Topic: Game systems are not irrelevant. Here's why...

[tendoboy1984]

People have been calling for the death of game consoles ever since the PC became a popular way to play games. Despite the rise of PC's as capable gaming machines, the console market persevered. Now the same thing is happening again with the rise of mobile devices (smartphones and tablets).

But it seems everyone is missing a rather large point:
Video game systems have always been niche products. (This is especially true when talking about handhelds)

The only game systems to ever sell over 100 million units were the PS2 and the DS. Now everyone thinks that if a game system sells less than that, it's considered a failure. They'll use that excuse to say "well there is no need for game consoles anymore, they can't even sell more than the PS2." Which is, of course, a very strange proposition. Since when did "100 million sold" become the standard for success? Most game systems barely sold over 60 million, yet they were still considered successful.

And now we come to smartphones... A phone is a necessity in today's world; everyone has one. That's why they get more developer support. Apple cracked open a huge window of opportunity for game developers and consumers, with the invention of the iPhone and App Store. Now everyone is rushing to capture that market. We've since seen competition from Google and Microsoft, making the mobile gaming market even bigger. But eventually that bubble might burst. Oversaturation of the market will cause people to be overwhelmed with the amount of choices available (too many games, not enough time to play them).

Mobile games offer a nice, quick diversion for people living a hectic lifestyle, but the games will never match the complexity of a playing a game in front of a large TV screen. For one thing, these mobile devices don't have any buttons. Now I know some will say "but then developers can customize their own button layouts", which is good. But then there's a lack of tactile input, which is essential for certain games (shooters, platformers, fighting games, action games, etc.).

As for the actual "smartphones vs handhelds" debate, it's rather pointless to argue about it. We're comparing a phone (which pretty much everyone needs these days), to a handheld gaming system (which is essentially a toy). As I stated above, game systems have always been niche products.

People could use that same argument for the "PC vs console" debate.
Why buy a game console when PC's can do all that and more?

Yet here we are, PC's and console coexisting peacefully. Why can't mobile devices and handhelds also coexist?

[nickmitch]

Game systems are not irrelevant because I own some and plan on buying more of them. I'm also not alone in this.

[azeke]

Why buy a game console when PC's can do all that and more?

But can it play Uncharted?

[Morari]

Why buy a game console when PC's can do all that and more?

I wonder this all the time. It basically just comes down to consumer laziness. Having to plug in more than two cables strains at a lot of people's minds. Couple that with persisting myths of upgrade cycles and compatibility problems and your average person doesn't even consider breaking out of the console market. It's a shame, really. Everyone already has a PC sitting at home just yearning to be used to its full potential.

[Oblivion]

Not this fucking argument again. Consoles have exclusives, very fun exclusives, and I will play my games on whatever the hell I want. It is not consumer laziness. If that was the case, why hasn't it always been like this? Why has PC development slowed to a halt?

[Do_What]

PC game development hasn't slowed down, actually.

[NWR_insanolord]

Major titles have, or at least have gone to consoles being the lead platform. The indie scene is thriving, though.

[Do_What]

Yeah, but a lot of companies that even use consoles as lead platforms are back to putting work into the PC ports. It was bad a few years ago, but things have turned around a great deal.

[lolmonade]

I'm not going to read that wall of text, but here's a counter-question:  Are there any trends currently to imply that game systems ARE irrelevant?  Based on what I know, I thought consoles were the prevalent medium for "AAA" games, whereas PCs are sort of emerging as this fertile ground for indie developers.

[Ian Sane]

I played a lot of PC games in the 90s, back when pretty much any new PC from the store was capable of playing the latest games.  These days it's very easy to buy a brand new PC that can't run current games worth a **** because it lacks a good enough graphics card.  Remember that in the 2D days Windows' graphics were on par with the current games.  If I had something that could render File Manager, it could render Populous or Lemmings.  That just made things easier.

