Make no mistake, cloud and subscription gaming are in all probability the future of home consoles, but where I was once bullish about their impact and how they could be the key to growing the industry, I no longer believe that to be true. At best, greater flexibility in gaming, through the cloud on devices like iPhone, iPad, and PC, as well as subscription services like PlayStation Now and Xcloud, ensure that console gamers will be able to play when and where they want instead of being locked to a single destination in their house.
But, while freedom from a fixed console location, thanks to the cloud, and access to a vast library of games through some form of subscription are enticing, both solutions fail to address the more profound question the console gaming industry is facing—why has the pie not grown? Perhaps even more alarming is a decrease in total console sales between generations, despite increased global accessibility to consoles, the internet, and purchasing power.
Please note that the following, though close, is not entirely accurate. For example, for simplicity’s sake, I separated each Nintendo console release to better fit within the timeframe of competitors. As for Xbox sales, three years into Xbox One, Microsoft stopped reporting units sold, and so some of the following figures are industry estimates. That said, even if the numbers are off by a few million in either direction, it does little change the conclusion—the console market is not growing.
The above numbers should make (and likely do make) execs at PlayStation, Xbox, and Nintendo stay up at night because it’s abundantly clear that the industry is not growing. Now, it’s worth mentioning that growth and profitability are not mutually exclusive, but that’s an entirely different topic. As I wrote in part one of this article:
the biggest problem facing the gaming industry is rising costs. $59.99 —that was the price of a AAA game back on PSone, the price of a AAA game on PS4, and now on PS5. What hasn’t changed since then are production costs. […]
Today, it’s not uncommon to see a game cost well north of $100 million to develop over five years and that’s not even taking marketing into account. To put that into perspective, in the early days of PlayStation, rarely did AAA games cost more than a few million dollars to produce.
If that sounds unsustainable to you, you’d be right. If the install base continues to stagnate and the cost of goods remains mostly the same while production costs increase by leaps and bounds, something has to give
So why aren’t we seeing growth? One key culprit that’s held back the industry is a lack of accessibility. In recent years, this has been a subject that’s gained increased visibility with encouraging results. Not only is the topic more discussed and covered by journalists, but studios like Naughty Dog and Bungie have also taken it upon themselves to address accessibility by offering differing game difficulty modes, control options, and various on-screen enhancement options to better accommodate those with visual impairments.
Microsoft has even gone as far as introducing a new controller type—the Xbox Adaptive Controller—and that’s where the crux of the problem lies. Console gaming is intimidating. To you and me, the DualSense is a wonder of a controller that allows for new gaming experiences, but to a nongamer, it’s a monstrous device with countless input methods and little logic to any of the placements. For those who grew up with console gaming, the evolution is so obvious that muscle memory makes differing game mechanics less challenging. But for outsiders looking in, the controller is an alienating piece of hardware, and they’ve got next to no context for it.
Think of it another way; what made mobile computing such a revolution was its easy-to-understand paradigm shift. Where before, you had to learn keyboard shortcuts, right/left click, menu systems, etc., now what you saw on screen was it, and every interaction revolved around a tap on the thing you aimed to manipulate.
With consoles, on the other hand, depending on the game you’re playing, jump could be X or O, going forward could be on the D-pad or thumbsticks, and up/down could actually be down/up. Then there’s controlling the camera, learning combinations, and bringing up menu systems mid-combat to change your entire loadout/character stance, which introduces all-new possibilities for controls.
Needless to say, we went from a basic controller to DualSense and expected everyone to keep up with it. No wonder the console industry isn’t growing—PS5 could cost $100, and it still wouldn’t entice someone who hasn’t gamed to pick up a controller because it’s an intimidating piece of hardware to learn.
Even putting aside the hardware intimidation (and that’s a pretty big aside), there exists another major hurdle, and to a degree, it’s understandable why.
Though perhaps invisible, the gaming industry is now, more than ever, reliant on sequels and “safe bets,” ie: sports, shooters, and battle royale! Now mind you, some of my favorite films are sequels and like everyone else, I’m eagerly awaiting Horizon Forbidden West and the next God of War. But, there’s also a reason we’re on Call of Duty Infinity+ and sports franchises are able to pump out a new edition every year.
With total consoles sales at best stagnant and game production costs dramatically increasing from generation to generation, it’s no wonder why we see more sequels than ever; studios need “safe bets.” Unfortunately, this decision ultimately leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy:
- studios reduce development risk by creating sequels that cater to existing audience
- lack of new games and differing game types creates a barrier between the console market and consumers who aren’t interested in the current crop of games
- only existing gamers that demand bigger and better-looking worlds with each installment continue to game
- development costs increase, but audience size remains the same
- the cycle starts again.
