Do longer games mean no more consoles?

[ManciGames]

So, I'm putting in another countless hour with Vice City (still the best game ever made IMHO) in anticipation of San Andreas when something occurred to me: I've really only spent quality time (more than a few hours) with a limited number of titles this year: Madden 2005, Burnout 3, KOTOR, and Vice City.

The majority of this time has been spent on Vice City, a game that was released almost two years ago. While I love the GTA III series, I've begun to wonder if this sort of open-ended environment is really such a good thing for gaming. You see a lot of other titles heading in this direction. Every game designer is touting how you'll "get 70+ hours of entertainment!" from their next project. I'm sure most of you reading this are adults who actually have to work for a living, and as such, aren't able to play games more than a few hours per week. As one of those same people, I've got to wonder how long this can continue.

Here's why: Longer games mean less games sold at retail. Less games sold at retail means lower revenue for the business in general. Now don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Gross sales might stay the same, but instead of 10 different titles selling 500,000 copies, one title sells 5,000,000. That's good for Rockstar (for example) and bad for Konami (for example).

If this trend continues, I don't see how hardware manufacturers will want to stay in business to support a few key titles each year. Could it be that one day each game manufacturer will actually sell it's proprietary console with its own games? It kind of makes sense. If the only game I'm going to play all year is Vice City, why do I need an XBOX? On the flipside, why does Microsoft want to sell me units at a loss just so they can make marginal revenue on the licensing fees paid by Rockstar?

Who knows... Maybe this is crazy talk. I've read many articles over the last couple of years detailing the shrinking variety of games. Everyone talks about how games cost so much money to produce nowadays and how only a select few developers will be able to continue to make them. Then I read a story in EGM that says there are over 100 games coming out in the next 3 months alone. 100 games in 3 months! Sure doesn't sound like a shortage to me.

So, maybe people are still buying other games besides Madden, GTA and their ilk. Maybe there is room for the smaller games. That's one of the reasons I wish there was a good place to get a "Top 100 List" of units sold on a weekly basis.

What do you guys think? Will there come a time when hardware manufacturers realize that they are doing nothing but churning out consoles for a loss, while the 3rd party pubs rake in all the cash? Will we see game specific consoles? Don't laugh. We already have them in some form: www.jakkstvgames.com

[chadtower]

I think the viewpoint is narrow and doesn't reflect reality. The GameCube has a LOT of high quality, huge selling first party games. Sony didn't get into this business to make games and neither did Microsoft. Their business plans fully support the market as it currently stands or else they would never have started development on future hardware.

Just because there are titles that are open ended doesn't mean that's all there is to play. I know a lot of people who have never played the GTA games nor plan to play them. I admit I don't use them as much as other consoles (e.g. Saturn) but I do own both a PS2 and a GC and none of the games I've ever bought fit the mold of the games you wrote about.

[ManciGames]

Just because there are titles that are open ended doesn't mean that's all there is to play. I know a lot of people who have never played the GTA games nor plan to play them. I admit I don't use them as much as other consoles (e.g. Saturn) but I do own both a PS2 and a GC and none of the games I've ever bought fit the mold of the games you wrote about.

I'm not saying that there aren't other titles available. I'm just wondering how many of those titles actually get purchased. There's no getting around the math. Let's say the average gamer spends 250 hours per year on games. Back in the 8-Bit (and most 16-Bit) days, you might spend 5 to 6 hours on one title. Heck, you could beat the first Sonic or Mario in under an hour or two. So, 250 divided by 6 equals 41 possible games finished.

Now, let's look at 2004. Say you spend 70 hours on Vice City, 70 hours on Madden 2005, and 60 hours on FF X (and let's not even get into MMORPGs like FF XI), that leaves you with 50 more hours to play other games. Even action games today average around 15 to 20 hours, so you'll get to play maybe 3 more games. That's a total of 6 games...as opposed to 41.

I understand that *you* specifically don't like the longer winded games, but obviously America in general does, as they are reguarly the highest selling titles.

So, it comes down to this: Do smaller niche games still sell (and the mags are just lying to us), or will we one day face a reality of 10 games released per year. That's extreme, but do you get my point?

