+16
Save

How do you see the gaming landscape changing in the near future?

I feel like gaming is in sort of a strange place right now. We are well into the current generation of consoles. Mobile gaming has seen huge growth in the past. New technologies with big potential like virtual reality are just around the corner from becoming consumer products. Personally though, it feels as though gaming in general is in sort of a standstill right now. Everything seems to be "coming soon", and for now it's a bit of a waiting game.

So, what are people's thoughts as to how gaming will be changing in the near future? Will virtual reality become the next big thing? Will mobile gaming continue to grow or are we looking at the popping of a bubble? Are we going to see the end of gaming-specific handhelds? Does the industry see a resurgence, a collapse, or business as usual?

8 years ago by Goronmon with 27 comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • zaywolfe (edited 8 years ago)
    +7

    BTW, didn't mean for this to get so long. Just kinda ended up that way.

    Everyone here is posting great stuff. I thought I'd go a bit to the dark side. I think we're going to see publishers and console manufacturers slowly try to get rid of the concept of game ownership. You saw Microsoft try to do it early on with the Xbox One games, and everyone rebelled, forcing them to undo all their limitations. But the industry is still moving steadily towards that outcome. Sony's push toward it is much more subtle with Playstation Now, focusing first on older titles. Soon you'll see titles simultaneously launch on store shelves and Playstation Now. Then you'll get your first Playstation Now exclusive, perhaps starting with Indie titles that won't cause much outcry. But as Playstation Now's userbase grows and begins to rise to physical copy levels, major games will become exclusive to Playstation Now too.

    There's a huge incentive for console manufacturers to get rid of physical copies. They can give up the expensive practices of manufacturing game disks and the logistics of shipping. Not to mention get rid of the used gaming market to boot. A market that console manufacturers have always disliked for not getting a cut. For good reason in my book, I believe once you buy a physical game, it becomes your property that they shouldn't have a hand in.

    But an even bigger plus for them is increased revenue, when all your games are behind a monthly pay wall, everyone will end up paying more for games as a whole. There are people that are regular game buyers who preorder and buy new games every month, but those people are really a minority. The much more common group of people end up buying a few games a year, if that. There's actually a number we can find to illustrate this, the tie-ratio also called the attach-rate. But basically it's how many games people buy per person on average for each console. Here's a source to find tie rates. Current gen isn't listed yet.

    Lets take the PS3 data and do some math. The current lifespan tie-ratio for the PS3 is 12.76. Altogether using a $60 game price, people on average spent $765.6 in total for games for the market life of the PS3. Seems pretty good but here's the telling thing, the market life of the PS3 until the PS4 was around 7 years! That means that people on average only bought 1.82 games a year! Remember this is before the price of manufacturing and shipping the game is factored in. But now lets see how this works with Playstation Now as the leading model for getting games. Assuming the PS4 has a similar lifespan, 7 years, lets multiply that with the number of months, 12, and the monthly price of Now, $20. That comes out to people paying $1680 on average for the lifetime of their device. Remember this is on top of the console price too. A significant jump up from $765.6, which itself is a bit inflated since it doesn't account for costs and games that are less than $60. So you can see there's a significant motive for console makers to move to a subscription model like this.

    I could go into this in more detail but I'll stop now because it's already getting a bit too long. But what will ultimately prove whether this happens or not is if gamers go for it. How do you feel about game ownership in the future?

    • Pockets69 (edited 8 years ago)
      +4

      like you i added more to the dark side of gaming, like you i see a dark future ahead of us, i completely agree with everything you said, and i actually mention some of your points on my wall of text, it just that i did it with broken English xD

      As for the games ownership in the future, like now we don't own any, and I don't think i need to tell you we never did, unfortunately as you know, we only license software we don't actually own it, yeah i know the sense of ownership is different if you have the game in your hands on DVD, but god damn you don't even own it :( but if that game is stored on a compny server and you stream it, you can say goodbye to the very little control you had, they can do anything they want with it, dark future ahead of us dark future...

