By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - A New and Unique Trend in Game Development And Publishing

OriGin on 26 July 2007

In a way I also think that the lower power of the Wii is smart because it holds back multi-platform games that are developed for all the systems. They don't make a lot of the core game mechanics anything that couldn't be done on Wii and then just jazz up the effects and textures on the PS3 and 360 which really ends up causing a borro game in the end.

I can't think of any examples right now, but it's got to be playing a part.



Around the Network
your mother on 26 July 2007
super_etecoon said:
 

And of multiple toaster households? Do those not exist? Especially if the price point is low enough. This I believe is a lesson that will be learned by all (At least I hope). A console wants to be sold at less than 299. Imagine how different this race would be if either of the companies had that price point (for the premium model....no one buys a crap model).


But if the entry point for premium console models are all selling at less than $299 you can bet neither the 360 nor the PS3 would exist today in the way they are now. They'd be far more stripped-down versions in hardware, capabilities and features (or Microsoft and Sony would have to rack up even more initial losses).



super_etecoon on 26 July 2007

I agree your mother....that is why I predicted before that neither Microsoft or Sony will ever attempt to create such a hardcore machine again. They thought they had to, I think. The trend since the beginning had always been about graphics and goodies. Little did they know the true thing that each successive generation has brought to the table was better gameplay. And with gameplay and gameplay alone you can win.



Sqrl on 26 July 2007
super_etecoon said:
I agree your mother....that is why I predicted before that neither Microsoft or Sony will ever attempt to create such a hardcore machine again. They thought they had to, I think. The trend since the beginning had always been about graphics and goodies. Little did they know the true thing that each successive generation has brought to the table was better gameplay. And with gameplay and gameplay alone you can win.

 Ironically I think each company thought they had to because of the other company.  They were so paranoid about "being the most powerfull!!1!!one!!11!!eleven". I think the market was primed for a smart competitor like nintendo to do precisely what they did.

Just a quick question @Bod,

Would it not be a fair assessment to say that it is expected for 3rd party software companies to have lessened profits (if not incurred losses) as they begin their trek into a new generation?  It seems initial development costs are almost certainly going to be higher due to unfamiliarity in general and that cuts into profits quickly.



To Each Man, Responsibility
naznatips on 26 July 2007

The Wii seems to have an interesting mix of a user base. In the end, I think it's very similar to the DS.

-They have the new gamers, the ocean of everyday people who wouldn't have picked up a game system before the Wii. The DS has these as well with the "touch generation."

-They have the Nintendo fans, people who always buy Nintendo's systems so that they can play their favorite games.

-They have a good portion of last generation casuals. These people buy game systems on pretty much nothing but hype and quantity of games.

-They have the lapsed gamers, people who haven't bought a game system since the SNES or earlier.

-Then they have a mix of core gamers and PS2 owners from last generation who couldn't or didn't want to cough up $400 plus for a game system (count me in this one). You'll see that there are actually quite a few of these if you check the topic about how many Wii owners had Gamecubes.

As far as the ages of Wii owners go: They have most of the children (ages 13 and under), almost none of the teenagers, a split market in college, and the majority of the adult market.

Looking at the odd patterns of Wii owners it seems that the Wii will need to carry a very diverse library of games to keep everyone happy. Sure some games may appeal to everyone in that list (Super Mario Galaxy), but others will be niche. A game like Red Steel or Resident Evil 4 can sell well on the Wii, but at the same time Mario Party 8 can be a booming success.

As far as future games go, something like Metroid Prime or No More Heroes is going to appeal only to the core audience gamers on the Wii, but will likely sell well anyway, whereas something like EA Playground is only going to appeal to the children who own a Wii.

The Wii (and really the DS as well) is such an interesting phenomenon because it has easily the most diverse and ranged userbase ever to grace a game console. The potential variety of successful games on the Wii is boggling, and it really is becoming a system that has something for everyone due to it's success and diversity.  If you look at the current range and variety in the DS library, as well as the range of what sells well, I think you will get a glimpse into the future of the Wii.  It's also notable that the DS continues to gain core games and very strong first and 3rd party support.



Around the Network
your mother on 26 July 2007
super_etecoon said:
Agree you mother....that is why I predicted before that neither Microsoft or Sony will ever attempt to create such a hardcore machine again. They thought they had to, I think. The trend since the beginning had always been about graphics and goodies. Little did they know the true thing that each successive generation has brought to the table was better gameplay. And with gameplay and gameplay alone you can win.

What I find particularly interesting is how or why Sony and Microsoft lost focus on what makes games great in the first place just as Nintendo lost its focus last-gen, and focused on the technology.

Like you said, each successive generation as brought better/innovative/unique gameplay experiences. That's why I skipped out on the Gamecube last gen. I still bought an Xbox (well, not "bought" - it was included in my broadband subscriber plan as an incentive for me to keep on using their service) and the PS2 was purchased in fact for its DVD player!  But honestly:

NES/Master System era: Two buttons

SNES/Genesis era: Many more buttons! More complicated gameplay and more gameplay possibilities

N64/PS/Saturn era: 3D!

Gamecube/PS2/Xbox era: nothing new but more polygons, larger textures and improved audio quality

Wii/PS3/360 era: nothing new but more polygons, larger textures and improved audio quality - except the waggle!



jstam on 26 July 2007
Bodhesatva said:
super_etecoon said:
Bodhesatva...I don't believe a monopoly will occur. This generation could prove to be the most egalitarian of them all. Granted, Microsoft and Sony might not put nearly as much money or processing power into their next systems, but they will rebound.

