HolyBaikal
Banned
Why have something always plugged into the wall by the TV?
I think having something you can pick up and take with you is a lot more fun and easy. I use my gaming laptop to play games on my TV all the time.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pachter predicts the death of the console
- Thread starter speculawyer
- Start date
I think having something you can pick up and take with you is a lot more fun and easy. I use my gaming laptop to play games on my TV all the time.
Plugging your phone into your TV is current-gen. Plugging your phone in to the wall wherever you always plug it in, and playing games from it on your TV, wirelessly, is next-gen. Also, a generation in this scenario is significantly shorter than a typical gaming console generation.
This is an actually interesting thought, but still suggests that gaming consoles as we know them will likely go away. If we start streaming everything from server farms all we'll need is mobile devices. Sure in the short term local servers are going to be the answer for PC gamers and other platforms that don't have the PlayStation Now framework already, but in the long run, a model similar to Playstation Now is even more ideal, and has a good chance of being mimicked by other massive companies.
Also, as a note, when I was previously mentioning streaming, it was more in regards to streaming a video output over Wifi from my mobile device to my television, which, with Chromecast, is already quite snappy, and will only become even more input responsive.
Another very good point. The success of VR could be a huge boon for dedicated consoles. Of course, Samsung wants you to believe you can experience VR easily with their phones, but real, immersive gaming experiences won't be able to powered by a mobile device anytime soon, and streaming technology would need to improve by a large factor to achieve acceptable latency for immersive VR.
While I don't think this will happen anytime soon due to the popularity of Nintendo's franchises being so immense that they can support their own hardware platforms with them alone: all it would take is a new Pokemon game to release on Android/iOS for $35 or $40.
Right now the mobile market is dominated by low budget games that we feel no need to pay a high price for. However we are already seeing people like Square-Enix achieving mild success by raising this bar with higher quality titles that also carry higher price points, and other companies like Capcom attempting to do so as well. They aren't failing. There's no real reason preventing high quality games from selling on mobile platforms at a higher pricepoint. There just isn't that many gaming experiences on the platform that even justify that higher price.
Once the framework is in place to really emulate the console experience with a mobile device (ie: simple connection to a TV, and solid, inexpensive bluetooth controllers), and something like Call of Duty hits for $30, with online multiplayer and leaderboards on Google Play Games and iOS Game Center, we'll see things begin to change, and it will likely be a rapid change.
HolyBaikal
Banned
I don't know about magically...
But... the internet has become a lot faster in the last 8 years..
I was referencing the whole concept that plugging your tablet or phone into your TV is the future of console games.
There is also the inherent nature of mobile games. It's a touchscreen and that's what the games are designed around, and that's what they will continue to be designed around because those are the types of games people want to play on those devices. Those are the standard controls.
Very childish claim. Not all 1080p is the same. Pixar/Industrial light and magic 1080p rendering of video is not the same as 1080p angry birds. Lighting, Soft body physics and so many things need lot of horse power and bandwidth.
Till the day a movie like Avtar can be rendered on tablet, consoles will always have better looking and playing games.
A 500 W silicon will always have more horsepower than a 15W silicon. Real time rendering will consume as much as hardware you want to throw at it. Just rendering tree on a rainy day and wind interaction could consume a full Titan.
Till the day a movie like Avtar can be rendered on tablet, consoles will always have better looking and playing games.
A 500 W silicon will always have more horsepower than a 15W silicon. Real time rendering will consume as much as hardware you want to throw at it. Just rendering tree on a rainy day and wind interaction could consume a full Titan.
The price argument is not compelling. Games have no reason to be $60. What actually gets back to the developer, the people who, you know, actually make games, is a tiny little fraction of that $60. The vast majority of it goes to pad the pockets of publishers, retailers and console manufacturers. The people who actually make the games you play on consoles get a share that is in no way proportionate to their input to the process. There's a reason publishers are worth billions while a company like
The shit he throws out publicly? Rarely, but he must be telling his actual clients good things to still have a job
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I'm curious, whats the statute of limitations on a title moving from an aesthetically pleasing title with strong art direction that regularly pops up in 'best looking game of last gen?' type threads, to shitty ugly casual eyesore that cannot be enjoyed by the CONSOLEZ4LYFE (dwindling) masses?
