Slashdot Mirror
Game Sales Figures To Improve Throughout Decade
IGN is reporting that according to a recent report, gaming sales figures will contribute significantly to entertainment industry figures through 2009. From the article: "The report cautions that these projections are highly dependent on the success of the next-generation gaming consoles to be introduced by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. The embedded online capabilities expected in the next-generation consoles as well as the global growth in broadband capabilities should also provide a significant boost to online gaming, according to the PWC report."
I thought Interest in Comsole Gaming Is Declining. So interest is declining but those who keep playing will be buying more?
In other news, here's some numbers I pulled out of my ass... Oooh, don't they smell nice?
Seriously, is there any possible way that someone can predict what game sales will be like NEXT YEAR, let alone 10 years from now? Maybe, possibly, after the launch of the next-gen systems, you can start to project future sales by assuming that demand will level off then start to drop over the life of the system. Maybe. But to pretend like you can accurately predict sales trends for gaming into completely different eras of technology?? Well, I hope that they enjoyed their brick of hashish at least.
I've been a gamer for 25 years, and this next generation of consoles will be the first time I'm not really going to buy any. The prices of the systems are too high, and I feel the $60 price tag is a load of crap, quite frankly. (One look at the profits gained by the larger studios pushing this price raise and I think you'll agree it's unnecessary).
In addition to this, one trip to Fry's, or most other stores that carry games, and I see more used/bargin-bin games for $10-$20 than I have ever seen in the history of gaming. The market is completely over-saturated with titles.
I think these arguments combined will ring true with a lot of people paying closer attention, and I foresee a more rapid fallout similar to the one that Hollywood is experiencing right now. You can't run an industry on bullshit and effects (for too long).
We should really remember that this industry collapsed once already during the mid-80's, and many things seem to be repeating themselves.
Bzflag and Wesnoth, what more do I need.
You're completely missing the point of the Revolution controller. If it really was just a "lightstick thingy," you'd be completely justified, of course. There's only one kind of game you can really make with that, and it *would* be dumb to try to make, say, a platformer use a lightgun for control. What it is, though, is more along the lines of a very, very precise pointing device - analogous to a mouse, as a lot of the media mentioned after trying their Metroid FPS demo - but with additional degrees of freedom (what with the rotation along 3 axes and movement in 3 dimensions). For the first time, there's a console with 3D graphics capabilities that also gives the player intuitive full range 3D motion. That's nothing to thumb your nose at.
--- Bwah?
Robbie the Robot wasn't just a lightstick, either - but it still sucked.
Show me evidence that it works, accurately, without glitches on the majority of televisions (not just those at least as big as my 50" at home) and I might have some interest. Still, I would rather get to play Halo 2 with my mouse and keyboard than some stupid pointy device.
I mean, honestly, I'm up for something new as much as the next guy but the controller just seems overhyped to me. The controller just seems like something that would come with a knock-off videogame system. You know, like you wanted an Xbox or a PS3 and your parents didn't know anything different, so they bought you this thing they saw at K-Mart called a "GameMaster System 3D" or something. With three unique games and a half-assed controller.
And really, are people going to competitively play FPS games by pointing a stick at a screen and shooting? I'm kind of doubting it. It'll more likely be used for some dorky version of "bubble bobble" where bubbles fall from the top of the screen and you pop them with the pointer. Whoooo.
Anyway, doesn't this already exist? In gameplay to some degree, at least. It's called a stylus for the DS...
The pedantic response here is that if you really were up to something new as much as the next guy, you would be up to the revolution's controller. But what it really sounds like is that you are the kind who spouts off wanting new genres but only to sound like you're hardcore. "Yeah man, I play so much I'm bored to death with FPS's...oooh look, Halo 2!"
And really, are people going to competitively play FPS games by pointing a stick at a screen and shooting?
Maybe, maybe not. While the controller will allow for such, it wasn't necessarily made for it. Who knows, it may be better at FPSs then current controllers. If it isn't, then plug in a regular controller; they'll still work.
It'll more likely be used for some dorky version of "bubble bobble" where bubbles fall from the top of the screen and you pop them with the pointer.
I see that you are like Charles Duell. He was the commissioner of the patent office who said "Everything that can be invented has been invented," found here. IOW, you are saying that since you cannot see a use for something, obviously it has no use. If you can't see into the future all you have shown is that you cannot see into the future. Everyone thought gaming was dead in the early '80s and then Nintendo revitalized it with, of all things, the D-Pad. Nintendo has a long history of changing the way games are played, and I have no doubts that if this next generation of consoles fails that Nintendo won't. What are my reasons? They are the only company doing something different. Soon, I will upgrade my PC. Does that suddenly mean games are going to be so much cooler? Of course not. If a game sucked before, it will still suck; turning up the resolution isn't going to change a thing.
