Slashdot Mirror


Games Industry Off Its Game

A Washington Post article explores the problems facing the games industry in this year of console generation turnover and lackluster PC game sales. From the article: "There are other potential problems. The new-generation consoles look best when plugged into high-definition TV sets -- and it is not clear how many people will buy a new television just for the latest version of the Madden football game. And the cost of the new gaming systems continues to rise. Perhaps no question haunts the industry more at the moment than the mystery of when Sony's PlayStation 3 will come out and how much it will cost."

132 comments

  1. White Flag by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 1

    There is no question about it, there will only be Revolution!

    --
    Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    1. Re:White Flag by hattig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn you! I wanted the first Revolution post :(

      But yes, Revolution - doesn't require HDTV, will be cheaper, will try to bring new gameplay systems to the ... sofa. It certainly bypasses the problems in the article.

      XBox360 and PS3 are great for the (admittedly large number of) people with a HDTV and who are happy to connect the console to that HDTV (younger men, mainly). Of course games will still look good on a normal TV, especially if the extra power not being used on HD rendering is used to improve anti-aliasing instead.

    2. Re:White Flag by Khyber · · Score: 1

      What's the resolution of a standard TV set? 640x480? Why anti-alias at all? It's not like you can really tell the difference. Play Enemy Territory on a standard TV with s-video, at 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768, I can't see the difference with a 3X magnifying lens. The jaggies all look BLURRED.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:White Flag by Mprx · · Score: 1

      You must have a very poor quality TV. Even with S-video you should be able to tell the difference, and with component video or RGB it is very easy.

    4. Re:White Flag by MBCook · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I saw a great post somewhere about how Sony was going it fight the Revolution, and it could be very intersting if it is true. It said that Sony has been working on a similar controller setup (copied after it was announced) along with the EyeToy. The plan would be to release PS2 games that used it. Because there is so much expiriance out there with the PS2 development would be cheap. They can get the price of the little slimline PS2s down to about $100 (which will undercut the Revolution price, whatever it is) and the system is already in however many million homes. They think that by doing this they could expand the life of the system 2 years or so by grabbing casual gamers, and maybe sell 50 million additional systems (I'm guessing world wide) with this plan.

      Pure speculation, but very interesting.

      On a side note, I saw that the Revolution development kits cost $2000 which is just a fraction of what most kits (PS2, etc) cost, especially the cost of "Next Gen" systems (PS3, XBox 360). They say this would reduce the financial risk of trying to make a game for the revolution (which makes sense). I just wish they'd open it up (somehow) so end users could program it (I'd LOVE to do that, even if it must be done in a locked-down-sandbox with an interpreted language). They could sell the best user created programs on their online service.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    5. Re:White Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I'm in the market for a new TV. My 24" tv is just not cutting it in the living room, but guess what? I'm also not willing to spend more than a $1,000 on a TV. I'm looking for something bigger than 31" and right now the CRTs are 1/2 the price of any flat panel (LCD or Plasma). So what do I choose?

      Now add this on, I don't watch cable TV, I don't watch broadcast TV. I have a 400 DVD changer that I watch movies and seasons of shows. I don't spend more than 12 hours a week watching TV that way.

      So is a HDTV flat panel right for me? No. what about an EDTV flat panel? Still no, because the price is still up there. Well I have been looking at HDTVs and some of them say Compatible with 1080i but the resolution that it displays isn't 1080i equivilent! (the resolutions I have seen match the 720i/p size)

      As for game system. I got the GC, and I'm going to get the Rev, because of price and because I want fun games I can pick up and play for 30 min, not games that require me to watch cut scenes.

    6. Re:White Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dance, Dance, Revolution?

    7. Re:White Flag by mabba18 · · Score: 1

      Only HDTVs have component video or RGB. Most regular TVs just have coax, composite video, and maybe S-Video. There is a maximum resolution that each input can take, and after that it does not look any better.

      --
      The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
    8. Re:White Flag by HiVizDiver · · Score: 1

      My 32" Sony Wega (non-HD) has component video inputs...

    9. Re:White Flag by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Component was out before the HD-TV set ever was. Remember those front-projector TVs you'd see in bars? They used component, Red, Green, Blue. Only thing that's changed is there is more than one type of signal that goes down the wires, now. Your Wega only handles the standard RGB signal that's sent over those wires, whereas high-def TVs will be able to pick up and use those other signals that give razor-sharp definition.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:White Flag by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I just wish they'd open it up (somehow) so end users could program it (I'd LOVE to do that, even if it must be done in a locked-down-sandbox with an interpreted language). They could sell the best user created programs on their online service."

      They will, I guarantee it. I have been personally told *twice* by Nintendo reps. that open development truly means even single person, 1st time game developers. Now, most likely this will be a scaled down dev kit but it will be there.

      What I'd like to see is a cool free tile based 2D dev kit opened up for it, that would be my ultimate wet dream for a console. A steady stream of new and innovative 2D games.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    11. Re:White Flag by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Poor quality no, poor brand name, yes. Sony Trinitron, 27". Only Sony product I own, simply because it's still plenty useful for gaming. You can't tell the difference switching from s-video to composite input coming out from my GeForce FX 6200.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:White Flag by kaldrenon · · Score: 1

      I know that with each passing year, with each new leap in creativity on the part of hardware and software developers, the gaming market opens up to a larger and larger section of the market. Especially with the advent of the original Playstation and some of the first impressively realistic sports titles, not everyone who plays video games is a "gamer". Nonetheless, I definitely think it's a wise move on Nintendo's part to consider making this development kit, as well as any planned stripped down and marked down versions. The biggest, most loyal market for video games is still those of us who are just as interested in the technology and the development as we are in the games. I know people who enjoy making games more than they enjoy playing them, although they are still gamers at heart. I don't expect Sony to have a great deal of luck competing if all they're going to do is make the PS2 prettier and cheaper, and increase development for the Eye Toy. I haven't seen any successful Eye Toy titles, and to be honest, that doesn't bother me. Viva la Revolution!

      --
      My mind is like an arrow in flight: fast, deadly, and all the more dangerous because I have no control over it.
    13. Re:White Flag by tekkou · · Score: 1

      I've got a 27" Panasonic TV that has component-in (I bought it specifically for that) and it is not HD. Might want to get your facts straight.

    14. Re:White Flag by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Only HDTVs have component video or RGB

      Except if you live in Europe, where RGB signal over Scart is supported by practically all TVs.

      Seriously though, PAL-RGB looks great, even if it is only an effective resolution of 768x576. The colors have to be seen.

    15. Re:White Flag by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would be possible to do anything more than what we've seen with eytoy on the PS2. The thing is, if you've got input systems like gyroscopes and optical sensors, you're going to want to design your hardware specifically for acomplishing those tasks. Trying to lay that on the PS2s CPU might be a little tricky.

