Ultima creator speculates that consoles are doomed...

[Wolf Kanno]

An amusing article. any thoughts? (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/327886/consoles-are-doomed-richard-garriott/)

[NeoCracker]

If you find a dude who's pretty much irrelevant in todays market throwing out a baseless accusation with no reasoning behind it amusing, then yes this is an amusing Article. :monster:

"I think fundamentally the power that you can carry with you in a portable is really swamping what we've thought of as a console."

I mean really, what the fuck does this statement even mean?

[Bolivar]

The thing is, there will always be demand for dedicated consoles. "Smartphones and tablets" definitely eat away at it, but I simply can't fathom that they steal away real gamers. The iPod Touch and iPad may be a better gift for 8 year old girls than the Nintendo DS was a few years ago, but can any of you honestly imagine a future where you forego your Nintendo/Sony handheld (or even worse, your home console) in favor of a touch device? Touch inputs, like motion controls, simply cannot compete with the experience that real gamers demand. We may be a smaller demographic, but we're a 100 million+ worlwide demographic, and there were always be a smurf ton of money to make from us, thus why dedicated consoles will always be relevant.

I've had an Android for about six months now, but there is not a single game I've played on it other than to experiment after I got it, and another occasion to make sure I'm not crazy. There just isn't anything that appeals to me on their entire marketplace, and I've yet to see anything Apple has that could change that. How could Android/iOS possibly hope to compete for my interest when my PSP has Gran Turismo, God of War, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy VII???

Cloud gaming has a better shot than smartphones. If they get the required publisher support, run the games at a comparative level, and offer more appealing monetization practices, a lot of gamers will go there. And I really feel like Gakai and OnLive were simply founded to eventually sell the company to Cable/Internet providers to integrate with their own On Demand services, for a nice chunk of change. Basically your cable company will give you a box, a remote, and a controller. But since many areas in the states do not have broad band, and the technology just isn't there yet, it'll be a LONG time before they can hope to make that a reality. And by the time they do make it a reality, they may be too late, as the dedicated home console is already starting to replace the cable box.

[Slothy]

Honestly Bolivar, I think we will eventually see handheld systems replaced by smartphones/tablets or whatever other handheld devices come along. Certainly for the casual market at least, since the same sort of gamers who originally bought a Wii, and probably even the DS aren't going to see the point when they can get the same sort of gaming experience at a quality level they're happy with on their phone. Honestly, as much as I know I'm interested in the hardware in something like the Vita, I really don't know how much longer dedicated handhelds can stay viable when they're getting competition from markets that no one would have expected 10-15 years ago. I mean, I think if you told someone 15 years ago that someday we'd have cell phones that can play SNES games you probably wouldn't have been looked at as being crazy, but you'd be brushed off as that being so far into the future why should anyone really care. Except now it's happening and you really have to question how big the market for powerful handhelds will continue to be. My phone is about a year old and emulates SNES RPG's perfectly. Where will phone's be in another year or two power wise? And will there be more dedicated gaming phones like the Playstation phone, or peripheral attachments offering better control experiences than just a touch screen?

As for consoles, I don't agree with the statement he made regarding handheld power. It almost seemed like he was saying handhelds are getting so powerful who needs a console, but frankly I think the handheld market is in far more danger of collapsing due to the competition out there than the console market.

But I do think consoles are in a weird place, especially for me. While each generation has offered substantially more power than the last, this generation was really the first where the least was done with it. You really have a handful of developers pushing that power to the max and offering game experiences that couldn't be done before (I'd hate to see a developer try and pull off Assassin's Creed 2, even from a gameplay perspective, on the PS2 not to even mention games like Skyrim). But the ridiculous cost required to pull it off right now is just not realistic for most developers, and even for the big guys to try and do something new with giant titles is challenging to say the least.