While I will still play FPSs, RTSs, RPGs, etc., I am looking forward to what can be done with the Revolution's controller. If nothing else, it will present a new way to play old genres. I suspect, however, that it will introduce at least one new genre. And mark my words, if it is successful to any degree, MS and Sony will have one on their next-next-generation consoles.
Anyway, doesn't this already exist? In gameplay to some degree, at least. It's called a stylus for the DS...
Not hardly. The sylus lets you go left and right and up and down, and to do so rather quickly. The revolution's controller let's you go left and right, in and out, up and down, pitch, yaw, and roll, and all fairly quickly. I can see gaming on the revolution being very fast paced if need be. Maybe even more of a twitch-fest than PC gaming is now. The only problem I see is someone might accidentally hit someone else while swinging it around.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
You got your numbers wrong the videogame industry will grow by 16.5% by 2009 but you're argument still makes an interesting point.
2009 is still (approximately) 4 years of accurate growth statistics away (at least); at 16.5% growth you're looking at a little more than 4% of growth per year without factoring in inflation (if you assume 2% inflation you're looking at 2% growth per year). What this means is that the number of new users per year - the number of users that stop playing videogames is about 2%; contrast that to the increase in development costs of games on next generation consoles (at least 100% increase, probably closer to 300% increase on average) and this is not a healthy situation for game developers.
I own a DS. I love it and the games. Of the next generation systems the Revolution is looking to be the most likely to get my money, and chances are it will cost much less than PS3 and XBox2.
So yes, there are interesting look games out and coming out in the future. However the market is very poor despite MTV swearing it's the hottest new thing on the block, and Nintendo will not stop that alone. My opinion is one of an open minded gamer and developer who would love to see the best for our artform. Telling me to "try something new", that's practically my job, kid.
Okay, one day we have a Slashdot article claiming that video gaming is on its way out the door. The next, an article celebrating its sure growth in the future. Then after that, another one saying that it's going away again. And so on.
For fuck's sake, can't we just make up our minds whether the gaming industry is dying or thriving? This is idiotic.
Everyone thought gaming was dead in the early '80s and then Nintendo revitalized it with, of all things, the D-Pad.
It wasn't the D-Pad alone, Nintendo's Official Seal of Quality had a lot to do with it, as well. One of the contributing factors to the video game crash in the 80's was that the market was flooded by a lot of awful games, and Nintendo's Seal of Quality and 10NES lockout helped a lot with ensuring customer confidence in the console.
As for game sales figures being expected to improve, I'm extremely skeptical. I honestly think that much of console gaming's future rests on the shoulders of Nintendo. The XBox 360 and PS3 are both going to be extremely expensive systems with very little improvement aside from prettier graphics, and this high price point is going to be a barrier to the more casual gamers. The Revolution's unique control method as well as Nintendo's commitment to keep its hardware affordable will most likely be extremely appealing to the less hardcore who just want something to keep them entertained for short periods at a time.
"The pedantic response here is that if you really were up to something new as much as the next guy, you would be up to the revolution's controller."
I'll call bullshit on that. Wanting something new doesn't mean you have to stop thinking for yourself, nor that you'll take _any_ idiocy just because it's new.
Want to disaggree there? Well then I propose you go hit yourself in the groin with a hammer. It's something new, which you've never experienced before. What are you waiting for? If you were all for something new, you'd have done it already, right?
Lemme guess... you didn't actually go do it, right? Well, assuming that you didn't, you illustrate _exactly_ what I'm talking about: even if something's new, it can still not be fun, and you can still think for yourself and decide "nope, I don't want that."
Same here for some of us and the Revolution controller. I'll wait and see what games it's actually good for, thank you very much, because so far all Nintendo showed us were some _actors_ waving it around in front of a pre-rendered _movie_. They weren't actually playing a game with it. But in the meantime, I can still think for myself and it looks to me like it would be uncomfortable and ineffective, other than as a PR stunt. But again, we'll see. I'll wait for the games first.
Additionally, I sorta find the use of the Argumentum ad numerum fallacyhere funny. "if you really were up to something new as much as the next guy"... which next guy would that be? The guy drawing the VG Cats comic strip, maybe, which basically called it a sex toy? It's yet unproven if the majority on which to base that kind of Argumentum ad numerum even exists.
