The tired old question comes back....recession or what?

[swlovinist]

I know, for quite some time many of us "old timers" have been scratching our heads trying to figure out what the hell the game industry is doing, and what it is doing to continue to rake in trillions of dollars. On one hand, you have the positive side in which the market seems to be able to support three main consoles, as well as a growing portable industry. There is, however a darker side to the industry that has been lurking for some time. Many gamers(such as myself) thought that 2004 was going to be a year of recession, only to be very very wrong. 2004 was a very sold gaming year, in which many different companines thrived and were able to financially succeed. A possible truth is that the future may look different with several factors to be involved(Rising Development costs, Game saturation, Lackluster gameplay innovation, expensive pricepoints). This topic has come up before, but not "right now" during the Spring of 2005 and on. Who here has an opinion either way? Is 2005 going to be as successful as 2004 or will it be the year to finally start showing a sign of slowing down for the gaming industry? What opinions do you have? It does not matter to me, I have been wrong before!

[Jive3D]

I think that a main difference between the last videogame recession and the way that things are now is that, now, consumers digest games equally with that of music and movies (not quite sure how literature would factor into that, being another form of entertainment).

I see big changes possibly taking place with how [the companies that make games] are structured - say for example, Nintendo becoming a software only company in the way that Sega has.

I don't see game sales slowing down in 05, however. Entertainment is highly dependent on digital and electronic mediums, and games are an integrated part. All cell phones have games, iPods have a built in game, Pal Pilots and blackberry handhelds have at least one built in game - gaming is an integral part of the culture that is our electronic products. Plus there are kids that want new toys and people like you and me who are nutty for just about anything that has anything to do with games - have it be an obsession with escaping reality or an attempt to buy back our childhoods - but that's a discussion for another thread. :)

[Anthony1]

One thing that I see happening, is that prices of XBOX, PS2 and Cube games are going to be lower brand new, except for the AAA games. The big name games like Doom 3 and God of War and Gran Turismo 4, will still command the $49.99 price, but I see more and more games coming out at much lower price points.

More and more games at $29.99 and $34.99 and $19.99, etc, etc.


When the new systems come out, I think we will actually see a rise in prices of games. I think that we are going to see $59.99 games for the first time in a long time. But I think it will be short lived, and again I see things moving towards the big blockbuster games commanding $49.99, but all the other games coming out around $29.99 or so.


I also think you are going to see a trend of when games come out, after a few months, the prices of the games are going to drop dramatically. You are going to see more and more games for $9.99 and $14.99 and stuff like that.

There is just too many damn games out there, and with that, will come the drop in prices, especially at the resale market.


Certainly, the big time games, the huge games, the Maddens and the GTA's and the Halo's will command top dollar, but everything else will have to compete at a totally different price point.


The problem with this model, is that it's going to stifle creative design. Developers are going to focus on trying to make major hits, and they aren't going to try new, unproven ideas. Smaller companies are going to go belly up, or be bought out by larger software houses.

[Flack]

If the rate of games being released doesn't slow dramatically in 2005, I think the Xbox2 is screwed. Going by the normal 5 year console cycle, usually by the fifth year things have started slowing down and people are hungry for a new console. I don't know of any normal consumer who's hungry for a new console. Many people's first PS2 was a slimline one. The PS2 and Xbox are still throwing releases at us like crazy, and if my kid were a little older and was wanting the next Xbox later this year, I'd say well, you can get an Xbox2 or you can keep your Xbox and when the prices drop on all the games you can pick up the hundreds of games you've never played before.

I'm not sure what Microsoft should do. If good releases are still coming hot and heavy this year, I think moving a lot of XB2's will be tough. On the other hand, if they let up on releases, I would expect Sony to then flood the market to make consumers say "hey, why am I buying an XB2 when all these new great PS2 games are coming out and I can get a PS2 for (at least) half the price!). I'm not saying they won't sell any XB2's, but if Ms. Soccer Mom goes into Wal-Mart and sees brand new PS2/Xbox games coming out, selling a new $300 console to someone who doesn't plan on owning every console ever made might be a tough sale.

As for Nintendo ... they *really* need to work on their image. Even though there are a lot of GC titles aimed at adults, they still have an image of being a kid's console. They also have a reputation of not having as many games as their competitors. This year would be a great time to break that mold -- while everyone else is focusing on their next gen consoles, blow the competition away with a slew of releases for your $99 console.

[Anthony1]

If the rate of games being released doesn't slow dramatically in 2005, I think the Xbox2 is screwed. Going by the normal 5 year console cycle, usually by the fifth year things have started slowing down and people are hungry for a new console. I don't know of any normal consumer who's hungry for a new console. Many people's first PS2 was a slimline one. The PS2 and Xbox are still throwing releases at us like crazy, and if my kid were a little older and was wanting the next Xbox later this year, I'd say well, you can get an Xbox2 or you can keep your Xbox and when the prices drop on all the games you can pick up the hundreds of games you've never played before.

I'm not sure what Microsoft should do. If good releases are still coming hot and heavy this year, I think moving a lot of XB2's will be tough. On the other hand, if they let up on releases, I would expect Sony to then flood the market to make consumers say "hey, why am I buying an XB2 when all these new great PS2 games are coming out and I can get a PS2 for (at least) half the price!). I'm not saying they won't sell any XB2's, but if Ms. Soccer Mom goes into Wal-Mart and sees brand new PS2/Xbox games coming out, selling a new $300 console to someone who doesn't plan on owning every console ever made might be a tough sale.

As for Nintendo ... they *really* need to work on their image. Even though there are a lot of GC titles aimed at adults, they still have an image of being a kid's console. They also have a reputation of not having as many games as their competitors. This year would be a great time to break that mold -- while everyone else is focusing on their next gen consoles, blow the competition away with a slew of releases for your $99 console.


The idea for Microsoft with the XBOX 2, is to simply get the thing out, so they have a slight advantage over the PS2, in terms of already being entrenched in the marketplace. Personally, I think it's a horrible mistake. Remember Dreamcast? They got a huge jump on Sony, but it didn't matter at all. Also, I think that the XBOX 2 is definitely going to be $299.99 or maybe even $349.99, and that they really aren't targeting soccer moms for this system in 2005 and 2006. They are targeting the early adopter types. The same type of people that went out and bought PSP's already.


I'm sure that XBOX execs are going to say that XBOX 1 and XBOX 2 target completely different markets and that they can co-exist for quite some time. It's the same line of garbage that Tom Kalinske was talking about during the whole Sega CD, Sega 32X and Saturn era. That each unit was targeting a different segment of the market and that they could all co-exist and be very successful.


The bottom line is that Microsoft is making a horrible decision by releasing the XBOX 2 this Xmas. They are going it more because "they can" than anything. It's almost like they are little kids wanting to show off their brand new toy. The reality is that it's not a good idea to bring that system out right now, but why let logic spoil their fun? They are going to go with the excuse that the reason that they lost last time, is because of the head start that the PS2 had. So they aren't going to let that happen again.

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.


But Microsoft is going to stick to the reasoning that they want to get a "headstart" a jump on the competition, that they aren't going to lose this war by coming late to the party.

It's really stupid on their part, but they will learn again, that just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.

[alexkidd2000]

God, I cant wait for XBOX 2. I think you are so wrong, its totally time for a new ultra powered console. I need HIGH DEF!

[swlovinist]

Microsoft is in a pickle....their Xbox console looses them money each one that they sell(hence they are slowing production and getting to ramp up a launch for Xbox 2)....which may not be supported

They have stated that the new console is not compatable with Xbox games(although nothing is for certain before E3)

I too am worried that the Xbox 2 is a bad idea this Xmas. I agree that hardcore gamers will rush out and buy a console whenever it is launched....but hardcore gamers dont support a console. It will take a sound video system price, games, and hardware to keep a system going for several years. If you dont have those things going for your console, then you might be in trouble

I hope for the best and expect the year to be at least interesting. Personally, I think that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, dont have an fing clue sometimes....it is like they forget about why people play games in the first place....

As for now I have recently enjoyed buying more brand new titles than I have ever bought before....thanks to 19.99 price tags!

[ddockery]

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.

Actually, THAT is bullshit. If this statement were true, then there is no hope of anyone EVER overtaking Sony. If we apply this theory backwards, Atari is still ruling the gameing market today. If you honestly think that the PS2's head start has NOTHING to do with it's dominance today you are mistaken. It's not the ONLY factor by any means, but it definitelty has an impact.

[Captain Wrong]

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.

It's always Sony has people brainwashed. Never do people consider that maybe, just maybe, Sony did something right that everyone else continues to do wrong.

That said, I agree with Flack's post upthread.

[Cauterize]

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.

It's always Sony has people brainwashed. Never do people consider that maybe, just maybe, Sony did something right that everyone else continues to do wrong.


Agreed! Sony were there at the right time and made their move which proved to be extremely succesful!
I mean sure there will be the odd brainwashed people or fan boys but not everyone is like that!

[thegreatescape]

Microsoft is in a pickle....their Xbox console looses them money each one that they sell

Just out of curiousity, do we actually know if MS is still losing money on each system ? It was quite a while back when they first announced it, so im sure theyve had plenty of time to at least break even on them, going by the ps2 price difference of then and now.

Im too tired to actually read the entire thread and comment on anything else... but its better than another psp thread (damn you Sony for putting Europe/Au last).

[Anthony1]

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.

Actually, THAT is bullshit. If this statement were true, then there is no hope of anyone EVER overtaking Sony. If we apply this theory backwards, Atari is still ruling the gameing market today. If you honestly think that the PS2's head start has NOTHING to do with it's dominance today you are mistaken. It's not the ONLY factor by any means, but it definitelty has an impact.


Actually, didn't Sega have the head start with the Dreamcast launch one year earlier?

If the whole head start theory meant anything, then the Dreamcast would have been the dominant system.

[Anthony1]

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.

It's always Sony has people brainwashed. Never do people consider that maybe, just maybe, Sony did something right that everyone else continues to do wrong.


What exactly did Sony do right?


1. They released a console that was supposed to be the alpha and the omega, with it's "Emotion Engine" and all that crap, and it actually is one of the worst designed systems in History. It doesn't have enough video ram to do progressive scan games, so it took years and years before we actually started seeing any progressive scan games. While the Dreamcast, a console supposedly vastly inferior, had 95 percent of it's library progressive scan. It can't do Dolby Digital 5.1 in the game, while the XBOX has no problem with that. During the launch and the early period of the system, it was jaggies in every game. The system just wasn't designed very good plain and simple.

2. When they launched, the launch lineup was abysmal at best. SSX, Madden and Smugglers Run were the only decent games available.

3. They had horrible hardware shortages during the launch and first 6 months of availability.

4. All during the entire life of the PS2 there has been problems with the systems breaking and needing repair.


The reality is that the PS2 was a total dissaster and ended up succeding DESPITE all of Sony's terrible blunders.


Why did it succed?


1. Because it had the name Sony on it, and it had the name Playstation on it, and for whatever reason it had that cool factor because of that.

2. Because the PS1 had so thouroughly dominated the 32/64 bit wars, it had every developer and their brother making games for it. It had all the best developers in Japan and Europe and the U.S. making games for it, because it was expected to be the dominant platform.

3. Money - Sony had heaps and heaps of money that they could use to market the system and buy exclusive windows on key games. The Grand Theft Auto exclusivity, and the E.A. Sports only online on PS2 exclusivity basically ensured that the PS2 would be the dominant platform.


If you really look at it, the PS2 is the dominant platform, in spite of the bad engineering of the system, the horrible launch lineup, the hardware shortages and the terrible reliability of the hardware.

[kainemaxwell]

Don't forget Sony got backwards compatibility for the PS2 right, which didn't alienate all those who bought and still play/buy PSX games, like Nintendo's done with their GB lines.

[Anthony1]

Don't forget Sony got backwards compatibility for the PS2 right, which didn't alienate all those who bought and still play/buy PSX games, like Nintendo's done with their GB lines.


Actually, that's true. They did at least do one thing right with the PS2. But as much as people talk about the backwards compatibility, I think that is more of a subconscious thing than anything. The percentage of people that actually play PS1 games on their PS2, is probably below 3 percent.

But for some reason, people like knowing that they can, even if they never use it.

[kainemaxwell]

But for some reason, people like knowing that they can, even if they never use it.
So imagine player's feelings if the X-Box2 comes out without that compatibiblity.

[Captain Wrong]

That's bullshit. That isn't the reason they lost. The reason they lost is because Sony has millions upon millions of consumers totally brainwashed into buying whatever piece of technology they bring out.

It's always Sony has people brainwashed. Never do people consider that maybe, just maybe, Sony did something right that everyone else continues to do wrong.


What exactly did Sony do right?


1. They released a console that was supposed to be the alpha and the omega, with it's "Emotion Engine" and all that crap, and it actually is one of the worst designed systems in History. It doesn't have enough video ram to do progressive scan games, so it took years and years before we actually started seeing any progressive scan games. While the Dreamcast, a console supposedly vastly inferior, had 95 percent of it's library progressive scan. It can't do Dolby Digital 5.1 in the game, while the XBOX has no problem with that. During the launch and the early period of the system, it was jaggies in every game. The system just wasn't designed very good plain and simple.

2. When they launched, the launch lineup was abysmal at best. SSX, Madden and Smugglers Run were the only decent games available.

3. They had horrible hardware shortages during the launch and first 6 months of availability.

4. All during the entire life of the PS2 there has been problems with the systems breaking and needing repair.


The reality is that the PS2 was a total dissaster and ended up succeding DESPITE all of Sony's terrible blunders.


Why did it succed?


1. Because it had the name Sony on it, and it had the name Playstation on it, and for whatever reason it had that cool factor because of that.

2. Because the PS1 had so thouroughly dominated the 32/64 bit wars, it had every developer and their brother making games for it. It had all the best developers in Japan and Europe and the U.S. making games for it, because it was expected to be the dominant platform.

3. Money - Sony had heaps and heaps of money that they could use to market the system and buy exclusive windows on key games. The Grand Theft Auto exclusivity, and the E.A. Sports only online on PS2 exclusivity basically ensured that the PS2 would be the dominant platform.


If you really look at it, the PS2 is the dominant platform, in spite of the bad engineering of the system, the horrible launch lineup, the hardware shortages and the terrible reliability of the hardware.

tldr

[LAGO]

Sony also had the DVD player aspect to the PS2, which was right around what a DVD player was costing those days, that didn't hurt things either.

Back on topic ... I don't think we'll see a recession because there is a new platform that comes out every five or six years that really peaks people's interest. I do think we'll notice games being marketed differently though, like the above mentioned more budget titles.

[Keir]

tldr
too long, didn't read?

[Anthony1]

if you had enough time to quote it, and put "tdlr" then you had enought time to read it.

I'm guessing that you grudgingly agree with all my points, and you don't have an argument.

[Daria]

Don't forget Sony got backwards compatibility for the PS2 right, which didn't alienate all those who bought and still play/buy PSX games, like Nintendo's done with their GB lines.


Actually, that's true. They did at least do one thing right with the PS2. But as much as people talk about the backwards compatibility, I think that is more of a subconscious thing than anything. The percentage of people that actually play PS1 games on their PS2, is probably below 3 percent.

But for some reason, people like knowing that they can, even if they never use it.

I think backwards compatibility smooths over the transition period between consoles. Imagine your a parent who buys a family PSone, steadily every birthday and christmas your children aquire new games. Then PSTwo rolls along and you trade in the PSOne to buy it (although more likely the PSone gets moved to a child's bedroom because mom doesn't want all those game systems cluttering up her living room and the majority of people are probably buying their new systems at Walmart or Bestbuy as opposed to Gamestop) because it's the hot new thing and your kids have it written on their christmas lists right under "pony", only as everyone knows launch systems always have a skimpy library, but because the systems backwards compaitible you can continue to use Psone games as "filler presents" utill the Ps2 games start churning out. After that their kids will most likely never touch another PSOne game again, but for that first Christmas/Birthday backwards compaitibility is a godsend.

I like it because I can have less systems hooked up at once. But that's just me. I also know when the GBA first came out I bought one, and never having owned a gameboy before went on a GBC spree because not enough GBA games I wanted were out. Of course now I buy mostly GBA games. So the above analogy applies to at least one gamer as well as families. :P

[Anthony1]

But for some reason, people like knowing that they can, even if they never use it.
So imagine player's feelings if the X-Box2 comes out without that compatibiblity.


Personally, I think that backward compatibility is a bad idea. For home consoles anyways. For portables like the GBA and DS, it's a really good idea, but for home consoles, I don't like it.

It adds more cost to the console, and sometimes affects the way the console is designed. Sometimes to get backwards compatibility to you have to give up other technology which would have made a better console. Plus, even though people say they really want backwards compatibility, it's more of a mental thing, people don't really use it. The vast majority of people don't use it, and it just adds unnecessary cost and headache in the design of the system.

I don't mind the controllers and A/V cables being backward compatible. That is actually a very good idea. It saves me money!

But if I'm going to play a PSX game, then I'm going to play it on a real PSX. Not the PS2. I only play PS2 games on the PS2.

[Captain Wrong]

if you had enough time to quote it, and put "tdlr" then you had enought time to read it.

I'm guessing that you grudgingly agree with all my points, and you don't have an argument.

No actually I didn't and if I did I probably wouldn't. I just don't understand why every goddamn topic around here has to turn into yet more pointless system bashing. I don't care to read another thesis length post on why company X sucks/doesn't suck or how company Y has everyone "brainwashed" or what the fuck ever. I thought this was a "will the industry crash?" thread, not a "let's hash out the console wars again" thread.

Oh and Keir, yeah, tldr = too long, didn't read. :)

[Nature Boy]

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony...

Anybody who uses the words "brainwashed" (previous post) is clearly an anti-fan boy of *some sort,* but I'm gonna comment anyway.

Why doesn't Sony get any credit for putting themself into the positions you've described? Did they just stumble into a position where they had good relationships with publishers and dealers? Were their marketing programs a fluke invented by an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters? No, they were business decisions made by a company who had a good idea of how to succeed. The "coolness" factor you alluded to - that's marketing man. That's their *job.* It didn't just "happen" - they *made* it happen.

[Anthony1]

Anthony, Anthony, Anthony...

Anybody who uses the words "brainwashed" (previous post) is clearly an anti-fan boy of *some sort,* but I'm gonna comment anyway.

Why doesn't Sony get any credit for putting themself into the positions you've described? Did they just stumble into a position where they had good relationships with publishers and dealers? Were their marketing programs a fluke invented by an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters? No, they were business decisions made by a company who had a good idea of how to succeed. The "coolness" factor you alluded to - that's marketing man. That's their *job.* It didn't just "happen" - they *made* it happen.



Here's the thing..... When Sony made the Playstation, they did alot of things right. They did alot of things, very, very right. The playstation was a brilliantly designed console from a technical standpoint, as well as marketing it and everything else. Basically Sony could do no wrong when it came to the original Playstation.

Thats what put them into that position. Everything had to do with the original playstation and all of the success with the original playstation, and I will be the first to congratulate them up and down the street for everything they did with the first playstation.

But what happened, is that all that success with that system, and all that acclaim, etc, etc, went to their heads. They thought they could do no wrong, and that they had this industry by the balls. Which actually is true, no matter how much they did wrong with the PS2, it didn't matter, they did have the industry by the balls.

But make no mistake about it, it was all about the success and dominance that they had with the original PSX. And I give them all the credit in the world for that.


But was the PS2 a comedy of errors? Yes. Did it succed in spite of that? Yes.

[Nature Boy]

Here's the thing..... When Sony made the Playstation, they did alot of things right. They did alot of things, very, very right.

Damn right they did.


But was the PS2 a comedy of errors? Yes. Did it succed in spite of that? Yes.

If the PS2 was a comedy of errors everything they had done for PS1 would be kaput and publishers/developers would be fleeing their sinking ship and heading straight to Xbox. That's hardly the case, and it's not "despite" of anything. They've continued to market themselves well. They've continued to not piss developers off (like Nintendo did). And they continue to sell oogles of product. And they will continue to do so unless and until Microsoft or Nintendo (or someone else) beats them at their own game.

[Anthony1]

Here's the thing..... When Sony made the Playstation, they did alot of things right. They did alot of things, very, very right.

Damn right they did.


But was the PS2 a comedy of errors? Yes. Did it succed in spite of that? Yes.

If the PS2 was a comedy of errors everything they had done for PS1 would be kaput and publishers/developers would be fleeing their sinking ship and heading straight to Xbox. That's hardly the case, and it's not "despite" of anything. They've continued to market themselves well. They've continued to not piss developers off (like Nintendo did). And they continue to sell oogles of product. And they will continue to do so unless and until Microsoft or Nintendo (or someone else) beats them at their own game.


Just because Sony made alot of major mistakes with the PS2, it doesn't mean that the console would fail in the marketplace, and that is why nobody started "fleeing thei sinking ship and heading straight to Xbox". I don't think there is any question that Sony made some significant mistakes with the PS2, but none of it was enough to overcome the fact that they had every developer in the world onboard, and they had consumers mindshare and loyalty.

But the reason that I said it a was a comedy of errors was for these reasons:


1. Extreme shortage of systems at launch, and for the first 6 months of the PS2's existence in the United States.

2. A horrible lack of quality games at launch.

3. Not enough video ram for the PS2 to be able to do progressive scan 480p games without major sacrifices and programming tricks. 95 percent of all Dreamcast gamers were 480p, yet here is a "supposedly" more powerfull system that couldn't do 480p till just recently, and even now so many huge games don't have 480p compatibility.

4. No "in game" Dolby Digital 5.1 support. Although the XBOX is capable of Dolby Digital 5.1 on the fly, during actual game play, the PS2 isn't capable of that. With Sony's background in Home Electronics, it should have been that hard for them to have added this feature.

5. Reliability issues. How many PS2's have had to be repaired? Sony has the worst track record of any company that I can think of, when it comes to "build quality" of their video game hardware.

6. Hard Drive fiasco - They talk about a hard drive, about how it's going to revolutionize things, delay it forever, then finally bring it out, and it only works with basically one game, then they abandon it.


These are just some of the things that come to mind, but I'm sure there were other mistakes that they made with the PS2, but again, I have to give them credit for despite all these problems thuroughly dominating this go round. Marketing was a huge, huge part of it. And they deserve much props for that. Backward compatibility was great for them, from a subconscious standpoint for consumers that think they are going to use that but never do. And all the money they spent on the exclusive windows for the GTA games and Madden only being online for a long time on PS2, had a huge part in it as well.