I mean, its obviously less than 7 years for your rebuttal to make any sense.
Could you narrow it down for me?
Or indeed just placing your phone on an NFC enabled wireless charging induction pad that automatically starts charging your device, turns on its paired controller and starts broadcasting to the TV, no wires needed.
I always doubt that because EVERYTHING'S improving too. Internet infrastructure is better? Great, so is computer hardware! And more for less! We now have phones capable of running (poorly) early last gen titles, we could well reach the point that when we get amazing streaming we ALSO have hardware able to run games more than well enough, and at such a cheap price that it's a complete non-issue. Technology needs to advance in a way where the benefits for running remotely truly outweigh it locally in a significant way. If not that, then at least a killer marketing campaign and/or MAYBE the right people being assholes about getting to run a game locally. Though if bandwidth always ends up too costly/impractical rather than a non-issue then I can see many companies NOT wanting to do this just to save money.
However, I can see streaming becoming a very significant complimentary service. It's a way for people to play games on something else when they don't have access to their main system, they can try a demo instantly rather than download it, and it may be easier to handle for them too as you can probably just put in a start point and timer that shuts down with less coding work to worry about. Then there's home streaming, where maybe stuff like the Wii U will be standard on basically any device worth a crap.
This is arguable. I think phones have indeed killed dedicated handheld gaming.
Nintendo 3DS exists because it is the only platform by which people can enjoy Pokemon and other massively popular Nintendo franchises. Nintendo's own franchises are so powerful that Nintendo can miraculously sustain an entire hardware platform on their merits. They've basically had that status since the N64, and no other company in the gaming industry can make similar claims. Nintendo is Nintendo.
As far as I know, both the 3DS and the Vita are still being produced and games are still being put out for both platforms. I don't see how that = dead.
Theognosis
Member
The console market is no doubt shrinking but VR will save it. Oculus will arouse the curiosity of the public but it will be Nintendo who will popularize virtual reality gaming when they release a very capable yet affordable wireless VR console in 2018. What they wanted to achieve with the Virtual Boy many years ago will finally become a reality. Nintendo's first-hand experience with 3D gaming on the 3DS, motion control on the Wii, HD development on the Wii U, and seamless video streaming on the gamepad will play a vital role in the success of their VR machine.
So no, dedicated consoles will never die. They will adapt to the needs of the times--and the time for VR (which no smartphone or touchpad GPU can handle and the fact that you don't need touch controls in VR) is coming.
So no, dedicated consoles will never die. They will adapt to the needs of the times--and the time for VR (which no smartphone or touchpad GPU can handle and the fact that you don't need touch controls in VR) is coming.
Miyamoto's comments regarding VR suggest Nintendo isn't going that route any time soon. If a console maker goes with VR as a standard (which is a very risky proposition) it will be MS or Sony, and if anyone has experience in that space it's obviously Sony as they have been working with Morpheus for some time and will bring a consumer head set to market this generation. They will have the development experience, the tech know how, and whatever userbase they establish with PS4 VR going for them heading into the next generation.
So why buy them when consoles can do the same thing, but much better?
Oh, iPod Classic was officially discontinued... a week ago. The fact that MP3 Players have a purpose to exist still means they are useful to own.
The low-quality, cheaper, consumer-friendly digital camera market isn't as good as they used to be because a smartphone is just as good a camera as they were. The same cannot be said of a mobile game versus even an indie game sold digitally on consoles.
Porting video games from one platform to another has been getting easier or have you not noticed that most games are multiplatform nowadays and that it is easier to actually port from weaker hardware to stronger hardware?
This is true... However, the number of games on mobile that support controllers is nowhere near the number of games on consoles that support controllers, which is to say the majority of console games... The majority of games on any platform will support the default control scheme that the platform comes with which for consoles is the controller, for PC is the mouse and keyboard, and for mobile... the touchscreen.
I'm pretty sure Capcom hasn't experienced any sort of success in the mobile market as of yet... Square Enix has with Chaos Rings, but they are also porting those games to Vita... In fact, both Minecraft and Angry Birds were ported to consoles when they were very successful mobile games. In addition, Square Enix and Capcom are Japanese companies affected by Japanese trends in video games, which is that everything but mobile and possibly the 3DS is dead. Outside of Japan, the PS4 is selling remarkably well.
