I will start this post off with a story. I used to live in Edmonton Alberta Canada. While there I heard an interesting story of 2 country ho-down joints that were open in the 70's early 80's
One was in the city outskirts, say a 15 minute drive, and the other was 45 minutes away in a small town called Onoway. The place built in Onoway was beautiful, on a lakefront, the structural beams were designed and engineered to replicate the inside of a ship. The beams themselves were rumored to be $100k each and there were 12 of them and don't forget to count for inflation. There was a beautiful dance floor, restaurant, even reserved BBQ pits with world class ventilation so you can cook your own food and enjoy live entertainment from the likes of Johnny Cash and a slew of other big names that played there. The in city one was nice and enjoyable but typical foray in to a country honky tonk.
With the opening of the club in Onoway, Edmonton citizens were were split on which club to go to. It may seem as if it is a no-brainer Onoway is the clear winner. Which at first was the case. In response, the city club started to try to book more guests offer more promotions and what not. The problems occurred when the more wealthy went to Onoway, and the less wealthy to the city one. Drunk driving came with both, those driving home from outta town and those in the city. Fights were more common in the city club while police could not patrol the highway to Onoway and crashes were common. Many people did not want to go to the city one cause it wasn't Onoway, but they didn't want to risk getting killed driving home. In an area with almost a million people, the phrase "this town ain't big enough for the two of us" applied. Alberta is the Texas of the North, country music is beloved. Both businesses had to close.
I feel this is similar in our world of video games. We have three main console makers. We have numerous mobile markets. We have burgeoning android consoles and occulus rift. Everyone wants to join a pretty stuffed market. And this is not something like fast food, where spending ten dollars to try a new restaurant a few times is a nice experience. WE as gamers need to make a choice of a console, then we need to supply that console with games to play. And even though there are more consoles in homes than ever before video game purchases are consistently down.
Using the next gen as an example: My wife ordered me the PS4, with just one game she is spending 460$ plus a 12% sales tax. Now I can continue to spend my money on Ps4 games, but the new Remedy game looks so sweet I may just have to play it. If I buy the X1 and that game, that is 560$ not going to my Playstation library. That is almost 10 games! That is my choice but it isn't an easy one. The risk for Remedy is that they are partnering with only 70 million consoles (assuming equal number X1's are sold as 360's) instead of the combined 140 or 150 if they mulitplatform. Know she already bought me a WiiU last year.
In the Ps2 era with one clear dominating console the industry took more risk on games and they had an install base that topped 150 million.(If you want examples I will give them if you ask but I am sure you know many) Now that people are divided publisher's budget has to include multiplatform versions of their games, and publishers want us playing those games for longer because more systems mean more games on different consoles competing. They start to siphon more money from us in order to keep relevant through DLC and Microtransactions. The result is an industry that takes less risks, that shutters more studios if they "underperform" which in this day and age doesn't even mean they failed to break even.
Like those going to the honky tonks, the attention of most gamers is divided. The opportunity for us to purchase more has dwindled because of the investments in other consoles. We don't have enough money to pay for experimenting with games, and publishers spend more money on more marketing and spin instead of interesting concept games. And only the most successful are considered profitable.
The Console wars has also not made more creative measures within consoles. Just look at the XBOX 180, they originally came out with new risky ideas, a few were good like family sharing, but now PS4 and ONE are near identical save for a T.V feature that few particularly care for.(I do not count Kinect because I am certain PSEYE can do typically everything Kinect does, the software has been around for a decade for at home webcams).
The exclusives that are released are generally first party and are usually top of the line AAA for all consoles. But where is the room for third party devs who make niche games if the majority of gamers are just waiting for the next big shooter or adventure exclusives on their multiple consoles? So publishers have to take niche and creativity and water it down to reach a broader audience in order to make the budget for mulitplat and multiplayer possible. That is why EA has changed the 3rd installments of DEAD SPACE and MASS EFFECT so far away from their original concepts.
In the past generations of console wars there has always been a loser that had to drop out and either release a new console early hoping to capitalize on the increased capabilities or simply quit the console race altogether. This last Gen though, all three did well, and though there have been great experiences a common thread was that creativity has been watered down. The Pursuit of Call of Duty numbers is the key many believe. Again if there are more consoles in people's homes than ever before why do we still see the same old news?
See article:
http://bgr.com/2013/06/18/v...
I propose one console has to go, I particularly think Xbox. Not because I hate Xbox and its games, I have owned both generations and own 12 games for 360, but because I believe Microsoft simply saw a market to make money in. They have thrown massive sums from their deep pockets and often are looking to simply make a return on the investment which has been excessive. They have done this by charging for any internet use on their system. They offer peanut rewards for their loyal customers, including myself, I have been a yearly xbox live member since 2007 or 08 and many others since the beginning. The xbox180 shows that they wish to push a detrimental change on people. When they received complaints they ignored them and even haughtily responded back with 'keep your 360'. (I realize that Sony said work 2 jobs, and though ultimately a mistake, I think they were proud of the PS3's power and didn't want to compromise on quality, just look at THE LAST OF US) It wasn't until the pre order numbers came in did they realize people weren't stupid. Instead of compromising, say by still having family share on digitally purchased games, they simply took all the options back. They have reversed their position on indie games after it became hot button. They also pass off KINECT as something they came up with but the the PSEYE has been around since PS2. Microsoft has always been about excessive control and nickel and diming. I look at the new Microsoft Office 365, it is now 99$ a year. Before it was $149 for students and home users and you had a program updated regularly for years until they released a new version. And please cloud storing your documents? I had that with Hotmail in 1999. Sent myself school assignments and stuff instead of using floppy discs etc..
