Forums - Gaming Discussion - Update: Jade Raymond joins Google as Vice President | Rumor: Google's gaming console details leaked, possible controller design revealed via patent

Shadow1980 said:
RaptorChrist said:

In many ways I would agree that the original Xbox was a failure. I could see it being said that the Xbox 360 couldn't've been possible without the Xbox, so the Xbox was steps in the right direction. But then again, has the Xbox division of Microsoft ever turned a profit? I find it hard to believe that they haven't, but I can find some articles from as recent as 2016 that state Microsoft has never profited with the Xbox, and that only revenues are rising.

Google's main advantage is the amount of computing power that they have, not to mention among the most talented developers in the world. Maybe if Google partnered up with Sony or MS they could create something impactful.

It's been a long time since a real competitor showed up in the market, and the more I think about, the more I think that the home console market is going to be on a major downhill trend in the coming years. The mobile gaming market is causing people to not bother with the home console market. Something may need to change, and maybe Google sees an opportunity there.

@Bolded. I've never bought into the claim that mobile hurts console gaming. The iPhone debuted almost 12 years ago, yet we've seen no real impact on the home console market. Hardware and software sales remain incredibly strong, at least in the West, with no signs of a contraction. In the U.S., same-gen console sales for the PS4 & XBO were at above 9 million units every year from 2014 to 2018, a streak that's never before been accomplished (chart below). While combined PS4+XBO sales never quite reached the peak of combined PlayStation+Xbox sales from Gens 6 & 7, the stability has been remarkable. Assuming a Nov. 2020 release date for both the PS5 and Xbox 4. I think this generation is on track to end at around 70M in the U.S., on par with combined 360+PS3 sales. Now, you could argue that the console market is now a zero-growth market, but nobody should have expected it to continue growing forever. As with any other consumer electronic item, there are only so many households willing and able to own a game console (poor people are less likely to own a console, as are people born before 1960), and it's clear that consoles (or at least conventional consoles) have reached a saturation point. Stable sales are not shrinking sales, and the lack of growth should not be viewed with alarm.

In Europe, the PS4 is already the second best-selling home console ever in the region, behind only the PS2. It will probably end up somewhere in the 45-50M range. The XBO is running well behind the PS4, but should end up at around 14-16M. So, we're talking around 60-65M conventional consoles sold in the region, as good or better than combined PS3+360 sales, and about on par with combined PS2+OXbox sales. Again, no indication of a contracting market.

The home console market has undergone a contraction in Japan, but that was already well underway in Gen 6 when smartphones were not yet a thing. However, the handheld market (well, Nintendo handhelds, anyway) continued to do well in Japan despite the existence of mobile gaming, which you would find even less likely given that you would think mobile competes more directly with portable consoles than with home consoles.

Most companies consider lack of growth almost as good as shrinking market =´[



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

The console wars of yesteryears will soon be looked back on fondly as small skirmishes in comparison to what's coming...

A nintendo/xbox partnership is an excellent idea. They'll need each other to combat Apple and Google. Where this will eventually leave Sony is anyone's guess.



DonFerrari said:

Most companies consider lack of growth almost as good as shrinking market =´[

Yes, but lack of growth is inevitable, especially in markets like consumer electronics. Take color TV. By the end of the 80s, it was already at full saturation, with 95% of all households in the U.S. owning at least one. After that point, the only new sales were people buying a second (or third or fourth) set or replacing old models that stopped working, and sales levels ceased growing and leveled off. Same for major appliances. When these things were new, they were rapidly adopted and sales grew quickly. But now nearly every household has a refrigerator and an oven/stove, and as a result, real, meaningful sales growth stopped and leveled off because people only buy a new fridge or stove because they're a first-time buyer (i.e., someone who grew up, moved out of their parent's house, and got their own home they had to furnish themselves), or because they need to replace an old, broken machine, or because they might want a second one (like a fridge in the garage).

Of course, with some forms of consumer electronics sales volumes can be improved by continually making newer, fundamentally different, and qualitatively far better types of models that make the old ones obsolete, but the ability to do that depends on the rate of technological advancement. TVs went from black & white to color and finally to flat-panel HDTVs (and even 4K HD for videophiles and those willing to pay more for super-sharp picture), so that's really only three major "generations" for TV sets since the 1950s. Home video evolved more quickly, with VHS, then DVD, and now Blu-ray, but that's still only three "generations" of home video formats since the early 80s. But consoles, being computers, have evolved much more rapidly. With consoles, eventually any given system will start to have reduced sales as it reaches its saturation point after a few years, but by that point improved technology allows for newer, more advanced systems to replace the older system, starting the whole cycle all over again.

