Crowded Market?

[Viper]

I'm curious about something though. The market is started to get crowded. There have typically been no more than 5 major platforms for development (3 consoles, 1 handheld and PC) but we currently have 3 handheld, 3 current gen and 3 next gen plus the sub markets of Live arcade, Virtual Console and now PSone on PSP. Can the development market support 13, sorry, 14 platforms (added in mobile phones)?

Note all these platforms but rising development costs (largely in the art departments) and the entire market seems like it's stretching itself way too thin.

3 of them will be fading out (current gen) so that will help but that's still 11 platforms.

Some of these is going to have far less support than the others but do any of you think developers will just ignore some completely because 11 platforms is too much (PC already gets ignored by most console devs anyway)?

[HolyPaladin]

For one thing, I kinda dislike having the games spread out so much. Once upon a time, you could own one or two platforms and get most of the games you want. For example, back in the early 1990s, just owning a SNES was good enough. If a good game came out elsewhere, it was on the Genesis, or maybe the PC. Now you pretty much have to own a heap of consoles, handhelds, and your computer just to have access to a sizeable portion of them. No matter how many platforms I own, I'm always running into games that just aren't an option for me.

From a development standpoint, if I had my own little studio, I'd probably want to limit my focus to just a few noteworthy platforms. The first thing I'd scratch off my list are the cell phones. Even after that elimination, I'd still be faced with a bit of a dilema deciding between the PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, GameCube, Revolution, PC, DS, PSP, and GBA. Some of these are the future but are presently of much more limited marketshare (360, for example). On the other hand, I could develope for an older platform (like the PS2) which has a much larger installed base but is a thing of the past.

A huge development house shouldn't need to worry about such issues. It seems to me that smaller studios, however, might do better to focus on just a few major platforms with sizeable installed bases (like the PS2).

[Z]

the gaming indusrty is still young. it can support all these platforms. things like mobiles and arcade/simplistic games take around 6 guys 2 months to make. so those aren't a problem. PSOne to PSP and the Virtual Consoles will have minor adjustments to old games so those don't count either. you may even sqeeze in DS with them as it doesn't cost alot of time nor money to make a game for it.

with the rest, you can always port a single game with some adjustment. look at console games this gen (and possibly X2); most multiplatforms are developed on PS2 (due to its unique architecture) and simply ported to the rest. there are very few games on X2 that have been made from the ground up on it. even when next-gen development kicks off, you will practically have 2 platforms: current gen and second gen (PC can be ported to/from next-gen consoles).

things aren't as crowded as one might initially think. and the more the marrier. if there are too many options, people will chose to support some more than others. the 'extra weight' will die off soon enough.

[Viper]

So what you've alluded to without possibly realizing it is that developers/publishers will have to make more squels, more ports, and less focused quality titles due to supporting such a diversified market.

[Z]

why do people automatically judge ports as being bad quality games? sure they don't exploit the full technical potential of a given system, but that is a small price to pay to get access to a game. either that, or you have to spend a fortune on multiple systems just to get a good amount of games on them.

the issue that a publisher needs to keep an eye on is the potential bugs that come with ports since a game is not optimized for any one system.

the question about sequels or original content isn't effected by the number of platforms out there, rather on the fact that a sequel has an easier time with sales than a brand new IP. sequels are 'safer' to market and sell than new games. and sports don't count as sequels. what do you want them to do? invent new sports games to make games on?

another thing is that sequels aren't really bad as some want them to look like. if a game sells poorly, it will most likely not have a sequel. if it does, it will most likely flop even worse than the original. that will hurt the publishers even more. by that, if a publisher didn't think a game will sell, it wouldn't make a sequel.
and simply, I put bad sequels with mediocre games and movie-tie ins as being generally horrible. we are to blame for that. if they didn't sell like crazy, they wouldn't keep making them like this. so don't buy crappy games nor sequels.

as a positive side of sequels, I don't really mind having a another run playing a game I really enjoyed with more content, new game play, better controls, etc. some games even change drastically from its prequels. look at the Jack and Daxter series right up to Jak X. Ratchet and Clank 3 compared to the previous ones. RE4 to past RE games. and so on. I don't mind playing these triple A games as long as they keep delivering.
keep in mind that the biggest names out there do not have a sequel annually. (again, sports are different issue). how many years do we have to wait for a new Ace Combat, Tekken, MGS, etc. hell, Mario comes only once a generation.
these games truly shine from the past entry. the new GT always puts the last one to shame. it makes you smile while trying to remember what made the previous one so special after seeing the new masterpiece.