    16. Re:White Flag by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't care if their idea of an "open console" means "here is a virtual NES devkit, and you can download your creations to the Revolution". Giving hobbiests a REAL development platform on a real console, no matter how scaled back (within reason, like I said above, NES is enough, SNES would be great, PS/N64 would be fanstastic) would be a major boon for a large number of reasons. First of all there is NO hardware out there for people to make games for except the PC. Sure, you can try on the GBA or whatever (questionable legality, requires special hardware, etc). Or there is the XGameStation (interesting, powerful enough, but $200 compared to "free" if you already own the Rev.). The Net Yahorzee (or whatever) for the PS showed people wanted to be able to do this (I almost bought one). And if you could send your creations to freinds/relatives then all the better.

      Nintedo could hold little development competitions (Sony did that once with the Yahorzee, I remember playing the games on a PlayStation Underground CD) which fosters talent, good will, etc.

      I don't understand why these companies don't do this. Why not do it for the older consoles? Now that the PS3 is out (hypothetical), release a dev-kit for $100 that lets you make PS2 games (I know you can do it with the Linux kit, but they need better libraries instead of "here is the chip manual, figure it out" which is where I understand the Linux kit puts you).

      And if they don't sell the console at a loss (or sell a "developer" version for an extra $50 or something) then they will only make money off the people who buy the console to develop for it.

      All I'm left with right now is waiting for Parallax's Propeller chip (read about it here) which looks like a great little console on a chip to me.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    17. Re:White Flag by Brantano · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what are you smoking? You can buy a television in america for under 150$ that includes component input. A normal, CRT television. You were probably thinking of DVI, no? This is one of the only connections that isnt included with a normal television set, and is normally found on LCD (not always) and HDtv sets.

    18. Re:White Flag by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I owned a Net Yaroze (decent but too dificult for what it can do), and also have worked with the PS2 Linux Kit (utter crap). I have also worked with the Gamecube dev kits and can say of all the consoles it is one of the best.

      While I can't say I have any great inside info on how in depth the dev kit will be, I do know that Nintendo is committed to letting small/indie developers have at the Revolution for very low cost. Even the smaller professional developers are swooning for the Revolution due to costs and timeframes of the competitors being way out of their league.

      We'll have to wait to see how full-fledged it will be and whatnot, but Nintendo has repeatedly stated its stance on this issue and it is a smart move no matter how they pull it off. Like I said I'd be happy to have a free simplistic dev kit, and even at just $2000 it is a steal for the full dev kits.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    19. Re:White Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that theory is that sony made the PS2 as fragile as Kate Moss in a hail storm, and for whatever reason, people just kept buying the damn things over and over. Well that's not likely to continue once the new generation comes out.

    20. Re:White Flag by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Micro-controllers are cheap. While the EyeToy part may tax the CPU, you could easily put a rather powerful MCU into the controller to process things (or at least do the initial processing) leaving the PS2 CPU with little to nothing to do. Also, games don't have to be as complex as God of War or something like that. Something much simpler can still be fun and would leave a ton of CPU cycles to process the input of the different controllers. Even the more complex Mario Party mini-games would leave the CPU with PLENTY of time to figure the controller's positions out.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    21. Re:White Flag by leland242 · · Score: 1

      Even if Sony could pull off a "revolution" controller for the PS2, the problem will be with brick & mortar stores not stocking PS2 games in 2 years.

      Yes, yes, I know some probably still have PS1 games on the shelves, but its just a few - not enough to attract new customers. Besides, I assume that the Rev will have a display model in the store - again, it's unlikely that Best Buy will allocate demo floor space to a new controller.

    22. Re:White Flag by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      What are you smoking? Every game store I've been in has just as many PS2 games as XBox (and 360) games, if not more. It's GameCube games that took a big hit, and are usually deligated to a small shelf in the back, but PS2 games are usually right out front and in great supply.

      But otherwise, yes, I think Sony will have a VERY tough time marketting a competing controller to the Revolution. For one, Nintendo are now appearing as the champions of innovation, going against the grain and coming up with something new. This is a huge draw to youth (and adults) who'd rather not feel like they're trapped in a circle of mass-consumerism. This is also a huge reason for Apple's recent success with the iPod, it proudly flew in the face of many of the current trends, and solidified a new market. People LIKE that, they don't just buy into a product for it's functionality, but for what it represents. Currently, companies like Apple and Nintendo have public personae that appear to endorse themes of innovation and individuality. If Sony simply copies Nintendo, even if the actual product is very different, People will ignore it, because what Nintendo's real boon with the Revolution is exactly that, the offering of a gaming Revolution.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    23. Re:White Flag by HiVizDiver · · Score: 1

      Ok... but my TV still *has* them, which was my only point.

    24. Re:White Flag by rohlfinator · · Score: 1

      If they really want to allow for open game development, providing NES/SNES/N64 devkits wouldn't be the best way of doing it. What's the point of providing an easy development platform if you're going to restrict indie devs to some 20-year-old piece of hardware? I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, but it seems like it would be much easier for devs to have a dumbed-down version of the complete Rev dev kit. Even if it significantly limited their software, they'd still have access to the full power of the hardware, rather than an emulated 2MHz processor and 2KB of virtual RAM.

      What I'd like to see (and the GP hinted at it) is something like GameMaker made available for the Rev. It's a really simple, object-oriented, drag-and-drop game construction program. I've messed around with it a little bit, and the program makes it really easy to create just about any type of 2D game. It's a bit restrictive and inefficient, but it gets the job done, with little or no programming knowledge required. If Nintendo would provide something like that, I think the fanbase would go nuts.

  2. Shouldn't that be... by Zwets · · Score: 1
    The new-generation consoles look best when plugged into high-definition TV sets
    Shouldn't that be "The new-generation consoles look best when shut off"? Or is that quantum consoles?
    --
    One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
    1. Re:Shouldn't that be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well so far this has held true for the Phantom.

  3. Madden on the 360 by RingDev · · Score: 1

    "how many people will buy a new television just for the latest version of the Madden football game."

    Two of my coworkers have the XBox 360 and HD TV's and both have called the game a waste of money.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Madden on the 360 by Golias · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and it is not clear how many people will buy a new television just for the latest version of the Madden football game.

      From all accounts, the new Madden game sucks.

      But it is just possible that one or two people might buy a new TV for some other reason, like... oh, I don't know... watching television, perhaps? Those people will probably want a console that looks good on their new set.

      DOA4 is almost enough to make me want a 360 for my HD system... almost. A couple more good games, and I'll seriously consider it. Meanwhile, I'm waiting to see what Sony comes up with.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Madden on the 360 by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      Did they already own a copy of Madden 06? I imagine there's not much difference between Madden 06 on the 360 and Madden 06 on the GC, PS2 or XBox. It's not like Madden 64 where they actually built a new engine for the new system. They just ported their current engine over to the 360. I had to opporunity to play Madden 2005 on the PS1 (yes, they did make a PS1 version of that game) and have to admit that it was almost as good as the PS2 version, just not as pretty.

