Support NeoGAF

[ghst]

What Charlequin is describing is known as opportunity cost.

A Security Guard may find it worth his time to moonlight as a Janitor if he needs the extra money. A Doctor almost certainly would not find it worth his time, because the disparity in pay between Doctor -> Janitor is so large that the amount of "extra" money he would bring in would be so small that he'd be better off spending his time doing something else. He could take on additional shifts as a Doctor, for example.

That is the situation with Sony and Microsoft. And yes, I did just compare Sony to a Security Guard and Microsoft to a Doctor. If you'd looked at their balance sheets over the last decade, you can see why.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Microsoft will pull out of the business, by the way. I'm just pointing out why this specific issue (i.e. that gaming is not very profitable for anyone but Nintendo) is something that would bother Microsoft more than it would bother Sony: Microsoft has a lot of other really valuable, profitable things they could sink their money in to instead. Sony really doesn't.

i keep pulling up this article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_24/b4182036703891.htm. it's a stark reminder that if kinect doesn't set microsoft's investors world on fire, xbox 720 is a question of if - rather than when.

Even as the company hypes Natal and its new mobile software, Windows Phone7, investors don't expect smash hits; in fact, they'd settle for small losses on these and other gadgets. "It's hard to make the case this has been a good use of shareholder capital," says Todd S. Lowenstein, who runs HighMark Capital's value fund. "I don't fault them for trying this stuff, but investors are getting impatient." Other investors suggest that, like IBM (IBM) a decade ago, Microsoft should refocus its efforts on its massively profitable PC and corporate software businesses. Its cash from operations last quarter alone was $7.4billion, a company record. Yet its shares are down about 50percent since Steve Ballmer took over as CEO on Jan.13, 2000. "The stock would go up if Microsoft exited its consumer businesses," says Bill Whyman of ISI Group.

 

[Opiate]

The missing element from this analysis is whether Microsoft can actually make a better return by investing the same resources into their core business. They expanded into console gaming for two reasons: the coming convergence between computing and home electronics (in full force now), and because they had generated enormous caches of idle resources. They have enough cash generated from their core businesses that they needed alternative markets to expand into. So for them it's not a question of whether to invest in one area or the other, but to leave the resources idle, return them to the shareholders (something they did with the massive cash dividend a few years ago), or expand into new markets. Microsoft is big enough that they're doing all three.

I'm suggesting that it's becoming increasingly apparent that they expanded in to the wrong markets. Or at least, put the wrong emphasis on them.

They should have put more money in the Mobile/Tablet/Music departments. Those are where the convergence devices are actually coming from. They should have put less money in to gaming. They have been far less popular, profitable, and succesful as convergence devices.

Microsoft bet on gaming for convergence, and I think most analysts (and me) are now coming to the conclusion that this bet was wrong.

 

[FrankT]

Leaving the console business isn't going to magically recover all the money they've already burned. If the Xbox is making profit, they'll keep supporting it.

That is, unless there is some corporate "vision" restructuring that puts the ax to profitable enterprises for no discernible reason (see Flight Simulator and Age of Empires.)

Pretty much this.

Yeah I'm starting to believe the next xbox won't be here for awhile. Maybe around 2014 if we are lucky. What reason does MS have for a successor? X360 is selling the best it ever has and they are raking in massive profits at the same time. The longer MS waits, the better chance they have of making a console that is technologically superior and also not sold at a big loss. If it is 2014 MS can have a system out that will make the 360 look old (because it will be by then) and not have to take a big loss on every system sold, if at all.

And 100% agree with this. They will stretch this gen as long as possible. It will be interesting to see who they replace Bach with as that person will likely hold the keys to all this based on that Kotaku article discussing a 3 year R&D time frame.

The missing element from this analysis is whether Microsoft can actually make a better return by investing the same resources into their core business. They expanded into console gaming for two reasons: the coming convergence between computing and home electronics (in full force now), and because they had generated enormous caches of idle resources. They have enough cash generated from their core businesses that they needed alternative markets to expand into. So for them it's not a question of whether to invest in one area or the other, but to leave the resources idle, return them to the shareholders (something they did with the massive cash dividend a few years ago), or expand into new markets. Microsoft is big enough that they're doing all three.

