Game Consoles Are Already Dead — And Developers Know It

[Mr. Laz]

Game Consoles Are Already Dead — And Developers Know It
Mark Hachman posted 11 hours ago
Share on Google+ Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Like on Facebook

Still blasting away Halo's Covenant hordes on your Xbox 360, or ripping out guts as God of War's Kratos on your PS3? Your days are numbered — and I'm not talking about how far you're going to make it in these games.

Game developers, it turns out, are abandoning the venerable video-game console even faster than gamers themselves. The Game Developers Conference, which opens next month in San Francisco, recently asked 2,500 developers about their plans for next-generation consoles. The results were, shall we say, not encouraging for the likes of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.

Survey Says...

Specifically, the GDC asked developers which platforms they had last developed for, which platforms they were developing for now, and on which platforms they planned their next game. To no big surprise, tablets and phones are increasingly winning over developers: 38 percent wrote their last game for mobile devices, 55 percent moved to mobile for their latest game, and 58 percent plan their next game there.

Compare that to Sony's PS3. Thirteen percent of respondants called themselves current PS3 developers, and just 12.4 percent planned their next game for the PS3. The Xbox 360 only does slightly better: 13.2 percent for now, and 14 percent for the future. (Eleven percent of the devs polled said they're making games for the next-generation PlayStation 4 and the "Xbox 720," or whatever Microsoft ends up calling the 360's successor.)

And don't even think about Nintendo's Wii or dedicated handheld game devices. Just 4.6 percent of developers are actively making a Wii game, although 6.4 percent say they'll do so in the future. A mere 4.2 percent are working PlayStation Vita games, with about 5 percent saying they have future plans. Barely 2.8 percent say they're developing future games for the Nintendo DS.



And Then There's The PC

More than half of the surveyed developers, or 53%, self-identified as "indie" developers — i.e., they're not associated with megacorps like Electronic Arts that are solely devoted to turning out the next blockbuster. Which may help explain one of the survey's more surprising findings, which is that many of these developers are actually once again warming to PCs and Macs.

Those stats don't lie: 34.6 percent of developers say they've developed PC/Mac games in the past, 48 percent are doing so now, and 49 percent plan future games.

Of course, you could reasonably ask what choice they have. It's incredibly difficult to eke out a living selling 99-cent games through Apple's App Store or Google Play. And sales of video-game consoles are in precipitous decline. In 2012, sales of video game consoles, software, and peripherals fell 22 percent to $13.3 billion, according to retail tracker NPD.

By contrast, mobile games are upending the traditional "mobile console" handheld devices such as the Vita and the Nintendo DS, according to a report (PDF) co-authored by IDC and app analyst firm App Annie. Combined game sales on the iOS and Android app stores are now higher than revenues generated by the mobile consoles — even though games on the Vita can be ten to fifty times more expensive. And that's not even counting ad revenue generated by free and nearly free game apps.

Why mobile? Chris Akhavan, senior vice president of partnerships for mobile game monetization services provider Tapjoy, explains that the reach of mobile games — 207 million iOS and Android devices combined, compared to the 70 million PS3s in the market, is the first driver. And mobile hardware is constantly, iteratively improving, while consoles only refresh every seven years or so.

"The second is a lower barrier to entry," Akhavan told me in an email. He went on:

Mobile platforms are much more open than a console, and don’t have the restrictions of a working with a publisher. Console game development comes with a much bigger price: big title console game studios maintain budgets around $80 - $100 million, while most small to mid-size mobile gaming studios have budget closer to $200,000 - $400,000.

However, mobile game development budgets are growing because of the final contributing factor: earnings potential. Supercell reports earnings around $1 million per day for its games, and Gungho’s Puzzles and Dragons game is bringing in around $2 million daily. The monetization potential on mobile is much higher, and coupled with a lower development cost, there’s a huge opportunity to earn significant revenue.

