Pachter: This Is The Final Generation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I love when I go toe to toe with Pachter. Last time he predicted something I disagreed with, I went all in on my predictions and came out right.

People will always have the desire to NOT be shut-in PC gamers in a cave-like room, and want play games in the living room. And no, balancing your keyboard in your lap and using the couch as a mouse pad doesn't count.

There will always be a market for consoles... more specifically, for the console business model: a licensed, platform-mediated market. The delivery method might change be that remote execution or traditional digital distro, but consoles are here to stay.

im not putting any faith in services like OnLive. Id rather take my chances with having to upgrade my console every 10+ years & still be able to use the games either on the old machine or with backwards capability; rather than rely solely on the servers of a company who if they go, my entire library goes with them. The industry seems so caught up with how awesome they are for developing these technologies they seem to forget how bad they really are when considering the long term.

Mstrswrd:
Everyone remember that "Nintendo ON" video? That was from the future!!!1!.

Joking aside, Pachter seems to make outlandish claims that usually seem to be true, at least in part, so I really wouldn't be surprised if a better version of the Wii was released, and then that was that for a good 10 years as they perfect projection 3D and VR gaming.

Unfortunately, VR gaming will be the end of mankind.

So does that mean movies,music and T.V are going to stop also? Last check games were the biggest form of media, I somehow doubt that this will be the last, we still have holograms and "controlled by thought" yet to come.

Inclined to agree. What is a new console going to do? Have a bigger hard drive? You can just sell me an add-on. Have better graphics? The Wii already proved most people don't care. Have a different controller? You can just sell me that separately too.

It's just not worth the cash dump anymore.

So what he is saying is that the consoles are simply not worth the money, and with yesterdays report that Pc gaming is still the most lucrative of the lot, it seems that the most likely outcome in a few years time will be that the consoles technology has stagnated while the Pc will be strongers due to cheaper prices and returning console gamers.
That is assuming of course htat this anynalist is pulling facts out of his arse like most of them do.

edgeofblade:
I love when I go toe to toe with Pachter. Last time he predicted something I disagreed with, I went all in on my predictions and came out right.

People will always have the desire to NOT be shut-in PC gamers in a cave-like room, and want play games in the living room. And no, balancing your keyboard in your lap and using the couch as a mouse pad doesn't count.

There will always be a market for consoles... more specifically, for the console business model: a licensed, platform-mediated market. The delivery method might change be that remote execution or traditional digital distro, but consoles are here to stay.

And why cant you hook your pc up to your Tv and use a 360 controller to play gears, with free online, better framerates and graphics?

Given that the only significant difference between last generation and this generation (at least on Sony and Microsoft's consoles) are graphics, I wouldn't be surprised. How much more detailed can the graphics get?

Calling this generation the last is overzealous at best. If OnLive or something like it is actually able to take off, then it'd probably need at least a generation to catch on. Developer/publisher support would almost definitely switch away from consoles if it does, leaving them dead in the water.

I can understand why Sony and Microsoft might not put out another console but Nintendo has to if it wants to survive. Nintendo makes video game and not much else. I can't imagine them not putting out a new console.

Indigo_Dingo:

Danzorz:

Indigo_Dingo:
People have been predicting this since the 4th generation.

Hah! HAHAHAHHAHAahahhahaah!! Try the second, I remember when people were saying that the Nintendo entertainment system was going to be as far as it got.

Dude, I'm 19, how the hell would I know what it was like back then? I'm just saying, as long as I have been a gamer, there have been many people who felt a new generation would never happen, and should not happen.

Edit: and you're 16, how the hell would you know?

Oh, and FYI? The NES was third generation, not 2nd. Many people disagree about whether the Atari 2600 was first or second generation.

Not every damn milestone in consoles were a "generation" Atari was not a generation, was simply a milestone.

The first true generation so to speak, in that multiple companies had similar systems, around the same time, would be NES/Mastersystem. Skipping right past SNES/Genesis - the first time I actually heard the word "Generation" apply to gaming was actually for those more obscure CD driven systems (CDi, Jaguar, SegaCD), they were considered the "next Generation" as they supported video playback. Then again we had another Generation when entering in 3D consoles, and had one since with every major system upgrade.