Indeed and when you produce 18.7 billion in net profit in a year there is a point where one has to wonder what some investors really want because that a sick amount of cash in a year. Of course, MS can easily do all three. They have a number of failures in the division and tyring to get a leg up on Apple on the phone space or Ipad space will in fact take huge resources as well(in fact they already have tried to do some of this and failed). They will be able to return a nice amount a profit for the rest of this gen, but who knows if they will sink the kind of money they have to upstart the next. Regardless it will be a good while if they do.

 

[Spike]

Nintendo never made THAT Huge of a leap. Granted SNES --> N64 was Big

and N64 --> GCN was also big, but Nintendo has never leap more than One Generations worth of tech.

:lol

NES > SNES = Big leap
SNES > N64 = Big leap
N64 > GCN = Big leap
GCN > Wii = No leap

 

[V_Arnold]

I'm suggesting that it's becoming increasingly apparent that they expanded in to the wrong markets. Or at least, put the wrong emphasis on them.

They should have put more money in the Mobile/Tablet/Music departments. Those are where the convergence devices are actually coming from. They should have put less money in to gaming. They have been far less popular, profitable, and succesful as convergence devices.

Microsoft bet on gaming for convergence, and I think most analysts (and me) are now coming to the conclusion that this bet was wrong.

Excuse me if I sound too "obvious", but you all do understand that Microsoft HAS become invested in the console gaming market by now, right?

And anyone saying Microsoft should just "bail out" understands that Microsoft is beyond its huge investments now. It is not the first year of Xbox anymore, where the name was not yet tested, the infrastructure had to be laid down yet, all the big 3rd party publishers had to be convinced to develop their machine also. Now, we are in 2010, with dozens of millions of Xbox 360's sold, with a hardware that is supposedly profitable on the go, with revenues incoming from every sold Xbox 360 game, with millions of Xbox Live subscribers (another source of revenue, most likely also profitable) - Xbox is a brand now, with a lot of power behind it.

The only question I think is worth asking is this: IF (and that is a huge, an unbelievably huge if) the next generation should prove to be a huge leap like x->360, ps2->ps3, not like gc->wii, would Microsoft want to stay in? Their best take is a route with a safe generation switch, just like with Nintendo: make the new box a bit faster, double the ram, sell the box with profits from the launch. That, and the Xbox Live subsciptions probably being transferable would mean Microsoft has a huge "reason" to not just stay in business, but to further strengthen the brand.

Opportunity costs does not really apply to situations like this, I think. Reason is: you could have said Microsoft could have entered the Coke market. Pepsi Coke, Coca Cola, and Microsoft Cola. Why not that? Beucase obviously, following this logic, every market is better than this because it can make more money... not likely. I think what Microsoft would want to do (and with XNA, they are quite doing it already...): make gaming a platform of theirs, where whatever the device (preferably a hardware with microsoft OS, OR a Microsoft hardware, OR a Microsoft Portable), you have a Live ID, you can buy the games of your choice and you have access to a growing library of digital titles. If one thing this last few years have told us, it is not to be restricted to one platfrom.

Therefore, I see little to no reason for Microsoft to discontinue their Xbox brand, or "bail out" from it - especially now.

 

[jedimike]

I'm suggesting that it's becoming increasingly apparent that they expanded in to the wrong markets. Or at least, put the wrong emphasis on them.

They should have put more money in the Mobile/Tablet/Music departments. Those are where the convergence devices are actually coming from. They should have put less money in to gaming. They have been far less popular, profitable, and succesful as convergence devices.

Microsoft bet on gaming for convergence, and I think most analysts (and me) are now coming to the conclusion that this bet was wrong.

MS has stated countless times that their plan is "three screens and a cloud"... The Xbox is very important to them. Sure they took a different road than AppleTV, Roku, etc., but they definitely view the Xbox as the device that owns the living room screen.

IMO, the gaming aspect was the smartest way to get the device in the living room. It would be difficult to get 40M units in households any other way. Rest assured, MS has just as much interest in the multi-media capabilities of the Xbox as it does the games. That's evident by the Fall update which will add Zune music, ESPN, and Hulu in addition to the Kinect interface.

