NAG Online > Featured Articles > Are consoles a dying breed?

Are consoles a dying breed?

game over

Do you remember when cellphones did one thing? Well, perhaps two. If you’re old enough you’ll remember when it was JUST a phone, and roughly the size of a backpack – but for a long time all our phones could really do was call and SMS. I’m talking about the glory days of the Nokia 3310, back when a game of Snake could actually hold our attention.

But of course, as electronics tend to do, they’ve evolved. My cellphone is kind of crappy, and yet it’s still an internet browser, e-mailer, camera, instant messager, handheld game device and social networker – oh, I do also occasionally speak to people on it.

The point is, things are becoming integrated to the point that single-function devices become obsolete – perhaps you see where I’m going with this.

Consoles, as they currently stand, are basically single-function devices. Sure you can watch Blu-rays on your PS3 or access the internet, but these functions are very much secondary, and a large percentage of the user base doesn’t bother using them at all. This idea is starting to enter the public consciousness, and already the internet is starting to whisper prophecies of doom… “The next generation will be the last.”

But is there some credibility to this statement? Let’s break it down. If we take a console’s lifespan as roughly five years, that means it’ll be around 2018 when we could expect to see the PS5 or the Xbox 1020 or whatever. So what do we have right now in 2013?

We have wireless headsets, wireless keyboards, wireless controllers and wireless internet and network connectivity. We have cloud gaming on the brink of becoming viable; we have the rise of digital distribution and free-to-play sales models.

With these things in mind, isn’t it reasonable to assume that we could, by 2018, have one machine that does everything? Our computer could sit in one room in our house, but be accessible as a media or gaming device in the living room, or a work/browsing device anywhere else. We could access all our media content from anywhere in our house. We could play games on a cloud service, with no need for expensive hardware. We could play anywhere we have a monitor, with any type of input device we like, be it mouse and keyboard or a more traditional console controller.

Any kind of mobile gaming would likely be done on our cellphones, which should easily be able to support the type of games we want to be playing by then. Cellphone and tablet gaming has already started to edge out the handheld market (it no doubt has no small influence on the Vita’s lackluster sales).

That blue really brings out your poor sales figures.

That blue really brings out your poor sales figures.

Imagine the cost savings for developers – games could be designed for a single platform only, which for us as gamers would mean better, more refined and polished games with smaller gaps between conception and release. The digital distribution model and lower development costs would also mean we’d be paying less for our AAA titles – it could also mean free-to-play models may become more commercially viable.

This isn’t a new idea either – back in June of 2012 God of War designer David Jaffe said, “I’ll go on the record and say that the next generation of hardware will be the last consoles. And they should be.”

But let’s step out of 2018 and come back to 2013 for a moment, the land of crappy internet and overpriced games. There have been rumblings around the world wide web that even this year’s new generation of consoles may be in trouble.

Last week on the NeoGaf forums, Sidhe Studios developer Mario Wynands allegedly said, “At DICE, nobody has been talking about the new Wii U projects they have started, only the Wii U projects that have just been cancelled. Platform is in serious trouble.”

It’s no secret that Wii U sales have been disappointing for Nintendo (past the release boom), and a lot of that can be attributed to poor game support thus far from developers. To be fair, the Wii has always sat in a somewhat awkward spot in the console trio, with Nintendo having to produce most of their own AAA titles for their platform – Call of Duty doesn’t really play nicely on the Wii.

Not exactly tailored for core gamers.

Not exactly tailored for core gamers.

But there’s another issue as well – this new set of consoles just won’t be as good as the last ones. When the PS3 and Xbox 360 were released, their capabilities were far ahead of computers, although it did take developers some time to squeeze out all that potential. However, with the new generation of consoles, that isn’t the case. In fact, the capabilities of the next-gen hardware are going to pale in comparison to what can be achieved on a PC right now. For today’s standards, the hardware on the next-gen consoles is said to be pretty conservative. This opinion has been echoed by both Nvidia and Crytek in the last few months.

Let’s be fair about this though – Crytek love making games that melt computers and Nvidia, well, the death of consoles would surely be in their best interest – these opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt. There are definite advantages to consoles – you don’t have to worry about hardware requirements in the first place, and in general it’s a cheaper option than a high end computer. A lot of people really value having a dedicated gaming machine that they know will “just work”. They like sitting on the couch when they play games and they like having a controller that feels like a controller.

My own thoughts are that the PS5 and Xbox 720 are going to be just fine. There are more than enough console fans out there to get adequate sales, and AAA developers are likely to keep pumping out big titles as long as it keeps pumping in money, which it will. As for the Wii U, I’m not sure. There’ve been some dangerous rumours going around that it’s not that fantastic to develop for, and while there are a couple of big titles in the pipeline, it seems like it might be the odd one out once again. Despite Nintendo’s insistence that the Wii U is suitable for core gamers, no one wants to get stuck with the console that can’t play the new Call of Duty/Battlefield/Gears of War. I think it’s definitely going to be the worst of the three in terms of sales, if not a serious flop.

