Support NeoGAF

[ii Stryker]

With Homefront though, it never caught on like Battlefield, Call of Duty, or Halo.

Crytek is still doing a sequel. and one would argue that if we're to compare apples to apples Homefront probably did do as well as those games when their IP was initially launched.

If we're just talking about making IPs that hit 2-3 million units, then sure, this probably isn't an issue, but Ubisoft is the kind of company that wants to establish sustainable new hits in the 5+ million unit band.

your not going to sell 5+ millinon units of a new IP at the launch of a new system simply because 1.) the install base isn't there and 2.) in todays market publishers are going to be competing with their own back catalogues because of backward compatibility.

to me it makes more sense to take the risks later in the cycle when your teams are more familiar with the hardware. Instead what were seeing is publishers playing it safe and aping other devs proven mechanics or story telling techniques and sequelizing everything they can.

 

[Rubius]

Well I mean, that's the crux of it right?

If the Wii's "gimmick" was motion controls, the 360/PS3's was "shiny graphics".

That's gone now, and it won't come back until we have new boxes.

Is it a great gimmick? Perhaps not, but it has had a steady history of working for at least a few years, and judging by the reaction to Watch Dogs, it's probably still going pretty well.

The Wii was Motion Control
The 360 was the best online for Console users
The Ps3 was... the Bluray technology

Now we already know that the Wii U is about this new Tablet controller.
Will the 360 expend on the Online or will the Ps3 try to take his place?
That will be fun to watch.

 

[metalslimer]

I think people are kidding themselves if they think new graphics is going to drive people to the stores to buy new consoles again, or at least enough of them. Microsoft realizes this which is why they have been building up services and Live all generation. Kinect 2 will also be there. MS, at least right now, seems best poised to enter this new generation.

 

[Alastor Mused]

I think people are kidding themselves if they think new graphics is going to drive people to the stores to buy new consoles again, or at least enough of them. Microsoft realizes this which is why they have been building up services and Live all generation. Kinect 2 will also be there. MS, at least right now, seems best poised to enter this new generation.

I agree if you take into account COD and GTA. Those have never been graphically superior but were always just enough to convince people it looked good. Heavy Rain was incredibly graphically dependent and that failed to be a blockbuster. Content and marketing of the game sells more then graphics. Take into account iPhone gaming and casual 2d's and it shows the mass market isn't as impressed with graphics. Also I'm very eager to see the final stats on next gen consoles to see the % increase in graphics and memory power.

 

[Spazznid]

Honestly I'm liking Ubisoft more and more....

Still hate Uplay, but they seem to be getting to a nicer spot on my list... Metaphorically...

 

[JimmyRustler]

iPhone and Android and Indie gaming says "Hi, nice to meet you".

This isn't even funny.

But Sony, MS, and developers need millions and millions of gamers to make money off them. It's nice you are willing to buy but the mass market might not be so eager to spend the money so quickly.

Stop exaggerating. They didn't need the mass market the first 2 years so far and won't need it with next gen. Also, mass market isn't buying nearly as many games as hardcores.

 

[Nirolak]

To illustrate the new IP issue, here's a variety of the best performing new IP's by year. Shown is the opening month unless otherwise specified for games with particularly good legs in the second/third months:

2006:

(Months 1-2-3-4-5)
360 Gears of War - Microsoft 1mm
360 GEARS OF WAR - MICROSOFT 815.7 K
3. 360 GEARS OF WAR 212k
360 GEARS OF WAR 119K
360 GEARS OF WAR 426K (includes collectors edition)


2007:

(Months 1-2-3)
360 LOST PLANET: EXTREME CONDITION 329k
360 LOST PLANET: EXTREME CONDITION 111K
360 LOST PLANET: EXTREME CONDITION 573K (includes collectors edition)

(Months 1-2)
360 CRACKDOWN 427K
360 CRACKDOWN 540K

360 BIOSHOCK 490.9K

(Months 1-2)
360 ASSASSIN'S CREED UBISOFT NOV 2007 MATURE (M) 3 980K
PS3 ASSASSIN'S CREED UBISOFT NOV 2007 MATURE (M) 10 377K
360 ASSASSIN'S CREED UBISOFT NOV 2007 MATURE (M) *5 893.7 K

(Months 1-2)
360 MASS EFFECT MICROSOFT (CORP) NOV 2007 MATURE (M) 6 473K
360 MASS EFFECT - 401,000


2008:

360 LOST ODYSSEY MICROSOFT 8-Feb 203.6K

360 ARMY OF TWO ELECTRONIC ARTS Mar-08 606.1K
PS3 ARMY OF TWO ELECTRONIC ARTS Mar-08 224.9K

360 TOO HUMAN MICROSOFT Aug-08 8 168.2K

360 DEAD SPACE ELECTRONIC ARTS Oct-08 10 193K

(Months 1-2)
8 LEFT 4 DEAD (360) 410K
360 LEFT 4 DEAD 629K


2009:

INFAMOUS (PS3) 192.7K

BORDERLANDS (360; Oct-09) 418,000 (PS3 didn't chart)

DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS* (360) |Nov-09| 362.1K
015 (PS3) DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS* - 189,000


2010:

DARKSIDERS 360 THQ Jan-10 171.2k

Bayonetta didn't chart.

DANTE'S INFERNO: DIVINE EDITION PS3 ELECTRONIC ARTS Feb-10 242.5K
DANTE'S INFERNO 360 ELECTRONIC ARTS Feb-10 224.7K

HEAVY RAIN PS3 SONY Feb-10 219.3K


2011:

7.) Bulletstorm (EA: 360, PS3, PC) - 285.6K

Homefront - somewhere around 600-900K

(Months 1-2)
01. L.A. Noire (360, PS3) Take 2 Interactive - 899K
01. L.A. Noire (360, PS3) Take 2 Interactive - 419,000

02. Brink (360, PS3, PC) Bethesda Softworks - 401K [360/PS3 Only]

03. Dead Island (360, PS3, PC) Deep Silver - Nearly 1 Million


2012:

04. Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning (360, PS3, PC) Electronic Arts - 330K
6.) Sleeping Dogs (360, PS3) Square Enix - 172K
Dishonored: 460.2K


Did every new IP succeed? Absolutely not, but we definitely had some huge performers. 2011 saw some very aggressive advertising campaigns, but we still didn't see new IPs blowing debuts like Gears of War and Assassin's Creed out of the water, and many of them tapered off much more quickly.

Feel free to fill in any big performers I missed. I'm discounting licensed properties like Batman as new IPs for what I hope are obvious reasons.

 

[Skyzard]

^ wow infamous and sleeping dogs did bad (people were waiting for Watch dogs?) :S But late gen also means people are bored of the same old and want something new and interesting and you don't need majorly updated visuals for that... There must be another explanation! I still think this has quite a bit to do with it (although not the best graph (in fact let me swap it)- last part):

w/e no graph, but the world recession

You know upgradeable consoles could work despite fragmenting userbase. As long the upgrades were far enough apart and didn't hold back the rest of the system (easy switching out of all major components). Moneyhat a major game to have extra features that make decent use of the updated components. Sell them in a bundle for $100 4 years after release.

Late-gen or next-gen if they've already played it and the upgrades aren't enough, in this economy you won't get enough upgrading I bet, seems like it would make more sense to release it current-gen (hence GTA5..last of us).

 

[JimmyRustler]

Actual the whole console refresh thing is just a symptomatic problem that will eventually destroy the console model. People can say that early adopters always drove the first years of a console, but the current costs for making games can't be sustained by early adopters. We'll see exactly how many early adopters there are for this cycle.

What costs? Of blockbuster gaming? Yeah, that probably can't be substained by early adopters. It will be horrible to not have 3rd party blockbuster games the first 2 years of the new cycle.... /sarcasm

 

[Jedi2016]

Kind of makes sense coming from them. They showed off Watch Dogs before any console hardware that could run it was even announced (and still hasn't been). I always took that trailer as a bit of a snipe at MS and Sony to get their asses in gear, and that they were tired of holding back their programmers on hardware that's that damned old. Lucasarts did the same with SW1313.

Have to say I agree with them on this one.

 

[Nirolak]

^ wow infamous and sleeping dogs did bad (people were waiting for Watch dogs?) :S But late gen also means people are bored of the same old and want something new and interesting and you don't need majorly updated visuals for that... There must be another explanation! I still think this has quite a bit to do with it (although not the best graph-last part):

I don't disagree with your sentiment here, but I would argue the key thing is that we're talking about consoles.

Once we remove the need for "power level X", we remove the need for consoles from the equation. Minecraft, Angry Birds, League of Legends, and World of Tanks offer new and interesting experiences to tons of people, but you didn't need to own a console or higher end gaming PC to play them.