      • zaywolfe (edited 8 years ago)
        +5

        You're right about us not technically owning the games even now. But luckily the act of buying and having a game still feels like ownership. Unfortunately there has been a concentrated effort to remove ownership across many fields not just gaming. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think it's a trend as businesses realize the potential. I think the same thing is happening with cars and will really come about when self driving cars arrive. Instead of going out and buying a car, most people will pay a subscription for access to a car when they need it, maybe with a distance limitation.

        One day in the future us old timers will be complaining about our car share being late and reminiscing about times when we still had driveways and a car whenever we needed it. While teens will ask, "What's a driveway?"

        I guess the bigger question is, is this really a bad thing? I'm not sure myself.

        Here's an interesting article for anyone interested in this

        • Pockets69
          +2

          scary...

          Is it a bad thing? yeah at least in my opinion, imagine not owning your car! or not even have it available when you need it, or being stranded in the middle of nowhere "your subscribed mileage has ended, please subscribe to another mileage pack to keep driving" what the fuck is this :(

  • the7egend
    +6

    Dependent on technology, I think the future is VR, we are just dipping our toes into the pond currently, but Morpheus and Oculus are just gateways, I think MMORPGs are going to become more of a thing than they are with VR headsets and DLC won't be as big of a thing anymore, but it'll be more of a subscription based model, less story driven games and more open worlds where you create your own story either alone or with other people. You'll have different genres of MMOs, but as technology advances you'll feel more immersed, hopefully to the point where you don't need 2 screens infront of your face, but you just close your eyes and neurally link into the game, if you watch anime think Log Horizon or Sword Art Online.

    • ToixStory
      +3

      Am I a bad person if that sounds just awful to me? I love story-driven games that I can play by myself with a keyboard and mouse or USB controller. That future sounds like one where I'd, for the first time in my life, not be a gamer, which to me is sad.

      • Snowy
        +2

        I feel you, but I am excited to try out this new VR system it will either flop real hard or become the next thing, but I doubt that the normal gaming methods we are all used to will be obsolete due to cost so nothing to fear my friend :).

  • Gandarf
    +4

    Call me an optimist but I think we might actually start transitioning away from the force fed DLC scheme that has been prevalent. The positive response to games like Witcher 3, which from release has had amazing support from the developers, weekly free dlc, and upcoming expansions that, when totaled, are rumored to rival the amount of content in their second game (http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/10/the-wi...-3-expansion-almost-the-size-of-the-witcher-2). 343 announced at e3 that all DLC map packs will be free to ensure a cohesive community (likely also as an attempt to repair their image following MCC). They also unveiled an alternative revenue stream that seems to be very balanced and completely optional.

    Also, if you look at what Microsoft is doing with the Xbox One, I think we're really starting to see "gaming ecosystems". The lines are getting a little blurry, so that when you play on xbox, you might not even have to be playing on an xbox (sort of already the case with windows 10 streaming). That's all conjecture though, but I think we'll get a clearer picture in the next year or so.

  • brendintosh
    +4

    Annualized games will slowly disappear in exchange for a universal platform: We're seeing this now with Call of Duty taking a hiatus after Black Ops III, GTA had a short spree of annualized games with GTA III, Vice City, and San Andreas; and now I think Assassins Creed is the next to slow down the releases. Companies are realizing that too much of one thing gets stale. Call of Duty has fantastic gunplay, but seeing the same franchise every year fatigues the customer. After awhile, annualized games are going to go away for platform-approaches. Instead of buying FIFA every year, you can buy the FIFA platform, then buy smaller updates throughout the year that include new rosters, fields, and entire game patches. it would be similar to what World of Warcraft has with its Vanilla game, and expansions that add new features.

  • septimine
    +3

    I think the console gen after the current one will be the last one. I don't know of many people over 10 who have one, it's all pic and mods are getting to be the selling point of many games.

