable revenue stream yet. Of course, I'm thinking that you are meaning Xbox Live, PSN or WiiWare titles and correct me if I am wrong. I'm sure that we probably have different definitions of what "middle budget" games are.

 

[Guled]

Downloadable? I don't think that the majority of publishers see that as a viable revenue stream yet. Of course, I'm thinking that you are meaning Xbox Live, PSN or WiiWare titles and correct me if I am wrong. I'm sure that we probably have different definitions of what "middle budget" games are.

I'm sure next gen it will be a lot more viable. By middle budget I'm talking about games like Disgaea and Valkyria Chronicles, games that don't have AAA budgets.

 

[legend166]

What's wrong with the Atari 2600 then or being less obviously stupid the Gamecube or original PS2? There's tons of PS2s out there. You can make a great game on the PS2. So why not PS2? Everyone already has tools and tech for PS2...

It's because you can do a lot more with more memory, nice graphics hardware, 720 or 1080p (more information to the user).

Wii does have it's niche for sure. It got mom to pretend to bowl in the living room. To me that is not gaming.

I want to be fragging people in the best looking scenery possible, that's what I like. So giving me a NGC on steroids is not super exciting when I have a shiny PS3 or Xbox 360 sitting on my desk.

Remind me to never buy anything you've made.

Question for you though, why aren't you making PC games?

 

[AColdDay]

I'm sure next gen it will be a lot more viable. By middle budget I'm talking about games like Disgaea and Valkyria Chronicles, games that don't have AAA budgets.

Imagine me saying this in a nice voice, because it may come off sounding snarky which is not my intention:

Do you know how much those games cost?

I say this, because even I would think that No More Heroes, (while a great Wii action game) would be considered a financial lightweight relative to HD costs average. For my example, let's assume it would be a common definition for "Middle Budget". That said, the viability of downloadable games is so narrow that you would essentially throttle any chance of making a profit from even that game. Our vision is blurred because we are the most enthusiastic about gaming and take the time to scour the internet for this stuff. To clarify, look at the whole population of people who own Xbox 360s.

Now sample from that all the people who have an internet connection. Now sample from that all the people who use Xbox Live. Now sample from that all the people who buy things from the marketplace. Now sample from that the people who would be actually be interested in No More Heroes. Now sample from that the SMALL PERCENTAGE of those people who actually buy it.

Did this financial lightweight even break even? Did it break 500k at $40 a pop? Many corporate execs look at this the exact same way and probably feel the same way I do. I don't think digital distribution will be commercially viable until it is the standard. That will be the only way to pry the masses (which is the consumer market you need even at this range) away from physical media.

 

[Gotchaye]

A few points:

First, I agree with several others that the next generation is going to look much more like the Wii than like the PS3. There's going to be a mainstream console with dev costs that are on the order of the PS3's. So companies that can handle this generation can handle next generation.

Second, it's a mistake to look at software companies and conclude that the dev costs for HD games are unsustainable. It's a losing proposition this generation, but that's only partly due to the increased costs associated with HD development. The larger problem is that half of the market doesn't have HD consoles (and the HD consoles are still losing ground). If everyone with a Wii had a 360 or PS3 instead, third parties wouldn't be having much trouble. Technology marches on, and we're very nearly to the point where a company could launch an HD-capable machine at the Wii's price point. Even if (when) costs increase slightly next generation, the market for HD games will be much larger.

Third, I don't really see why this generation is going to last longer than past generations have. It's clear that a lot of people who are saying that it'll last a while are arguing from the fact that the 360 and PS3 were relatively advanced for their time, while they expect the next set of consoles to be relatively 'backward'. This is misguided. The 360 and the PS3 are not the proper benchmarks for this generation. The Wii is, and the Wii isn't capable of nearly as much. It seems likely that Wii owners will be ready for a new generation more quickly than PS2/PS1/N64 owners were, especially if the new generation represents a leap in motion control capabilities (which is expected since the stuff in the Wii is first generation).

 

[Hwang Seong-Gyeong]

I hate when people bring NXE as some sort of example of 360's "expanding and evolving".

