Console war arms race — hurting or helping the consumer?
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 at 9:26am by Jack
This console war is truly a slippery slope. On the one hand, people often welcome sharp new graphics and processing speeds with open arms, because we humans absolutely love getting to that next plateau and fulfilling our manifest destiny wherever it may take us. On the other, we have our wallets; those mangy, leather bound bifolded containers of cash that we oft stick on our back pockets, or, if we be girls, in our purses or bags or wristlets.
Seems hardly fair: horsepower and technological advancement versus a dead cow? No contest. Right? RIGHT?!
But wait. Console prices are higher than ever these days, and more often than ever before console manufacturers are asking us to just trust them and make the long term investment. Well, that was the case if you bought in last November (or earlier). Today, however, we see price cuts, and bundles and tiered SKU’s — oh my!
We consumers aren’t the only ones dealing with the wallet versus power issue. The developers have encountered the same phenomenon, and we’re starting to see the consequences. Wait, strike that, games shot up to $60 last year — we have already seen one of the consequences. But the other ones, less noticeable yet just as potent, are beginning to bubble to the surface as if the industry was bobbing on some big, blue colored ocean.
Those other obstacles on the slippery slope? Development costs. Development team sizes. Corporate bureaucracy guiding the mission statement of developer houses so that they take as few risks as possible. Respecting the bottom line, unfortunately, has taken precedence over respecting video games as an art form (and that’s a story for another day, of course: how we video game types protest the lack of respect from media types like Roger Ebert, while at the same time we remain silent about buying the same schlock year after year for higher prices — thereby reinforcing the money over art mentality with publishers. Irony can be an art form too, right?). At first, these developers embraced horsepower and bling post haste. It will be interesting to see if they continue on the same path in a year’s time when they realize that — after a $20 million budget (plus marketing costs) — it’s a lot harder to make your money back. Once upon a time a game that sold 5 to 10 million copies was a success. In today’s market, you might not make your money back, so there’s more risk. More risk means fewer titles and less creativity. There’s no magic potion to dispel that dynamic — it’s how everything works.
So, we revisit the post headline, which was actually taken from an Advanced Media Network column by Josh Valone. The column looks at the strategies of all three video game giants today, and asks us all what we have sacrificed by embracing this horse race. It examines what, if anything, is gained by selling us bloated expensive systems at a loss. And they are bloated, no doubt about it. And I’m not talking all those unecessary and often unused multimedia features either — I’m talking strictly hardware specs. Don’t believe me? Then ask yourself — has any system in the last 10 years ever been “maxed out” in terms of its potential? Quick answer: It hasn’t, because there’s always a new system coming out on the horizon to supersede it and begin the entire dynamic all over again (the original Xbox didn’t even make it five years in the “age of five year console cycles”).
AVM:
We certainly need reasonable hardware improvement to drive the artistic side of our pastime, but if that aspect is overemphasized as is the case right now, it dramatically limits innovative concepts because of fiscal responsibilities. With smaller advancements in hardware, the risk-factor for publishers decreases dramatically and everyone benefits as a result. It is not in our best interest to have a handful of epic titles every five years when we could instead enjoy dozens of them if we resolved to sacrifice a smidgen of technology in the process. It’s a classic case of doing what is necessary to have your cake and eat it too. The industry has gotten so wrapped up in baking this cake that they haven’t quite figured out how to manage eating it.
The AVM article is also full of its share of holes (takes one to know one, right?), but the initial question remains the perfect one for this day and age in video gaming. Modest gains or macho man syndrome? Which do you see having the bets effect on gaming today?
[Muchos gracias, Fes!]
September 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
To paraphase a political troll, “It’s the games stupid.” I only own more than one console because of exclusive titles. Games are the only reason that I buy hardware. I will get a PS3 as soon as there is a game to give me reason (FF13? MGS4?) not becuse it is a supercomputer in my living room.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
In answer to your question, “has any system in the last 10 years ever been “maxed out” in terms of its potential?“, the answer is “Yes!” But the maxed potential always comes in the last year of the life of the console, and many times it overlaps the lifetime of the following one.
Just look at the best games that have come out for the PS2 and the Xbox in its last year. Same thing for the GBA. This is because by then the developers know the system so well, and development costs are so low, that they can unleash all their creativity in the gameplay.
Developers and console manufacturers need to stick to the 5 or 6-year life cycle more.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
@ Inisibleman:
No, not maxed out. No one system has run a game using all the specs to the limit, and no system will, as it’d be too risky, and unnecessary, as by the time developmers are able to do that, a new-gen will be breathing on their neck. They’ve been greatly improved, but never maxed out.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I would say that the console arms race is helping the consumer overall.
There are lots of interesting angles from which to evaluate the effects of this arms race. But from a consumer’s perpective, I would say that we ultimately will benefit. We are getting continually advancing technology that is being used to create more immersive games. All of this comes at only a modest increase in price (or even a lower price when adjusted for inflation).
Now, many people don’t like the types of games that are being developed in quantity. Many people hate some of the popular genres (FPS). And those people would argue that gaming is suffering from this continual push in technology. But Nintendo’s new direction is a direct result of this arms race (with their decision to not participate in it). They are satisfying a piece of the market that their high-powered console competitors are all but ignoring.
Ultimately, we will have more choice in games. We will have access to high technology if we want. And as the market expands, we will also get more approachable, casual games. Choice is good.
I believe that the gaming industry is healthy. What we have seen in this industry over the past decade or so is typical of every industry that is growing (consolidation, cost management issues, etc.). There is still lots of money to be made (even without audience expansion). It’s just that Nintendo felt that it’s greatest risk/return was to appeal to the non-gaming audience. It was a brilliant decision on their part. Cost of the hardware was key to capturing this audience. Hence, they made the smart decision to not push the technical envelope.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Although Cygnus makes some good points, I have to disagree with the way he framed his response. Nintendo is expanding the market, not competing. If Nintendo was competing, they’d try to out Halo Halo, but instead they are trying to make Halo irrelevant by focusing on other values.
The console wars started to heat up with the SNES and the Genesis. Since then everything has been based on GRAPHICS, which includes processing power. As a result, both consumers and companies focus on games and hardware that are just like last time but with better animation.
And we are paying lots of money for it still! Over time and generations prices should slowly creep down while features creep up. Look at computers. How many new genres have been opened up since the start of the 90s? The problem is how we define the console race: by graphics! I love my graphics, but I think graphics make up much less than 50% of my experience. I want something fresh and exciting. But because we tend to talk about each generation as about it’s hardware, specifically, it’s ability to pump out graphics, we’ve lost something in the race.
I hope Nintendo will help change this, and in the next generation we will get something that focuses a little on graphics, a little on game play, a little on art, a little on something new.
Sean Malstrom says that competition hurt gaming. I don’t know if that’s true, but certainly the way we have been competing hasn’t helped. Oh, better graphics made games far more interesting for a time. The increase in processing power allowed developers to do great things. But we’ve hit the point of diminishing returns. Now we need our developers to actually think, but we’ve all been caught up in MOSTLY thinking about graphics, which slows innovation in other areas.
Last, consider if the PS3 and XBox360 and Wii increased the graphics from the last generation, but by half as much as the PS3… All systems would be much prettier than the previous generation… Gamers would rejoice, and game prices may not have increased by so much, and hardware prices could be slightly lowers. The race is harmful, if competition is not. But the type of competition we are doing is so one tracked that developers don’t have much to work with because they HAVE to take advantage of the graphics race or the hardcore/fringe gamer would scorn them.