[dethink]

i doubt that will happen, but you do bring up an interesting point i have been noticing all along - with a lot of these new games, lots of people i know own a console just to play ONE game. i owned a PS2 just for GT3. another friend of mine has one only for the latest version of madden, another only for GT and GTA3/VC...

what i would LOVE to see is a dedicated console for really big titles like gran turismo, where it's basically a console with the ROM built in, and a HD for downloadable content. spend a couple years making it, get it as realistic looking and behaving as possible, then turn it over to the end users - build a good online community, and release regular updates, both fan and publisher created. a game like GT SCREAMS for downloadable content, especially with the incredibly long dev time. i'd love a GT-box. i'd pay a good chunk of change for one ($200+) were it well done, and offered the sort of "endless" game they keep teasing people with.

however, the current trend in electronics for the forseeable future is all this digital hub/lifestyle BS where you have one all-in-one machine. your cable box already can replace your VCR, movie rental joint, etc. soon your phone will be your phone, walkman, game boy, camera, etc. just short of a full on laptop, and it won't be half-assed superficial bling like it is right now. look at all the potential in a modded xbox - you can store almost any form of entertainment media on it and have it all in one place. this is the future of home entertainment on all fronts, like it or not. you're going to have your computer, phone, and set-top box to cover everything.

[ManciGames]

what i would LOVE to see is a dedicated console for really big titles like gran turismo, where it's basically a console with the ROM built in, and a HD for downloadable content. spend a couple years making it, get it as realistic looking and behaving as possible, then turn it over to the end users - build a good online community, and release regular updates, both fan and publisher created. a game like GT SCREAMS for downloadable content, especially with the incredibly long dev time. i'd love a GT-box. i'd pay a good chunk of change for one ($200+) were it well done, and offered the sort of "endless" game they keep teasing people with.

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I was thinking about the same price range too. If you could get it down to about $150, I think you'd be onto something. I'd bet that a lot of people would pay $150 for a photo-realistic driving simulator with additional future content in the works. Consoles work so well because, unlike PCs, they are dedicated to just playing games. Imagine a console dedicated to playing ONE game.


however, the current trend in electronics for the forseeable future is all this digital hub/lifestyle BS where you have one all-in-one machine. <snip> look at all the potential in a modded xbox - you can store almost any form of entertainment media on it and have it all in one place. this is the future of home entertainment on all fronts, like it or not. you're going to have your computer, phone, and set-top box to cover everything.

Ya know, you're right. I hadn't even considered the trend in "one stop shopping." On the flip-side, we keep hearing about how much cash Microsoft loses on each XBOX sold. So, no matter how much consumers like to use it to record shows, play bootlegged EMUs, or watch movies, they still aren't making any cash off of it. For a console to continue to produce profit in this realm, they are going to have to find a way for the hardware itself to generate revenue...and by then I doubt we'll still call them "video game consoles."

[Gamereviewgod]

That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I was thinking about the same price range too. If you could get it down to about $150, I think you'd be onto something. I'd bet that a lot of people would pay $150 for a photo-realistic driving simulator with additional future content in the works. Consoles work so well because, unlike PCs, they are dedicated to just playing games. Imagine a console dedicated to playing ONE game.

$150 for one game? Come on now, you can do pretty much the same thing now. Regular updates of sports games are common and I'm pretty sure games like Turismo aren't far behind. I would NEVER pay that much for something that plays one game. There's nothing wrong with the current gen of consoles and the way they update. Besides, how long would it take for the market to be flooded by "me-too's?" The entire idea is absurd.

Why would even want a console like that? I see your point about the current gen of games being to long, but that's gotta be one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas.

[Sylentwulf]

I've never had a problem finding long games. I spent FAR MORE TIME on dragon warrior IV than I EVER have on any of the GTA games.
Shortest game I can remember playing recently is Katamari. Now THAT is a short game. Longest one being DW7 which was just over 100 hours.

Truth is, I could still be playing Madden 98 in season mode 6 years later if I really WANTED to, without running out of things to do. Nothing's changed.

[ManciGames]

$150 for one game? Come on now, you can do pretty much the same thing now. Regular updates of sports games are common and I'm pretty sure games like Turismo aren't far behind. I would NEVER pay that much for something that plays one game. There's nothing wrong with the current gen of consoles and the way they update. Besides, how long would it take for the market to be flooded by "me-too's?" The entire idea is absurd.

But, people DO pay that much for one game already. Steel Batallion comes to mind pretty quickly. So does Samba for Dreamcast



Why would even want a console like that? I see your point about the current gen of games being to long, but that's gotta be one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas.