of course, some games only use the previous names and/or a number sequence to get some extra spot light. but in reality, they are new games all together. sure, they might share some very general concepts, but they still feel very different. FF comes to mind. the gameplay, story, controls, designs, etc. are all completely new (aside from the only one side quest version). some consider Shadow of the Colossus as some sort of sequel to ICO (I disagree strongly).

of course we want new games and new experiences all the time. but at the same time, we shouldn't really be harsh as sequels can prove just as enjoyable and sometimes just as refreshing as new games. just enjoy yourself and try to not get a crappy game (though that is never intentional ;p)

going back to the original point; a publisher could easily port a new game on multiple system as they could port a sequel. porting in this matter is not the point. the sequel vs. original IP question comes down the previous points given.

[SuperLuigiBros]

I hate multi platform games. In the time of the SNES (and others I spose), we could be like 'my console of choice pwns your console of choice because we have these games' and they could reply 'my console of choice has these games, so i win'. Now its just 'hmm, should I buy this for xbox, ps2, gamecube or pc?'. It was a million times better when everything had that 'only for...' sticker (like the gamecube thing in the top left of the case). But I spose now that it has become crowded, they just spam up the one game to everything and itll sell rather well. Sequels and stuff are more than tolerable, its the multi platform games that piss me off. (Not that there arnt any good ones, though).

keep in mind that the biggest names out there do not have a sequel annually. (again, sports are different issue). how many years do we have to wait for a new Ace Combat, Tekken, MGS, etc. hell, Mario comes only once a generation.
you forgot Smash Bros.

[Z]

In the time of the SNES (and others I spose), we could be like 'my console of choice pwns your console of choice because we have these games' and they could reply 'my console of choice has these games, so i win'. Now its just 'hmm, should I buy this for xbox, ps2, gamecube or pc?'. It was a million times better when everything had that 'only for...' sticker (like the gamecube thing in the top left of the case). But I spose now that it has become crowded, they just spam up the one game to everything and itll sell rather well. Sequels and stuff are more than tolerable, its the multi platform games that piss me off. (Not that there arnt any good ones, though).

I would care more for having a bigger game library than that. if you want to get a kick out of that anyways, you can still do it with 1st and 2nd party games.

I am for a more practicle approach: give me more choices and support.:)

[Viper]

Ever notice the Golden Age of gaming took place back then? Why? Could it be because devs could concentrate ont he game instead of dealing with the logistics nightmare of "Will this work on that platform?", "We can't do that there so scrap that", "OK, leave that part in this version and put that part in the other console", "OK, you 5 break off the team and do the PSP, you 5 do the DS and you 5 do the GBA."


Spread too think = unfocussed work.

It's why 1st party and exclusives always shine brighter.

It's also forcing the little guy with a smal team to choose one console specifically and that's not fair to gamers.

[Z]

there is obviously issues, I just don't deem them so God for saken ;)

[Phoenix]

2 companies in direct competition over various fields would be ideal, I'd say. Next to 1 company with an unshakable drive for quality having a monopoly, of course. But that couldn't happen.

[Helios]

I think there's a misconception here about the actuality of game developers being stretched too thin. For simplicity sake lets break it down. Inside the console arena you have an array of developers that rarely venture outside of consoles, with a relatively small percentage that also make handheld titles. Then over in the PC realm once again pc developers rarely if ever jump into consoles. Im not counting ported games. Cell phones, ive seen a tony hawk game and I believe splinter cell on that Nokia N-Gage but beside that ive never even heard of a major gaming studio(excluding MS's mobile division) develop games for cell phones. Far as overworking developers cell phones are pretty much neglible.

So as I see it every division has a core set of devout developers. Generally the only time you see otherwise is with the big companies, and I hardly think MS Studios and EA are being stretched too thin. But I do hate it that EA makes damn near every title they make multi-platform. Quite frankly I think its going to get so bad at one point that its going to be pointless to own more than one console because everything but a handful of games will be on every system.