For the kind of $60 hit driven retail products we're talking about, the need to get every bit of help they can in getting attention becomes very important. It's not absolutely mandatory, but when you're going to be spending $30-$40+ million making a game and then that much or more marketing it, there's a large incentive to wait another year and try to push technology advantage as another marketing point.

Sure, I think the economy helps incentivize more free 2 play, mobile, and cheap retail game usage along with polarization to "safe bets" for larger purchases, but someone purchasing a new device had a fair amount of capital to do it and is more likely to be looking for something new, hence being willing to purchase a new device in the first place.

 

[Skyzard]

Personally I think if they are spending so much more on a new iteration (not a new IP) and they aren't seeing the gains then they are in-efficient and need to rethink things.

Late in the gen there is more competition and your game has to stand out to get a decent amount of sales...that's life though. You can't expect everyone to upgrade so you have more of a shot to sell your games with over-bloated budgets. Wait for the consoles to come out.

For people who want to push the boundary with all their games and can afford to..they'll just get a pc surely...can't imagine too many people like that.

I think a lot of the people getting bored with the current gen cycle are also generally bored/less time for gaming.

 

[Alastor Mused]

Did every new IP succeed? Absolutely not, but we definitely had some huge performers. 2011 saw some very aggressive advertising campaigns, but we still didn't see new IPs blowing debuts like Gears of War and Assassin's Creed out of the water, and many of them tapered off much more quickly.

Great information. Only issue I see is no information based on sales to marketing $'s spent. These #'s show that new consoles aren't necessary to sell IPs. Take a look at Dead Island which had an unbelievably hyped released with marketing that spread like wildfire and people saying the game was gonna be insane and hype and all that. It sold 1 million total on all 3 platforms in 2011. If consoles were dying then it wouldn't have sold nearly as well. A lot of those failing numbers come from lack of good marketing and hype. Dante's Inferno had terrible marketing (game wasn't interesting enough as well) and the game sales show it.

Kind of makes sense coming from them. They showed off Watch Dogs before any console hardware that could run it was even announced (and still hasn't been). I always took that trailer as a bit of a snipe at MS and Sony to get their asses in gear, and that they were tired of holding back their programmers on hardware that's that damned old. Lucasarts did the same with SW1313.

Have to say I agree with them on this one.

What's holding Dev's back is Memory not CPU. If consoles don't increase memory then it's all for naught. Naught Dog claimed to only be using 30-40% of the power of PS3. CPU graphics power is only useful to processing what's in memory. CPU is great for Runtime but whatever is loaded from memory can't be junk.

For the kind of $60 hit driven retail products we're talking about, the need to get every bit of help they can in getting attention becomes very important. It's not absolutely mandatory, but when you're going to be spending $30-$40+ million making a game and then that much or more marketing it, there's a large incentive to wait another year and try to push technology advantage as another marketing point.

I agree with every bit helps but the question is are graphics really worth the $30 million dollars as opposed to spending less? Let's argue that it costs X amount to make a game with general good looking graphics and that Y is the cost of adding funds to produce a graphically fantastic game. Is Y really worth the expense? Of course our answers will be opinionated but noticing games like COD selling bonkers numbers tends to favor the side that spending extra money isn't really worth it if the IP will sell like mental regardless.

 

[Nirolak]

I agree with every bit helps but the question is are graphics really worth the $30 million dollars as opposed to spending less? Let's argue that it costs X amount to make a game with general good looking graphics and that Y is the cost of adding funds to produce a graphically fantastic game. Is Y really worth the expense? Of course our answers will be opinionated but noticing games like COD selling bonkers numbers tends to favor the side that spending extra money isn't really worth it if the IP will sell like mental regardless.

CoD games tend to cost a ton of money though.

While the games aren't visually astonishing, the setpieces they have are actually incredibly costly. I would argue that through those they are still selling the huge cinematic blockbuster experience, even if they're not in the number of polygons per character.

Modern Warfare 2 was $40-$50 million for example.

Treyarch is upwards of double the size Infinity Ward was when they developed Modern Warfare 2, and Activision has a lot more helper studios around these days, so I can only imagine the budget have went up.

 

[Alastor Mused]

CoD games tend to cost a ton of money though.

While the games aren't visually astonishing, the setpieces they have are actually incredibly costly.

Modern Warfare 2 was $40-$50 million for example.