If we are talking about a purely digital game, then 70% goes back to the people who made the game with 30% to the platform owner be it Apple, Google, Amazon, Valve, Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo. To put that in perspective, that is $42. Going with $40 would be $28, but if companies can get away with selling their game for $60, they will sell their game for $60 be it physical or digital. That's market forces at work.
However, I do agree that every game should not be and is not worth $60, but some should be worth more than a coffee. There needs to be balance in prices, but that is something all hardware that plays video games struggles with.
It's not that Bioshock is a bad looking game... It's that Bioshock made most of its money seven years ago when it was a $60 console game. All it needed was to be ported to mobile and porting a game is a lot easier than making a game from scratch.
Theognosis
Member
I no longer respect Sony as an innovator. They've lost their edge in R&D many years ago. They just copy whatever is popular on the market, be it laptops, smartphones, game consoles, videogames, controllers, LCD TV's, you name it. The PS4 is just a midrange PC. There's nothing special about it.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Profitability, Profitability, Profitability! That is the reason consoles will change/are changing. Phones, I don't think, have as much impact on the consoles as that simple financial rule will.
Profitability is why both platform holders are doubling down on services. It's why both consoles are sold at cost rather than at a loss, It's why MS tried DRM. It's why PSNow and Morpheus are a thing. It's why Sony is charging for online now. And it's why both console holders are trying to quietly turn they're devices into multimedia machines.
Here's my prediction, the PS5 and X2 will both be only about 2-3 times more powerful than their predecessors because both platform holder's will be trying to make a profit off of the hardware.
Profitability is why both platform holders are doubling down on services. It's why both consoles are sold at cost rather than at a loss, It's why MS tried DRM. It's why PSNow and Morpheus are a thing. It's why Sony is charging for online now. And it's why both console holders are trying to quietly turn they're devices into multimedia machines.
Here's my prediction, the PS5 and X2 will both be only about 2-3 times more powerful than their predecessors because both platform holder's will be trying to make a profit off of the hardware.
Well, the gamecube is anyways. That shit is as durable as a 90's nokia phone.
If the games are being streamed, a tablet or phone is just one option of accomplishing playing games on my TV. I'm not sure it's more convenient than a cheap streaming box that doesn't tie up my mobile device, or just a smart TV.
If you're suggesting actual mobile games being played on the TV. Just because Bioshock runs on a tablet doesn't mean developers will tailor specific content on a mobile device to be played on the TV. It's an example of a console title going mobile with different controls, nothing more. The market for people looking to play games from their mobile device via the TV is exceptionally smaller than the market for people looking to play touch screen enabled software on their mobile device. You would be asking devs to go out of their way to implement alternate controls for a tiny base that won't make you money. Devs won't even bother, they will just keep making touchscreen games because that is where the money is at on those devices. Many wouldn't even think about incorporating standard controller inputs into the software. The TV is essentially cut out of the equation with mobile devices. I mean they have their own screen and it's touch, so basically you would be supporting an expensive peripheral (the TV), which may not even be present as the devices are typically used on the go, for little to no gain.
If you're saying that there will be a mass exodus to mobile development from consoles, it's not just consoles that are in danger, it's controller based games in general. Because no one is spending millions to create a game on mobile that's best played with a controller.
Brofist
Member
Yeah they really did used to innovate at one time.
Spine_Ripper
Member
So console gaming is going to die because we no longer need 6 inch cables to connect our boxes to the TV in order to play. Okay.
Imagine getting paid for being wrong consistently? Such a lucky guy.
You should keep your pro tip to yourself because you're not an expert in the field therefore your tip is not a "PROTIP".
Middleware and major manufacturers are exploring other markets as a result of competition in the console space. The mobile market in a way represents a "blue ocean" market when compared to console market. With the ever increasing costs of console development, companies are looking to lower their risks, increase their profits and reduce their expenses. The mobile market provides them with an opportunity to accomplish all 3 goals. I see it as a chase for easy money. We don't need to look far to see that their attempted transitions are flopping hard. Crytek is an excellent example of how to flop in the mobile space. Ea aren't doing much better when compared to other mobile devs. They release the most apps and have a poor roi per app released.
