Life after the Video Game Crash- 2006 edition

[Qwerty 42]

It is a stupid reductionist argument to say "Real gamers use PC/insert console game here", since myself and many others play both PC and console based games, because, amazingly enough, not one system holds all the cards. If I want a lightgun game, I'm shit out of luck for PC (I know they exist, but they truly are shit). If I want an RTS, then the PC is the way to go. Anything that's massively complex like a sim or MMORPG is better on PC, while the innovative experiences of Singstar or multiplayer Worms with some friends around is better with consoles.

This is the truth. The really big reason I play console games? The multiplayer. Sure, the online's nice, but it massively misses out on the human interaction element which is quite literally the backbone of some games like Crystal Chronicles, Four Swords, or Super Smash Brothers.

[Ryoga]

Video games are becoming far too expensive? There was a time when there were Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 games sold for upwards of $70 or more. Adjust for inflation and many video games today are still very reasonably priced.

Shit, I remember when FF3 first came out. It was like, what, $60? Or something stupidly high like that.

[felineki]

I just note that I'm not one of the people who'll be playing their childish, inane Mario/Wario shit. That shit's for kids and I'm not a kid.

Mario > You

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

It is a stupid reductionist argument to say "Real gamers use PC/insert console game here", since myself and many others play both PC and console based games, because, amazingly enough, not one system holds all the cards. If I want a lightgun game, I'm shit out of luck for PC (I know they exist, but they truly are shit). If I want an RTS, then the PC is the way to go. Anything that's massively complex like a sim or MMORPG is better on PC, while the innovative experiences of Singstar or multiplayer Worms with some friends around is better with consoles.

Fair enough, although I did make partial note of this:

Why people are so fucking attached to them over PCs elude me, with the exception of the fact that good games are often exclusive to said consoles,

Assuming that all they want to play ever is FPS, flight sims, and wargames, many of which are derivative clones of each other.

Some people, however, like to have a bit more variety. Real gamers use whatever platform has more games that suit their taste.

wat


Looking through my game collection, I seem to have a fair bit more than the limited suggestion you suggest. Many of which do not even exist in a meaningful fashion on consoles, I might add; True RPGs (though to be fair KotOR and Jade Empire got some console love), Action RPGs (Diablo et al), RTSs, RTTs, squad tacticals, tac shooters, MMOs, and so on.

I don't deny that good games are often found only on consoles. Indeed, I am considering buying a PS2, for the express purpose of obtaining Guitar Hero. And don't get me wrong, I didn't mean to imply that being unable to afford a gaming PC made someone somehow less of a gamer; if that's how it sounded, then I apologize.

But the selection of games, superior capability, greater flexibility, and a host of other factors mean the PC is the superior gaming system. Denial of this is just that, denial.

[Stark]

You like Guitaroo Man that much? That game is FUCKING HARD.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

You like Guitaroo Man that much? That game is FUCKING HARD.

Guitar Hero is a godlike game, born of the union of pure genius and the distilled and refined essence of awesomeness; for no man should look upon it and say, "This game sucketh," verily, not even the Stark.

[Hotfoot]

This man is a fucking idiot. "OMG GRAPHICS ARE HITTING A PLATEAU!!! CRASH IS COMING ZOMG!"

Even if this were true, just because graphics are hitting plateau doesn't mean that presentation is slowing down. Now, things like physics and deformable terrain are the new eye candy. AI is slowly creeping up on the list, though that is really a gameplay aspect.

In the end, there won't be a crash, simply a reorganization. Sony's PS3 price announcement isn't going to spell anything except for some financial turbulence for Sony. They may streamline their Playstation department, jobs may be lost, but the company, and the name, will live on. Nintendo and Microsoft will keep on trucking. Life will go on.

What I see happening is the eventual change into consoles becoming more and more PC-like, eventually they will fill the role of "Game-specialized computers" that do all the other tasks of a computer reasonably well, but have hardware dedicated toward gaming.

What did strike me as odd is how absolutely focused the gaming companies are concerning keeping the price of the consoles down to beat out computer-based gaming. If what he says is reliable, and Sony is losing 400-500 dollars per PS3, then the actual cost of the unit is $800-$1000. Think about that. For $1000, you can buy a halfway decent computer system and run a wide array of games on it. What's more, $1000 is not what the system costs to produce, that's after markup. Now, I'm not in possession of the markup rates for computer equipment, but this tells me that the PS3 is comperable in cost to a HIGH END PC in production costs, yet has a fraction of the capabilities and uses. On top of that, like most consoles, the hardware will likely be incredibly problematic on launch.