"Nintendo has a long history of changing the way games are played, and I have no doubts that if this next generation of consoles fails that Nintendo won't. What are my reasons? They are the only company doing something different."
You mean the same as the VirtualBoy was the one that changed the way games were played and the one that didn't fail, because it was different? Oh, wait, it did fail, and it didn't change anything. Shucks, there goes that theory.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The rod uses complete motion sensing, not just pointing. The sensors are accurate, you could try the GBA games "Yoshi's Topsy-Turvy" or "Wario Ware Twisted" (I'd recommend the latter, Topsy Turvy sucks) to test them. Or you could try this, which is a mouse designed by the company Nintendo licensed the technology from.
Obviously the rod will allow you to swing a sword around or maybe play a more accurate Pool/Snooker or Baseball sim. Probably a lot of things we can't even think of right now. At first people assumed the DS wouldn't bring anything new because "the mouse can do everything the touchscreen does and PDAs had it already, anyway". Noone thought of games like Trauma Center. Sure, the PC could probably do everything but since it's a minor market, introducing concepts into the console market that were available on the PC will yield new games.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Nethack.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
"The report cautions that these projections are highly dependent on the success of the next-generation gaming consoles to be introduced by Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo." So they are saying that sales over the next couple of years will improve if sales over the next couple of years go well. If sales aren't very good, then sales just might not improve very much.
Whoa. Simmer down, Captain Nintendo ;) To recap what all that message was about:
1. Noone was saying "all new ideas suck", and noone is generally against new ideas. Lay down the persecution complex. All that was written there is that _some_ new ideas can still suck. Keyword: some. You can't just say "original ==> good". The two qualities are pretty much orthogonal, that's all I'm saying.
_Some_ original stuff is good, and _some_ stuff can be bad even though it's new and original. There are plenty of examples in both categories. That's all.
(E.g., the black plague in Europe or flu among the Indians in the 16'th century were damn new and original, but still they weren't fun. Not much gameplay and balance there, you know. You just cough and sneeze until you die.)
2. About the VirtualBoy: I've only said that the VirtualBoy _itself_, in spite of being new and original, (A) didn't change anything, and (B) was _the_ console that died a horrible death. Hence the whole "OMG!!11 All other consoles will fail and only this one will survive because it's soo original!!11" thing is false. Something can be highly original, and still crap, and it can still die. That's all. That's all there is to that VirtualBoy reference.
So unless you're trying to say that you got wireless or rumble because of the VirtualBoy, I can't even see what your point is. (And I'm pretty sure you didn't, because rumble would have damaged the oscilating mirrors in a VirtualBoy.) Do we have any technology today that's because of the _VirtualBoy_? If yes, please do enlighten me. But generic canned rants about how OMG Nintendo soo innovates, just have nothing to do with what I was saying there.
"Because, like anyone else, I have an imagination, and I've thought of every single game I've loved in the past 20 years and very few wouldn't be better with this controller, and genres I hate (RTS, FPS, sports) are the ones that'll benefit most, assuming the right companies get involved with this thing (and that's a big assumption)."
Yes, bingo, same thing here. I've tried to imagine exactly how I'd control every single genre with it, and so far I'm not even seeing even one which would be better with this PR-stunt gimmick than (depending on genre) with a mouse or joystick. Yes, if you don't think more than 1-2 seconds about it, and superficially at that, it's "omg, it would so rule to wave it around as a sword" time. Once I actually put my thinking cap on, and start thinking about gameplay, usability and how would the controls even work if I coded a game for that thing... it starts looking pretty bad to me. Heck, even skipping the other aspects, the fact alone that it only has two buttons has me scratching my head about some genres.
So to me, this looks like a crap PR stunt. It's stuff that looks good in a press release, and then allows them to sell you a different attachment for every game. (And to quote VG Cats again: since we're talking Nintendo, chances are they'll be _required_.) But a better way to control games? Sure doesn't look that way to me.
Which of us is right? Hell if I know. I'll just wait and see the actual games.
But again, just to have one thing clear: noone is against innovation as a whole. It's strictly about this one gadget. No more, no less.
"Maybe you don't like this controller, but you have to admit it opens a lot more doors than the other two consoles, which are pretty much the exact same as their old consoles. Honestly, any new doors opening for game developers with the PS3 or 360? "Yeah we can make trees look real nice now". Really looking forward to it."
AFAIK, noone said the PS3 or 360 are original or anything. Yeah, we can aggree there very very quickly. Yeah, the Nintendo Revolution controller is far more original. Kudos to Nintendo for even trying. But is it also better? Doesn't look better to me. But we'll all wait and see anyway.