 

[mm04]

I love how after posting its 3rd month in a row of leading gaming console sales in the USA, Microsoft is doomed and will be leaving the gaming console market. I can't wait to read the "analysis" for September if by some miracle it actually happens for a 4th month in a row. GAF, where rationalization happens.

 

[Bizzyb]

:lol

NES > SNES = Big leap
SNES > N64 = Big leap
N64 > GCN = Big leap
GCN > Wii = No leap

I just said that they [Nintendo] have made big Leaps, BUT They are not going to go from Wii (which is a tad more powerful than Gamecube) to something that is way more powerful than the 360/PS3. They are not going to make a leap that big. They never have.

Wii 2 may be something like a 360+ but it won't be the system that MS puts out next (assuming MS goes the traditional route of upgrading)

edit: But hey, I would love for them to prove me wrong.

 

[ULTROS!]

I've been wondering, since we know the 360 is pretty strong in the US and UK. How does it fare worldwide (not including the top markets: NA/EU/JP)? Also for the PS3 and Wii?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

MS has stated countless times that their plan is "three screens and a cloud"...

Pretty much the path we're on and where the device is less and less important that what is coming through it and who is providing it. Services and software.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Yeah I'm starting to believe the next xbox won't be here for awhile. Maybe around 2014 if we are lucky. What reason does MS have for a successor? X360 is selling the best it ever has and they are raking in massive profits at the same time. The longer MS waits, the better chance they have of making a console that is technologically superior and also not sold at a big loss. If it is 2014 MS can have a system out that will make the 360 look old (because it will be by then) and not have to take a big loss on every system sold, if at all.

I think this is an understated benefit of the generational gap being stretched out, at least for the hardware manufacturers.

Microsoft could spec their next console for top-of-the line 2010 tech, sell it at $399 for a profit if their next console comes out in 2012, and still substantially leap-frog the 360 in performance. I think it's safe to say that we've already seen what to expect from the next gen of consoles in the current top-shelf PC market.

There is almost zero incentive to pack the next generation of consoles with bleeding-edge tech. While the technological curve has maintained itself over the last decade, the number of devs who can utilize that power in any practical fashion is exceedingly small. I may be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has even come close to surpassing Crysis, a game that will be 5 years old by the time the next consoles roll around. Crytek themselves have spent more time on optimization and dev tools than they have on trying to outdo themselves.

 

[Wazzim]

I've been wondering, since we know the 360 is pretty strong in the US and UK. How does it fare worldwide (not including the top markets: NA/EU/JP)? Also for the PS3 and Wii?

PS3 and Wii do alot better in the smaller markets because of their famous brand name.

 

[rosjos44]

I just said that they [Nintendo] have made big Leaps, BUT They are not going to go from Wii (which is a tad more powerful than Gamecube) to something that is way more powerful than the 360/PS3. They are not going to make a leap that big. They never have.

Wii 2 may be something like a 360+ but it won't be the system that MS puts out next (assuming MS goes the traditional route of upgrading)

edit: But hey, I would love for them to prove me wrong.

Well I think they made a bigger leap with the DS to 3DS.

 

[Sydle]

Pretty much the path we're on and where the device is less and less important that what is coming through it and who is providing it. Services and software.

Yep. If they drop Xbox now then they would give up a foothold into millions of homes and then they would be accused of not fighting off Sony, Apple, or Google as those companies continue to make inroads in the consumer market with software services. They would also lose a platform that keeps attracting more content providers and consumers to the service.

 

[Celine]

Excuse me if I sound too "obvious", but you all do understand that Microsoft HAS become invested in the console gaming market by now, right?

And anyone saying Microsoft should just "bail out" understands that Microsoft is beyond its huge investments now. It is not the first year of Xbox anymore, where the name was not yet tested, the infrastructure had to be laid down yet, all the big 3rd party publishers had to be convinced to develop their machine also. Now, we are in 2010, with dozens of millions of Xbox 360's sold, with a hardware that is supposedly profitable on the go, with revenues incoming from every sold Xbox 360 game, with millions of Xbox Live subscribers (another source of revenue, most likely also profitable) - Xbox is a brand now, with a lot of power behind it.

