Source: Gamasutra: Armando Marini's Blog - The Console Degeneration

The Console Degeneration
by Armando Marini

The time is drawing near for a new generation of consoles...isn’t it? As I’m sure many of you know, the generations would turn every five years or so, meaning that a new round should be expected around 2011.

However would it be a smart move for anyone to release a console at that time? I say no. I say that the current crop of consoles have more than enough features to carry us for the foreseeable future.

We are staring at the law of diminishing returns. If you look back at each console cycle, it was the screen shots and gameplay movies that fired up the public’s enthusiasm. The consoles could easily demonstrate their superiority over the hardware they were replacing. However, the current consoles are so advanced that a comparison with better hardware is difficult.

Take a look at a screenshot of any game that is both on PC and a Next gen console and you’d be hard pressed to see the difference. Even in motion, it’s a tough call. Back in 2003 for instance, a good gaming PC had the ability to display graphics unrivalled by the consoles of the time, but the march of progress has slowed.

In addition, just as the cost of development exploded with the current generation of consoles, a similar increase in effort would be required to make use of the power of a new console. Basically, to have something demonstrably better you need to have higher resolution art, which takes more money.

Have a look at the innovative games of recent history. Many of them are not graphical powerhouses. The ones that are look really good and you’re nitpicking to find the graphical faults. So, given all the cost of a new console and the challenge to gain market share, why would any of the current hardware manufacturers make a new one?

I believe there are several factors that are creating a perfect storm that will end console gaming as we know it. The factors are the aforementioned law of diminishing returns, the state of current technology, the state of the population, and the economics of gaming.

I covered the law of diminishing returns already, so let’s move to current technology. We’ve all heard about OnLive and their plan for cloud computing. This was followed by the news that Sony has snatched up the name PS Cloud. Regardless in your belief of its current feasibility, it is a valid solution for the near future.

Now, here is the question I pose. Hypothetically speaking why, if I am a company like Electronic Arts say, would I not host games on my own servers and circumvent OnLive altogether? Why not cloud-compute the games from EA’s own collection of servers? Server space can be rented from a host of resources and save EA from having to share the cost with anyone.

Or what if Wal-Mart decides to retail games by hosting them in exchange for a cut of the profits? Or what if you take on sponsored servers for cloud-computing? OnLive as a company may or may not survive, but Pandora’s Box is opened none the less.

With the Xbox 360 versus PS3 battle, the preference for first party games is really the only reason to choose one over the other. Sure, the fanboys will grumble about Xbox live versus PSN, but really the question is Halo vs. Gran Turismo.

I have both systems for that very reason. If either machine, or even the PSP, were to navigate to a corporate site they would be more than capable of being used to play games being streamed directly from publishers (MS could easily add a browser to the Xbox).

Now, have a look at the current state of television. With cable for instance, I am paying for channels I don’t want, that have shows I don’t want, simply to see the stuff I do want. Why would someone continue to pay for what they do not want if there is a better way for them to get what they do want? TV online is the way of the future.

With AppleTV, or Hulu, or (insert content source here) I can have more control over what I watch and when I watch it. As with the cloud computing idea, the limiting factor is the mechanism for delivery and the willingness of my provider rather than the availability of the content (for the record, I live in Canada and am currently under the terror regime known as Rogers).

The population is another key factor. Generation X is becoming middle aged and they are at line in the sand of people for whom technology is engrained in their life. This generation and all that follow are tech savvy and willing to move to a less complicated, more useful mechanism for accessing their entertainment.

I’m happy to say that as much as I love holding liner notes in my hand, from both CDs and the record collection I recently unloaded, I dislike having to store all that physical media. I don’t like to sell my old games, but sometimes they simply take up too much space. The same can be said for my movies. Digital media sure cleans things up.

That brings me to the economics of gaming and specifically the used game issue. I’ll go on record as saying that I do not believe used games are bad for the consumer. I will go on record as saying I think that the outlets are thieves for the amount of money they give to the former owner of said game compared to the amount they charge for its resale, but that’s another discussion. Publishers are keen to make sure that they see the greatest revenue from their product, obviously, and a purely digital future is the best way to ensure this. You can’t copy or sell a file you don’t have access to.

Given these factors, I feel the next console generation will not be a console at all but the end of the console war. It’s the Console Degeneration. If anything, the next big “console” will be software that provides the end user with access to television, movies, music, and games in a single simple form.

Much as Microsoft already has done with their updated dashboard. The hardware choice will most likely be dictated by whomever makes the decorative choices in your home since the only real limiting factor is how nice the hardware looks next to the TV.

*******************************************************

An interesting read from the Creative Director of Ubisoft Montreal.

As a consumer, I'm not sure I'm ready for complete digital distribution in 5 years. The next gen will probably be a transition period which digital distribution and physical media will both be offered and the gen after that will move toward to digital distribution completely.

I agree with the first paragraphs...the move from last gen to this current one was so hectic, any home console that´s released before 2012 deserves failure as far as I´m concerned.

