By your definition then, where would you put devs like Vlambeer for example? It seems to me that these kinds of successful indies fall between your definition of hobyist and professional.
-
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.
Konami: The future of the video game industry (Spoiler: It's not console)
- Thread starter ZhugeEX
- Start date
By your definition then, where would you put devs like Vlambeer for example? It seems to me that these kinds of successful indies fall between your definition of hobyist and professional.
I think in order for the industry to maintain profitability and truly evolve it's high time we consider shifting over to a 1 console model where there exists perpetual backwards compatibility (like a PC or an iphone).
Seriously, what do we gain by having 3 consoles on the market at once outside of having to spend 1200$ to buy everything ? Imagine if the game console was more like a bluray/dvd player - you simply buy one every 4 or 5 years and it plays everything, the only differences would be cosmetic or perhaps sony's model would have a bluray player built in but microsofts wouldn't. Nintendo could stick to making games and peripherals for these devices and the portable version of the current game machine. Competition would be on a software level rather than hardware.
This is all a bit off topic from the interesting points made within the original post. Basically, Konami isn't wrong - the current model isn't really sustainable and we've been witnessing why for the last 10 years with how many publishers have died off , the collapse of the mid tier games market and even with the points made on mobile gaming , we've seen many companies toss a shit ton of money at it and make nothing back. Capcom spent 5 years of profits on it and it's just gone forever now.
None of this changes the fact that I really hate what Konami has become as a business. They just have such a wealth of IP under their ownership that's going to be relegated to shit mobile games or some godawful MOBA (all mobas and mobile games are basically just time sinks or money sinks). I'm a crotchety old man these days that dislikes change in my favorite entertainment medium so I can't stand that this is what gaming is turning into BUT if it meant that most companies still made the types of experiences I enjoy in addition to vomiting up the latest whale hunt I'd deal with it. Konami instead has given up on the making those experiences I like and is just a crap company now. Mark my words- despite the F2P quandry they mention in those slides - you'll see a MOBA (probably featuring classic Konami characters) , a PES W11 and a PowerPro baseball title released on console that are all free 2 play editions where it's impossible to just buy the game.
Seriously, what do we gain by having 3 consoles on the market at once outside of having to spend 1200$ to buy everything ? Imagine if the game console was more like a bluray/dvd player - you simply buy one every 4 or 5 years and it plays everything, the only differences would be cosmetic or perhaps sony's model would have a bluray player built in but microsofts wouldn't. Nintendo could stick to making games and peripherals for these devices and the portable version of the current game machine. Competition would be on a software level rather than hardware.
This is all a bit off topic from the interesting points made within the original post. Basically, Konami isn't wrong - the current model isn't really sustainable and we've been witnessing why for the last 10 years with how many publishers have died off , the collapse of the mid tier games market and even with the points made on mobile gaming , we've seen many companies toss a shit ton of money at it and make nothing back. Capcom spent 5 years of profits on it and it's just gone forever now.
None of this changes the fact that I really hate what Konami has become as a business. They just have such a wealth of IP under their ownership that's going to be relegated to shit mobile games or some godawful MOBA (all mobas and mobile games are basically just time sinks or money sinks). I'm a crotchety old man these days that dislikes change in my favorite entertainment medium so I can't stand that this is what gaming is turning into BUT if it meant that most companies still made the types of experiences I enjoy in addition to vomiting up the latest whale hunt I'd deal with it. Konami instead has given up on the making those experiences I like and is just a crap company now. Mark my words- despite the F2P quandry they mention in those slides - you'll see a MOBA (probably featuring classic Konami characters) , a PES W11 and a PowerPro baseball title released on console that are all free 2 play editions where it's impossible to just buy the game.
Akhe
Member
Hate...hahaha yeah, I think you know me so well and yes, I read the whole op.
I just don't like their way of thinking nowsdays, but hate? Hhahaha wow
1st Course
Member
One thing I've been wanting to post is this chart I made. It shows Konami's best selling franchise, Pro Evolution soccer which has sold 90 million units across all entries. Digital Entertainment is still the biggest source of revenue for Konami but at this point they only have 3 major franchises on offer which are Soccer, Baseball and Metal Gear. With this years Metal Gear they'll have good results for Fiscal 2016 but baseball and Soccer have been slipping into irrelevance very slowly.
Certainly in the traditional digital entertainment space on console it'll be interesting to see what they do with these 3 IP's. At this point I'm not entirely sure what Konami's plan is, I know they said they want to continue with Metal Gear and they'll certainly continue with Pro Evo but I wonder if these will continue to be their only console centric games and if Konami will even bother bringing other IP to console or just stick with these main ones?
Thoughts?
That is quite the drop from 2013 - > 2014.
Chû Totoro
Member
Konami? Talks about successful practices in the gaming industry?
.
.
.
LOL !
Some data is still very interesting and true in these slides... it's just Konami may not be the company you should listen to when giving advice about where to go and what to do after they "interpret" these numbers.
.
.
.
LOL !
Some data is still very interesting and true in these slides... it's just Konami may not be the company you should listen to when giving advice about where to go and what to do after they "interpret" these numbers.
What you're talking about isn't really one "console" but just one operating system everybody builds towards. It would be kind of like Android but designed specifically for playing games on TVs. The business model would have to change completely. Manufacturers would have to rely completely on making money off hardware.
I get what you are saying but I think you are using the wrong words. You are a professional by definition if you are making a living off it. Whatever business philosophy you subscribe to doesn't matter. There is no ambiguity to be found here.
silvermember
Banned
Which doesn't necessarily prove or disprove the viability of a console system. I dont think a one console market will solve anything except reduces the amount of unique games. Certain games only exist because hardware manufacturers want players to pick their console over the other. Competition is good.
Personally i think the future will be lesd about AAA once cost reaches a certain level.
One thing I've been wanting to post is this chart I made. It shows Konami's best selling franchise, Pro Evolution soccer which has sold 90 million units across all entries. Digital Entertainment is still the biggest source of revenue for Konami but at this point they only have 3 major franchises on offer which are Soccer, Baseball and Metal Gear. With this years Metal Gear they'll have good results for Fiscal 2016 but baseball and Soccer have been slipping into irrelevance very slowly.
Certainly in the traditional digital entertainment space on console it'll be interesting to see what they do with these 3 IP's. At this point I'm not entirely sure what Konami's plan is, I know they said they want to continue with Metal Gear and they'll certainly continue with Pro Evo but I wonder if these will continue to be their only console centric games and if Konami will even bother bringing other IP to console or just stick with these main ones?
Thoughts?
Where did you take Pes 2015 sales? They never released complete sales. They stopped at 31st december 2014, with just a month of sales for pes 2015.
Thanks Pro evolution Soccer 2014. That was an half finished game, it deserved such a drop in sales.
It's an estimated figure as the graph says.
RoninChaos
Member
You are not going to see a discless console go mainstream in America when so many people have shit internet with data caps. The ISPs are the reason this won't happen for a long, long time. If Sony or ms does that then the console WILL die.
What disproves the viability is that you're asking the current platform holders, who have enormous power acquired at great expense over decades, to voluntarily throw it all away and become commodity hardware vendors.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
You want to explain that?
They are right that mobile gaming = enormous potential profit. You can make much more for little investment.
It's quite ridiculous if you look at other entertainment. It is an anomaly when something like Blair witch project makes ridiculous profit. Instead you expect the movies that cost the most (marvel and big blockbusters) to take in the most money. Instead, companies are finding more money making opportunities the cheaper they go by tapping into more profitable business models. Avengers can sell big time world wide in theaters, then more to hotels and airline flights, then blue ray, then to cable channels, etc etc. Games have no such luck and instead must sell their product as a service to continuously make money (dlc, season pass, micro transactions, skins, etc)
Multi million dollar titles like metal gear 5 that sell at 60 bucks, but then eventually fall victim to used sales, or the platform going out of date, with little other money making opportunity, is frankly a studios death sentence. Ubisoft and activision on can do I because they are giant factories essentially that can annualize their profits
It's quite ridiculous if you look at other entertainment. It is an anomaly when something like Blair witch project makes ridiculous profit. Instead you expect the movies that cost the most (marvel and big blockbusters) to take in the most money. Instead, companies are finding more money making opportunities the cheaper they go by tapping into more profitable business models. Avengers can sell big time world wide in theaters, then more to hotels and airline flights, then blue ray, then to cable channels, etc etc. Games have no such luck and instead must sell their product as a service to continuously make money (dlc, season pass, micro transactions, skins, etc)
Multi million dollar titles like metal gear 5 that sell at 60 bucks, but then eventually fall victim to used sales, or the platform going out of date, with little other money making opportunity, is frankly a studios death sentence. Ubisoft and activision on can do I because they are giant factories essentially that can annualize their profits
silvermember said:
On the other hand, I totally agree with your point about rising costs forcing some kind of change in the console ecosystem. AAA development is getting more expensive with no end in sight, but retail prices are stagnant. Seems like something will have to give eventually.
It would also be interesting to look at the sales breakdown between "big AAA franchises" and "everybody else", for this generation vs previous generations. Because while traditional midtier development is shrinking, indie is growing and might be taking up the slack.
Anybody who wants to get me an NPD subscription for Christmas, please send PM
.Maneauleau
Member
Thanks for that interesting thread OP.
For me the most interesting part was the mention of the user base of the new generation of console starting from 0 everytime. That's something that Iwata mentioned as well when speaking of Nintendo's future.
And when Julien mentions that he would like consoles to follow an evolution model rather than new machines then the border with PC becomes thinner. Since for now for PC/Consoles we have :
PC - Steam Machines -
- PS4/Xbox One.
At the same time, the mobile/tablet/android-os tv devices are also following the PC model with regular iterations of devices allowing for a bigger harvest of potential customers while improving the technology each time.
This also makes me realised how in the PC/mobile world they never really spoke about which hardware the games/software/apps will be released on but for which OS:
'For Windows, iOS, Android etc. '
That's a big plus indeed when for comparison for consoles it's like:
'For PS4, PS3, Xbox One, Vita, 3DS, Wii U' etc... It's much more 'complicated' and cumbersome for the users and much more fragmented for the game/software makers.
Microsoft is smart with their Windows 10 strategy supposedly allowing for 'universal' apps but I think they are a bit late/behind. Or maybe I am just to sceptical in their capacity to nail it.
I wonder if the move to x86 by Sony and Microsoft will allow for this kind of evolution of console wished by Julien to happen.
For me the most interesting part was the mention of the user base of the new generation of console starting from 0 everytime. That's something that Iwata mentioned as well when speaking of Nintendo's future.
And when Julien mentions that he would like consoles to follow an evolution model rather than new machines then the border with PC becomes thinner. Since for now for PC/Consoles we have :
PC - Steam Machines -
Julien's wish of new type of console fits here imo
At the same time, the mobile/tablet/android-os tv devices are also following the PC model with regular iterations of devices allowing for a bigger harvest of potential customers while improving the technology each time.
This also makes me realised how in the PC/mobile world they never really spoke about which hardware the games/software/apps will be released on but for which OS:
'For Windows, iOS, Android etc. '
That's a big plus indeed when for comparison for consoles it's like:
'For PS4, PS3, Xbox One, Vita, 3DS, Wii U' etc... It's much more 'complicated' and cumbersome for the users and much more fragmented for the game/software makers.
Microsoft is smart with their Windows 10 strategy supposedly allowing for 'universal' apps but I think they are a bit late/behind. Or maybe I am just to sceptical in their capacity to nail it.
I wonder if the move to x86 by Sony and Microsoft will allow for this kind of evolution of console wished by Julien to happen.
Kralamoonard
Member
Sorry to bump this thread, but it was linked in the PS4.5 thread, and found this paragraph very telling:
Makes me question if this is a move pressured by 3rd parties rather than just competition with Microsoft.
Also makes me wonder if now is the time to do it: tech's kind of cooled in rapid change and what's most appropriate versus the 90s or even the 2000s, and if IBM felt competitive in this field (and it mattered for actual performance) they probably could've kept up with PowerPC/AMD GPUs.
Stilton Disco
Member
I suppose it would make sense for third parties to want this, as it would remove the need for them to put the time and effort into learning to optimise their games more as the generation went on to get better results.
The idea that anyone would be listening to anything Konami was pushing for just sounds insane at this point, though it would fit the pattern of Konami trying to systematically destroy everything good they were once a part of.
The idea that anyone would be listening to anything Konami was pushing for just sounds insane at this point, though it would fit the pattern of Konami trying to systematically destroy everything good they were once a part of.
BluePikmin11
Member
I'm not sure what's meant by:
"evolutionary platforms rather than be static"
Does this mean they should stick to the same platform for years to come?
I would think Konami alone wouldn't be enough. But if EA wanted it? Activision wanted it? Even smaller developers like, I dunno, Atlus or even Falcom wanting it so they didn't have to worry about taking a long time on a game and people being out of loop due to not having older platforms for older entries that actually are relevant to the newest entries? Nevermind if Microsoft took their PC mentality and just ran with it here and really forced Sony's hand.
It's interesting - in a way we've gone from binning the notion of backwards compatability to, well, keeping the same broad idea of BC without marrying it to the stigma of playing an 'old' game.
I agree with them.
Yes. Absolutely.
Console architecture has finally reached the point where it doesn't need to be blown-up and rebuilt from scratch every generation. There's no exotic hardware anymore. All that needs to be done for each "generation" is to beef-up the power. The games will keep working, just at different, fixed quality levels. This is hugely beneficial for developers, like Konami, since they don't need to re-learn everything each time around.
yanipheonu
Member
Gotta say, knowing this all this comes from "burn down all bridges" Konami really hurts their arguments.
Mobile certainly needs to be at least a part of video games going forward, but there seems to be no reason to think the hardcore and/or AAA scene is going to disappear.
Mobile certainly needs to be at least a part of video games going forward, but there seems to be no reason to think the hardcore and/or AAA scene is going to disappear.
BC was always an appealing-yet-impractical feature, but it looks like we're reaching a turning point where the impractical aspects are more and more inconsequential, and the appealing aspects get stronger with MORE appealing aspects tossed in or made realistic (could you honestly expect a Genesis game to be magically improved by the 32X with no way to update the cart, and needing to actively rework the game to take advantage?)
Might actually make Microsoft smart in tackling BC the way they did, versus Sony's more scorched earth mentality by cutting out PS1 and demanding trophies for PS2.
BluePikmin11
Member
So would it be like the Nintendo 64DD in a sense? Upgrade with by adding parts to the console that would make the console better in certain areas?
Interesting proposal for Konami, I legitimately like the idea. I can see why they stick to mobile given the long success mobile games get these days.
Interesting proposal for Konami, I legitimately like the idea. I can see why they stick to mobile given the long success mobile games get these days.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Konami talking "blue ocean" like Nintendo did back in 2004-2005 pre-Wii. Interesting.
TreasureHunterG
Banned
LOL
Konami is a prime example of not doing right in the gaming industry.
Konami is a prime example of not doing right in the gaming industry.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Not all mobile games are succeeding. And there's many AAA console/PC games that are making plenty of money.
I could totally see third party publishers wanting this and pressuring Sony and Microsoft to do it. You could argue in one form or another that the pressure has been there since last gen. A lot of the multiplatform games that came out in 2011 and 2012 looked and ran like crap on PS3 and 360.
What really interests me about the Konami quote though is that this thinks it will benefit F2P games and whatnot. What I really think it means is that the iterative model, which doesn't reset the install base and software library every generation, is better for the games-as-a-service model.
Its in the best interest for service-type games to last longer than typical games that get phased out for the sequel annually or every two or three years. PC has always been doing this with games like Warcraft, Diablo, or The Sims that end up just getting expansion packs and other content updates for a decade plus. Warcraft III came out in 2002 and just recently got a new patch. Mobile is starting to do it too. Some of the most popular games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans came out in 2012 and people are still buying content for them. If people are still enjoying Destiny and buying content for it in 2019, it would be in Activison's best interest if everyone's PS4 copy ran on the PS5 without any fuss.
What really interests me about the Konami quote though is that this thinks it will benefit F2P games and whatnot. What I really think it means is that the iterative model, which doesn't reset the install base and software library every generation, is better for the games-as-a-service model.
Its in the best interest for service-type games to last longer than typical games that get phased out for the sequel annually or every two or three years. PC has always been doing this with games like Warcraft, Diablo, or The Sims that end up just getting expansion packs and other content updates for a decade plus. Warcraft III came out in 2002 and just recently got a new patch. Mobile is starting to do it too. Some of the most popular games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans came out in 2012 and people are still buying content for them. If people are still enjoying Destiny and buying content for it in 2019, it would be in Activison's best interest if everyone's PS4 copy ran on the PS5 without any fuss.
BluePikmin11
Member
Yeah they do have their share of success, I'm just looking at reasons why mobile gaming is preferred by Konami now.
OnionPowder
Member
Lower development costs