GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 7, 2013
 
YAGER Development
Senior Game Systems Designer (f/m)
 
RealTime Immersive, Inc.
Animation Software Engineer
 
Havok
Havok- 3D Software Engineers (Relocate to Europe)
 
Social Point
Senior Game Developer
 
Treyarch / Activision
Senior Environment Artist
 
Trendy Entertainment
Gameplay Producer
spacer
Blogs

  A new future for videogame consoles?
by Michael Samyn on 09/28/12 01:42:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
30 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

Is it too late? Are videogame consoles dead? They certainly have lost much of their impact. And they are no longer the key to wide success or profitability.

What happened? Many things I'm sure. But one thing, in my opinion, especially. Game consoles refused to make a medium out of videogames.

They had everything going for them. Reasonably priced hardware, accessible interfaces, and most important of all, a place in the living room, where the games could be displayed on the large screen of a television set, the audio amplified through a decent stereo, and the player could be seated in a comfortable chair, far away from work.

All the makings of a new medium, indeed! So what went wrong? And can it still be repaired?

Despite of a few noble exceptions, console games have stayed loyal to the traditional game format for far too long. For too long consoles were presented as home arcade machines. And when they finally decided to enter the world of the grown-ups, they added movies.

If consoles had allowed -or indeed, if they would start allowing now- videogames to grow into its own form of entertainment for many different tastes, they would not find themselves in the current pitiful situation where games on phones or web sites are stealing away their audience.

Consoles are not casual play devices, they are media centers. Videogames on consoles don't need to be shallow, throwaway fun. When I'm sitting down in my comfortable chair, I am relaxed and I have a few hours to dedicate to entertainment, hit me with all you've got! I want spectacle, I want emotions, I want to be immersed, absorbed. I want to care, I want to be involved. And I don't want to collect spinning coins, match colored blocks, or shoot hordes of zombies. I want substance!

I'm not talking about 50 hour games that nobody ever finishes. The production cost of such extravaganzas has been the mill stone around the neck of this medium for far too long. And we need breathing space to experiment. Especially now. Because there's a lot of work to be done. A lot of damage to repair.

There is no reason why playing a videogame should take longer than watching an average movie. There is also no reason why such a game should cost the consumer more than an average movie. And it is perfectly possible to create condensed impactful videogames for a fraction of the cost of equivalent films. I also believe that a shorter length in itself will make videogames more accessible to a wider audience. Current games are simply too long. It's intimidating and discouraging for many potential players.

Game consoles do not need to play movies to draw in an adult audience. We can make games that do this! We can save the videogame medium! And consoles would be smart to open up their doors to artists who want to do something more with the technology than make another Mario clone or sports simulation. We can take this much further. There is no reason why videogames could not offer the same breadth and depth of experiences as any other medium. Videogames can be as versatile, desirable and respected as literature, music, theater and cinema. Consoles can choose to act now with courage and confidence or wait until desperation forces them.

In a way, the success of mobile games and web games is a godsend. Because it's a clear demonstration of how games should be made. Angry Birds and Farmville are the ultimate games. It makes no sense whatsoever to even try to imitate that pattern on a console. We play videogames on consoles for entirely different reasons. We want the story, the immersion, the emotions. And formal gameplay simply acts as a way to prevent us from accessing these.

There's a lot to say for formal games. But smartphones, or indeed cardboard or just our bodies and a list of rules, suffice to play them. Such games do not require the kind of technology, or even setting, that a game console offers. The game console offers a media experience. This has nothing to do with a formal game experience. If consoles have a future, it will consist of interactive media experiences that are not games.

The evolution of blockbusters games clearly shows a direction towards a more pure interactive entertainment without the complications offered by formal games. But this evolution is happening too slowly. A radical step needs to be taken now. It's perfectly possible, perfectly feasible, and it makes perfect sense, both economically and culturally.


This article was originally posted on the notgames blog.

 
 
Comments

k s
profile image
I must respectfully disagree with your opinion. If anyone is to blame for the lack of "adult" content in gaming it's not the consoles themselves but rather the publishers and their aversion to risk!

As for your views on shorter games I strongly disagree, I grow bored of shorter games in a matter of minutes as they lack the depth to interest me.

