Hacker News Reader

The console market is fine and most of what Ars claims has been said at the cusp of every new console generation.

The original Playstation came out in 1994 and wasn't discontinued until 2009. The PS2 is still being manufactured. PS3 still has a while to go by that metric. If you want to talk time between models, PS1-to-PS2 was 6 years, and PS2-PS3 was 6 years, leaving PS4 to be only slightly behind the curve if it comes out next year.

Consoles have always been subpar in some way or another compared to top-of-the-line PCs at release; that article's claim is silly. My PC at the release of the PS3 had four times the PS3's RAM, and it wasn't even top-of-the-line. One of the biggest benefits of targeting a console is that it's a stable, homogeneous platform.

Tablets and phones aren't the new consoles, they're the new GameBoys. In that way, I agree with you that they could hurt Nintendo the most, mainly by virtue of the DS having been the leader in that market.

I don't understand why people compare tablets and phones to console. It's like you have never played a console game before. Console gaming is about big screens, epic scenery. people having fun together. xbox is turning into the living room PC, eventually gaming will be a just feature. They have already announced IE for xbox. they are going to add more and more live tv options and apps in the future. It is backed by WP, Windows..ect.

However I'm not sure about Wii and PS. They have no Platform to compete with Apple TV and Google TV.

Consoles was never just about big scenes/epic scenery or people having fun together. Starting from nintendo up to PS2 there was plenty of casual games (think tetris).

If consoles are going to be limited to epic games then investing in consoles becomes a huge gamble. You have 200 million to spend, do you want to create 1000 games for the iphone or 1 big console game that if it gets below an 80 on metacritic will be considered a "flop".

People don't buy misses on consoles and they don't buy casual games. They buy the big epic games like you described and that is KILLING the industry.

You are 100% correct. The big blockbuster games will become like movies and the casual games will be like tv shows. Blockbuster movies flop all the time like "John Carter". On the other hand we are going to have freemuim multiplayer games (WoW, Diablo3, COD)

Put a powerful cpu, gpu and an usb controller and there's no technical difference between a tablet and a console. Console games have only historically had different graphics and gameplay because of historical limitations of mobile hardware. Not because there's anything magically special about an xbox. You give mobile devices similar hardware and consoles become dumb pipes.

There is no technical difference between a laptop, console, desktop either. But who would want a tablet that is as thick as a laptop, with fans and 1 hour battery life. You can't just stick a i7 and quadcore GPU in a tablet. Your iPad is good for casual games. People are playing lots of casual games but those games are unrelated to games like COD, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, GTA, FIFA, Madden. It's like comparing a TV show to a big blockbuster movie.

>I don't understand why people compare tablets and phones to console.

Consoles were, and are, still dominant because the most time that the average person spent with a screen was a TV.

However, the consumer's usage habits are adjusting. The primary screen they are beginning to use is the smartphone and, eventually, it will be the same for the tablet because it is so mobile. This is where gaming is going to have to go.

>Console gaming is about big screens, epic scenery.

That may be what consoles are about but that is not what gaming is about. I would think that it's a dream for any gamer to have access to the same game wherever you are.

>They have already announced IE for xbox.

This will likely be the least used feature of all of MS's announcements. I don't know anyone who enjoyed using a browser sitting 10 feet away from the screen.

I agree that more time will be spent on casual games but the big blockbuster, multiplayer, RPG games will still have their market.

the IE for xbox is just part of the movement on Xbox to turn it into the entertainment center of the living room. It's sayign that it's not only for gaming. The fact that Xbox is used more as an entertainment center than gaming is just sign of things to come. It's pretty obvious that the next xbox is going to be marketed as an entertainment center rather than a console.

This is already happening. Search for "android hd gameplay hdmi" on youtube and you see countless examples of connecting an android phone to a HD display through HDMI. Hell, there are examples of streaming Netflix on your HDTV.

Phones already support bluetooth, so there is no reason why a couple of dualshocks cannot work with my android phone for team gaming.

I daresay if Sony did not have its "sunken cost" pathology about the playstation consoles, it could rule the gaming world - it already makes Playstation phones and it is one of the world's largest game publishers - it is just too scared to take the final leap. In one shot, it could come up with a phone and game library that could cannibalize its PS2 range.

Tell me when a tablet can play the latest blockbuster AAA titles on max settings on a big screen. keep in mind that most laptops can't even do this. Your scenario might come true if game publishers stop developing AAA games that require very resource intensive games.

neither can a console. We're not comparing a mobile to a high end desktop but to current generation consoles.

You can play skyrim on xbox. anyway that is not the point. You have games on your laptop, you have games on your phone and you have games on your tv.

> When they came out they were much better (in price-performance terms) than their PC equivalents. As expected, this lasts no longer than 6-12 months.

That may be true in price/performance, but in absolute price terms, those 6-7 year old consoles are still a better deal. The quality of experience you get from a $200 Xbox continues to be much higher than that of a $200 PC.

FYI, Nintendo is right on schedule with their console compared to their predecessors, and Nintendo doesn't sell their hardware at a loss, so I don't think it's fair to lump them in with PS3 and Xbox. In some ways Nintendo is a very innovative company, in others they are a very conservative company too.

> The Xbox360, PS3 and Wii have all (AFAIK) gone well beyond the lifespans of their predecessors.

    PS1 (Dec 1994)
    PS2 (Nov 2000) = PS1 + 71 months
    PS3 (Nov 2006) = PS2 + 72 months
    today (Jun 2012) = PS3 + 67 months

    Gamecube (Sep 2001)
    Wii (Nov 2006) = GC + 62 months
    today (Jun 2012) = Wii + 67 months
    (Wii U already announced for later this year)

    Xbox (Nov 2001)
    Xbox360 (Nov 2005) = Xbox + 48 months
    today (Jun 2012) = Xbox360 + 79 months

Only one of these is significantly beyond the lifespan of its predecessors, and that's in large part because its predecessor had such a short lifespan, by industry standards.

The Xbox360, PS3 and Wii have all (AFAIK) gone well beyond the lifespans of their predecessors. It's just taking longer and longer to recoup that investment.

The Wii was profitable from the first unit sold.