The Winning Next-Gen Console Is The Most Diverse?

simoniker writes "Gamasutra's latest 'Analyze This' column has game industry analysts commenting on the rise of casual games, asking whether simpler games that take less time to play may be vital to game industry growth. David Cole of DFC Intelligence disagrees that any one genre or game type is vital, suggesting: 'A key for the industry is being able to diversify.... For the N64 and GameCube, Nintendo focused primarily on its big franchises and didn't have the same level of diversity. The platform that did was the Sony PS2. Which platform could work as a karaoke machine, allowed you to put yourself in the game, had all kinds of trivia products? The reason the PSOne and PS2 sold [so well] was diversity.' Is this the key to working out who wins in next-gen?"

Comments

Mostly backwards.

[JMZero]

The consoles that are most successful GET the most diverse offerings - because if you're going to develop a gimmick/niche product and can't afford to launch it for all platforms then you release it for the one that's got the widest base.

Do you think the GBA was successful because of all the add-on thingees? Or do you think there's 4000 screen protectors because there's 40 million GBAs?

That doesn't mean a first party can't help console sales by creating add-ons (like the eye-toy or some goofy game), but the causation is generally the other way around.

Re:Mostly backwards.

[marshallbanana6]

Yes, backwards. But that doesn't mean it's out of the hardware manufacturer's hands.

Companies like Nintendo might have been overconfident when they just decided to do their own thing with the N64 and decided that when everyone else saw how cool it was, they'd all build lots of content for it. It's these kinda decisions that don't take into consideration the feelings of major game developers (Squaresoft, EA to a lesser degree) that slowly encourage less support for a console. If Nintendo had said "we need lots of third party support, including a wide base of casual games, and we can't do this all on our own" and had therefore listened to what developers wanted, they might have been able to build more support for their console. They forgot that this wide library of games they enjoyed on SNES doesn't just happen on its own.

If companies like Squaresoft and Namco had released titles like FF7 and Tekken 3 for the N64, it would have been a much different picture. But Nintendo just decided they'd be fine without them.

It seems like everyone has learned this lesson now, and is doing all the necessary kissing up to developers. A lot of the success of this generation could simply depend on launch responses, which is where Nintendo could really gain an edge (if people don't decide Wii sucks) with their lower price. Once an edge is gained, by whoever gains it, it is quite likely things will just take off from that point and they could have the "#1" spot for a whole 5 years. Who knows though, gamers are fickle.

Effect Meet Cause

[ObligatoryUserName]

Game diversity tends to be a side effect of a large install base rather than the cause of it.

The Dreamcast had a good set of quality games in a large number of genres, including games that were experimental at the time like Seaman and Samba De Amigo. (Presaging games like Nintendogs and Guitar Hero.) We all remember how the Dreamcast died, in a cloud of PS2 hype.

The PS2 now has the largest diversity of games for the simple reason that there is a large market for them. Of the last gen it's supposed to be the most difficult to program for and it's the least powerful, but those considerations are minor when you have such a huge install base.

I think the game industry is tripping over itself trying to understand casual games. The state of the industry has been relativly stagnant for so long that we struggle to put names to games that don't fit within our genre headings. Because they don't appeal to a self described "Hardcore" audience we've reflexivly named them "Casual".

It's similar to the rise of Alternative music in the 90's. It didn't sound like 80's rock or metal so we had to come up with a new name for it. Then we slowly realized that musical culture was changing and this wasn't just a new genre - the publics notion of the sound of rock was changing. The idea of Alternative became less and less useful as everything was given that label. I think the same thing is happening in games, and the implications make me optimistic about the future.