Mobile consumers are becoming wiser with less than 10% of consumers making in app purchases. Instead of attempting to address the core issues with poor performance in the console space, devs are attempting to transition into a new market only to fall flat on their face.
Again, I will argue that console gamers do care about the performance of their hardware and that's why they upgrade when a new console comes out. Consoles address a certain segment of the market which is ~150 million people. When compared to world's population, that number is fairly insignificant. Your definition of good enough is not standardized and i would argue that the concept of being good enough does not exist. People are constantly introduced to new, better and more efficient pieces of technology which drives their desires. The earth's population is constantly refreshing so even if there was a good enough, it is subject to constant change.
I'm neither angry nor in denial about your opinions on consoles. I'm just giving you facts. The console will be redefined as the years go by but it's not going anywhere. The console itself is a method of allowing consumers to interact with their entertainment via a piece of dedicated hardware. It doesn't really matter if it's a ps10, an xbox 50, an apple tv, a usb streaming stick, or built-in hardware into your tv. A console will always exist.
I'm the odd man out here. But back in the early 90s VR was some seriously hot tech. It had so much potential and was a household name due to the hype. But, it ended up being a fad that faded away. I dont believe VR will make any type of commercial success. It's no where near as popular to the mainstream now as it was back then.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=831211
That's Pachter on June 5 claiming we would see 360 and PS3 price cuts at E3. Not so much.
I was hoping for a post that chronicled everything he's gotten right and wrong.
Paracelsus
Member
He's right, last generation there were already heavy signs of redundancy, now the reasons to have three active competitors are getting less and less. Soon, we'll have three carbon-copy consoles with the exact same hardware running all games available except first party titles from the competition.
Tidus_Great
Banned
ridiculous claim considering how good ps4 is doing. hardcore gamers will always want a console.
You're leaving out something big here. It was incredibly hot in spite of the fact that using it entailed going to a public place and shelling out big bucks. I recall paying $10 for a short and relatively modest VR demo at Dave and Busters in the states. And there were people lined up to the wall waiting to do the exact same thing - only to have their turn and get back in line again. It was already amazing fun in spite of offering substantially less "presence" than you can now experience in modern VR at a cost that was magnitudes higher. Watch the impression videos of most anybody with Oculus now and tell them they can get that device for $350 as opposed to paying $10 for another short demo if they drive down to a bar and yeah... not much else needs to be said.
This is definitely related to the topic, but something I didn't want to mention since assuming VR's success would be controversial. But in any case should VR become as big as many are predicting that would basically spell the end of consoles due to their fixed and already modest hardware standards paired with strict software controls. VR is great on present day hardware, but you'll see constant major improvements with stronger hardware. Consoles are stuck with hardware that is already midrange by 2014 standards for the next 5+ years. On the software side VR will certainly be creating a revolution in porn and other sorts of entertainment that would almost certainly never be allowed on consoles.
HolyBaikal
Banned
I don't see how that's very inconvenient, though.
Lots of families are going to have lots of tablets. So stopping to connect one to play a game isn't that bad.
Well.. I think that mobile is becoming more like the laptop industry. Kind of like how the laptop industry is becoming more like mobile.
More and more apps n' things are supporting a keyboard. And more and more games are supporting controllers.
GifGafIsTheBestGaf
Member
is the same thing
That is far from what he said. He actually predicted they would sell around a million each per month for the first year. He only implied that he thought that when this gen was over, I believe he said 5-8 years, we wouldn't get another generation
OnionPowder
Member
1st iPhone had a max of 16 GB new one has 128 GB. Bet you in 6 years we'll have 512 or 1TB in phones no problem.
We've been saying this shit since the Dreamcast days.
And despite whatever the hell service you think will come out in the utopian future where technology exponentially evolves, consoles will not die this generation, at least there is no evidence for this.
You can't say this when :
Sony has put out the fastest selling console ever created.
Destiny and Watch Dogs, both new heavily-budgeted IPs, sell record-breaking amounts, with Destiny putting HALF A BILLION in their pocket within the first 24 hours.
The rise of high-end* VR and its eventual mainstream acceptance, see Colleges and recent media push, that will almost assuredly not be outmatched within 7 years on a mobile device (due to battery temperature etc.)