The only question I think is worth asking is this: IF (and that is a huge, an unbelievably huge if) the next generation should prove to be a huge leap like x->360, ps2->ps3, not like gc->wii, would Microsoft want to stay in? Their best take is a route with a safe generation switch, just like with Nintendo: make the new box a bit faster, double the ram, sell the box with profits from the launch. That, and the Xbox Live subsciptions probably being transferable would mean Microsoft has a huge "reason" to not just stay in business, but to further strengthen the brand.

Nope the other route is the safe one.
Wii succeeded because it offered a differentiation factor that was seen by consumers worth enough to offset the lack of improved graphic fidelity.

 

[jedimike]

Pretty much the path we're on and where the device is less and less important that what is coming through it and who is providing it. Services and software.

Correct. And this is why MS has to continue to add value to their Xbox live sevice. The revenue for the multimedia side of Xbox relies upon XBL subsriptions. This is also why you see Sony trying to get subscriptions. It costs a lot of money to get this content on your device from R&D down to marketing and bandwidth. Owning the device gets you nothing because you rely upon others to provide content... you have to find a way to make money on it too outside of game revenue.

IMO, If Sony isn't successful with subscriptions, you'll see them take a different approach. They simply can't afford to take on the extra multimedia PS3 costs on the back of their gaming division.

 

[boiled goose]

I just said that they [Nintendo] have made big Leaps, BUT They are not going to go from Wii (which is a tad more powerful than Gamecube) to something that is way more powerful than the 360/PS3. They are not going to make a leap that big. They never have.

Wii 2 may be something like a 360+ but it won't be the system that MS puts out next (assuming MS goes the traditional route of upgrading)

edit: But hey, I would love for them to prove me wrong.

i think they will because in part they realize they have to.
wii was a huge success, but i did not reach the complete domination of the ps2 in part because of the huge lack of power compared to the competition. This is why i think nintendo is going to wait a while before launching the successor to the wii. i think they will be the first to the market, but first within a year of competitors launches at the most. (ie all three systems already announced)

wii 2 will launch in 2012 not 2011 i believe. they can still ride the wii for profit for a while even if they are not destroying the competition. more colors, more pricedrops, etc. price drop not coming in 2010 i believe. maybe after the holidays.

 

[charlequin]

I'm not necessarily suggesting that Microsoft will pull out of the business, by the way. I'm just pointing out why this specific issue (i.e. that gaming is not very profitable for anyone but Nintendo) is something that would bother Microsoft more than it would bother Sony: Microsoft has a lot of other really valuable, profitable things they could sink their money in to instead. Sony really doesn't.

Exactly. Gaming has the potential to be a large percentage of Sony's operating profit when that business is going well for them, so it's a worthwhile area to be invested in (although not using the money-burning strategy they've used this generation.) With Microsoft it's much more difficult for gaming to be a worthwhile use of capital.

Again, I'm not really in agreeance with those that believe Microsoft is likely to leave the industry after this generation, if such people exist. I'm just pointing out that it's possible, and explaining why.

Right. My assertion isn't even that they'll leave, it's that where previously their commitment was absolute (they wouldn't leave no matter what happened), now their commitment is conditional (they won't leave as long as the business shows some form of progress and is self-sustaining) so they'll have to adopt conservative business measures oriented around being consistently profitable, and the distorting effect of Microsoft throwing money down a pit will disappear from the industry.

(In fact, I suggest a lot of people go back and read your posts again, since several of them seem to have missed that you don't think Microsoft will leave the console market. :lol )

The thing is, this is a side business with a great strategic relevance to the company's future

Hahaha, no. It was a bum call. "The living room" was a circa-2000 idea of the future of computing that has proven to be drastically less important than other new frontiers like mobile, content services, etc. A large part of the reason that future investments into the Xbox are less assured is that the idea that the set-top box will replace the PC is provably laughable now and Microsoft is busy trying to catch up to Google and Apple in areas that actually are a threat to its core business.

I don't think one should make such a clear distinction between their core business and entertainment.