It got a new interface and some gimped Miis? Who gives a flying fuck, the hardware is already showing it's age.

All next-gen games have very small levels compare to PC exclusive games, MGS4/Halo3/COD4 all sub HD. In 2 years PS3/360 are going to look so dated it's not even funny.

I do agree we need our sequels, and software before starting next-gen but don't pretend PS3/360 are NASA computers, when they are hardly on a par with a current low end PC. It's not like developers even have create new assets, if you could add more high end effects that we see in Crysis, they alone would make games look much better.

 

[nyong]

Not anytime in the near future. No.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Microsoft decides to pull the trigger early, they'll pay for it. I can't picture many development studios transitioning into a new system without going bankrupt in the process.

I tend to believe that the industry model is broken, so no matter when we see this generational transition, unless something substantial changes in the ways games are developed we are not going to see a focus on graphics the next time around. More likely cheaper, safer, downloadable titles. With the big flashy stuff coming less frequently from in-house development studios...

 

[lowlylowlycook]

A few points:


Second, it's a mistake to look at software companies and conclude that the dev costs for HD games are unsustainable. It's a losing proposition this generation, but that's only partly due to the increased costs associated with HD development. The larger problem is that half of the market doesn't have HD consoles (and the HD consoles are still losing ground). If everyone with a Wii had a 360 or PS3 instead, third parties wouldn't be having much trouble. Technology marches on, and we're very nearly to the point where a company could launch an HD-capable machine at the Wii's price point. Even if (when) costs increase slightly next generation, the market for HD games will be much larger.

This might be true in the West but in Japan it's hard to see an install base big enough for HD games (excepting games with crossover appeal, obviously).

 

[Hcoregamer00]

I'm sure next gen it will be a lot more viable. By middle budget I'm talking about games like Disgaea and Valkyria Chronicles, games that don't have AAA budgets.

That is a HUGE disparity.

In the Strategy RPG subgenre one is the equivalent to a game with a AAA budget, while the other doesn't.

I understand your point, but your example of lumping Disgaea and Valkyria Chronicles in the "non AAA budget category" is the wrong example.

 

[PolyGone]

I don't see a need to introduce new consoles for another 4-5 years. The only reason to go sooner would be if Sony isn't happy with their standing in the industry or Nintendo decides to go HD in 2011. I wish console generations would last a solid 8-10 years.

 

[Peronthious]

I hate when people bring NXE as some sort of example of 360's "expanding and evolving".

It got a new interface and some gimped Miis? Who gives a flying fuck, the hardware is already showing it's age.

All next-gen games have very small levels compare to PC exclusive games, MGS4/Halo3/COD4 all sub HD. In 2 years PS3/360 are going to look so dated it's not even funny.

I do agree we need our sequels, and software before starting next-gen but don't pretend PS3/360 are NASA computers, when they are hardly on a par with a current low end PC. It's not like developers even have create new assets, if you could add more high end effects that we see in Crysis, they alone would make games look much better.

Who gives a flying fuck about the NXE? I could say the same thing for the dated hardware. Granted MS cannot possibly pitch the 360 to the Wii crowd, but there certainly are people who give a flying fuck about the redesign. Netflix alone is a massive selling point, and that coupled with more of a push on the digital streaming side could give MS the edge over the PS3 as the all around media system. My dad in particular only has a passing interest in games, but when he found out the 360 could stream Netflix and other media from the computer he hopped right on board. There are plenty of others like him, and that's who MS is trying to market the 360 to outside of the hardcore. The only problem now is the perceived difficulty in streaming things to the 360, and the fact that most people have no idea that there's a video marketplace on there. That was one of the big problems with the Blades interface; most of the functionality was hidden behind a bunch of menus, with a lot of the key features almost unknown unless you knew where to look. I don't see any huge generational changes coming over the next few years from any of the big three as much as more leverage on the multimedia functionality on both systems.

 

[anandxxx]

In which you've fought World War 2, no doubt. Or repelled an alien invasion. Or became a pro-wrestler, football star and guitar player at the same time. Or rescued the princess from the evil fire breathing monster, or street raced through Los Angeles, or, or, or...

