Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
XBox (Games) Microsoft PlayStation (Games) Sony Games Hardware

Slashdot Asks: Is the Golden Era of Video-Game Console Sales Over? 314

Microsoft announced on Wednesday that it has stopped producing Xbox 360, a gaming console it launched in 2005. According to estimations, the company sold more than 85 million Xbox 360 units worldwide. Quartz has an insightful story today, in which it compares the shipment numbers of Xbox One and the PlayStation 4, the current generation consoles, to conclude that the "golden era" of video-game console sales is over. According to estimations, citing data provided by Nintendo, CNET, GameSpot, and Giant Bomb, the crown for the most popular gaming console goes to the Sony PlayStation 2 (2000) with 155.1 million inventories shipped. Sony PlayStation (1994) saw the movement of 102.49 million units, whereas 101.63 million Nintendo Wii inventories were dispatched. In comparison, Sony has sold 35.9 million units of PlayStation 4 so far, and Microsoft has sold roughly 10 million Xbox One units. From Quartz's report: It does seem, to some degree, that the golden age of home video-game consoles may be over. The previous generation of consoles was the last generation that didn't have to contend for users' time with mobile games. And you could make a strong case that a large portion of the casual gaming audience that Nintendo attracted for the Wii was almost entirely wiped out by mobile gaming. After all, the Wii was released in 2006 -- a year before the iPhone launched. Nintendo's next console, the Wii U, has been the company's worst-selling of all time. The average consumer may now feel more inclined to just pick up their phone and play Candy Crush or Temple Run than to get up and swing a controller around. The home console's saving grace could well be virtual reality. Just about every major tech and video-games company is working on a VR headset -- apart from Nintendo, it seems -- and early reviews of Facebook's Oculus Rift and HTC's Vive headsets have reduced non-gamers to tears. None of the top 10 most popular games consoles of all time have been released in the last 10 years, and VR may well be what turns the slowing console market back around.What's your take on this?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot Asks: Is the Golden Era of Video-Game Console Sales Over?

Comments Filter:
  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:07PM (#51957367)
    Who knew? (I now return to playing the latest Angry Bird on my iPad)
    • by Mattcelt ( 454751 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:56PM (#51957825)

      I can't speak for anyone else, but for my own purposes, I have avoided the latest generation of consoles for reasons that have nothing to do with mobile gaming.

      Wii: If Nintendo had released a more-powerful, HD version of the original Wii for a similar price point, I would have bought three. Instead they added and required that ridiculous controller, which IMHO completely ruined the experience.

      Xbox: Requires a subscription for playing on-line, which I simply won't do.

      Playstation: I own three PS3s, but the PS4 went the MS route to require a subscription for on-line play, so I've refused. And Sony's repeated feature regression over the years isn't exactly enticing.

      For myself, the draw of console gaming has always been 1) the real-time interaction (including audio) with other gamers throughout the world and 2) and off-line (i.e., completely-disconnected) single-player mode. Both of those experiences have grown steadily worse of late.

      If any manufacturer releases a console that allows for offline play and free interactive online play, and doesn't require an absurd controller, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

      • by Old97 ( 1341297 )
        Exactly, I second everything you wrote here.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "For myself, the draw of console gaming has always been 1) the real-time interaction (including audio) with other gamers throughout the world"

        So, your #1 draw for console gaming is real-time multiplayer, and you're not willing to pay for it. I'm not going to argue about whether MS or Sony are making a huge profit off their subscription prices, but I'm sure that the infrastructure that they've put in place did not come free and the cost has to be covered somehow.

        Besides, 1 year of Xbox Gold is less than the

        • ...but I'm sure that the infrastructure that they've put in place did not come free

          I thought Al Gore built that.

        • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @03:30PM (#51958969)

          So, your #1 draw for console gaming is real-time multiplayer, and you're not willing to pay for it. I'm not going to argue about whether MS or Sony are making a huge profit off their subscription prices, but I'm sure that the infrastructure that they've put in place did not come free and the cost has to be covered somehow.

          Yes, it does. It's called your Internet connection, and you pay your ISP for it.