But even then growth in sales is not unlimited. You can't sell 200 million consoles in a country like the U.S., which has only 127 million households, because there simply aren't enough households willing and able to buy a console. As with any other consumer electronic item, everybody that wants one will have one, and you can't expand the share of the population that wants a particular type of gadget, meaning the only real growth that happens as a function of population growth. The only way the global console market will see new, meaningful growth is through emerging markets adopting consoles in larger numbers more comparable to the per capita sales we see in advanced economies like in the U.S. & Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. Most of the growth in the console market in the 90s was due to Europe finally adopting consoles en masse in Gen 5 with the PS1 after largely ignoring them in the 8-bit & 16-bit eras, and now the market needs other regions to adopt consoles in large quantities to produce more growth in the present. But even then, meaningful growth will eventually cease altogether.

Honestly, I think this obsession with growth needs to end. There are always limits to growth, and sooner or later anything and everything will hit them. The idea that anything can grow infinitely in a finite system is the philosophy of a cancer cell. It results in shitty business practices as companies seek to produce ever-large profits for their shareholders (and it also results in shitty fiscal and domestic policy from governments; see the push for natalist policies in nations worried that the lack of population growth will cause them to fall behind other nations, as if it were some race to have the world's largest GDP). The obsession with perpetual growth forces companies to come up with new strategies to produce growth, and when they reach the end of real, meaningful growth some of those methods start to get increasingly questionable. Planned obsolescence is one way, such as appliances being made more cheaply and lower quality and consequently having shorter lifespans than they used to, forcing people to buy them more frequently (many decades ago you could buy a Kenmore appliance from Sears and it would last you 20-30 years or more; meanwhile, it seems like newer appliances were built with gremlins preinstalled, and you're lucky if they last 10-15 years). Cable companies increased subscription fees and introduced a larger number of premium programming tiers. Obstacles are put in place to discourage people from repairing their devices, encouraging them to pay an authorized repairer or buy a newer model. There's the cessation of upgrades to and support for an older operating system, pushing people to buy the new OS. Sometimes you'll see what was once a one-time product purchase turned into a subscription-based service, thus getting a recurring payment from the consumer. Predatory monetization schemes have become a problem in video games. And many businesses in general will at the end of real growth cut wages & benefits, cut jobs, and do whatever they can to artificially inflate their profit margins, even if it results in the destruction of the business.

 

The harsh reality is that infinite growth is not sustainable. As a certain obscure geology professor whose commentary I like to read said, "In the long run, every economic model that assumes unlimited future growth is a Ponzi scheme."



I don't consider Jade Raymond to be a serious talent in the gaming industry. Next.




Consoles don't matter to much anymore it is all about subscriptions and accounts. If google takes it serious we will get a lot of we have so many milllion subscribers.






Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:
DonFerrari said:

Most companies consider lack of growth almost as good as shrinking market =´[

Yes, but lack of growth is inevitable, especially in markets like consumer electronics. Take color TV. By the end of the 80s, it was already at full saturation, with 95% of all households in the U.S. owning at least one. After that point, the only new sales were people buying a second (or third or fourth) set or replacing old models that stopped working, and sales levels ceased growing and leveled off. Same for major appliances. When these things were new, they were rapidly adopted and sales grew quickly. But now nearly every household has a refrigerator and an oven/stove, and as a result, real, meaningful sales growth stopped and leveled off because people only buy a new fridge or stove because they're a first-time buyer (i.e., someone who grew up, moved out of their parent's house, and got their own home they had to furnish themselves), or because they need to replace an old, broken machine, or because they might want a second one (like a fridge in the garage).

Of course, with some forms of consumer electronics sales volumes can be improved by continually making newer, fundamentally different, and qualitatively far better types of models that make the old ones obsolete, but the ability to do that depends on the rate of technological advancement. TVs went from black & white to color and finally to flat-panel HDTVs (and even 4K HD for videophiles and those willing to pay more for super-sharp picture), so that's really only three major "generations" for TV sets since the 1950s. Home video evolved more quickly, with VHS, then DVD, and now Blu-ray, but that's still only three "generations" of home video formats since the early 80s. But consoles, being computers, have evolved much more rapidly. With consoles, eventually any given system will start to have reduced sales as it reaches its saturation point after a few years, but by that point improved technology allows for newer, more advanced systems to replace the older system, starting the whole cycle all over again.

But even then growth in sales is not unlimited. You can't sell 200 million consoles in a country like the U.S., which has only 127 million households, because there simply aren't enough households willing and able to buy a console. As with any other consumer electronic item, everybody that wants one will have one, and you can't expand the share of the population that wants a particular type of gadget, meaning the only real growth that happens as a function of population growth. The only way the global console market will see new, meaningful growth is through emerging markets adopting consoles in larger numbers more comparable to the per capita sales we see in advanced economies like in the U.S. & Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. Most of the growth in the console market in the 90s was due to Europe finally adopting consoles en masse in Gen 5 with the PS1 after largely ignoring them in the 8-bit & 16-bit eras, and now the market needs other regions to adopt consoles in large quantities to produce more growth in the present. But even then, meaningful growth will eventually cease altogether.

Honestly, I think this obsession with growth needs to end. There are always limits to growth, and sooner or later anything and everything will hit them. The idea that anything can grow infinitely in a finite system is the philosophy of a cancer cell. It results in shitty business practices as companies seek to produce ever-large profits for their shareholders (and it also results in shitty fiscal and domestic policy from governments; see the push for natalist policies in nations worried that the lack of population growth will cause them to fall behind other nations, as if it were some race to have the world's largest GDP). The obsession with perpetual growth forces companies to come up with new strategies to produce growth, and when they reach the end of real, meaningful growth some of those methods start to get increasingly questionable. Planned obsolescence is one way, such as appliances being made more cheaply and lower quality and consequently having shorter lifespans than they used to, forcing people to buy them more frequently (many decades ago you could buy a Kenmore appliance from Sears and it would last you 20-30 years or more; meanwhile, it seems like newer appliances were built with gremlins preinstalled, and you're lucky if they last 10-15 years). Cable companies increased subscription fees and introduced a larger number of premium programming tiers. Obstacles are put in place to discourage people from repairing their devices, encouraging them to pay an authorized repairer or buy a newer model. There's the cessation of upgrades to and support for an older operating system, pushing people to buy the new OS. Sometimes you'll see what was once a one-time product purchase turned into a subscription-based service, thus getting a recurring payment from the consumer. Predatory monetization schemes have become a problem in video games. And many businesses in general will at the end of real growth cut wages & benefits, cut jobs, and do whatever they can to artificially inflate their profit margins, even if it results in the destruction of the business.

 

The harsh reality is that infinite growth is not sustainable. As a certain obscure geology professor whose commentary I like to read said, "In the long run, every economic model that assumes unlimited future growth is a Ponzi scheme."

Fully agree with you. But you know boards are pressured by shareholders to push for increased growth so their share can also grow. And on that we see two basic movements, increase in organic revenue/profit or purchase of other business.

CEOs like their jobs and bonuses so they will gladly oblige. Therefore come the bad practices  you mentioned.

I do hope new markets open fastly enough for the platforms to see oportunities for growth that have nothing to do with bad practices. And perhaps seeing these lower tier/lower purchase power markets but vast number of consumers we may see a reduction in the pricetag in a way that benefits all.

Even with tax for imports (and even internal production) on videogames in Brazil being about 60% so making a Switch here 420 USD on greyshop (no oficial store) and PS4 about 500 USD, a new game from Sony is about 50USD on official stores and about 40USD on greyshops. Perhaps with the new laws we may see 30-40 largely available for SW.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Just 2 days to go now guys. Can't wait to see what Google has in store for us. Hopefully Liam Robertson and the other leakers are right and it is an actual console in addition to the rumored streaming box that the big tech sites are reporting on, and not just the streaming box. Feels too soon for just a streaming box, only about half of the world's population currently has access to high speed internet, and probably about 30% of the gaming population doesn't have access to speeds fast enough for streaming (Project Stream requires 25 mbps). Not to mention, even if you do have high speed internet, distance to the nearest data center is an important factor in the quality of the experience since longer distances equal more latency. Google has 16 data centers in 9 different countries, that is really not alot for an all-streaming console. South America is serviced by a single data center in Chile, there are areas of South and Central America that are several thousand miles away from a data center currently. Google has no data center in Africa or the Middle East. Asia has just 2 in Taiwan and Singapore, which would result in considerable latency in Japan, one of the largest gaming markets, as well as China and India, 2 of the fastest growing gaming markets. Australia and New Zealand don't have data centers at all currently and they are both fairly big gaming markets. US wise, 2 states aren't serviced by a nearby data center, Alaska and Hawaii. Southern Europe also has none currently, which would lead to considerable latency in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, France etc. 

Google's Project Stream is great if you are close to a data center, I can testify to that, I was in the beta and live about 300 miles from the nearest Google Data Center, and for a singleplayer game like AC Odyssey it worked great. But the experience won't be good if you are farther than maybe 1000 miles from a data center I have a feeling. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 17 March 2019