It's also forcing the little guy with a smal team to choose one console specifically and that's not fair to gamers.

How is that not doing gamers a favor? Its giving the gamers that chose that system a nicely polished/tuned game, instead of a lowest common denominator multi-platform title.

[Z]

Quite frankly I think its going to get so bad at one point that its going to be pointless to own more than one console because everything but a handful of games will be on every system.
that is what was happening since the last generation at the least. the specific system choice will depend on many factors that some will care about more than others in certain aspects like price, controller, apps, exclusives, etc. there is nothing out of the usual here.

just a note on mobile games; it is a potential huge markets. every major publisher is making mobile games from Sony to Squareenix to id to the rest of them. SE made good profits out of mobile games and Doom RPG preformed better than expected. the mobile gaming market isn't that huge now, but it has a huge potential. just look at how much they make on selling ringtones and wallpapers. I mean, who actually pays for those things? yet still.

as for specific games, I think any famous game has made it to mobiles from SOCOM and FF to Rayman and Sonic.

[Backlash]

One big problem that I can see as far as with next gen, specifically the three consoles. It's pretty safe to say that the sales numbers between the three will be closer this time around. This means that either more people are going to be buying more than one platform, or more people will be buying a Revolution/X360 than their respective consoles last gen, and less of Sony's (since Sony currently has like half (probably more) of the console market). My point here is that if people go with the second option (more even sales numbers all around), then there won't be a clear cut choice for developers.

For example, with the PS2, if a developer only had the budget to make a game for one system, they just picked the PS2, because it had a huge install base and it would improve the chances of having decent sales.

But with this gen, if the numbers are more evenly distributed, then no matter what platform they choose, they don't get the better chances of having decent sales.

If you don't understand, it's like this:

Last gen if someone made a game on the PS2, if 10% (generally not the adoption rate for small dev's games, but I'm using this because it's easy) of the PS2 owners bought it, then that means they sold 10 million games. But if they released it on the Xbox/GC and 10% bought it, then maybe they got to 2 million people. But with this gen with the numbers more evenly spread around, say an average of 60 million consoles sold, and 10% of the console's owners bought it, that's 6 million copies sold, and with the increased dev costs, they might not be able to break even.

This can turn into a genuine problem, and I can see it turning into a situation where we don't get much creativity at all, because devs will pretty much NEED to rely on tried and true style games, because if they make an experimental game and it fails, that could mean the end for 'em.

[pac4life]

Well one thing is for sure:

My wallet is getting less crowded.

[Z]

if the numbers are more evenly distributed, then no matter what platform they choose, they don't get the better chances of having decent sales.
I don't see that as a bad thing at all. having three systems selling relatively close to each other means the dev has a choice to support the one they are more comfortable with rather than being forced to support the popular one. what if one system is easier to work with, or one is cheaper to develop for, or one has more attractive licensing agreements, and so on and so forth?

I rahter be given the freedom of chosing a platform and still have an equally good shot at sales from the installer based point of view than being forced to work with a specific name.

[Backlash]

^ That's true, but many devs would want the almost sure shot of turning a large profit. In a perfect world, all three would sell 100 million and the dev could have full creative freedom, but that's likely not gonna happen this time around.

[Z]

in that case, maybe devs should put a little more thought in their game selling because it is actually good then relying on throwing it in a large crowed hoping to snare as much ignorant potential customers. ;)

just food for thought; some multiplatforms sold more on non-PS2 systems than they did on PS2. some later ports did as well from and to PS2. though a larger install base helps, it doesn't guarantee better sales. marketing and the quality of the game have more effect. :)

[Backlash]

I'm with you, I'd rather devs sell their games on quality rather than throwing it at the biggest barrel and hoping they don't miss. But think if Katamari was on the GC. It would have sold like crap and people would have called it kiddie, but on the PS2, it sold better than your average cult hit (like Eternal Darkness for example, which was a quality game). There are always exceptions, Soul Calibur II sold better on the GC than it did on the other two, but those are just that, exceptions.

But still, with the rising cost of development, having a huge install base will help with sales usually, and just a thought, maybe this will help weed out crap developers. There's a positive! :)