          You can have high-end online games with 10-20 simultaneous players working just fine with a regular Internet connection. No phoning home. No subscription. No lock-in. No expiry date. I know, because I was there when we started writing them. That was around the 1990s, back when broadband was still a dream for most of us and people on the academic networks were called LPBs.

          Given the advances in technology of the past 20 years, I don't for a moment believe that it's actually necessary to have a centralised server as a core dependency just for most multiplayer online gaming today. In fact, I can see only two reasons to write your game that way.

          One reason is because you really are co-ordinating massive numbers of players in a shared world or otherwise dealing with huge amounts of content that changes over time. If that really is the nature of your game, that's fair enough, but in most cases it is not.

          The other reason is just about keeping control, so you can do things like limiting second-hand markets and making it harder to pirate. That's an entirely understandable goal from a commercial point of view, but there is no advantage for legitimate users who just want to enjoy a game with their friends and there are a lot of potential problems or disadvantages.

          I didn't like paying for it as well at first, but I don't really see it as that big of a burden anymore.

          And that's exactly what a lot of these services are banking on, but apparently quite a lot of customers are getting bored of being exploited in that way now. I can't say I'm overflowing with sympathy for the services in question, because I remember the days when games were about having fun and not just about squeezing as much profit out of the customer base as possible. Ironically, I bought a lot more games in those days.

      • by slaker ( 53818 )

        On a related note, I won't buy games on Steam (or Origin, same difference), because I don't like its terms of service. I've also felt the sting of losing a beloved MMO to corporate mismanagement and I'm not doing THAT again either. That almost completely shuts me out of PC gaming.

        Android games can be coped and played elsewhere, but some titles require either Google or Amazon authentication to operate and thus aren't truly portable either. It's better, in that I don't think Amazon and Google are going anywhe

      • by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

        I'm not big on game obsolescence, either. I've got a PS2 in the closet, with a pile of games that I might like to replay sometime, but it's not worth hooking up. I've got the PS3 attached to the TV, with another pile of games I still occasionally play, but I'd have to put in the closet if I bought a PS4, and then I'd have to buy new games that, given time, would also be destined for the closet.

        Lately it seems like the longevity of games on the PC is considerably better. Especially with places like GOG that

      • Retro-gaming is it.

        Actually, I've been playing Zelda clone on AppleTV called Oceanhorn: Monster of the Uncharted Seas. It's not Zelda, and never will be Zelda, but for a clone it's pretty damn close to the look and feel as it gets. It's also weak in many aspects, but its fun. I give it a 3 to 3 half stars out of 5.

      • If any manufacturer releases a console that allows for offline play and free interactive online play, and doesn't require an absurd controller, I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

        Get used to subscriptions or say goodbye to gaming, not just console gaming.

        The idea of free online play is sort of nuts anyhow. Like they are going to maintain these servers and their code base for 5? 10? 15? years with zero compensation other than the $50 bucks they received from the sale of the game 10 years ago?

    • by Kinwolf ( 945345 )
      Yup, and they sell for about half that iPad ;)
  • by uCallHimDrJ0NES ( 2546640 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:10PM (#51957387)

    This was a predictable cycle to all of us naysayer luddites who play retro consoles. Some manufacturer will come out with a disconnected toy console for children, and the cycle will begin again.

    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:39PM (#51957669)

      I seem to recall pundits predicting that this current generation of consoles would be the last *ever*... that no one was interested in home consoles any more because smartphones were eating up the market. That seems a bit ridiculous now, especially as consoles evolve into more general-purpose home entertainment platforms. And naturally, we've been hearing about the impending death of PC gaming for... what, well over a decade now? Somebody should tell all those companies collectively sinking billions into VR research and development.

      To me, the argument that consoles (or PCs) are doomed is like saying that three and four star restaurants will all be put out of business because fast food restaurants are so much cheaper, convenient, and popular. It ignores the fact that there are different market segments that will always exist because the different segments provide vastly different experiences. Does anyone think a hard-core gamer will be satisfied with playing on a 6" screen with a touch-screen versus a 60" TV with monster speakers and an ergonomic, purpose-built game controller, or using a high-end PC with precision controllers and dedicated gaming hardware (like the new VR equipment)? Is anyone stupid enough to believe that you can even build the exact same sort of games for all different platforms, given their different form factors?