    • darrelty
      +2

      I agree but I think that we may see a shift and resurgence in consoles a few years after that. mostly based around divergence of key features or focus on vr and ar hardware

      • septimine
        +1

        But couldn't breathe be a peripheral to a computer, rather than a stand alone device? Given a fast enough computer, it should be able to do vr and ar.

  • ThermalShock
    +3

    We really seem to be entering into an age of indie devs. Small independent studios are creating the more risky and interesting games that larger studios don't feel are safe enough to invest in. As much as I dislike it, buying into early access to be an alpha tester is here to stay. It's to much of a money maker to ignore. Even larger companies are getting into it. The new Lego building game is even doing it. DLC is going to get more and more ridiculous. To think we laughed at horse armor. Lastly VR is hard for me to gauge. We've been promised it so many times before that I'm skeptical it'll take hold this time.

    • darrelty
      +2

      I dont see an age of indie devs happening while consoles are such a massive part of market, mobile handheld and pc are much cheaper to develop to expected quality but to get to the level that people are coming to expect from consoles costs lots either making the game short or graphically simple which limits the scope that indie devs can do

    • ClarkKent
      +2

      We have been promised since I was a kid, we had virtual boy. Which I actually still have fond memories of. But DLC to me is really where they are nickel and diming the gamer to the extreme. I really hope they do get away from it like /u/Gandarf said!

  • GroundType
    +2

    I'm still waiting for mobile gaming to prove itself to me. I haven't seen a big game that doesn't use time-gating and micro-transactions. The only things that seem to come close are the Final Fantasy ports. There's potential, but right now the standard seems to be Free-to-play or $.99 with micro-transactions. (If anyone has any suggestions to prove otherwise, please send them my way.)

    It also doesn't help that smartphone hardware specs vary wildly. I remember downloading Crazy Taxi: City Rush onto my Gen 1 Moto X, only for the developer to pull support of that device. If a developer did that with a major gaming platform (Like Arkham Knight) there would be a huge uproar.

    As for VR, I wasn't sure, but then I played Elite Dangerous at PAX East last year. I had an "AHAH" moment. I'm locked in a space dogfight, and my bogey zooms right by me and I lose sight of him. My typical gaming reflexes kick in, and I try to find him by turning my whole ship around. I then realized that I could just look up and out the back of the cockpit. The realization was pretty exhilarating.

    Now, I don't think that all gaming should switch to VR, but between that Minecraft Hololens demo and my Elite Dangerous experience, I'm pretty excited.

    • MartyOBriens
      +1

      Agreed. While I loved The Wolf Among Us, these phones have the capability to deliver more than a play-along mystery story. I can't help but get the impression that what we consider mobile gaming is just not profitable enough to invest in...especially with the success of Zynga apps and the like.

      • zaywolfe (edited 8 years ago)
        +2

        It's a different market. It's been completely flooded by casual gamers and casual games for them. It's really hard to stand out and be visible to the people who like traditional games. There's some really solid games for mobile with solid gameplay and a good story, but they're almost impossible to search for in the app store.

    • zaywolfe
      +1

      Have you tried Superbrothers Sword & Sworcery on mobile? The only game on mobile that has really hooked me. The story is well written and they make use of touch controls in a cool unique way. Super Hexagon is another good fit for mobile.

      I definitely agree on your other points.

      • MagicSexBomb
        +1

        Ahh I love that game!! I keep wishing for more mobile games like that - strategy based sagas with an actual storyline to unlock.

        Although I am a HUGE mobile gamer, (I'll download nearly any free trial/free to play game from the App Store) I rarely buy full versions unless I REALLY get hooked. Sword & Sworcery was definitely one of the ones I bought with no regrets. (I also bought the soundtrack!)

        Gaming storylines are important to me. Think about text-based games - you can get so sucked in just based on the story alone.