    3. Re:Madden on the 360 by Sysgen · · Score: 1

      "They just ported their current engine over to the 360." Nope. The engine is new hence why the game is lacking features. They didn't have the time given thegame had to be out for launch. This tears version will be much better.

    4. Re:Madden on the 360 by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      You can port something and still not be able to implement certain features due to the differences in hardware platform, especially if your engine is chock full of platform-specific optimizations for each target. It might be a brand new engine but it seemed to feel the same as the other 06 engines so I assumed it was just a port. I have no doubt the 07 version for the 360 will be better (and maybe even completed before it's rushed out the door).

    5. Re:Madden on the 360 by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      By and large, no. HDTV has a very low market penetration, and it hasn't been ramping up- some people want it, but most people just don't give a shit. HDTVs are expensive, most people keep their TVs for years if not decades. Personally, the only TV I own is a 15" model that dates back to college, and I don't plan on replacing it til it breaks. In 6 or 7 years HDTV might have a decent penetration rate for HD on consoles to matter, but for the next generation, Nintendo is making the smart choice.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:Madden on the 360 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people keep their TVs for years if not decades.

      Most TVs don't last "decades" anymore. If you get one decade out of a CRT TV made in the last five years, call it a win.

      HDTV was at 8% of the market as of 2005, and is expected to hit 30% by the end of 2006.

      At that time analog broadcasts are expected to go dark, and those who use roof antennas will have a choice between buying an external tuner, subscribing to cable, or just getting a new TV. Even though a lot of people have moved to pay-TV services these days, that's still a huge chunk of the market who will probably seriously consider grabbing a High-Def set.

      Since the life of a successful console is supposed to be at least 5 years, that means that Nintendo is going to still be trying to sell their Non-HD "Revolution" in 2012. What do you suppose the HD market will look like at that point?

    7. Re:Madden on the 360 by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Most TVs don't last "decades" anymore. If you get one decade out of a CRT TV made in the last five years, call it a win.


      I have never seen a CRT TV last less than a decade. My grandparents TV lasted a good 20 years. My parents was older than I was when it died- I was 18 at the time. Their replacement is running on 10 years. My current TV is already 9, and it was the cheapest model in the store at $100. For that matter, my 9 year old monitor was working until last month when I bent a prong. If I repaired the prong it would still be running. CRTs last a damn long time.

      HDTV was at 8% of the market as of 2005, and is expected to hit 30% by the end of 2006.


      8% of sales, not 8% of the existing product base. The existing product base is huge. It may well hit 30% of sales, but nowhere near 30% of households this year. Yet more analysts pulling numbers from their asses.

      At that time analog broadcasts are expected to go dark, and those who use roof antennas will have a choice between buying an external tuner, subscribing to cable, or just getting a new TV.


      Its not going dark. They've pushed back the date what, 2 or 3 times now? Its going ot be pushed back again for the same reasons- not enough marketshare of existing devices. If it goes dark before 2010, there will be millions of very pissed people, because they just won't have HDTVs. Welvome to reality, it ain't happening.

      Since the life of a successful console is supposed to be at least 5 years, that means that Nintendo is going to still be trying to sell their Non-HD "Revolution" in 2012. What do you suppose the HD market will look like at that point?


      At that time it will probably be a larger percentage of the install base- possibly as high as 25-30%. Of course, remember that not everyone runs their game systems on ther living room TV- most people with kids run it on a second TV so the adults can watch TV wwhile the kids play. By then due to breakage a decent number of those TVs will be HD, and its right around when the next nextgen systems will come out. Smart move by Nintendo- move out with the HD console when the majority of buyers actually have HD and give a shit.
      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  4. Summing it up by utawoutau · · Score: 5, Informative
    I think that a quote from the end of the article sums it up nicely.

    Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, deemed the industry's troubles to be "cyclical and entirely predictable." What's important is that gaming is growing in popularity, and consumers will continue spending as the industry works out its kinks, he said.

    "The early adopters all know what's going on," he said. "They all expect the PlayStation 3 this year. That always tends to slow down purchases for the current platform, no matter how good the current games are. They're sitting on their dollars more than they will be a year or two from now."

  5. HD tvs by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1
    1) they dont really have to have a HD tv to play the new generation of consoles - ya it makes it look extra nice n purty (more than it would be otherwise), but no, its not necessary - hell, I'd be just as happy on my pos 19 inch crt standard definition (OH no!, something thats not high def!?! the console manufacturers will hate me for it!)

    2) I hate sports games, the major improvements stopped years ago, now its just the graphics, but aside from that, even if I did like sports games, I sure as hell wouldnt buy a HD tv or next/new generation console just to play fucking madden, I'd buy it so that Warhawk, Killzone 2, and all the other shitloads of sweet ass graphics games look even better... (but for now, I'll stick to my PC)

  6. bad article by the+computer+guy+nex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "And the cost of the new gaming systems continues to rise."

    PS3's price continues to rise. A $300 Xbox360 is less (adjusted for inflation) than PS1 PS2 Xbox1 NES SNES and the N64.

    Also hard to say the Industry is in trouble when they set records in sales and profit last year (console, not PC).

    1. Re:bad article by interiot · · Score: 1

      Nobody in their right mind would buy a $300 XBox 360. At a bare minimum, you have to fork over another $40 for the memory card, but you're still far from the functionality provided by the $400 version of the console. In the end, the $400 version of the 360 turns out to be cheaper for like 90% of users.

    2. Re:bad article by Winterblink · · Score: 4, Informative

      PS3's price continues to rise.

      That's funny, because no price has ever been announced by Sony. I love how industry, market, and armchair analysts continue to go on about how expensive it will be, when it might not necessarily be so.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    3. Re:bad article by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Didn't the $150 NES get you the console, two controllers, two games (SMB/Duckhunt, I can't remember the other cart? Or was that it?) and a light gun?

    4. Re:bad article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of everyone guessing and over-estimating the price of the PS3. Here's why:

      The PS3 offers almost the same features as the XBox 360, such as online capabilites and improved graphics over the previous generation consoles. Each system will be stronger or weaker in certain areas, but at the end of the day, they will both be pretty impressive pieces of technology that serve the same purpose and essentially have the same features.

      This is why it's ridiculous to suspect that Sony will price their system at at $900 when the Xbox 360 sells for $400. It makes as much sense as Honda pricing the Accord at $60,000 when a Toyota Camry sells for $30,000 (Canadian). They are both destined for the same market, have very similar features and the only thing setting them apart is some minor technical specs and the way the features are implemented. The same goes for the XBox 360 and the PS3.

    5. Re:bad article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm... not sure how you're adjusting for inflation, but let the record reflect:
      Nintendo has never put out a system costing over $200.

