On a related note, one thing J Allard mentioned in his presentation that has gotten very little comment is something I've long asserted. To keep retail prices under control the games have to reach a larger market. The top games now reach around 5 millions units, give or take, on a single platform. GTA and Halo are examples of this. Allard suggested the future goal should be 20 million. This is potentially doable across multiple platforms today but is more likely in future generations if they get more agressive on cost of entry to allow a greater base. GTA, between PS2, Xbox, and PC has come close to this level already.
2025: Where are the big three console makers?
- Thread starter pumbaa
- Start date
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='epobirs']On a related note, one thing J Allard mentioned in his presentation that has gotten very little comment is something I've long asserted. To keep retail prices under control the games have to reach a larger market. The top games now reach around 5 millions units, give or take, on a single platform. GTA and Halo are examples of this. Allard suggested the future goal should be 20 million. This is potentially doable across multiple platforms today but is more likely in future generations if they get more agressive on cost of entry to allow a greater base. GTA, between PS2, Xbox, and PC has come close to this level already.[/quote]
That does bring about the point of system uniquness, if 80% of the titles will be available on all systems what is the point of owning more than one system? In fact if everything is going to be available on the computer (within a reasonable release date of the systems) why buy a platform at all?
I think it 20 years there will be only 1 gaming system, a computer and the focus will be on game development and peripherals.
That does bring about the point of system uniquness, if 80% of the titles will be available on all systems what is the point of owning more than one system? In fact if everything is going to be available on the computer (within a reasonable release date of the systems) why buy a platform at all?
I think it 20 years there will be only 1 gaming system, a computer and the focus will be on game development and peripherals.
[quote name='zionoverfire'][quote name='epobirs']On a related note, one thing J Allard mentioned in his presentation that has gotten very little comment is something I've long asserted. To keep retail prices under control the games have to reach a larger market. The top games now reach around 5 millions units, give or take, on a single platform. GTA and Halo are examples of this. Allard suggested the future goal should be 20 million. This is potentially doable across multiple platforms today but is more likely in future generations if they get more agressive on cost of entry to allow a greater base. GTA, between PS2, Xbox, and PC has come close to this level already.[/quote]
That does bring about the point of system uniquness, if 80% of the titles will be available on all systems what is the point of owning more than one system? In fact if everything is going to be available on the computer (within a reasonable release date of the systems) why buy a platform at all?
I think it 20 years there will be only 1 gaming system, a computer and the focus will be on game development and peripherals.[/quote]
The main advanatage of a console isn't so much its uniqueness, since such items are often undersupported or even ignored by developers of multiplatform games, but rather its static nature. Console #1 is the same as console #50 Million. PC developers spend a huge amount of their time just making sure their games degrade gracefully on less powerful system down to the minimum supported spec.
But the same thing can be done on a Virtual Machine environment. The first Microsoft effort to woo console type games before Direct X was based on this concept. That the PC would host a sort of virtual console that would be the development target. So long as the system met a bare minimum set of specs the game would behave nearly identically across all PCs. This was purposely ignoring more powerful systems for the sake of gaming made as easy as on a console. Part of the idea was that you'd just run it from the CD. The hard drive would only be used for saves. The environment was kind of like a souped up SNES.
The earliest demo used a version of Bubsy but the only shipping games I recall were the PC versions of Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure and Earthworm Jim. The idea didn't really catch on and not long after Direct X started up with an emphasis on high-end performance as 3D cards started becoming popular.
As sytems become more and more popular and developers find their projects can be done just as well without pushing the bleeding edge, the idea of virtual consoles will come back. Companies like EA already work this way to a large extent. Having a shared engine which can handle the same content across many platforms with only a fraction of the code base and art needing local adjustment is commonplace now. It's only a matter of time before developers begin pushing for the ability to produce a single disc that runs on all supported platforms and the console makers will have to figure out how to manage their financial interest in this.
The Nintendo business model for consoles has worked very well for 20 years but there will come a time when it will fail as new approaches become viable. If Microsoft succeeds in making the PC a better host for console style games under XNA, which includes having the Xbox 2 and PC share a standard controller, it could start appearing within a few years as a platform for the budget game market first.
That does bring about the point of system uniquness, if 80% of the titles will be available on all systems what is the point of owning more than one system? In fact if everything is going to be available on the computer (within a reasonable release date of the systems) why buy a platform at all?
I think it 20 years there will be only 1 gaming system, a computer and the focus will be on game development and peripherals.[/quote]
The main advanatage of a console isn't so much its uniqueness, since such items are often undersupported or even ignored by developers of multiplatform games, but rather its static nature. Console #1 is the same as console #50 Million. PC developers spend a huge amount of their time just making sure their games degrade gracefully on less powerful system down to the minimum supported spec.
But the same thing can be done on a Virtual Machine environment. The first Microsoft effort to woo console type games before Direct X was based on this concept. That the PC would host a sort of virtual console that would be the development target. So long as the system met a bare minimum set of specs the game would behave nearly identically across all PCs. This was purposely ignoring more powerful systems for the sake of gaming made as easy as on a console. Part of the idea was that you'd just run it from the CD. The hard drive would only be used for saves. The environment was kind of like a souped up SNES.
The earliest demo used a version of Bubsy but the only shipping games I recall were the PC versions of Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure and Earthworm Jim. The idea didn't really catch on and not long after Direct X started up with an emphasis on high-end performance as 3D cards started becoming popular.
As sytems become more and more popular and developers find their projects can be done just as well without pushing the bleeding edge, the idea of virtual consoles will come back. Companies like EA already work this way to a large extent. Having a shared engine which can handle the same content across many platforms with only a fraction of the code base and art needing local adjustment is commonplace now. It's only a matter of time before developers begin pushing for the ability to produce a single disc that runs on all supported platforms and the console makers will have to figure out how to manage their financial interest in this.
The Nintendo business model for consoles has worked very well for 20 years but there will come a time when it will fail as new approaches become viable. If Microsoft succeeds in making the PC a better host for console style games under XNA, which includes having the Xbox 2 and PC share a standard controller, it could start appearing within a few years as a platform for the budget game market first.
friedram
CAG Newbie
"Gee-Haaad" the Muslim's first choice for Anti-Western & Iserali games
"Frostor" the game system by Blizzard Entertainment that plays only games that kick ass.
"X-Station" by Microsoft- who has bought out Sony & Nintendo. (You American have such big "unit". We can not compete against American's with such bulbous "unit".7)
"Frostor" the game system by Blizzard Entertainment that plays only games that kick ass.
"X-Station" by Microsoft- who has bought out Sony & Nintendo. (You American have such big "unit". We can not compete against American's with such bulbous "unit".7)
bread's done