        • zaywolfe
          +2

          See I'm not even a mobile gamer and even I absolutely loved that one. Best money spent on a mobile game ever.

  • Pockets69
    +2

    Ok this post may upset some of you, i sincerely hope not.

    I started gaming at the age of the genesis or the mega drive depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are in, i have owned throughout the years, several game consoles from the genesis to the most recent PS4, so i have seen this gaming landscape change, but not for the good, ok i mean yeah for the good until like the ps2 age what gen was that? 6th gen? from that gen on while in the ps2 era great games were still coming out, the gaming industry was transforming at a rapid pace, and transforming in a bad way if i may add.

    Back then you had games, you had amazing games, the industry was changing but that didn't affect games at least for another 5 to 6 years, and great games were coming out, games that were finished and extensively tested for example, games that were fun, and were not always the same, back in that era I had a lot of fun with my ps2 and with my xbox, the xbox was an amazing machine no doubt, and the homebrew on that thing was glorious :)

    fast forward 5 or 6 years, thousand of studios and publishers disappeared because big publishers were absorbing everything like an angry monster, consoles with an internet connection were becoming a thing, and all this unfortunately would be a problem in the near future.

    The xbox was released and the ps3 was releaesed, and cocky sony was at work, here lets price our machine at 600 or 700 dollars why not, we made the best console till date with the ps2 why not rip consumers off now? And after this they went downhill only really picking up around 2010, while the xbox maintained its steady growth, and Nintendo and it's wii took the gaming industry by storm.

    But over here we started seeing the shady tactics happening, DLC, pay to win, disc dlc, unfinished games, broken games, false promisses, awful hardware, before this 7th gen hit the stores no one has ever seen such a big amount of hardware failures, the only console that was immune to this was really the wii, the first hardware reviews of the ps3 and mainly the xbox were pure hardware nightmares, more than 60% of failure rates in the first two years for the xbox360, and it wasn't much better on the ps3 side, all the changes in technology the last few 6 or 7 years culminated in bad hardware, worst software, bigger profits for publishers and those same publishers ripping people off still.

    It was mostly this until this gen started, and oh god it started in a bad way, what Microsoft wanted to do with the Xbox One was the worst consumer rape of all time, a console that had to be connected to the internet 24/7 to even work, what kind of shady tactic is this? wanted to play a single player game? connect it to the internet! want to listen to music? connect it to the internet, what kind of DRM is this? want to take your console to a place that has no internet? you can't play anything! and this is the best, in 6 or 7 years when a new gen of consoles comes out when they shut down the server for the xbox one, your console would be a brick! it would not work anymore ever!!!! of course people didn't initially see through this, but a revolt on gaming sites and the worst E3 of all time for microsoft, where sony actually made fun of their draconian sharing system, and the ratio of pre-orders of ps4 to xbox-one of like 10-1, Microsoft went silent for two weeks and two weeks later they announced they would give up on all those plans and just create a normal console, this was the first ...

    ... Read Full
  • MadMonk
    +2

    I see it stuck behind more and more paywalls, where you must pay extra for every bit of content.

    • darrelty
      +1

      if the total cost still ends up being similar to what we have come to expect and the content is still all there is it really a bad thing for a player who plays half the game to pay 35 dollars and the player who plays 100% to pay 70?

      • MadMonk
        +3

        except I don't see that being the case, I think that game prices are gonna double or triple from it.

  • Dattix
    +1

    As long as it goes in a direction where I can put my mind into the body of Hatsune Miku, I'm not complaining.

  • MartyOBriens
    +1

    The gaming industry is finally coming into its own. More players are entering the market and more systems are being developed to deliver content than at any time before - not to mention the content itself. As excited as I am to see where the industry ends up in 10 years, I am worried about the effects of capitalism. We are enjoying a period of relative dev "freedom," and I hope that developers of all sizes are allowed to continue to pursue new ideas and create original games without the influence of some yet unseen "regulatory practice."