The Next-gen Situation discussion *spawn

[Prophecy2k]

I disagree. The moment people see waht PS4+XB3 can do, the majority will wait until the price drops, with the tablets closing the gap in performance all the time. Then when they have that $200 for a new console, they'll also be eyeing a tablet that isn't as good in the graphics department but has all sorts of other useability, and wondering if maybe they should spend their $200 console budget (factoring in the expensive games) on a better tablet instead.

Well, $200 isn't really gonna go very far on a tablet now is it. Especially when most tablets are $500+. If you're a games consumer that enjoyes stuff like Skyrim, COD etc, you'll look at the brandest, newest, bestest next-gen console retailed at launch at $400, and then a $500+ tablet, and you won't even take more than a moment to decide which to choose. Obviously, those 100s of millions that play games only casually will wait till the consoles are cheap, but said folks won't be interested in playing console games on a tablet either, hence when they purchase their tablet they won't be buying it for high-end gaming.

Your thinking of this back to front.

I'm really not.

... If people want to play Gears and Uncharted, and those games are only available on tablets, then they'd buy tablet, no?

But those games will never only be available on tablets will they? Only if consoles don't exist, which would render the whole agrument moot. But as long as consoles do exist those games will exist in a higher quality, on a bigger screen, and able to be played with a much more preferable control interface, on consoles, because that's where those games sell. Companies will only make those games for tablets when it can be proved that there is a market forthem there. Currently there isn't, but who knows in future. However, why would gaming companies concievably pick up shop, stop supporting the consoles and move all high-end gaming exclusively to tablet?... Won't happen.

...
Also bear in mind that the statistics as ever are very skewed for the big names. Look past the massive takeup of things like Angry Birds and look at the potential market. The Sims sold between 1 and 5 million on Android going by Google Play. That's a good console-market size business. Few console games sell several million. So looking past the few headline grabbers in the first two years of the business, and looking at the maturing business, an install base of hundreds of millions is going to be a draw for devs.

The Sims is hardly a core gamer franchise. Of course there's a market for those kinds of games on tablets, where the majority of the casual PC/handheld and console gaming crowd have migrated. I reiterate, there's no evidence to show that an uncharted game on iOS would sell anywhere near what it does on PS3, nor a Halo game nor a gears game. The market for those games isn't there.

Don't get me wrong Shifty, I agree that tablets can co-exist beside consoles as a viable gaming platform for the forseeable future. However, i think it's ludicrous to believe that tablets would replace consoles. Rather, I believe that in terms of function, tablets are in fact replacing PC gaming of all types, as well as PC multimedia and computing functionality. In future I console gaming living healthily beside tablet gaming, certainly not replacing it.

Ha ha! I remember saying the same thing of PCs years ago. "Why does anyone need more power than this?!" And then we get video editing, HD video editing, high quality softsynths, 3D gaming, sterescopic gaming, etc. There is no end to people's ability to consume power. Hell, even simple websites cripple my Core-2-Duo thanks to multiple Flash ads. Then throw in metalanguages, like HTML5, that are make less efficient use of the hardware than native apps. There will always be an increase in performance and in its use - that's human nature.

Every one of your examples are niches, fringe uses for the added computing power that high-end PC provide that the vast majority of consumers neither want nor care about. My point was that 5 years ago, mobile computing power was not even enough for email, word processing, HQ photo/video taking, e-reading, internet browsing, video streaming, HD video and entertainment consumption.

Now every smartphone/tablet has a 5+ MP camera to do HQ photo/video taking, email, e-doc reading/editing, word processing, HD multi-media consumption etc etc is all possible on even the most mid-to-low end tabs & smart phones. What else, that the majority mainstream consumer cares about, needs, or wants, can continue to drive mobile power increases at the rate we've seen going forward? Gaming isn't it, because even now there aren't games sold nor being developed that take full advantage of the HW available.

Hence, things won't even continue at the rate they're going now in the mobile/tablet computing space. So for tablets to reach a point where, the current 120+ million current HD console owner installed base decides to migrate en-masse to tablets, tablets themselves need to move a hell of a long way even at their current rate (which is highly unlikely).

 

[SedentaryJourney]

The devices have differing capabilities determined by size and power envelope: phone << tablet << console << PC, with leftmost devices offering a subset of the others.

Cheers

PC isn't as monolithic as the other devices. I see smaller power efficient PCs being the new trend. Apple makes more money on MacBooks than iMacs, and many PC manufacturers are chasing its lead in the ultrabook space.

Increasingly the reason for having a big box is uber graphics performance. People are probably more willing to sacrifice portability for better gaming, whereas general computing is expected to become more portable. Aside from a small niche of professional desktop users you might see phone << tablet << PC << console.