And here's the even more important part: will it have the games that interest me? Because
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Ok, so let's get the topic straight this time, because this beating around the bush and tantrums are getting tiresome. Your point is basically: "But you should be excited about it because it's _new_!!" That _is_ what you're saying, or are you going to do a verbose dodge again?
This might come as new and unexpected, but at some point you just have to use your own brains and decide for yourself what looks exciting and important to _you_, and what doesn't. To me, this doesn't. Claiming that everyone should get excited about a gimmick just because it's new, is just plain old silly.
Yeah, theoretically it _could_ open new possibilities. Or then again, maybe not. It may not be as original as you think. A whole line of Sidewinder gamepads existed, and I seem to recall some Saitek models too, that had just that: a motion sensor. Remind me... what genres did those make possible? For that matter, in which genres did they rule as a controller? As far as I know, everyone already silently discontinued such models.
But at any rate, it's just a possibility. No more.
And we're talking a _gaming_ console. There's one single reason to own one or to get excited about one: the games. If I can't think of any games that would benefit it, there's no reason for me to get excited about it. It's that simple.
"Someone else already discussed your rant about the virtual boy"
No, he did a totally off-topic rant that had nothing to do with what I had written there.
"To me, that also could have changed the way we game. A neat idea, not exactly implemented the best way."
Which actually is the whole crux of the problem. There are lots of neat-sounding ideas that nevertheless never got implemented right, or some which arguably can't even be implemented "right", as in, better than the conventional ways. VR, touch-screens, power-gloves, you name it. "For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat, and wrong." The VB was just one such wrong solution.
The question that still remains to be answered is if the Revolution controller is also one. The problems that Nintendo waves around, like the need to draw more people to gaming, are real. (And not very original either, since that's what MS says too, and what Sony addressed with their original Playstation.) Is this controller the right answer? Or is it such a solution that's simple, neat and completely wrong? So far it looks like the latter to me.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Ok this thing in no way shape or form resembles a light stick. It doesn't even operate in the same manner (this would actually begin to cause it to fail with technologies). It is a gyro-pointer. It works using wireless connection (IR if I remember, maybe RF) and the signals sents are with gyroscopes. Now if you want to see an example of this in use, I point you to the gyro-mouse, a very capable device and very ease to use the motion features for controlling. TV Size should not effect it beyond the fact that you are going to have the same resolution on the smaller screen then on the bigger one, so its performance won't change, just your poor eyesight.
I have experience using the types of technology that Nintendo is putting into this controller and it is quite accurate and very fast. The controller that Nintendo is promoting is even suppose to plug into a regular controller. This is nothing like those crappy things you get for your other systems, because this actually looks professional and is made good.
I would figure that your getting rated (probably troll and/or flaim) would clue you in to how off your comments are and that you aren't attacking the issue but instead sound like you are directly attacking Nintendo.
And really, are people going to competitively play FPS games by pointing a stick at a screen and shooting?
PC Gamers like me would ask you: Are people going to competitively play FPS games with a controller? This is a NINTENDO controller. They are not going to be selling a huge number of FPS games anyway. I still do not see the joy of FPS on the console. I've played quite a few and to be honest my mouse and keyboard are 10x better anyday. Why do you think they don't put these people on the same servers, because the console gamers would get raped unmercifully by the PC Gamers...your point is stupid and invalid.
I'm kind of doubting it. It'll more likely be used for some dorky version of "bubble bobble" where bubbles fall from the top of the screen and you pop them with the pointer. Whoooo.
You mean the games that made gaming great, and that the "real gamers" will tell you are what gamers actually play, not GTA and Madden and Halo? I will now point you to the legendary games in Nintendo History...Mario Brothers (Platform), Tetris (by most of todays gamers standards...geeky), Dr. Mario (try this as a drinking game). Some other good games throughout time...Chu Chu Rocket, Bomberman, the countless party games for various consoles and names (Monkeyball, Mario Party, Sega had some too). You know there was gaming before the FPS, the sad thing is...gaming history is short and most the "gamers" today probably cannot name for you the game that made the FPS/3D shooter into the games they are today.
You know why Sega failed? Because they tried to leave their niche a bit too much and got pounded on the Dreamcast by a worse console (the PS2). Sega and Nintendo were the companies that made gaming good in the late 80s/early 90s. Sony and M$ are the ones running it into the ground. In case some of you forgot, there were short lived fears of Nintendo hardware death after Sega went software only...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."