Alan Rimkeit
profile image
"Angry Birds and Farmville are the ultimate games"

Wait, what? Really?

"I'm not talking about 50 hour games that nobody ever finishes."

Nobody? How can you back up that statement at all? Do you have data that does so? A metric on how many people play longer games to the end vs stop playing before they finish?

"There is no reason why playing a videogame should take longer than watching an average movie. There is also no reason why such a game should cost the consumer more than an average movie. And it is perfectly possible to create condensed impactful videogames for a fraction of the cost of equivalent films. I also believe that a shorter length in itself will make videogames more accessible to a wider audience. Current games are simply too long. It's intimidating and discouraging for many potential players."

Are you trying to say that ALL game companies should just stop making huge AAA games like Skyrim? If so then I say that is just craziness. Go ahead, makes shorter more condensed games. There is no reason that both kinds of games can not exsist in the same market. I and many others enjoy massive games that go on and on and on and on and on. Why do you think the mods for the PC versions of the Elder Scrolls games are so popular? They keep the games and gameplay going potentially forever.

As for "saving" the console market it does not need "saving". If it "shrinks" then the market will adjust accordingly. Personally I believe that the Wii created an aftifical bubble with an influx of what I call "non-hardcore gamers".

They got the Wii, purchased games, got tired of the Wii and stopped buying games. A lot of the people that got the Wii did not even own a 360 or PS3. When they stopped buying so many games the bubble popped. The market shrunk back to pre-Wii period levels. That is my two cents ta least. I may be wrong. Hardcore gamers like me keep buying games like Dead Space 2 and Skyrim. We are keeping the console market alive and healthy.

The most casual games I play on the PS3 are Everyday Shooter and Fat Princess. Journey was a short games for cheap that delivered too. Good stuff. Did not stop me from playing my other long games for everything they are worth. I loves me some trophies. Going for the Platimun in Dead Space 2 now and it rules! I know that I am not the only one who thinks this way either. Serve all markets, but don't abandon one for the other. That is a foolish idea IMHO to say the least.

"If consoles have a future, it will consist of interactive media experiences that are not games."

If that happens then I am not playing video games ever again. The key word being games, with gameplay.

Javier Arevalo
profile image
"We are keeping the console market alive and healthy"

The AAA console game market does exist, but it is not healthy, and a good chunk of it is dying or not alive anymore - check the number of releases, the number of teams and studios that have closed and the sales data. Budgets to compete have skyrocketed but sales revenue has remained comparatively flat, a trend that was very visible and predicted left and right during the PS2 era.

The only way out was also clear back then: a games market filled with "small but good" indie-like games and a few AAA blockbusters. Sadly, the business model of console manufacturers has not allowed this. The 'small' games are relegated to PSN and XBLA. Those looked very promising at the beginning of the console cycle but 7 years later look frozen in time, still too expensive and cumbersome to develop for and publish, lacking visibility, full of garbage and with only a handful of true success stories to tell.

As they said in Jurassic Park, "life finds a way", and in this case, it was social and mobile exploding with affordable budgets, cheap prices and mass market appeal. It chaotic and wild-west, but it's also thriving with creativity, innovation and fantastic games.

Sylvester O'Connor
profile image
In response to you Alan, I won't defend the writer of the article, however, he never said that he wanted ALL games to be shorter.

I do AGREE with you about the Wii though. I know many people that only bought the Wii for Wii Sports and never bought another game again as that is the only one that they played with their families. I also know a few people that only bought about 3 to 5 games in the life span of the Wii as opposed to every year. They were not core gamers but at the same time, they were not fully casual only gamers either. So I do see your point there. Well put!

Hunter Curren
profile image
I could be wrong here as I haven't looked up the numbers recently (and this post doesn't contain any), but I don't think there is any evidence that non-gaming dedicated mobile devices are taking away from in home consoles. Additionally, I feel like most of this is based purely off what you personally like or dislike and not based on what the majority of console game players like.

I primarily use my console for watching BluRay movies and NetFlix, but that doesn't mean that people selling the next Mario or Battle Field game aren't making money. In fact, I'd be willing to be that there are quite a few people looking forward to the next Mario game, and they're certainly waiting for the next Zelda title.