Add on top of that the fact that the lines between console and PC are disappearing and where do consoles stand? They used to be a cheap alternative to PC's. That's not really the case anymore, particularly around launch. Take what you would pay for your average PC, add on the additional cost of even the 360 at launch, and you can build a machine that will outperform it for the entire life of the console. So the only real benefits now are the simplicity of buying one machine and not worrying about upgrading until the next one comes out (which is less true now. Like I said, you can add what you'd pay for a console to your average PC budget and get something that will last about as long historically speaking, and certainly last until most people are looking to buy a new PC anyway), and there's the fact that you know every PS3 game will run on your PS3, which I think it the bigger aspect, but again not quite as relevant anymore. Simply adding features to something like Steam to quickly scan your hardware and determine if you can run a game before buying it would solve this, and having games better optimized for a variety of PC configurations (I'm not sure anything will ever top how well Doom 3 ran and how good it looked on low end hardware at the time) and making them better at selecting appropriate recommended settings would help as well.

I don't know. I don't think consoles are going disappear right now, but it does feel like they don't really know where they're going. There was some hope for manufacturers when they were all jumping on the motion control bandwagon, but that's basically a bust outside of casual stuff and I'm really not sure there's nearly as big a casual market for consoles going forward as there was five years ago. So that basically leaves them floundering around trying to make their consoles more PC like, and eventually, more powerful while waiting to stumble on the next big thing.

[Bolivar]

Vivi, I totally agree with you that smartphones and tablets have severely undercut the handheld market. But like I said, that's only for "casuals" who would be embarrassed to call themselves gamers. While the handheld market might be smaller than consoles, I still believe there is a strong base of tens of millions of enthusiastic consumers who will gladly buy many games for the system. As long as that endures, there will always be a reason for console manufacturers to produce machines to meet that demand. If you look at Japan, they've been ahead of us with phones for years, but you still see PSP and DS games raking in tremendous sales on a consistent basis.

I agree phones have come a long way, but I don't see them infiltrating the dedicated gamer base. They've all flocked to touch, and as I've already stated, touch controls fail just as hard (if not harder) than motion controls at competing with traditional games. Cell phones next year or the year after may be just as powerful as the Vita, but without a viable interface, I can't see them changing my desire to use them for gaming. It takes more devices like the Xperia Play (PlayStation Phone) or Microsoft's patent here (http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/09/microsoft-patent-modular-phone/) to change this. But because such devices would have trouble amassing competitive content to what Sony and Nintendo provide (hell, even the Xperia Play has), I can't see their corporate executives seeing much of an incentive to go this route.

I also disagree with consoles becoming outdated in relation to PCs. I didn't play primarily on consoles because they were cheaper than PCs - I played on them because it's more comfortable to game on a television than it is a computer monitor and there's a lot of games that just don't appear on PC, or aren't as practical. I'll always prefer a large screen with surround sound and a comfy couch or bed to a vision-deteriorating monitor with a small stereo set and a wheely-chair to hunch over on. And as I hinted at, home consoles are becoming arguably more relevant than ever with the advent of Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network. Not only do they play disc-based movies (Blu Ray for one of them at that), but they have a multitude of streaming options for movies and television, current television if you use Hulu. With ESPN on Xbox Live and MLB, NHL, and NFL Sunday Ticket on PSN, the need for the cable box is diminishing. There's already hints of cable coming to Xbox Live. Not to mention you can also surf the web on PS3 and both systems adequately function as networked media centers for your connected devices. I said above in the future your cable company will give you a controller along with your box and remote, but I think it's becoming increasingly likely that your console manufacturer will include a remote with your system and controller.

The ironic part of all of this is that, as you said, I fully agree that this generation has been a bit underwhelming. There's a lot of great content out there, but the really special experiences are shockingly few and far between. I think development costs are just too high for a truly creative vision and until developers find some middle ground on this, we'll stay in a drought. But that doesn't stop consoles from flying off the shelves (http://www.warpzoned.com/?p=15989), and it certainly won't prevent Call of Duty from selling a guaranteed 20 million units in 2 months, at $60 a pop.