But hey, what do I know. I mean I actually remember playing the Atari 7800 in the 80s, but I've never worn a T-shirt with an NES controller that says "retro", so clearly I'm not an authority on the matter.

In the end who cares. I can see Sony and Microsoft riding out the global recession with the current consoles. But in all likelihood Nintendo is going to have to make a console that actually fits into this current generation, because Wii is more of a novelty than anything which seriously hurts its long-term viability.

Danzorz:

xmetatr0nx:

Danzorz:

Indigo_Dingo:
People have been predicting this since the 4th generation.

Hah! HAHAHAHHAHAahahhahaah!! Try the second, I remember when people were saying that the Nintendo entertainment system was going to be as far as it got.

Well if ur birthday on here stands correct, u were born when snes was being release world wide...how does that work?

True or False, "I have a 22 year old brother who is into games more than me"
Well?
True or False?

Indigo_Dingo:

Danzorz:

Indigo_Dingo:
People have been predicting this since the 4th generation.

Hah! HAHAHAHHAHAahahhahaah!! Try the second, I remember when people were saying that the Nintendo entertainment system was going to be as far as it got.

Dude, I'm 19, how the hell would I know what it was like back then? I'm just saying, as long as I have been a gamer, there have been many people who felt a new generation would never happen, and should not happen.

Edit: and you're 16, how the hell would you know?

Oh, and FYI? The NES was third generation, not 2nd. Many people disagree about whether the Atari 2600 was first or second generation.

NES was 3rd gen? Dam...

Wow thats a lot of replys. Anyway calm down, i was just being a bit of an ass.

Based on the technology limitations of the current next gen consoles alone, this is complete bollocks.

1st of all, the Playstation won't "dominate" the marker unless Sony cut's down the price and makes an online system worth rivaling whit Microsoft's(Xbox Live is...well pretty good, apart form the kids, they shouldn't be allowed to have microphones). If they do that, then they will be able to rival Xbox and hell even Wii sales. But right now, Sony just put to much effort into that console and didn't think that gamers don't need a top of the line console, since it will cost a shitload of cash and most people aren't going to spend that much on...well a gaming console.

That aside...Yes indeed with the release of OnLive it could be the end of...well gaming consoles all together. There would just be no need for them. So, by the looks of it let's enjoy this generation 'cause it might has well be the last. Then again OnLive might fail, and if that's so...well then I wonder what Nintendo's next console will be.

This was all said when the PSX came out as well.

AndyFromMonday:
That aside...Yes indeed with the release of OnLive it could be the end of...well gaming consoles all together. There would just be no need for them. So, by the looks of it let's enjoy this generation 'cause it might has well be the last. Then again OnLive might fail, and if that's so...well then I wonder what Nintendo's next console will be.

It will. Onlive came out too soon and, as a result, the entire medium of gaming like that will be tainted and simply won't work.

My opinion is this, consoles are generally inferior to PCs in strict capabilities and usually wind up using "older" components for the system. PC fascists have been talking about this for a while. When the next generation of consoles hits, they will probably be using the same tech that PC gaming rigs (which are arguably superior) are using right now, which will be older technology and thus a lot cheaper to manufacture.

This is to say nothing about the markup on the cost of electronic components to begin with, they don't cost that much to manufacture comparitively speaking. Years ago remember the markup on the price of RAM for computers for example? That should give you some idea as to how much of the cost of all those boards and chips is pure profit for the creators. An electronics company like Sony or Microsoft can probably make a lot of it's own stuff in house and buy the rest of the junk in bulk. I don't know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if making a PS-3 or 360 actually winds up costing the company less than $30. I mean heck, we all know/know of people who have made their own PCs for a couple hundred dollars with pretty good gaming stats and that's before in-house manufacturing or bulk discounts using a large scale business market.

