Poll: CNN: Console Gaming is Dying

[Vegosiux]

I don't think that the core gamers are going anywhere though. If I'm sitting at home, there is no way I'm playing a game on my cell phone. I have my PC and my consoles for a more engaging experience.

The question, however, is, just what is the ratio of "core" versus "not-core" gamers? The question becomes important because that's also the answer to the question who brings in more revenue for the publishers, and therefore, who the publishers are more likely to try and keep appeased if they are pressed against the wall and need to make a choice.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

Oh God, am I too late to use this?

 

[cookyt]

In other news:

Peoples' tastes in motion pictures have evolved to include short, 30 minute show blocks -- something traditional cinema has never been good at. People must drive to the cinema, buy tickets, and wait for the movie to start. It's much slower than turning on the TV you already own in your house, and flipping to your favorite channel.

This is why, since the invention of television, Hollywood has stopped producing full-length feature films altogether, and all brick and mortar cinema establishments have gone out of business.

 

[Edl01]

It's CNN commenting on console gaming. You're stupid if you think it is going to be anything of any value.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

I meant to click Yes, but I hit No by accident. Sorry...

 

[F'Angus]

Console Gaming is dying? Oh dear...nobody told me that, I'd better go throw out my PS3 then.

 

[The Abhorrent]

It wouldn't quite be right to say consoles are "dying", but there has been a definite move towards smaller games; with the advent of smart phones and social networks, quick time-wasters such as Angry Birds have proven to be extremely profitable. Following all consoles being connected to the internet and the rise of online gaming, other "quick cash grabs" such as DLC (particularly day one DLC and tiny add-ons like different player outfits) have also become extremely popular. In any event, publishers (and to a lesser extent, developers... I think) have made a push towards these smaller items which are just as (or more) profitable than the full game themselves.

How this relates to consoles mostly has to do with the fact PCs and smart phones are more adept at delivering smaller games, internet connectivity and all that; combined with their other functionality, they retain their other usefulness. Consoles technically have it as well, but their primary purpose has always been to deliver bigger games via cartridges or discs; if the bigger games go completely out of style, consoles are almost certain to follow.

However... the demand for big-budget grand adventures is one that will never completely die.

---

The thing with online gaming and other of these "quick cash grabs" is that they are notoriously transient, they don't last; sooner or later, players will crave something meaty to keep them occupied for a good while. Even MMORPGs, with their infamously long play-times, can't genuinely match the feeling of going an actual "grand adventure". In fact, we have at least three very successful examples from the modern era:

Dragon Age: Origins
Often heralded as a throw-back to Bioware's older series, Baldur's Gate; nevertheless, it delivers an adventure which spans all of Ferelden and is guaranteed to last upwards of 40 hours to complete (in fact, it can easily break 60 hours if you do some of the side content). Heck, it's even best on the PC.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Another game which is "best" on the PC, but I find that using a controller is better for the gameplay; easily done with a wired X360 controller, no other details required. Another huge game, a bit more free-form but still able to deliver over a hundred hours for the dedicated explorer.

Xenoblade Chronicles
The modern classic of what is commonly referred to as "JRPGs", the reminder of why so many of us loved the genre back in our younger days. To tell the truth, this could be the bigger than the two games above with everything taken into account; and it boasts the longest and best paced central story-line of the lot, at a minimum of 60 or so hours to complete (and the play-time could easily be tripled if you do all the side content). To think it's a Wii exclusive (with some rather lacklustre graphics as a result) and without any DLC is just the icing on the cake. Anyhow, people fought for this game to be brought over to this side of the Pacific; they succeeded, and it was worth it.

---

There's a reason classics are called such, they're something which lasts despite the formula being older than the audience... because everyone still finds something they like about it. The current generation of consoles has all but forgotten what these are with the rise of easy-money games, DLC, and online multiplayer; but those won't be the ones players will remember, it will be those which made the effort to be the grand adventure. A few tried to stretch these out over trilogies and that... but honestly, even those pale in comparison to the games which do it from start to finish (and without DLC to boot).

Regardless of what happens to consoles, the grand adventure will always be in demand for games; and despite the publishers trying to do something else about it, just about any developer wants to make these types games as well. This trend can even be traced back into forms of entertainment older than gaming; even literature and oral story-telling show signs of this.

The best part?
Gaming just so happens to be the best way of delivering this type of experience.

I guess that strays a bit from the bit about consoles dying, but the grand adventure is firmly rooted with them. At worst, they'll become unfeasible due to being effectively assimilated by PCs. But the experience they were best at delivering will remain eternal, an ever present feature of the medium.

