Because there will no longer be any consoles with a reasonable cost-to-develop, forcing game makers to rely entirely on the handheld systems to fund their unprofitable yet big-name console efforts.

Next?

"Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked. The future consumer is just not going to accept that"

No, they aren't, and yes, they will. The rest of the points have little if anything to do with consoles specifically.

Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.

That was... just a random, mixed bag of complaints.

What a shiat article. Kickstarter will be why new consoles suck? This had to be the product of the unfortunate mix of a hangover and a deadline.

Psylence: I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?!

That you're likely 40+ years old with shifting priorities might have something to do with it as well.

/right there with ya

PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

FirstNationalBastard: ....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?

No, because console gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a slightly-larger, equally-vocal, equally-nerdy segment of gamers.

kab: "Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked. The future consumer is just not going to accept that"

No, they aren't, and yes, they will. The rest of the points have little if anything to do with consoles specifically.

Yeah, this is a factually incorrect statement in nearly every facet. Take the PS3, for instance. This is a single use device? It plays games, cruises the net, plays DVDs and Blu-ray, streams movies, plays music, all all sorts of other stuff. And they're not expensive, compared to desktops or laptops capable of running modern games ($300ish). And the creators of consoles are fighting to stretch uses with every releases. Are they lower end hardware than a modern system - absolutely. That's why they're cheaper. But to say that the next gen of console gaming is going to be terrible and end is just silly.

Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

Companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will hold onto their consoles, but we'll see less games with 100 million dollar production budgets for these devices since the cost/benefit of sinking that much lucre into a title won't be able to compete with the profit margin on mobile gaming apps.

As for PC gaming... we're in a bit of a renassance right now and I think it'll only get better. We're getting to the point that the tools used to create games have gotten so advanced that you don't need 100 people to put together a competitive title anymore. Pretty soon it'll come full circle again and some future hundred million dollar game will be developed by some guy in his moms basement - just like the first one was.

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

ehh, so be it. I'm in my 30's and have a PS3. Takes me months to find the time to get through a game any more. If they never make another console, it will still take me the rest of my life to fully exhaust all of the titles currently available. Hell, I still pick occasional PS2 games I never got around to buying back in the day.

kab: "Consoles are expensive single use devices

How in the hell could anyone, no matter what bone they have to pick, state that with a straight face?

First off they aren't even expensive anymore. A couple hundred bucks? Big deal. How many people spend that every other year on a new cell phone.

Second, 'single use devices?' That's so far from accurate I don't even know where to begin.

Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

I don't know what kind of games you enjoy, obviously, but I think it's fair to say that the PS3 has some fantastic exclusives. Just looking through my list of played games I find: MGS4, Demon's Souls, Yakuza 4, 3D Dot Game Heroes, the Uncharted series, Heavy Rain, Warhawk, God of War III, and a few others, and that's not even getting to the non-exclusives that are nevertheless not on PC (or not well ported to PC).

As far as the price goes, if you're paying full retail for console games, especially in the last year, you're doing something wrong. Within a few months, most new releases are being cut (perhaps just temporarily) to $40, which will probably end up being the standard price for the rest of the generation.

PS4/XBox3 games will be $60-70 initially for sure.

Game prices are weird. On the one hand, SNES games were MORE expensive (even in terms of sticker price, I remember saving to pay ~$80 for a game once), and on the other hand you have to consider inflation. $50 in the mid 1990s (when PSX came out) is (@ 3%) about $80 today.

the opposite of charity is justice:
That you're likely 40+ years old with shifting priorities might have something to do with it as well.

/right there with ya

When I was younger I had time and no money, so I only had games that I received for Xmas/birthday and I played the crap out of them. I could get through Contra without using a code or continue.

Now I have money and no time. I have games that I haven't unwrapped. I still haven't beaten the ocean stage of Contra 4 and have owned the game for several years.

Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Actually, it's easier to make games now than it was 10 years ago - not harder.

Budgets have definately gone up, but they've gone up on things like cinematics, production values (music, art direction) and advertising.

They treat games like mini-movies these days. That's where the cost is going - not ICT/developers.

/developer
//okay actually, senior manager of developers and testers... but i still code dammit

TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.

Psylence: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?

They ARE cheaper.

Helpful chart

That link gives retail prices of $70 for Final Fantasy II, and $75 for Super Street Fighter II (both SNES). Those are on the high end, but you never see retail prices for current new releases that high (some $70 releases in 2009-2010), and that's BEFORE correcting for inflation.

TheAlgebraist: Game prices are weird. On the one hand, SNES games were MORE expensive (even in terms of sticker price, I remember saving to pay ~$80 for a game once), and on the other hand you have to consider inflation. $50 in the mid 1990s (when PSX came out) is (@ 3%) about $80 today.

Game prices are easy to understand - the reason why they have remained mostly stagnant is because they cost next to nothing to manufacture copies of and the volumes being shipped/sold has risen dramatically.

I guarentee you that even if the profit margin has gone down (and it wouldn't have done so very much on expensive rom based cartriges vs, say, dvd games) the volume has gone up by a factor of 1000% or more.

TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

Companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will hold onto their consoles, but we'll see less games with 100 million dollar production budgets for these devices since the cost/benefit of sinking that much lucre into a title won't be able to compete with the profit margin on mobile gaming apps.

As for PC gaming... we're in a bit of a renassance right now and I think it'll only get better. We're getting to the point that the tools used to create games have gotten so advanced that you don't need 100 people to put together a competitive title anymore. Pretty soon it'll come full circle again and some future hundred million dollar game will be developed by some guy in his moms basement - just like the first one was.

Maybe it is just me, but "gaming" on a tablet or smart phone sucks donkey balls.

Psylence: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?

Yes, but the physical production was always a minimal cost in video games (since the SNES days, at least). Development costs were and are much higher by many multiples (please correct me if I'm wrong here). I wouldn't expect that to be a large driver in cost. A few percentage points, maybe.

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Why would you buy a game new at full price? Wait a month or less now and the prices start dropping. Christ I bought Assassin's Creed: Revelations for $9.99 new off the shelf at Best Buy.

Khellendros: TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.

Flight sims used to be the most popular (and lucrative) gaming genre.

Yes, Flight Sims.

So don't go thinking that FPS's are some sort of sacred cow. Something more popular will come along and the big publishers will chase after those dollars and sideline your favorite genre.

I'm not saying you're a kid or anything like that (I don't honestly know), but I do understand that it's difficult for people to understand how these vast sea changes can happen without having lived through one (or two).

/flight sims?!?!

Psylence: Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.

Same. I have been a gamer since way back. The only reason I know anything about networking and computers is because I wanted to play Command & Conquer multiplayer with my dad. I had to figure out how switches worked and also how to upgrade RAM and everything else. I used to buy a new video game with every paycheck, back when I lived with my folks and had no bills or worries in life.

Anymore, though, I don't really buy anything. I spent the last six months or so playing Tribes: Ascend simply because it's a decent game that's free to play. The last game I bought was Arma II, and I only bought that because of DayZ. Now it's the only thing I play.

This is the first year I haven't bought anything on the Steam Summer Sale. There's just nothing worth buying.

TwistedFark: TheAlgebraist: Game prices are weird. On the one hand, SNES games were MORE expensive (even in terms of sticker price, I remember saving to pay ~$80 for a game once), and on the other hand you have to consider inflation. $50 in the mid 1990s (when PSX came out) is (@ 3%) about $80 today.

Game prices are easy to understand - the reason why they have remained mostly stagnant is because they cost next to nothing to manufacture copies of and the volumes being shipped/sold has risen dramatically.

I guarentee you that even if the profit margin has gone down (and it wouldn't have done so very much on expensive rom based cartriges vs, say, dvd games) the volume has gone up by a factor of 1000% or more.

You're right, I shouldn't have said 'weird'.

Khellendros: Yes, but the physical production was always a minimal cost in video games (since the SNES days, at least). Development costs were and are much higher by many multiples (please correct me if I'm wrong here). I wouldn't expect that to be a large driver in cost. A few percentage points, maybe.

Old ROM cartridges were actuallyrediculously expensive to produce. A 50 dollar game cartridge back in 1996 would have been about 15 dollars of manufacturing/packaging and shipping and gone wholesale for maximum 30 dollars. Today it costs less than two bucks to manufacture/package/ship a DVD based game.

Psylence: Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.

I started playing games with in the Commodore 64 and Coleco-vision era....I doubt I will buy a new game console either although I don't blame the industry so much as I've just played such an abundance of games over my life that I've become jaded and difficult to impress. Everything I play now feels derivative.

Hey, guess what, people like to play games. They like to game on computers, on consoles, on portable game devices, on phones, on wrist watches, on calculators, on televisions, on dvd menus, with cards, and boards, with little miniatures. They'll pay money to do it, lots of money.

Consoles aren't going anywhere. Phones aren't eating up the market. This last generation sold more consoles than ever, and more games than ever. Next generation, starting with the Wii U, they will sell even more than that.

The big money in gaming is on the internet. Videogames are going to go through the same change that record stores went through after itunes.

There will be game consoles, but they're going to be like the a cd-player when everyone has mp3 players.

Slaves2Darkness: Maybe it is just me, but "gaming" on a tablet or smart phone sucks donkey balls.

It's not just you.

Reasons #1-5:

Game companies keep expecting to make a bigger profit than the year before, inspiring unsustainable behavior, and the closed nature of consoles prevents any other behaviors from offering competition.

natmar_76: Consoles aren't going anywhere. Phones aren't eating up the market. This last generation sold more consoles than ever, and more games than ever. Next generation, starting with the Wii U, they will sell even more than that.

No, they won't. This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now. Gamers like you and me, we were always a niche. We let ourselves become convinced otherwise, thanks to media coverage and this awesome community we've built on the internet, but we always were.

sprawl15: Reasons #1-5:

Game companies keep expecting to make a bigger profit than the year before, inspiring unsustainable behavior, and the closed nature of consoles prevents any other behaviors from offering competition.


