Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   Five reasons why the next generation of game consoles will likely fail. This is not a repeat from 1984, 1989, 1994, 2000 or 2006   (uproxx.com) divider line 197
    More: Obvious, system console, God Only Knows  
•       •       •

6238 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2012 at 10:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-31 12:28:22 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


Don't forget about market cap too.

COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

Console ownership has reached saturation. At this point, everyone who is going to own a console owns one already. Publishers are going to be fighting for the same scraps from the table, so they won't be able to just spend more money on a single product for a big pay day, they'll have to diversify - then they'll run into their next problem, all they've been able to sell for the last decade is one rythm game and a bunch of FPS's with cover mechanics. Whooo boy. Good luck growing that.
 
2012-07-31 12:31:31 PM  

HeartBurnKid: No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


Except it's more like buying 10 ponds from a pool of 1000 bonds that will pay $0 in 30 days, and one that will pay $100, vs buying a bond that pays $15. The hand-held market is fickle and faddish. Angry Birds is like the "pet rock" of the 70s.
 
2012-07-31 12:33:00 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Doublespeak: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

If i said here you can have $40 million in profit from Angry Birds or 1 Billion from Call of Duty which would you take?

If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.


But you won't make 100 games like angry birds because you are taking one of the most extreme examples. Obviously if you can make 100 of the best selling of anything in a market you will take it, but it's unrealistic.

What are the odds of being able to make 100 best selling games like angry birds, not very good and that's where your logic breaks down. People pay a lot less for mobile games, it's profitable but it doesn't have nearly the potential in total earnings that console games have.

I could probably have a much better ROI on a lemon stand than a restaurant so why aren't people starting more lemon stands? Because the total profit potential isn't the same as a restaurant.
\
 
2012-07-31 12:33:32 PM  

HeartBurnKid: If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.


All the applications on the hand-held market combined don't have 100 distinguishable titles at the level of Angry Birds. You can't get 100 Angry Birds. That's the point.
 
2012-07-31 12:34:16 PM  

TwistedFark: But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?


And the amount they're willing to spend is about 50 times less.
 
2012-07-31 12:36:47 PM  

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.


Isn't this the usual MO for all business execs?

A. Something comes along and becomes the "it" item
B. Execs exploit"it" for all it's worth until the well runs dry
C. See "A"

Nothing new here and this applies to just about any concept/idea that comes along that becomes successful.
 
2012-07-31 12:42:39 PM  

impaler: All the applications on the hand-held market combined don't have 100 distinguishable titles at the level of Angry Birds. You can't get 100 Angry Birds. That's the point.


No, but we've already established that you can make something like 1400 games with the budget of Angry Birds for one Call of Duty.

If Call of Duty pays 1 to 5 on a single shot. What does the pay off have to look like across your 1400 titles to be competitive? Sure, 1400 titles may sound INSANE - but you're looking at a market is that is 50 to 100 times larger.

To be realistic, you wouldn't launch 1400 titles. But you'd probably launch 50. You'd make sure that they had localisation too so that you could hit big markets like India and China where mobile gaming is huge. You'd keep budget modest, probablyno more than 3-5 millon dollars a game and you'd aim for something like a modestly succesful 12 to 1 ROI.

And of course, you'd do this every 3 months.

The sad thing is, even putting out that many titles a year, you'd still not saturate the market. Fark, I've seen people spend money, actual real money, on a button that makes their phone fart. The barrier for success here is not very high.

I also like how we are comparing a game developed by a few guys for 140k to a massive 2 year triple-a title worked on by over 150 people for 200 million. As if somehow you couldn't pump up the mobile game budget sufficiently to create compelling gaming experiences on these devices.
 
2012-07-31 12:44:24 PM  

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.


It's sad that most of this are going to FPSes that aren't even worth a damn.

How about bringing back some classic games that were WORTH it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with all these FPSes?
 
2012-07-31 12:44:52 PM  
I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.
 
2012-07-31 12:47:39 PM  

TwistedFark: COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?


And even with CoD at such a profound disadvantage, it would still take 10 years for Angry Birds to match it. And in that meantime, CoD has come out with CoD3, which sold more than BOps, so stack another billion on top of that. And next year, CoD will probably put out another one, so stack another billion on that. It could've taken 1 billion to develop all 3 (which it didn't since BOps/MW3 run on the same engine, but for argument's sake) and that's still 20m Angry Birds has to make up to exceed their profits. Angry Birds isn't alone though, they've got..... uhh.... that one other game that's supremely popular... uhh...
 