      More to the point, just because the market for smartphone-based games is increasing doesn't mean it has the same demographics as the console market, nor does it mean that, even for those in the same demographic, that person even could use a console when they're playing a phone-based game. After all, they could be anywhere, like on a plane or in a hotel room, since that's the obvious virtue of mobile platforms: they're always available.

      Generally speaking, I think there's a lot less competition between mobile and traditional games than most people believe. I believe it represents a fairly large expansion of the gaming market, and not just a shift from one platform to another, even if some migration is inevitable.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

        That seems a bit ridiculous now, especially as consoles evolve into more general-purpose home entertainment platforms.

        I used my PS3 as a DVR, but Sony dropped that abiliy with the PS4. Sony is moving the opposite direction of a HTPC, after a step in that direction. But this generation Xbox added that feature (though more limited in support than PlayTV was for the PS3).

        • True, the Xbox One is much more media-focused. Still, keep in mind that you can (to my understanding) still use your PS4 for many media-related tasks, like streaming internet video or playing media from a DNLA server. A lot of people are cutting the cable, so really have no need for a DVR.

    • This was a predictable cycle to all of us naysayer luddites who play retro consoles. Some manufacturer will come out with a disconnected toy console for children, and the cycle will begin again.

      It sounds like you are describing a Nintendo (3)DS. I don't see Nintendo ever replicating the success of the DS/Lite/XL. Too many parents' old phones laying around to use instead.

      • Old phones don't have dpads and buttons. My younger cousins have tablets, but they play their DS'es way more as they get closer to double digits in age. This is the angle Nintendo needs to play here, that for many types of games, touch controls are terrible.

    • by Zobeid ( 314469 )

      Yes. That was the secret of Nintendo's success with the original NES. There's always a market of kids who are too young to be entrusted with a costly, complex and fragile device

      Incidentally, I was among the generation who jumped from Atari and Coleco consoles to computer games on the Atari ST and the Amiga, and I thought the NES was the stupidest idea ever, and nobody would buy it. Thus proving the worth of my crystal ball. . . I'd like to think I've learned a few things since then, though.

      • by suso ( 153703 ) *

        You probably now have a good job and a good intuition for computers as a result of your experience now too, am I right? I went along a similar path. Atari 2600 to a long line of computers before buying my 2nd video game console, a Nintendo Wii. I've had a number of annoying encounters with video game console fanfolk over the years where they make fun of computers/computer gaming, but they don't seem to realize that the popularity of console gaming and computer gaming goes back and forth and between almost e

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Consoles were best back in the day because they did one thing and did it well. Now, they don't. When the Atari 2600 came out, a PC to run the same games (if they were ported) would have been 10x the price. Now, I can buy a Windows machine with all the same apps and features as the Xbox One for the same price. So why lock myself in to the restricted console?

      What does the console do that the PC doesn't?

      The console went for the "everything to everyone" model, and lost. It's not consistent. PS3 added T
      • Now, I can buy a Windows machine with all the same apps and features as the Xbox One for the same price

        No, you can't get a gaming PC for $300. Pre-built gaming rigs start at ~$1000.

    • You don't have to go that far. Just make it fucking SIMPLE TO USE again. By now it's more complicated to use a console than getting a PC to play your games for crying out loud.

      You know what would be the tits? Imagine a console with something like Steam. Not nagging you, not requiring you to be part of some shitty "community" that you don't give half a fuck about, hell, let people create their own if they wanna but don't MAKE me join your fan club just so I can play that fucking game of yours, that alone mak

    • I have a Wii and a Wii U. Not because it is a superior system. However the Nintendo brand games seems to be better for family play.
      Me and my wife have only one TV setup, if we are to play a game, we will play a game together. So games like Mario Kart, Mario Party and Smash Bros are high on our list of games to play. After we decided to get off the Wii we did our research on the Xbox 1 and PS4 (Mostly because we use them for netflix/hulu/amazon prime) And the More powerful boxes had serious games titl

  • by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:10PM (#51957389)

    I think the problem may be that nine out of ten games released now are just Call of Duty with a different skin: CoD: Aliens, CoD: Zombies, CoD: Indiana Jones, CoD: Noir.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go blow on some contacts and reinsert.