What's more part of the success of Consoles is linked to this, because gamers simply do not want to have to go "oh well, a new game is coming out. My two year old PC can't run it. Time to go invest $100 in a new graphics card, and $250 in a new mother board". In a lot of ways upgrades costing someone as much as a console a lot faster than consoles cycle. Also consoles by using standardized hardware allow for things to run a lot smoother. You generally don't get people trying to play a console game and getting some messed up error that makes no senses given what your system is running because some developer didn't bother to properly test and debug the program for your specific system. :P

Consoles also make money through the games/software more than the decks themselves, and I can't see all the developers going belly up or not wanting consoles to continue to succeed. There is more to it than just the deck manufacturers themselves.

Truthfully I suspect game decks are going to be a part of civilization for as long as it continues. Right now we are seeing a recession/depression and everything is gloom and doom, but it's not likely to last more than 10 years or so.

Honestly the only real way I can see the console market dying is if the USA really does fall (unlikely, since we have the firepower to destroy the world 10x over and will probably take the world with us as we go down, just out of spite if nothing else), and no nation steps up to pretty much become what we are now. Business is increasingly international so is likely to survive the collapse of nations in some form or other. So in the end you'll still see the demand, it will just be primarily marketed at wherever the biggest global economic trading house is. [shrugs]

The bottom line is that this generation of consoles (or the next one) might last longer than normal simply due to the economy, but I doubt it's "the end".

>>>----Therumancer--->

Given the later article about Pardo of Blizzard being in discussions with MS about their next console WHICH IS ALREADY IN DEVELOPMENT, I'd say Pachter needs to give up making predictions and do something he is more qualified for. Flipping burgers, say. Nothing like being shown up as wrong mere days after making such bold statements. Of course, just because the console is in development doesn't mean it will be made, but it sure seems to be tending that way right now.

Bullshit. Consoles are just computers optimised for gaming and simplified to preform that function, they shall always exist.

It's like saying: "By 2012 no one will want to play games anymore!" "Why?" "Because... um... technology will advance?" "Doesn't that just mean bigger better consoles?" "Um, no..."

stormcaller:
So does that mean movies,music and T.V are going to stop also? Last check games were the biggest form of media, I somehow doubt that this will be the last, we still have holograms and "controlled by thought" yet to come.

Maybe he knows something we don't like the end of the world is going to happen before the next console release.

*cue eerie music*

Therumancer:
Honestly the only real way I can see the console market dying is if the USA really does fall (unlikely, since we have the firepower to destroy the world 10x over and will probably take the world with us as we go down, just out of spite if nothing else)

LOL, I'd love to see a crazy flash animation where the US just loses everything and says "well, to hell with it all."

SmugFrog:

Therumancer:
Honestly the only real way I can see the console market dying is if the USA really does fall (unlikely, since we have the firepower to destroy the world 10x over and will probably take the world with us as we go down, just out of spite if nothing else)

LOL, I'd love to see a crazy flash animation where the US just loses everything and says "well, to hell with it all."

Aha got quoting to work finally.

Such an animation would be cute. :)

I wouldn't quite expect things to happen quite like that IRL though. The basic idea of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrant. Ie: you don't threaten us or what we have or we either destroy you or guarantee your coming with us. They are also a first strike weapon something you don't deploy once fighting has started in earnest and your going to hit your own troops overseas with.

I guess what I'm saying is that a depression is one thing, but if the US and the American Lifestyle was truely beginning to suffer in the long term we'd have to look at the other countries receiving that wealth (the resources have to go somewhere) and however we justify it or propagandize it will say "cough it back up, or die" for all intents and purposes, even if they are a nuclear power since an exchange means they die too.

Right now the US isn't on the warpath really, and for all of our whining we haven't been in these straights very long, hence the gloom and doom.

However, if it came down to a matter of the US truely falling, it would come down to a desician to go down with a whimper, or a roar, and honestly I think most people given the abillity are going to choose the former.

A little more explaining than I intended for such a flippant comment.

A flash animation like that would be an amusing bit of dark humor simply because while it could happen it's unlikely things would ever come to that.

My thought process is largely based on the fact that I was born during the 1970s and grew up during the 1980s. The US economy has always been "about to tank" ever since I was a kid and every threat is "like nothing else before it". We've also had recessions before. Honestly the Japanese never really took over the US, and have had their share of economic problems, right now the big threats are China, and to a lesser extent our very self-interested european "allies" who would like to quietly replace us with their growing economy. However wars are usually fought for underlying economic reasons, and so far there hasn't been much more than saber rattling.