 

[wrightguy0]

I've largely shunned casual games because the pick up and play style doesn't appeal to me, i want to be engaged with the games i play, i want stories, atmosphere, settings that inspire me or fill me with dread, i want to Experience games,not just play shallow physics puzzlers or farmville ripoff #367

time and time again we've seen casual games companies rise and fall as their schtick becomes old and casual gamers move on to the next shiny object that gets dangled in front of them, casual companies don't build up the legion of fans that the "Dying" developers have.

take Zynga for example, in one year how many clones of their more popular IP's put out? and how deep in the shitter are they, oh yeah, their stock plummeted from $14.50 in march to $3 a share by june. while oldschool Studio Rockstar Games put out two games in the last year and the recent info about GTA V is likely going to make take 2's stock balloon with the company expecting more than $10,000,000 in revenue in Q4 2012 - Q1 2013

Casual games as a business model are untenable because the target audience by definition isn't invested in customer loyalty, meanwhile studios like Gearbox, Bungie, obsidian and maxis have legions of fans who are willing to come back to their games year after year.

Consoles won't die, but they will be different. the next generation might see reduced production costs which means game development costs will drop, if microsoft and sony learn anything from this generation at all, which i'm hoping they do.

 

[barbzilla]

I don't think that the core gamers are going anywhere though. If I'm sitting at home, there is no way I'm playing a game on my cell phone. I have my PC and my consoles for a more engaging experience.

The question, however, is, just what is the ratio of "core" versus "not-core" gamers? The question becomes important because that's also the answer to the question who brings in more revenue for the publishers, and therefore, who the publishers are more likely to try and keep appeased if they are pressed against the wall and need to make a choice.

Actually it isn't quite as simple as that. I don't know the actual statistics behind it, but I will try to give you some explanation of what I mean.

Even though we have a proportionately large amount of casual gamers (I mean most people age 50 and under have at least played solitaire on their laptops/pcs at this point), the casual gamers account for a relatively small proportion of the game industries sales market. Most casual gamers may purchase 1-5 games a year, while most core gamers purchase that a month. So for there to be an equal market share between the two, casual gamers would have to outnumber the core gamers 12-1 (not statistically accurate, just an example for my point).

On the other half of your question, casual games have the potential to be just a profitable if not more profitable from a cost/return ratio, with a much smaller overhead and production time. From a pure monetary stand point, it is more profitable for large developers to continue with the AAA market for now, but for smaller developers and indy developers to make smaller games.

 

[direkiller]

I will just now wait for the "Console gaming, happily dieing since 2012" posters.

I know the feeling

Spoiler: Spoiler:gameing is dieing all over

 

[crimson sickle2]

Regardless of the idiocy CNN brings, console gaming is not dying. We're currently at a point where the maximum output of each console was reached a long time ago and developers are looking for the next console to explore. There will be a couple gems yet (hopefully), but console have reached the next stage. At least they will as soon as MS and Sony get their heads out of their asses and figure out how they can make a new console without just upping the video specs, the consoles have been on life-support for a while now.

 

[Vegosiux]

Actually it isn't quite as simple as that. I don't know the actual statistics behind it, but I will try to give you some explanation of what I mean.

Even though we have a proportionately large amount of casual gamers (I mean most people age 50 and under have at least played solitaire on their laptops/pcs at this point), the casual gamers account for a relatively small proportion of the game industries sales market. Most casual gamers may purchase 1-5 games a year, while most core gamers purchase that a month. So for there to be an equal market share between the two, casual gamers would have to outnumber the core gamers 12-1 (not statistically accurate, just an example for my point).

On the other half of your question, casual games have the potential to be just a profitable if not more profitable from a cost/return ratio, with a much smaller overhead and production time. From a pure monetary stand point, it is more profitable for large developers to continue with the AAA market for now, but for smaller developers and indy developers to make smaller games.

I see what you mean.

But I don't know. The "old school" gamers, those of us who have been gaming for close to or more than two decades, are getting older. We have other life committments now, we don't have as much time anymore, we can't crunch through as many games anymore without working up a rather intimidating backlog, or, ironically, casually scratching the surface of our games before moving on to the next one.

So unless we buy impulsively, we're not as profitable as we could have been 15 years ago with more time on our hands. And hell, I try to keep my new purchases within reason, not only financially but also regarding the fact that a day simply only has 24 hours, 8 or more of which I usually spend working, still need my sleep, and take care of all other kinds of stuff. Even if I could afford to buy every single new release, I simply would not have the time to play them.

