Is Console Gaming Dying?

mr_sifter writes "PC gamers love to obsess over whether PC gaming is dying, but bit-tech thinks it's time to look at the other side and examine if console gaming is really as secure as publishers would have us believe. All three console manufacturers suffered from the recession — this year, Sony announced its first net loss in 14 years; a stunning ¥989.9bn, which includes record losses of ¥58.5bn in its gaming sector. Microsoft also announced its first loss since it went public in 1986 in the second quarter of this financial year, with a $31 million US loss coming straight from the Entertainment and Devices division, which is responsible for the Xbox 360. Not even Nintendo has escaped the financial plague either, with sales of the Wii dropping by 67 percent in the US, 60 percent in Japan and 47 percent in the rest of the world. In addition to reduced profitability, casual games and the rise of the iPhone further suggest the current model is not invulnerable."

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Next question.

Re:No

[UnknowingFool]

Microsoft also announced its first loss since it went public in 1986 in the second quarter of this financial year, with a $31 million US loss coming straight from the Entertainment and Devices division,

This statement seems to imply that the console losses from the Entertainment Division somehow led to the sudden loss as a company for MS. Except for a few quarters, the division has historically been a money loser for MS. MS has had cumulative losses of $8 billion from the division since the Xbox was started.

Re:No

[interkin3tic]

The next question is: what exactly would the mechanism of "console gaming dying" be anyway? I would argue that the death of console gaming would/will have look like one of the following scenarios:

1. Most of the "major" games will be released for the PC and not the consoles.
2. New major consoles will not be released, eventually the consoles out there would lag so far behind PC that 1 would happen
3. All major consoles will become so PC like that they will be indistinguishable and it will be pointless to talk about PC vs console

1 doesn't seem to be happening, and I don't really see many signs that it will happen any time soon, there seem to be more releases of significant games for consoles than PC. I think everyone but the most ridiculous fanboys of a given console would agree that games -should- be released on all platforms that can support the game. I want to choose what platform to game on based on my needs and equipment, being denied a gaming experience because I don't have the right hardware, or having to choose hardware based on -artificial- game availability is not a good situation. (Emphasis on artificial. Obviously MS isn't going to release their Halo games on a nintendo console, and obviously I'm not expecting to run Crysis 2 on an NES.) So I hope that more games continue to be released on all platforms, PC and console.

2. Consoles obviously aren't as powerful as PCs, but again, 1 seems far from happening. Already, the idea with MS at least seems to be delaying the next console for longer. If the next generation (and I mean the -actual- next generation, not the current xbox 360/PS3/wii generation which is sometimes mistakenly referred to as "next gen") is still a loss for the console makers, I suppose they might decide to not release another one. Games would continue coming out for them for a while, but eventually enough customers would migrate away from the PC to where the consoles become obsolete. Games are to this day coming out for the PS2, and the next generation of consoles is undoubtedly going to be released, so it will be quite a few years before console gaming dries up completely.

3. Doesn't seem very likely to me. Consoles are aimed squarely at people who want to plug in and play immediately, without messing around with hardware or software configurations. I think MS is having enough headaches with the optional hard-drive in the 360 that they're going to move away from even that, back to "one console, one hardware configuration." I don't see any signs from nintendo that they'll start making games that can run on both their hardware and other hardware, and given the sales of the wii, even with this recent decrease, they'd be nuts to do so any time soon.

So I don't really see -how- console gaming could be dying. Slowing down temporarily, sure, but it's not like console gaming is a living thing, where if it's vitals (sales) drop low enough, the beast is going to die and not be revived.

For the next next question I'd like to propose one of the following: do game journalists feel the need to declare "X is dying" -entirely- because it gets attention they're not getting otherwise? Do even they think that a trend like "sales declining" should be extrapolated to ridiculous extremes like "IT'S GOING TO DIE COMPLETELY!!!" Is rational commentary on videogames dying or did it ever even exist in the first place?

Re:No

[morari]

If you have to spend "copious amounts of cash every year" to upgrade your rig, then you're doing it wrong. A well thought-out build should easily last several years, or, about the same lifespan of a similarly priced console. You're doing nothing more than throwing out the same tired argument that technologically impaired people have been using for the last decade. Consoles are a great option if you don't like to have control or options, that is it.

Re:No

[subsolar2]

I doubt that he meant $400 (amount sited by person he replied to).

But he is right, if your upgrading every year, then you are doing it wrong by buying the cheapest components that will just barely play current games right now. I built my gaming system three years ago and spent about $1200 (system, keyboard, mouse, new LCD) and just now starting to feel some performance issues.

A 360 does not cost $300, it costs $300 + $50/year for Live + $10 extra each game over PC + $600 for HD TV + $50 for an additional controller + $30 x 2 for chatpads or about $1300 in three years.

