Is the video game industry dying? Like Languish?

[Barrister]

I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality. 

Really disagree.

We're seen on the PC side for several years that games just aren't needing or taking advantage of all the increases in processing power that is now available.  Where once you needed to upgrade every couple years because the latest games needed the latest software, now you can have a pretty ordinary machine last for several years and still play all the latest games.

Besides, graphics have reached a point where I'm not certain how getting any better is going to make that much impact.  The difference between 8-but and 16-bit games was huge.  But we've really hit the opint of diminishing returns.

[Faeelin]

Is the slowdown in computers a side effect of the recession, or technology?

Like, have PC manufacturers not been pushing the envelope in terms of processing power because there is no demand?

[Jacob]

What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?

I mean, yeah, the graphics will be sexier but all that will do is drive up development costs even further. The blockbuster games will look even better, sure, but is it shortcomings in graphics that's hurting the console industry right now? Better graphics will help keep current players engaged as they feel things are getting better, but it's not lacklustre graphics that's keeping other people away.

There's plenty of scope for the console industry to reinvent itself and get some new life, but I don't think it's through processing power.

[Barrister]

Is the slowdown in computers a side effect of the recession, or technology?

Like, have PC manufacturers not been pushing the envelope in terms of processing power because there is no demand?

Intel, AMD and Nvidia continue to pump out ever more powerful chips, with more and more cores.

It's that consumers want ever-cheaper machines, and realize that those cheap machines are quite capable enough for what they want to do.

[DontSayBanana]

I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality.  The mid 90s through the end of the PS2 saw lots of platforms (including Sega and the Cube, not to mention Nintendo still punching out cartridge tech)  and lots of titles in shortened cycles because the the capability of the CD and the cartridge as a media storage platform was so high compared to the programming ceiling, which started off so low--hell, even the PS2 never saw 100% of its possibilities at the end of its market life.

Now, there's been a leveling off on PS3 and Sexbox architecture, not to mention the whole sale reinvention of the dev model.  Combine that with the resources poured into online play, first by Microsoft and then anemically followed up by Sony, there simply hasn't been the progression seen in the previous platforms.

Once firmware, processing speed and the dev engines to match, make another astronomical jump, the console will come back to life.

Doubt it.  It's not just about gross hardware performance, it's where the lifting of hardware limitations has made previously unfeasible features become doable.  The introduction of VLICs made it feasible to make larger, more robust games, as well as to integrate memory for saving progress in those huge games.  One big processor jump made realtime calculations of 3D coordinates doable on affordable machines.  Later ones let us calculate more and more polygons, and refine lighting processes further and further...

The current innovations to be had are in the nature of interactivity.  We're still waiting on a really robust AI, which would revive RPGs and sims in a big way, but the Wii > Move > Kinect progression has pretty solidly matured the field of human interaction through computer vision.  We're not going to see any big jumps there until we see some innovation in display technology (and some is underway, but it's still in the "prohibitively expensive" category).

[Razgovory]

What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?

Increase the number of players on a multiplayer map?

[Malthus]

A big jump would be when computers are powerful enough to simulate character interactions effectively. I assume that's what DontSayBanana is saying.

[CountDeMoney]

What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?

The most important thing to a console gamer:  load times. 

[viper37]

I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality. 

Really disagree.

We're seen on the PC side for several years that games just aren't needing or taking advantage of all the increases in processing power that is now available.  Where once you needed to upgrade every couple years because the latest games needed the latest software, now you can have a pretty ordinary machine last for several years and still play all the latest games.

Besides, graphics have reached a point where I'm not certain how getting any better is going to make that much impact.  The difference between 8-but and 16-bit games was huge.  But we've really hit the opint of diminishing returns.

It's because we are held back by the console market.  Those who have the means to use all the hardware we have on PC don't do it because they want a similar experience accross all platforms.  That means weaker graphics on PC, no multi-core use for advanced AI and no use of more than 2-3gb of memory by default, for most games.

The few that uses the hardware potential don't have the resources to make shiny graphics and/or don't want to place their games out of reach for the lower level hardware.