2012-07-31 12:48:01 PM  

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.


I yearn for the day that PC gaming is front and center again.
 
2012-07-31 12:50:25 PM  

rocky_howard: I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.


You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.
 
2012-07-31 12:50:40 PM  

Russky: Maybe but call of duty made more profit than Avatar so do you really think people will stop making games? Really?


Switch it around. If gaming is more profitable than movie making, why does anybody make movies?
 
2012-07-31 12:52:57 PM  

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?!?!


Who owns the Sierra/Dynamix library right now? If they'd modernize the Aces/Red Baron series, I'm sure they'd sell. We haven't had a good flight sim since IL-2, and that's now going on almost a decade.
 
2012-07-31 12:53:15 PM  

UrCa: TwistedFark: COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

And even with CoD at such a profound disadvantage, it would still take 10 years for Angry Birds to match it. And in that meantime, CoD has come out with CoD3, which sold more than BOps, so stack another billion on top of that. And next year, CoD will probably put out another one, so stack another billion on that. It could've taken 1 billion to develop all 3 (which it didn't since BOps/MW3 run on the same engine, but for argument's sake) and that's still 20m Angry Birds has to make up to exceed their profits. Angry Birds isn't alone though, they've got..... uhh.... that one other game that's supremely popular... uhh...


1) Why can you only have 1 mobile game to one triple-a title when the mobile game costs like 1/1400th to develop? Couldn't you perhaps.... develop more games?
2) Do you not understand what a profoundly bad business model it is to have only one product that you must sell an upgrade to every year otherwise your company goes out of business?
 
2012-07-31 12:55:29 PM  

TwistedFark: You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.


You're calling someone else an idiot, when your own reasoning would have predicted the total demise of the production of movies in the 2000s?

Link
 
2012-07-31 12:58:35 PM  
The entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.
 
2012-07-31 12:59:17 PM  

Doublespeak: But you won't make 100 games like angry birds because you are taking one of the most extreme examples


Both of them are. What if I don't end up making the next Call of Duty? What if I end up making the next Brutal Legend instead? (Don't get me wrong, I love Brutal Legend, but it didn't exactly set sales charts on fire).
 
2012-07-31 12:59:18 PM  

TwistedFark: 1) Why can you only have 1 mobile game to one triple-a title when the mobile game costs like 1/1400th to develop? Couldn't you perhaps.... develop more games?


Please list all the other successful games developed by Rovio Entertainment...

The answer is "no, you can't just make more games."

This isn't the field of dreams. If you build it, more than likely no one will come.
 
2012-07-31 01:02:24 PM  

TwistedFark: rocky_howard: I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.

You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.


the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.
 
2012-07-31 01:06:30 PM  

HeartBurnKid: No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


I would buy all of them, because they're all profitable and I have $20 to spend. This is both the obvious answer and the correct analogy. You're creating a false dilemma. The market can clearly support both Call of Duty and Angry Birds - they're already there. They'll continue to be there. They'll continue to both make money. The gaming market is enormously bigger than it was 10 years ago and it's not just because of consoles or just because of casual games.

The line between consoles and general purpose computers may continue to blur more and more but there will still be big expensive games and cheap simple games regardless of platform.
 
2012-07-31 01:08:00 PM  

TwistedFark: There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.



And I'll say it again - they're not the same market, so it doesn't matter. Your entire premise requires them to be the same group, spending the same budgeted money for the same entertainment niche. That's simply not the case. Much in the same way reality television or "The Blair Witch Project" isn't going to make a dent in "Avatar". Different markets, different spending niches, different time/resource audiences.

A low revenue/high ROI product is the very definition of a niche product. Something you don't let go of, but you can't build a company from. They're low investment/low return/high ROI products. Good profit margins, but no golden payday.
 
2012-07-31 01:08:06 PM  

Doublespeak: TwistedFark: rocky_howard: I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.

You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.

the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.


Hmm that actually means the call of duty franchise since 2008 has made the same amount of revenue as the entire app store in the same amount of time.
 
2012-07-31 01:09:08 PM  

Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.