Don't tell me console gaming is any cheaper as I happen to own both.

Don't say "well you can use your regular HD TV" and I say my wife & kids would like to watch their TV programs, or "you don't need a HD TV" and I tell you it sucks as I've had to suffer playing games that the text is unreadably small on a SD TV.

Re:No

[Omestes]

Just to be clear: you are saying that I should be able to shell out $300 and get a decent gaming computer that will "easily last several years" ??

I hate this fallacy. Lets reverse this, to try to illustrate the absuridity: "So I can just shell out $300 for a console that supports 5x the resolution as my TV, is capable of running any software I can throw at it, has an input device with more than 6 buttons, and that can support a near infinite range of 3rd party add-ons? A console is a one time investment that has only one purpose (sometime with other functionality tacked on in a half-assed manner), a PC is an investment that does much much more than just playing video games. You already have a PC, right? How much did that PC cost you? For $300 tacked onto the price of the PC you already bought, you could have a rig that would put your current consoles running on outdated tech to shame.

Re:No

[Blakey Rat]

Microsoft didn't post a loss this year. They posted their first-ever reduction in revenue... those are two different things, and the author of this article is a retard for not knowing the difference.

In fact, considering all factors (and Vista), Microsoft has been weathering this recession much better than most companies.

Re:No

[hairyfeet]

Well lets see....I gave my 2006 era PC (3.6GHz P4, 2Gb of RAM, 7600GT) to my oldest and he is currently playing L4D on it and it sure looks nice to him. Granted that's not Crysis, but he hasn't seen anything newer that he wants ATM so I can't answer how Crysis would run. But of course he also uses it to chat with his friends, watch Youtube, check his emails, etc. My 2004 era PC (Socket 478 2.8Ghz Celeron, 2GB of RAM, X1950) is currently playing MMOs for his little brother, AuraRose and Lunia I do believe, along with the Youtube and reading up on Wii games (cause the little twerp figured out he is getting one for Xmas)

See to me that is the big difference between the PC and consoles, in that after it is done with gaming duty it can just get passed along to another member of the family who will be quite happy with it. In fact my gaming PC from a decade ago (733Mhz Compaq with 384Mb of RAM and an MX4000) is STILL going and makes a perfect web surfing and video watcher for my mom. My current PC (AMD 925 quad, 8Gb of RAM, 750Gb HDD, ATI 4650 1Gb, Win7 HP X64) cost me $750 before rebates and probably around $625 after, and frankly since PCIe seems to be the standard going for quite awhile I figure it'll be probably 5 years or more before it gets to be a hand me down.

So considering the fact that I am not only able to game with it, but I am watching NCIS over a USB TV Tuner right now (The new Windows Media Center is reaaallly nice!) and checking my email after just ordering my GF's Xmas present (yes I know I'm a late shopper, but I went fast shipping and will get it here by Friday) and posting here on /. I really do think it is a good value for the $$$, don't you? Oh and let us not forget mods are actually FREE on the PC and can keep a game fresh for years, like the Freelancer I was playing last night. So much better IMHO than being nickel and dimed to death over every little addon....errr I mean DLC.

Re:No

[mister_playboy]

The point is that we do not need skills to enjoy movies or TV shows. And the learning divide, for as long as it would exist, would be making gaming business vulnerable.

I have to disagree with this point. I first began to avoid watching TV 7 years ago as a bet with a roommate in college, and it's been long enough that I have "unlearned" the attention span needed for the pattern of commercial breaks in a show. If I try to watch a show now with family, the (from my viewpoint) constant interruption is extremely irritating, but it's just normal to everyone else.

The skills for TV are so ingrained in most of us that we don't even know they are there unless we get rid of them.

it's not dying

[Shakrai]

<non smart ass answer>The console industry is hardly the only one that lost money this year. Hello, recession?</non smart ass answer>

<smart ass answer>Netcraft hasn't confirmed it yet, so it can't be dying.</smart ass answer>

Re:it's not dying

[Lord Ender]

non smart ass answer = Steam. Whenever they have a sale, I buy games. Lots of games. I'm not going to pay $60 for a game, but $20-$30 = impulse buy. And you don't even have to leave your house to get the games. You don't have to juggle discs. Just click and play. Since everybody has a computer anyway, a $100 graphics card will get you better graphics than a console at a lower price than a console. Gaming with Steam is just a better experience at a better price.

smart ass answer = Unless you're playing a 2D scroller, joysticks are for losers.

Something wrong with the sales model?

[Bartles]

Perhaps if they charged less than $60 for a tier one new release, sales would go up.

Re:Something wrong with the sales model?

[yayotters]

I'm sure Valve's pricing experiments can attest to this.