Additionally, I'm not sure I can agree with your statements that playing a game shouldn't take longer than watching an average length movie (around 2 hours) or that it shouldn't cost more. Many (most?) movies make back their entire production cost and then some well before they ever hit the shelves for people to take home, games don't have that luxury. Additionally, I'm willing to bet that most people are looking for longer lasting experiences, not shorter ones.

I guess what I'm looking for are some numbers or other data to back up your claims other than your own dislike of current console game titles, because I certainly disagree with you completely and don't see anything in your post to suggest I should change my opinions.

Scott Sheppard
profile image
To be the flip side of the coin here, I personally agree with you 100%. I don't play console games at all because they're just too darned long, with too much filler. However, I imagine a game being more like 6 hours for a good story, and not just 1.5 like a film.

I don't think there's much wrong with pumping out 50 hour gamefests... so long as there were more (well funded) options. Not everyone is going to watch the extended lord of the rings, and not everyone is going to play Skyrim. The difference is that consoles cater to the hardcore and movies cater to everyone.

Ara Shirinian
profile image
You are right in the sense that formal gameplay truly is a barrier to experiencing (accessing) things like the story, immersion and emotions that are characteristic of the traditional narrative forms.

However, formal, mechanical gameplay is not only substantive (you appear to dismiss such things as not being of substance, but it's not clear if you really are), it is a unique form of experience that is truly worthy of continued creative pursuit. You state that smartphones, cardboard, and human bodies suffice to represent the breadth of dynamics possible in gameplay, but such an assertion completely ignores several big categories of gameplay, namely every form of gameplay with a physical controller that is not a smartphone. Formal gameplay dynamics can neither be divorced from its physical interface, nor from their thematic, graphical appearances. I would argue Rayman Origins is a beautiful work of formal gameplay, and yet without the physical controller, without its very specific production of audiovisual sensibilities, it could not exist as anything but a shadow of its real self, especially if confined to your categories.

I find it furthermore intellectually dishonest to ask whether consoles are dead as a legitimate question, or even to assert that they used to be the 'key to wide success or profitability." Video games have always been insanely risky economical prospects, even in the most profitable console years (which incidentally, I would wager were so due to a very small number of breakout titles, rather than any overall increase or decrease in the quality of choices or number of sales for the average title). Anyway, I think it's a mistake and a conflation to couple the artistic or experiential value of a game with its economic results.

In fact, I would say that the reason for the current evolution of blockbuster games is nothing more than a side effect of publishers trying to sell to the most number of people with the least risk and effort. If we have done damage anywere, it is damage from not giving the psychology of mechanical human-game interaction a worthy enough shot.

Because of economic and other constraints, big game projects don't try very much to solve the human interaction problems, they side-step them by just making something easy enough so n people can jump through the hoop. But this is another conflation - ease of performance is not the same as ease of difficulty. Being granted an A is not the same as having gone through the learning process and then performing at an A level. Plus, not all learning processes are created equal either.

So, we are left with an industry that excels at visual production and technology, but we haven't gotten any better at teaching our players how to perform at our games. We have not been practicing that because it's the least salient aspect of video games. So few of us are practicing it, that as an industry we make design mistakes over and over that had been solved by some games 20 years ago. The less this aspect of the art is practiced, the less salient it will continue to become.

You can do whatever you want with games, but I feel like the most unique power of games (and hence their greatest potential) is their ability to teach performance. If we choose to ignore that component, I suppose there might not be that much of substance left over besides its narrative forms.

Marvin Papin
profile image
I totally agree the way you think Ara. Currently games have a certain lack of depth (for the most). People do no longer enjoy games for the moment because they find alway the same thing. Inexorably shooting and moving forward toward the indicated direction, through areas by giving uncountable swords hit.

Years ago, people were addicted by new gameplay, new stories. Mainly at the N64 generation. we saw some examples of this through Conker, Banjo and Kazooie, Goldeneye, Zelda... Today, there are still games which conduce to what does the player will enjoy like Portal. But the last 12 month have been to much poor and people do not find the games they wanna play and they released their gamepads. Some of them go to portables device but this is not because they buy a game that thay play it much or even enjoy it.