[Jacob]

The current innovations to be had are in the nature of interactivity.  We're still waiting on a really robust AI, which would revive RPGs and sims in a big way, but the Wii > Move > Kinect progression has pretty solidly matured the field of human interaction through computer vision.  We're not going to see any big jumps there until we see some innovation in display technology (and some is underway, but it's still in the "prohibitively expensive" category).

Yeah that sounds reasonable. The question is whether any new interactivity will be like the big boom in music peripherals - good for a few years until the novelty wears off; like Nintendo's attempt to embrace 3D - an embarrassing economical failure so far; or like the Wii controllers and derivatives - solidly successful, expanding the types of games and bringing new gamers into the market on a long term basis.

[viper37]

What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?

I mean, yeah, the graphics will be sexier but all that will do is drive up development costs even further. The blockbuster games will look even better, sure, but is it shortcomings in graphics that's hurting the console industry right now? Better graphics will help keep current players engaged as they feel things are getting better, but it's not lacklustre graphics that's keeping other people away.

There's plenty of scope for the console industry to reinvent itself and get some new life, but I don't think it's through processing power.

more processing power = better AI. 
More disk space = more variations in levels, more levels, different endings for different situations.
More disk space and faster hard drives and/or SSD = games installed on hard drive with faster loading times than a DVD.

A console is essentially a top of the line PC from 5 years ago.  So hardware-wise, they are bringing us, the PC players, down.
Crysis was real fun to play.  Crysis 2 on release was a step back.  After a few patch and some high-res graphics for PC, they became about on par with #1, wich was for PC first&firemost.

[Zanza]

I think the big gains that can be made are with more realistic physics engines, AIs, more independent agents in the game etc. Graphics can of course always be improved. We all know what's possible with CGI in cinema so there is plenty of improvement still possible for computer games.

I think the problem of the video game industry is that they are not particularly innovative in the game mechanics department. It's usually more of the same, but not something new.

[Jacob]

more processing power = better AI.

I figure you'd need a pretty big advancement in AI for it to be a feature that actually drive people to buy more games. I'd expect that advances in AI are conceptual rather than hardware based.

More disk space = more variations in levels, more levels, different endings for different situations.

More content = higher costs to develop = greater risk for the developer = fewer, safer games.

That's one of the dynamics that's driving the decline in console games right now.

More disk space and faster hard drives and/or SSD = games installed on hard drive with faster loading times than a DVD.

That's, at best, the fixing of a minor annoyance. It's nice, but I doubt it'll reverse any trends unless the faster access times leads to some new types of games that refreshes console appeal.

[Jacob]

I think the big gains that can be made are with more realistic physics engines, AIs, more independent agents in the game etc. Graphics can of course always be improved. We all know what's possible with CGI in cinema so there is plenty of improvement still possible for computer games.

I think the problem of the video game industry is that they are not particularly innovative in the game mechanics department. It's usually more of the same, but not something new.

You're right, that is the problem of the video game industry. Like I said, that's in large part due to the risk reward ratio in the market right now; and better graphics, more processing power and more detailed engines only increases the risk as people cluster around the very top of the market and buy little else.

The fact that you can one day spend more money on more artists to make the graphics look like a Hollywood movie isn't going to improve any innovation, rather the opposite.

If you're the guy in charge of spending $300 million on a game that HAS to succeed because it's the big bet, and you're spending $100 million of that on fancy graphics (yeay more processing power!) and $100 million of that on marketing are you going to take a risk on innovative (i.e. unproven) gameplay as well (what if it doesn't work out? That's the risk when you innovate)? Or are you going to go with something that you know people like (explosions, brown haired white guy protagonist, derivative generic gameplay but MORE of it, and maybe one or two additional features of some sort) and rely on the sexy graphics and marketing to sell the game?

[MadImmortalMan]

Yeah I don't think it's the medium that matters really. It's the games. For a long time, the casual gamer has led the market and game companies have made games for them. If they go to Angry Birds, then they will have to fall back on the market that built the industry in the first place, and frankly, we'll probably get better games out of it.