Every Game company makes mistakes. Look at Nintendo and marketing the WiiU. Look at the Development times and early marketing for the PS3 and currently the Vita, (Vita support has been disgusting). The difference, I feel, exist between them and Microsoft? The majority of people in these companies have been in the industry to make games from the land that revolutionized the industry and have given us many of the franchises today. Nintendo even more so and have taken by far more risks with new ways to play for decades. Some failed, many have succeeded.
I watched the MGS4 blu-ray making of Disc that came with the special edition again. You can tell that people like Kojima-san feel it an honor to their craft, to compromise if the player is not having fun but to make the game he envisions to be what TACTICAL ESPIONAGE ACTION IS. In contrast Capcom has stated that they want a more Western approach. Look where that has us, a sub par Resident Evil 6, no new Megaman, on disc DLC the list goes on. Square Enix currently has this problem too. I believe Microsoft helps embody the Western mentality.
If Microsoft doesn't drop out ( for the record I know they won't) I believe Nintendo, that's right Nintendo, should buy stakes or partner with their software with Sony Computer Entertainment division and close the old wounds. It is unlikely that will happen within Japanese business culture with how Nintendo treated Sony before the PSX release. If it did happen then a better equilibrium would be found for home entertainment. One where I would gladly have my NintenStation next to my XBOX something oddly named device.
I am tired of the console wars, I am tired of the Games that I play being compared in performance to other consoles. Or not being able to play games I want to play because I have to buy up to 3 new systems, make choices between this game or that game on the three systems, or scrounge to borrow one. The competition has become too "me too" and has, like all mainstream entertainment, become about profits and shareholders. I know that some can point the finger back at me and say "Be content!" I do not necessarily disagree, but where there are great games is where I want to be.
There are other arguments, like why does almost every console game release need to be 60$? If we had more big name publishers would there be more variety? Certainly those are factors.
In Conclusion our divided attention means less money makes it to the companies involved, and thus we see the changes we see today taking place from the DLC, Microtransactions etc... to improve profits. Companies are failing to realize that with more eaters there is less pie for everyone and instead of working toward getting us to Switch Sides they are trying to make up ways to get revenue which in some cases are almost underhanded. Third party publishers often sell less because cause few can buy anything but big name AAA titles, and because of several first party games that push the boundaries of systems, they can be overlooked. I would prefer Microsoft to go because of their larger number of nickel and dime policies but if any console shut down I know I can adjust and the vast majority of the games I play would migrate. Microsoft would just need A competitor to keep them honest, and the people to not become complacent.
Lukejlr
(NOTE I do believe that good has come from the competition, but the title asked does it "always". Also if the article seems a little disjointed I wrote it while trying to play with my son and get him to sleep, subsequent ones will get better. please lend your feedback)
Thanks to Call of Duty HQ, the early weapons list for Black Ops 7 has been unearthed, and it gives further evidence of wallruning returning.
A hands-on look at this upcoming acrobatic third-person sci-fi shooter.
Resident Evil Requiem first story details, info about Grace Ashcroft and Raccoon City officially revealed.
DLC and online subscriptions so my answer would be know competition isnt always good.
I agree.
Competition is usually good, but there's too much competition now in the games industry.
Fortunately I think we might see a similar repeat of the PS2 golden era. There's lot of reports that PS4 pre orders are well ahead of the X1s.
As a result I see more developer support for the PS4 and more risk taking.
I still agree that MS has definitely kept Sony on their toes and as a result they've continually improved the PS3 and have made every right decision with the PS4. However, MS has still brought a lot of negatives into the industry and I have to wonder if they industry would be much better off if they went away.
nope competition is greati think we have a perfect amount of consoles which is 3 as one will almost always try to be different and the other 2 will in a different way.
the xbox one is a perfect example of competition is good but because sony was crushing them not to mention the consumer backlash they had to back track on a lot of things which you have sony to thank for.
xbox fans should be very grateful to sony as now the xbox one looks a half decent proposition and its because sony made the right moves and microsoft had to follow them or go find a corner to die in.
"Competition is good for the industry" is too broad of a phrase. I think we can all agree that if competition from, say, Candy Crush was causing all AAA games to tank, that would not be competition that we'd like to see.
Personally, I think gaming in the 80s and 90s thrived because competition was tangible, practical, real due to the arcades. See a game, it looks cool, drop a quarter, the game is mediocre, shuffle 6 feet down the column and play a different game. In order to be a viable game company, you had to make games that LOOKED fun, that PLAYED fun, and that STAYED fun enough to keep you hooked. That mentality nowadays is gone, which is why so many devs try to cover up their game's inadequacies with QTEs, cutscenes, and "turret sequences".
There's too much competition in gaming period. I wouldn't say so if it were just the 3 consoles but with PC, mobile, indie, handhelds and more I can definately say that either someone needs to leave or the industry needs to diversify gaming more between all its different facets. Anyone remember the 90's? Neo Geo, 3DO, Turbographix 16, Jaguar, 32X, Virtual Boy, Tiger GAME (I think tha's what it was called...) and many others came and then got the F@#% out cause the market couldn't sustain them. It's the same now, the market can't sustain itself, the body is too big for the legs to function so the fat has to be cut. I hope it's MS that goes as well, but I could just as easily deal with a mobile crash, or at least those crap games you can play with a TV remote from your cable provider...I mean really WHO PLAYS THAT S^#* ANYWAY!