Moreover, lifetime shouldn't pass to a film length. I think 1h30/2h is not enough to enjoy the most of games. Of course there are games like limbo and its 3h length but this is the minimum or even not enough and there's no story (you can say the contrary but stop hide one's face it's just a succession of paintings) so you enjoy the gameplay for 3 real hours with something close from the perfection in its category. NOW I HAVE DOUBTS THAT ZELDA WOULD BE SO APPRECIATE WITH 2H LIFETIME. so much could be told but this sentence say enough to understand what it means.

I laaaaargely prefer to play a 20h game for 70€ than a 2h for 7€. But games with nothing really special vis a vis the gameplay with 8h are far to worth 60€. It's more than subjective (...) but I'm not interested by darksiders 2 even if the 1 was cool but nut enough various cause nothing interest me anymore. Game like Borderlands and Left For Dead has only their coop to offer without, it that would be good games but i don't think much people will appreciate the sequels without notable changes.

Finally if CoD games workED that was due to the mass. If your friends buy it you will to. Unfortunately, they want tactics instead of skills and thats worse episodes after episodes. Only the zombie mode will keep players (except the 12yo boys) onto it.

Video Game industry has to move to originality and to come back to the answer how the player will enjoy the game. And don't tell this is totally different when "What's common between Portal and Zelda" because this is why games work or will work.

Marvin Papin
profile image
The last thing i wanna tell is people are bored to pay to much with online pass dlc and subscription. With the actual quality of game, additionally, they feel video games do not worth it for the moment. Wait and come back later.

Roderick Hossack
profile image
Thank you, Ara.

I don't play Gran Turismo 5 for its narrative. I don't play Tekken Tag Tournament 2 for that, either. And yet, both games provide orders of magnitude more entertainment and replayability for me than these theoretical 2-hour emotional games.

Mathieu MarquisBolduc
profile image
Oh please. Just because some games and platform arent tailored to our personal tastes doesnt mean they're wrong or doomed. If you dont like long games play the short ones! Countless people played through long games like Red Dead Redemption and dark souls and I loved it.

Nothing "went wrong". Various developpers today are making incredible games of every kind, format and length, and those are enjoyed by millions. Thousans people line up in a 7 hours queue to try an upcoming game and you think they arent as desirable as literature or cinema?

Seriously. Your premise is not only unsupported, its completely wrong.

Tyler Shogren
profile image
Quote: Videogames can be as versatile, desirable and respected as literature, music, theater and cinema

I'm not sure they can. Videogames suffer from being nonlinear but finite, there's always an invisible wall to run into somewhere, or some other unrealistic shattering of narrative frame. So this "new medium", non-linear narrative structure, whatever that might be, also has to hide the technical limitations of the medium. An industry full of Jon Blows might be able to handle this, but I'm not sure those motivated to work in the industry by the cannon of existing video games are able (to put it mildly).

Also, are you proposing an industry reformation based on romantic comedy quick time events?

Jake Shapiro
profile image
People are always quick to say social gaming is the future of the industry. And at the same time, we're slowly heading towards tech convergence, blurring the lines between "mobile gaming" and "PC gaming." I think we'll find the future of our industry somewhere in there. Consoles as we know it may not exist, but they'll be there in some mutated future-form.

Steven Christian
profile image
As a PC gamer I bought a PS3 so I could Stream movies to my TV, to have a similar system to Steam when it came to downloading and playing games, but from the comfort of my living room, and also with local multiplayer.

Sony ruined the streaming when they added Cinivia copy protection. I could no longer stream legally purchased Bluray movies that were ripped to my PC; the download/achievement/social system is worse than steam; most games don't have local multiplayer; also the controls are imprecise and the joysticks have a massive deadzone in the middle, which makes any kind of FPS a nightmare to play, with auto-aim required.

The console initially lived up to some of my expectations, but eventually none, and now it gathers dust, while my PC rules the roost with direct output to my monitor and every TV in the house. My wireless Keyboard and Mouse are much better than the PS3 controller, and there are a plethora of indie games that have gone back to their local multiplayer roots.