I can agree that PC graphics isn't as far ahead compared to the current gen consoles as it used to be in the past console generations. And since the graphics are good on the current gen consoles, a new gonsole must have really mind-blowing graphics to take off. Well, 2011 isn't upon us yet so we will see how much graphics will develop until then. Personally I hope that the 5-year cycle will be replaced by an 8-year one.

I see this generation lasting longer also 2012 should be the first possible release of a new machine

You may want to put that it's not yours at the top. I was convinced it was yours until I read all of the way through.

I think the article is contradicts itself. It says that differences in hardware power will become irrelevent as games can't noticeably take advantage of better hardware, but then it states OnLive and cousins are the solution. But OnLive is designed to circumvent a lack of hardware power on the customer's end, which he said won't be important in the future anyway.

It's possible to build an awesome PC (and therefore console)that plays most games on high settings for about $600 these days. The fact that most PCs don't achieve this level is due to

1) Most people's PCs were bough before this year,
2) Dell/HP still sell rubbish at $600 so they can have a large profit margin, and
3) Current console hardware uses 2005 technology.

A few years ahead, 1) will lessen as PCs are replaced, 2) will lessen as even the cheapest hardware Dell can find is still good enough, and 3) will lessen if consoles with 2008-gen hardware come out. So almost all PCs will be able to play the best looking games we can imagine, on their highest settings. Then OnLive will be obsolete, AND there will be no need for graphical-upgrade consoles.

So where is the innovation going to come from? Controllers. Nintendo has given us something unique with both Wii and DS and future upgrades starting with WM+ show that there is a lot of headroom for new tech still there. Future consoles (and indeed future games; I don't think the Haloesque FPS genre has much more room for sequels) will have to sell themselves based on unique interfaces and controllers that the PC can't achieve.

Digital distribution will become more important, but it is not a trend that will drive new games. It's just a nice-to-have*.

*Of course, I believe digital distribution is bad because in practice it increases proprietary lock-in, DRM, copy protection, etc. But a pure implementation [i.e. you can do anything you could with a CD AND have the extra benefits ] would be a step forward.

I wonder what they´ll come up with next after motion controllers.

Much more differences between 360 and PS3.
360 is a lower price.
PS3 does have blu ray, which for some games could mean significantly more content. However, it's access speeds are too slow to be as large of a plus as it could of been.

The Wii factor is totally ignored from the article.

There is reasons for another generation with multiple choices. The 360 and PS3 have trouble supporting 1080p for most games and full refresh rate. Something with blu ray capacities or more with higher transfer rates is to be expected. That said, doing pure digital distribution would be possible.

Aside from distribution, although pushing everything through online will improve, it's still not much more than flash games. It will never be the same experience as everything local. The best games will always work toward a specific platform, and the industry is too big not to have competition.

It's possible the number of platforms may decrease, but I don't see it going away for several generations short of many other major changes across the world...

I think you're right about digital distro. I hope next generation has a solid model, with a reduced price for downloaded games and a wide availability of titles, but I expect games will still be available at retail. But publishers absolutely have to offer more incentives than just a convenient download to persuade me to take a locked-in digital file over a tradable physical disc.

The success of OnLive and whatever other 'Cloud' gaming services come to emulate depends just as heavily on the business model offered as the technical feasibility. People want ownership and control of the content they like best, and you'll have to offer something enticing with your service to overcome that material need. Even iTunes is starting to show cracks, because it's no longer cheaper than many CDs and comes with more restrictions.

Until we see what companies are prepared to offer in exchange for physical media, there no point in predicting the death of the console.

you are DRMd into consoles when you buy one in a sense, and DRM can be worked around legally in most cases, in apples its called burn a cd ... as many times as you want (playlists are limited to 5 times, but no limit on number of playlists).

I will say that steam bothers me with the locking offline play all the time that needs to stop now, if they can not build it stable enough that it does not bar me from playing my game stop it (this is even with disc copies of games)

but yes i agree drm seems to mainly punish customers who actually buy the companies product 

also i tend to agree this is full of all kinds of holes.   of note, every implementation of cloud computing ive come across so far has failed and failed hard normally costing the project implementer his/her job. this might change, and im sure more things will be done in cloud, but im willing to bet people still want to be able to use/play when the internet is down or say they are traveling with a laptop or something 

you are DRMd into consoles when you buy one in a sense, and DRM can be worked around legally in most cases, in apples its called burn a cd ... as many times as you want (playlists are limited to 5 times, but no limit on number of playlists).

I will say that steam bothers me with the locking offline play all the time that needs to stop now, if they can not build it stable enough that it does not bar me from playing my game stop it (this is even with disc copies of games)

but yes i agree drm seems to mainly punish customers who actually buy the companies product 

also i tend to agree this is full of all kinds of holes.   of note, every implementation of cloud computing ive come across so far has failed and failed hard normally costing the project implementer his/her job. this might change, and im sure more things will be done in cloud, but im willing to bet people still want to be able to use/play when the internet is down or say they are traveling with a laptop or something