Predicting "OMG, the America Economy is going down, and that will mean no more game consoles" is a bit much.

Besides I heard Obama is a Final Fantasy Fanboy who plays competitive Gears Of War. What's good for gamers and consoles is a top-line item on his policies. I'll leave it to your imagination how I know this. :)

>>>----Therumancer--->

I hope he is right. Can someone explain what this cloud thing is? I have no idea.

is this the same Michael Pachter who said

"Warcraft is so good and so good-looking that it got this immediate attraction; everybody who would ever consider playing an online game said, 'This is the one. I gotta try it.' And what'll happen is inevitably, like the health club model, after you pay your 30 bucks a month for 3 or 4 months and you only go once a week, you realize it's not worth it and you split. That's what will happen with Warcraft ... I think it's going to roll back to a million. I'm not predicting it's going to happen in three weeks; I'd guess it has a half-life of 6 months to a year,"

Because if so Game set Match

We will be having a new console every year for the next 5 years.

Ok Maybe not.

Microsoft just met with the guys at Blizzard to try and figure out what they need to do to make their next gen system work with blizzards games.

When an RTS is as good on my console as my PC they will be done.

I thought they had reached nirvana with the xbox 360 and Just Cause but then I saw crysis and new it wasnt over.

Guys they have been building cars for a 100 years are they through building new ones yet. or better yet they have been making music for thousands of years do you think there will never be a new instrument?

By the way for the generational Debate

Pong was first generation

Atari, intellivision second generation

Coleco vision 3rd generation

Nintendo, 4th generation

and then it gets cloudy.

What is Obamas Screen Name for gears? Potus the locust

The Cloud Thing in a nutshell (most of the computing power is handled out of a central location your computer basically works as an input device and somewhere all the hard core crunching is going on and sending you back pretty pictures.

The Shade:

Keane Ng:
David Cole of DFC Intelligence thinks that by 2012, the PS3 will be king of the software sales hill and Nintendo and Microsoft will be forced to put on new consoles.

If there's anything left in 2012, sure.

Conspiracy nut theory aside, I'm thinking there will be at least one more console generation. No doubt Microsoft and Nintendo have already started engineering, in secret, the next step. And it wouldn't be like them to give up on what money they've already poured into it.

But, ultimately, it seems we are doomed to recede back to PC gaming from whence we came. Personally, I'm looking forward to Halo Wars meeting us there.

Also, it means I'm going to have to get a new computer. And a better internet connection. And a couple grand. And some spare time. And a bagel. And a monkey. And a solid gold elephant statue....

I'm sorry. I lost focus there for a minute. Where was I going with this?

Remembring of course that the apocalypse will hit in 2012

L.B. Jeffries:
Inclined to agree. What is a new console going to do? Have a bigger hard drive? You can just sell me an add-on. Have better graphics? The Wii already proved most people don't care. Have a different controller? You can just sell me that separately too.

It's just not worth the cash dump anymore.

Umm, yes? That's exactly what PCs do.

"What is a new PC part going to do? Increase RAM? It doesn't need that much. Increase the HDD? Just compress stuff. Better graphics cards? Pshaw, games don't need graphics! A better keyboard+mouse? Pah, my 10 year old keyboard covered in doritos and soda is just fine!"

Why is it so out of the question that consoles can't also advance hardware wise? Are PCs the only ones limited to upgrading? Just becaues it may seem like a miniscule advancement doesn't mean it is.

Jumplion:

L.B. Jeffries:
Inclined to agree. What is a new console going to do? Have a bigger hard drive? You can just sell me an add-on. Have better graphics? The Wii already proved most people don't care. Have a different controller? You can just sell me that separately too.

It's just not worth the cash dump anymore.

Umm, yes? That's exactly what PCs do.

"What is a new PC part going to do? Increase RAM? It doesn't need that much. Increase the HDD? Just compress stuff. Better graphics cards? Pshaw, games don't need graphics! A better keyboard+mouse? Pah, my 10 year old keyboard covered in doritos and soda is just fine!"

