Console Wars II

[lord of the mark]

EA has a different take on this whole platform thing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7052420.stm

(quote stuff added, for those too technically advanced to figure out what quotation marks mean)

Rival gaming systems should make way for a single open platform, a senior executive at Electronic Arts has said.
Gerhard Florin said incompatible consoles made life harder for developers and consumers.

"We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible," said EA's head of international publishing.

He said the web and set-top boxes would grow in importance to the industry.

"We're platform agnostic and we definitely don't want to have one platform which is a walled garden," said Mr Florin.

EA currently produces games for more than 14 different gaming systems, including consoles, portable devices and PCs.

"I am not sure how long we will have dedicated consoles - but we could be talking up to 15 years," Mr Florin added.

Gaming will just require potentially a £49.99 box from Tesco made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection and a games engine inside

Nick Parker, analyst

He predicted that server-based games streamed to PCs or set-top boxes, would become increasingly important.

"You don't need an Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii - the consumer won't even realise the platform it is being played on."

Set-top boxes are becoming increasingly more powerful as they include technology to deal with High Definition TV streams and access to the internet.

Basic games

Both Sky and BT offer personal video recorders that play basic games.

In the 1980s Microsoft led an initiative to create a common home computer platform, called MSX, and supported by Sony and Philips among others.

It became a popular games platform in Japan but died out due to the growth of consoles and the rise of PCs.

Games consultant Nick Parker said the long term future of gaming would most likely not lie with dedicated consoles.

But he said competition among manufacturers had driven innovation.

"Competition was required to ensure the pace of technology was maintained."

He added: "Going forward that is irrelevant. Gaming will just require potentially a £49.99 box from Tesco made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection and a games engine inside.

"It's basically a boiled-down PC."

But he predicted that walled gardens would still surround platforms and that an open system would not emerge.

Microsoft and Sony have positioned their consoles as all-in-one entertainment devices in recent years but both firms have struggled with non-gaming content.

Outside of the US, Microsoft has yet to strike deals with firms for meaningful video content while Sony has turned to companies like Sky after being unable to agree licensing terms with its own in-house content providers, such as Sony Pictures and MGM.

Absorb consoles

Mr Parker said he believed they were in danger of being overtaken by other companies, such as Apple, and PC technology.

"There are a lot of companies coming into the market."

With space in the living room limited, set-top boxes could yet absorb console functionality.

Mr Parker said: "Games will be provided over the net. There might not be a need for a PS4 or dedicated consoles."

With Microsoft's track record in licensing its technology to other hardware manufacturers and Sony hoping to recoup the cost of developing the Cell processor, both firms could move toward a business plan of offering their services and hardware to other manufacturers.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo could instead be walled garden content providers and licensors, said Mr Parker.

"There could be a Nintendo channel, a PlayStation channel and an Xbox channel on your set-top box," he added

[Asher]

This explains why EA is cosying up with MS.

MS is already there -- same API on both Xbox 360 and PC now. It's the PS3 and Wii that are difficult, and given the brutal EA sales on Wii and PS3 platforms.......well.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So what?

the discussion was on third parties profitability, not first parties or second parties. Gears is a ms published game. MS directly profits from this game (moreso than mere licensing fees)

[Asher]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

the discussion was on third parties profitability, not first parties or second parties. Gears is a ms published game. MS directly profits from this game (moreso than mere licensing fees)

Gears was developed by a third party, and they are profiting greatly from it. Don't know why you think a third party's profitability is not relevant to a discussion on third party profitability, regardless of the fine print.

It's the perfect example, isn't it?

Red Steel and Gears of War were both released in November 2006.
Both were developed using Unreal Engine middleware.
Both have comparable development costs.
One was WAY more profitable to Epic -- a third party -- than the other.

You just don't like it since it single-handedly submarines your argument about Wii development costs being substantially lower, and third parties are making acceptable profits on the Wii. They're not.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Asher

Unless you want to say Epic is wholly owned by MS, it's not first party.

The point still stands. Comparative development costs, huge difference in revenues....figure out what the means w.r.t. profit.

It's published by MS, we were talking about pure 3rd party efforts and their profits, at least that's what I thought we were talking about, anyway.

I guess I misunderstood, oh well.

[Asher]

You're playing a silly game that you've already lost, I'm afraid.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Asher

Gears was developed by a third party, and they are profiting greatly from it. Don't know why you think a third party's profitability is not relevant to a discussion on third party profitability, regardless of the fine print.

It's the perfect example, isn't it?

Red Steel and Gears of War were both released in November 2006.
Both were developed using Unreal Engine middleware.
Both have comparable development costs.
One was WAY more profitable to Epic -- a third party -- than the other.

You just don't like it since it single-handedly submarines your argument about Wii development costs being substantially lower, and third parties are making acceptable profits on the Wii. They're not.

how is it a perfect example? the 360 was out for a full year before gears, a full year of figuring out how to use the console, red steel was started from scratch on a brand new console, of course the first effort is going to cost comparatively more than refinements.

So you're saying that 3rd parties are not making acceptable profits on the wii?

Capcom 5 year high on strength of MH3

majesco q2 sales up due to wii games

take two is up due to bioshock and carnival games

Ubisoft profits up on games including red steel and rayman (among others)

Please post links to the contrary, if you have them. I don't mind being educated.

[Asher]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
how is it a perfect example? the 360 was out for a full year before gears, a full year of figuring out how to use the console, red steel was started from scratch on a brand new console, of course the first effort is going to cost comparatively more than refinements.

BRAND NEW CONSOLE? Are you serious?