The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com
/hotlinked
 
2012-07-31 01:09:18 PM  

TwistedFark: 1) Why can you only have 1 mobile game to one triple-a title when the mobile game costs like 1/1400th to develop? Couldn't you perhaps.... develop more games?
2) Do you not understand what a profoundly bad business model it is to have only one product that you must sell an upgrade to every year otherwise your company goes out of business?


1) True, but the thing is there is no other Angry Birds. 3 Years and no other mobile game has reached their success. You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side. They have Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Draw Something, and then they stop. None of those games are even owned by the same publisher. If your game is free, you're living off borrowed time, because your game will dwindle and die when the next big thing pops up. In all likelihood it's your own game taking over the market from your previous game, which is just you extending the life of your revenue stream. Rovio's revenue isn't just from the vanilla Angry Birds, it's also Seasons, Rio, and Space extending their relevance.

2) Also true, but they've got their fingers in other games whose budgets aren't as huge as CoDs. Skylanders is big, Transformers will probably sell very well, and they even have an Angry Birds title in the works, how convenient.
 
2012-07-31 01:11:04 PM  

TwistedFark: Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.

The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 595x244]
/hotlinked


I never said there wasn't a demand or that apps one the app store don't make money. I was simply pointing out that you are foolish for thinking the console game market is going away anytime soon.
 
2012-07-31 01:12:21 PM  

TwistedFark: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

Don't forget about market cap too.

COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

Console ownership has reached saturation. At this point, everyone who is going to own a console owns one already. Publishers are going to be fighting for the same scraps from the table, so they won't be able to just spend more money on a single product for a big pay day, they'll have to diversify - then they'll run into their next problem, all they've been able to sell for the last decade is one rythm game and a bunch of FPS's with cover mechanics. Whooo boy. Good luck growing that.


this is not only not true, but since there are next gen consoles on the horizon, simply foolish to state out loud.
 
2012-07-31 01:13:24 PM  

UrCa: You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side


I think this is the thing that is so hard for people to grasp - It's not about a single person playing 100 games, it's about 100 people who wouldn't pick up a console playing a single game. The pure enormity of the size of the consumer base for mobile devices ensure diversity in terms of useful apps.
 
2012-07-31 01:15:15 PM  

TwistedFark: UrCa: You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side

I think this is the thing that is so hard for people to grasp - It's not about a single person playing 100 games, it's about 100 people who wouldn't pick up a console playing a single game. The pure enormity of the size of the consumer base for mobile devices ensure diversity in terms of useful apps.


Yes their entire revenue over the last 4 years is the same as one franchise on the console.
 
2012-07-31 01:16:34 PM  

Doublespeak: TwistedFark: Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.

The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 595x244]
/hotlinked

I never said there wasn't a demand or that apps one the app store don't make money. I was simply pointing out that you are foolish for thinking the console game market is going away anytime soon.


Oh c'mon, I totally busted your argument even after you walked out a response just to yourself trying to claim that COD has made more money by itself than the entire apple app store.

Also, I never said it was going away anytime soon. I just said that companies are going to slow down their investment in it because it's not the most lucrative market anymore. Eventually this will just dovetail into making these devices obsolete - probably his next generation of consoles will be the last.
 
2012-07-31 01:16:46 PM  
I think we will see a rebranding certain gaming consoles in the coming years. They wont be sold just as gaming consoles. I think they will be become more like a must have internet entertainment system for your TV. It will be used mostly for apps, TV, DVR and games you can download. Something like Apple TV with exclusive games and fancy hand motion remotes. There will be no disc drives that open or close.

Then eventually it will sold with your TV. Your HD TV will become a huge Ipad with hand motion remotes. Then comes the holographic 3D Olfaction TV.

Ta-da
 
2012-07-31 01:18:56 PM  

Theory Of Null: I think we will see a rebranding certain gaming consoles in the coming years. They wont be sold just as gaming consoles. I think they will be become more like a must have internet entertainment system for your TV. It will be used mostly for apps, TV, DVR and games you can download. Something like Apple TV with exclusive games and fancy hand motion remotes. There will be no disc drives that open or close.

Then eventually it will sold with your TV. Your HD TV will become a huge Ipad with hand motion remotes. Then comes the holographic 3D Olfaction TV.

Ta-da


This is actually pretty likely. You probably won't even "install" anything. It'll just be streamed from a cloud server someplace local.

/dunno about the smell-o-vision however.
 
