System wars suck.

[Frogacuda]

Holy f*ck! I did a long rant about exactly this on anther forum and everyone totally dismissed me. This was the first post I read on this forum and it has convinced me to sign up right away.

If anyone wants to read my rant:

First, go read this article regarding a press conference with Iwata regardign the future of Nintendo and the gaming industry at large.

It seems here that there is a concession on the part of Nintendo that they are a better software developer than hardware manufacturer. I think we all already knew this, but this is the first time Nintendo has really said it out loud.

He also points out that we are reaching the limits of where sound and graphics are the real game sellers. Basically all the systems can accomplish anything in terms of gameplay, and the graphics and audio lose some of their novelty. In a generation or two the systems will all be so powerful that the differences between them are a minor concern. In fact, I would even say that we are pretty much there already. Admit it: Bits and polygons were the last thing on your mind when you bought your current system.

So if the hardware is to become a secondary concern, are we to infer that there is a possibility that Nintendo could go 3rd party? I think it's a reasonable scenario. Although Nintendo makes a profit currently, and has not reached any point of desparation (as Sega had) which would force them to go 3rd party, I beleive that if Nintendo were to come to the point where there were able to see that they would clearly make more money as a 3rd party, then by the nature of business they would do that which maximizes profit.

Would Nintendo make more money as a 3rd party in this changing industry? I would think so. Nintendo's first and second parties have always been the major boons to their consoles. The N64 is probably the best example, in which Nintendo consistantly had at least one first party N64 title on the top 10 for pretty much the entire life span of the console, but very few 3rd party titles ever managed the same thing. The theory beind being a first party is that, while you sell the system at below cost, you make your money back on liscensing fees from 3rd parties. With Nintendo, the bulk of it's profit came not from liscensing royalties, but from sales of first party games. If Nintendo could release these same games to a broader market and not have to eat the costs of hardware production, then there is the distinct possibility that Nintendo could make more money, not because they are the weakest (They make more money than Xbox) but because Nintendo is ahead of the game and most prepared to make the switch when the industry changes direction.

So where is the industry going? That's a tough question to answer. We are clearly in a transitional phase. The industry is stronger than ever in terms of revenue, but there are alot of conflicted gamers out there. Most gamecube and Xbox owners also have a PS2 in the house. This is ecause they want to play games on competing standards. This is not good for consumers. Already we have seen a sharp increase in porting since the last generation. This is going to lead to games being developed for the lowest common denominator. First parties are bdding for exclusives, and it gets harder and harder to chose a system. Although I still here kids rant about "My system is better than your system" those of us with some more maturity probably realize that it's just about games. The real winner will be the company who can deliver us the most and highest quality content in one package.

I think there will be a change in model. Sony is trying to push ahead development of the PS3 already in order to stay competitive. I think they're failing to realize how totally unimportant the graphical horsepower is. The current generation cycle is going to change. In two more genarations the primary limitation in a game's graphical quality will be the time, money, and talent the company has to put into the game. It will be an artistic limitation, not a technical one. At this point there is going to be very little way to keep consumers convinced that they need to throw away the old system in favor of a new one every 5 years.

We need a standard. VHS and Beta battled it out for a while, and VHS won. 8track battled with conventional audio tapes. The industry realized that these kinds of competing standards cost the industry money. When it came time to move to a digital audio standard, the industry giants got together and developed the CD standard, which they would all back. The birth of DVDs was similar in nature.

I think the gaming industry will take a similar turn. There needs to be a standard. I hope that the software and hardware developers will work together to create a standard. This would mean that one company would own and operate the liscensing, which would be set to a fixed fee (like DVDs). The technology would be proprietary, but the company that owns it would not neccessarily be in charge of manufacture, so costs would be low and limited to development (keeping liscensing cheap, passing on savings to the consumer). This will mean multiple hardware manufacturers. This will mean that systems will be more expensive at first, as companies will need to sell them at a profit, but with greater competiton comes a greater push to find manufaturing techniques to reduce the costs, and provide their player at the cheapest price. That, coupled with the greatly decreased generation cycle means long term savings.

The gaming industry has become mainstream. The time has come to break away from system wars. Nintendo already might be at the point where they'd do better as a 3rd party. Xbox has yet to show it's commercial viability, and Sony is pretty seless as a software developer. I think it's time for the industry to collect itself and work out the best way to make money. This way isn't going to hold for much longer.