Why Consoles Suck

What's the most telling sign of the demise of the traditional video game? Sequelitis. Each of 2012's top-ten bestselling games — every single one — has been done before: Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Madden NFL 13, Halo 4, even Just Dance 4 and Borderlands 2.

Compare that to the vast array of indie games being developed for the PC, Mac, and tablets. Sure, you've probably never heard of many of those. But for just a dollar or two a pop, you can afford to try them out. Who needs top-tier review sites? A collection of four- and five-star reviews (along with a careful parsing of the review scores, to ensure that the developer is not "paying" for good reviews through in-game currency or other goodies) can fill the bill.

Let's face it: for those with less and less time to game, episodic and casual games fill the bill, especially while riding trains and during "downtime" with no access to a console. Gamers can be online and playing in seconds. One of the most interesting tests will be platforms like the Ouya, which features a traditional console that plays mobile games.

That's not to say that any given mobile game is a guaranteed winner; Mark Fidelman makes the case that most game developers are chasing imaginary profits. Still, how long can it be before the conservative mindset of console game developers drives more and more gamers away from the console and back onto their phones? Sure, for those who have never played a Call of Duty game, the experience can be, well, cinematic. But for those who detest being handheld along from checkpoint to checkpoint, the experience, is well, cinematic. (Ugh.)

And when you do it again, and again, and again... well, maybe it's time to take a break with some Angry Birds.

[candyman]

Originally Posted by Sandusksuna

Gaming PCs cost you about $800-$1K and then you have to upgrade it every couple of years, if that long, with about $400 extra. That's stupid.

ok

[candyman]

Originally Posted by notorious

I want all-new. I love the originals, and have played them through probably 3 to 5 times each, but if there is a new ff like the old games for 25 to 40 bucks on my phone, I will buy it.

The ff3 for Android is nothing like ff3 on (American) NES. I think its the same as the one for DS though.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by KcMizzou

This isn't about PC versus consoles. It's the phones and tablets that are changing things the most right now. There's been a boom in casual gaming... Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja, etc. It's the same market Nintendo went after (or, at least ended up finding) with the Wii.

It's not gonna kill the consoles though, or PC gaming. The games you can play on a phone or a tablet are simple. Time fillers, for when you on a bus, subway... waiting at the airport... whatever.

There will always be people who want a more complex deep game with a big screen / monitor and a controller / keyboard and mouse.

This ^


Console gaming isnt going to die
PC gaming isnt going to die
Casual gaming (Tablets and Phones) isnt going to die.

The market has been fractured but each audience is distinct enough to make money.

What is going probably happen is some companies will suffer and inevitably close up shop and get out of the hardware business or a certain segment of software. Nintendo, Dell, etc??? There is too much competition out there for everyone to make money.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Game consoles are dead

Signed Atari, 1983

The irony here is that Atari game consoles were very low tech, whereas Atari home computers were great gaming systems.

[Setsuna]

Originally Posted by Fish

Bullshit.

If you want the optimal gaming experience then yes it's true. While the optimal gaming experience on a console depends on the HDD in the console and the developers engine. Which doesn't cost you a damn thing other than space. Herp derp. Fail.

Originally Posted by candyman

ok

You're a n00b, therefore your opinion means shit.

[Imon Yourside]

Originally Posted by Bump

I haven't turned my xbox on in months. Every AAA title is a rehash. The multiplayer is laggy as **** and you have to pay $50 a year to play online? **** it, going PC gaming. Just need a gaming pc.

You can build a good(not great) gaming rig for around $400, then upgrade the video card later to make it great.

[Dayze]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

You can build a good(not great) gaming rig for around $400, then upgrade the video card later to make it great.

[candyman]

Originally Posted by Sandusksuna

If you want the optimal gaming experience then yes it's true. While the optimal gaming experience on a console depends on the HDD in the console and the developers engine. Which doesn't cost you a damn thing other than space. Herp derp. Fail.


You're a n00b, therefore your opinion means shit.