If anything, I think it's that business model that will eventually be the cause of problems for the console gaming industry. The PC gaming industry has been going strong and shows no real signs of stopping. The internet has provided shelf space for independent game developers, and once an indy game has shown appropriate momentum, they can get attention from larger sources.

Gaming crash my ass.

[Glocksman]

This man is a fucking idiot. "OMG GRAPHICS ARE HITTING A PLATEAU!!! CRASH IS COMING ZOMG!"

Even if this were true, just because graphics are hitting plateau doesn't mean that presentation is slowing down. Now, things like physics and deformable terrain are the new eye candy. AI is slowly creeping up on the list, though that is really a gameplay aspect.

In the end, there won't be a crash, simply a reorganization. Sony's PS3 price announcement isn't going to spell anything except for some financial turbulence for Sony. They may streamline their Playstation department, jobs may be lost, but the company, and the name, will live on. Nintendo and Microsoft will keep on trucking. Life will go on.

What I see happening is the eventual change into consoles becoming more and more PC-like, eventually they will fill the role of "Game-specialized computers" that do all the other tasks of a computer reasonably well, but have hardware dedicated toward gaming.

What did strike me as odd is how absolutely focused the gaming companies are concerning keeping the price of the consoles down to beat out computer-based gaming. If what he says is reliable, and Sony is losing 400-500 dollars per PS3, then the actual cost of the unit is $800-$1000. Think about that. For $1000, you can buy a halfway decent computer system and run a wide array of games on it. What's more, $1000 is not what the system costs to produce, that's after markup. Now, I'm not in possession of the markup rates for computer equipment, but this tells me that the PS3 is comperable in cost to a HIGH END PC in production costs, yet has a fraction of the capabilities and uses. On top of that, like most consoles, the hardware will likely be incredibly problematic on launch.

If anything, I think it's that business model that will eventually be the cause of problems for the console gaming industry. The PC gaming industry has been going strong and shows no real signs of stopping. The internet has provided shelf space for independent game developers, and once an indy game has shown appropriate momentum, they can get attention from larger sources.

Gaming crash my ass.

I don't follow gaming consoles that much and the last console I bought was a Super Nintendo.
However, your post was more meaningful and explained more about the current console gaming scene and developing trends than Wang's entire article did.
You may or may not be right, but you've provided me far more insight as to what's going on than Wang's snarky commentary.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

That's mostly because David Wong rarely knows anything about what he talks about. He never seems to bother to do research or look up information he genuinely lacks knowledge on, because he assumes readers will just eat up whatever he says and accept it at face value.

[Darth Wong]

This man is a fucking idiot. "OMG GRAPHICS ARE HITTING A PLATEAU!!! CRASH IS COMING ZOMG!"

Even if this were true, just because graphics are hitting plateau doesn't mean that presentation is slowing down. Now, things like physics and deformable terrain are the new eye candy. AI is slowly creeping up on the list, though that is really a gameplay aspect.

Even if gaming technology hit a standstill, movies went strong for decades at a time without major technological improvements. Some of the biggest hits in recent years have not required any moviemaking technology that wasn't around 40 years ago. Look at "American Pie" for example. A lot of the biggest complaints about modern games have to do with inadequate creativity, not limited graphics technology.

If creativity lags in movies, people say that Hollywood is turning out shit lately. They don't say that movies themselves are dying as an entertainment medium. There have been periods of poor game creativity (such as the first videogame crash), and the industry paid accordingly. But I think the industry is much too large and diverse now to suffer from the same kind of concentrated collapse. And the games, in an absolute sense, have much more replay value than those old shitty games did. A lot of the early games around the time of the first videogame crash were capable of giving you only a few seconds of real gameplay, repeated over and over. There was very little variation, hence little replay value. Modern games, on the other hand, tend to have much larger, more well-developed worlds for the player to inhabit, hence more replay value.

What did strike me as odd is how absolutely focused the gaming companies are concerning keeping the price of the consoles down to beat out computer-based gaming. If what he says is reliable, and Sony is losing 400-500 dollars per PS3, then the actual cost of the unit is $800-$1000. Think about that. For $1000, you can buy a halfway decent computer system and run a wide array of games on it. What's more, $1000 is not what the system costs to produce, that's after markup. Now, I'm not in possession of the markup rates for computer equipment, but this tells me that the PS3 is comperable in cost to a HIGH END PC in production costs, yet has a fraction of the capabilities and uses. On top of that, like most consoles, the hardware will likely be incredibly problematic on launch.