The distinction is quite clear. Their core business is wildly, ludicrously, unimaginably profitable while all their fringe businesses are money pits. They're extremely easy to separate.

 

[Spike]

I just said that they [Nintendo] have made big Leaps, BUT They are not going to go from Wii (which is a tad more powerful than Gamecube) to something that is way more powerful than the 360/PS3. They are not going to make a leap that big. They never have.

Wii 2 may be something like a 360+ but it won't be the system that MS puts out next (assuming MS goes the traditional route of upgrading)

edit: But hey, I would love for them to prove me wrong.

Okay, that wasn't clear in your original post. I agree that they won't release on the same level of the PS4/X720, but I'm guessing it will be a bit more powerful than the 360/PS3. If they stick with ATI making the graphics, with the successes they have had with their low powered mobile GPU's, it is a no-brainer. I could see the Wii 2 having an equivalent of the Radeon 5770 mobile chip, which would be great.

 

[Aaron Strife]

When I bought Birth by Sleep, the guy said I was the only one who bought a copy from the entire chain. They had to go to Target to get my copy.

It's a smaller chain, but take that how you will.

 

[charlequin]

Basically the short version of what Opiate and I are saying is: at this point, with all sunk costs already written off, the "toehold in the living room" that the 360 represents is worth missing out on "better" investments elsewhere (i.e. staying in the business while making a moderate profit) but not worth throwing more actual money at (i.e. letting the Xbox business go into the red again.) They've actually been pushed into a position more like what Nintendo does by choice -- they need to make a profit on what they're doing right away rather than funnel money into a losing prospect and hope it pays off later.

Microsoft could spec their next console for top-of-the line 2010 tech, sell it at $399 for a profit if their next console comes out in 2012, and still substantially leap-frog the 360 in performance. I think it's safe to say that we've already seen what to expect from the next gen of consoles in the current top-shelf PC market.

Yep. The belt-tightening at both Sony and Microsoft, the slow dev cycles we already see this generation, and the lack of developers who can really push technology beyond a certain point will all work together to make a modest upgrade a more sensible path than another technological behemoth.

 

[SapientWolf]

I'm suggesting that it's becoming increasingly apparent that they expanded in to the wrong markets. Or at least, put the wrong emphasis on them.

They should have put more money in the Mobile/Tablet/Music departments. Those are where the convergence devices are actually coming from. They should have put less money in to gaming. They have been far less popular, profitable, and succesful as convergence devices.

Microsoft bet on gaming for convergence, and I think most analysts (and me) are now coming to the conclusion that this bet was wrong.

I don't think the amount of money they invested in those markets was the problem. They were lacking the direction and cohesiveness required to make a compelling mobile platform, but it looks like they finally got their act together for Windows Phone 7.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

MS has stated countless times that their plan is "three screens and a cloud"... The Xbox is very important to them. Sure they took a different road than AppleTV, Roku, etc., but they definitely view the Xbox as the device that owns the living room screen.

IMO, the gaming aspect was the smartest way to get the device in the living room. It would be difficult to get 40M units in households any other way. Rest assured, MS has just as much interest in the multi-media capabilities of the Xbox as it does the games. That's evident by the Fall update which will add Zune music, ESPN, and Hulu in addition to the Kinect interface.

If this was their goal, why did they develop the XBox brand is such a way that their console is more likely to be stuck in either a bedroom or basement?

I mean the livingroom is Blue Ocean territory as far as gaming is concerned, isn't it? Why wait till now to make a move to more casual and less violent games?

 

[ElFly]

MS shouldn't and won't ask themselves "how do we recover the 5 (?) billion dollars we spent on the xbox".

If at some point they want the division to be profitable, the only question will be "how much money are we making on this".

 

[HocusPocus]

I believe the victories the past two months for the 360 is due to built up anticipation of Kinect. No doubt about it.

 

[AniHawk]

I mean the livingroom is Blue Ocean territory as far as gaming is concerned, isn't it? Why wait till now to make a move to more casual and less violent games?

They probably weren't aware of any other way until this generation. Sony caught on a lot quicker (oh shit motion controls in the sixaxis!), but it took them longer to fully implement a solid plan.

