More on the next generation of video games [games]

...he is confident the complexity of developing for next-generation consoles will promote interest in reusing code.

Game Publishers Sweat Console Change

Some people in the industry are betting on software resuse (reusable software components) to help defray the increasing cost of the complexity needed in the new games. What they fail to mention is that since a major part of the cost is in building 3D models and artwork, you'll have to reuse graphical components as well, leading to games that look the same. Perhaps that doesn't matter for certain items -- trees, for example -- but if you see the same kind of trees whether the game is in the snowy alps or the Amazon jungle, won't that be a problem? ;-)

Perhaps given enough years, developers will have enough of a library of graphics and sounds that it will reduce costs, but my gut feeling is that the initial couple of years of the next generation are going to be rough!

The other problem is that game programmers are used to creating original code partly to make their game unique and to get the last ounce of power out of limited consoles. Even the current generation is being pushed close to its limits, so some customization might make a noticable difference. If given enough processing power, perhaps game developers can finally take a different attitude, and not have to spend as much effort trying to optimize every bit of code. The next generation could end up being easier on the programmers (well, until they add complexity to the AI and physics elements), while being much harder on the rest of the team.

As I've mentioned before, my only concern with a new console generation is that a lot of time, effort, money is spent with a lot of people just re-learning a new platform, dealing with problems, etc. But when you get those first games, even though they aren't the best that the machine can do, all you see are that the newer games are far and away superior to those on older machines. As long as average consumers feel that the upgrade is really worthwhile, the game industry will continue. My fear is that a lot of average people are going to see 3D games that are similar to the 3D games they already have been playing for years, and not feel compelled to upgrade; the industry needs more than hard-core gamers.

Look at how slow people have been adopting HDTV displays. What is the point in having more graphics power than a traditional analog TV set? Don't get me wrong, the hard-core gamers will enjoy all of the resolution they can get, but I think you have to look at average consumers when considering large sales. I suspect that most current HDTV users don't know what cable to use to improve the picture on their games; don't underestimate the resistance (of the average consumer) to buying a $35 cable just to have sharper images on the game machine.

What are game companies going to say to consumers? "Even more 3D! The enemies are even tougher!" Ok, that's way too concrete. Probably more like, "More involving interactive experience!" People will scratch their heads; expect an initial delay in the purchasing of new machines while most people get over the confusion factor, but I think they will still sell. And if the games industry thinks that developing on the new machines is too expensive, they'll cut back the number of polygons until they can afford it. Things will still look better than the previous generation, but just not as good as it could be. Then again, here's that danger of not giving the consumer a feeling of a worthwhile upgrade for something that's only somewhat better.