Slashdot Mirror
Current Console Transition Far Worse Than Previous
A report released yesterday indicates that this console transition is far worse than previous hardware iterations. From the Gamasutra article: "This console transition, he said, is 'far worse' than that seen from the years 1999 through 2001. Additionally, Lowell points fingers at the increased popularity of online games, a general lack of creativity in game development, and 'no Halo or Grand Theft Auto-type blowout titles launched in 2005,' echoing the sentiments of many other analysts." Next Generation has an analysis of what makes this transition so bad. (this last piece is satire)
This article is a joke.
It blames the Germans.
It blames companies (Nintendo) and consoles (the PSP).
It lists developers at number five.
Can't we just admit that there's been a severe lack of imagination in video game design recently? We have no one to blame but the people who envision the games--and even then, we can't really blame them for not coming up with the latest and greatest concept.
Maybe we should be encouraging developers to think outside the box and have them attend liberal arts colleges instead of 2 year technical colleges where they only learn how to make clones out of already existing games?
My work here is dung.
It has been said probably a thousand times around why the transition isn't going well, and lack of a must-have title is just part of it. Over the years i've owned probably half a dozen consoles, From the NES to a PS2 and a bunch of stuff in the middle. In that time i've played dozens if not hundreds of games. And while Marios, Final Fantasies, and all the rest of the bunch are fun, how many times can i buy something with the same basic formula doing the same basic things. Its been 20 years, give me something new already, because i'm not paying $400 for a new XBox360 to play the same tired genres. I've shot enough people and jumped over enough stuff, that i want something new, and the developers are refusing to give it to me. So i won't give them my money. End of story. There is a reason the video game industry took a dive once before. Too much crap that no one wanted. Looks like some people never learn.
Even then you may be disappointed. The truth is that like everything else you reach a point where it is good enough. Improvement in graphics will be relatively minor. Games cost a lot to produce now so no one will want to risk anything too off the wall. And hard core gamers are pushing for games that are too complex. I find most games on the X-Box, PC, and PS2 to just not be that much fun. I don't have hours and hours to dedicate to learning how to play some game. Combine that with the cost of the new consoles and I predict Nintendo as the big winner of this round.
They know how to make games that most people enjoy. Their price point is looking very good. And here is the big one they are making money at it. I doubt that it will make the hard core crowd happy but in marketing the more hard core you go the smaller your market.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Quite simply put the visual leap from say the N64 to the Gamecube, or the PS1 to the PS2, was much, much greater than the visual leap we are seeing from the original XBOX to the 360. While us techies might be able to see a big difference, many people can't. It doesn't help that nearly every 360 title thus far was either a port, was originally developed for a "lesser" console, or the same title (or a similar one) is also available on current gen consoles where they don't really look that much worse.
More power is great, but so far it hasn't translated into anything so astonishing that invokes the "I have GOT to have that" response from the general public. But the last console transition was unique like that. It was the first time we were really getting into realistic looking 3D graphics and that astounded response drove alot of console sales.
I don't own a console, so I may be wrong, but from where I'm standing it seems like the next generation of consoles have dropped a bit in quality and polish. Perhaps I'm bordering on flamebait here, but it seems both PS3 and 360xbox are rushed to market, together with the first wave of games (at least for the 360, the PS3 remains to be seen, not to mention Nintendo). Competition on the market gets fiercer and the "market window" keeps getting smaller.
Perhaps my beloved PC stands a chance after all. Though it would have been nicer if the field had levelled by the stability and polish of PC games had increased rather than consoles decline.
I think this would be just fine, because it would force companies to be innovative with their titles. I think Nintendo is headed in the right direction with the Revolution, because they know we're *ALL* tired of playing the same old games over and over again.
Only one console it out yet, it's only been out for three months, and the other two aren't due to be out for several months more, most likely not even until Christmas 2006. How can they prejudge the "next-gen" launch based on the early results from ONE console? That should tell you right there that the article is a bunch of bullshit anyway. No one knows what killer games will be available for the PS3 or Revolution release. Did anyone anticipate GTA3 for the PS2 a year in advance of the console's release? Did Microsoft even start flogging Halo that early?
Does it really take an analyst to realize that "impending" means that the next generation of consoles isn't out yet. Of course there won't be a base of users installed with the next generation of gear...
Maybe these analysts should wait for the PS3 and the Revolution to come out before they make these reports.
For Nintendo.
I see a lot of interest in the DS and DS Lite. I see record sales in Japan (SOLD OUT- something that almost never happens) and increasing sales in the USA and Europe.
It's a handheld? So what?
When a market is really changing, the old models don't work so well any more. Sony and Microsoft are utterly convinced that convergence will happen in your living room. That's because they sell things that go in a living room- Televisions, Stereos, Home Computer OSes, etc. Sony's fantasy is that you will pay them an enormous sum of money and subscription fees to install very complicated equipment so you can spend a lot of time at home. Microsoft thinks you are willing to spend $400+ on a console to play the $5 Geometry Wars (perfectly playable on Game Boy) or Paperboy.
Apple and Nintendo both understand that convergence is happening IN YOUR POCKET.
iPod, Cellphone Television, Handheld consoles. What do these all have in common?
A home theater experience is very nice, but a device that shows movies, plays music and games, and allows phone calls is totally convergent, and cheap by comparison, which allows a much larger market. Simpler games also allow market expansion by appealing to nontraditional gamers (Women and Seniors, mostly).
Sony has delays on PS3 because they are feverishly working to make it the all-in-one living room box. Does anyone actually WANT an all-in-one? Also notice that the PSP section of your local store has 2x the movies as games. PSP is a very expensive portable DVD player that plays some games.
I would love to know what the U.S. XBox360 sales would look like if they could actually produce some of the things. "Sold Out" is meaningless when you can only allocate a dozen units per store. For months at a time. It's March, where the hell are the things already?
In Japan, where XBox360 stock is plentiful, games are important, and home theater convergence is desired to to lack of space, no one is buying them. But there are lines around the block for the DS.
If your model of transition is upgrading consumers from FooBox 2 to FooBox 3 (with slightly better graphics and a modem at double the price), the transition has been a failure.
If your model of transition is selling more units to more customers no matter what new product you offer (from FooBox to PortaFoo), this is one of the best transitions ever...for Nintendo.
"Can't we just admit that there's been a severe lack of imagination in video game design recently? We have no one to blame but the people who envision the games--and even then, we can't really blame them for not coming up with the latest and greatest concept."
And yet I don't see any "scratch and itch" games on the shelves, or even via popular download. It's easy to diss others, as long as the complainer doesn't have to do any work to correct the situation. Whaa! I hate politics... Whaa! The state of games suck...
This article is a joke. "Oh this transition is the worst" has been said everytime we go through one and you know what? Each time they base it on current thinking, not remembering accurately what the past was like.
This transition is actually pretty smooth, and while there are no huge games out for the XB360 they are coming.. which was quite similiar to launches of the Jaguar, the PS2, the Xbox (none of the games for Xbox were "huge" until they became popular.
I hate when alarmist shit is greenlighted.
Things may not be great for the industry right now, but it's the same as the period between the release of the Dreamcast and the PS2. Why Microsoft chose to do what Sega did is beyond me, but the similarities are amazing.
They should listen to Chuck Norris instead, he'll roundhouse kick them into shape!
Did you get that thing I sent ya?
Can we please stop bickering about the lack of originality like it's something new? Who remembers the arcade space shooter? Who remembers the coutless Double Dragon clones? What about the 2D platformer? Who remembers 1-on-1 fighting games flooding the market? There are several genres of gaming right now that are getting spread thin. They will die out when consumer support for them fades. Then we'll finally get to a bunch of new types of games come in and try to win the honor of being cloned to death. We are in a phase of utter lack of originality but it will pass and we will get a brief span of original games coming out. Just make sure to enjoy the next wave of originals while it lasts.
"Halo Sucks".
Seriously, is this the only thing that determines the launch success of microsofts console?
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
The PS2 came out in the US in October 2000. GTA3 did not come out until the October after the PS2 launched, in 2001. Of course, neither did Halo, which came out with the Xbox November of 2001. But for nearly an entire the year, the bright shining stars of the lot were Onimusha (oooo!) and Madden (yawn). The PS2 was plagued with hardware shortages, then memory card shortages, and then people realized that setting the PS2 on its side and leaving the disc in scratched the disc to hell.
This is March, a mere 5 months after the so-called transition to the next generation, and they're calling it?
Maybe it's the obsession with visuals. Reminds me of in the 90s when you started getting superstar artists in the comics world, who got so much clout they were allowed to start writing their own comics too. Some of them could write, but most of them couldn't.
Business people turn everything into shit. We've got people who don't understand a thing about what they're selling making all the decisions. They're not engineers or designer who rose through the ranks, having intimate knowledge of what the company does. They're a bunch of suits with MBA degrees hired specifically to run the company. They're driven by one thing and its not producing a quality product, nor is it changing the market, nor is it innovation; they're driven by money.
And if they don't show healthy growth within the next few months the stock market reacts negatively. All these jerks want money in their pockets right now, instead of looking at the long-term health of a company.
Certainly the reality is a lot more complicated than that, but I think this is one of the core problems. It's why we see garbage coming from the game industry, and this problem is reflected in other industries.
I blame Bon Jovi. Creepy Dude playing all 9 Versions of "It's my life" behind me: The second you get up to get a coffee i will take your Ipod and flush it down the toilett. I AM NOT JOKING
I can tell you that the average consumer is the problem. If they're a vet all they'll play is war games, if they're into rap music all they play is GTA-clones, if they're a nerd all they play is RPG, if they're a half-nerd all they play is FPS, if they're not a nerd at all then all they play is sports games.
When people tell me they want something new and original I point out Killer7 and go into a long spiel about how great it is and just because it's on rails no one buys it. Most games that are "original" are really just gimicky, so when an original and good game - like Killer7 - comes out, everyone assumes it'll be bad without even trying it. They buy Dynasty Warriors 5billion Xtreme Kill Empires Legends and complain about how games are all the same. . .
If you like innovative games here's a hint: if it's developed in America it's probably not that good. Metal Gear, Resident Evil, Tekken, Gran Turismo, Indigo Prophecy, Marc Ecko, Grand Theft Auto, Farcry - none of these are American. The really good games come from Japan and France.
Online games, MMORPGs in particular are sweeping the world by storm, and lets face it...the computer is a much better tool for playing these than consoles. Then lets take a look at blockbuster titles...there are none, or if they do exist, they are sequels which don't justify spending $400 just to play.
The biggest issue by far though is innovative gameplay. I have a sneaking suspicion that if the Revolution can come out with one or two innovative games that focus on the new gameplay enhancements of the system...they will sweep the console market.
In this day and age gamers are NOT just satisfied with better graphics. Its become expected that graphics power will increase, and yes....eventually they must upgrade to accommodate, but there are two areas of gaming that have also become very important as of late, and thats where the real room for growth is.
These two areas are physics engines and input devices. Gamers are quick realizing after HL2 was released that one of the best ways to creative fresh gameplay every time and to be able to constantly surprise yourself is to be able to do cool things with physics. Games can look as pretty as they can make them, but all that is useless if it doesn't FEEL like real life. And that's where the input devices come in. Nintendo is bridging the gap between how you play the game, and what happens in the game. Suddenly you don't push a button to swing your sword, you actually swing it. And yes, this isn't exactly an earth-shattering concept...but pulling it off successfully enough and having enough market share to actually make people develop for it is fairly new...and something that Nintendo is uniquely positioned to do at this point.