I agree with you, but the issue was with graphics not setpeices. If they are willing to spend millions on setpeices it's clearly worth more value then graphics. Which is why I'm questioning the value of graphics. It isn't much of an issue if publishers decide to spend a billion dollars on a game if the value produced is greater and produces profit. Where that money gets spent is what is interesting.

 

[UrbanRats]

I think BD is just an example of the importance of marketing with games. I'd say that's the single most important factor for new IP's. Something like Assassin's Creed wasn't a success because it was released early in the generation. It was a success because it had a ridiculous marketing budget. The quality of the original Assassin's alone would've sunk most games. But the marketing was out in full force before and after its release.

If you companies are willing to throw their weight behind a project then I really don't think it matters when they're released. I very much doubt that The Last of Us will struggle to sell. It's been an industry darling since it was revealed and it's a ND title so it's going to receive a lot of marketing from Sony.

Sure but it wasn't easy to tell from the trailers and, most importantly, the parkour mechanic was something very fresh, interesting and, in its little way, groundbreaking.
I remember being blown away by the fact that you could fluidly climb everywhere with contextually correct animations (and not just a climbable ivy texture on a wall).
I think part of that buzz and excitment for new "technologies", was due to the gen having just started.

 

[Nirolak]

I agree with you, but the issue was with graphics not setpeices. If they are willing to spend millions on setpeices it's clearly worth more value then graphics. Which is why I'm questioning the value of graphics. It isn't much of an issue if publishers decide to spend a billion dollars on a game if the value produced is greater and produces profit. Where that money gets spent is what is interesting.

My argument is more that there are two ways to sell the blockbuster experience, and both of them tend to require a lot of money and be taxing on hardware.

The games tend to have significant framerate drops during setpieces, so making bigger, more impressive setpieces to stand out should also be possible with new hardware.

 

[Coldnoodle]

You forgot about the Wii series line.

Wii Sports games (as of March 2012)
Wii Sports 79.6 million
Wii Sports Resort 30.14 million
Sub-series total 109.74 million
Wii Fit games (as of March 2012)
Wii Fit 22.67 million
Wii Fit Plus 20.48 million
Sub-series total 43.15 million
Wii Play games (as of March 2012)
Wii Play 28.02 million[8]
Wii Play: Motion 1.26 million
Sub-series total 29.28 million
Other games
Wii Party 7.94 million (as of March 2012)
Wii Music 2.65 million (as of March 2009)
Overall series total
Overall series total 192.76 million

 

[UrbanRats]

I agree with you, but the issue was with graphics not setpeices. If they are willing to spend millions on setpeices it's clearly worth more value then graphics. Which is why I'm questioning the value of graphics. It isn't much of an issue if publishers decide to spend a billion dollars on a game if the value produced is greater and produces profit. Where that money gets spent is what is interesting.

I don't think most casual gamers that play only CoD (and little else) would be able to tell the difference between Blops 2 and what could be a fully graphically pushed 360 game.
On a completely new HW though? I'm so sure.. so i think the push for graphics doesn't make much sense now, but it does more, for next gen.

 

[Skyzard]

My argument is more that there are two ways to sell the blockbuster experience, and both of them tend to require a lot of money and be taxing on hardware.

The games tend to have significant framerate drops during setpieces, so making bigger, more impressive setpieces to stand out should also be possible with new hardware.

You're not wrong of course but it comes at too much of a cost..


For most devs just make it less big, more interesting. Then advertise it and release it during a time where big named titles won't take its thunder.

How are they still costing them that much after all their previous games...you'd think costs would be saved and some of it would carryover.

 

[Nirolak]

Personally I think if they are spending so much more on a new iteration (not a new IP) and they aren't seeing the gains then they are in-efficient and need to rethink things.

Well they are. This is why we see so many developers moving to mobile and free 2 play where the costs are bottom basement.

Late in the gen there is more competition and your game has to stand out to get a decent amount of sales...that's life though. You can't expect everyone to upgrade so you have more of a shot to sell your games with over-bloated budgets. Wait for the consoles to come out.

Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm not quite following what you're saying here.

For people who want to push the boundary with all their games and can afford to..they'll just get a pc surely...can't imagine too many people like that.

The idea behind new consoles is that they can do this at a relatively more affordable cost.

I think a lot of the people getting bored with the current gen cycle are also generally bored/less time for gaming.