To Nintendo’s credit, the Wii attempted to address both issues by creating a motion controller and games that revolved around your movement to attract consumers who might not identify as a gamer. With the motion controller, similar to mobile, Nintendo eased the paradigm shift required with gaming—where on PS3 and Xbox 360 you had countless options on your controller, the Wii offered only a handful of buttons, and a majority of your actions were a combination of simple taps and body/hand movement.
But hardware is only part of the solution. No matter how simple or easy-to-use a controller, or whatever the input mechanism, is, even if it’s VR or a holodeck from Star Trek, the games must also be enticing. This is where the Wii stumbled. After the novelty and ease of use wore off, there wasn’t a compelling library to maintain the console, and eventually, those who had bought a Wii because of its fun and easy-to-use nature moved on.
Think of it like this—the promise of VR is in part intriguing because, while it requires expensive rigs and console-like controllers today, the eventuality of it is a holodeck-like experience where you enter a fully realized world. That is and has been the holy grail of gaming, if not certainly VR—to create fully immersive worlds. Putting aside the technical challenges and assuming that such technologies would solve the controller problem, without enticing games/experiences, even something as wondrous as a holodeck would be worthless.
This brings us back to sequels, shooters, and the problem with AAA games. Chances are that if there’s a AAA game in development today for next-gen consoles, its roots can be traced back to a console you owned 20 years ago. In fact, some of the biggest names in gaming today—Gran Turismo, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, and Call of Duty were franchises that existed on the original PlayStation as well. But what doesn’t exist nearly as much today are the wacky, creative, and less epic games that you would find on PS1 and PS2.
Former PlayStation CEO Shawn Layden speaking with Dean Takahashi:
The industry as a whole needs to sit back and think, “What are we building? What’s the audience expectation? What is the best way to get our stories across, to say what we need to say?” That’s going to cause the industry to look at the kind of games we’re doing, where we go from there, and what we’re putting into them. It’s hard for every adventure game to shoot for 50 or 60 hours of gameplay. That’s going to be so much more expensive to achieve.
In the end you may close some interesting creators and their stories out of the market if that’s a threshold you have to meet. If you don’t have 50 hours of gameplay, you don’t have a game? We need to reevaluate that shibboleth, I think.
Without investing new game world and game mechanics that don’t only cater to existing console owners, even if we solved the controller problem, each new game does little to attract non gamers. Instead, we get plot lines that go back multiple games and even deeper (read complicated) mechanics.
With each generation, Microsoft has tried to dethrone Sony by introducing a variety of console options spanning a wide price range, and they’ve yet to take the crown from PlayStation. Why? It’s all about the content. PlayStation is the home of the biggest exclusive and most diverse games, making it no surprise that they come out ahead generation after generation.
But that diversity of games, which continues to shrink with each generation as development costs increase, should come with an asterisk. Instead, it should read: diversity within the confines of traditional gaming. Until we allow and encourage new developers to enter the gaming space with differing perspectives and ideas that haven’t been based on and therefore informed by the last 30 years of “traditional gaming consoles,” no matter how low the bar of entry becomes, those on the outside will never be enticed to give our hobby that we’re so passionate about a try.
Now, chances are, you’ve experienced this without knowing it. I know I have. The last and only Nintendo console I’ve owned after NES was GameCube, and even that, I only bought because of one game—Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, which between you and me was absolutely terrible. Otherwise, Nintendo consoles have never offered games that appeal to me the way PlayStation has. The same is true for Nintendo owners who don’t own an Xbox and Xbox players that don’t see the appeal of PlayStation. But while we squabble between ourselves and trade back and forth the on average 200 million consoles per generation, the greater consumer looks at our entire industry with the same question—“why would I want one of those things when they’ve got no games for me?”
Shawn:
At the same time, the industry benefits from bringing new voices in. That’s not just a paean to diversity. It’s more a description of how you grow a business. You don’t grow a business by just having the same people in the room making the same game. Here we go, here’s the game plan for Elves in Space XII as we continue the famous Elves in Space franchise over time. You don’t grow the audience that way. We need new and different things.
None of the following should be taken as a reflection upon us, core gamers. Nor is this a call for Santa Monica Studio to “dumb down” the next GoW with basic combat controls that only offer two attack options. Instead, it’s about ensuring our industry makes room for new voices, studios, and therefore games so that there’s a game for everyone to play.
Ultimately, getting more people to turn to console gaming benefits us all—increased console ownership leads to increased game purchases which lead to studios and console makers to make more money which then allows studios to take bigger risks, create richer worlds, and ensures future consoles will be more forward-thinking than ever. But we can only achieve this if we create a more inclusive and diverse industry.
Listen to (and/or watch!) my conversation on this topic with long-time friend David Jaffe, the legendary creator of God of War and Twisted Metal (starts at minute 21):