video games are dying

[Magnakai]

Here's where I get kicked off the boards...

I don't think that this kind of thing is going to happen until people stop focusing on the hardware, and start focusing on the software.

This requires a.... *drumroll* SINGLE PLATFORM.

And.... (I can't believe I'm saying this) Nintendo are definitely not the ones to provide it.
*cries*

I think I'm going to have to buy myself a few Gamecubes to make up for that...

[Papercut]

... or an entirely open platform.

/dreaming hmm, the Dreamcast no longer has publishing fees...

[Brats]

I see no reason why this won't happen with videogames and you haven't addressed any reasons as to why you think the opposite.

I did, you just disagreed with it.

- Its too much of a financial risk.

- The marketing types will dumb down the game.

- Sony, with the dominant platform, may attempt to block or dumb down the game.

You only have to look at the number of devcos going out business or franchising to see this is true.

To which I replied if that is the case, how come so many titles in other entertainment areas are made despite the same issues? Companies going under is a sign of a surplus in the supply chain, not necessarily of anything to do with changes to the detriment of the industry. the music industry sees loads of independents go bust every year, but it doesn't stop the quality music from getting through.

The whole funding model for independant films can be completely different from the funding of the majority of games.

It can be, but it needn't be. Sony and Nintendo have already loosened the licencing deal on software to make it more flexible. Plus there are open platforms like the PC. As videogames grow, there will be more people interested in investing in videogame talent, even if it remains within the industry. You don't think Lionhead gave the Yak artistic freedom on a project like Unity on the basis that they'd make a profit?

Yamauchi recently sold off a number of his Nintendo shares to invest in start up developers. Then there are the developers that are willing to self fund a project they love to maintain artistic freedom and find a publisher after the press has gone ga-ga (ala Half Life 2 and Far Cry). It's happening already .

[Brats]

Here's where I get kicked off the boards...

I don't think that this kind of thing is going to happen until people stop focusing on the hardware, and start focusing on the software.

This requires a.... *drumroll* SINGLE PLATFORM.

And.... (I can't believe I'm saying this) Nintendo are definitely not the ones to provide it.
*cries*

I think I'm going to have to buy myself a few Gamecubes to make up for that...

A single platform hasn't been possible up until now because of the need to improve technology. But by the next generation, I think it'll be ready. If it is, a single platform would do wonders for this industry imo.

[Kron]

A single platform would be the final nail in the coffin.

[marcus]

Whys that Kron?

Personally I like having a choice of consoles because the distinct variety each one offers. The way I see it though, we do more or less have a single platform, at least in terms of the wider scale of things, and its dominated by Sony, despite having the most outdated technology. What Brats says about the technology being almost there I agree with, but my feeling is its more to do with marketing the product well than specs, as we have seen with two generations of Sonys machine.

[Afterbirth]

There will never be a single platform whilst we have the PC.

The PC has also been a standard too and regardless of your viewpoint abouts upgrades, (end of day - you build or re-build to play 'PC' games) it has equalled, then dominated every machine since end of the Amiga days.
Its not a console, but its a true gaming machine, more so now, then any other.

[Kron]

There will never be a single platform whilst we have the PC.

The PC has also been a standard too and regardless of your viewpoint abouts upgrades, (end of day - you build or re-build to play 'PC' games) it has equalled, then dominated every machine since end of the Amiga days.
Its not a console, but its a true gaming machine, more so now, then any other.

No, Your obviously a PC gamer at heart. People who have grown up with consoles would never agree with your sentiment as the choice simply isn't there.

The PC as a games market has never dominated anything.

Whys that Kron?

There are quite a few reasons as to why I think a single platform would be a bad idea but I'll go into it breifly, The first and obvious one:

The sole console manufacturer (or collective) would be put in a position where any piece of software created that is considered niche or potentially unable to sell xxxxx amounts would immediately be shelved without any consideration, A mindset would surely appear of why spend our resources advertising this when there is an incredible amount of software headed to the single platform to consider that would appeal to more people and certain genre's would immediately be lost.