    6. Re:bad article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Sony has over-promised on what the PS3 will offer. The PS3 is going to contain a brand new optical drive that's expected to cost around $350 a piece to build, a brand new chip that's expected to cost around $100/unit, a brand new Internet adapter that combines Ethernet and 802.11b, wireless controllers, a hard drive ($50/unit minimum), and more. Just adding up the costs listed in this post brings the PS3 to over $500/unit, and that's ignoring shipping, packaging, and marketting!

      Even if Sony sells it at half-cost, you're still looking at a console that's going to be more expensive than the XBox360. Sony simply cannot offer affordable PS3s, because the technology they're using in them is simply too expensive. I expect that the initial PS3 will cost around $1000 when released. In about a year, they might get that price down to $400. (And, in about a year, they might have a model that will last longer than two months before breaking. With that much untested technology in the console, it's almost guarenteed that the initial model will have several flaws.)

      It's simply not possible for them to sell them for anything that would be competive with the XBox360 or Revolution, simply due to all the new and untested hardware they're using. The PS3 is going to be one of the most expensive consoles ever released, and it's because Sony is using too much bleeding edge hardware.

    7. Re:bad article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods check post history.

      Known paid for Microsoft astroturfer continuing to spread FUD.

    8. Re:bad article by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      That's because Sony has over-promised on what the PS3 will offer.

      You mean, like everyone does with consoles? The 360 is being sold at a loss as well, and a fairly large loss. And I'm not going to even get into the current offerings of games and services. This is nothing new to the console hardware scene, and is not a unique issue to Sony.

      Again, it's all about pulling numbers out of hats at this point until the MSRP gets announced. Until then, I take everyone's opinion on the pricing with a large grain of salt.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    9. Re:bad article by Babillon · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't noticed the trend on releasing consoles at a loss, huh? Also, I distinctly remember a certain console coming out for over $600 a while back, that was the PSX. Heck, I think a couple of the flops sold for even more than that. PS3 will probably be somewhere in the pricerange of the XBox, if not a bit lower, for the sole reason of getting more units out. Sony doesn't care if they run at a loss for the first quarter/year. They'll make it back in spades afterwards.

    10. Re:bad article by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't noticed the trend on releasing consoles at a loss, huh? Also, I distinctly remember a certain console coming out for over $600 a while back, that was the PSX. Heck, I think a couple of the flops sold for even more than that.

      The only console I can think of that cost more than that was the Neo Geo, and that might only have been the multi-cart and/or CD versions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:bad article by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The 360 is being sold at a loss as well, and a fairly large loss.

      Microsoft announced the BOM costs for the 360? When did they do that?

      You're merely speculating. I'd be willing to bet (if I ever thought I could get real numbers) that they're losing way less on each unit than everybody thinks. I'd even bet they break even on the high end model.

    12. Re:bad article by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nobody in their right mind would buy a $300 XBox 360.

      At least, not until Linux runs on it...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:bad article by tuffy · · Score: 1
      That's funny, because no price has ever been announced by Sony. I love how industry, market, and armchair analysts continue to go on about how expensive it will be, when it might not necessarily be so.

      Industry analysts have gone on about how expensive the components will be. Sony might pass those costs on to customers, but will likely eat most of them instead. If that happens, Sony will need the PS3 to be a massive success - both in terms of console sales and game sales - in order for it to be profitable.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    14. Re:bad article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're merely speculating. I'd be willing to bet (if I ever thought I could get real numbers) that they're losing way less on each unit than everybody thinks. I'd even bet they break even on the high end model."

      Not even close.

      We already know from statements from Ballmer last year that Microsoft was looking at best case scenarios where the 360 would move out of the red in late 2007.

      Now that was an absolute everything goes right, everyone buys large numbers of games, huge numbers of people pay for the online service and so on. And it was of course not factoring in the fiasco the launch of the console has turned out to be.

      Some of the estimates for cost to manufacture are probably high but all evidence points to Microsoft is losing somewhere in the 100-150 dollar range right now on 360s.

    15. Re:bad article by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That was the most popular configuration. The dual cartridge SMB/Duck Hunt, two controllers, light gun, automatic video switch, and the console itself. It was a pretty good deal really.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re:bad article by interiot · · Score: 1

      ... and if you run Linux, you'd be insane to get the one without a hard drive, so you'll want the higher priced version.

    17. Re:bad article by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      Industry analysts have gone on about how expensive the components will be

      I agree, but by extension they've made assumptions about how much the end cost will be of the completed product. They can cover their asses by saying they're only making assumptions, but the PR damage is done. Tell the teeming masses that the components add up to 800 bucks and they start to freak out about having to shell out that much, potentially.

      I'm not saying it's better not knowing, but Sony executives would probably disagree with me on that given how these assumptions hurt the perceptions of their final product.

      In the end, since the reading public in general won't stop reacting to speculative writing, and analysts won't stick a sock in it because their names get published on every gaming blog along with their wild speculations, where are we then? I suppose the only thing we can do as consumers is wait until real information and product is released and judge them on their own actual merits.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    18. Re:bad article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but the PR damage is done"

      Huh?

      MR and the tiny xbox fanbase are doing what no marketing money can buy...

      The PS3 is going to be announced at 349 fairly soon - maybe they might bump it up to 399. Depends on what Sony thinks Nintendo and the Rev are coming out at.

    19. Re:bad article by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      We already know from statements from Ballmer last year that Microsoft was looking at best case scenarios where the 360 would move out of the red in late 2007.

      I bet they are counting marketing costs in that.

      Think about what is in these things and compare it to what's in a $200 PC. Then keep in mind that they don't have to put all sorts of expensive things in there like a CPU socket, card mounted crap, etc... Plus they used GDDR3 which is cheaper than normal PC memory (and they didn't have to DIMM mount it, pay for the slot connectors, etc), and that they're making way more of these than the average budget PC maker does. The graphics hardware costs a little more in the 360, but everything else in the box is cheaper than a low cost PC with a mid-range CPU.

      When you say "evidence" I think you mean "speculation", and I think it's wrong.

      (For example, off pricewatch: AMD Athlon XP 2400; 256MB DDR; CD-RW DRIVE; 20GB HARD DRIVE; 64MB SVGA Adapter; 3D SOUND; 10-100 LAN; ATX MID TOWER 400Watt; $213.98 including shipping)

    20. Re:bad article by Manmademan · · Score: 2, Informative

      The NES was not $150 at launch. It took a couple years to drop down to this price. The SMB/Duck Hunt package didn't even appear for a year and a half or so after the console's debut, and it did so at $199. All console launches ever have been around the $3-400 mark, going as far back as the Atari 2600.

    21. Re:bad article by Manmademan · · Score: 1

      the panasonic version of the 3DO retailed for around $600 at launch, also.