    (That sounds sexier than it is.)

    • Indeed. Plus there's the fact that early on new console releases tended to be dramatic improvements over the existing systems, thanks to Moore's law being in strong effect. You also tended to have the releases of the more successful systems fairly staggered, resulting in fairly dramatic improvements, every few years, giving enthusiasts more incentives to get all of them, as compared to the "everybody launches within a year of each other", and "most games are available on all platforms" of today, which tend

  • by Junta ( 36770 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:10PM (#51957403)

    PS4 has only been out for 3 years, and you are comparing units moved to systems that had a decade or more sales lifetime and drawing conclusions based on those being equivalent things to compare?

    • The original article has a small blurb that compares sales over the first three years:

      Microsoft’s follow-up console, the Xbox One, has not sold nearly as well as the 360. In 2008, less than three years after it was launched, the company said the 360 had sold over 19 million units worldwide. The Xbox One was released in 2013, and has sold about 10 million units in roughly the same amount of time as its predecessor.

      • But the 10 million Xbox mark is wrong. They are at 20 million sold since its launch:
        http://n4g.com/news/1877256/ps... [n4g.com]

        The consoles also last much longer. 11 years for a console is amazing. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are online which means content is available to this date. The ease at which game makers can publish to multiple platform is another reason the transition from one console to another is slow since many new games are still appearing on old consoles. I'm not a console guy but most of my friends are and mo

      • by Junta ( 36770 )

        xbox 360 represents a huge success for MS, way ahead of PS3. Effectively the high end winner of its generation. Xbox one is... well not. So again, they cherry picked the performance of a winner of a generation versus a loser of another. XB1 particularly did poorly at the beginning, when it was more expensive than the Sony offering and they had not decoupled Kinect yet.

        In general, an article full of cherry-picking questionable values to make a point that doesn't stand up to scrutiny about the market succ

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by firehawk2k ( 310855 )

        The original article has a small blurb that compares sales over the first three years:

        Microsoft’s follow-up console, the Xbox One, has not sold nearly as well as the 360. In 2008, less than three years after it was launched, the company said the 360 had sold over 19 million units worldwide. The Xbox One was released in 2013, and has sold about 10 million units in roughly the same amount of time as its predecessor.

        Sales for the first 3 years are bad for Xbox One. Sales of PS4 compared to PS3 for the first 3 years are very promising.

        They are implying that everyone is having a bad time because Microsoft is having a bad time.

      • Except that they've sold 18-20 million not 10 million Xbox Ones vs 19 million for the Xbox 360. So it's not even an accurate premise which calls into question the conclusion.

        I agree that the conclusion is correct but mostly because I think the next Xbox One will just be a refined Windows 10 Gaming PC. Just like the next Xbox will be an app on your desktop. Just as it should be.

    • It is abundantly clear no current generation console is on pace with the last two generations. That is the point of the article, however poorly stated.
      • by Junta ( 36770 )

        xbox1 is way behind xbox360, particularly around launch time because Sony did such a better job at launch (MS was pricier with bundled Kinect, and lower spec).

        PS4 is way ahead of PS3, because PS3 was a disaster. PS4 is in fact outpacing, month for month, their proclaimed champion of the home consoles, the PS2.

    • It seems pretty reasonable to me. The first Playstation sold over 100 million units in approximately 6 years (up until the Playstation 2 was released; after this point, I'm assuming that Playstation sales were negligible). The Playstation 2 sold over 150 million units in about the same amount of time. Even if the Playstation 4 sells as well in the next three years as it did in the first three years (which I doubt), it would still be at less than half the number of units sold as the Playstation 2.
      • by Junta ( 36770 )

        PS1 sold 100 million over the lifetime (I think without data it's risky to assume anything). PS4 has only been out for just over 2 years, so even if you assume it didn't sell any after 2000, it's keeping pace with PS1 sales. Note that *after* PS2 released, there was still enough demand for PS1 for Sony to do a redesign of PS1, so clearly there were significant volumes still.