[Slothy]

I also disagree with consoles becoming outdated in relation to PCs. I didn't play primarily on consoles because they were cheaper than PCs - I played on them because it's more comfortable to game on a television than it is a computer monitor and there's a lot of games that just don't appear on PC, or aren't as practical. I'll always prefer a large screen with surround sound and a comfy couch or bed to a vision-deteriorating monitor with a small stereo set and a wheely-chair to hunch over on. And as I hinted at, home consoles are becoming arguably more relevant than ever with the advent of Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network. Not only do they play disc-based movies (Blu Ray for one of them at that), but they have a multitude of streaming options for movies and television, current television if you use Hulu. With ESPN on Xbox Live and MLB, NHL, and NFL Sunday Ticket on PSN, the need for the cable box is diminishing. There's already hints of cable coming to Xbox Live. Not to mention you can also surf the web on PS3 and both systems adequately function as networked media centers for your connected devices. I said above in the future your cable company will give you a controller along with your box and remote, but I think it's becoming increasingly likely that your console manufacturer will include a remote with your system and controller.

I don't think it's quite that cut and dry though. Many PC games (particularly console ports) support controllers, platforms like Steam are providing gaming platforms that are at least the equal of the PSN and Xbox Live (better in my opinion), and multimedia PC's have been around for years. Hell, that's basically all a console is becoming: a multimedia PC with a closed operating system and no keyboard or mouse.

Like I said, I don't think consoles are going anywhere right away, but the lines between them and PC's are becoming increasingly blurry, and that makes it a lot harder to see the difference and understand why they will continue as separate entities in the future. All I can come up with is that they're simpler to operate and maintain than a PC. I won't say they're simpler to set up since that isn't necessarily true anymore.

So even though I agree that they aren't going anywhere, I can't escape this feeling of not knowing where they're going to go from here, and how their existence will be justified in the future. Because I could easily see PC manufacturers trying to take their place with ready made multimedia boxes that will do everything they do and more. Possibly running custom versions of existing operating systems to streamline the experience for less of a PC experience, and more of the smooth console/multimedia experience people are looking for. The difference being that such a platform would be a lot more open to developers and could be updated every year or so instead of every 5+. Not saying it's going to happen, simply that if you look at the console market now I don't see any clear path forward for them that says a console is really a must own gaming device anymore. Frankly, with the prevalence of console ports these days I've been considering skipping the next console generation entirely, particularly given how underwhelming a lot of this generation has been.

[DMKA]

He's an idiot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_3#Sales_and_revenue)

Though I'd be just fine if consoles completely died and everything was done through digital distro via cable boxes...or something.

[Rostum]

Yes, Richard Garriott is an idiot. I truely doubt that smartphones and tablets will take over the console gaming arena. The technology is really amazing, but it's not that amazing.

Also, there are plenty of "hardcore" games on the iOS. There's more to it than just Angry Birds. You can find full blown RPG's, action games, puzzle games, racing games, MMORPG's, shooters, arcade, sports, etc. that have an incredible amount of depth to them. Even more than what some console games offer. I also have always prefered specific hardware for handheld gaming, but I've now opened myself to the smartphone arena once I started actually developing for it. The best comparison I can give is that it's exactly how the industry used to be when the Nintendo first came out. You get a lot of indie "garage" developers making some really interesting stuff because Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo make it too hard to break through unless you've already shipped an AAA title, but with this also comes with a lot of crap too.

Look at games like Real Racing 2, Chaos Rings, Cut the Rope, Plants Vs. Zombies, Modern Combat 3, Oceanhorn, Mage Gauntlet, Infinity Blade 1 and 2, Machinarium, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy I, II & III, Monster Hunter, Dawn of Magic, Scribblenauts, Fruit Ninja, Slam Dunk King, Sacred Odyssey, Secret of Mana, Riven, and the list goes on and on...

I think a lot of gamers are rather unrealistic about what smartphones have to offer. If you can't find a lot of "hardcore" games on your device's marketplace then you really are not looking hard enough. If you were to get larger publishers on board, like EA, Square Enix and Activision are doing, then you'll really see the devices start to shine in terms of handheld gaming.