 

[-tkf-]

I disagree. The moment people see waht PS4+XB3 can do, the majority will wait until the price drops, with the tablets closing the gap in performance all the time. Then when they have that $200 for a new console, they'll also be eyeing a tablet that isn't as good in the graphics department but has all sorts of other useability, and wondering if maybe they should spend their $200 console budget (factoring in the expensive games) on a better tablet instead.

It's easy enough to emulate a C64 or a 7.16Mhz Amiga. Or create games that is aimed at Tablets and the limited power they can produce. And sure, at some point in time the tablets might get just as powerfull as a PS3/360. But i still don't understand how we can have a thread about PS4 and 720 lack of power caused by to much heat/power usage vs costs. And then in another thread it's feasible that you can buy a Tablet with the same amount of power in "10" years. The PS3 is still hot, uses 100 watt. Just putting that in a tablet within a few years seems like science fiction.

 

[Gubbi]

But i still don't understand how we can have a thread about PS4 and 720 lack of power caused by to much heat/power usage vs costs. And then in another thread it's feasible that you can buy a Tablet with the same amount of power in "10" years. The PS3 is still hot, uses 100 watt. Just putting that in a tablet within a few years seems like science fiction.

Hear hear.

The state of the art New iPad has 1/8th the shading power of the 360, - a six year old console.

Cheers

 

[Prophecy2k]

PC isn't as monolithic as the other devices. I see smaller power efficient PCs being the new trend. Apple makes more money on MacBooks than iMacs, and many PC manufacturers are chasing its lead in the ultrabook space.

Increasingly the reason for having a big box is uber graphics performance. People are probably more willing to sacrifice portability for better gaming, whereas general computing is expected to become more portable. Aside from a small niche of professional desktop users you might see phone << tablet << PC << console.

In general gaming isn't and hasn't ever been that important to the majority of people. PCs, tablets and low-powered laptops/netbooks have for pretty much all their lives been purchased for the primary purpose of meet a consumer's personal or corporate computing needs. Those that care about gaming at all on PC buy PC rigs, and/or consoles. Therefore, we're really confusing an overlap of two completely different spheres.

People are happy to sacrifice high-end computing performance for portability because for the majority of consumers, the mid to low level performance of laptops, netbooks and tablets/phones are enough for the majority of their computing needs.

Core gaming on consoles is a completely different thing however, and by no means analogous. It would be silly to assume that the core gamer demogrpahic would be happy to sacrifice portability for graphical power, as otherwise this last generation would have seen the bulk of console sales, as well as development support skew dramatically towards handheld consoles. In reality what we saw was a pretty even distribution of sales between all the home console platforms and handhelds, without any side seemingly affecting the sales of the other. This tells me that the gamer demographic is happy to own to separate devices; one for home console gaming, the other for handheld, because he/she sees value and a clear distinction between the two different kinds of experiences that both offer. Tablet/Phone gaming clearly fits into the portable gaming role, taking over from or supplimenting handheld console gaming, rather than replacing console gaming to take the majority share by itself.

I simply won't believe that there are many gamers (Wii/PS/360 gamers) at all out there that would prefer to game alone on a tablet when a console will always provide a clear and distinguishably superior experience (oh yes it will).

I even hear Shifty's suggestion of a tablet with a dock that boosts performance. But I ask then what is the point? If you buy Gears 7 and it only runs whilst you're docked, then why bother with the tablet part of the console? From the game developer's point of view, if you have to make the experience compatible and consistent across the portable tablet and docked console then you'll aim for the lowest common denominator, i.e. the tablet HW, thus rendering the dock useless.

Then from the HW platform holder's point of view, why would you opt for such an option, implying a degraded home console ("docked") experience (partly because devs would code their games around the tablet HW, and partly that to release such a console at a reasonable price the addition of the tablet HW and form factor would increase the BOM for the overall console). The platform holder could choose to sell the dock separately, but then why not simply design and sell a traditional and very perfomance capable home console, and then release a secondary tablet phone device that also ties into the same software eco system? Sony could simply sell playstation tablet, and MS an Xbox Tab. Why not do it that way, and reap the higher revenue streams of selling two separate devices, also offering a choice to those consumers who would prefer to purchase one device over the other?

For me, the idea of a dockable tablet console is a bad one. And would tank next to a far more capable traditional console competitor.

 

[RudeCurve]

A docking station with an extra GPU that operates in Crossfire mode with a tablet's APU would be a good idea but the game has to be designed with forwards compatibility which I hope will be standard in the near future. This to me is more attractive than a stationary console.

 

[Prophecy2k]

A docking station with an extra GPU that operates in Crossfire mode with a tablet's APU would be a good idea but the game has to be designed with forwards compatibility which I hope will be standard in the near future. This to me is more attractive than a stationary console.