Why? Because you could fine tune the thing to run just one game. With dedicated hardware, you could do pretty much whatever you wanted, within reason of course. I'll bet that there are off-the-shelf parts that are out right now that would enable a company to put together a game that's far beyond the current gen of consoles if they were able to just focus everything on that one game.

[ManciGames]

I've never had a problem finding long games. I spent FAR MORE TIME on dragon warrior IV than I EVER have on any of the GTA games.
Shortest game I can remember playing recently is Katamari. Now THAT is a short game. Longest one being DW7 which was just over 100 hours.

Truth is, I could still be playing Madden 98 in season mode 6 years later if I really WANTED to, without running out of things to do. Nothing's changed.

But things *have* changed. Remember when everybody cried because Sly Cooper was "only" 8 hours long? What about Devil May Cry? People complained that it was "only" 12 hours long. Of course there's always been long games (you could play Asteroids on the 2600 forever, if ya wanted), but my point is that it seems like larger companies are now feeling the need to make every game longer than the last one.

[Sylentwulf]

That's because the games people complain about have NO replayability at ALL.

Most shorter games before that were because, for example, Atari games had high scores to beat. Then there's the issue of Hardware and software limits. It's expected that games are a certain length now, because they're on CD/DVD since the PS1. Noone expects a long NES game, the carts could only hold so much. Now, storage isn't an issue at ALL, there's no excuse to have either a replayable game, or a long game. RPG's may be 40 hours long, but not many people are EVER going to play them more than once.

[Gamereviewgod]

But, people DO pay that much for one game already. Steel Batallion comes to mind pretty quickly. So does Samba for Dreamcast

Yeah, but Steel Battalion comes with the coolest controller ever as does Samba Di Amigo (though it's optional here and you can get some 3rd party ones cheap).


Why? Because you could fine tune the thing to run just one game. With dedicated hardware, you could do pretty much whatever you wanted, within reason of course. I'll bet that there are off-the-shelf parts that are out right now that would enable a company to put together a game that's far beyond the current gen of consoles if they were able to just focus everything on that one game.

But in theory, you could do that for a console as well if companies would just take the time do so. Have you seen some of the games coming down the line for this gen? Now is when the consoles hit their stride and we could get a game like you think we could have, but on a console we already own. I highly doubt the difference would be that dramatic and of course the key here is: gameplay.

Sure, it will look better, but will it play differently enough to warrant a $150 purchase? Can Gran Turismo really change that much? Why wouldn't we just wait for the next generation of consoles that's coming down the line in a few years (way too soon IMO) to get a wide variety of games. We could get 3 games for the price of your one.

[Half Japanese]

That's because the games people complain about have NO replayability at ALL.

Since Sly Cooper was one of the games referenced, I'd like to see you complete all the master thief sprints through the levels....


Also, why would you want a dedicated console for one game? I understand that it could be fine-tuned, but such a premise would kill small publishers and stifle innovation. The biggest thing with consoles is convenience. I like being able to pop out Shinobi and put in Gitaroo Man. I don't like hooking up consoles constantly. Once I hook them up they stay put unless something drastic happens. Methinks this is an idea whose time will NEVER come.

[ManciGames]

Can Gran Turismo really change that much? Why wouldn't we just wait for the next generation of consoles that's coming down the line in a few years (way too soon IMO) to get a wide variety of games. We could get 3 games for the price of your one.

Okay, using GT as a specific example, yeah, there's a whole lot more that could change. I'll just use real-time deformation and control deterioration for starters.

But, I don't think you're factoring the other side of my arguement. You could indeed get three games for my one, but my point is: what if there were only three games in total available? Again, that's extreme, but my original point was that games are becoming so long that there is going to come a time when people will only be able to play and complete 3 or 4 a year. And no *hardware* manufacturer is going to be able to make money of off that type of system.

[ManciGames]

Since Sly Cooper was one of the games referenced, I'd like to see you complete all the master thief sprints through the levels....


Boooooorrrriiiiiinnnng.



Also, why would you want a dedicated console for one game? I understand that it could be fine-tuned, but such a premise would kill small publishers and stifle innovation. The biggest thing with consoles is convenience. I like being able to pop out Shinobi and put in Gitaroo Man. I don't like hooking up consoles constantly. Once I hook them up they stay put unless something drastic happens. Methinks this is an idea whose time will NEVER come.