[VeloZer0]

I think a lot of gamers are rather unrealistic about what smartphones have to offer. If you can't find a lot of "hardcore" games on your device's marketplace then you really are not looking hard enough. If you were to get larger publishers on board, like EA, Square Enix and Activision are doing, then you'll really see the devices start to shine in terms of handheld gaming.
My objection with playing games on a smartphone isn't with the selection. That will obviously change fairly rapidly if the market need is there. The problem is that the hardware is not very well designed to facilitate playing a lot of games. I don't mean processing power, I mean the physical makeup of the machine.

[DMKA]

Yeah sorry, Angry Birds just isn't going to fill the void of EVERY OTHER GAME EVER anytime soon.

[Bolivar]

Vivi, I'm actually with you on Steam being a better service than PSN or Xbox Live. By leaps and bounds. I also agree that it's a bit curious that consoles have kinda become a poor-man's PC (today, my point on the good ol' days still stands!) with the features they present. But the idea of PCs replacing them is slightly silly. PCs may do all this stuff, and better, but it's still better done in the living room than on a desk. If anything, the numbers show PC gamers have come to consoles. Both hardware and software is selling better than it ever has. Apple TV/Google TV might alter that paradigm, but both services have stumbled pretty hard in the few years they've been out.

Rostum, I totally admit that Angry Birds does not define the boundaries of gaming on smart phones and tablets. But I've heard of a lot of the games you've mentioned and not a single one entices me in the least. Cut the rope or plants vs. zombies... you make me want to cry. Infinity Blade is terribly overhyped. And I already own Final Fantasy I-III and Tactics, and they're a lot more fun to play where I got 'em. Honestly, I know a lot of indie devs like you who see what a welcoming platform it is and get really immersed in the culture. But it really breaks my heart to see some of these guys because I know they used to be enthusiastic gamers. They have no clue what's going on with the big publishers and console manufacturers, and they'll never again experience the magic only those "Final Fantasy moments" can bring, or the collective high of a thrilling win with your close friends in online multiplayer, or the tear-jerking ending of a game you just spent 60 hours on, that unmatchable sense of accomplishment. I'm not by any means saying you're like this, I'm just making a point of what getting captivated by such a mediocre breed of gaming can do. Because that's exactly what these games are: mediocre. Even that may be a bit more credit than they deserve.

I know a dude who says he doesn't play video games anymore because he has more fun making them. Yet when I see him working on one, it's a horribly rendered and abysmally empty environment, and he spends 40 minutes making an animation that the original Famicom Legend of Zelda can put to shame. And in the end perhaps six people will download it from the app store... and I just can't help but think how he's lying to himself...

[Rostum]

I'm sorry Bolivar, but that post was just incredibly misinformed of what indie studios are and where they sit in the industry.

As I said, there are a lot of delusional people out there trying to make their way in to the games industry via the iPhone and Android and it leads to having shit on the market. It sounds to me like this guy you know is one of them. There are so many AAA-studio veterans who are breaking off to build up an indie studio, and there's a good reason why you'll never get AAA-quality visuals from an indie game; because it requires large teams of artist to get that type of quality. There are some games that are beautifully crafted in terms of visuals, moreso than some of the AAA stuff that's out there (and no having high polygons and lots of normal maps does not count as good visuals).

They have no clue what's going on with big publishers? Stop over-dramatising this, of course they do. The real indie developers do. They all play console and PC games, they have contacts throughout the industry.

The fact that we have games like Final Fantasy III, Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, etc. just proves that smartphones are capable of providing the same experience other handhelds are/have provided to "hardcore" gamers - there are games that have online multiplayer, there are games that have 30+ hour experiences. There are real games. I'm not in agreeance that smartphones are going to take over gaming (far from it), just that it seems to be the shift handheld gaming is heading towards and currently is doing really well in. You have bigger indie studios making millions of dollars off the app store, and with extremely low headcosts it means the platform is doing remarkably well.

I'm in agreeance that touch control as just not the same. There are hardware add-ons you can get for smartphones, but they aren't the most ideal solution.

Side note: Have you played Cut The Rope? As a puzzle game it's fairly addictive and has many levels. It's can be a 5 minute game, or it can be an 1+ hour game. Not everything needs to be a 60+ hour AAA title online experience in order to be considered a good video game.