How is it a good idea when from a game design and development point of view you have two wildy different performance modes?

How does one design a game to fully take advantage of all that "docked-mode superpowa" for a game that has to also run whilst in tablet mode. You will either:

A) design the game to be operational in tablet mode, only really boosting superficial things like framerate and IQ when in docked mode - thus rendering the HW in the dock pretty useless as it would NEVER be exploited.

B) design the game taking full advantage of the docked mode, but rendering the title inoperable completely in tablet mode - thus nullifying any "portability" benefit of even having the tablet in the first place.

C) effectively make two separate versions of the same game, one taking full advantage of the dock HW, the other a stripped down version for the tablet that shares a save file and some game progress and DLC data - effectively meaning you're developing and selling two games for the price of one. Who really wants to do that?

Nah, it's not a good idea at all. As it would either end up a convoluted mess of missmatching, interoperability frustration, or a diluted sore excuse for a modern console that would look woefull next to its traditional console competitors on the market.

I'd really actually like to see a company with the hubris of say Apple try it. Only to watch them crash and burn so hard in a glorious flaming crying catastrophe of woe.

 

[tuna]

While I disagree that frame rate is "superficial", you would also have to change the control method when in docked mode, ie you will not have direct touch control anymore. Which I think is the biggest difference.

 

[RudeCurve]

Higher framerate higher resolution better AA better textures more storage for less loading

 

[wco81]

Docking of tablets for greater capabilities is an interesting idea.

However, even if they don't jump through hoops to close the performance gap with consoles, they will be a threat to at least the growth rate of next-gen.

 

[dobwal]

For me, the idea of a dockable tablet console is a bad one. And would tank next to a far more capable traditional console competitor.

You really dont need a dock for tablets to over take consoles.

The realities of today are not necessarily realities of tomorrow.

Regardless of the major advantages consoles have today, smart phones and tabs are on the forefront of cutting edge technology.

35 million iphones, 11 million ipads, 40 million Samsung smart phones and a host of other Android based devices representing 5-7 billion in profits in just the last quarter alone. How much profit has MS, Sony and Nintendo generated over the current gen? 7 years versus what? 2 quarters? At this pace a billion iOS devices and a billion Android devices will be reality within the next few years. All while producing healthier margins on both software and hardware.

Consoles can't compete. Portable smart devices is the most attractive market in terms of technology investment and in the Near future will probably be the most attractive market in terms of software development dollars including gaming. Facebook bought Instagram for a billion dollars. A mobile app developed by a company with 13 employees. Nevermind that the mobile market may be seen as far more important for both Sony and MS than their console business. iOS and Android seriously threatens Windows and Samsung may very well generate more income off its smartphone business this year than Sony generated off its Playstation business over the entire life of the brand.

Who says the mediocre interface of the touch screen gaming that exists right now cant be seriously improved through breakthroughs? Wirelessly projecting your tab screen to a tv exists right now, so playing on the "big screen" will exist with tabs. And all it takes for core gamers to accept tab quality graphics is to slow the advancement of console/PC based graphics while tab hardware advancement is pushed at neck breaking speed. This will naturally happen as more and more companies devote resources to be part of the mobile market. Its not hard to imagine AMD's and Nvidia's mobile businesses to be the primary focus of those two companies eventually. And its not far fetched that in the near future, publishers' mobile business will start rival their console business in terms of profit.

It might not happen 5 years from now or even 10. But in 15-20 years from now the ipad will be the Model T of the devices that will dominate personal computing in the future. Something that goes in your hand and not under your tv.

 

[steviep]

An interesting statistic recently reading GAF came to my attention, where folks were discussing the constant onslaught of the media's decree that Nintendo should be putting their Mario games onto iOS:

Since its inception, the App store on IOS has generated 4 billion in revenue.
In a bad year for Nintendo (2011), where their hardware/software sales were flagging across the board due to their current transitional phase, they made nearly double that in revenue.

So while hardware sales for smartphones and tablets are extremely healthy at the moment - software sales are not generating the same revenue as dedicated gaming markets.

There is no doubt that these smart devices are encroaching into all markets related to them, but I think it's premature to declare the death of dedicated gaming.

 

[wco81]

True, it's not a slam dunk.

But Nintendo is making revenues from selling hardware. Software would have higher profit margins and there are a couple of hundred million iOS devices.

It's not inconceivable that there would be a billion iOS devices in use in a few years. Almost guaranteed that there would be a billion iOS and Android devices combined in a few years.

Now, a Mario game would have a hard time commanding $50 or more on the App. Store but does it have to? There are no manufacturing and inventory costs or paying wholesalers and retailers.