So where do you see the industry in 10 years? Do you see Nintendo as a first party still? Where will Sony and MS be? will there be a standard?

Pretty much the same point you made. I think I'm going to like it here.

I'd like to expand upon a few points though:

First off, this is the exact opposite of what the PC industry has done. What I (and I assume Bacon) am proposing is a regulated industry standard. The PC is a lack of a standard. No set hardware, no liscensing, no nothing. I think we need a regulated proprietary standard backed by the industry with fixed liscensing rates. Teh technology would not be owned by the company that makes the hardware or software. Both systems and games would be made by 3rd parties. This would fuel competition on all sides, and keep liscensing fees even. This is exactly what was done with CDs and DVDs, and it could work just as well with any entertainment media, games included.

Also, whoever said it would make for weaker graphics is failing to appreciate the decreasing role of the actual hardware as a limiting factor for visual quality. It's more about art that polygons now, and that's becoming more true with each passing generation.

Anyway, greetings all. I look forward to spending time here.

[burgundy]

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
And I just happen to be 100% greedy nerdy gamer.

Think about it guys. Do you really want the videogame industry to become any more like music and movies than it already is? Are you ready to put up with an "N-Sync" of video games because that is 90% of what you would see. Personally I hate the music and movie industries. They can have all that. I don't want it.

I don't see how the industries are any different, and even if I did, I don't see how this would make the situation even worse. All these industries have big production value mega-hits, crap that sells because of a license, and largely unseen niche titles. You probably don't see anything beyond N-Sync and other MTV nonsuch because you're not an enthusiast in those media. Just like most gamers don't sweat Treasure.

[Johnny]

The market is already built to support one format. The 2600, NES, PSX and PS2 were all supported as the standard, the closest we ever came to a two platform market would've been during the SNES & Genesis era. I have no problem putting 200$ towards a new system every five years if it means the market won't stagnate like the handheld one.

[burgundy]

Holy shit, Frog. That was the best first post I've ever seen.

[RedTerrier]

If you can rant like that on a regular basis frog, you'll do just fine here. Welcome!

PS- Where else did you post before?

[Frogacuda]

Originally posted by RedTerrier
If you can rant like that on a regular basis frog, you'll do just fine here. Welcome!

PS- Where else did you post before?

Thank ye kindly.

I used to post on the IGN DC boards,and I followed all the outsiders there to CloudChaser, which became XenGen. I've met some cool people there, but there's alot of younger gamers, and not many people relate to my hardcore bias. Real mixed bag. This place seems about right though.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by burgundy
I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I still don't think you're seeing my point. Each individual actor is better off doing things the way they're doing them now, because of the overarching market in which they operate. My argument is that the market is inefficient, not that any individual actor is doing anything they shouldn't. The whole market structure would have to change, which isn't very likely.

I do see your point, but I tallied it in a way that maybe you weren't expecting. You say that it's that market that influences the "individual actors." I say it's the actors that influence the market. So when you say "the market needs to change," I hear "the 'actors' need to change the market."

If the market is inefficient, it's the producers who are at fault, and thus they are doing something wrong, because if they make the market, and the market is inefficient, then they made it that way and are acting wrongly. The only way for the whole market structure to change would be if the producers changed it...and if it were as grossly inefficient as you say, then they'd be forced to change it, as they'd all be knocking on bankruptcy's door. Are they making as much as they could with a more efficient business model? Maybe not. But they're doing pretty good (USD12 billion/yr).

I see the merits of your proposal. I even agree with some points! I agree that it makes more sence for the consumer to pay USD200 (the "sweet spot" for consumer electronics) for one "Super-console" than to pay USD800+ for three. Especially if the producers of said hardware are undercutting. I agree with EThugg, that money lies in making consoles as common as VCRs and the like. But I will not agree that that model is the future of games. A desireable future? Yes. But a real, tangable future? Not at all. Why? Because of this industries history. We are to entrenched in the descisions made in the past to do anything to change it in the future, sad though it may be.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by burgundy
Holy shit, Frog. That was the best first post I've ever seen.

Likewise! Excelence! I look forward to reading more of what you have to offer.

[Captain Vegetable]

*bump*

Can't let burgundy think he got the last word in.

[MrKasualUltra2000]

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
I'm happy with the way things are. Console variety is the spice of videogame life. You know Genny games taste compleatly different than SNES games. Each system has it's individual charms and quirks regardless of what software is being played. I like that variety.

bullseye!!!!!!