I'm sitting here listening to music stream from my PS3 and a thought occurred. We are sitting on a very delicate situation for old, seasoned gamers such as those of us here at GWB, and a potentially very confusing situation for gamers freshly entering the market of buying their own systems. There are a surprising amount of consoles and handhelds that are on the market currently, or being developed to be released in the very near future. I'm gonna go into a little detail, but the TL-DR version, is to read into things and make knowledgeable purchases for your systems. Don't fall for gimmicks.
Back in the early to mid '90s there were a frightening number of gaming devices on the market. The NES, the SNES, the Genesis (1, 2, and 3), the SegaCD, the Sega Saturn, the 3do, the list goes on. The problem with these was over saturation, and lack of a defining super game for the systems save for Sega and Nintendo. We are seeing a similar situation developing now. The public is currently free to buy a Wii-U, Wii, PS3, 360, PSP, Vita, DS, and a 3DS. All of these systems are being supported. (The Wii and PSP not so much as they used to be really) This coming year, we are expecting to see the next Xbox, the PS4, the Ouya, the Steam Box, iPads and iPhones, and several handheld devices that are Android powered. This puts developers in a very difficult situation with deciding on what platforms to make games.
The Wii, DS, and PSP are all dying systems. The development of newer games has slowed drastically, though the systems still sell fairly well. The DS may have been dealt it's death blow by Nintendo's recent announcement Pokemon X and Y coming only to the 3DS with some awesome looking new graphical direction. The fact of the matter is, even with these systems on the way out, there's still an enormous amount of choices for the gamers of today to partake in.
I see a problem where a developer may look at a game and decide that they have the team to make it for all available platforms thus splintering a team into many small parts, each one needing separate managers to be able to keep track of all the information and reporting to the creative director who is going to have to make changes to each specific game based on the needs of each system. Hypothetically, if a developer were to take this approach, they would need to have at least seven different versions of their game. While each version would fundamentally be the same, they would all have to be coded differently, take different controls, and be coded to run properly within the limitations of each system. Conversely, if a developer decides to make games for one particular system, in the vein of a second party developer, they run a strong risk of limiting their earning potential.
Competition is a key factor in any kind of business, but with an industry like the video game industry, too much competition can be a poison. Each system needs to make sure that people have a reason to buy their system that is above and beyond what the competition has to offer. For example, PS3 has free online, access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, and several other video services. It also has a built in Blu-Ray player, which isn't as important now as it was a few years ago. The Xbox on the other hand offers a pay to play online service, but has many more video, music, and social services to offer if you do decide to pay. PS3 has many more exclusive games that come to it, but that is in part due to Sony outright owning twelve or so studios. Microsoft cannot keep up with the amount of exclusive games that Sony has, but it does offer a much better online experience.
Every system has their fanboys, but the fact of the matter is, without something to set all of these individual systems apart from the others, consumers are going to become confused and apathetic towards purchasing a new system. Another issue with that is that if nobody buys the hardware, the companies making the hardware will have a hard time staying afloat unless they have several other interests such as Microsoft and Windows, or Sony and TVs.
I'm sitting in my chair right now surrounded by all kinds of technology. I have my PS3 running, my 360 is off, my Wii is in standby, my 3DS is on the charger, and so is my Android phone. Whenever I decide I'm going to purchase a game, I have to sit and think about what system I'm buying it for. Although, I generally don't buy games for my phone, I tend to stick to the free ones there. These kind of decisions are sometimes difficult because I have a different number of controllers for each system so I need to decide what system that I would prefer to play the (potential) multiplayer portion of each game on. I know that later on this year I'm going to probably have to make a choice as to buying the next PlayStation or the next Xbox. I still haven't managed to get enough cash around to get a Wii-U yet, but that's another system I want to get my hands on, which will give me another set of options on what system to buy the games for.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist. I do not think that the Android based handhelds, the Ouya, or the Steam Box will cause a lot of issue with consumers. The Steam Box will be bought by people who have a steam account, but are looking for some different ways to play their games. The Ouya will be bought by people looking for something cheap to be able to play games on their TVs. Finally, the Android based handhelds will come and go by the by due to the 3DS and the Vita. However, these things that as consumers we should all probably be aware of. Make sure you know your system before you buy it. Do some basic research on Google. Knowledge is power, and money is not an infinite resource for most of us. Just some things for everyone to think on. If you have any thoughts, please don't hesitate to comment below, I'd like to see what you guys think. See you online.
No comments:
Post a Comment