2012-07-31 01:20:24 PM  
The console video game market which overwhelmingly relies on retail game sales has fallen nearly thirty percent year-to-year. This is not a matter of "tail end of a console cycle". The end of previous console cycles typically yielded stagnant growth. The last time sales were down this hard, it was 1984. Meanwhile, the cost of producing, marketing, and developing a console video game has no doubt doubled over the last decade, and the cost is going to continue increasing, since we all know that the major game publishers are not going to use better game engines to rein in costs. It only becomes worse when you realize that middle-tier developers are moving their assets to mobile and computer platforms, leaving you to directly compete with Electronic Arts and Activision. Consoles are not competing with mobile phone platforms unless you think the Nintendo Wii was not a fad, and that Nintendo Wii adopters would not have jumped for the crappy mobile and browser games without Wii Sports as an intermediary. They're competing with computers, which offer the profit margins which are necessary for continued development of computer and console games as we know them, great graphics, appealing mechanics and all.

The companies that continue to move headlong into the console video game market do it because their identity rests on it (Activision with Call of Duty, Microsoft and Sony with their hardware, etc.). Everybody else is going to get off the sinking ship.

Theory Of Null: I think we will see a rebranding certain gaming consoles in the coming years. They wont be sold just as gaming consoles. I think they will be become more like a must have internet entertainment system for your TV. It will be used mostly for apps, TV, DVR and games you can download. Something like Apple TV with exclusive games and fancy hand motion remotes. There will be no disc drives that open or close.


That's already happening. People who enjoy console games are going to be mighty disappointed when they see the marketing approach of the Xbox 1080 With Cheese. They're no longer going to be game devices that fulfill entertainment functions, but the other way around.
 
kab
2012-07-31 01:22:58 PM  

Rwa2play: I yearn for the day that PC gaming is front and center again.


I used to think this too, but it's never going to happen because the PC's 'golden age' is over.

Outside of some still-worthwhile exceptions, the days of you creating your own content and mods, extending the shelf life of a great game, and hosting your own games with your own rules is history. Companies have learned that removing all these things actually yields a lot more money, so that level of control is never coming back.

I'd actually argue that the golden age of video gaming itself is over. Top rated titles are becoming more expensive to produce, partially because current econo-derp theory demands that the next title sell more than the last one. Which leads to tired, incremental sequels of proven sellers rather than risk on something new.

And the supposed new, next big thing (mobile) is simply more rehashing of the same shiat folks have been playing for decades as well, just on a smaller screen with a less intuitive control scheme. And consumers are either old enough to realize this and laugh about it, or young enough to think that it's something actually innovative.

Game over.
 
2012-07-31 01:26:25 PM  

kab: Outside of some still-worthwhile exceptions, the days of you creating your own content and mods, extending the shelf life of a great game, and hosting your own games with your own rules is history. Companies have learned that removing all these things actually yields a lot more money, so that level of control is never coming back.


http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/
 
2012-07-31 01:37:18 PM  

TwistedFark: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7241894/78416692#c78416692" target="_blank">Theory Of Null</a>:</b> <i>
Then eventually it will sold with your TV. Your HD TV will become a huge Ipad with hand motion remotes. Then comes the holographic 3D Olfaction TV.

Ta-da</i>

This is actually pretty likely. You probably won't even "install" anything. It'll just be streamed from a cloud server someplace local.

/dunno about the smell-o-vision however.

Definitely.
Yeah I think smell-o-vision will be optional for commercials and other novelties.
 
2012-07-31 01:44:39 PM  

you have pee hands: I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

I would buy all of them, because they're all profitable and I have $20 to spend. This is both the obvious answer and the correct analogy. You're creating a false dilemma. The market can clearly support both Call of Duty and Angry Birds - they're already there. They'll continue to be there. They'll continue to both make money. The gaming market is enormously bigger than it was 10 years ago and it's not just because of consoles or just because of casual games.

The line between consoles and general purpose computers may continue to blur more and more but there will still be big expensive games and cheap simple games regardless of platform.


Well put
 
2012-07-31 01:52:41 PM  
You want to see something interesting?

kyoshiaki.sakura.ne.jp

The DSi/3DS just got something called Petit Computer, and besides being able to write your own programs with it's own version of BASIC, it also lets you trade them wirelessly, or put them out to other Petit users, by QR codes. Aside from it's own niche, what if this inspires people to start releasing little indie games the same way? Make a player for the mobile OSs out there, and you can just print however many QRs needed to load the game. I already have a few games for my DSi's Petit Computer scanned off of the 'net, and as soon as I get the hang of BASIC again, I might attempt to write a program or two for it.
 