 

[fixuis]

Man, I really hope all this talk about next gen being a moderate leap rather then a huge one like this gen, turns out to be wrong. Just imagining uncharted 4 on the ps4, drool. Devs such as ND have mastered the cell. If they can make uncharted 2 with 6 cores, imagine what they could come up with say, a 32 core cell or two cell processors with 32 ppu's. Would be insane :lol

 

[AniHawk]

Man, I really hope all this talk about next gen being a moderate leap rather then a huge one like this gen, turns out to be wrong. Just imagining uncharted 4 on the ps4, drool. Devs such as ND have mastered the cell. If they can make uncharted 2 with 6 cores, imagine what they could come up with say, a 32 core cell or two cell processors with 32 ppu's. Would be insane :lol

Or imagine what a developer could do if they made a video game on such a machine.

 

[Gadfly]

I am a little bit surprised following a relatively good NDP, GAF is starting to question Microsoft's commitment to its game business.

And it seems to me most of you guys have no idea about Microsoft's relationship with its investors and how much leverage and influence those investors that are looking for a quick buck have on Microsoft's direction.

I have worked for this company for 18 years and followed our financial statements and business gain/losses in every division a lot more closely and with a lot more interests that many of you have. I heard the same kind of talks in early days of NT! Microsoft is not IBM. They have taken chances and will continue to do so. They have to.

In any case, I still can't help being surprised with the timing of these comments. It is not like they reported a massive loss or came out third in this NDP or Halo Reach was just cancelled. I am wondering if this doom and gloom is mostly wishful thinking.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I'm with Charlequin and Opiate completely.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft (and MAYBE even SONY) starts to phase out or even exit the console wars next generation. Unlike Nintendo, gaming isn't their main source of income, gaming isn't their purpose. Microsoft should have focused the billions they sunk into the Xbox project into pushing Windows mobile. Currently they are hardly a force in the mobile OS market and the upcoming tablet wave is extremely crucial for them. Yet it seems that most future tablet manufacturers prefer to take the Android route. While many gamers may enjoy it, the Xbox project has seemed to be a huge money and time sink for Microsoft with no real significant benefit for the company.

I'd make a thread about it, but I was worried that it might get a bit ugly.

 

[EagleEyes]

I love how after posting its 3rd month in a row of leading gaming console sales in the USA, Microsoft is doomed and will be leaving the gaming console market. I can't wait to read the "analysis" for September if by some miracle it actually happens for a 4th month in a row. GAF, where rationalization happens.

I'm glad i'm not the only one with this thought. This talk about Microsoft and it's investors is truly embarassing. The company is making a ton of money in the videogame business now and they as bad as some of you want, they aren't going anywhere.

 

[Margalis]

As far as I know no product that was initially designed to be a "convergence device" actually succeeded at that goal. The 360 has failed (as a convergence device), Web TV and other set-top boxes failed, the PS3 failed. The products that succeed as convergence devices are products that do a few things well, establish themselves and then branch out. Obvious example being the iPod, iPhone, iPad progression.

Microsoft has a lot of other really valuable, profitable things they could sink their money in to instead. Sony really doesn't.

The thing is they don't. They have the core windows/office business but they're already stretching to add new features to those things. I often joke that Word 95 is all I need and really that's true, spelling and grammar checking are the last major features added to word. There's only so much they can do with Excel etc at this point and that market isn't going to grow a lot larger if they spend more money on it.

The recent history of Microsoft is that they are looking for something outside the core business to spend money on, because while the core is big there aren't obvious ways to grow it.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Or imagine what a developer could do if they made a video game on such a machine.

Below the belt dude.

 

[Spike]

Or imagine what a developer could do if they made a video game on such a machine.

Ouch.

 

[AniHawk]

Ouch.

Well for once I'm not trying to be that big of a jackass. I mean, we're getting so close to photorealism, and Uncharted 2 does a pretty good job at it already, that getting even more close to photorealism is just going to be more and more predictable in terms of visuals. "Yep, that sure looks like something that exists in the real world. More than it ever did, really."