        PS2 got lengthened because PS3 did not carry through the backwards compatible situation. For a long time into PS3 lifetime, PS2s wer

    • by flitty ( 981864 )
      See this chart about lifetime sales, and how the PS4 is selling at a faster rate than the PS2 did. http://2zeobl3ojpj43evvq11p5yo... [netdna-cdn.com]
      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Read the numbers in the table, not the chart, and tell me how long it took the PS2 to sell 20M, and then how long it took the PS4 for the same.
    • It's even worse than that. The PS2 was far and away the most successful console of its generation. It killed of Sega's Dreamcast early on and only later did Nintendo release their own console which did not sell well and Microsoft was only making their first foray into the console market so their sales were also quite low. The PS2 only sold as well as it did because the competition was exceptionally weak.

      I'm fairly sure the subsequent generations have had more total combined sales over the lifetime of the
      • Shame about the dreamcast, it was simply ahead of its time. by far the best console of its era eventhough it was short lived
  • by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:11PM (#51957413) Homepage Journal

    the Wii U, has been the company's worst-selling of all time.

    Does noone remember the Virtual Boy console from Nintendo? I don't think more than 30,000 or so were manufactured, probably less.

    • And as far as the Wii U is concerned, as an enthusiastic Wii owner, I have to say, why would I upgrade? The Wii brought something truly new and interesting to the table, the Wii U is just more of the same with slightly improved graphics and the addition of a gimmicky handheld. There's a couple games I'd like to get, but they're not worth the price of a new console, and most are just expensive new retreads of games I already own, or can buy used for pennies on the dollar. Seems like almost everybody I kno

      • The problem with the Wii was the lack of quality games coming out over the life-cycle of the device. By the time the Wii U had come out, it had been a couple of years since I had even turned on my Wii, let alone considered buying any new games.
        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          Wii is the better kids console. More fun with the controllers, and more kid-oriented games. They didn't have anything for the hardcore gamer. So they were never going to be anything but a second console for a gaming family.
        • True. Of course before the Wii I was mostly a PC gamer, and still am. But the Wii added new stuff specifically geared towards real-life multiplayer. I only have a few games that I play regularly, mostly things like table tennis, bowling, curling, Mario Kart, etc. Things with low learning curves that are great fun to break out for a while when having a few beers with friends.

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:18PM (#51957469)
    Dirty console peasants tried and failed to become a master race. Why would anyone buy a networked inferior computer that also charges monthly fee when for a little bit extra you can a) buy an actual PC b) if you don't need an actual PC, do just fine with a smartphone and play casual games on it.

    That is, PC gaming became much cheaper, to the point that you could game on a $600 box; consoles became more general-purpose computing platforms with apps and networking, and smartphones, that most people would already have, took over casual gaming niche.
    • Obvious /r/pcmasterrace kicks the shit out of under-powered consoles @ 120+ Hz, 4K gaming, and certain genres (such as RTS's) not even available on consoles!) but for _some_ people they like to play on the couch. Go figure.

      Unfortunately, my Xbox 360 with my acoustic-to-electronic drum kit conversion is the only way to play Rock Band 1, 2, and 3. :-/

      There is no reason why a person can't like **both** PCs and Console games.

  • updated question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:19PM (#51957485) Journal

    Is this the updated version of the question asked, what, maybe a year ago asking if computer games were dead and consoles were the future?

    Or is it the "consoles and computers are dead, mobile gaming is the future?" question?

    I get confused which point on the repetitive-headline cycle we're in this week.

  • by Atrox666 ( 957601 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:20PM (#51957487)

    The same thing was said when the Colecovision and Atari 2600 faded.