That's not surprising; consoles are intended to have a technological cycle of many years, hence they have to sit right on the bleeding edge of technology when they first come out. PCs, on the other hand, are not expected to remain current for four or five years.

[LMSx]

What did strike me as odd is how absolutely focused the gaming companies are concerning keeping the price of the consoles down to beat out computer-based gaming. If what he says is reliable, and Sony is losing 400-500 dollars per PS3, then the actual cost of the unit is $800-$1000. Think about that. For $1000, you can buy a halfway decent computer system and run a wide array of games on it. What's more, $1000 is not what the system costs to produce, that's after markup. Now, I'm not in possession of the markup rates for computer equipment, but this tells me that the PS3 is comperable in cost to a HIGH END PC in production costs, yet has a fraction of the capabilities and uses. On top of that, like most consoles, the hardware will likely be incredibly problematic on launch.

Both Microsoft and Sony have been forced to raise console prices because of their obsession with hard drives and next-gen DVD playback. Let's assume based on the difference between the 360 core and premium system, and the cost of Microsoft's HD-DVD dongle, that a sizable hard drive adds $100 and DVD playback $200 to the final cost of the console. Without them, the 360 and PS3 would be retailing for $300, instead of this ridiculous arms race towards $1000. Thank god Nintendo's skipped that and is offering the reasonable alternative.

I don't want to spend 650 dollars to just play a game.

[Stark]

Guitar Hero is a godlike game, born of the union of pure genius and the distilled and refined essence of awesomeness; for no man should look upon it and say, "This game sucketh," verily, not even the Stark.

Hey, I just said it was HARD. Too hard for me - but it's fun to watch Flash play it, since he rules the kasbah at anything musical. Don't tell him it's not really musical...

[Vendetta]

Both Microsoft and Sony have been forced to raise console prices because of their obsession with hard drives and next-gen DVD playback.

A hard drive would not raise the cost that much. The Xbox 360's hard drive costs £70 as a seperate item, but I'd guess that a good chunk of that is accessory markup, since you can get a laptop SATA drive four times the size for the same price. (Nintendo are the kings of accessory markup, see previous gen GBA linkup nonsense. How many of those funky Wii control adapters do you really think you're getting free in the box? I'm betting it's the Wiimote and Nunchaku alone. And probably only one of them. If you want the SNES style pad, or the lightgun shell, you're going down the shops with a couple of crisp tenners)

Next-gen DVD playback does not affect the 360's price at all, since it doesn't have next gen DVD playback. That's an optional extra.

[Darth Wong]

Another thing to keep in mind about the first videogame crash and the present-day videogame industry is that the economic impact of the first crash was inflated by the high duplication and distribution costs of the time. Those old lavishly packaged plastic cartridges with onboard circuitry and memory were far more expensive to fabricate (especially given the cost of the necessary components) than a single CD-ROM or DVD-ROM which is slapped into a cheap paper sleeve and shoved into a box with minimal documentation.

[Vendetta]

True RPGs

Died with Black Isle. Yes, the best RPGs were on the PC, but there hasn't been anything to top Planescape: Torment or Fallout 2. And they're seven/eight years old. All the good RPGs since have been multiplatform, Morrowind, Oblivion, KotOR, etc.

Action RPGs (Diablo et al)

Again, Diablo II is the last great example for the PC. Scrapes in at five years old if you're generous about the expansion pack. And even then I preferred Champions of Norrath/Return to Arms, because these games play so much better with a joypad. I found in Diablo I was fighting against the limits of the interface far more than the environment, and getting RSI for my trouble clicking repeatedly on an enemy to "fight". Action RPGs need as little control abstraction as possible.

So, that's one dead genre and one that consoles do better because the PC suffers from interface abstraction. Next?

RTSs, RTTs

Wargames. Then. There is some variety in there, for sure, but when you've played one RTS you've pretty much played them all. You build a base, grab some resources, and figure out how to dissect the enemy base.

squad tacticals, tac shooters, MMOs, and so on.

I'll agree on the squad shooters. But it's not like you can't get those on consoles either. SOCOM, GRAW, etc. And again, the best of the best on the PC was years ago, Operation Flashpoint.

MMOs are not a swaying argument to me. I would rather boil my head than pay monthly to "play" a game that looks like hard work.

