However, I think that would mean fewer games overall for consoles. As some of the other posters pointed out, a number of these AAA titles take 2 or more years to develop. I believe Skyrim took 4. That being the case, the developers of such titles would only have one shot to hit it big before the next hardware cycle rolls around. Sure, they could continue to develop for the older hardware, but the consumer base for those would drop given that newer tech would be available.
But I will agree that five years is enough. This current cycle may have lasted this long due to the worldwide economic downturn. Who can say how long it would have been if things were better.
I'm more than willing for new consoles to arrive, so long as support for current consoles doesn't die out as quickly as it did for the Gamecube, Xbox, and currently, the Wii (the Wii isn't dead, but new releases are few and far between outside of Japan).
@sladakrobot Agreed. Devs don't want new consoles because they want to make new experiences. They need the new consoles to make money, plain and simple. The next generation won't be much different than this one as far as Microsoft and Sony consoles are concerned. We'll see the same franchises we see now from the same devs...running on newer hardware.
"Same s@$t, different day".
Anybody else see Versus XIII ending up as a next gen title?
@FandomTheory Well said. I grew up in a time when video games where only for "nerds", and people of all ages derided me for enjoying them. I had fun, and that was what mattered.
The industry is a behemoth now, and developers want to reach everybody. Unfortunately, that means reaching out to those who may have grown up in a high tech world, where the latest=the best mentality was pushed to the masses.
It's telling that SE is the one pushing for a new cycle. Their games nowadays are mostly known for their technical achievement, so it's no surprise that they want the new consoles ASAP. However, many people have learned the hard way this generation that all the shiny water and realistic facial expressions mean nothing if the final product is lacking in every other area.
Plain and simple, I think SE is having trouble coming up with new ideas.
@jubdeidamasta I agree. If getting more advanced technology is the only way that can make better games, then they need to rethink how they approach the whole process.
@HAMMERCLAW Agreed. Gaming isn't a "nerd hobby" anymore; it's a billion dollar industry that rivals Hollywood. Naturally, the industry is going to evolve, and that means expanding it to as many mediums as possible. If Smartphones are the natural evolution of cell phones, then mobile gaming is the natural evolution of handheld gaming. Instead of making people buy dedicated hardware, they make games available that work with whatever you already have.
It's not a matter of devs jumping ship while waiting for new tech. It's devs seeing another viable platform, and going after a new audience.
First it was Epic, and now it's Square Enix calling for new hardware.
I may be off base, but this may speak volumes of ones calling for the new hardware.
Both Epic and SE are well known for their technical achievements (Epic for its Unreal Engine, and SE for putting out some of the best visuals each generation).
A short console cycle benefits the devs, anyway. The point of embracing consoles over PC is the convenience of the gaming experience. PC owners need constant upgrades to play the latest and greatest games, while console users sacrifice technical superiority for generally stable hardware that will allow them to play any game released for a number of years without worry. If console makers shift to shorter lifespans (say, 2-4 years) then the cost to the consumer would begin to run parallel to that for PC upgrades. Actually, given that console games are at a higher price point than their PC brethren, the cost might actually be higher.
This is my opinion, of course. I don't want a four year console life cycle, since I generally don't pick up consoles at launch. I didn't get a PS3 until the end of 2008 (ironic the year before the Slim), but if the console's life had expired in 2010, then I would have been pissed. The games I really wanted didn't even start appearing until after Dragon Age Origins came out.
@EasyComeEasyGo I could actually see them rolling out something for Star Fox's anniversary, especially considering there hasn't been a Star Fox game for Wii (and it's highly unlikely at this point).
I'm not a big fan of CyberConnect2's fighting games.
It's a toss-up for me. I need to see some footage. Will it be something different, or will it be Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm with a different coat of paint?
Some people can't handle the bandwidth that a digital-only gaming age would require (myself included), and many of us simply don't want to. There's nothing wrong with choice between the two, but suddenly jumping to digital-only would ensure failure, not the other way around. Did the PSP Go achieve success by removing physical media from the equation?
Of course those on the developers' side of the industry want to get rid of physical releases. It will naturally save them money on production costs. However, would they pass those savings onto us consumers and lower the price of games? I highly doubt it. If anything, the cost of gaming would go up for us, since they'd need to introduce new services that could handle that kind of bandwidth. Currently, I don't know of many ISPs that wouldn't throttle bandwidth when it reaches hundreds of gigabytes.
Perhaps the biggest issue to me is the fact that the games would then truly become a service, and not a product. There are already instances of companies abusing the current sales model (selling "incomplete" games and charging later for "DLC"), so I can't even imagine what would happen with an entirely digital game as the new standard. They could easily sell us our games chapter by chapter, or map by map. Would the public embrace a business model where you "pay-by-the-mode" (singleplayer is standard, versus and other modes would have to be purchased separately)? The consumer loses way too much power in this scenario. It essentially becomes "You can pay to play, our way....or GTFO. Deal with it."
Of course, I may just be worried over nothing. Perhaps the "DLC abuse" would remain in the minority under such a system. Either way, I like my physical releases, mainly because I currently cannot obtain digital only titles on consoles.
Yomigaeru's comments