And I expect more of a shift in that direction still.

So I'd still expect to the casual guy who gets done with the game quickly before moving on to next one would nowadays be more profitable than the one who digs deep into them to enjoy them to their fullest potential.

 

[jthm]

Just take out voice acting and "cinematic EVERYTHING " and we are good to go .

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of gaming news?

I'm just gonna go ahead and fix your statement there.

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of news?

There we go, all better.

 

[lacktheknack]

Looks like CNN forgot that "quality" exists.

Insert obvious joke about CNN's reporting quality here.

 

[krazykidd]

Just take out voice acting and "cinematic EVERYTHING " and we are good to go .

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of gaming news?

I'm just gonna go ahead and fix your statement there.

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of news?

There we go, all better.

You are the second person to tell me that . Is CNN that bad?

 

[barbzilla]

snip to save page space

I think we have different definitions of core and casual gamers. I worked for MSFT Xbox for a while (left due to ethical reasons, as in they had none) and the general terminology is Core/Casual/Social/Dabbler for your gamer types.

Core group are those that spend the majority of their entertainment hours playing video games, they know the terminology, are familiar with the hardware, and are typically the group of people who would finish games.

Casual gamers are those who might spend 1-5 hours a week gaming. They typically seek games that are easier to complete or play (rhythm games, sports games [though your hardcore sports gamers are core group], puzzle games, or even solitaire). They enjoy games, but it is typically just something for them to do to pass the time while waiting for something else.

Social gamers play games for a social experience. Well, actually they might not even play games at all, with MSFT social gamers also represented people who used their Xbox for the purposes of Netflix, Facebook, and Twitter (though the last two are gone now).

Dabblers are typical the parents of young core gamers. They use the Xbox here and there or watch their kids play. They may have tried a game or two, but are generally knowledgeable about games and/or hardware.

So we "Old School Gamers" aren't the only core group. Every year a whole new crop comes in, and those are who the major manufactures/developers are selling to now. The older group tends to pick up super AAA titles, nostalgic titles, or unique titles. We may not buy as often anymore, but we tend to have the most eclectic tastes. As such we are seeing less and less of the games we might consider good, as the devs cater to the newer younger crowds.

To put simply we aren't the target audience anymore. The targets are the kids/young adults who have the time to play lots of games, and use other people's money to purchase the games/dlc/addons ect. That is why you see so many micro-transactions now (well that and the developers trying to make money off of used games by selling parts of the game after its shipped).

.....
um...
I had a point here somewhere...
Oh yes, to put simply the casuals aren't in a position to push the market away from the AAA titles yet. As for the hardware... I see consoles eventually dying, and the console manufacturers selling what equates to emulators that you install on your PC so they can keep their "exclusive" titles. I just don't see it happening within the next 10 years.

 

[barbzilla]

Just take out voice acting and "cinematic EVERYTHING " and we are good to go .

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of gaming news?

I'm just gonna go ahead and fix your statement there.

Also, since when is CNN a valid source of news?

There we go, all better.

You are the second person to tell me that . Is CNN that bad?

um... at least it isn't Fox?

CNN is fine for reporting news, the issue is when they try to report their own reflections on events. They tend to make too many assumptions and logic leaps that just don't pan out.

 

[sunsetspawn]

Argh, conflicted. A lack of consoles would force the gaming industry to once again discover something other than low risk heavily marketed sludge, but it would also make people who are extremely adamant that it's 'CONSOLE OR NOTHING!' depressed. In the end, i may think they're narrow minded and losing out on so much with that mindset, but they're happy i guess

Lemme tell you a little bit about Sandy, the big fuck hurricane that fucked the eastern seaboard right in its ear. Well, for almost a week I had no power and got my kicks with books, a laptop, and an iPad. The iPad didn't last long because I'm not into sitting with a device in my lap with my neck bent at a 90 degree angle. I also can't deal with computer gaming because of the whole seated-like-a-jerkoff thing.

Unfortunately I have been forced into some PC gaming because of Deus Ex, Gothic 2&3, Nehrim, Vegastrike, etc, and I HATE THAT SHIT. It's just so frustrating sitting all hunched over like an assfuck putzing around with a mouse and keyboard that just sitting down to play becomes a chore. And investing in a special PC gaming station with a magic chair and desk that lifts the keyboard and mouse up to my sternum is just unreasonable.