2012-07-31 01:59:29 PM  

TwistedFark: UrCa: You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side

I think this is the thing that is so hard for people to grasp - It's not about a single person playing 100 games, it's about 100 people who wouldn't pick up a console playing a single game. The pure enormity of the size of the consumer base for mobile devices ensure diversity in terms of useful apps.


It's 100 people playing your game, though. And you're competing against things like videogame emulators which can run hundreds of games more than you can for free (although the legality is questionable), or something simple like sudoku/tetris for people who don't care for fancier games, and your other fancy game rivals (Draw Something, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, etc.). All of these serve to shrink your available pool of potential buyers, so while you've got that 60m smartphone market, it's already shrunk down from people doing other things or people just not delving much into the app market at all (My mom, for example, has three apps: our bank's, Mah Jong, and Gas Buddy. That's all she wants or needs). Don't forget you also have the free ad-supported version, so you have to keep releasing new levels to keep those people coming back for more ad revenue. You don't just release a game like this and be done with it, if that were the case, Angry Birds would be long dead by now after everyone finished the first 3 sets of levels.
 
2012-07-31 02:09:18 PM  

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.


So let's see here. If i want immersive, beautifully rendered gaming environments rather than simplistic arcade games that will play on the limited computing power of my phone or tablet may options are:
r spend $60 the game and $2-300 for a gaming console (that also works with all my streaming video services) and plug it into my 50" widescreen

-or-

Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?

and you seriously believe PC gaming will be the wave of the future?
 
2012-07-31 02:20:42 PM  

Magorn: So let's see here. If i want immersive, beautifully rendered gaming environments rather than simplistic arcade games that will play on the limited computing power of my phone or tablet may options are:
r spend $60 the game and $2-300 for a gaming console (that also works with all my streaming video services) and plug it into my 50" widescreen

-or-

Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?

and you seriously believe PC gaming will be the wave of ...


That's about the only thing that irks me about PC gaming is the cost, but if you've got the money to burn I feel like it's worth it (although those could just be rose tinted glasses I'm looking through). I was watching my nephew play Skyrim on his Xbox over the weekend. The load times were painful and the graphics were like playing it on worst settings for PC.

/I learned that you could rotate the models during load screens
//He looked at me like I had just crawled out from under a rock after 20 years
///I showed him load times on my PC with the HD textures pack and various other aesthetic mods and all he said was "Oh..."
 
2012-07-31 02:25:38 PM  

Magorn: Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?

and you seriously believe PC gaming will be the wave of the future?


Top twenty most-played games on Xfire consist of the following: League of Legends, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 2, Minecraft, Diablo III, Battlefield 3, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, World of Tanks, Dota 2, StarCraft II, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Team Fortress 2, Heroes of Newerth, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike: Source, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Aion, Halo.

PC gaming is no longer what it used to be. The problem with PC gaming has nothing to do with hardware, more that most of the games on that list are average or not very good at all.
 
2012-07-31 02:27:30 PM  
Isn't there a bit of a hardware limitation at play here too? I was under the impression that most smart phones couldn't sustain long periods of gaming due to battery life. Thus, if you're looking for something to play longer than it takes to stand in line or have a bowel movement, mobile devices weren't ready yet.

Or is this changing?
 
2012-07-31 02:34:44 PM  
Meh, the next gen of consoles is just going to be a bigger general multimedia device, probably there will be a shift to more playstation store/xBox Live arcade distribution and less "stick the disk in the slot to proceed", but other than that meh, they're going to be basically the same set of functions imbedded in the same type of self-contained box with the same set of cost- and convenience-advantages over using and general PC and the same graphics and customization downsides.

That said, I'll still probably buy at least one of the next generation consoles, especially if it's properly backwards-compatible. A single 200$ box to run Netflix, play DVDs/BLURay/Whatever, run network-shared media off the PC on a bigger screen, play games, and occasionally buy games run on simple controls that I don't have to farking remap every time?

Not god's gift to gamers or anything, but that's a pretty good deal for everything in that one box.