As for the next-next-gen, I do believe that this will be the last of them, at least in their current form. The idea of a console is already becoming a little outdated, it’s hard to believe that by the time 2018 rolls around we won’t have an integrated, all-in-one solution. But if we’re all playing on the same device, what will fanboys have to argue about?

I’m sure they’ll think of something.

Tags:  
  • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wesley-Fick/184346154999538 Wesley Fick

    Well, looks like you’ve arrived at the same conclusion Nvidia’s engineers did when they started working on project Shield. Consoles aren’t going to die, they’re just going to evolve. The PS3 is hugely popular with Netflix users and as a multi-media hub, its pretty much the shiz-niz. Shield has a big potential market, but there are far more people who own a console than a gaming computer.

    • http://www.mygaming.co.za Chris Kemp

      i agree on that, that being the advantage of single-use devices (as they currently are). However, I think we’re already very close to a point where we have multi-functional devices that can actually do everything quite well – I expect by 2018 we’d be at a point where all the functions of a console and PC can be happily accommodated into a single device, without compromising.

      • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wesley-Fick/184346154999538 Wesley Fick

        A reasonable assumption, but I’m not sure myself that they will converge. The whole point of a console is that it’s locked out to the user and can’t be fiddled with in software. The PC is like a $1000 hooker, it’ll do anything and everything you’d want it to. Marrying the console and the PC just creates another PC. Even if you could have different versions of the PS3, for example, with better hardware in each version, that still creates some fragmentation, increases production cost and it takes longer to optimise games for more than one hardware set.

        • http://www.mygaming.co.za Chris Kemp

          That’s a good point – perhaps we’ll see something in between, where all consoles merge into a single “console”, while a PC remains separate. Thus you have a device used primarily for gaming, but not split across three consoles.

          Of course this does create issues in where competition will lie, but if cloud gaming becomes a real thing (which seems very possible, even likely), games could still be designed with a single platform in mind anyway. Kind of like having six brands of DVD players – they all accept the same media.

          • http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wesley-Fick/184346154999538 Wesley Fick

            Heh, one day. I may just give all this gaming stuff up at some point and return to playing with sticks, rocks and mud. Or Lego. My imagination is free, all this stuff is ridiculously expensive :-P

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Bouwer/722546515 Michael Bouwer

    I don’t quite think consoles will ever die, well, certain consoles. I think Xbox and PS will be in the game a lot longer than everyone thinks. Sure, having an awesome PC could serve multiple purposes but the only way to take away application crashes and “This program/game is not responding” is to limit the power the user has over the computer.

    The more users use computers for their different functions, the more problems they get if they don’t know what they are doing. At least with consoles, you can’t edit single files and add your own sketchy mods etc. This might not be such a great thing but at least you are guaranteed to be able to play any game you buy on console.

    I think that PCs will obviously get better at doing what they do and, if anything, consoles will broaden out to becoming the ultimate Media Hub, Gaming Station.

    • http://www.mygaming.co.za Chris Kemp

      Sure I can see that – all current consoles coalescing into a single gaming/media device, while computers remain computers.

      I do still think that there won’t be a next generation of individual, different consoles however, such as the PS6 etc.

      You’ll have to come back here in 2018 and say “I told you so” if there is though ;)

  • http://dinosaur-signal.tumblr.com/ Miktar Dracon

    The 3DS says hello, and “no”.

    Also, cellphone and tablet gaming hasn’t edged out the handheld market, it has expanded it. That market isn’t a zero-sum game yet.

    If anything were to damage the console market, it would be the console manufacturers themselves, trying to get too greedy. If the rumours about no BC and and always-on DRM for Durango end up being true, Microsoft is going to be shooting themselves in the foot very hard.

    As for “Call of Duty doesn’t really play nicely on the Wii”, I’d beg to differ. The Wiimote gave players mouse-like quick-aim accuracy, and many players consider it the best control scheme for FPS. CoD on the Wii U is quickly turning into the definitive version, thanks to Nintendo’s gamble that people would want to be able to move their game off the TV.

    • http://www.mygaming.co.za Chris Kemp

      Sorry for the confusion, I meant the original Wii, not the Wii U :) Although I don’t think there’s much basis for Wii U CoD being “the definitive version” since the user base for it is still so small.

      The 3DS was an enormous commercial failure until Nintendo slashed the price nearly in half – I’m not sure of the exact numbers but the 3DS represents a loss for them, not a profit. And that’s the most “successful” handheld of the past couple of years. I don’t think the cellphone/tablet gaming model has totally destroyed the handheld market, but I think in the next few years it’s going to push them out – why pay $50 for a game and hundreds of dollars for an expensive handheld when you can play Angry Birds on a device you already own for 99 cents? Sure there’s a small segment of core gamers who’d be interested, but that’s not enough to turn a decent profit. As cellphone games get better and better, handhelds become more and more obsolete.