You'll have to re-read the original post. We're not really saying that we *want* a dedicated console for one game. We're saying that as games become longer, people will buy less games, which will lead to less money for platform companies like MS and Sony, which may lead to them exiting the hardware biz. We've already seen Sega take a hike. It's not that far fetched...

[chadtower]

You'll have to re-read the original post. We're not really saying that we *want* a dedicated console for one game. We're saying that as games become longer, people will buy less games, which will lead to less money for platform companies like MS and Sony, which may lead to them exiting the hardware biz. We've already seen Sega take a hike. It's not that far fetched...

I still strongly disagree. I know a lot of people who don't want those loger games and pick up the shorter games like Pac Man World and other platformers. You've only talked about one sort of game and one sort of gamer. I would never invest a single dollar into a game that takes me 70 hours to complete. It's a waste of my time. Yet here I am, buying games, and I'm not extinct. And there are thousands of gamers just like me...

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm not saying that there aren't other titles available. I'm just wondering how many of those titles actually get purchased. There's no getting around the math. Let's say the average gamer spends 250 hours per year on games. Back in the 8-Bit (and most 16-Bit) days, you might spend 5 to 6 hours on one title. Heck, you could beat the first Sonic or Mario in under an hour or two. So, 250 divided by 6 equals 41 possible games finished.
I don't agree with your ultimate conclusion but this math is pretty sound.

Two things. First off, people would pay BIG money back in the day -more than we pay for games now - for LESS play time per game.

My personal conclusion is that game companies should make high quality game engines, high quality production value assets (artwork, music, frontend), and put it in a SHORT game. Hopefully XNA and like philosophies/bandwagon sales techniques will get the ball rolling on this.

[RetroYoungen]

You'll have to re-read the original post. We're not really saying that we *want* a dedicated console for one game. We're saying that as games become longer, people will buy less games, which will lead to less money for platform companies like MS and Sony, which may lead to them exiting the hardware biz. We've already seen Sega take a hike. It's not that far fetched...

If I remember correctly, the reason Sega pulled out of the hardware business is because so many gamers remembered the Sega CD and 32X, then later on were a bit scared off by the Saturn. That doesn't mean so many games on the Dreamcast were really drawn out (they seemed to me to be pretty easy to pick up, play for a few minutes and put back down).

But what I think about your original points is this: There are a lot of games that can be played forever if the player wanted to, like the Madden games and Gran Tourismo, that's absolutely true. But there are the rivals to those games because each one provides a different experience, for example Gran Tourismo compared to Burnout 3. Then, add to that all the different stories told in games like Final Fantasy and Lunar, and there's plenty of reason to use one system to handle it all instead of having one game made for one unit.

Also, if those single games were regulated to a single unit, people might only buy them once, leaving companies like Microsoft and Sony in the position you brought up earlier of not making any more money. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it.

[Fungus]

So the theory is is that the more time a player spends on one game, the less he or she is compelled to purchase another game?

Y'know what? Not finishing a game has NEVER kept me from buying more games. Also, holding onto my favorite games that I constantly go back to has also not kept me from buying new ones. I'm still currently in the middle of KOTOR, but I'm not telling myself to stay away from Halo 2.

Essentially, just because a game is long doesn't mean that I've scratched my gaming itch.

Heck, sometimes, if the gameplay rocks, I spend more time on short games because I'd rather play those over and over again rather than go through a 40 hr. RPG more than once.

[dethink]

yeah, a dedicated console is a dumb idea in most cases, but EVERY car enthusiast in america would line up around the block for a GT-box.

honesly, how much has the object of racing changed lately? whereas typical video game fare wouldn't work as well, downloadable cars and tracks with a good online community with a solid graphics/physics foundation would literally be infinite in it's replay value for a racing game.

look at how much replay value is in something like F355 challenge if you really want to master the game. that's just one car and a handful of tracks.

[Berserker]

In the end, I think there will always be a market for games both long and short, though the longer games do seem more popular at the moment.

This may sound crazy, but I believe that "cartridge" style games and consoles ultimately have the greatest potential for expandability, and it hasn't even come close to being fully realized yet. Think about it. As cost for components go down, and the technology bar keeps being steadily raised, in the future a return to the cartridge would make more sense than you might think. Granted, component costs would have to still be significantly lower than they are now, but at the rate things are going, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. What I'm thinking of would be consoles that are more or less bare-bones ports, whose sole purpose would be to transfer the signal from the cartridge into a picture on the screen, nothing more. All of the hardware and technology would be contained on the cartridge itself. Now, in the age of cpu's and even video cards requiring several fans and what-have-you just to remain at operable temperatures, this wouldn't even be close to feasible nowadays, but with more compact and efficient cooling systems already starting to pop up, ultimately such a concept would just end up making more and more sense.