But the selection of games, superior capability, greater flexibility, and a host of other factors mean the PC is the superior gaming system. Denial of this is just that, denial.

See, I disagree. I have a far wider range of game styles and genres across my consoles than I had on the PC. When my last PC gave up I simply couldn't be bothered to replace it because the very few unique game experiences it would provide did not justify owning it. The selection of games you mentioned are all "traditional" PC genres. RTS, RPG (which on PCs play like RTSs with interface paralysis), and genres that grew out of the FPS. In short, the ones that match your particular tastes. There won't be a PC game like Katamari Damacy. There won't be a PC game like Shadow of the Colossus, there won't be a PC game like Bangai-O. There certainly won't be one like Guitar Hero. They are all games in whole genres that simply do not appear on the PC. whereas every PC genre with the exception of RTS appears on consoles.

That's why people prefer them. The game selection is incomprehensibly vaster.

(hell, even point and click adventure, surely the ultimate PC genre, has been appropriated by the DS)

[Darth Wong]

There are plenty of kinds of games I can play on my XBox or Gamecube that I can't get for my PC. And it's true that there are only a few types of games, mostly of the highly realistic or involved simulation or strategy variety, that I can only play on my PC. The difference is that the games I can only get on consoles do not interest me at all. This isn't sour grapes talking; I do own a Gamecube and an XBox after all, for my boys. But I've tried playing the games and they don't hold my attention for long.

[LMSx]

Both Microsoft and Sony have been forced to raise console prices because of their obsession with hard drives and next-gen DVD playback.

A hard drive would not raise the cost that much. The Xbox 360's hard drive costs £70 as a seperate item, but I'd guess that a good chunk of that is accessory markup, since you can get a laptop SATA drive four times the size for the same price. (Nintendo are the kings of accessory markup, see previous gen GBA linkup nonsense. How many of those funky Wii control adapters do you really think you're getting free in the box? I'm betting it's the Wiimote and Nunchaku alone. And probably only one of them. If you want the SNES style pad, or the lightgun shell, you're going down the shops with a couple of crisp tenners)

Next-gen DVD playback does not affect the 360's price at all, since it doesn't have next gen DVD playback. That's an optional extra.

Re-reading Opening the Xbox, it looks like I am wrong, and incorrectly remembered the cost of a hard drive in Microsoft's debate over whether or not to add one. However, since one of the greatest (although not the only) differences between the two 360 and PS3 SKUs is the size of the hard drive, I imagine that some issue still remains about the price. I can't believe that Microsoft or Sony would willingly dilute the market unless the losses would be too great.

Also true about next-gen DVD playback, but the target was Sony. I should have added (respectively) at the end of the quoted sentence.

[SAMAS]

There are plenty of kinds of games I can play on my XBox or Gamecube that I can't get for my PC. And it's true that there are only a few types of games, mostly of the highly realistic or involved simulation or strategy variety, that I can only play on my PC. The difference is that the games I can only get on consoles do not interest me at all. This isn't sour grapes talking; I do own a Gamecube and an XBox after all, for my boys. But I've tried playing the games and they don't hold my attention for long.

Out of curiosity, what games do you have?

[Praxis]

The article writer is a complete moron.

The XBox, however, LOST four billion dollars. Click the red words if you don't believe me. I'll wait.

This is because Microsoft was dumping the product to gain marketshare in a new market. Sony made a profit despite selling at a loss, and Nintendo sold at a profit and made huge amounts of cash.

Think about that, and think about how Sony plans to take a $400 to $500 loss on every single damned PS3 they sell for the first few years. Oh, I know they can make that money back on the games... if the consoles sell like hotcakes in a colony for hotcake addicts during a hotcake shortage. But only if.

Yet, the article linked to quotes Merril Lynch's estimates at $900. Merril Lynch later revised these estimates because they made a typo and meant $800 (which anyone who added the numbers they posted could see). On top of it, a thousand other sites have ripped apart Merril Lynch's estimates and Merril Lynch Japan made much lower estimates. Sony isn't PLANNING to take a $400 to $500 loss- this is blatant, raw speculation. Even Merril Lynch admitted they have no idea how much half the components in the PS3 are going to cost.

On top of that, there is NO WAY Sony could make $400 to $500 back on games per system.

I hereby predict that this will not happen. Luckily for me, it doesn't take a genius.

Which you aren't.


