I agree with the article to a certain extent but as others have noted, services like PSN and XBLA open up opportunities for developers on a tight budget. Games like flOw and Everyday Shooter are evidence of this.

Traditionally, most gameplay innovations have originated on PC, as it is by far the most open platform, but this generation of consoles has gone some way to changing that (it's still got a long way to go, mind).

The important thing is that there are always outlets available for original game developers to distribute their wares. Innovative developers working on small budgets will get noticed and their budgets will gradually increase as a result. While publishers may attempt to rein them in, to avoid the risk of gameplay that is too "experimental", proven talents will still be left to their own devices (see Will Wright). It is no different from the film industry. Just because Michael Bay films make more money, that doesn't stop Woody Allen films getting made.

>introduction of new things or methods.

well, "things" and "methods" aren't the same. Microsoft and Sony focus on "thing" while Nintendo focused on "methods"

to call Microsoft and Sony "innovation Killer" is obviously flawed.

 Agreee

> Agreee

well, we finally see eye-to-eye now. LOL

It's just more insulting since the comment came from VP of MOBILE gaming. Geez. and from EA no less

Personally, I think the important question is "What do you REALLY gain from these massive budget games?"

I think most people will agree that the answer is (primarily) improved graphics. I personally wonder whether this push towards better graphics, and more realistic graphics, misses the point of what a game is and why we play it. Conisder this image from Super Smash Bros. Brawl:

Certainly, if this game was produced for the XBox 360/PS3 the graphics could be enhanced quite a bit; you could increase the resolution of all of the textures, many of the items that are on the texture could actuall be modeled, you could include normal maps to increase the appearance of polygonal detail, you could use material shaders to give the shield the appearance of metal, his tunic the appearance of cloth, his belts the appearance of leather, his skin the appearnce of skin, and so on ... All of this comes at a massive cost as it increases the ammount of work necessary to complete the artistic assets.

What would you really gain from increasing thos graphics?

In my opinion most developers need to step out of the arms race and realise that there is little or no benefit to trying to one up eachother with better graphics and more advanced graphical techniques. Certainly, Konami can afford to spend $70 Million to produce Metal Gear Solid 4 because it is ensured sales to break even but most developers do not have this luxury.

 ^Epic Win :P 

Like already said...it depends on what people say about innovation. I give credit to the Achievement system in the 360. When the idea was added to Team Fortress 2, it does add an incentive to play even longer (and now there's going to be more achievements coming out for the classes).

And the PSN and XBLA give indie developers their shot at making themselves known. Plus the ps3 and 360 have the ability to be the center of anyone's media center because you can stream music, videos, and surf the net on them (not sure on 360 with surfing the net, someone correct me on that?). The Wii with the control setup.

And Home might be innovative...have to wait till it comes out.

@ selnor

But they were the first to introduce an HD Drive in their system, and consequently (most likely) tipped the war in their favor. Now if that matters or not, can be argued, but what can't be argued is the 9 million Blu-Ray players that were out there because of this. So their innovation has essentially changed what happened in the war. I'd call that innovation.

Dude, you don't have a clue. I work in one of the biggest and most technological advanced companies in the world and we use technology of very small companies all the time. You know why, because it's cheaper than developing it yourself because that detracts from the core business.

How is developing a faster chip innovation? The word faster says it all, same functionality, different speed. The Wii mote is pure innovation, because the technology is new for that particular purpose (controlling videogames).

Meh. All three companies are bringing innovation to the industry in one way or another. Personally, I like the idea that they're going for different objectives with their consoles. Sony is heavily invested in the multimedia experience, MS is concentrating online, and Nintendo is trying to bring new gamers into the fold. While they overlap in areas, each company has their own mission and they're pursuing different objectives.

Budget is definitely a concern, which is why I think we'll see MS and Sony go for slightly weaker consoles next generation in comparison to the 360/PS3's specs at launch. But they're not killing innovation. I think it's just the opposite with PSN/XBLA, online, and multimedia options each console offers.

If this was a Nintendo-only world, console gaming would suck.