Also my PC plays all of my movies seamlessly, regardless of publishers trying to tell me how I can and can't enjoy my legally purchased content.

The time of locked-down consoles is over. The time of OUYA is here. With proper support from the community it could be the best thing to happen to the living room.

William Collins
profile image
I can agree with most of what you are saying, Mr. Samyn. As a 31 yr old male, I just don't have the time like I used to, to devote to playing games (due to other interests). The medium most definitely needs to be pushed more (and is in small increments). I'm currently catching up on a few gems I missed and happened upon Uncharted 2, which I thought was excellent and not overly long. There is definitely a market for the types of experiences you propose and this will, hopefully, be catered more to in the near future.
And did you really expect to post an article like this and not expect backlash from the "hardcore"? tsk tsk lol

Joaquin Estrago
profile image
I can also say I agree with the sentiment, though you make a lot of loaded statements that have little support (as other commenters have pointed out).
But the point hit close to home - I would also love 2-3 hour experiences (not necessarily games!) that I could do in one sitting, and after that time feel my life is better off for having experienced that. I am sometimes surprised to hear people in the industry so attached to a narrow view of what we can do with the medium. No, not every interactive experience needs to involve competition (vs human or vs system), frustration-reward loop, reflexes, challenge, "win/lose", etc.
I think David Cage has his heart in the right place in this regard. Too bad his writing is just not very good. But his approach to interactive drama is getting more refined with each game, so I hope he gets to do 5 more. Also Telltale are noteworthy, and they're also getting better and better, and finding success.
Also, why haven't we seen more interactive theater pieces like Façade? Now that's a direction I'd like the medium to grow into. Imagine a "role playing" game where 1-2 people would sit in front of the TV and take part as characters of an unfolding interactive drama that would react realistically to each "player"'s voice and body language inputs. Think Kinect + Façade + The Last Express, but lasting 2-2.5 hours. And with good writing too! Too far fetched? I don't think it's a matter of technology, but it seems we just don't know how to do it..

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
I think you've hit pretty close to the mark in sizing up the video game industry problem with roleplay vs. games. Although I disagree that a "2-3 hour" limit is mandatory. Gaming sessions work fine in the 6-8 hour range as well. It depends on the quality of the interaction. The issue with time isn't how much per session it's how many sessions and how often for a completed experience.

The issue of playtime, isn't solvable through such tight mandatory limitation. You will leave the players without room for the most important aspect which is daring to imagine and think about what is going on.
The issue has become competing emphasis, time to "consider" vs time to "just do", when games have nothing to consider well...

Limit the game through more naturalmeans by forcing consideration. you tube will hand out all the answers to any 12 year old, but if the game is created in such a way that consideration is the emphasis then you can moderate play time for the 2-3 hour crowd and the 6-8 hour crowd.

A hybrid of consoles and mobile devices are the bridge, the only question is who will be smart enough with enough monetary clout to begin the "whole" ball rolling and not some simpl-minded aim accessible part solve.

The other end of course is to baffle the market metrics lovers long enough for quality entertainment/activity to be the emphasis.

Justin Sawchuk
profile image
Do you really think you can get a game in 90 minutes because either its going to be really simple or the difficulty curve is going to go through the roof. Imagine if you playing zelda orcania of time and they start you off with all your equipment in the water temple.

Justin Sawchuk
profile image
Angry birds was designed to be played between 1 to 3 minutes at a time while waiting for the bus, you cant even turn on your console and load the disc in that time.

Mark Heath
profile image
I half agree with this article. Shorter games would attract casual gamers. These shorter games would have to be set up similar to a movie. They would have to be deep, accessible and well paced. I think the industry is currently moving in that direction anyways. Look at Beyond Two Souls, Heavenly Sword, Asura's Wrath and Vanquish, they all have that summer movie feel to them. Focused and deep, but short. I have no problem with this idea, though getting rid of AAA games would ultimately kill the consoles. There would have to be a marriage between the two.

David Marcum
profile image
I've checked out your games. Very impressive! If you would like a place in peoples living rooms you might consider releasing on Ouya. Their business model might suit your games nicely.