    22. Re:bad article by Manmademan · · Score: 1

      The launch version of the NES with R.O.B. retailed for $249. Adjusted for inflation, thats at least as much as an Xbox360 premium.

    23. Re:bad article by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unless you can hack one in yourself, and save some money. Gonna want a bigger disk anyway... But I don't even know what's in the box with the disk in it. Maybe more than just a disk? I'm too lazy to look :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:bad article by interiot · · Score: 1

      That's true, the unit does support USB mass storage drives, so that may well be a solution for running linux on the lower-cost unit.

    25. Re:bad article by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I hate to consider USB much of a solution for anything. I saw a speed/CPU usage test between USB2 and IEEE1394 once, and at peak transfer, the USB solution was about 80% of the speed of the 1394, while it also used as much as 15% of the CPU. I believe it was a P4 box but I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was over 1GHz. The 1394 used like 1% of the CPU...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:bad article by rohlfinator · · Score: 1

      IGN covered this last year.
      The only successful consoles that have debuted at a price point higher than $250 been the Playstations. Nintendo's consoles have always launched at $200, and Sega released a couple at $200-250. Even adjusted for inflation, the vast majority of consoles launched below $400, and those that didn't flopped (i.e. NeoGeo, 3DO, Saturn).

  7. Ass Backwards by G_Biloba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This statement has it all wrong: "The new-generation consoles look best when plugged into high-definition TV sets -- and it is not clear how many people will buy a new television just for the latest version of the Madden football game." HD TV owners (like myself) will only buy HD capable content. So, it is about reaching the current market with the most disposible income and least amount of impulse control (like myself).

    1. Re:Ass Backwards by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people that just go buy HDTV's, new consoles and lots of games with their extra cash falling from their pockets are defintily the norm...that is the "mainstream" market they are going for...

    2. Re:Ass Backwards by G_Biloba · · Score: 1

      It's not about targeting this market. It's about not excluding this market.

    3. Re:Ass Backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>HD TV owners (like myself) will only buy HD capable content.

      Dont speak for all of us. I buy DVDs, which are not HD content.

      I imagine many HDTV owners do the same. I also dont own an xbox or an xbox360, mostly due to total lack of interest in the games. (I had one, played a handful of xbox exclusive games, sold it)

      I have zero interest in the xbox360 as it provides no actually new games. Just the same thing, but shinier.

  8. Don't forget Infinium.... by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    All game developers released a sigh of releif when the new Phantom console was officially postponed. They were all shaking in their boots wondering how to cope with this new console that will destroy all other consoles. It's not fair to have this over their heads for all this time ond now only to postpone and have them all worrying for years to come. :)

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
  9. Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Viva La Revolution!

  10. Same Here by mfh · · Score: 1

    Two of my coworkers have the XBox 360 and HD TV's and both have called the game a waste of money.

    The 360 and HD doesn't compare to Doom3/Fear/CoD2 on a really nice monitor (like the NEC GX90^2).

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Same Here by nb+caffeine · · Score: 1

      I got a 360 and COD2 on a nice monitor, and it sure is pretty :) but more importantly, it is some real fun to play online with my buddies

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
  11. One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by Neeex · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... they're all playing World of Warcraft.

    --
    All those who believe in telekinesis, raise my hand.
    1. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      I posted that earlier in another thread how WoW is really hurting the games industry and people freaked out. But think about it - think about all the gamers you know who play WoW - these are people who used to buy a new game every month, and now they're playing only one game all the time. Great for Blizzard, kinda sucks for everyone else. Of course, you can't blame Blizzard for making a freakin' awsome game.

      Either way, WoW has conquered half of hardcore PC gaming, and is probably singlehandedly responsible for a lot of PC gaming woes.

      Personally, I'm patient. I'm waiting for UT2007 and the Revolution. Gaming has gotten too baroque, and the Rev will save it.

    2. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with WoW and some other modern MMORPGs like CoH/CoV is that they:
      1. Don't have the plethora of horrible boring time sinks (gotta fish for 20 more hours to bump my skill level from 5 to 6!) that cause people to say "screw this" and cancel the account.
      2. You can't "win" the game. Normally people play games for awhile and they either get stuck or win the game and put it away and buy a new one. With MMORPGs that doesn't happen and they play forever.
      3. Have a community of people who would actually miss you (a little bit) if you left. Nobody has to feel bad about abandoning people they've been associated with for months or years when they shelve your average console game.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by jvalenzu · · Score: 1
      Gaming has gotten too baroque, and the Rev will save it.

      It certainly looks like it will have austerity going for.
    4. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by dc29A · · Score: 1

      Don't have the plethora of horrible boring time sinks (gotta fish for 20 more hours to bump my skill level from 5 to 6!) that cause people to say "screw this" and cancel the account.

      You never played WoW right? You wanna tell me that reaching High Warlord is not one of the most brutal time sinks ever in any game? Not to mention the plethora of other timesinks for raising various factions. Did you ever raise Argent Dawn faction to exalted? How do you like killing the same goddamn undead in Western/Eastern Plaguelands for some faction tokens?

      To give credit for WoW, the designers pretty much hid the retarded time sinks (except PvP ranks), and casual players don't really see it because they have still items to get from high end dungeons. Once a player caps out on "stuff to do", meaning he has pretty much all items he needs from level 60 dungeons, he can turn to raids or pvp. Both of those elements are bad timesinks, PvP ranks is a massive grind so is getting items like Sulfuras.

    5. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It's not like you _have_ to do that to advance though. I mean compared to most other games the time sinks in WoW are very optional. Plus, you level so fast in WoW that hitting the cap is an attainable goal for your average person.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    6. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      Just compare WoW to Ultima Online. Wow caps out at lvl 60. There's still a few things to do at that point. Like try to find a "Legendary" weapon (the orange ones are legendary IIRC). I've seen one of these.

      I used to play UO with a few friends. I didn't play it because I enjoyed it. I played it because some of my friends lived too far away to visit for gaming sessions. I hated UO. I'd rather grind ten levels (from 40-50, not 1-11) on Wow than play UO. There was a "power hour" on UO where your skills grew 2x faster. It was the first hour logged on after 24 hours or more of being logged off. Even then I couldn't stand mining for ten minutes for a tenth of a percent of skill.

      WoW is a breath of fresh air. You feel like you're getting somewhere. You decelerate in skills and exp as you go higher in level, but that's fine. I still feel like I'm getting somewhere when I play WoW.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    7. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by Avatar8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I completely agree.

      UO kept me from buying a new game each month for 7.5 years. Now WoW has kept me from buying anything for 1.5 years. Long term commitment to a game "system" (engine, patches, add-ons, new engine, etc.) will likely be the new trend.

      Personally, I don't understand the attraction of game consoles. Sure I had my Atari 2600, Nintendo, Super NES, Sega Genesis... but when I saw the trend that a new console was going to come out each year, from three different companies and the games would not be backward compatible?!?!!?!? Heck, no, I wouldn't be sinking my money into that industry. Instead I sink it into a single MMO, and I consider it my entertainment budget.

