Support NeoGAF

[pswii60]

It is, slowly but surely. It isn't beyond saving but the industry needs to understand that it simply doesn't have the luxury of multiple competing hardware platforms that are incompatible with each other. The audience isn't big enough to allow that level of fragmentation.The dreaded by some "one console future" is the direction that we will probably be heading in. Something like the Steam Machines where multiple makers provide hardware variations based on the same hardware and software base. Today's platform holders will likely become service providers and gamers will no longer have to buy two or three different boxes in order to have access to all the games out there.

The problem with that model is the cost of entry. Console hardware is subsidised through license fees on retail software, margin on digital downloads, and online subscription services. But I don't see Valve subsidising the cost of Steam machines.

 

[family_guy]

But it has multiplayer.
The only difference is that you don't need to "come over" to play it, because you can play multiplayer anywhere because the odds are pretty good if someone has an iPad they have it there with them wherever they are anyway.

Like at a bar.
Or a coffeeshop.
Or at a BBQ.
Or even playing a quick game of NFL while at someones house already watching a game between quarters.
Or any of the millions of scenarios that exist that most people are more likely to be doing than sat huddled around a console.

Do you see how as a value proposition thats a lot more appealing to the general populace?

For someone with a casual interest in playing the sport, yes. I just don't see someone who's been playing Madden on consoles with a nice tv and surround system for years suddenly deciding that the iPad version is sufficient.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

The problem with that model is the cost of entry. Console hardware is subsidised through license fees on retail software, margin on digital downloads, and online subscription services. But I don't see Valve subsidising the cost of Steam machines.

This is historically true, but this gen is probably the least subsidised ever with the arguable exception of the Xbox One which seems to be really price-dumping to stay in the game when you factor in all of the price cuts and bundling.

In a hypothetical future(?) where the expected volume of customers isn't high enough to follow the razor-blade model anymore, a platform owner subsidy becomes less likely, because the "hardcore niche" would be more willing to pay for "premium" experience, and less prone to "sticker shock".

EDIT:

For someone with a casual interest in playing the sport, yes. I just don't see someone who's been playing Madden on consoles with a nice tv and surround system for years suddenly deciding that the iPad version is sufficient.

Everyone has different levels of 'sufficient'.
I mean, you could reasonably make the argument "why would anyone play a poor electronic representation of a sport when they could play the real thing instead?"

 

[gelf]

To the PC only audience that want consoles to die. Most games aren't exclusive anymore anyway so what big difference does it make to you that consoles exist? If a good chunk of the console audience left and went to mobile then that's a percentage of people not buying those games that PC gets the best version of. What if that loss could be enough to stop that game being made in the first place?

Unless the vast majority console audience moved to PC rather then mobile the net result could be less games for the platform not more. You miss out on the odd exclusive now sure, but you could have missed out on more multiplats if the consoles didn't exist. You just wouldn't know it.

PC gaming has just lost Konami as well remember. This is not good for gamers on any system, unless you like cheap phone games.

 

[antisoulless]

I think when companies leave the industry, new ones will come in. Nordic games is an example of a new entry into the publisher realm. If they can create some good content they'll get pretty huge.

The dead Island publishers also. I think it just takes some time.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

To the PC only audience that want consoles to die.

Discussing a thing doesn't mean you have an agenda in wanting a thing.
I like videogames, and if the future of videogames is on mobile devices, so be it. I'm not going to recoil in horror at the very concept and start dismissing anyone who is already there as their primary gaming device as stupid retard casual dumbfuck scum.

Nordic games is an example of a new entry into the publisher realm. If they can create some good content they'll get pretty huge.

Unless they have some huge announcements at E3, I really don't see how a traditional PC publisher whose sole upcoming console release consists of a Darksiders 2 port, a title they didn't even make but bought up cheap from the THQ firesale, is a particularly shining example of publishers getting back in that console game.

 

[StevieP]

To the PC only audience that want consoles to die. Most games aren't exclusive anymore anyway so what big difference does it make to you that consoles exist? If a good chunk of the console audience left and went to mobile then that's a percentage of people not buying those games that PC gets the best version of. What if that loss could be enough to stop that game being made in the first place?

Unless the vast majority console audience moved to PC rather then mobile the net result could be less games for the platform not more. You miss out on the odd exclusive now sure, but you could have missed out on more multiplats if the consoles didn't exist. You just wouldn't know it.

PC gaming has just lost Konami as well remember. This is not good for gamers on any system, unless you like cheap phone games.

I'm firmly entrenched in the "traditional market". Although I do 98% of my gaming nowadays on one of my rigs (where, btw, the ecosystem is a lot healthier and many of us entirely ignore AAA multis) I still own a ton of consoles and handhelds, all the way back to the 2600 and nes. I, however, can easily see which way the market and the dollars are creeping and funnelling towards. No, the sky is not falling. It's just on its way to becoming a niche. A smaller and less inclusive niche focused on monetizing the young male more and more with less and less.

 

[alexandros]

To the PC only audience that want consoles to die.

I don't want consoles to die. I want both consoles and PCs to evolve and I want the core gaming industry to stop putting up stupid, pointless, archaic barriers that serve no purpose other than fragmenting an already small (compared to mobile) audience. Consider how silly it is that the three main core gaming platforms are essentially x86 PCs but are totally incompatible with each other. Consider that fan favorites like Sunset Overdrive and Bloodborne can't realize their full sales potential because they can only adress a small part of the total audience. It's a shame and it's a waste. If core gaming is to survive and proliferate it needs a single PC-based platform on which various companies can compete at the hardware and service level.

The problem with that model is the cost of entry. Console hardware is subsidised through license fees on retail software, margin on digital downloads, and online subscription services. But I don't see Valve subsidising the cost of Steam machines.

Consoles aren't that subsidized anymore, I think that Steam Machines can and will be competitively priced.

 

[Beefy]

I will never be interested in gaming on a PC, they just aren't for me. Steam machines? Maybe. But if consoles go I can see myself playing games far less.

 

[alexandros]

I will never be interested in gaming on a PC, they just aren't for me. Steam machines? Maybe. But if consoles go I can see myself playing games far less.

The experiense of playing a game on a TV with a controller in hand will probably stick around for a very long time. Is it really important what type of box sits under your TV or who makes it? Current gen consoles are essentially locked down PCs and there is functionally very little difference between a PS4, an XB1 and a PC in Steam's Big Picture mode. Steam Machines will blur the line between console and PC even further. This is progress.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Consoles aren't that subsidized anymore, I think that Steam Machines can and will be competitively priced.

Maybe not subsidised, but also not being sold as at a massive profit, that's where licences and subscriptions come into play.

A "Steam Machine" is being sold at wholesale price, why would a manufacturer miss out on that profit with no secondary source of income to back the device up? They'll sell for a profit and, because of that, they'll ALWAYS be more expensive than the console equivalent.

 

[Foxyone]

With generally overpriced / underpowered Steam machines on the way as alternative pre-built gaming devices, I could see consoles sticking around a while longer.

 

[StevieP]

With generally overpriced / underpowered Steam machines on the way as alternative pre-built gaming devices, I could see consoles sticking around a while longer.

There was just a thread about a 400 dollar Alienware alpha minus a 70 dollar rebate with an i3+860 (roughly equiv to a 750ti). We've been through multiple threads with that already but tldr = it's equivalent or sometimes better than a ps4. The value proposition of consoles this generation are, I think, lower than they've ever been. Especially considering you have to pay service fees to use the Internet on all but the box that's cratering in sales.

 

[TGO]

Nah I can see consoles continuing, more PC console like boxes will hit the market.
It'll be like iPhone(Consoles)vs Android(PC boxes)
But with your standard desktop becoming more of an thing a few dedicated PC hardcore use outside of business.
Kinda how it is now but with more PC boxs on the market.
Smart phones and tablets will/is the death of PC's to the casual market.
Kinda like its killed laptops.

Keep in mind I'm not saying PC is dying before you guys jump to that conclusion, I'm saying it's evolving into something else, but the desktop will be for the hardcore high end gamers.

 

[Foxyone]

There was just a thread about a 400 dollar Alienware alpha with an i3+860 (roughly equiv to a 750ti). We've been through multiple threads with that already but tldr = it's equivalent or sometimes better than a ps4. The value proposition of consoles this generation are, I think, lower than they've ever been. Especially considering you have to pay service fees to use the Internet on all but the box that's cratering in sales.

Generally. I love to talk about and am familiar with the 750 ti, but I think there really needs to be something with a similar price and performance (without requiring a deal) to a console for alternatives to be worthy.

 

[McLovin]

Nintendo was locked to a console that didn't sell well so over all it's not a big loss(with a more powerful mobile device they will be fine a no real need for a home console at the end of the day), Sega has been pumping out crap (with a few exceptions) for years, Konami is pretty much nothing(video gameswise) without Kojima (and he's probably going to keep making console games). These three completely leaving the game console industry will ultimately have little impact. There will just be a huge opportunity for someone to target the kids demographic.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

These three completely leaving the game console industry will ultimately have little impact.

Wow.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Discussing a thing doesn't mean you have an agenda in wanting a thing.
I like videogames, and if the future of videogames is on mobile devices, so be it. I'm not going to recoil in horror at the very concept and start dismissing anyone who is already there as their primary gaming device as stupid retard casual dumbfuck scum.



Unless they have some huge announcements at E3, I really don't see how a traditional PC publisher whose sole upcoming console release consists of a Darksiders 2 port, a title they didn't even make but bought up cheap from the THQ firesale, is a particularly shining example of publishers getting back in that console game.

The (specific) danger with this sea change is that there has been a divide on the dialogue here, one vertex discusses whether or not it's happening and to what extent if so, and another a contest over the perception involving one side wishing for and justifying said sea change via it being their device of choice and another fighting back against it in a "last stand" mentality.

The whole issue reminds me of the kerfluffle over the state of Japanese gaming last gen where the reasons, realities, and future of the slow slide of traditonal gaming over there was in small corners of even this great site, and the majority a shit-flinging contest between vested interests demanding their irrellevancy vs the few still being completely fine with everything coming out over there.

 

[Maximus.]

Sega hasn't made a huge successful game in how long? They have consist duds from my understanding. Konami has new leadership and has decided to chase mobile games, where there are tons of revenue and profit to be had. Again, Konami don't have a ton of games they make for consoles and on top of that it's not a name that is front and centre compared to other developers. Yes, Metal Gear is huge, but MGS4 came out ages ago.

Console gaming is still strong and profitable. Yes, it's a different market then it was 3 gens ago, but that's how the world works. There may be fewer games, but there are more games that appeal to the general puck I from how I look at the current selection.

 

[Boombox On]

Maybe not subsidised, but also not being sold as at a massive profit, that's where licences and subscriptions come into play.

A "Steam Machine" is being sold at wholesale price, why would a manufacturer miss out on that profit with no secondary source of income to back the device up? They'll sell for a profit and, because of that, they'll ALWAYS be more expensive than the console equivalent.

Not really. There is way more baggage to creating a console that PC OEMs don't deal with including years of R&D, designing, prototyping, marketing, initializing an entirely new ecosystem, and in most cases shipping out to physical retailers.

 

[Boombloxer]

The experiense of playing a game on a TV with a controller in hand will probably stick around for a very long time. Is it really important what type of box sits under your TV or who makes it? Current gen consoles are essentially locked down PCs and there is functionally very little difference between a PS4, an XB1 and a PC in Steam's Big Picture mode. Steam Machines will blur the line between console and PC even further. This is progress.

It will progress when the sales are there for all genres, and not just a handful. And also when the hardware is an actual value proposition vs the joke it is now.

A lot of you making the argument of a one box future seems to ignore that the mass market has no interest, and neither do the largest publishers. You're talking about Bloodborne and Sunset Overdrive not reaching their sales potential when those games wouldn't be made without the money of the respective platform publishers in the first place. The reason is directly because the segment that buys those titles is larger on consoles than PC, and dev-wise, PC game testing is a pain precisely because of the multiple rigs and cards and platforms in some cases. There are other reasons as well, but it always come down to money. Until Steam cultivates content in a similar way, that's a big chunk of the market that stays in the console ecosystem.

I could argue the one box future for phones, and there still isn't a unified standard for Android, so even though they sell the most, it's way, way harder to monetize as effectively as Apple, a walled garden platform that simply allows Apps. The small closed box in your hand vs the large closed box under your TV.

And there are key differences, most of which we've gone over a few times. But until someone can actually explain why suddenly one box will happen and be better, I find most of the arguments fairly dubious. So let's look at things differently:

Mobile gaming is here to stay. No one who sees facts or figures can actually deny this. However, the crossover for titles and experiences are low--someone playing Dragons Blodd vs Dragons Crown would find it easier, someone interested in CCS would already have that equivalent in their hand, and seek no reason to go outward. Someone playing Minecraft would cross over to either platform. But the experience you get on mobile isn't a console one. Some people want that, some people do not. The need of a phone vs console is a silly argument, everyone needs to communicate, so yes, the phone should ship more and always have a larger base.

PC gaming does not support the same genres way that consoles do. This is important because most midsize to big games take 2-3 years to really build, so the return has to be pretty high. Thus, the highest monetizing audience is targeted first. You can look at GTA V for a pretty telling example. You could play the game on 4 platforms before PC, which as I Understand it now, had mods gimped. And the franchise stated there.

Console gaming, like it or not, has offered the same advantages for a while, and however you feel about power doesn't actually matter to the market that buys them. Record-setting sales for a 399 console. Pretty good US/UK sales for its competitor. The millions of people who play Madden, FIFA, Halo, CoD, Uncharted, Battlefield, Destiny, Mass Effect, etc mainly do so on consoles. They don't care about mods, or are interested in paying the 500 entry fee for a 980 or time or issues that come from not having a unified account system, they want a box that plays games for years for a low price, where everything is easy as possible. There are people that went through multiple 360s before a building a PC and would easily do so again. They simply do not want to bother. Could this change over time? Sure. But the odds are unlikely, given the early indicators--so let's have this conversation in a few years.

And for those of you saying that mobile graphics will surpass what's in the box, I'll take that bet--the minute you blow them up on a larger screen, it's quite obvious they don't hold up. It's a joke next to U4 or Star Citizen.

I'm going to remind myself not to bother with these threads anymore.

 

[McLovin]

Wow.

I stand by what I said. As long as Nintendo comes out with a more powerful handheld they will be more then fine. Sega isn't the sega we grew up with and neither is Konami. As long as Kojima keeps making games I'll be fine with that too.

 

[StevieP]

It will progress when the sales are there for all genres, and not just a handful. And also when the hardware is an actual value proposition vs the joke it is now.

A lot of you making the argument of a one box future seems to ignore that the mass market has no interest, and neither do the largest publishers. You're talking about Bloodborne and Sunset Overdrive not reaching their sales potential when those games wouldn't be made without the money of the respective platform publishers in the first place. The reason is directly because the segment that buys those titles is larger on consoles than PC, and dev-wise, PC game testing is a pain precisely because of the multiple rigs and cards and platforms in some cases. There are other reasons as well, but it always come down to money. Until Steam cultivates content in a similar way, that's a big chunk of the market that stays in the console ecosystem.

I could argue the one box future for phones, and there still isn't a unified standard for Android, so even though they sell the most, it's way, way harder to monetize as effectively as Apple, a walled garden platform that simply allows Apps. The small closed box in your hand vs the large closed box under your TV.

And there are key differences, most of which we've gone over a few times. But until someone can actually explain why suddenly one box will happen and be better, I find most of the arguments fairly dubious. So let's look at things differently:

Mobile gaming is here to stay. No one who sees facts or figures can actually deny this. However, the crossover for titles and experiences are low--someone playing Dragons Blodd vs Dragons Crown would find it easier, someone interested in CCS would already have that equivalent in their hand, and seek no reason to go outward. Someone playing Minecraft would cross over to either platform. But the experience you get on mobile isn't a console one. Some people want that, some people do not. The need of a phone vs console is a silly argument, everyone needs to communicate, so yes, the phone should ship more and always have a larger base.

PC gaming does not support the same genres way that consoles do. This is important because most midsize to big games take 2-3 years to really build, so the return has to be pretty high. Thus, the highest monetizing audience is targeted first. You can look at GTA V for a pretty telling example. You could play the game on 4 platforms before PC, which as I Understand it now, had mods gimped. And the franchise stated there.

Console gaming, like it or not, has offered the same advantages for a while, and however you feel about power doesn't actually matter to the market that buys them. Record-setting sales for a 399 console. Pretty good US/UK sales for its competitor. The millions of people who play Madden, FIFA, Halo, CoD, Uncharted, Battlefield, Destiny, Mass Effect, etc mainly do so on consoles. They don't care about mods, or are interested in paying the 500 entry fee for a 980 or time or issues that come from not having a unified account system, they want a box that plays games for years for a low price, where everything is easy as possible. There are people that went through multiple 360s before a building a PC and would easily do so again. They simply do not want to bother. Could this change over time? Sure. But the odds are unlikely, given the early indicators--so let's have this conversation in a few years.

And for those of you saying that mobile graphics will surpass what's in the box, I'll take that bet--the minute you blow them up on a larger screen, it's quite obvious they don't hold up. It's a joke next to U4 or Star Citizen.

I'm going to remind myself not to bother with these threads anymore.

"Aaa gaming is the only important kind of gaming"

 

[Game Guru]

Console gaming will be around as long as televisions are around and televisions will be around so long as people want a big experience on a screen instead of a small handheld experience. It is pretty obvious that people want powerful systems to play their games on compared to small mobile-based microconsoles given the sales of them. Nearly all of the microconsoles sell in the single and double digits in North America a month except the PlayStation TV which sells a few thousand instead. Besides it's not like Apple and Samsung, the big names in mobile, don't make powerful smartphones and tablets, if we compare consoles to mobile. I think someone here said it best that Consoles are now to PC what iOS is to Android, which is to say that Consoles and iOS devices are locked down while PCs and Android devices are open.

 

[jellies_two]

and locked down ios turned apple into the largest company in the world (5x google is it now), and pretty much built the mobile gaming ecosystem that everyone seems so afraid of.

 

[alexandros]

A lot of you making the argument of a one box future seems to ignore that the mass market has no interest, and neither do the largest publishers.

Just curious, how do you know this? You speak with such authority on the matter, what kind of proof do you have that the market or the publishers don't want a unified market? I would argue that the fact that most publishers release their games on all viable platforms and the fact that multiplatform titles always top the sales charts are clear signs to the contrary.

 

[Boombloxer]

"Aaa gaming is the only important kind of gaming"

You'd be wrong, but that's fine. not the first time it's happened in this thread.

And that's why I don't bother, because it's not really what I just said. All games have their place in the market, and smartphone games, indies, and AAA gaming are a part of the overall ecosystem. And each segment is healthy because they are used for different experiences. Supercell, Activision and Juicebox can all exist and do fine.

Moving on.

Just curious, how do you know this? You speak with such authority on the matter, what kind of proof do you have that the market or the publishers don't want a unified market? I would argue that the fact that most publishers release their games on all viable platforms and the fact that multiplatform titles always top the sales charts are clear signs to the contrary.

Not really. They top the charts because it's good business sense to release games for as many consumers as possible. The people are buying those platforms for different reasons and thus, concentrating them all in one place is a basic impossibility. Secondly, there's a need to compete that's stretches beyond the box--EA, Valve, Activision, Square, Take-Two, etc all see the market differently beyond the need for franchises and that naturally leads to wanting the best possible outcome for their companies.

The PS4/XB1 have a different feature-set--namely pure games vs TV N Games, with branches to media (Spotify, Plex, etc), so it's good business sense to release something to both consumer bases. There's plenty of people that will simply leave or stop playing if one of those systems were no longer being made for various reasons, from controllers to preferences to UI to friends. The innards of the box are largely the same, with PS4 being more powerful, but there's still people in 2 of the most lucrative markets who buy an XB1.

Even when I look at smartphones, there's Apple, and Android (Samsung, LG, etc). There's folks who won't go to the other platform.

I think someone here said it best that Consoles are now to PC what iOS is to Android, which is to say that Consoles and iOS devices are locked down while PCs and Android devices are open.

Yes. And the higher monetizing platform actually has less marketshare in most of the world.

http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/glo...rive-iOS-Growth-in-Europes-Big-Five-Countries

http://www.appia.com/blog/mobile-monetization-android-vs-ios

http://dazeinfo.com/2014/05/27/ios-users-32-likely-make-app-purchases-android-users-engaged/

Note that neither platform is talked about as being a hindrance to everyone playing in one place. Or the need for one of them to go away because reasons. Or the fact that some games are not on one device for a while, etc.

Anyways, I'm out.