[Slothy]

But the idea of PCs replacing them is slightly silly. PCs may do all this stuff, and better, but it's still better done in the living room than on a desk.

When I was referring to multimedia PC's earlier that was a misnomer on my part. What I meant were home theatre PC's, which are meant to be hooked up in the living room and replace things like PVR's, cable boxes, DVD players, etc. There's no reason that market can't expand to compete directly with consoles. Not that there's anything preventing a person from hooking up any PC to a TV (the last few months I was still living with my parents I actually had my desktop connected to my HDTV in my bedroom since I didn't have room for a desk and another monitor). The funny thing is, I actually greatly prefer gaming at my desk on my PC now, though that may have a little bit to do with a 22" monitor, some nice speakers, and a really comfy chair.

I won't touch your comment on indie developers, simply because I think Rostum covered anything I would have said. There are a lot of indie developers starting because veteran's of the industry are leaving big companies and venturing off on their own. Often because they don't have the level of freedom they want to make the games they want to make at the big developers.

[Bolivar]

When I was referring to multimedia PC's earlier that was a misnomer on my part. What I meant were home theatre PC's, which are meant to be hooked up in the living room and replace things like PVR's, cable boxes, DVD players, etc. There's no reason that market can't expand to compete directly with consoles. Not that there's anything preventing a person from hooking up any PC to a TV (the last few months I was still living with my parents I actually had my desktop connected to my HDTV in my bedroom since I didn't have room for a desk and another monitor). The funny thing is, I actually greatly prefer gaming at my desk on my PC now, though that may have a little bit to do with a 22" monitor, some nice speakers, and a really comfy chair.


Ok, now those kinds of things I can get behind. But honestly I think that's a very niche market, whereas the public is aware of the Wii, PS3, and 360 and it's easy to navigate and use their same multimedia functions. Not to mention they're more reliable, less prone to issues, with more accessible interfaces.


I won't touch your comment on indie developers, simply because I think Rostum covered anything I would have said. There are a lot of indie developers starting because veteran's of the industry are leaving big companies and venturing off on their own. Often because they don't have the level of freedom they want to make the games they want to make at the big developers.


They have no clue what's going on with big publishers? Stop over-dramatising this, of course they do. The real indie developers do. They all play console and PC games, they have contacts throughout the industry.

I think you're confusing the scope of this thread. We're not talking about Trion Worlds and CCP. We're talking about Rovio, Funzio, and the hordes of wanna-bes and imitators that outnumber them 10,000:1. If your definition of a real indie developer is one who's making money then I think we got some problems here. And yes, Vivi, a lot of talent from the big pubs are going independent, but a lot of those companies are facing just as harsh economic times, laying off employees and closing their doors.


I wasn't arguing that they are the end of the handheld market. What I am arguing though is that it is entirely possible we will see sales of dedicated handhelds start to fall now that they aren't the only game in town.

(^ from steam thread)


I'm not in agreeance that smartphones are going to take over gaming (far from it), just that it seems to be the shift handheld gaming is heading towards and currently is doing really well in.

After these comments I think it's safe to say we're actually in agreeance here: dedicated gaming handhelds are not going away, but smartphones and tablets have tremendously undercut their access to the casual market. But they're not going to stop that 100 million+ demographic who really wants to play substantive, real, experiences. Not with touch inputs. Which brings me to this:


Side note: Have you played Cut The Rope? As a puzzle game it's fairly addictive and has many levels. It's can be a 5 minute game, or it can be an 1+ hour game. Not everything needs to be a 60+ hour AAA title online experience in order to be considered a good video game.

I've seen a lot of Cut the Rope. I've heard a lot about Cut the Rope. BUT HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NO I haven't played cut the rope. Why would I? I already have 28 addicting puzzle games on New Super Mario Bros. for the DS and I wouldn't be surprised if each and every one of them control a lot better with the stylus.