*I await for the out cry of "OUYA ILL NEVER BE RELEASED!"

k s
profile image
How dare you assume a perfectly viable product could ever be released ;)

james sadler
profile image
This really seems like a post based off of the current mindset that mobile and casual games are taking over the market. The reality is that it isn't taking over the whole market, just a piece of it. The same piece that the Wii opened up, but also existed in a degree with other casual games from older consoles. Casual games aren't anything new, just that the developers have found better avenues than consoles to distribute them to the world. Consoles are terrible casual game platforms. The take over the living room and take time to launch. If I want to play a game and my wife doesn't, I'm not playing a game. I can pick up my phone or launch a web browser and play though.

The idea of creating shorter and more movie like experiences in games is just not reality. Movies cater to a huge audience of all ages. This is how they can make millions of dollars from a single movie even at today's going theater price. There's also the fairly little known fact that movie companies look at theatrical releases not as money makers, but as really long previews for the DVD/BluRay/Digital sales of the movie. Most times film companies make their money two to three times from the same audience while most game companies get this chance once.

Shorter games can work if the price point reflects that. Journey was a beautiful game that was short, but unlike a lot of people, I thought it was priced too high for what it was at launch. I played through the game in three hours, which worked out to $5 an hour. I wouldn't have felt that annoyed if it left me with the desire to play through it a second or third time, but I have never launched the game again. If it hadn't been so beautiful and enjoyable the one time around I'd have been really annoyed. Even at 1.5 hours most movies feel rushed to me. Trying to get a player invested in the world, gameplay, and characters they aren't accustomed to, which is a hard sell even for movies, would be almost impossible.

The bottom line is that consoles exist for a certain market which is not the casual market. Granted I agree that with how popular and upgradable PC's are, consoles have a lot to do to stay relevant. Opening themselves up to other markets would be a good idea, but I see difficulty in the implementation.

Roderick Hossack
profile image
A video game is more than the amount of time it takes to play through its story mode once.

Thom Q
profile image
I agree with one of the points the article makes: The lack of innovating games makes the consoles less popular. To say they died out would be too big of an assumption for me.

I personally, and friends around me, are almost completely done with PS3 & Xbox 360 games. There are of course rare exceptions of console-games that we get excited about, one of the last being Skyrim (one that I played on PC)..

I'm not saying the situation is Atari E.T. bad, but most games do feel and look a Lot like each other. Often overproduced & overpolished games wich lost most of their uniqueness (if they had any to begin with) to appeal to the masses.. Transformers anyone? :D

If you think about it, the disillusionment is kinda obvious. From my birthyear of 1982 to 1997 brouht 15 years of unbelievable progress in games. We went from 8bit 2d sidescrollers like NES Mario, to a 3rd person 3D Mario64. From Star Fox to Tie-fighter. We saw the perfection of adventure games, the rise of RPG's & Fighting games, etc.

Now take the next 15 years, 1997 to 2012. We went from Goldeneye to CoD. We got FullHD, doly surround, and non-local multiplayer. And that's about it. 15 years to embrace technology that was already around for 5 of them. And let's be honest, a surprising lack of innovation in gameplay, or even games as a whole.

By now I expected to be able to play (original) MMO's on my consoles for years. I was hoping to have a wider variety of (original) games, and, since I personally went from 15 to 30 years of age, a market for more mature games. And no, sex and violence is the opposite of what I mean with mature :)

Instead we have 2 hardcore gaming consoles wich can't even play a youtube video in 1080p. Also ridiculous is that I have to use a 6 year old console to have fun with friends locally. The Wii is the only one you can turn on if there are more then 2 people around...

I could go on, but by the time I'm finished idea's and products like Kickstarter, Ouya (and maybe even a SteamBox??) will hopefully have sorted out a lot of the mess.

Mike Griffin
profile image
Luckily, video games come in all shapes and sizes.

I grew up playing console 2D platformers and shooters that had a "campaign" that lasted literally 1 hour, while simultaneously investing in RPGs that lasted 30 hours. Both types of games were priced about the same, both provided enjoyment and replayability -- whether me and a buddy beating Double Dragon together for the 50th time, or playing through Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy again.

Nowadays we often get price ranges that reflect game size/content/length. It's nice.