That and there's not as many "gamers" as middle aged women who will put down a few dollars or watch advertising to play Angry Birds. Huge profit margins and less overhead than the increasingly movie-studio-like big game companies.

akula: TwistedFark: /flight sims?!?!

What, you don't remember computer gaming in the mid-late 80s?

It was all about the simulations. Flight sims, driving sims, naval combat sims, etc. Hell, I still miss those days. Nowadays it's all FPS with an emphasis on online play or RPGs. Not that those can't be fun, but gaming genres can be very flavor of the decade. Heck, with the consoles of the 90s it was mostly about platformers. Nowadays we call platform games "casual games" with things like Temple Run occupying eight year olds on mommy's smartphone.

You're right that stuff comes and goes, but hey, those flight sims of the 80s were great fun. I can't tell you how many hours I spent playing Gunship.

Yeah I would like to see a real good submarine sim. I loved playing Silent Service on the SNES

TwistedFark: Khellendros: TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.

Flight sims used to be the most popular (and lucrative) gaming genre.

Yes, Flight Sims.

So don't go thinking that FPS's are some sort of sacred cow. Something more popular will come along and the big publishers will chase after those dollars and sideline your favorite genre.

I'm not saying you're a kid or anything like that (I don't honestly know), but I do understand that it's difficult for people to understand how these vast sea changes can happen without having lived through one (or two).

/flight sims?!?!

I'm not talking about genres, I'm talking about gaming at the level of minor apps on phones and mobile devices vs. large scale productions that currently exist on consoles and most PCs. I don't think the small scale gaming environment (the Farmvilles of the world) will replace the "large scale" gaming (such as Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, etc), no matter the difference in profit margins. The demand for those games is too high, and the experience isn't really comparable. They don't fill the same entertainment niche. You contended that console gaming is dying and being replaced by app gaming. While I think there is a new market emerging, I don't think it will "take down" larger scale productions, as they are in too high demand.

And no, I'm certainly not a kid.

natmar_76: Hey, guess what, people like to play games. They like to game on computers, on consoles, on portable game devices, on phones, on wrist watches, on calculators, on televisions, on dvd menus, with cards, and boards, with little miniatures. They'll pay money to do it, lots of money.

Consoles aren't going anywhere. Phones aren't eating up the market. This last generation sold more consoles than ever, and more games than ever. Next generation, starting with the Wii U, they will sell even more than that.

Sony partnering with HTC for mobile gaming
EA corners market in iPhone4 gaming
Activision creating 3rd party mobile gaming publishing arm
Microsoft talking about integrating Windows Live with Windows Phone as their gaming strategy at E3

You're probably right about Nintendo - they're putting all their money on the DS. But they're also taking a beating and heavy criticism for it as well.

Btw, great article here that pretty much echos what I am saying and the direction that the market is going in.

HeartBurnKid: No, they won't. This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now. Gamers like you and me, we were always a niche. We let ourselves become convinced otherwise, thanks to media coverage and this awesome community we've built on the internet, but we always were.

Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds. Everyone is suddenly going to stop buying consoles and handhelds and miniatures and dice and roleplaying game books. It'll be mass hysteria, dogs living with cats, and twinkies the size of Manhattan. The sky is falling. The world is ending. It's the metalocalypse out there.

All those 3DS sales? Meaningless. Wii U is going to bomb so hard Nintendo will go 3rd party. Sony am doomed. Microsoft am doomed. Everyone am doomed. All hail Apple.

TwistedFark: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Actually, it's easier to make games now than it was 10 years ago - not harder.

Budgets have definately gone up, but they've gone up on things like cinematics, production values (music, art direction) and advertising.

They treat games like mini-movies these days. That's where the cost is going - not ICT/developers.

/developer
//okay actually, senior manager of developers and testers... but i still code dammit

This is at least partially because, in the long term, a proper marketing campaign pays for itself many times over, and you're apparently better off sacrificing some aspects of the short term (qc, testing, final bug patching) which can be done post release and won't effect anyone but the insane fan, in favor of the marketing budget.

Shrugging Atlas: Why would you buy a game new at full price? Wait a month or less now and the prices start dropping. Christ I bought Assassin's Creed: Revelations for $9.99 new off the shelf at Best Buy.

Wait years and borrow them from your friends for free! I just finished Arkham Asylum last week.

Tried to play the original Assassins Creed and thought it sucked balls. Is Revelations or any of the other sequels any better? The originial was repetitive and boring to me.

The Homer Tax:
Tried to play the original Assassins Creed and thought it sucked balls. Is Revelations or any of the other sequels any better? The originial was repetitive and boring to me.

2 is a big step up from 1. Brotherhood and Revelations are incremental improvements on 2, and 3 promises to be a decent step up from 2 (although it's all pre-release marketing at this point, so grain of salt etc etc.)

Apparently there are two dev teams, one that does the major releases (1,2,3) and another that tweaked 2 into Brotherhood and Revelations. The former team appears to be the one with the vision/talent, and they're financed on the back of the other teams annual releases.

Cause outside exists and it is better than inside?
/ no?
// I'll be outside if you need me