    • by Zobeid ( 314469 )

      The parallels run deep. I remember running Starpath Supercharger games on my ColecoVision. . . with the Atari 2600 adapter plugged into the Coleco, and the Supercharger plugged into the adapter, and a cassette drive plugged into that, and my hacked Wico joystick. . . right before I made the leap to Atari computers, and eventually Amiga.

      When the NES came out, with its stupid toy robot, and jumping over mushrooms while Romper Room music played. . . I laughed, and laughed, and figured this "Nintendo" com

  • EA needs to go away!

  • by cogeek ( 2425448 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:44PM (#51957711)
    The tablet is dead! Long live the tablet!
    The laptop is dead! Long live the laptop!
    The desktop is dead! Long live the desktop!

    Over the years the naysayers have smugly declared the death of all sorts of technologies that are still around. It goes through phases. Yes mobile gaming holds some appeal to the younger generation because it's always with you and can be played anytime. But can you really compare Candy Crush to The Division? Or Boom Beach to GTA V? There will always be a market for games on multiple platforms. Just like some users swear consoles are the only way to play games and us old timers say "bring it on, I'll crush your gamepad with my keyboard and mouse circle-strafe!" As long as people are buying and playing games on a particular platform, publishers will continue putting out games on that platform.

    Each one may have it's "golden age" as well as it's "golden years" but they'll all be around for a long time to come.
  • by Radical Moderate ( 563286 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:45PM (#51957719)
    "early reviews of Facebook's Oculus Rift and HTC's Vive headsets have reduced non-gamers to tears."

    What exactly is that implying? The headsets are so awesome that non-gamers will start gaming? They're so awesome non-gamers are crying because their gaming loved ones will spend all their time playing games again? Motion sickness? WTF?
    • by ItsJustAPseudonym ( 1259172 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @02:20PM (#51958111)
      The gamers who were wearing the headsets were jumping around a lot, and smacking the faces of the non-gamers standing nearby.
    • "early reviews of Facebook's Oculus Rift and HTC's Vive headsets have reduced non-gamers to tears."

      What exactly is that implying? The headsets are so awesome that non-gamers will start gaming? They're so awesome non-gamers are crying because their gaming loved ones will spend all their time playing games again? Motion sickness? WTF?

      Allergies probably. The 'True Pollen'(tm) technology in the headset for a realistic outside feel has been leading to excess mast cell disaggregation.

  • I believe that honor goes to Virtual Boy... Which lends to another mention in the article that Nintendo isn't making a VR. Probably because they already learned that lesson.
    • No, I am fairly sure that dubious honor will go to the Mattell HyperScan [wikipedia.org]. They tried to launch a gaming console that you had to buy collectable cards for to play the games.

      The total game library was 5 games. And they all SUCKED.

  • by jxander ( 2605655 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:55PM (#51957811)

    These losses and failings are the result of console developers own shortsightedness.

    For years, they've been creating consoles based on the worst aspects of PCs with none of the PC benefits. No couch multiplayer, required internet connection, long boot times, frequent software updates, all while being completely unable to compete with PCs on graphical fidelity, multitask capability or input selection (PCs support keyboard/mouse, console controllers, etc, up to full HOTAS setups with rudder pedals and such). Consoles also lack the markets like Steam, GoG, GMG and Humble Bundle.

    So yeah ... all the weaknesses, none of the strengths from both sides. Are we surprised that they aren't doing so well?

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @01:55PM (#51957817)

    What was the big selling point for consoles over PCs? Simplicity and "just works". Seriously. Put it up, plug it in, plug it into your TV, throw that CD or cartridge into the thing and here we go. Game on. Wiggle those thumbs 'til your eyes fall out and your brains rot.

    That huge advantage was lost when consoles became essentially PCs without keyboard. Because hey, it's so much easier to produce games that way and you can produce games that play on consoles AND PC that way. Well, nobody wants to play them on a PC because the controls are ass-backwards if they are designed for a controller and you have to use them with keyboard+mouse, but who gives a shit about customers?