Well I mean time management is generally driven by interests. If you don't find any games interesting, you go do something else.

The games have to make a successful argument that you should go and spend more time gaming again in the same way the Wii did at the beginning of the generation or the Xbox 360 did with online engagement throughout the generation.

I would say a factor that used to never happen though was the extreme shelf life of some of these games. People buying DLC by the millions are just playing that instead of looking for a new game.

Battlefield 3 sold over 2 million season passes while Max Payne 3 and Ghost Recon put up ho-hum numbers.

You're not wrong of course but it comes at too much of a cost..


For most devs just make it less big, more interesting. Then advertise it and release it during a time where big named titles won't take its thunder.

How are they still costing them that much after all their previous games...you'd think costs would be saved and some of it would carryover.

I think the notable consideration is that the cost is driven by salaries in the game industry. Unless you're dumping staff/contractors left and right, you're not actually going to save money.

 

[Pranay]

^ wow infamous

Atleast InFamous 2 did 370k first month and was an improvement.


@Nirolak

Uncharted 1 in Europe ?

can be added to the list i heard it did great

 

[gutter_trash]

so we will be getting more shitty King Kong buggy launch titles ever 3 years of every new gen launch

 

[Nirolak]

You forgot about the Wii series line.

Wii Sports games (as of March 2012)
Wii Sports 79.6 million
Wii Sports Resort 30.14 million
Sub-series total 109.74 million
Wii Fit games (as of March 2012)
Wii Fit 22.67 million
Wii Fit Plus 20.48 million
Sub-series total 43.15 million
Wii Play games (as of March 2012)
Wii Play 28.02 million[8]
Wii Play: Motion 1.26 million
Sub-series total 29.28 million
Other games
Wii Party 7.94 million (as of March 2012)
Wii Music 2.65 million (as of March 2009)
Overall series total
Overall series total 192.76 million

That's a good point, and most of those came out early.

Atleast InFamous 2 did 370k first month and was an improvement.


@Nirolak

Uncharted 1 in Europe ?

can be added to the list i heard it did great

I would, but this is NPD only since we lack hard numbers for Europe.

And yes, getting a franchise out early in a generation gives you time to try and grow it without having to redo all your technology and assets, which is also an incentive to not start at the tail end of the generation.

Dishonored 2 can probably use nothing from Dishonored 1, but every Mass Effect game shares assets.

 

[Reuenthal]

Ubisoft is right this generation has been too long.

 

[El-Suave]

Maybe he's right for the strategy of his own company, who are at the forefront of most console launch lineups, but I don't believe in the idea that you can't lauch new franchises late in a generation. It just takes more marketing muscle than they're willing to commit - you don't need to spend nearly as much for a launch title.

 

[Skyzard]

A lot of good points and advantages to a shorter console life cycle, can't disagree with them...but only really apply for the biggest devs without the most reliable franchises imo. Why cater only to them.. sure they try hard but I guess I have a bad feeling about costly gaming in general these days .. lets not rush and mess everything up for everyone else..

 

[Pranay]

That's a good point, and most of those came out early.



I would, but this is NPD only since we lack hard numbers for Europe.

And yes, getting a franchise out early in a generation gives you time to try and grow it without having to redo all your technology and assets.

Yeah i guess

I would say a factor that used to never happen though was the extreme shelf life of some of these games. People buying DLC by the millions are just playing that instead of looking for a new game.

I agree that people are actually still playing old games and well are looking out for new experience

Also I would add

two game in particular which did Great in their respective consoles were Minecraft and Journey this year
and I guess the main reason for their sucesss is that they were different and offered some new for people to try out [backed up by both MS and Sony]


We were really surprised to see Dishounred pulling up numbers as close to Max Payne 3 in NPD , I think Dishounred offered something different as compared to other fps titles and Max Payne 3 came out when their were already a lot of third person shooter available and well max payne 3 wasnt that different from them.

Fun Fact - Uncharted 3 PS3 Version sold more the Max Payne 3 in one of the weeks Italian and German Charts

 

[Jasper Avenue]

I would rather a new generation of consoles start every 3-4 years. Keep the development cycles/procedures the same, just increase the power.