      What can a console do that a PC can't do? I have yet to be able to see the difference in graphics or hear the difference in sound. I have much more control with a keyboard and mouse than any directional pad/joystick and eight buttons can give. With an emulator I can dumb my computer down to any console.

    8. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      1. Don't have the plethora of horrible boring time sinks (gotta fish for 20 more hours to bump my skill level from 5 to 6!) that cause people to say "screw this" and cancel the account.

      If works for World of Warcraft. It seems that five million people enjoy fishing for 20 hours.

    9. Re:One simple reason why nobody's buying games... by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      We haven't bought another game since installing WoW, we used to buy a new console game about once a month on average. In fact, I don't think the GameCube has even been switched on in 9 months - as opposed to daily pre-WoW (Animal Crossing encourages daily care and feeding).

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  12. World of Warcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason the games industry is in the toilet is because a huge market share (around 4.5 million people) have quit playing console games and have started playing WoW, making it a regular part of their daily activity.

    If you take the million people that have abandoned their previous MMO (uo, daoc, swg and mxo (lol), eq, eq2, ao, planetside, tso, etc.) for WoW, plus the 4.5 million folks that have moved from single-player/console games, it adds up to the 5.5 million players that WoW currently has.

  13. This is getting to be a routine. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    Is anyone else growing the slightest bit tired of all these redundant "games industry is teh s uck" articles which keep floating around, only to be intterupted every so often with a "omg games industry is teh b etter!" article?

  14. Ten Years?!? by kbonapart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    "Sony President Ken Kutaragi has said that he expects the device to be "expensive." While game consoles have typically enjoyed a five-year lifespan, Sony has said it is shooting for 10 years this time out."

    Are they kidding? They expect it to last ten years, fine, but are they trying to say that they will keep making new games for this platform? I remember the Super Nintendo, and that system rocked, yo. Pilot Wings, F-Zero, Final Fantasy VI were all gems, and had replay value. But after a while, new games stopped appearing, and I was seeing everyone purchase N64s, and playing Goldeneye with all thier friends. And all I had to offer was Mario Kart for thier multiplayer cravings.

    Then the Playstation hit the scene, and my SNES got placed on the closet shelf of Eternity. When Microsoft comes out with the Xbox 720, will Sony stick with thier three year old platform? When Nintendo offers thier newest platform that jacks directly into your cyber-brain, with Sony continue to hock Silent Hill 12?

    Game Platforms are supposed to have a longer life span then computers by definition. All they are are game systems. They don't do spreadsheets, they don't balance your taxes, they don't have hard drives...

    Oh, wait, they do now. Well, strike that...start over...

    With Game Platforms becoming more like home computers, thier Start-To-Trash date will grow shorter and shorter. Ten years is a pipe dream. It's 2006. Let's see, ten years ago...

    Yeah, I think I'm going to go boot up my old 486 and log into World of Warcraft. I'll let you know how it goes in a week when the program finally loads.

    To sum up, a ten year old gaming platform would be like still playing Final Fatasy Mystic Quest, and saying how graphicly stunning it is. Not Gonna Happen.

    --
    There are no gods but ourselves.
    1. Re:Ten Years?!? by pulse2600 · · Score: 1

      damn I just ran out of mod points too...parent makes an excellent point, please mod up!

    2. Re:Ten Years?!? by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      But isn't the ps3 being built on the new cell processor ? I doubt they haven't thought about an upgrade cell processor that plugs into the expansion port(?) to provide more processing power for the new games.

    3. Re:Ten Years?!? by 2008 · · Score: 1

      Playstation 1 was launched over 10 years ago. You can still buy new PSone systems. Playstation 1 games are still getting released, and you can play them on PS1 or PS2. The system isn't dead, at least to people who care about gameplay rather than graphics. If the PS3 is as popular as the PS1 then it will also likely last that long.

      --
      I quit!
    4. Re:Ten Years?!? by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      What I wonder is the exact opposite? When will the time come that cycle time has become so compressed that a manufacturer is developing two consoles simultaneously? One to come out in, say, 2009 and another to come out three or four years later, because delayed-but-incrementally-better-console is sufficiently out-of-sync with what we'd consider to be a console "generation" that you can't get all three or four players on the market and then have an open throwdown... consumers will abandon the wait-and-see attitude and commit early on. And rivals will have to be there with some nominally better system than the one you had for each seemingly out-of-step release, if they want to stay relevant.

      I mean, to date, off-generation releases have killed console manufacturers. But I wonder if now the field's so small that they would try an arms-race to get to the last-man standing.

      And if not... Hooray! Mature oligopoly!

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    5. Re:Ten Years?!? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Expansion cards for consoles never work though. Nobody wants to build a game for it because the install base will be small, and nobody wants to buy the card because there's no good reason to buy a card that no game supports. History has reaffirmed many times that if you want people to use a feature on a console you build it in from the start or you don't get it.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    6. Re:Ten Years?!? by kbonapart · · Score: 1

      Wizards of the Coast already did that with the 3.0 version of D&D. They knew they were releasing a flawed product, and planned to come out with it three years after the release of 3.0.

      However, corprate types took over, and popped it out one and a half years earlier then planned.

      And how well did it work out for them? I still play 3.0 rules, and 3.5 be damned.

      --
      There are no gods but ourselves.
    7. Re:Ten Years?!? by Manmademan · · Score: 1

      Consoles tend to have life cycles- the first 5 years or so its marketed towards the hardcore console fans, after that as the system's lifespan winds down it's increasingly targeted towards the younger and casual set, or maybe marketed in places like latin america that might be viable until the console is a little more affordable. IIRC, the Sega Master system did extremely well there long after it's traditional lifespan would have been up.

    8. Re:Ten Years?!? by damsa · · Score: 1

      They were selling 200 mhz computers in 1996 which is more than plenty to run Starcraft or the original Counterstrike which are still very popular today. Although getting an enjoyable experience is a whole different story.

    9. Re:Ten Years?!? by damsa · · Score: 1

      The comment is not that far off. The new nintendo is not that much faster than the older model. In fact there is no reason why the Revolution with its specs couldn't have been released at the time of the Gamecube five years ago abeit at a much higher selling price.

    10. Re:Ten Years?!? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "The new nintendo is not that much faster than the older model."
      Uh, says who?

      Some developers claimed that their alpha dev kits were "only" three times faster than the GameCube, but what does that mean, and who says that this is the case for the finished Revolution hardware?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  15. Rising Cost of gaming systems? by Kevin+Stevens · · Score: 1

    "And the cost of the new gaming systems continues to rise."