Of course, this would basically take the responsibility off of the console developers' shoulders, placing it solely on that of the game developers', which carries with it the possibility of a large flux in quality control, i.e. one game might suffer because it was made with poorer hardware, etc. But think of the possibilities of such a thing. This would basically level the playing field on all sides. You might be just as likely to play a retro-style 2d game as you would be to play the latest bump-mapped 3d shooter, all from the same console, not to mention the possibility for 100% perfect hardware ports of older console and arcade games. The console itself would move back from the limelight, playing more of a behind-the-scenes role in delivering you the games. Of course, this wouldn't hurt it's profit potential as much as you might think. Such an open-ended console, backed by the right games to start, has the potential to sell steadily on an almost unimaginable scale, with a minimum of cost to the manufacturer, as well as an almost non-existant need for upgrade. To make up for this, they might have to focus their own attention back to where it used to be - on the games themselves.

So there it is. This is my dream, and I can honestly see it happening at some point in the future, however near or distant.


-Wow, this post ended up being much, much longer than initially planned. So be it!

[Castelak]

I just thought of something when you guys were discussing length being a driving factor. MMORPGs are hands down the longest games avaliable, I could totally imagine future production of deticated-MMORPG systems for around 100-150 dollars. Granted, PCs pretty much already do that, but this would be cheaper. The catch would be that the online RPG would have to be so much greater than all others out. I'm sure if they only made EQ2 on a deticated console people would buy it anyways. ^^;

[YoshiM]

On the concept of dedicated consoles: so we roll back the industry back to the 70's? Doubt it would ever go back to that as a mainstream means of playing games. It would be worse for the industry as the return of investment would be less as a company would have to pony up for the hardware as well as software development.

Games advertised as being longer has been around since the late 80's through the early 90's. RPGs aside, when you page through old issues of EGM you'll see that the number of levels were included in the header of a game review. Why? Good indicator on how long the game was. Games like Super Mario World were praised for having 90+ levels. I'm sure that was one heckuva time sink. So the concept of longer games isn't a new one, it's just being reemphasized due to the consumer backlash on really short $40-$50 games.

You also have to take into consideration that not everyone dedicates all their efforts into one game these days. Overall the common gamer may put in about 40 to 60 hours or more on GTA but that doesn't mean they may take a break for some Madden or Burnout 3 from time to time. Even in our diehard community there are people that kinda complain that they have so many games they have that haven't had the plastic popped open on some of them yet. Games are still being purchased, just not being played. I know a few people locally that will buy a game when it comes out and just wait until they have more time to dedicate to it or after they play out a particular title. You have to also remember that all games have save modes so a person can always widdle away at a game whenever they want without having to start over.

So longer games being bad for the industry in general? Naw.

[Ed Oscuro]

This may sound crazy, but I believe that "cartridge" style games and consoles ultimately have the greatest potential for expandability, and it hasn't even come close to being fully realized yet.
I agree that cartridge style expansions haven't been used recently, but there's a reason for that.

The ONLY inherent advantage a cartridge has over other systems is increased throughput between the system and the cartridge, better than even hard discs can provide. Newer systems with better buffering in the drive are eating away at this benefit, however, and if you have so much data cached, it doesn't matter if it originally came off a disc or a ROM - it'll get there just as fast either way.

Now you're thinking that cartridges have space inside for better graphics chips, more RAM etc. Oh boy, what an awful design decision! Not only is everything far away from the system's processor, but needing to use the same connector to access expansion chips and access cartridge ROM means that parallel processing is messed up, if indeed it's still possible in such an environment.

The main CPU waits for the results of something an expansion chip was working on and then must go back to ROM for more data (I assume a system that uses a peripheral will just use results in RAM and stay away from needless cartridge ROM accesses, but as you see this is severely limiting the speed of such an "enhancement"). There's the final problem of cartridges costing more, and the expansion being very much not permanent - you can't buy the Super FX chip just once and use it on every SNES game.

The better solution is to make an expansion port - like the NES had - and use that, leaving the cartridge slot free to access data like it's supposed to and hopefully eliminating a lot of needless cache flush. This is essentially the same idea behind slots for expansion boards in a personal computer.