If you have an insane amount of power, do something insane with the design. The possibilities on that end are far more interesting and unpredictable.

 

[Spike]

Well for once I'm not trying to be that big of a jackass. I mean, we're getting so close to photorealism, and Uncharted 2 does a pretty good job at it already, that getting even more close to photorealism is just going to be more and more predictable in terms of visuals. "Yep, that sure looks like something that exists in the real world. More than it ever did, really."

If you have an insane amount of power, do something insane with the design. The possibilities on that end are far more interesting and unpredictable.

Oh, I agree with you, Ani. I'm not one for photorealism in my games. If I wanted photorealism I'd go outside and take up some kind of activity to appreciate it. I want my games to remain games, and I want to use my imagination when playing 'games.'

 

[Clemsontigers35]

Is it possible to consider Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo profiting from video games?

 

[Y2Kev]

Well for once I'm not trying to be that big of a jackass. I mean, we're getting so close to photorealism, and Uncharted 2 does a pretty good job at it already, that getting even more close to photorealism is just going to be more and more predictable in terms of visuals. "Yep, that sure looks like something that exists in the real world. More than it ever did, really."

If you have an insane amount of power, do something insane with the design. The possibilities on that end are far more interesting and unpredictable.

Uncharted is not aiming for photorealism. Its characters are distinctly cartoonish and the settings are stylized (some more than others). Uncharted 2 has some pretty insane designs.

Besides, this has nothing to do with your umpteenth swipe at Naughty Dog.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Uncharted is not aiming for photorealism.

you're arguing about semantics here. they are making worlds and characters very much designed off of real world things.

it's cartoony, in some respects, but you're not about to see an environment that is so out-of-this world cer-A-zy that it could not exist in this world.

 

[AniHawk]

Uncharted is not aiming for photorealism.

Well I'm not sure how to greatly improve its visuals without making it look more realistic.

Its characters are distinctly cartoonish and the settings are stylized (some more than others). Uncharted 2 has some pretty insane designs.

Uncharted 2 does get pretty out there, but it's still mostly rooted in the real world. The visual design is where I see most of the Indiana Jones stuff (especially late in the game when you're going inside temples and ancient ruins). It's stylized, but within limits. I'd put it in the same realm as Mirror's Edge (the non-flash stuff, of course), although I think Naughty Dog creates humans that have a lot more care put into them than anything in Mirror's Edge.

Besides, this has nothing to do with your umpteenth swipe at Naughty Dog.

Can't it be both? Naughty Dog's been firmly set in the "let's make a movie-game" philosophy for the better part of a decade now, and they've gotten really good at it even if it's a direction I'm not particularly fond of. But on a personal level, I think a huge increase of power is far more valuable bringing some previously impossible ideas (without watering them down) to life than an increase in visuals. Although, in some cases, like Mirror's Edge, it's necessary for the latter.

 

[Y2Kev]

you're arguing about semantics here. they are making worlds and characters very much designed off of real world things.

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I mean, your first sentence is only partially true (there are plenty of things in the game that aren't based on real-world anything), and then you can make it on-its-face-false if you want to argue semantics. I don't want to be unpleasant about this, but you'll see why I feel this way later. Okami's actual game map is a map of Japan. I don't believe, truly, that because you're modeling your designs on real world things shouldn't mean you're aiming to present them as they are in the real world. That's playing around with word meanings. But I don't believe it's necessary.

it's cartoony, in some respects, but you're not about to see an environment that is so out-of-this world cer-A-zy that it could not exist in this world.

Really? Well, I don't agree. Not entirely.

Well I'm not sure how to greatly improve its visuals without making it look more realistic.

You don't see how they could make platforming on a gigantic moving magical Nepalese statue better looking without making it more...realistic? I mean the way the object is presented to the player is completely separated from reality.