Besides, the premise of this post is sort of mitigated by multiplayer. You could make a really wonderful movie-length 2 hour "campaign" for your game that people enjoy, and pair it with a super fun multiplayer experience that people game on for hundreds of hours.

Whether it's a simple, streamlined interactive experience, or a very complex one.
Whether per play, that gaming experience is short, medium, or long session.

The point is: When it's good, people play it/watch it/buy it/remember it/do it again. Genre be damned, length be damned, themes be damned. Were you engaged and entertained?

Console gaming is slowly taking the right steps. For every lengthy AAA blockbuster, you can now find smaller, satisfying, medium and shorter session experiences. It's just the issue of visibility and discovery: the AAA monster is going to receive the lion's share of marketing and promotion, thus it appears to be the game industry's selected champion, and becomes emblematic of "the only choice" when it actually isn't.

Much like acclaimed smaller films can still enjoy a happy fan base and sustained popularity, but not regularly receive the front page press of their larger, big budget brethren.

That's consistent with the entertainment industry as a whole. Spoon-fed product placement to the masses, but a little something for everyone and anyone willing to seek it out.

An individual allowing Gears of War or Skyrim to intimidate them away from console gaming is perhaps being spoon-fed that fear. Or they're simply unequipped or incapable of identifying suitable gameplay on console to match their desires.

Hence the rise of social-mobile gaming: The immediacy of discoverable and quickly acquired (on the device you always carry around, or the browser you always have open) "games", paired with eminently replayable casual concepts of objectives and rewards, and the "I'm a busy adult now" appeal of shorter-session, lowered-intimidation simplicity.

These experiences can find a place on the big screen in the living room as well.

Video games of all shapes and sizes: that's the past, present, and future of console.
We just need improved visibility for games that may host other tiers of player interest and investment on console.
But it certainly exists, and more will come.

Game consoles made an entertainment medium out of video games a few decades ago.
Game consoles made video games into a cultural phenomenon.
Video games of every mode and style helped to establish this.
Video games are now penetrating previously untapped demographics.
Game consoles are ostensibly declining, but are firmly rooted and quickly adapting.

In conclusion: Variety is the spice of life.
Video games of all shapes and sizes, for gamers of all wants and desires.

Rodolfo Camarena
profile image
Interesting opinions here. I'd like to add that people should know what they are buying/paying for, first of all. Content is one and game play is another. If I were to pay $64.94 for a new PS3 or Xbox360 title, then I'd want my money's worth. Be it through the length of game play that I'll get out of it or the amazing content. A quick example. I remember when Guitar Hero: Rock the '80s came out. I "rented" it knowing that I'd blast through it within a few hours, but was really disappointed when there wasn't anything 'new' about the game at all. Just new songs to play and it was priced as a full game. To me, THAT was not worth the price of a full game and felt that it should have been released with a $39.99 MSRP or lower.

I find it amusing that you said, " I also believe that a shorter length in itself will make videogames more accessible to a wider audience. Current games are simply too long. It's intimidating and discouraging for many potential players." - People want content. They don't want to spend 45 minutes running around through a kingdom, save a princess and call it a day. Designers don't think that way, and believe me. We want people to play our games.

Every game made is targeted for a certain demographic. Fans of shooters, fighters, rpgs, action, platform, etc. If they've wanted to make non-intimidating and discouraging games, they'd be making games for mobile devices and the V-Smile.

Robert Swift
profile image
Future consoles will not be 'game-consoles' anymore. The point of a console nowadays is to give access to a great variety of entertainment in a comfortable manner and with high quality video+audio. People want choice and comfort.

They should offer long games, short games, movies, music, TV, web, own pictures/videos, ... . The wider the variety and the more comfortable the access the more successful they will be imho. And they should also interface with the growing array of other gadgets, like smartphones, pads, ... .

Thom Q
profile image
What console gives access to a variety of entertainment in a comfortable manner and with high quality video+audio??

I own all of them, and none of them do that! :D

Robert Swift
profile image
None yet, which is my point. I think the times for a "video game" console are over but there is big potential for an entertainment center/service. Especially because the variety of entertainment is growing.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech