http://advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=10096
Price drops have dominated Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 headlines the last few weeks and it?s easy to see why. The barrier of entry this generation has risen considerably for the average consumer and early adopters want to see those walls torn down as quickly as possible. The incredible horsepower under the hood of the two HD behemoths are the main cause of these high price tags, and when you remember that both hardware manufacturers had to suffer hefty losses just to reach those prices, it?s staggering to consider the cost of that performance.
Sony and Microsoft aren?t the only ones feeling the crunch, though; developers are having a much harder time acclimating themselves to the new hardware architecture and as a result gamers are forced to wait through delays for titles like Grand Theft Auto IV. With hardware cycles being so short, it?s possible the PS3 and 360 won?t even come close to being fully utilized before they?re replaced thanks to the longer development cycles. Had these companies opted for a slightly smaller visual leap, prices would be lower, developers? jobs would be easier, gamers would have more titles faster and the hardware could reach its full potential before it was replaced. Everyone at all levels of the gaming industry are paying the price right now and it?s time we began questioning why this has happened and if it?s worth it.
Having the most powerful hardware has been a major selling point since the beginning of gaming, ever since George Plimpton began an ad campaign pushing the Intellivision as graphically superior to the Atari 2600. That tradition has endured through the years with "Blast Processing", "64 is double 32", "It?s Thinking", and the PS2's Emotion Engine. The more-is-better philosophy is clearly evident in the design of both the 360 and PS3. The Nintendo Wii faced a major backlash when it was initially announced it would ?only? be two times more powerful then its predecessor; dramatic improvements are so commonplace that it was almost insulting that anything less would be provided. Hardcore players expect a certain level of improvement with each successive generation and while that is both reasonable and healthy for the artistic future of game design it seems we?ve reached a tipping point where it?s being overdone to the detriment of everyone.
The wallets of both gamers and corporations are the most obvious benefactors of smaller increases in horsepower. $400 is really pushing it if you expect mass market success and, as has been proven by lackluster sales of the PS3, $600 is too expensive even for most dedicated gamers. With hardware being cheaper to produce, the manufacturers could drop prices sooner to entice the less fanatical consumers and install bases would grow faster as a result. One of the reasons the Nintendo Wii has taken off so quickly is the $250 pricetag. Its library is not nearly as strong as the 360 and only equal to the PS3 and yet it?s running circles around both. While Nintendo will say that it?s all because of the Blue Ocean revolution, the console being cheap in comparison to competitors is a huge factor in its success. If we consider $400 to be the maximum allowable price for a successful game console and the manufacturer is only allowed to lose $50 per unit, the machine could still be graphically impressive. Nintendo has provided much less than the ideal amount of hardware improvement per generation while Sony and Microsoft have overshot it. The median $400 machine breaking even would still be able to output HD graphics and run the Unreal 3 engine, but the maximum returns wouldn?t be as impressive as what we?re seeing in titles such as MGS4. Then again, the industry would be much more stable. Rather then losing billions on unsuccessful hardware sporting bleeding-edge tech, a machine designed to break even from day one at $400 would still gain the manufacturer at least some profit even in defeat. The Gamecube is an example of this philosophy in action; regardless of your thoughts on the console or its unit sales, Nintendo never lost money on the platform's sales.
By trading a certain degree of graphical prowess for a lower price, the industry would enjoy faster adoption rates for new hardware and thus a greater variety of games. At the beginning of each new generation, publishers are forced onto the precipice of disaster, and this hardware cycle has been the most brutal one yet. With fresh, complex technology, a single mistake can set a company back years. In order to create a game like Final Fantasy XIII, companies have to release a half dozen DS remakes to finance the project. Developers simply are not taking risks anymore. It?s foolish to commit millions to a project that could bankrupt your company when you can instead carbon-copy Halo or GTA and see better returns. Faster adoption rates will make risks more likely to happen because a large enough install base can support niche titles.
The PS2 is an example of a platform that enjoyed incredible lineup diversity after it had gained a large install base. In the last two years of the console?s life publishers were able to take chances on hit-or-miss titles like Katamari Damacy, Disgaea and Guitar Hero. They saw excellent returns as a result, but if the PS2 development cycle had been as long as three years, as is the case with some major PS3 titles, these types of games would have never been released. We certainly need reasonable hardware improvement to drive the artistic side of our pastime, but if that aspect is overemphasized as is the case right now, it dramatically limits innovative concepts because of fiscal responsibilities. With smaller advancements in hardware, the risk-factor for publishers decreases dramatically and everyone benefits as a result. It is not in our best interest to have a handful of epic titles every five years when we could instead enjoy dozens of them if we resolved to sacrifice a smidgen of technology in the process. It?s a classic case of doing what is necessary to have your cake and eat it too. The industry has gotten so wrapped up in baking this cake that they haven?t quite figured out how to manage eating it.
The worst part of overcompensation in hardware is that developers will never even max out the machines before they are swiftly replaced. Last generation, neither the Xbox nor GameCube were pushed to their absolute limits consistently before they were retired. If this generation lasts the standard five years, then it is a certainty that the 360 and PS3 will suffer a similar fate. Sony and Microsoft promise longer hardware cycles this time around but that is a hollow statement. The nature of this industry is that the winner of each generation will seek to prolong their success while the loser will push for a quick reset and shove new hardware onto the market for a fresh shot at the top. The Xbox 360 is an excellent example of this. The original Xbox was defeated soundly so Microsoft put it down after four years and moved onto a new piece of hardware for another shot at first place. If things continue as they are and the Nintendo Wii opens up a large lead, do we seriously believe the other two manufacturers will stand pat for the next six or seven years and allow Nintendo to rake in that much profit relatively unopposed? Absolutely not. One of them will get trigger happy, the other will follow, and Nintendo will be forced to do the same as a result. The cycle never ends. When this fact of life is understood, it?s easy to see why a mutually beneficial neutering of new hardware needs to take place. All three companies stand to gain more with conservative hardware advances. The losers can profit and the quick reset they will force onto the winner won?t happen before developers have done all that they can with the platform.
There are certainly many road blocks to implementing such a drastic change in policy when creating new hardware. Microsoft is a huge deterrent in and of themselves. With endless finances to tap into, the fact that they can force these financial risks onto competitors with less resources is a gigantic advantage. Sony?s drive to integrate their other electronics division projects into the PlayStation is another obstacle. What they stand to gain through promoting other tech may be too promising to ignore in favor of conservative practices. Even Nintendo, the only manufacturer who didn?t enter the arms race, could shun this method. Why would they make a powerful machine designed to break even when they?ve found such success with a dramatically underpowered platform making pure profit from day one? These are all excellent reasons for why this sort of utopian console method will never be realized, but it?s important to at least understand that this suicidal tendency to totally sacrifice profit is not the only path to follow.
Gamers have become accustomed to the arms race, and the fact it is never questioned is troubling. It isn?t helping anyone in particular and yet everyone defends it as if it is their greatest hope. With more conservative hardware successors, the manufacturers can profit, user bases can flourish, publishers can take risks, consumers get more games, and hardware will be maxed-out before it is retired. Hopefully the incredible losses being suffered this generation by all parties, and the general disinterest in HD hardware by casual consumers, will make companies open their minds to a new way of business. The graphical leap will still take place with a larger difference then the GameCube and Wii but less so then the difference between the PS2 and PS3. If we make these sacrifices together as an industry, we all stand to gain much in our own way. Manufacturers and publishers profit, developers can take daring risks, and gamers can enjoy cheaper hardware with more diverse libraries. The bleeding edge of technology may be enticing but perhaps it?s the modest advancements that bear the most fruit.
Price drops have dominated Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 headlines the last few weeks and it?s easy to see why. The barrier of entry this generation has risen considerably for the average consumer and early adopters want to see those walls torn down as quickly as possible. The incredible horsepower under the hood of the two HD behemoths are the main cause of these high price tags, and when you remember that both hardware manufacturers had to suffer hefty losses just to reach those prices, it?s staggering to consider the cost of that performance.
Sony and Microsoft aren?t the only ones feeling the crunch, though; developers are having a much harder time acclimating themselves to the new hardware architecture and as a result gamers are forced to wait through delays for titles like Grand Theft Auto IV. With hardware cycles being so short, it?s possible the PS3 and 360 won?t even come close to being fully utilized before they?re replaced thanks to the longer development cycles. Had these companies opted for a slightly smaller visual leap, prices would be lower, developers? jobs would be easier, gamers would have more titles faster and the hardware could reach its full potential before it was replaced. Everyone at all levels of the gaming industry are paying the price right now and it?s time we began questioning why this has happened and if it?s worth it.
Having the most powerful hardware has been a major selling point since the beginning of gaming, ever since George Plimpton began an ad campaign pushing the Intellivision as graphically superior to the Atari 2600. That tradition has endured through the years with "Blast Processing", "64 is double 32", "It?s Thinking", and the PS2's Emotion Engine. The more-is-better philosophy is clearly evident in the design of both the 360 and PS3. The Nintendo Wii faced a major backlash when it was initially announced it would ?only? be two times more powerful then its predecessor; dramatic improvements are so commonplace that it was almost insulting that anything less would be provided. Hardcore players expect a certain level of improvement with each successive generation and while that is both reasonable and healthy for the artistic future of game design it seems we?ve reached a tipping point where it?s being overdone to the detriment of everyone.
The wallets of both gamers and corporations are the most obvious benefactors of smaller increases in horsepower. $400 is really pushing it if you expect mass market success and, as has been proven by lackluster sales of the PS3, $600 is too expensive even for most dedicated gamers. With hardware being cheaper to produce, the manufacturers could drop prices sooner to entice the less fanatical consumers and install bases would grow faster as a result. One of the reasons the Nintendo Wii has taken off so quickly is the $250 pricetag. Its library is not nearly as strong as the 360 and only equal to the PS3 and yet it?s running circles around both. While Nintendo will say that it?s all because of the Blue Ocean revolution, the console being cheap in comparison to competitors is a huge factor in its success. If we consider $400 to be the maximum allowable price for a successful game console and the manufacturer is only allowed to lose $50 per unit, the machine could still be graphically impressive. Nintendo has provided much less than the ideal amount of hardware improvement per generation while Sony and Microsoft have overshot it. The median $400 machine breaking even would still be able to output HD graphics and run the Unreal 3 engine, but the maximum returns wouldn?t be as impressive as what we?re seeing in titles such as MGS4. Then again, the industry would be much more stable. Rather then losing billions on unsuccessful hardware sporting bleeding-edge tech, a machine designed to break even from day one at $400 would still gain the manufacturer at least some profit even in defeat. The Gamecube is an example of this philosophy in action; regardless of your thoughts on the console or its unit sales, Nintendo never lost money on the platform's sales.
By trading a certain degree of graphical prowess for a lower price, the industry would enjoy faster adoption rates for new hardware and thus a greater variety of games. At the beginning of each new generation, publishers are forced onto the precipice of disaster, and this hardware cycle has been the most brutal one yet. With fresh, complex technology, a single mistake can set a company back years. In order to create a game like Final Fantasy XIII, companies have to release a half dozen DS remakes to finance the project. Developers simply are not taking risks anymore. It?s foolish to commit millions to a project that could bankrupt your company when you can instead carbon-copy Halo or GTA and see better returns. Faster adoption rates will make risks more likely to happen because a large enough install base can support niche titles.
The PS2 is an example of a platform that enjoyed incredible lineup diversity after it had gained a large install base. In the last two years of the console?s life publishers were able to take chances on hit-or-miss titles like Katamari Damacy, Disgaea and Guitar Hero. They saw excellent returns as a result, but if the PS2 development cycle had been as long as three years, as is the case with some major PS3 titles, these types of games would have never been released. We certainly need reasonable hardware improvement to drive the artistic side of our pastime, but if that aspect is overemphasized as is the case right now, it dramatically limits innovative concepts because of fiscal responsibilities. With smaller advancements in hardware, the risk-factor for publishers decreases dramatically and everyone benefits as a result. It is not in our best interest to have a handful of epic titles every five years when we could instead enjoy dozens of them if we resolved to sacrifice a smidgen of technology in the process. It?s a classic case of doing what is necessary to have your cake and eat it too. The industry has gotten so wrapped up in baking this cake that they haven?t quite figured out how to manage eating it.
The worst part of overcompensation in hardware is that developers will never even max out the machines before they are swiftly replaced. Last generation, neither the Xbox nor GameCube were pushed to their absolute limits consistently before they were retired. If this generation lasts the standard five years, then it is a certainty that the 360 and PS3 will suffer a similar fate. Sony and Microsoft promise longer hardware cycles this time around but that is a hollow statement. The nature of this industry is that the winner of each generation will seek to prolong their success while the loser will push for a quick reset and shove new hardware onto the market for a fresh shot at the top. The Xbox 360 is an excellent example of this. The original Xbox was defeated soundly so Microsoft put it down after four years and moved onto a new piece of hardware for another shot at first place. If things continue as they are and the Nintendo Wii opens up a large lead, do we seriously believe the other two manufacturers will stand pat for the next six or seven years and allow Nintendo to rake in that much profit relatively unopposed? Absolutely not. One of them will get trigger happy, the other will follow, and Nintendo will be forced to do the same as a result. The cycle never ends. When this fact of life is understood, it?s easy to see why a mutually beneficial neutering of new hardware needs to take place. All three companies stand to gain more with conservative hardware advances. The losers can profit and the quick reset they will force onto the winner won?t happen before developers have done all that they can with the platform.
There are certainly many road blocks to implementing such a drastic change in policy when creating new hardware. Microsoft is a huge deterrent in and of themselves. With endless finances to tap into, the fact that they can force these financial risks onto competitors with less resources is a gigantic advantage. Sony?s drive to integrate their other electronics division projects into the PlayStation is another obstacle. What they stand to gain through promoting other tech may be too promising to ignore in favor of conservative practices. Even Nintendo, the only manufacturer who didn?t enter the arms race, could shun this method. Why would they make a powerful machine designed to break even when they?ve found such success with a dramatically underpowered platform making pure profit from day one? These are all excellent reasons for why this sort of utopian console method will never be realized, but it?s important to at least understand that this suicidal tendency to totally sacrifice profit is not the only path to follow.
Gamers have become accustomed to the arms race, and the fact it is never questioned is troubling. It isn?t helping anyone in particular and yet everyone defends it as if it is their greatest hope. With more conservative hardware successors, the manufacturers can profit, user bases can flourish, publishers can take risks, consumers get more games, and hardware will be maxed-out before it is retired. Hopefully the incredible losses being suffered this generation by all parties, and the general disinterest in HD hardware by casual consumers, will make companies open their minds to a new way of business. The graphical leap will still take place with a larger difference then the GameCube and Wii but less so then the difference between the PS2 and PS3. If we make these sacrifices together as an industry, we all stand to gain much in our own way. Manufacturers and publishers profit, developers can take daring risks, and gamers can enjoy cheaper hardware with more diverse libraries. The bleeding edge of technology may be enticing but perhaps it?s the modest advancements that bear the most fruit.