On top of that, he proceeds to claim this will happen because Sony is charging too much for their systems (Microsoft and Nintendo aren't, why is this conveniently ignored?) and that the new generation of games play exactly the same (again, Nintendo is not). He mentions Nintendo may have the right idea but dismisses it as a gimmick and changes the subject.

I know some of you Nintendo fans were screaming at your monitor in the last section, saying the $199 (or $249) Nintendo Wii is the low-cost answer to the affordability problem. The problem is Nintendo is still so neglectful of older gamers that it borders on hostility. Everything they showed at E3 starred a cartoon character, and the games that didn't (Madden and Red Steel) appear to be very bad games. Plus, I say the older you are, the less inclined you'll be to flail around the room with their new controller.

He finally admits that, gasp, Nintendo addressed ALL his complaints (new way of playing games, cheaper price)! Then dismisses them as kiddie and claims that all the mature games on the system sucked. Obviously biased.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Died with Black Isle. Yes, the best RPGs were on the PC, but there hasn't been anything to top Planescape: Torment or Fallout 2. And they're seven/eight years old. All the good RPGs since have been multiplatform, Morrowind, Oblivion, KotOR, etc.

...Which now exists as Obsidian Entertainment, working on the upcoming PC title Neverwinter Nights 2. Speaking of which, no other game is capable of offering what the original NWN can (Easy, modular toolset, DM client, local vault online play just to scratch the surface), so although it is four years old it is not obsolete. Hell, I still play it regularly. Needless to say this kind of capability is the exclusive domain of PCs.

Again, Diablo II is the last great example for the PC. Scrapes in at five years old if you're generous about the expansion pack. And even then I preferred Champions of Norrath/Return to Arms, because these games play so much better with a joypad. I found in Diablo I was fighting against the limits of the interface far more than the environment, and getting RSI for my trouble clicking repeatedly on an enemy to "fight". Action RPGs need as little control abstraction as possible.

So, that's one dead genre and one that consoles do better because the PC suffers from interface abstraction. Next?

Say what? Dungeon Siege II ring a bell? Not my favorite game or genre, but it's undeniably well put-together. Chris Taylor for crying out loud. And speaking of game gods, is Spore (a real genre-bender) a console title?

I'm not sure where you get this interface issue... I don't even know how you could make Diablo console-friendly, as a cursor is a rather important element in it. True, Gauntlet Legends and its ilk would be better on console, but that's more accurately an arcade game anyways.

Wargames. Then. There is some variety in there, for sure, but when you've played one RTS you've pretty much played them all. You build a base, grab some resources, and figure out how to dissect the enemy base.

You can say that about any genre. And this is a wargame, RTSs and RTTs are not. Furthermore, a significant point of difference in RTTs as compared to RTSs is the lack of resource gathering and base building.

I'll agree on the squad shooters. But it's not like you can't get those on consoles either. SOCOM, GRAW, etc. And again, the best of the best on the PC was years ago, Operation Flashpoint.

MMOs are not a swaying argument to me. I would rather boil my head than pay monthly to "play" a game that looks like hard work.

Which is ultimately rather silly, available or not. A gamepad can never substitute for a mouse when it comes to aiming. And of course, Op Flash 2 and a variety of related games are due out soon.

And I should point out that Guild Wars has no monthly fee and manages to be quite fun.

See, I disagree. I have a far wider range of game styles and genres across my consoles than I had on the PC. When my last PC gave up I simply couldn't be bothered to replace it because the very few unique game experiences it would provide did not justify owning it. The selection of games you mentioned are all "traditional" PC genres. RTS, RPG (which on PCs play like RTSs with interface paralysis), and genres that grew out of the FPS. In short, the ones that match your particular tastes. There won't be a PC game like Katamari Damacy. There won't be a PC game like Shadow of the Colossus, there won't be a PC game like Bangai-O. There certainly won't be one like Guitar Hero. They are all games in whole genres that simply do not appear on the PC. whereas every PC genre with the exception of RTS appears on consoles.

That's why people prefer them. The game selection is incomprehensibly vaster.

(hell, even point and click adventure, surely the ultimate PC genre, has been appropriated by the DS)

I've never even heard of the first three games. And aside from Super Conflict for the SNES, how many wargames are there for consoles? Turn-based strategies, like Civilization and Age of Wonder? And with the exception of the groundbreaking GoldenEye and Perfect Dark, FPSs are a joke (Don't even start with the Halo nuttery, it's a mediocre game that is only good because there is literally nothing that can hold a candle to it on the console market).