Why is it so out of the question that consoles can't also advance hardware wise? Are PCs the only ones limited to upgrading? Just becaues it may seem like a miniscule advancement doesn't mean it is.

It's not out of the question, it's just a cash dump. In order to sell the console with better hardware, they have to cut back the price and take a loss until the tech becomes cheap to manufacture. Unlike the PC market, which is accustomed to paying proper value, people with consoles tend typically expect to pay less since it's a limited device.

So you can either do like the Wii did and just use cheap tech keep production cheap, stick with the consoles that are out now, or go through another console cycle where you risk millions and hope you come out alright.

Just saying I'm not shocked that no one is keen on doing the third option anymore.

L.B. Jeffries:
It's not out of the question, it's just a cash dump. In order to sell the console with better hardware, they have to cut back the price and take a loss until the tech becomes cheap to manufacture. Unlike the PC market, which is accustomed to paying proper value, people with consoles tend typically expect to pay less since it's a limited device.

So you can either do like the Wii did and just use cheap tech keep production cheap, stick with the consoles that are out now, or go through another console cycle where you risk millions and hope you come out alright.

Just saying I'm not shocked that no one is keen on doing the third option anymore.

I won't say that there's definately going to be a new generaton, to be honest there is something impending about the end of this generation. But we've barely started this damn generation, it's been only 3 god damn years! 3 years, 4 if you want to go with the 360!

3 years is really early to start calling that this is the final generation of console, I mean come on! People said the same thing in the PS2 era, "this'll be the final generation, nothing can get better!", and look where the heck we are now.

Why are we calling out the doom n' gloom of the consoles three fucking years into the generation? This generation is far from over, in fact it's barely begun!

I hate to use a Bill O'Reilly but this is just a dopey statement. People must have no imagination if they think that another round of hardware upgrades would be meaningless. The current generation hardware ran into it's performance wall awhile ago and anyone expecting developers to pull a rabbit out of their hat are going to be dissappointed. That includes you too PS3 fanboys. It's been 3 years and your cell processor still isn't delivering the order of magnitude performance gain over the 360 that you've been promised.

Both systems are based on 2004 hardware which has long since been obsoleted in the PC realm. Neither system can output 1080p/60 or 1080p/30 with any consistency and what can be rendered on screen currently no where near meets the limitations of my imagination. Some games even have to upscale from 1152x640 because 720p is too taxing.

In addition, obvious compromises in LOD, draw distances, resolution, AF and AA are still painfully obvious even on the most cutting edge games. When we get to the point where LOD ratios and draw distances are far enough out that it exceeds the capability of the display to show detail then MAYBE you could say that we've peaked.

The onlive concept is innovative but definitely 10-20 years ahead of its time in terms of being the silver bullet of gaming. Very few people have connections capable of utilizing that system at 1080p and barely a majority have connections capable of 720p. There are still millions who would be unable to connect whatsoever. Let's not even get started on the obvious issues with latency. It'll be awhile before low latency fiber optic internet connections are pervasive.

If not already today, we are only a short period away from off the shelf technology being able to deliver true 1080p gaming at a console friendly price. That alone will justify a next generation of consoles as people look to finally get some bang out of their 4 digit investment in a 1080p TV. It ain't over folks, not in this generation atleast.

I just find it a little hard to believe.
I guess if you use the reasoning that it's hard to improve on almost hilariously-good graphics, you could progress your way to "no more consoles." Maybe once holographic stuff goes mainstream, or something, they'd have to release a new console, but I just don't think that this is the end. Maybe I'm just an alcoholic who refuses to believe the last brewery is shutting down. I don't know.

Therumancer:
Bunch of text that is wrong.... Blah blah.. consoles cost 30$ at most.... blah blah...
>>>----Therumancer--->

Microsoft and Sony both lose money on each console they sell and Nintendo makes a tiny amount if I recall correctly.
*Actually I am gonna bother to do some research just to quash some ignorance and give real figures....