 

[Nirolak]

Great information. Only issue I see is no information based on sales to marketing $'s spent. These #'s show that new consoles aren't necessary to sell IPs. Take a look at Dead Island which had an unbelievably hyped released with marketing that spread like wildfire and people saying the game was gonna be insane and hype and all that. It sold 1 million total on all 3 platforms in 2011. If consoles were dying then it wouldn't have sold nearly as well. A lot of those failing numbers come from lack of good marketing and hype. Dante's Inferno had terrible marketing (game wasn't interesting enough as well) and the game sales show it.

So this is one I'd actually like to bring up on my previous point of legs.

Assassin's Creed shipped over 8 million worldwide.

Dead Island stopped at 3 million.

Dead Island's sequel is a budget game because "It's the end of a console cycle".

So despite the great start, the game still ended vastly lower than earlier new IPs like Assassin's Creed and also Gears of War (over 4.7 million) and BioShock (5 million).

 

[Pranay]

So this is one I'd actually like to bring up on my previous point of legs.

Assassin's Creed shipped over 8 million worldwide.

Dead Island stopped at 3 million.

Dead Island's sequel is a budget game because "It's the end of a console cycle".

So despite the great start, the game still ended vastly lower than earlier new IPs like Assassin's Creed and also Gears of War (over 4.7 million) and BioShock (5 million).

Interesting regarding Dead Island part

 

[Nirolak]

A lot of good points and advantages to a shorter console life cycle, can't disagree with them...but only really apply for the biggest devs without the most reliable franchises imo. Why cater only to them.. sure they try hard but I guess I have a bad feeling about costly gaming in general these days .. lets not rush and mess everything up for everyone else..

I understand this sentiment, but I feel mid tier publishers actually the ones who are most hurt by long cycles.

The company that's going bankrupt right now is not EA or Activision, but THQ, and the companies that have already died are places like Midway.

Sega also largely exited retail games due to an inability to succeed against larger scale games.

The end of generation polarization to series like Call of Duty, FIFA, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed only really benefits the top publishers who already have those series, while companies like Square Enix trying to launch Sleeping Dogs suffer.

Another major push for next-gen is a much larger digital focus along with enabling free 2 play in a much more developer friendly manner on consoles. These are both things that I feel actually help mid-tier developers that otherwise have to largely leave the arena and go elsewhere.

Now, once we have these things on consoles, yeah I can see the argument that moving might be somewhat unfriendly to mid-smaller size developers who now have to retool their games to also run on the new platforms, but as it stands today I feel moving to new consoles benefits both groups.

Fun Fact - Uncharted 3 PS3 Version sold more the Max Payne 3 in one of the weeks Italian and German Charts

Yeah Max Payne totally tanked relative to budget and marketing. That was largely an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I can't shake the feeling that new hardware is going to be such a losing strategy for everyone. These publishers need to be careful that they don't get what they ask for. They're already battling increasingly fragmented markets, there are more and more entertainment choices and it doesn't help that those choices have bred people to have the shortest attention spans imaginable. A new round of hardware is just going to give people an excuse to bail on console gaming entirely.

 

[Grayman]

I think Ubisoft and the others should be working on ways to drive sales on the older hardware. The OP is a great way to push their risk onto others but with Nintendo having left the arms race, Sony looking like a toss up for long term survival and the market moving to a post console world were microsoft has less of a reason to care about the AAA gaming industry I would be looking at ways to keep my own ship in order without a new box every 5 years to slash and burn on.

 

[Nirolak]

I can't shake the feeling that new hardware is going to be such a losing strategy for everyone. These publishers need to be careful that they don't get what they ask for. They're already battling increasingly fragmented markets, there are more and more entertainment choices and it doesn't help that those choices have bred people to have the shortest attention spans imaginable. A new round of hardware is just going to give people an excuse to bail on console gaming entirely.

That's why a lot of publishers are actually building games for people who play on eighteen different devices.

At EA's UK showcase this week, EA's Northern Europe boss Keith Ramsdale said all of EA's game franchises, including FIFA, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Star Wars, The Sims and Need for Speed, were being transformed in this way.

This means more than simple online play, Ramsdale explained. It involves being able to play a "brand" across multiple devices, each one contributing to a singular goal - and profile.

Ramsdale used FIFA by way of an example. "Imagine a player gets up in the morning, plays an online match on his 360 before going to work," he said. "On the bus, on his way to work, he practices his free kicks on his tablet. At lunch he looks at the transfer window on his PC. On the way home he chooses his kit on his smartphone.

"Here's the thing: when he gets home to play again on his 360 that evening, all those achievements and upgrades will be alive in his game."

Ramsdale said online universes allow the consumer to play "how he wants, when he wants and on the device he wants".

"We're very focused on transforming all of our brands into these online universes. That gives the consumer full control of how and when they play in a rich world of content."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-20-ea-turning-all-of-its-brands-into-online-universes

Microsoft is trying similar concepts with Windows 8 PCs, phones, tablets, and the Xbox 720. They also release iOS/Android products that tie-in.

 

[metalslimer]

I would rather a new generation of consoles start every 3-4 years. Keep the development cycles/procedures the same, just increase the power.

This would be terrible for everyone involved. Userbases would never build to a good level for 3rd parties and console manufacturers would have to make pretty cheap machines otherwise it wouldn't be a good investment in terms of R&D.

What costs? Of blockbuster gaming? Yeah, that probably can't be substained by early adopters. It will be horrible to not have 3rd party blockbuster games the first 2 years of the new cycle.... /sarcasm

Are you kidding? Who do you think is actually going to spend their time making games for new consoles? Small developers (the ones that are left) aren't going to abandon the current userbase. Blockbusters are what drive new system sales. Take away Gears, GTA, etc. from the beginning of this gen and see how it goes.

 

[Nirolak]

This would be terrible for everyone involved. Userbases would never build to a good level for 3rd parties and console manufacturers would have to make pretty cheap machines otherwise it wouldn't be a good investment in terms of R&D.

Yeah, I think 5-6 is usually the happy middleground people are hoping for.

The market has historically gone up for the first three years and then started going down, so three up years and 2-3 down years still leaves the market at a relatively good place versus allowing the down years to go 4-5 years.

 

[Pranay]

I can't shake the feeling that new hardware is going to be such a losing strategy for everyone. These publishers need to be careful that they don't get what they ask for. They're already battling increasingly fragmented markets, there are more and more entertainment choices and it doesn't help that those choices have bred people to have the shortest attention spans imaginable. A new round of hardware is just going to give people an excuse to bail on console gaming entirely.

I dont think People will bail out of console gaming despite more entertainment devices available tbh, tablets will complement them.

 

[Izick]

I don't think console life has much to do with it.

I bet they would have felt completely different if they had a hit IP this generation. You just have to kind of get lucky and have a perfect storm of marketing, critical acclaim, and just some form of luck to really get something like Bioshock or Mass Effect. There are a lot of other fantastic new IP's that seem to have been overlooked completely, that are just as good (quality is subjective, admittedly) and have good marketing, but just don't sell.

I feel like at time it's a complete crapshoot. There's definitely factors of marketing and critical acclaim, but there's just some unknown it-factor that motivates and drives these higher sale numbers. I know that's not scientific, but that's how I've always felt.

 

[Pranay]

Yeah, I think 5-6 is usually the happy middleground people are hoping for.

The market has historically gone up for the first three years and then started going down, so three up years and 2-3 down years still leaves the market at a relatively good place versus allowing the down years to go 4-5 years.

BTW was Kinect the reason for ridiculous sales of 360 in 2011 ? Surprisingly it had a lot of YoY Up that time and peaked i guess

 

[Nirolak]

I don't think console life has much to do with it.

I bet they would have felt completely different if they had a hit IP this generation. You just have to kind of get lucky and have a perfect storm of marketing, critical acclaim, and just some form of luck to really get something like Bioshock or Mass Effect. There are a lot of other fantastic new IP's that seem to have been overlooked completely, that are just as good (quality is subjective, admittedly) and have good marketing, but just don't sell.

I feel like at time it's a complete crapshoot. There's definitely factors of marketing and critical acclaim, but there's just some unknown it-factor that motivates and drives these higher sale numbers. I know that's not scientific, but that's how I've always felt.

You're right, Ubisoft totally had no hit IPs this generation.

BTW was Kinect the reason for ridiculous sales of 360 in 2011 ? Surprisingly it had a lot of YoY Up that time and peaked i guess

Yeah, they pretty successfully relaunched the console with Kinect and the new form factor.

It was ultimately relatively fleeting, but it did extend their lifespan a couple of years, which I think was their hope.

 

[Izick]

You're right, Ubisoft totally had no hit IPs this generation.

What's their biggest selling new IP?

EDIT: Whoops, forget they make Assassin's Creed. I guess I should have said more than one.

 

[UrbanRats]

Yeah Max Payne totally tanked relative to budget and marketing. That was largely an unmitigated disaster.