The chips and APIs are 100% completely identical to the Gamecube. The game engine was 100% already working on the Gamecube and Wii, it's Unreal Engine 2.0.

The only thing UNFAIR about the comparison is Red Steel had less competition for software and a far lower price.

So you're saying that 3rd parties are not making acceptable profits on the wii?

Capcom 5 year high on strength of MH3

Profit made on MH3 Wii: $0

majesco q2 sales up due to wii games

Who is Majesco? Are they one of those mega-awesome game devs like ATLUS?

take two is up due to bioshock and carnival games

Is Bioshock a Wii game all of the sudden?

Ubisoft profits up on games including red steel and rayman (among others)

Ubisoft publishes most of its games on non-Wii platforms, and most of its games are sold on non-Wii platforms.

Please post links to the contrary, if you have them. I don't mind being educated.

It's been posted constantly about third-party Wii sales. how many more links do you need? Look in this thread yourself if you want to. Look at the NPD stats for 3rd party Wii games.

The largest game publisher in the world is EA. How are they doing on Wii? What do you think their "profits" are like given the tremendous sales on games like Boogie and Madden on Wii?

[Kuciwalker]

BRAND NEW CONSOLE? Are you serious?

The chips and APIs are 100% completely identical to the Gamecube.

I can guarantee you that at least one API was not identical on the Gamecube.

[asleepathewheel]

I was hoping for something more than npd numbers, which only reveal the top 10 sellers, they don't reveal the profit made by the companies.

This guy http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/200...eptember.html, for instance says that companies can staff 3-4 wii games rather than a ps3 game. Why would you do that if it wasn't profitable.

Again, give me a link that says company A has lost money due to investments in wii games. I've posted links that have profits are up for some companies. (the reason I said bioshock is that I knew you would bring that up, I have nothing to hid here)

You banged on me earlier for stating the obvious, so now I'm making an effort to bring more to the table

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

BRAND NEW CONSOLE? Are you serious?

The chips and APIs are 100% completely identical to the Gamecube.

I can guarantee you that at least one API was not identical on the Gamecube.

The control scheme, fine. I guess in some people's world that's good for $5-10 million in development costs alone.

By comparison, Gears of War was the first Unreal Engine 3.0 game on the 360 and likely took more effort because of that.

But Red Steel was a game on a very refined Unreal Engine 2.0 on what's technology from 2001. You can't use that as a crutch, it's a benefit compared to GeOW.

[Asher]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
I was hoping for something more than npd numbers, which only reveal the top 10 sellers, they don't reveal the profit made by the companies.

This guy http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/200...eptember.html, for instance says that companies can staff 3-4 wii games rather than a ps3 game. Why would you do that if it wasn't profitable.

Again, give me a link that says company A has lost money due to investments in wii games. I've posted links that have profits are up for some companies. (the reason I said bioshock is that I knew you would bring that up, I have nothing to hid here)

You banged on me earlier for stating the obvious, so now I'm making an effort to bring more to the table

Not sure if it's public. But this kind of stuff is rather analytical.

Compare EA sales on 360 vs Wii. Which one is more profitable, using logic?

Yes, there is a space for profitability on the Wii. Particularly, if you make children's games on shoestring budgets like Cooking Mama, Anubis II, Lawn Mower FunPack, Dishwashing 101 you are bound to sell a handful of games that will make up for your $2 development cost.

If you are referring to those kind of blockbuster games, then you're right, the Wii is very profitable -- on any other platform, no one would be stupid enough to buy such ****.

But if you're referring to more real video games, like Red Steel vs Gears of War, one is way, way more profitable than the other. Not even going to try to look up links that say that explicitly, because I have faith that you can figure out that a game that sells 5x as much at a higher price with lower development costs is going to turn a higher profit than the other. Capiche?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
The control scheme, fine. I guess in some people's world that's good for $5-10 million in development costs alone.

I might not go so far as that, but the control scheme - and building gameplay around it - is a huge change from before that probably makes it as hard to move from GC -> Wii as Xbox -> 360.

And remember that Gears came out a year after the 360's release, whereas Red Steel came out on release for the Wii.

[asleepathewheel]

EA, ok that's a start. Do you have a link with development costs of the various games and their profit margins?

Gears, and Red Steel you've mentioned before. Do you have any other examples and links to costs and profits?

I've done my homework to show you that companies are profiting from the wii, which was my original point. To what degree they are profitting from the wii compared to the 360, and vice-versa, I have no clue, because I haven't seen numbers.

As far as subjective quality goes, we were talking bottom line profits, after all, what's important is not one single company's initial bottom line, it's the industry's long-term bottom line.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Asher
The control scheme, fine. I guess in some people's world that's good for $5-10 million in development costs alone.

I might not go so far as that, but the control scheme - and building gameplay around it - is a huge change from before that probably makes it as hard to move from GC -> Wii as Xbox -> 360.

And remember that Gears came out a year after the 360's release, whereas Red Steel came out on release for the Wii.

Not buying this in the slightest. The control scheme is different, yes, but that doesn't factor heavily into development costs AT ALL.

Further, it doesn't matter if the 360 was out for 1 year when the Wii's hardware has been available to developers since 2000. The controller is different, yes, but that's nothing to factor in to this big-picture discussion.

Further still, Gears of War was the first Unreal Engine 3.0 release ever -- and definitely first for the 360. That's a huge amount of field-testing and bugfixing required, while Unreal Engine 2.0 is very mature. Using brand new, pre-release software causes lots of cost overruns and complications.

The Wii, in this comparison, has every possible advantage and still cost similar amounts to develop.