We cannot forget that gaming as a whole is bigger than ever. Nintendo's Blue Ocean strategy suggests it will only get bigger. My girlfriend is playing games now. She saw Nintendogs. It was over. Granted, she is an extreme casual, but she now can identify herself as a gamer...casual or not.

The same can be true with the older market that Nintendo has had much success with lately. Sony and Microsoft (or whoever decides to enter the next race Apple? Google?) will restructure and redefine themselves within the market. If there is anything that can be said about console wars it is that they are neither won nor lost in a single generation.

And I don't believe that handhelds are merging with consoles. Ask a DS owner how much interconnectivity there is between his touch screen and his Wii and he might not even have a clue what you are talking about. To my dismay there has been very little crossover between the two systems (or any handheld and its console counterpart). Yet the handheld market is alive and well. Even the PSP's limited success against the DS is success overall. 20 million units can not be misconstrued as failure. In fact, it suggests that the handheld market is capable of holding multiple competitors just like the console market.

I'm not saying this to say that my original claim is without its flaws; I'm only saying that your arguments against it don't seem to hold water. I think we both could be wrong. Ha!

The big problem (or flaw, as you say) is that the video game market is really two markets rolled into one, much like the PC market: hardware and software. And guess what happened to the PC market?

The big issue is that specific software needs to be made for specific hardware. A software company needs to choose between making a game for the DS, or the PSP, or the Wii, or invest a great deal more money and develop a PS3, 360 and PC game, with a good deal of money spent on conversion. It makes more economic sense for all the software developers if all of these platforms became a single one.

Development companies are losing a lot of money right now, super. The next gen movement has been very hard on companies, even including EA, who has seen their profits shrink year over year for four years running, since they began investing in "next gen" properties. Observe EA's annual earnings:

FY04: $511 million R&D costs, $577 million total profitFY05: $633m R&D, $504m profitFY06: $758m R&D, $236m profitFY07: $1041m R&D, $76m profit This is the most profitable 3rd party company in the world we're talking about here (okay, they've briefly been passed by Activision, but EA will almost surely eclipse them again within a few weeks, with the release of NCAA 08 and Madden 08). Something is wrong. This is not tenable. Within a generation, if things remain as they are, this will no longer be profitable for any third party trying to juggle their games across all these varied platforms. It's too expensive to develop games and assets, and too much risk is taken with so many possible reasons for failure (the game isn't well received, the system itself isn't well received, and so forth). Additionally, the two companies that are currently "losing" the hardware war -- Sony and Microsoft -- are both billions of dollars in the hole for this generation, and are unlikely to make all of it back. They may both be in the red for the entirety of this generation. Clearly, this market isn't able to sustain this many consoles in a profitable manner. Whoever wins will make a ton of money -- just as MS has with its OS monopoly on PCs -- so its understandable why everyone is fighting so viciously over this territory, but that someone is going to be singular (or, perhaps a two console race, including the portables), and as the finances show, the also-rans are going to lose a great deal of money, both on the hardware and software side.
The current environment simply is not tenable, economically speaking.

 


 could we then see software companies (ea,activision etc) teaming up in the future and either

a) deciding/demanding what they want out of sony and microsofts next systems

b) considering how much r&d ea put into the generation transfer (close to 3billion going by those numbers) deciding that it'd be be more financially viable to go and make their own console or with other big software companies and make it the best system for 3rd parties to develop for...  



Sqrl on 26 July 2007

@jstam,

I will let Bodhesatva give you a full responce, but I would like to chime in and say I think it is unlikely that several of these 3rd party companies would want to make a console and I don't know that they could handle the burden for the development of a console (it is crazy expensive to do prototyping). But I wouldn't rule out working together to help shape future console landscapes in their favor, although I am not sure how likely it is.
To Each Man, Responsibility
jstam on 26 July 2007
Sqrl said:
@jstam,

I will let Bodhesatva give you a full responce, but I would like to chime in and say I think it is unlikely that several of these 3rd party companies would want to make a console and I don't know that they could handle the burden for the development of a console (it is crazy expensive to do prototyping). But I wouldn't rule out working together to help shape future console landscapes in their favor, although I am not sure how likely it is.

If they where to release a console at the end of the 360/ps3's lifespan that had similar internal architechtuare to those consoles im positive that this would cost less than what it does to upgrade their r&d, and if the burden was split between say the top 5 publishers they would all wave any royalties that they would have to pay sony/microsoft, plus no doubt there would be other benefits that i am not aware of as well...



vanguardian1 on 26 July 2007

Sorry, I wanted to do was chime in and thank you guys for such a damn fine discussion. :)

And on a personal note, the 360 and ps3 hold no value to me outside of the use of a video game console. I also paid more for the Wii than I have any other console before ($200 was my max before) because along with it providing me the games I always loved to play (from nintendo and the occasional 3rd party gem), I could also play several games with other members of my family.

Just to chime in an extra fact that you guys haven't mentioned is the heavy focus for online features this generation. In America, 1/3 of the population cannot acquire "multiplayer friendly" broadband access. While not a majority, it affects a large percentage of the population, and is often overlooked in discussions. :)

That's all I wanted to say, keep up the good words, guys!



Nobody is crazy enough to accuse me of being sane.