    Huh? Since when? The new systems cost $399 at launch, which is far less than the old school Atari systems that cost somewhere around $800. The Nintendo and Super Nintendo were priced cheaper, though in that era many games cost $60+ and the industry was far less competitive (slower development cycles, less demand). We have been paying $50 for games for well over a decade. Not even factoring in inflation or the fact that today's systems are also media players, the costs have remained the same. I don't have any solid figures on development or production costs, but I am presuming they too have remained relatively flat. The cost of game development has indeed continued to rise, but that was not what was stated and a journalist writing about games should know the difference.

    Anyone who really believes that the PS3 is not going to be priced the same as the 360 when it is released probably has an agenda. Sony is a big smart company, they are not going to just throw in the towel by overpricing their system. This article gets no digg.

    1. Re:Rising Cost of gaming systems? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
      This article gets no digg.

      Sorry, I have to say it:
      "I award you no digg, and may god have mercy on your soul."
  16. Duh by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

    I could have told you that and I've never played sports video games.

  17. About resolution... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    The new-generation consoles look best when plugged into high-definition TV sets

    Can't they just add a friggin' VGA connector to them? Sheesh.

    1. Re:About resolution... by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Can't they just add a friggin' VGA connector to them? Sheesh.

      I could be misremembering, but I could swear I saw at some point that the Revolution will have one built-in.

    2. Re:About resolution... by iainl · · Score: 1

      No, Microsoft would much rather make an extra $20 selling you a special 360-to-VGA lead than letting you use one off the shelf.

      Still, if your point is that you'd rather just hook these machines up to a monitor than fork out for a HDTV, then yes you can do that. It's not even anything new - my Dreamcast looks stunning through VGA.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    3. Re:About resolution... by CaseM · · Score: 1

      Actually, I picked up my $20 Microsoft 360-to-VGA connector "off the shelf", and makes the system look fantastic on my flat-panel Viewsonic. Did you mean "out of the box"?

    4. Re:About resolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing about that - the only console that's ever been able to generate a clean VGA signal was the Dreamcast. Besides, everything's DVI nowadays...

    5. Re:About resolution... by iainl · · Score: 1

      Sort of - I was meaning that the 360 (like just about every console on the market, if I'm being fair) has a custom video connector on the back, rather than standard connectors like you'd see with any other piece of A/V equipment. So while you can hook it up to a monitor, you've got to buy that $20 lead, rather than just a standard VGA cable you probably already have lying around.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  18. Newer games require hardware upgrades? by mmalove · · Score: 1

    This is hardly news.

    On the other hand, I think more and more we're reaching the goals of what gamers want their games to look like, and falling short on games playing how gamers want them to play. Instant action, game balance, getting enough game for your dollar, ease of use, originality - a lot of these concepts are simple but get lost in the wayside of "but it draw 4.2 trillion pixels per second! Look how detailed his nose is!"

    The games industry in general isn't in trouble, but designers that want to stay competitive would do well to sit down and play pong for a week, then go back and look at what's really important in making a game. There are so many disappointments to be found on the 50 dollar rack these days it's not at all funny.

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  19. Console vs PC games by deppe · · Score: 1

    What's happening is that everyone's going crazy about the next-gen consoles and instead of porting games from the PC to the console, they're doing the reverse and it shows.

    Even Red Storm has been bit by this, as is evident from RS:Lockdown. It's a straight port from the console to the PC and so watered down that they're losing their entire IP on the PC side.

  20. If only the decline were offset by Jim+in+Buffalo · · Score: 1

    I'd be happy to hear that the decline in the sales of videogames and consoles were offset by a rise in the sales of books and exercise equipment, but somehow I doubt it.

    --
    This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
  21. Call it the WoW effect. by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 1

    I bought WoW in last November and have not bought a game since. WoW is like crack ( and it does bother me )so I have not gone out and purchased a game every couple of months like I have historically done. Ironically, I don't believe I am spending less on gaming, it just that all the money goes to Blizzard in the form of subscription fees. Now multiply me by the 5.5 million subscribers out there and I can undertsand why the gaming industry as a whole is slumping.

  22. Didn't They Just Say? by UberMench · · Score: 1

    Interesting that this news comes following an announcement that the video games industry is expected to double by 2011. I think analysts look at a sales slump that is most likely due to the fact that consumers are waiting to see where things lie in the next-gen battle, and extrapolate that slump forever. Just because sales are down now, doesn't mean they will be next year, next month, or even tomorrow.

    --
    If video games are created by teams of designers and artists, how are they not art??? www.skylarscaling.com
  23. Who needs HDTV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nintendo said they where going to leaving out HDTV as well a lot of the market doesn't own one and to add HDTV support would cost something like $50usd extra a unit. Nintendo is getting away from the high end art (Like they have had it in a long time) and going for play. The problem is games started selling for looks, so everyone jumped on board and until they start taking an even harder it to find out gamers want a game they don't beat in a day, Sales will keep dropping. This is just like mmorpgs EQ went for the kiddie factor and every game since then pvp has sucked long live UO 1997 Style R.I.P

  24. Two Main Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) PC gaming continues to shrink as a market - with the exception of MMORPGs. The five years of decline shows no sign of ever recovering.

    2) The Xbox 360 has pretty much self destructed - inventory is showing up in retail stores going unsold. It appears only the absolutely most hardcore of Xbox fans are showing any interest in the console.

    The games market as a whole will survive on PS2 sales for a few more months and then it will skyrocket when the next gen consoles arrive after E3. The only thing of note for this brief downturn is there are probably a lot of 360 games/ports getting shelved. The 360 just isn't looking like it will be a viable platform.

    1. Re:Two Main Reasons by SlayerDave · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The five years of decline shows no sign of ever recovering.

      Maybe not to previous levels, but see:

      Painkiller
      Far Cry
      Doom 3
      Half-Life 2
      Rome: Total War
      Age of Empires 3
      F.E.A.R.

      And those are just the games I've purchased in the last 18 months. I'm not really worried about the PC games industry. It was due for a little downsizing, and it happened. There are essentially 3 game types that just play better on the PC: FPS, RTS, and MMORPG. (There used to also be flight sims, but that genre seems to have atrophied). I just can't see any of those genres working as well on consoles as on PC.

      Let's also not forget that the installed base of PCs is in the 500 million range worldwide and growing. That's quite a potential market.

    2. Re:Two Main Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to recap, you've bough an FPS, FPS, FPS, FPS, RTS, RTS & an FPS.

      And people wonder why PC gaming isn't at the level it was in the 90's,

    3. Re:Two Main Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice troll.

    4. Re:Two Main Reasons by LainTouko · · Score: 1
      There are essentially 3 game types that just play better on the PC: FPS, RTS, and MMORPG.

      AND stuff like The Sims or Civilization, pretty much anything not made by big companies, Solitaire...