Visual reality is the end game, deal with it or stick with the cartoons and anime games.

You know, people can enjoy whatever they want. It just personally saddens me that nearly the entire (HD) industry seems to be converging on the same point of photorealism. A seedier, wetter version of reality. I mean, is every game just going to look the same in the future? Where's the imagination? Where's the sense of wonder? Games are capable of being so much more, truly transformative experiences that let you live in a world beyond your imagination and bend the laws of reality as you know them. Can you imagine an industry in which every developer aimed for the intriguing, mind-bending gameplay of a Mario Galaxy and a Portal instead of settling for yet another trip to fucking Normandy? In which artists strived to turn their games into unique, living pieces of art like Okami, Odin Sphere, or Madworld, instead of cranking the bloom level to 120% and calling it a day?

GTA lets me walk around in a big city. That's kind of neat, I guess. Crackdown, on the other hand, lets me bound over building in a single jump. INFINITELY BETTER.

And by the way, sonny, I WAS in World War II.


Not really.

 

[ghst]

the next generation of consoles will likely equate to the current "crysis boxes" doing the rounds. if that.

 

[Cheesemeister]

Now sample from that all the people who have an internet connection. Now sample from that all the people who use Xbox Live. Now sample from that all the people who buy things from the marketplace. Now sample from that the people who would be actually be interested in No More Heroes. Now sample from that the SMALL PERCENTAGE of those people who actually buy it.

Did this financial lightweight even break even? Did it break 500k at $40 a pop? Many corporate execs look at this the exact same way and probably feel the same way I do. I don't think digital distribution will be commercially viable until it is the standard. That will be the only way to pry the masses (which is the consumer market you need even at this range) away from physical media.

Next generation, I still think you're going to see physical media be the primary format due to customer familiarity with discs and retailer demands for a physical product to re-sell. However, I'd imagine that the console manufacturers will be working to drive a much greater share of game sales to be downloads, including full games at lower-than-retail prices. Why?

There will be greater broadband penetration in the living room, so there'll be a larger potential audience, for one. Having no physical product means that the production costs associated with pressing discs, printing manuals/covers, making cases, and shipping to market will all be reduced to the cost of maintaining servers to transmit the purchased game data. Perhaps more importantly, cutting out the middleman in many of the transactions by taking direct credit card payments will further increase profit margins. Prepaid cards will of course still be available for retailers to get a cut, but this marketshare will gradually be reduced to kids w/o credit cards and people who insist on physical copies. That market segment should still be substantial enough to keep retailers invested in carrying the hardware. Finally, selling a greater proportion of games as downloads will of course eliminate a good chunk of copies from entering the second-hand market, where publishers see zero revenue.

I understand your point, but your example of lumping Disgaea and Valkyria Chronicles in the "non AAA budget category" is the wrong example.

 

[theBishop]

Since the "Nintendo is the One Console Future" crowd can't comprehend the concept, I recommend the official GAF term be changed. I'm open to recommendations.

 

[careful]

Does the term gaming industry not include PC gaming anymore?
Because to the best of my knowledge, PC devs have been dealing with "generational transitions" with every new generation of video cards (~ every 12 months).
A lot of these console developers used to be PC developers, so I really don't think it'll be much of an issue to keep doing everything in HD, which they've been doing on PC for years now. The rest of the console-only developers really need to get their tech caught up to PC tech circa 2000.

All these studios closings are a result of two things:
- Economic crisis (main one)
- Normal cutbacks at this stage of the consoles lifecycle (read The Economist article or listen to the Gamers with Jobs bit)

 

[camineet]

I don't see a need to introduce new consoles for another 4-5 years. The only reason to go sooner would be if Sony isn't happy with their standing in the industry or Nintendo decides to go HD in 2011. I wish console generations would last a solid 8-10 years.

4-5 years? Oh there will be new consoles within 4 or 5 years, I'd imagine that all 3 players will have launched their new consoles within 5 years. It's the next 2 years (meaning exactly 24 months) that we won't see a new console. That takes us to Feb 2011. I think there's a good chance we'll see one new console by fall 2011, and I think it's absolutely guaranteed that we'll see at least one console by fall 2012.