//Albeit if we see a price point on the order of 300+, nope, I can wire together a dvd player, the older systems I already have, a TV, and a connection to the cable box. It will annoy me and look messy, but I'm not dishing out almost half a grand for an amped-up iPad with a better controller.
 
2012-07-31 02:45:52 PM  
I hoping for another Half-Life game. I feel like Valve thinks they need a new console to do it justice. I don't know but I've been jonesing hard for a while now.
 
2012-07-31 02:53:23 PM  

Magorn: Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?


And how about detecting IRQ ports and then you have to make sure you have the right SCSI cable and then OF COURSE your computer only has two parallel ports so you have to unplug your printer every time you want to plug in your gamepad.
 
2012-07-31 03:05:39 PM  
My 2 cents is that computer gaming is going to be very big over the next decade. I'm not saying this as a PC fanboy, but as someone who owns every major platform and games on them all.

The Achilles heel of PC gaming since its dawn were the hardware's lifespan and cost. In the 80s and 90s you could spend $3000 on a system, and within 3 years it would be obsolete - if you were lucky. In the 00s the price of hardware came down, but it would still only last a few years before an overhaul was required.

In recent years, I find this is no longer the case. I got my PC almost 3 years ago now, and while I may not be able to play games on the maximum setting, I do not concern myself if they will meet the requirements or not. Factor in the lower cost of titles, not to mention free to play, and the future for consoles is not bright at all.
 
2012-07-31 03:06:04 PM  

TwistedFark: natmar_76: Have you done the math, and realized that Angry Birds at 15 million sales or so is only about $40,000,000 net profit, while one blockbuster big budget title at 20 million sales is $600,000,000 profit? Did you research the that Rovio's total 2012 profit including merch was only $100,000,00, far less than even one of Nintendo's big titles much less their entire stable of releases in a single year? Then did you further realize that Rovio is the one anomaly in the mobile equation, and no one else even comes close to that, and then further even than that, that it means profitability in the mobile space is razor thin? Have you read how many mobile developers have gone under?

Rovio makes about $80 million dollars a year from their stupid Angry Birds franchise. Do you know how much it cost to develop that game? $140,000.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best selling video game of all time. It made over 1 billion (yes, $1,000,000,000) dollars. It took 2 years to develop, cost nearly 200 million dollars in development and marketing costs.

To put it succinctly:

Angry Birds: Paid 571 to 1 for Rovio.
Call of Duty: Black Ops Paid 5 to 1 for Activision.

It's actually worse than that for Activision, because it took them 2 years to develop so their cash was tied up.

Also, the numbers don't even tell the whole story. You're not thinking like a businessman or an investor - a big part of this equation here is risk. If you're running your business off these big numbers, all it takes is one flop and you're gone. Just look at what is happening to Take Two Interactive right now (parent company of Rockstar). They sunk 105 million dollars into Max Payne 3 and then just moved 440k units in the first month. Their share price has dropped from almost 16 dollars right before the release, to currently 9 dollars. They lost almost half of their valuation because of one flop.

Business investors are naturally risk averse. The current triple-A title model of gaming is about as risky as ...


How many other Angry Birds games are there out there? Did you see Zynga's financials?
 
2012-07-31 03:06:23 PM  

TwistedFark: Doublespeak: TwistedFark: Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.

The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 595x244]
/hotlinked

I never said there wasn't a demand or that apps one the app store don't make money. I was simply pointing out that you are foolish for thinking the console game market is going away anytime soon.

Oh c'mon, I totally busted your argument even after you walked out a response just to yourself trying to claim that COD has made more money by itself than the entire apple app store.
.


My argument that there is more money by far in console games right now, yah anyways kid.....umm no/
 
2012-07-31 03:16:42 PM  

HeartBurnKid: rocky_howard: Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does

Bejeweled, Plants Vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Doodle Jump, Draw Something, Words With Friends... maybe not quite Angry Birds numbers, but enough to put traditional console games to shame.

Wear your blinders at your own peril. We are the niche, and we always have been. Publishers are starting to realize that.


PopCap makes a few of those (notably Bejeweled and PvZ). They bring in about $100 million a year to EA.

Zynga's stock price just dropped by nearly 50% because their revenue is dropping. They're around a billion dollar a year company if they manage to right their ship

Rovio only pulled in $100 million last year.

As a comparison, EA Sports alone pulled in about $4 billion last year.
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report