Console gaming is becoming more mainstream again, gaming is less stigmatized as evidenced in successful marketing campaigns found on mainstream TV.
Indies are flocking to console holders for support, as they help fund projects that wouldn't be actualized without their help.
*Relative to smartphone VR
--
And the list goes on. Console gaming will evolve, but surely not by death. We have to realize a lot of things before we make really dumb assumptions with no basis yet. The worst thing we can do is make arguments on the basis of something probably happening, which is lunacy and has been shown to be wrong for the better part of 15+ years.
Sure big-budget half-a-billion dollar games might never happen as frequent as it currently will, but this will only be due to publishers making appropriately funded games
and the better efficiency of our technology. This however isn't entirely founded or can be assumed in this point at time, and shouldn't be an argument for the death of consoles.
--
Also, if we want to start with the huge assumptions, then those who kick and scream about the future of streaming are going to be in for something as high-end internet prices are rising, mine raised $14 dollars these past two years and I have FiOS Quantum for $70/month, and internet caps are being dished out throughout most other ISPS.
With this said, why would people stream games if there will be caps and raised pricing? Wouldn't people stop streaming and turn more towards console gaming rather than having to stream entire games for hours on end?
Again, you don't have to answer those questions because they are based off of too many assumptions and at this very point in time, we can't be sure of what's going to happen.
And despite whatever the hell service you think will come out in the utopian future where technology exponentially evolves, consoles will not die this generation, at least there is no evidence for this.
You can't say this when :
Sony has put out the fastest selling console ever created.
Destiny and Watch Dogs, both new heavily-budgeted IPs, sell record-breaking amounts, with Destiny putting HALF A BILLION in their pocket within the first 24 hours.
The rise of high-end* VR and its eventual mainstream acceptance, see Colleges and recent media push, that will almost assuredly not be outmatched within 7 years on a mobile device (due to battery temperature etc.)
Console gaming is becoming more mainstream again, gaming is less stigmatized as evidenced in successful marketing campaigns found on mainstream TV.
Indies are flocking to console holders for support, as they help fund projects that wouldn't be actualized without their help.
*Relative to smartphone VR
--
And the list goes on. Console gaming will evolve, but surely not by death. We have to realize a lot of things before we make really dumb assumptions with no basis yet. The worst thing we can do is make arguments on the basis of something probably happening, which is lunacy and has been shown to be wrong for the better part of 15+ years.
Sure big-budget half-a-billion dollar games might never happen as frequent as it currently will, but this will only be due to publishers making appropriately funded games
and the better efficiency of our technology. This however isn't entirely founded or can be assumed in this point at time, and shouldn't be an argument for the death of consoles.
--
Also, if we want to start with the huge assumptions, then those who kick and scream about the future of streaming are going to be in for something as high-end internet prices are rising, mine raised $14 dollars these past two years and I have FiOS Quantum for $70/month, and internet caps are being dished out throughout most other ISPS.
With this said, why would people stream games if there will be caps and raised pricing? Wouldn't people stop streaming and turn more towards console gaming rather than having to stream entire games for hours on end?
Again, you don't have to answer those questions because they are based off of too many assumptions and at this very point in time, we can't be sure of what's going to happen.
Paracelsus
Member
Nintendo will eventually deal with it and release a PS4-like Wii2, because they want third party games.
Game size will be dictated by the smallest storage available, not the biggest. When digital is the only way to buy games you'd have to be a pretty stupid developer to make something people can't even download.
This means they're here to last, and in ten years they'll be small and powerful enough to be carried around like phones and use just about anything as a screen: even projected onto a wall. They'll just be novel, fold-out controllers with display outputs and 5000 CUDA cores with 32 GB of memory and 2 TG flash storage.
CrunchyFrog
Member
Much in the same way the "PC-killer" tablet boom of 2011-2012 has leveled off, so will the console and dedicated gaming handheld market. For sure they will never reach the heights they once hit, but there's always gonna be a sizable niche market and/or a wild card hardware innovator to grow/recapture part of said market. VR could be the latter but only if the execution is swift and fierce. However I really don't think current console hardware manufacturers have the clout necessary to fully push VR in the way other electronics companies can being forced to still look after their console interests. The total gaming market will hit equilibrium eventually, and consoles will still have a safe though diminished place.