No

[kryptKnight]

The video game industry isn't the only one posting losses recently, so this doesn't seem like a big deal at all. That and these consoles are four years old, it's not surprising to see sales dip.

Ridiculous analysis

[gzsfrk]

What an ignorant story. We're in the middle of the worst recession/near depression that has ever occurred since videogames came to be, and it's somehow an ominous sign that the companies behind videogames experienced losses either during the whole year (Sony), a single quarter (MS), or simply had lower sales than the previous year PRIOR to the recession? How about looking at it from the perspective that it's amazing that the videogames sector has done as well as it has over the course of the past year, despite a tremendously inhospitable economic climate?

MSFT didn't post a loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

This article is inaccurate. Microsoft didn't post a loss, it posted its first REVENUE DROP since it became public in 1986. They still made a pretty good profit in that quarter.

Re:MSFT didn't post a loss.

[ElSupreme]

+1 informative. MSFT is still hugely massively, obscenely profitable.

Another drawback of OnLive: ping time.

[tepples]

From the article:

Instead, with fattening broadband connections, mainstream gaming is probably going to go towards the way of OnLive, where one big bank of hardware can churn out the power needed for broadband-connected gaming machines, without needing to fill a loss-making box with proprietary hardware. In fact, limited bandwidth is the only obstacle to this technology taking off worldwide.

Bandwidth isn't the only problem; latency is another biggie. Players are used to being able to press a button and see something happen within 30 milliseconds. The latency for sending your keypresses to the game server, rendering and compressing a frame, and sending it back is likely to be much larger than that, even if only for speed-of-light reasons.

Re:Not for me

[Red Flayer]

I find it hilarious that people spend hundreds of dollars on a Wii and then even more money on games and controllers and other shit, only to do stuff they could, you know, do in real life.

What, like gripe in a real-live conversation instead of posting some stupid shit on slashdot?

Pot meet kettle...

console gaming will not die

[Vorpix]

there's two questions here:

1) is GAMING dying?
2) is CONSOLE GAMING dying?

1. no. people continue to want to play games. it will only grow as current gamers grow older and have kids who become new gamers.

2. no. while PC gaming will continue to have its niche market, especially in areas where keyboard and mouse have dynamic advantages (especially MMO and RTS games), console gaming makes modern games accessible to the masses who cannot (through lack of knowledge or lack of money) continually upgrade their PC's to keep up. Consoles give a consistent platform for several years where upgrading is not necessary, and games will "just work".

Sure during recession all forms of entertainment will suffer cuts, but gaming is far from being alone here.

Re:Never Liked Consoles

[garynuman]

you must be a blast at parties...

you ask silly questions

[Eil]

Is Console Gaming Dying?

No.

All three console manufacturers suffered from the recession -- this year

All car manufacturers suffered from the recession. Is driving dying?

Not even Nintendo has escaped the financial plague either, with sales of the Wii dropping by 67 percent in the US, 60 percent in Japan and 47 percent in the rest of the world.

The Wii has been out for quite awhile too. Wii games (and therefore licensing) can continue to be massively successful, even if sales of the console peter out. You left out the fact that despite falling sales of the Wii (which can actually be a good thing if it indicates market saturation), Nintendo is actually the only one of the three that posted an overall profit.

In addition to reduced profitability, casual games and the rise of the iPhone further suggest the current model is not invulnerable."

Are you an idiot? The iPhone is not going to replace anyone's XBox, PS3, or Wii. Mobile phones, PC games, and console games all serve entirely different markets. None of these are going to take over the other in the foreseeable future. Stop trolling the easily-trolled Slashdot editors.

Re:Never Liked Consoles

[Jimmy King]

I like consoles because I know that even in 5 years, if a game is released for my xbox 360 (or wii, or whatever), then it'll work on that console. I can build a PC this year and I've still got to check every game to be sure it'll work. For the next 1-2 years, it'll probably work, after that, all bets are off. Maybe it'll work as long as I turn down some of the graphical options or maybe it'll be completely unplayable. This is especially true if I'm building a PC that has a cost in the same range as a game console.

Then you've got various hardware and software compatibility issues to worry about. I have to assume that stuff isn't as big of a deal as back when I did play a lot of PC games in the DOS/Win 3.2/early win95 days, but judging by posts on forums the problem still exists.

Some people are ok with that to have the "better" (which is really opinion anyway and varies between games) controls, the usually better graphics on the PC version of a game if a console is more than a year or so old, the mods from the game community, etc. I can certainly understand that and there are times where I think about getting back into PC gaming because of those reasons, particularly the community mods. In the end, though, for me and for most console gamers I personally know, the known ability to just buy the game, stick it in the console, and get playing wins out.

It also seems like there are more games released for console that do not make it to PC than the other way around. I may be wrong on that due to not following PC only games, though.