    5. Re:Two Main Reasons by Manmademan · · Score: 1

      I hear solitaire plays best using, you know...cards. ;)

    6. Re:Two Main Reasons by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "There are essentially 3 game types that just play better on the PC: FPS, RTS, and MMORPG. (There used to also be flight sims, but that genre seems to have atrophied). I just can't see any of those genres working as well on consoles as on PC."
      Have you considered the Nintendo Revolution, though? I can see how FPS games would work well with that controller. Even RTS. And why not MMORPG?
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  25. Mods on crack? by dc29A · · Score: 1

    This shouldn't be funny. It's pretty accurate. People playing MMOGs are far less likely to buy other games because: (1) MMOGs are addictive, (2) They need a lot of time investment to achieve "success" (or to "win" the game) and (3) MMOG game experience for many far surpasses boring single player experiences. This has been known for years now.

    Just look at the massive amount of people playing these games.

  26. Enough by Linux-Fiend · · Score: 1

    I'm not paying more than $150 Dollars for a Console and I'm certainly no longer interested paying for packaging when electronic media can now be delivered via availible high speed networks. My buck stops here.

    --
    -Fiend-
  27. Console costs by killermookie · · Score: 1

    And the cost of the new gaming systems continues to rise.

    That's because consoles are slowly becoming more what the PC game machine is. You can't argue that PCs have a big advantage in getting the latest hardware specs before consoles do.

    As consoles try to compete for the greatest hardware, their prices rise up.

  28. Tired of the same old crap by astemus · · Score: 1

    I can't speak for everyone, but one thing that I've come to realize is that all these game companies are slowly turning us into selling points. Example: when is the last time you saw a multiplayer game that didn't advertise its awesome PVP play? Or when was the last time a single player game was released? I'm not one of the many many people who enjoy such things as PVP and forced social networking. I went in search of a MMO that didn't advertise PVP as it's main attraction, and came up severely disappointed.

    So after that search turned up nothing, I ventured into the other types of Multiplayer games, 4-16 people type games. Unless I want to duke it out with pistols and bazookas with other people, I'd be disappointed here as well. RPG type games have all but dried up, the only ones remaining are old classics like warcraft and diablo. The rest don't do anything to set a up a new rung on the ladder.

    If your search takes you further than this, you'll find yourself at the end of the road. Unless you want to build a rollercoaster park or your neighborhood reputation, then of course you've got a bit more to wade through.

    Anyone else tired of trying to play games where you're forced to compete with people who have too much free time and not enough education? The l33t are dominating any non social aspect of every game. Where do the rest of us go?

    1. Re:Tired of the same old crap by payndz · · Score: 1

      My view on the drive to multiplayer over one-player content is even more extreme. I have no desire whatsoever to play online multiplayer games. Videogames are a way for me to avoid human contact, not be forced to endure what Penny Arcade christened the "Shitcock!" brigade whenever I want play a game!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    2. Re:Tired of the same old crap by torchdragon · · Score: 1

      Cryptic Studio's City of Heroes/Villains is a great MMO that doesn't focus on PVP. Is it there? Yes. Do people do it? Kinda. Is it the point of the game? Not at all. Do people want it? Meh, its been a mixed bag. Their storyline content is engaging enough, you can group with up to 8 people, and they've done away with a lot of the big MMO time sinks. I highly recommend checking it out. Then again, if you're not feeling the love for spandex, this probably won't seem like too much fun.

      --
      "Don't feel bad for me child; I'm the monster that hides under your bed."
  29. Re:sam is korea ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what is up with Korea by the way? I have been watching the Olympics with an interest in true sporting events like the Alpine Skiing events, Hockey (sorry Canada, Russia Rules!), the Cross Country events and the truly impressive Snowboarding events.

    But I've discovered that Korea is, and apparently has been for many years, obsessed with short track speed skating. I mean WTF! That is the absolute gayest event ever. It is in fact scientifically gayer than ice dancing, and even demonstrably gayer than the Summer Olympic event of synchronized swimming.

    Good (hand) job Korea in becoming the gayest country on earth.

  30. The chance of me buying an HDTV for games by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    is most highly correlated with the chance that I can buy a widescreen HDTV set for less than $500 that works with all my toys.

    And, to be frank, there's no incentive for me to do that before 2009.

    Even after that point, since I have a digital TV, I can get service via my cable provider.

    But if I just wait until 2009, when the mass market drops the price even lower, I can get a bug-free, tons-of-features, cheaper HDTV for half as much as if I bought it in 2008.

    Besides, I want to buy it after Bush leaves office, to help rebuild the country under a wise President, instead of making it look like he has anything positive to do with our US economy.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  31. In lay terms... by RoffleTheWaffle · · Score: 1

    The reason the industry is suffering is because forthcoming games and consoles will cost you an arm and a leg to buy, will look dandy on hardware you can't afford, and otherwise suck because nobody is making anything good save for a rare little nugget of fun here and there. Meanwhile interest in gaming is rising among consumers, but only until they realize that they can't afford a console, and once they can, that it was a waste of money. Inevitably, this will change, but for now gamers are stuck with shitty games they can't afford anyway.

    Here's the real solution. Cheaper, funner games, and consoles that won't punch a hole in my bank account. (Though I suppose the 360 could be considered a cost effective appliance option, considering that it can double as a space heater, a toaster oven, and a hot plate while you become ever increasingly disappointed with just how lame and generic Project Gotham Racing and Perfect Dark Zero are.)

  32. No new Ideas by 0b1010100 · · Score: 1

    Sales are down because Game Industry is out of new game ideas. Every other game release now a days is a clone of some previous one and the hype is created through media as id they are the next "big" thing.
    by the way i do not like consoles at all! PC games rulez!! :))

  33. On where the shift will go by mfterman · · Score: 1

    Online gaming services. My own crystal ball version of the future indicates that we're going to see the collapse of computer game stores. Instead, consoles will probably be sold through conventional electronics retailers. Most games will be sold online and most of them will be going through conventional gaming services.

    The MMORPGs will be only some of what is available through your online gaming service. Being able to log onto a server and play your favorite MMORPG or a networked FPS or even solo games and so on will become the thing of the future. Game publishers will transform into online game services, and the game development companies will push their stuff through the services. That will transform the PC gaming industry.

  34. *Cough* TBS ain't quite dead yet as a PC genre by dtolman · · Score: 1

    Turn based strategy is still alive and kicking - and still way better on a PC than on a console. See Civ 4 and Galciv 2 for recent examples of good sales and PC only...

  35. DS2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I quite liked the 'sequal' to Dungeon Siege.
    Then again, I was only looking for a romp similar to Diablo II :)

  36. The article is simply stupid and poorly researched by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
    I totaly agree with you. Statements like these make the article look like it was written by some clueless moron who just wanted to write something bad to attract attention:
    "The new-generation consoles look best when plugged into high-definition TV sets"
    Uh, Nintendo Revolution? Ever heard of that?!
    "And the cost of the new gaming systems continues to rise."
    Um, hello? The Revolution again?
    --
    Clever signature text goes here.