      I’d like to think developers have learnt their lesson about always-on DRM, but then again they do like to prove us wrong on that point again and again :)

      Thanks for your comment, it’s interesting to read a different viewpoint. I guess time will tell :)

      • http://dinosaur-signal.tumblr.com/ Miktar Dracon

        A game doesn’t need the largest userbase, to be the definitive version. Wii U CoD may not have millions of players, but it has more than enough that it’s instant to find a match at any time – and those matches have less issues, and less lag, then the PS3/360 versions, as was examined by Maximillian.

        The 3DS may have had a rocky start until Nintendo dropped the price, but it’s in no way a commercial failure anymore, and it’s in no way a loss for Nintendo. It’s selling more, and faster, than any of their previews handhelds, and shows no sign of slowing down – and it’s not even hit its 2nd generation of software yet.

        As for “why pay $50 for a game when you could just play Angry Birds”, no offense, but this is favoring the hypothesis rather blatantly. Why eat steak, when you could just eat ramen? Angry Birds has done wonders for the Expanded market, but Core gamers aren’t magically removed when Expanded grows – you get MORE Core gamers, as Expanded grows. That’s why Nintendo worked so hard with their blue-ocean strategy with the Wii – to do what Microsoft and Sony weren’t bothering to do: expanding the market. Sony and Microsoft, initially, with the PS3 and 360, were red-ocean: fighting to grab the Core from each other. Nintendo’s success came from them not doing that, not fighting for a small, diminishing returns market, and instead expanding it by bringing more people into the fold.

        Handhelds aren’t expensive, unless you count the Vita. The 3DS costs as much, or less, than the cheapest Tegra 3 tablet (Nexus 7), and while the Android market does offer a lot of expanded and core games, none of them come anywhere close to the quality and depth of experience of a basic 3DS game.

        I disagree with the idea that the cell/tablet model is going to push out the handheld market – if anything, it’ll grow it: as is evident by Nvidia and their elk *entering* the handheld market, with specialized gaming tablets. I will admit, it will become harder for Nintendo as time goes by, which is why they’re very defensive about their original IPs. After all, if you want Mario, there’s only one place to go: and that’s how Nintendo likes it. People don’t buy Nintendo hardware because they want the hardware – people buy Nintendo products because they want the kind of games, the quality of experience, that Nintendo provides. Because you can’t really get that anywhere else. There was a time the PS2 represented a good alternative, with its wide range of genres. But the PS3 and 360 lapsed many of those genres, and thus, left behind large parts of the market, as they both raced to try and be the next bro-console. 360 won, as we know – and yet, Nintendo was the *only company in that generation to make a profit*.

        Nintendo is still, the only company with a positive warchest, and is only now, with the Wii U, for the first time, making a small loss on each Wii U sold. Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft have been hemorrhaging money like crazy with each unit sold, as they each try to buy their way into the livingroom.

        The console industry isn’t as simple as “one thing gets big, another gets smaller”. That may be one of its few saving graces, really.

  • ShockG

    Interesting insight, however it is rather drawn from an incomplete picture. 1. At no point in history were consoles more powerful than PCs. PSX, was no where near what a basic Voodoo graphics CPU could deliver, back in 1994/1995. (Texture Filtering, Goraud shading, etc). PS2 in 2000 was no different. That Emotion chip was a custom RISC processor with a unique ISA so direct comparisons with the PC once again were near impossible, but suffice to say. The 60 million polys/s number was touted for PS2 while the 150MPixel/s fill-rate was underplayed. The more important number because that’s all you can actually process and put on screen. The GeForce 256 of a year earlier was more than 3X that @ 480MPixel/s.

    This is part of the reason why PS3 ended up with a PC GPU (GeForce7). These custom solutions had proved not only expensive, but dated by the time they reached market. Supporting a custom ISA from basic metal and up with custom SDK, API etc was not viable when compared to existing GPUs that conformed to very accessible and refined standards (GL/DX etc). Any custom features you wanted in the hardware were easy to expose on such GPUs (GL_EXT_).

    When PS3 came out, GeForce 8 was out on the PC, able to do general C computing, unified shading model etc. Only the Xbox 360 had a unified GPU (in terms of pixel and vertex processors) with just 48 such shaders but could do no compute. At that time GF8 had 128 of these, that could do complex general CPU mathematics as well.

    Point is, it’s a fallacy to say at any point consoles were more powerful than PCs. It’s not true and never was true. Just the sheer number of engineers and resources dedicated to the computing world outweighed those dedicated to consoles.

    ——————————————————

    2. Hardware should never be an issue nor should it be discussed, after these upcoming consoles. We have now reached parity on the PC, XBOX and Playstation. We are essentially dealing with the same machine (they all conform to the same ISA and APIs). The differentiators have to be services they offer. Even the idea of exclusives is starting to look bogus. A service orientated business looks to be the future of consoles or whatever computing hub we may end up with in the future. It’s not important that it’s a PC or console or whatever. It just needs to be powerful enough to be a none issue and all we are concerned about are what the various subscriptions give us access to.

    Maybe it is then as you have said above, just a consolidation of these different machines into one.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Login / Search

Latest games

Latest opinions

Advertisement

Related posts

Advertisement

NAG Online on Twitter