Answering the Questions to Arrive at the Conclusion
With the next generation of console gaming on the horizon with the Wii U, new Xbox (codenamed “Durango”), and new PlayStation (codenamed “Orbis”), speculation is all abuzz concerning home gaming’s uncertain future. Some people forecast the fall of systems, while others look forward to having many generations after. This is currently the longest drought of new home systems in history with the latest generation coming from 2005 while the cycle had historically been 4-5 years like clockwork since 1985. While the Wii U releases in November 18, 2012, the Durango and Orbis will not be released until late 2013 at the earliest. Meanwhile, other gaming platforms such as tablets, smartphones, and computers are updated at least every season.
Will Hardcore Gaming Disappear and Smartphones Inherit the Earth?
Gaming culture and the number of hardcore gamers are only growing, despite the shrinking market. While dollar games like “Angry Birds” may be in the pocket of every Tom, Dick, and Harry, blockbuster games like the Call of Duty series where revenues are the highest get the most attention. Will dollar games and free to play games kill large expensive titles like Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed? The answer is easy: No. With more people owning the latest smartphone in America than the latest home console, if cheap phone games were going to kill large titles, they would have already. The truth is, cell phone and tablet games just are not as large, not as breathtaking, not as good a quality as blockbuster console games are. So if big games are not going away, we must find out what is next in store for blockbuster games by examining current and past generations.
Is Interactivity the Answer to Gaming’s Future?
Nintendo believes home gaming interactivity is the wave of the future. Nintendo has a history in experimentation in this arena with new interactive ways to play games like the Virtua-Boy, R.O.B., Zapper, Power Glove, Power Pad, Balance Board, and more. However, back in the early days where gaming almost died, it saved gaming with great games alone. Nintendo seems to have forgotten this lesson even after the recent failure of its Wii system and is attempting to compete with smart phone and tablet games with its next gaming system, the Wii U. The Wii U will be using a tablet-like controller to allow users to interact with their games in ways they never have before. Will this translate into good games or profits? Perhaps it will if these features have a clear purpose. However, we can already see that Nintendo is taking a similar tactic to tablets by bringing in big titles from the heavy hitting Microsoft and Sony home consoles such as “Batman: Arkham City.” At E3 2012, Nintendo demonstrated the ability to control the familiar remote-controlled batarang with the controller‘s balance system instead of joysticks. However, console games imported to systems they were not made for, namely tablets, have already crashed and burned. And if this is merely a small additive to the game leaving most of it unchanged, is this merely a gimmick instead of the revolution in gaming it was supposed to be?
Nintendo seems to be investing in a failing product concept. Just what is to blame for its failure? Are compatibility issues with games being untranslatable to the neighboring consoles the main cause of concern for Nintendo? If they thought that, they should have stopped where they were instead of diving in headfirst. It is possible that third party creators just are not inspired enough to integrate these unique features into the core of their game design. And if interactivity was the only thing to blame, the rhetorical question lingers as to why Sony and Microsoft came out with their own versions of the Wii controller, including the Kinect?
Why Does One Console Beat Another?
To get an answer, we must again reflect on the 1980s and early 1990s. The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and Super NES were perhaps the most dominate and universally loved home gaming consoles to ever come. They had many add-ons, but at their core they had two things: great hardware & great games. The Nintendo Wii lacks both of these and is instead is based off these formerly added-on gimmicks in addition to old franchise titles. What does the most successful console of this generation, the Xbox 360, have? Great hardware & great games. What about the console generations before it? It’s the same thing with the PlayStation 2 and Nintendo 64.
So we have found a pattern of success: great hardware & great games. So are these two things separate? While great games cannot cause great hardware, it is possible that advanced hardware begets exemplary games. However, whether it is the best hardware does not necessarily matter. The specs on the Xbox 360 are technically inferior to the PlayStation 3, yet it is killing it financially. Just how inferior is the Xbox 360 technologically to the PS3? Well, it turns out not very much. In fact, gamers still debate on which system games look better or perform better on. The difference in performance between likened hardware quality systems must be dependent on other factors.
If Higher End Systems Perform Better, Why Not Make a New Generation Earlier?
While previously, the answer was available technology and production costs, today’s answer is much more political. The costs not of the console are the source of holding companies back, but the production costs of games. Whenever new technological limits are available to the game makers, the capitalist race to the consumers ends up with more expensive physics engines and graphics. The days when companies without a meaningful amount of capital can compete are gone. This not only affects third party developers, but consoles’ companies’ game studios.
This route is only possible because of an understanding in the game production community. They look at what the others are doing and only move forward when they are supposed to. The result is not as good for consoles as they think, however. Without new technology, they find themselves unable to excite customers. In addition, consumers just end up waiting for the next generation saving their money rather than investing in a 7 year old game system that will just end up being replaced with a system that is not backwards compatible.
What Should Microsoft, Etc., Do and What Will They Do?
For the first time in console history, players are not as impressed with gaming as they are demanding of it. The people demand higher quality graphics and features that are nowhere near current day consoles’ technological capabilities. There is more frustration and “why haven’t they done this?” than awe. Why isn’t there a browser in the game systems? How come parts of my characters still phase through walls? This is 2012 goddamn it. Those are just a couple of examples. We ask the question of whether gaming is dying or not because we are underwhelmed. What game companies should do is meet expectations and consumer demand.
What gaming companies will do is nickel-and-dime consumers with bullshit like on-disc downloadable content (DLC), subscription fees for services such as Xbox Live, and make used games harder to play if not impossible. It is also likely that the upcoming generation of consoles will last even longer than the lifespans of the Xbox 360 and PS3, though technological advancements will leave them in the dust.
Will the Next Generation be the Last?
It depends. As consoles become and more like computers and vice versa, it is becoming evident that the line between them will eventually disappear. However, the prolonged economic downfall in the United States and around the globe will add to the problem of limited precious metals for electronics. Through the inevitable course of time, the fluidity of technology attaching electronics to each other will render gaming systems obsolete. Playing games from computers on televisions with controllers will be the ultimate eventuality, though it may not be before the 13+ years it will take for the fifth PlayStation and fourth Xbox to be realized. Consoles have an expiration date; it’s only a matter of time.
Computers are obsolete after 3 years and are considered ancient at 6 years. The current generation of gaming consoles has lasted 7 years thus far, and the generation after is projected to last about a dozen years. Computer hardware superiority will become even more obvious than it is now and will later lack the hang-ups that PCs have now such as dependable processing power and graphic cards after the years excel them over consoles. Playing games on televisions with controllers is not a comfort that consumers are willing to relinquish, and with modern PCs, they won’t have to. The price of a console could be added on to making a moderate PC brilliant and able to play and do everything consoles can and some things they cannot.
Exemplary games on high tech hardware will crown the winner of the next generation and every update thereafter. Consoles can avoid extinction, though it is not likely. With all these questions and debating, the answer was always there: the consumer is always right.
Leather Wing Media 