 

[dobwal]

An interesting statistic recently reading GAF came to my attention, where folks were discussing the constant onslaught of the media's decree that Nintendo should be putting their Mario games onto iOS:

Since its inception, the App store on IOS has generated 4 billion in revenue.
In a bad year for Nintendo (2011), where their hardware/software sales were flagging across the board due to their current transitional phase, they made nearly double that in revenue.

So while hardware sales for smartphones and tablets are extremely healthy at the moment - software sales are not generating the same revenue as dedicated gaming markets.

There is no doubt that these smart devices are encroaching into all markets related to them, but I think it's premature to declare the death of dedicated gaming.

Its not an apple to apple comparsion. The most successful app developers don't generate most of the revenue through app sales as they mostly give away their games and make money through ad sales.

Angry Birds which is bascially the COD of the mobile market generates millions every month. The vast majority of that money doesn't come from app store sales but ad sales because AB has been downloaded 500-700 million times with daily users hitting 30 million and 300 million minutes being played. That means if Rovio generated 5 cents for just one ad shown to each those 30 million user over their average 10 minute session, Rovio would generate $1.5 million in revenue every day.

Angry Birds by itself got Rovio a $2 billion buy out offer and only cost $2 million to develop. Tell me what console game has an potential ROI that high?

 

[dobwal]

That they can support a peripheral doesn't mean devs will target it though, like any console peripheral (USB controller support was supposedly added to Droid with 3.1). Not that I disagree with you, as I think Win 8 will be a landmark movement to replace consoles with the tablets and PCs, and Sony are sure to include controller support in PSS certified devices (they have DS3 support on Tablet S). But for those here in the 'tablets are what they are and they won't evolve' camp, your argument doesn't mean games will actually get controller support any more than PS3 supporting Move will see most games support Move. You really want a controller in the box of many tablets, or a concerted effort by hardware or software companies to promote and adopt hardware controllers rather than just having an open option.

Edit: Custom Bluetooth input media on Android enabling a Wii controller 2 years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0yHTxoAVqc
XB360 on Xoom : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Omyv6YzBmA
PS3 controller on Xoom : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy-kTDZrDfI

MS, Apple and Sony can force any dev to support peripherals even those that aren't readily owned by their userbases.

They always had that ability but don't use it to force dev adoption because there hasn't existed a peripheral outside of the standard controller that is considered essential by core console gamers.

 

[Gubbi]

That means if Rovio generated 5 cents for just one ad shown to each those 30 million user over their average 10 minute session, Rovio would generate $1.5 million in revenue every day.

$0.05 per view ?

Real CPM prices range from $0.0005 to $0.003 ($0.5 to $3 per 1000 views), which translates to $15,000 to $90,000 of daily revenue.

Cheers

 

[dobwal]

$0.05 per view ?

Real CPM prices range from $0.0005 to $0.003 ($0.5 to $3 per 1000 views), which translates to $15,000 to $90,000 of daily revenue.

Cheers

My bad. Forgot about the per 1000 in my calculations. I am not under the impression that Angry Birds generates anywhere near $365-550 million a year just off ad sales. AB would be worth more than $2 billion if that was the case.

Thanks

 

[wco81]

The other thing about the existing business models faltering is if they really go through with this rumored scheme to make used games more expensive to play.

As has been discussed, this would alienate many consumers and also hurt new game sales in ways they may not foresee -- a lot of people buy new games with proceeds from sales of games they sell after they play the games they previously purchased new.

So they think they can get more sales at $60 or a higher ASP than they have now, if only they can kill the used games market. But even if they succeed, it would just make the contrast between those $60 games and other forms of entertainment, including the cheap mobile games.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The other thing about the existing business models faltering is if they really go through with this rumored scheme to make used games more expensive to play.

As has been discussed, this would alienate many consumers and also hurt new game sales in ways they may not foresee -- a lot of people buy new games with proceeds from sales of games they sell after they play the games they previously purchased new.

So they think they can get more sales at $60 or a higher ASP than they have now, if only they can kill the used games market. But even if they succeed, it would just make the contrast between those $60 games and other forms of entertainment, including the cheap mobile games.

Consumer dollars invested into gaming potentially increase by the sale of used games, but the publisher revenues decrease by the amount for which those used games are sold which is the consumers gain plus the stores mark up on used games. So while EA might not lose $60 in revenue for every used copy of MW3 sold as used, they are a net loser from the exchange.

I expect to see more online pass, free to play or just outright single user games sold in the future. And people will get used to it, they won't really have a choice.

 

[wco81]

Well that's what we're discussing, whether people who've bought console games will have a choice or not.

May not be the same experience but these kinds of policies as well as other popular digital entertainment may prod some gamers to seek out other alternatives.