I'm assuming when you say "console" you mean big, stylish box with a Sony or Microsoft label emblazoned across it, because couch (or Comfy Chair), TV, and thumbsticks ain't goin anywhere. It could be that Ouya will change the business model, or maybe TVs will come equipped with CPUs & GFX cards, or perhaps new contenders will enter the field, or maybe, and this shit sounds far fetched, but maybe games will be fully stored, processed, and rendered ELSEWHERE while you play it on whatever medium you choose, whenever and whereever you choose, via broadband, in which case COUCHTVTHUMBSTICKS will still be used most often. The bottom line is that "consoles" and PCs have existed side by side for about 30 years, mobile gaming entered the fray about 25 years ago, and that fucking couch has been the deciding factor in the dominant market.

Maybe I'm biased though, because my fucking couch is DOPE, SON...
WORD!

The argument should be about whether the current corporate structure of gaming is sustainable, and I don't think it is. The current market is a bloated behemoth in which creativity is a dying virtue and boardrooms control artistic direction.

And don't get me started on Mobile Gaming, that shit should be renamed Mobile-Distraction-that-you-use-while-use-on-line-at-Starbucks-because-the-barista-is-a-dude-today-so-there-are-no-tits-to-look-at.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the "console" isn't the argument. The argument is the current corporate structure of gaming

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Console gaming is growing. PC gaming is growing. Phone/tablet gaming is growing. There are more people and more gamers. The increase of one specific group does not automatically mean the detriment of all others.

I only use AJE and occasionally the BBC so I am mostly immune to terrible attempts at news coverage.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

No gaming platform is dying any time soon. All doomsayers of such things are people that don't like one of the platforms or people that like a platform and fear way too much for it.

I say both PC and Console are both stronger than ever, with handheld/mobile gaming gaining more strength.

Gaming is gaming, continue playing on what you like to play on and be done with it.

On the PC, 60$ only happens on large AAA games. PC games were always cheaper yet they suddenly popped up into 60$ mark when the developers complained about not having enough money to break even.

People tend to see that quite easily.

...???

Adjusting for inflation, video games have only ever gotten cheaper. Even without it...Super Mario 64, Starfox 64, Majora's Mask, and most other AAA N64 games were all $70~ on release and I distinctly remember Turok being $80~. Even as far back as the SNES, Chrono Trigger sent me back a pretty $60.

I didn't really become a PC Gamer until quite recently, so I can't really speak for the price of PC games in the way back when. How much did Doom cost on release? I had it, but I don't remember what I paid for it.

Okay, it is probably stupid of me to jump into the dust cloud here, but I feel I need to.

I've been gaming for around 23 years now, and I have been in both Console and PC markets about equally.

I agree with you both on certain levels. Ultratwinkie is right that the AAA type games have got more expensive when it comes to PC.

Kopikatsu is also right that game prices really haven't changed when it comes to Consoles. Though because of some factors, Kopikatsu is also right that people shouldn't be complaining about pricing where inflation is concerned.

Console games have always hovered around the 60 to 80 dollar mark, handheld 20 to 40, and PC was also 20 to 40 for AAA and slightly lower quality, 15 and less for the knock off and simple games.

Yes, because of the way Console developers have done things, AAA games have got more expensive on PC, but there is a factor that has offset this in the past few years.

Steam is the off-setter. Steam and other PC gaming hubs have offset the AAA price raise by bringing in the eventuality of big PC bundle sales. The offset happens because those sales give people the chance to buy the AAA games at a lower cost.

Granted, PC gamers have to wait a little for such sales to happen, but it does mean that PC gamers end up paying the same for games as in the past and sometimes even less.

Really, because of things like Steam and GOG and the like, PC gamers have much less to complain about than in the past, especially when it comes to game prices. All PC gamers have to do is wait, and that my friends is not a problem, well unless you are someone who has absolutely no willpower when it comes to waiting to get the games you want.

Though considering the mentality I have seen of late from gamers younger than me, willpower to wait and buy a game later when you have the money is something that needs to be taught. I've witnessed too many people in the past few years(mostly PC gamers, though I have encountered Console gamers as well), that look at gaming as a right and not what it is, a privilege. I see too many people ragging on publishers/developers for charging "too much" for their games, basically a "how dare they make it so I can't afford your game yet". And mostly when it comes to PC, such a mentality is one of the major(if not the true main) causes of piracy. I will add(that because there was no demo) is one of the stupidest excuses for piracy, not that there ever is or will be a smart and reasonable excuse for piracy.