3 mins later... google says:

PS3 costs 441$ to sell for 399.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/report-ps3-hardware-almost-break-even

HDD-equipped 360 console cost $470
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html

Nintendo makes 6$ on each Wii sold
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/

I hope there are no more consoles soon. I am still saving up for my own PS3.

I do not really see how today`s consoles could improve in a way that would make gaming better. I always see the next logical step in gaming as virtual reality. The wii is the closest to this with movement sensors, but in terms of applying this effectivly to games, all companies seem several years away at least.

They just bought out a black wii though. And a colour change is an upgrade right? It makes the wii...have better graphics?

profit0004:

Therumancer:
Bunch of text that is wrong.... Blah blah.. consoles cost 30$ at most.... blah blah...
>>>----Therumancer--->

Microsoft and Sony both lose money on each console they sell and Nintendo makes a tiny amount if I recall correctly.
*Actually I am gonna bother to do some research just to quash some ignorance and give real figures....

3 mins later... google says:

PS3 costs 441$ to sell for 399.
http://www.edge-online.com/news/report-ps3-hardware-almost-break-even

HDD-equipped 360 console cost $470
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140383.html

Nintendo makes 6$ on each Wii sold
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/

Wait, and you actually believe that?

Generally speaking I grow tired of some of the disrespectful responses I receive, but I'll bite for the moment, and post another response.

Simply put, I call BS on a lot of those claims for a lot of reasons. One other reason is that I have been doing stuff with computers for a VERY long time. Electronic components are exceptionally cheap to manufacture, and the markup on any kind of electronics hardware has always been ridiculous. This is why for a very long time you could (and still can to some extent) assemble your own uber-PC for peanuts compared to what they cost in the store. Albeit some of the manufacturers got wise to this when it became so common and started intentionally inflating the "base" prices for a lot of things like motherboard and chips. For a while a "trade war with Japan" caused prices on RAM to explode to lulzworthy prices as well.

The thing is though that especially when dealing with Sony and Microsoft we're dealing with companies that manufacture their own components or get them mega-cheap through buying ultra-wholesale or having other contracts. Especially in regards to Sony.

Your typical console basically costs these guys peanuts. The "price" of the components being largely based on the inflated costs that they could theoretically sell the components for individually if they had a buyers market. As the systems get older but remain in production they ultimatly become radically cheaper to manufacture even by that logic.

In Sony's case it was even started during the PS-3 shortage that the big problem was a shortage of the blu-ray laser components, which they were instead putting into blu-ray DVD players. Even cheaper to make than a console, but commanding mondo profit.

Any of these companies claiming they take a loss on selling hardware are lying to you hardcore. I've seen too much through the years to be that gullible. As far as what the electronics media says about it, let's be honest: electronics media is paid advertisement. Sort of like how Rockstar basically bought those "10" ratings for Grand Theft Auto IV, and the whole "Kane and Lynch" fiasco. It's an even bigger issue when going being the cosm of games and into hardware itself.

Electronics manufacturers have had a racket going on for decades, its also been fairly transparent for people taking a look at it. This is no differant than it ever has been. Claims that they sell these products at a loss are complete BS, any truth to the arguement is based totally on bureaucracy with the loss being comparitive to what else they could be using the material for.

Sort of like how nowadays companies work on "projected growth" and if they don't meet those goals then they have "failed", "lost money", or "ceased to be profitable", which is complete BS. You only make 2 billion dollars in pure profit when you think you should have made 10 billion in pure profit and that's an "OMG we've taken a huge bath" occurance.

And the USA never went to the moon....

I love conspiracy theorists. Sigh....

Jeronus:
I can understand why Sony and Microsoft might not put out another console but Nintendo has to if it wants to survive. Nintendo makes video game and not much else. I can't imagine them not putting out a new console.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Nintendo has been around for about 120 years now, and they started life selling Hanafuda trading cards...

They struggled for ages, and along the way have sold all manner of crazy things, (including washing machines), until in the late 70's, they got lucky with electronic games. (the game & watch series - Considering this, it's perhaps not a surprise that their most consistent success has been portables.)

Nintendo could collapse if it loses out on the gaming market, but it could equally well do what it's always done, and try something completely different.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here