Another detremental consequence of the console manufacturer rejecting a game by design would be that the developer who has allotted a budget into creating this has no publishing option on another format and you would see countless dev teams immediatly close due to this, A position would be put on the market where trying something slightly different could be very dangerous for the future of the company you'd be left with only big developers who stick to tried and tested.

You could say this would never happen as varitey is what builds a software library, However as there is no competition whats not to say profit is the only deciding factor.

Then you would also have to think about the major effect on distribution channels, All wholesale would be dealing with just one single hardware and software manufacurer/vendor and they would be obliged to what prices the manufacturer decides to set, And due to the lack of competition you could potentially end up seeing very artificially priced hardware and software.

When a company has a monopoly over a market it can never be seen as a good thing surely.

Its all 'potentially' but with the market as it is today allthough undoubtedly seeing the start of acceptance from the mainstream there is no danger of any of the above happening while there is choice and customer preference (to a degree).

There are plenty of other good reasons why it would be a bad idea in this thread:

http://ntsc-uk.domino.org/viewtopic.php?t=14096

[Afterbirth]

No, Your obviously a PC gamer at heart. People who have grown up with consoles would never agree with your sentiment as the choice simply isn't there.

The PC as a games market has never dominated anything.

Not at all. I currently own a DC and PS2.I've previously owned a VCS, Master System, MD, SNES, and PS1.
I've always owned one of each because of the difference in the types of game available. To make a choice not to like a device for whatever reason is to deny ones enjoyment of other genres, more mature, or otherwise.

Konami's decision to market Pes3 on the PC is due to the rather massive userbase, as is M$ decisions to make is next operating system hint more towards gamers.
The PC also hosts more games then any other device (put together), so i would argue that its only a true gamer would own one.

If so many console users think gaming is dead, save your dollers and buy a PC.
Try something else.

Also...Nintendo tried to be the dominant 'single platform' by the way developers were forced to by carts from Nintendo factories.
That worked. But it didn't last.

The thing is, people need Pc's for other uses and thats its Trojan Horse. Once this is truely exploited, then you could see a further boom.
My guess is that for the next 10 years, whenever theres a console, the PC will be there too. You'll always have these two core standards.

[tssk]

If Sony will not support minority interest games (and they don't) this will continue to be the case, until someone topples them. Innovative developers are just too financially vulnerable at the moment to go it alone.

Of course they don't. Except for Ico. And Eyetoy. etc etc

[nips]

I think that the point is, with Sony's large user base, there really isn't much room for quirky or truly original games. Ico sold nothing, like Rez, and while I believe the Eye Toy has done well, that clearly has appeal beyond 90% of other games giving it a nice selling point.

With a saturated market, I believe developer feel it necessary to confrom to certain groups of games in order to survive.

Should we have one one gaming platform, and a saturated market similar to the PS2, I believe that real original titles will start to flounder as developers fight for a nice share of the market... This will either lead to a few companies with a monopoly over the market, or a market crash which will wipe almost everyone out.

I'm kinda specualting... but hey, that's all the rest of you are doing!

[rylee]

I think we're all going round in circles here!

I do wonder how the market will react to episodic instalments/online upgrades etc. - shouldn't a lot of current games be released for around the price of a CD, with further content (levels/tracks/options) available for download for those who want more? This should especially be true for yearly updates of sport franchises.

This has been discussed for a few years now, but we haven't seen anything to really alter the retail model at present. Can games attract new players through variety in price/content and publishers willing to invest and create a new market within the established one?

Would we then see smaller creative projects put forward due to decreased risk? It would be something similar to a new band releasing a few maxi-singles and EPs before their full length album. Would this open up diversity, especially for newer studios currently struggling with the hit driven marketplace at present?

[Papercut]

The sole console manufacturer (or collective) would be put in a position where any piece of software created that is considered niche or potentially unable to sell xxxxx amounts would immediately be shelved without any consideration, A mindset would surely appear of why spend our resources advertising this when there is an incredible amount of software headed to the single platform to consider that would appeal to more people and certain genre's would immediately be lost.

Another detremental consequence of the console manufacturer rejecting a game by design would be that the developer who has allotted a budget into creating this has no publishing option on another format and you would see countless dev teams immediatly close due to this, A position would be put on the market where trying something slightly different could be very dangerous for the future of the company you'd be left with only big developers who stick to tried and tested.

All very good points, but the lack of competition allowing the dominant publisher to control the market is, as you say, the most obvious and likely problem.

I believe we're already seeing Sony do this.

[Magnakai]

We most certainly are going round in circles.

People are crying doom, and not even giving the idea any serious thought. It's incredibly frustrating.
THINK ABOUT IT.

If there's only one format, then there would surely be more creativity. Licensing fees would be lower. Far lower. Smaller dev teams could simply spend longer on one title, rather than have to spread resources between a multi-platform port.

Sure, it's a big change from everything we've known for godknows how long. There's always been competition between formats.
In my opinion, it's only a matter of time...
I'm torn as to whether I like the idea, but then again, it's not up to me.

[Papercut]

... how come so many titles in other entertainment areas are made despite the same issues? Companies going under is a sign of a surplus in the supply chain, not necessarily of anything to do with changes to the detriment of the industry. the music industry sees loads of independents go bust every year, but it doesn't stop the quality music from getting through.

I don't think you can compare video game development with other media. Tankplanker has already made a lot of good points on this in comparison to movies.

The startup cost for game development is too high, the number of people needed to develop a game is too many, and the time taken to finish a game is too long. I'm saying all this costs too much money for game development to ever be a purely artistic endevour, and for truly niche markets to be truly supported.

No one begins development of a game to lose money. Market considerations are always taken into account. In video game development there are no indies. The closest we have are large publishers supporting many diverse developers, where startup costs are offset by whats already in place, and more chances can be taken.

We've seen with a string of failures by large, established publishers, this is becoming less and less feasible. The trend continues against originality towards franchising, sequels and homogenisation. Sequels can be worthwhile, but only if they actively attempt to do something new.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are the three big publishers with the real ability to innovate. With Sony having such a dominant position, it is most important that they deliver innovative games in order to nurture the demand for original titles. I don't think anyone could convincingly argue that they do.

It can be, but it needn't be. Sony and Nintendo have already loosened the licencing deal on software to make it more flexible. Plus there are open platforms like the PC. As videogames grow, there will be more people interested in investing in videogame talent, even if it remains within the industry. You don't think Lionhead gave the Yak artistic freedom on a project like Unity on the basis that they'd make a profit?

Yamauchi recently sold off a number of his Nintendo shares to invest in start up developers. Then there are the developers that are willing to self fund a project they love to maintain artistic freedom and find a publisher after the press has gone ga-ga (ala Half Life 2 and Far Cry). It's happening already .

Unity will be very cheap to develop, presumably Lionhead has to lend Jeff a GCN dev environment, pay his wages, and license a few audio tracks. Compare that to teams of 20 - 30 people and more. I'm certain Lionhead intend to make a profit, if it sells a couple of tens of thousands of copies it probably will.

The PC argument is a good one, but I'm ignoring homebrew here. I'm talking about accessible (read: console), innovative and polished video games. Not a sketchy but cool riff on Robotron.

Half Life 2 developed with artistic freedom? Now I think you're kidding.

Magnakai - there has been quite a bit of serious thought, which has so far stopped this thread slipping into a tirade

It _is_ up to you what happens with future consoles, because that will be decided by what we all spend our money on.

I'm suggesting video games are dying, not dead. I accept there is encouraging signs here and there, and conceded earlier that its more of a potential change than a death. However, its one big mother****ing change, and I don't think I want it.

Certainly interesting/innovative/original games are being developed, but under the current climate they are becoming fewer and further between. It seems we are heading towards standardised genre titles, and thats not cool.

Dammit, my arrow keys have stopped working.