But of course you follow the games.  Sure I had a PC at the time that could play some amazing games but if I wanted to play Super Mario World I had to get a Super Nintendo.  The Wii was totally outdated hardware but it had some exclusive games people wanted to play so it sold like gangbusters.

What I'm afraid of regarding smartphones isn't that consoles will be replaced but rather that the companies will follow the money.  Gaming was niche back when there was no lucrative mainstream market to go after.  We saw Nintendo chase the mainstream dollar and I didn't like it.  I feel it has compromised their work.  This last gen, the Japanese console output has not been nearly as good as it used to be and part of it is that in Japan handhelds are king so the better Japanese stuff is going there.

There is a market that can support consoles but Sony, MS and Nintendo might not want to bother with that group if they feel that they can make a bigger buck with the mainstream.  The problem isn't that our demographic isn't profitable but rather that we're just smaller than the mainstream.  A lot of these companies won't give a **** if they just make casual mainstream fluff and cut the core gamer market out if they get rich doing so.  There will always be a market for consoles but it just depends on whether anyone wants to bother with that market.

[tendoboy1984]

I'm not going to read that wall of text, but here's a counter-question:  Are there any trends currently to imply that game systems ARE irrelevant?  Based on what I know, I thought consoles were the prevalent medium for "AAA" games, whereas PCs are sort of emerging as this fertile ground for indie developers.

Smartphones and tablets. Them analysts say it's deh footure!


By consoles, I mean all dedicated game machines, including handhelds.

[lolmonade]

I'm not going to read that wall of text, but here's a counter-question:  Are there any trends currently to imply that game systems ARE irrelevant?  Based on what I know, I thought consoles were the prevalent medium for "AAA" games, whereas PCs are sort of emerging as this fertile ground for indie developers.

Smartphones and tablets. Them analysts say it's deh footure!


By consoles, I mean all dedicated game machines, including handhelds.

I hardly read any gaming news, so I don't base my comments on reading analyst opinions.

Do I think handhelds will go the way of the dinosaur?  No.  But I don't think any handhelds will reach the same market saturation the DS enjoyed.  The only kids I know who have a DS are people who got them as hand-me-downs, and instead of asking for a 3DS, they're wanting an ipod touch. 

Core gamers will keep the handheld market propped-up, but I think that until the 3DS becomes an impulse buy price, or Nintendo catches fire with a game that's considered must-have by casual gamers, people like my niece and nephew aren't going to want one when they have a device that'll play music and games that are much cheaper than $20+.

[MrPhishfood]

This thread reminds me of a stupid question someone asked Iwata during a shareholders meeting (well not really a question)

I worry about the stock's falling price. I own stocks, but I do not own a single Nintendo product. I think gaming is a waste of time. This is a digression, but the reason why I own Nintendo stocks is because the company name is good, it's located in Kyoto, and the stock's listing was the year I was born.

Here's the link

[tendoboy1984]

This thread reminds me of a stupid question someone asked Iwata during a shareholders meeting (well not really a question)

I worry about the stock's falling price. I own stocks, but I do not own a single Nintendo product. I think gaming is a waste of time. This is a digression, but the reason why I own Nintendo stocks is because the company name is good, it's located in Kyoto, and the stock's listing was the year I was born.

Here's the link

Wow. If the guy thinks gaming is a waste of time, then he has no business being part of Nintendo's shareholders. I know he's in it for the money, but he shouldn't invest in something he has no interest in.

[toddra]

I have been on the fence with this for a couple of years myself, going back and forth. I have an iphone instead of a 3DS even though I have owned every previous Nintendo handheld to date including both versions of the original DS and all of the different Gameboys. I agree that PC's are moving away from traditional desktop machines to more portable laptops and tablets but even that is still a long ways off. I don't think gaming in general is going to disappear forever, I do think it will dwindle back down to early 90's levels though, which can not sustain the current model which would force someone, be is Sony, or MS, to bow out. To be honest WiiU is the first game console since Gamecube I am excited for, Wii I had some high hopes for but I had a bad feeling about it going in.