Its not an opinion that you dont know what the hell you're talking about. I have about $600 in my son's rig, and the graphics it produces will blow any console out of the water. I do this shit for a living. Douche.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by aturnis

I disagree. I don't know anyone who games on a PC. Maybe a couple aquintances I don't know about, but everyone I know who does game, has either an Xbox or PS3. I don't ever see myself gaming on a PC.

I do. So much easier to be able to download a game on steam. Steam sales that have $50 games from 2 months ago for $20. Games from 6 months ago for $10. Not to mention a ton of indie games that are under $10 that you'll never see on a console.

[DaFace]

You can argue the reasons all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the article in the OP draws nothing but non sequitur conclusions. Games on mobile devices are generally far simpler and easier to develop than games on consoles, so of course a majority are planning to develop for that medium. Similarly, my understanding is that it's easier to develop for PC than it is for consoles since it's all fairly standardized.

The only thing this article proves is that developers tend to put their efforts into areas that require less of an investment. Go figure. In addition, this survey seems to be aimed at a wide variety of developers. If they'd focused just on the major players, I might pay more attention, but a guy who develops a tic tac toe game in his basement wasn't exactly going to be thinking of developing an Xbox game anyway.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Sandusksuna

Gaming PCs cost you about $800-$1K and then you have to upgrade it every couple of years, if that long, with about $400 extra. That's stupid.

And meanwhile, you're stuck with outdated graphics on your console for the next 5-6 years.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by mcan

I think the next gen consoles are gonna be hurt by the fact that there isn't a new DVD format.

Playstation sold because it was a great piece of hardware and the games were awesome at launch.

Playstation 2 sold because it was cool looking, had a few cool games, but it was MANY people's first DVD player. It was an excuse to upgrade.

Playstation 3 didn't have much at launch, and what they did have didn't fully use the capabilities. Madden was a huge disappointment. But it was cool, and it was everybody's first BluRay player. I actually splurged that day and got a new TV and an HDMI cable... It was freaking beautiful. Now I use it every day to watch movies, get online, game (only every once in awhile), and I watch a crap ton of Netflix.

I watched the launch party 2 hour event for PS4, and while it all looks neat... It's just not anything I feel like I need right now. Don't get me wrong, I'll prob start saving now and go get it at launch, just to have one (because I'm a tool like that). But overall... I guess I'm just hoping for a better version of what I already have. Less noisy fan and heat, much better browser, lower download times, much less lag with online gaming, etc... Maybe it'll have .mkv support?


I'll be thrilled if they significantly upgrade the Madden franchise, and can make a few games that will suck me in the way Ninja Gaiden Sigma did. But overall I'm just not a gamer anymore. Haven't been in a long time.

Somewhat. They are hurt because the technology leap and innovation isn’t as great as it was from the PS2 to PS3, XBOX to 360 and Gamecube to the Wii

[Imon Yourside]

Originally Posted by Dayze

I've built around 17 or so for friends the last couple of years, and I always have them skimp a little on the graphics card to start then upgrade that at their discretion. My 260 gtx I bought 4 years ago still plays everything at hi(not the highest) graphic settings, works great in my 3rd machine.

[Chazno]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

And meanwhile, you're stuck with outdated graphics on your console for the next 5-6 years.

lol. $1200 versus up-to-date graphics. I guess it is a matter of priorities. I have many other things I could use that money on. I am way more than a casual gamer and consoles are perfect for me. Hell I'm a professional programmer and my main box (at home) is almost 7 years old.

The real story is that they finally discovered the casual gaming market(thanks to nintendo). The thing is indie developers can compete and excel in this market as games like COD, WOW and Skyrim have no place in this market. Casual Gamers won't take the time to learn complex games. Give them a bubble shooter and they are happy.

[Dayze]

Hmm. Yeah, I'm researching now. I basically just want one simply for MS Flight Simulator.

not sure if it makes a difference in terms of the guts of the computer but I'll probably end up with 3 monitors eventually. BUt not to start out.