Ahem...with all the new next-gen game consoles soon to hit within the few years to come and maybe the future, do you think that their will be more 1st party and 3rd party developers out there? My thoughts is that it might make a difference with more gaming hardware out there to work with rather than just a selective few. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all great in developing their own consoles with the announcements of both home consoles and handhelds. I see Sony's new PSP2 known as the NGP and the PS4, as well as Microsoft's XBOX 720 and rumors of their own handheld, and last Nintendo with the 3DS and their soon to be announce WII2 known as Project Cafe at E3 2011 this June. Would it be interesting to see more next-gen gaming consoles out besides the three manufacturing company's Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? For instance, what if Sega brings back the Dreamcast with a possible Dreamcast 2. Or even Atari bringing out a new console of their own? I mean Sega and Atari have been having a lot of rumors and speculations going on about the possibilities of their own works in the future.

Now back to the main question. Do you think that their will be more 1st and 3rd party game developers at work on the next-gen consoles than their is now? I think their will be more of both as it gives both 1st and 3rd party developers to make a name for themselves as these consoles have their first release on the market. Tell me your thoughts on this subject because I'm very curious on what you all have to say!!!

Does it really matter?

It seems obvious to me that there will always be more 3rd party developers, just by simple definition of terms.

The industry is like all others: It expands and contracts, it has ups and downs, and it is constantly evolving. Just like all other industries, the one we know today will eventually become extinct, yet there will still be games.

As some examples: Today you see auto parts stores and car repair shops scattered through every city, but blacksmiths and buggy repair shops are much harder to find. My dad had a few slide rules from when he went to college in the 1950s, today the market is replaced by completely different technology. I remember when bookshops were scattered throughout my city, the few that have survived have completely transformed their business model they used when I was young.


In todays market, if Sony restricted game their development equipment to only Sony-affiliated first party studios their existing model would quickly die for them. They would need to adapt. Similarly, for the current marketplace if Microsoft only let their own Microsoft-affiliated first party studios have access to their next generation of hardware, their existing game console model would quickly die for them. They would need to adapt. Again the same for Nintendo, although the death would be a little more slow since Nintendo has cultivated an incredibly rich portfolio that could last for a few more years on their own brands.

However, if there were a significant change in the number of 1st party and 3rd party developers, it will mean that the marketplace is no longer the same. It will be different, just like the change from buggies to automobiles and the change from slide rules to calculators.

If any of the hardware vendors made a very significant change in the amount of access to either 1st or 3rd party developers, again by definition it alters the market. Either it will be a fatal business decision for that business unit, or the business unit and the entire market will adapt into something new.

I'm certain that it will change, eventually. And while the day-to-day change will matter to the individual shops and people laid off (as already happens in regular cycles), in the grand scheme of things the market changes won't really matter in that people will still be employed to create games.

Each additional SKU that a developer has to support is an additional cost. If there were a new Sega and Atari as well as Sony/MS/Nintendo, then that would make games more expensive to make. Higher development costs equals less independence for developers (and more reliance on cashed up publishers).

The question of how many developers will be in the market is largely a business/market analyses question, not something that your typical developer can predict.
For example, during the "global financial crisis" where the cost of credit increased dramatically, the largest 3rd party publishers all reduced their investment in projects contracted to external developers by ~50%. A ridiculous number of games studios were forced to close their doors because of that contraction, which can be traced back to all sorts of events completely unrelated to games, such as house prices!

Mhm, interesting views their guys. I completely understand both views. Keep these comments going.

I read a book called Masters of Doom. That's the kind of game development environment I wish we still had. With the recent influx of mobile and web development though, my confidence is restored slightly. Garage devs with big dreams will always find a way, and those same fans will keep buying.

True True

Each additional SKU that a developer has to support is an additional cost. If there were a new Sega and Atari as well as Sony/MS/Nintendo, then that would make games more expensive to make. Higher development costs equals less independence for developers (and more reliance on cashed up publishers).

Unless at least two of the majors finally wise up and set up a joint independent review board that standardises a common platform for all companies that belong to the group (think ATI + nVidia + ... + OpenGL), while maintaining a competitive edge among the members. Among the current contenders, based on recent events, MS is the only one sure to set up its own review board and give everyone else the finger. And since Google and Apple aren't in the consoles business, I would actually expect this to take off far more healthily than one might expect.

Then again I'm not a console owner and do not wish to have one, save for perhaps Wii for just the sports games, which probably means I'm just shooting in the dark here and describing a wonderland that hasn't happened for a reason.

However...

Conversely, I think more competition on the market equals a good thing - just the same as some games never get ported to consoles or to the PC, I don't think it should be every developer's solemn duty to occupy every niche. Think about Apple and MS - two operating systems that, for the most part, are pretty incompatible (less so in recent years - largely thanks to third party tools) and in which the only way to run most non-native software is through emulation: these two have found their respective market shares and are unlikely to severely budge any time soon. The same hasn't happened with consoles (the only one that seriously opened up a new niche was Wii, followed by Kinect); the rest are simply sharing the same market and directly competing with one another (unlike MS and Apple, which, for a large part, only seem to be competing with one another while the truth is that both have their uses and a large share of the market won't switch no matter what you do - simply because the two products are functionally and aesthetically different).

What about a completely moddable console (like a PC)? What about a "portable" console that's more than a mere PSP (think iPad or a notebook)? Like I said - I don't know too much about the consoles market, so most likely these things already exist; but they're not mainstream or readily accessible.

IMO a market can only stabilize itself after it has been saturated - something which the consoles market has been doing in a completely imbalanced way.

Just my two cents.

Very interesting perspective irreversible, that makes since. I also agree with you on the point that you said that more competitions would be a good thing.