| DoesWhatNintenDont said: So do people see this as a sign of the beginnings of a new paradigm in the gaming industry? |
Yes. No. All of the Above?
1) No. One day is too small a sample size. When Wii supply is stable, all three consoles have a full library, and the prices level after a year or two, we'll know. Hindsight is always 20/20, but it really is too early to make a call.
I will say though, that perception usually becomes reality, and the longer the PS3 founders and is given short shrift as a luxury item for the techno elite uber hardcore gamer d00d, the more people are going to be turned off by it and avoid it in droves. Here is the problem: It's a self-sufficient loop. The more fanboys and techno-philes thumb their noses at the majority, the more the majority is going to perceive high end console ownership as some sort of exclusive country club for snobs, and they're NOT going to want to join. When Peter Moore or Jack Tretton make disparaging remarks about their competitors products, or buyers' habits, they are directly insulting 90% of the customer base that made their previous products successful in the first place!
I've made the argument before, and I'll make it again: Zelda didn't sell the NES to everyone, Tetris did. Doom didn't sell the PC to everyone, Myst and eff'ing Solitaire did. Gran Turismo 3 didn't sell the PlayStation 2 to everyone, DDR & Guitar Hero did.
It has always been about the casual game, so therefore, the casual gamer.
2) Yes. I think where we're going is an inevitability. Ten years ago, everybody thought it would be really cool once we finally got our hands on computers that could render games that look like animated movies such as Toy Story. Well, that day is approaching, and now we realize that those types of movies take four years and $100M USD to make, and won't turn a profit unless 30M go see it during the first run, and another 100M buy it or rent it later. These numbers are unfathomable in the gaming industry for a single title, but that's where it'll go. Publishers are already lamenting that they would have to sell 600,000 units of a single game on the PS3 just to break even, so there is a huge financial risk in trying something new.
The alternative? Stick with what sells ... Wall-to-wall FPS/TPS action built upon the rent-an-engine du jour of the week (John Carmack and Mark Rein are very happy and wealthy because everybody elses games look just like theirs'). The analogy has been brought up here on VGC before -- high end consoles are going to wind up getting the equivilent of Hollywood's summer movie blockbuster treatment, and it'll probably be a sequel of something to boot.
The gaming industry has a herd mentality; this is also how it has always been. Nintendo succeeded with Super Mario Bros., so what'd we get? A thousand copy-cat sidescrolling platformers. id succeeded with Wolfenstein and Doom, so where'd that lead? A thousand copy-cat FPS shooters. For pete's sake, Nintendo strikes the jackpot again with "tripe" like Nintendogs and Brain Age, so what do all the Western developers start making? That's right, awful pet sims and brain teasers.
Such is the cycle of game developers, until someone comes along and defines a new "blue ocean," which quickly turns red again as the sharks swoop in. Tetris? Columns. Pokemon? Digimon. Guitar Hero? Meet Rock Band!
Where your paradigm shift is occuring is that we're reaching a point of diminishing returns in graphics realism + button mashing, pushing the envelope in thrills and suspense and gross immersion at the absence of pure, mindless fun, so the only way to go is to seek out a new, bluer ocean.
Some companies are doing that, and others aren't.