    And the console jockeys were pissed to. Pop that CD in and ... install an update for your system. Go online to register it. Download some shit for that online content you don't give a fuck about. Install some more shit. Update the system once more because you changed your sitting position. Choose your avatar. Upload it to some server. Customize your avatar. More time to upload it again. Here, buy some bling! Or some new levels! Reboot your console after the update. And FINALLY you get to ... oh fuck it's bedtime.

    Get consoles back to what they were. Simple, easy to use and most of all NO FUCKING LOAD TIME! For fuck's sake, given that these games come now on BluRay discs and most PCs have a SSD HD, load times are SHORTER on PC than they are on consoles!

  • If I had a nickle for every time someone told me that PC gaming was dead, then maybe I'd have a current gen console in the house. I expect this is much of the same.
  • They have to be making money from playstation network- you would think that this would probably be their revenue focus.
  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Thursday April 21, 2016 @02:07PM (#51957971)

    Next year it will be "PC gaming is dead"

    Been seeing this same headline pop up every few years since Atari went bust in 1983. Yet consoles still get made, still sell well, and still get revitalized periodically.

  • My Xbox 360 has logged more hours streaming Netflix, Amazon and HBO Now than playing games. We also have a TiVo and a Chromecast. Each one of the devices does some things well, but not one of them does everything.

    In the spirit of asking for everything for free, my ideal game console would play games, but could also be a DVR (recording OTA signals, or acting as a cable box), in addition to streaming services (all of them, not with some of them removed for one reason or another) and VR. Naturally it will also

  • If you look at "aligned" sales aka, how fast a console is selling both the PS4 and Xbox One are outpacing the Xbox 360 and PS3.

    The difference is that there simply isn't a market for ancient consoles anymore. The jump from SD -> 720p -> 1080p and now to 4k TVs has happened in the blink of an eye in technological terms. The PS2 was able to hold on for a long time because bigscreen TV adoption was slow. Now that we've gone from a 32" 720p TV being $300 to a 55" 4k TV being $300 people are upgrading m

  • Hopefully. I am sick of console-friendly games being the standard, with ports of their lameness to the PC being most of the offerings. Even MMORPGs that are PC-only suffer from the backwash of consolitis design.

    But I don't think phone and tablet based game design, which is what's killing consoles, is any improvement. At least a touch interface is mouse friendly on port.

  • What's a console?

    I have on my lap a device capable of playing every game I've ever bought, right through to GTA V and things released just now. It fits on my lap. It can go to my mate's house. It can connect to wireless controllers. It has HDMI out. It can download ALL my games and keep them all on the same device. It can emulate - or directly play - all my old games too.

    And it costs no more than I'd normally pay for a laptop, which is about what everyone else would pay for a laptop, and a games conso

  • Golden Age? If anything, we are in the Silver Age. The Golden Age would be Atari 2600 and it's ilk, including Pong. That's right. A console that just played Pong.

  • Just sayin'.

    I've still got 20+ unplayed games on my XBox 360 which I bought two years ago. For the reason that it is a mature product with the glitches removed and an excellent lineup of countless dirt-cheap multiple-award-winning AAA titles.

    Make the XBone backwards compatible and I might even consider getting one. Other than that I'll wait 10 years. Some time in the not so distant future somebody will finally come up with convergence and we'll have tablet and mobile consoles you hook up to you TV or monito

  • I theorize that a lot of people who bought consoles for simple games have moved onto their phones or even handheld consoles. That leaves the folks who are willing to spend $60 per game. So given that supposition, what are Microsoft and Sony's total revenu on games sales for the new platforms? Or what is the revenue per console? Has that actually shifted much? If a lot of previous generation consoles were used for cheap games, or hardly at all, then there would be little disparity in the sales income. This i

  • It depends on how powerful the next generation of phones/tablets/goggles are. If they are powerful enough to present a reasonable VR gaming experience at an affordable price then there will likely be no need for a next generation of consoles. If, however, more computing power can be crammed into a console device, and if developers can take advantage of that extra power, and if the total experience can be delivered at a competitive price point then I expect consoles to continue to be developed.

    Tablets cert

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...