I'm personally holding out for a Revolution. And no, I don't work for Nintendo, in fact I camped out in front of Target to get a PS2 when it came out...but Sony has lost my trust, and my praise. And MS never had it to begin with.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I would buy a next gen console if I could. No place near me is selling just an Xbox 360 and accessories I want. All the places either don't have the Xbox 360, or are selling it as a $1000 package along with 10 games and 4 controllers and a bunch of crap that I don't really want.
Seriously, when are these companies gonna learn that the vast majority of people aren't going to go on a waiting list, camp out in front of the store, or purchase a bunch of crap we don't need just to help you beta test your product? If you want us to give you our money, then make it easy for us to give you our money.
Don't expect us to think it is some sort of privledge or gift from god to buy your product. It is a console, not antibiotics. There are any number of leisure and entertainment items I could spend my money on instead.
Improvement in graphics will be relatively minor.
...which is pretty much the same as (or cheaper than) the price of the old consoles, when you adjust for inflation? Right. Big problem there, clearly.
People have been saying that for as long as I can remember. There was a time when it was possible to describe Doom as "realistic" with a straight face. But even last year's games look artificial. Even Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 are starting to look dated. Trust me... there's plenty of scope for improvement.
Games cost a lot to produce now so no one will want to risk anything too off the wall.
A-list games have cost a lot to produce ever since people found out that spending a lot on a game boosted your profits. And we're still getting off-the-wall titles. Katamari Damacy. Nintendogs. Lumines. None of them sequels, none of them based on expensive licenses, all of them original and addictive. I fail to see the problem.
And hard core gamers are pushing for games that are too complex.
You seriously think games are getting MORE complex? You should go back and replay some of the stuff from the 80s and 90s. Try something like Falcon 4.0, where you literally had to read a brick-like manual just to figure out how to get your plane to take off. Or the Police Quest series, where you had to follow real-life police procedures down to the last form. Or classic text adventures, where you had to wrestle with defective natural-language parsers and draw up your own multi-page maps of worlds that only existed as words.
But there was always Space Invaders too. In other words, there have always been simple games that you can pick up and play, and there have always been complex games that take roughly the same amount of commitment as a full-time degree course to master. Nothing new here. Nothing's changed.
Combine that with the cost of the new consoles...
Sorry, but I don't see a single valid complaint in anything you've said. It's all always been that way. Nothing's changed. Nothing will change. Just carry on choosing the games you like from the vast range available, sit back, and enjoy yourself. Because gaming's always been good, and it's going to stay that way.
By and large nowadays the actual programmers aren't making the majority of the big design decisions on any given game. That job belongs to the Lead Designer. Game develpment teams are big enough that the stereotype of 6 coders banging out a game is outdated. It's 6-12 programmers, 6-18 artists/content (including sound, layout, etc), 1-3 designers, and however many testers can be squeezed into the remaining budget.
I've met some Designers who used to be programmers, but the majority weren't. ex-management types or ex-artists seem to be more prevalent.
The programmer gets some say in how individual features work out (since they're actually implementing it), but final say always rests with the Designer and/or Producer (or whatever title the management bloke in charge of the whole shebang gets).
If you want better game design, grumble about the Game Designers, but try not to be so hard on the poor programmers.
For the record, I spent 7 years in the game industry as a tester, so I was even lower on the totem pole than the programmers. In those 7 years I saw it evolve away from the lead programmer having final say on anything related to his project to the Designer and Project Lead having most of the power.
any version of GTA part of the intial batch of games available for at the launch of a console.
And for that matter, most consoles do not have any break-out games as release.
Those tend to take at least 6 months to a year to start showing up.
Unlike my NES when the SNES was coming... And unlike my SNES when the N64 was coming... My existing consoles and games are still looking damn good and still entertaining me. I am NOT salivating for anything new or "better". Hell, look at how gorgeous Burnout Revenge is. You can't really get better graphics than that without going HD. Bottom line, I don't need a new console.
If that doesn't work, we should all go home.
On the contrary - we should all go outside!
Must... think up... something... clever!