Which is why I think this is an important and not entirely "semantic" distinction. You have plenty of games that have become popular because they are aiming for photorealism. Call of Duty is the big example, I think. And that's something I'd worry about if you were worried about creativity of design not scaling with surplus of power. But the game that takes you to Shambala? I dunno.

edit: And, like, I can obviously draw a line between, say, Paper Mario and Uncharted.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Man, I really hope all this talk about next gen being a moderate leap rather then a huge one like this gen, turns out to be wrong. Just imagining uncharted 4 on the ps4, drool. Devs such as ND have mastered the cell. If they can make uncharted 2 with 6 cores, imagine what they could come up with say, a 32 core cell or two cell processors with 32 ppu's. Would be insane :lol

When games cost $79.99 and $89.99, I will break you with the sheer power of my hatred.

 

[Y2Kev]

Can't it be both? Naughty Dog's been firmly set in the "let's make a movie-game" philosophy for the better part of a decade now, and they've gotten really good at it even if it's a direction I'm not particularly fond of. But on a personal level, I think a huge increase of power is far more valuable bringing some previously impossible ideas (without watering them down) to life than an increase in visuals. Although, in some cases, like Mirror's Edge, it's necessary for the latter.

I'm just trying to disaggregate "movie-game" from "photorealism," which is why I commented on your ND remark (which suggested they could make a game).

On a separate note, I don't object to anyone suggesting Uncharted looks "realistic." This is, I think, all a matter of degrees. Toy Story is pretty rooted in reality, but clearly photorealism isn't the goal even though a ton of detail was added between TS1 and TS3 because of technology.

 

[Spike]

When games cost $79.99 and $89.99, I will break you with the sheer power of my hatred.

I think games are going to be that price range next gen either way.

 

[AniHawk]

You don't see how they could make platforming on a gigantic moving magical Nepalese statue better looking without making it more...realistic? I mean the way the object is presented to the player is completely separated from reality.

I thought Uncharted 2 rode the line between reality and fantasy pretty well. More of an (early) X-Files way than an Indiana Jones way. Yeah there are super freaky mutants, but it's because of centuries of eating from this tree chemically altered their bodies. You could make scientific explanations for what was happening. I don't remember seeing any sort of magic in Uncharted 2, really. Just large, huge structures that Drake had to go across and usually things he had to stand on. Stuff that would have been possible to have been created by human hands and traps that could have been created by human hands (over many, many decades and centuries).

 

[AlternativeUlster]

When games cost $79.99 and $89.99, I will break you with the sheer power of my hatred.

I would pay that much for games if they came in giant cartridges. That shit would rule.

 

[AniHawk]

I'm just trying to disaggregate "movie-game" from "photorealism," which is why I commented on your ND remark (which suggested they could make a game).On a separate note, I don't object to anyone suggesting Uncharted looks "realistic." This is, I think, all a matter of degrees. Toy Story is pretty rooted in reality, but clearly photorealism isn't the goal even though a ton of detail was added between TS1 and TS3 because of technology.

I dunno. I don't think going to fantastic places means something can't look as realistic as possible. I think part of U2's success is that it does look as realistic as possible, since it's trying to bring places like Shambala to life.

Burnout Paradise is something that I think is a fantastic idea that probably wouldn't have been made last gen (it's an adventure game but you drive a car!). I think it's a pretty realistic/photorealistic game, and making that look twice as pretty would be nice, but I think I can guess a couple things: lighting, textures, and sparks would look better. I don't know what else they could do with the design though. Maybe like you get enough speed and you can drive in a Sonic the Hedgehog type loop or do other gravity-defying stuff in an even crazier city, but it would be totally based in physics. Or like, you can cause multi-car pileups on freeways unlike anything you could have done in Burnout Paradise. These are just examples, it could also be something much better.

 

[charlequin]

The company is making a ton of money in the videogame business now

That's really not particularly accurate.

as bad as some of you want, they aren't going anywhere.

Sigh.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Well for once I'm not trying to be that big of a jackass. I mean, we're getting so close to photorealism, and Uncharted 2 does a pretty good job at it already, that getting even more close to photorealism is just going to be more and more predictable in terms of visuals. "Yep, that sure looks like something that exists in the real world. More than it ever did, really."

If you have an insane amount of power, do something insane with the design. The possibilities on that end are far more interesting and unpredictable.

Baby needs a bottle?

 

[chubigans]

Gosh, what an interesting thread...I never thought of looking at MS' Xbox division in the way that it's being described here. But it makes a lot of sense.