That's kind of weird, because the marketing was basically the same they had for all their other new IPs, that though sold pretty well.
RDR was also in a setting not that popular (Western) combared to the modern shooting and ultraviolence of Max Payne 3.
I think being 3rd in a bomba franchise (MP1 and 2 were not successful games, IIRC) might have actually worked against it (who wants to pick up the third title in a heavily characters driven game?) whereas with RDR and LA Noire, R* could push their brand as kind of a "quality assurance" and push people to try the new IP all the same.
Also i guess people only trust R* when it comes to open world games?

Still, pouring 100millions in Max Payne 3 was beyond imbecile, since although the game had great production values, you couldn't really tell the difference between that and an Uncharted (i'd argue, an Uncharted is actually more impressive, animations aside), sure it was multiplatform, still, if you look at RDR and compare it to other open world games, you can at least understand WHERE those money went (world bulding, attention to details, etc).

 

[Skyzard]

I understand this sentiment, but I feel mid tier publishers actually the ones who are most hurt by long cycles.

The company that's going bankrupt right now is not EA or Activision, but THQ, and the companies that have already died are places like Midway.

Sega also largely exited retail games due to an inability to succeed against larger scale games.

The end of generation polarization to series like Call of Duty, FIFA, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed only really benefits the top publishers who already have those series, while companies like Square Enix trying to launch Sleeping Dogs suffer.

Another major push for next-gen is a much larger digital focus along with enabling free 2 play in a much more developer friendly manner on consoles. These are both things that I feel actually help mid-tier developers that otherwise have to largely leave the arena and go elsewhere.

Now, once we have these things on consoles, yeah I can see the argument that moving might be somewhat unfriendly to mid-smaller size developers who now have to retool their games to also run on the new platforms, but as it stands today I feel moving to new consoles benefits both groups.


Yeah Max Payne totally tanked relative to budget and marketing. That was largely an unmitigated disaster.

I get why mid-tiers can be hurt more by longer cycles - cant afford the advertising budgets or R&D (on average-ignoring talent, good decisions etc to get their titles to stand out..but if they can't afford that, how will they afford the regular increased R&D costs of shorter console lifespans...and who will okay the new titles' budgets when the next-gen userbases are in question too?

They just need a different plan if they can't keep up.. youtube, forums word of mouth etc to cut costs. ..mobile.. psn/xbl late in the gen etc.

We do need a next-gen soon...but I don't want the cycle to drop below about 7 years...

 

[UrbanRats]

What's their biggest selling new IP?

EDIT: Whoops, forget they make Assassin's Creed. I guess I should have said more than one.

Also Just Dance sold a lot of copies, if i remember straight.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I dont think People will bail out of console gaming despite more entertainment devices available tbh

I do. I don't think it will necessarily be a conscientious decision, it's just something that will sort of happen all on its own. They won't think about it. They'll just not feel compelled to buy a new system right now, they'll do it later. And that "later" simply will never come. Other options will always prove more attractive, whether that's the newest phone, a new tablet, or whatever new thing somebody comes up with. I don't know it, because what do I know, but I just don't think console gaming has as much future in front of it as it does history behind it. I really do think console gaming has peaked. That doesn't mean that it will die, per se, but its relevance will be diminished.

 

[Izick]

Also Just Dance sold a lot of copies, if i remember straight.

Oh shit, they do have Just Dance, I forgot that as well. Make that two hit IP's.

 

[Nirolak]

Also Just Dance sold a lot of copies, if i remember straight.

Yeah the Just Dance series is over 25 million copies.

 

[Grayman]

Oh shit, they do have Just Dance, I forgot that as well. Make that two hit IP's.

but you are right that they do not have three!

 

[metalslimer]

I do. I don't think it will necessarily be a conscientious decision, it's just something that will sort of happen all on its own. They won't think about it. They'll just not feel compelled to buy a new system right now, they'll do it later. And that "later" simply will never come. Other options will always prove more attractive, whether that's the newest phone, a new tablet, or whatever new thing somebody comes up with. I don't know it, because what do I know, but I just don't think console gaming has as much future in front of it as it does history behind it. I really do think console gaming has peaked. That doesn't mean that it will die, per se, but it's relevance will be diminished.

Agreed. Just watching people around Christmas this year, so much mindshare has gone away from gaming. Halo,CoD, Madden, etc. still will do well, but I feel like things are going a very different direction right now.