And no, not everything needs to be a 60+ hour AAA online experience. But I know another title you can pick up and play for five minutes, or an hour. Valkyria Chronicles II is a 60+ hour, maybe AA experience with competitive and co-op multiplayer modes, music by one of the best composers in gaming, and an ending that will probably get you choked up. And it's only the PSP. How could smartphones ever hope to have a shot at taking the 70+ million people who bought one? (Ok, that's an exaggeration, I'm sure a lot of them have actually moved over, but you see my point.)

edit: that 5 minute experience actually applies to ALL my handheld games. These things have sleep mode! The PSP even saves your game if the battery dies. I play Dragon Quest or Pokemon for a few minutes on my shuttle back and forth from school. Sometimes I check my Facebook or gaming news instead. I like my smart phone a lot actually, it's just a bottom of the barrel option for gaming.

[Ultima Shadow]

The problem is that the hardware is not very well designed to facilitate playing a lot of games. I don't mean processing power, I mean the physical makeup of the machine.
This.

[Rostum]

I think you're confusing the scope of this thread. We're not talking about Trion Worlds and CCP. We're talking about Rovio, Funzio, and the hordes of wanna-bes and imitators that outnumber them 10,000:1. If your definition of a real indie developer is one who's making money then I think we got some problems here. And yes, Vivi, a lot of talent from the big pubs are going independent, but a lot of those companies are facing just as harsh economic times, laying off employees and closing their doors.

Real indie developers are ones that aren't imitating, they're the ones inovating on the platform or providing incredibly polished products. Whether they make a lot of money or not isn't the main issue, but it helps to keep them alive so that they can create more content. Maybe I wasn't clear, but it doesn't seem like you understood me completely.

A lot of talent from bigger studios aren't being laid off. They are willingly getting away from the environment and starting their own.



I've seen a lot of Cut the Rope. I've heard a lot about Cut the Rope. BUT HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NO I haven't played cut the rope. Why would I? I already have 28 addicting puzzle games on New Super Mario Bros. for the DS and I wouldn't be surprised if each and every one of them control a lot better with the stylus.

So because you have 28 puzzle games somewhere else, you wouldn't even consider playing a highly polished and great brain teaser for only 0.99c? I believe you have an Android, so they should have it on there. I suggest just giving it a go. It starts out easy but it gets harder if you want to get three stars in each level (25 levels per world, and comes with around 10 worlds that they are constantly expanding upon). Honestly, it doesn't sound like you've seen or heard much about it at all. Just that you like to close your eyes, cover your ears, and scream. I am a real gamer, and I like Cut the Rope.


And no, not everything needs to be a 60+ hour AAA online experience. But I know another title you can pick up and play for five minutes, or an hour. Valkyria Chronicles II is a 60+ hour, maybe AA experience with competitive and co-op multiplayer modes, music by one of the best composers in gaming, and an ending that will probably get you choked up. And it's only the PSP. How could smartphones ever hope to have a shot at taking the 70+ million people who bought one? (Ok, that's an exaggeration, I'm sure a lot of them have actually moved over, but you see my point.)

edit: that 5 minute experience actually applies to ALL my handheld games. These things have sleep mode! The PSP even saves your game if the battery dies. I play Dragon Quest or Pokemon for a few minutes on my shuttle back and forth from school. Sometimes I check my Facebook or gaming news instead. I like my smart phone a lot actually, it's just a bottom of the barrel option for gaming.

But that's the elitist vibe that I get from you.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here anyway. What I was saying was that you can potentially get the same quality and quantity of games on a smartphone as their technology is constantly getting better and the market is there for it. Whilst you already have big publishers seeing the potential of the platform such as EA and Square Enix just as an example, you still have the guys at Nintendo and Sony closely looking at this emerging platform.

There's already signs of great games and ports coming to the platform, and there's already a lot of high quality - just as high as other handhelds - on there, despite if you personally like them or not. Keep in mind if you don't like a lot of the high quality games, or they don't interest you, it doesn't mean the majority feel the same way and that's what I'm discussing. I'm not saying I love all the games on my iPhone, I'm saying that all signs point to it continually growing at a rapid rate as a viable handheld gaming device.



The problem is that the hardware is not very well designed to facilitate playing a lot of games. I don't mean processing power, I mean the physical makeup of the machine.
This.

Whilst there are hardware add-ons you can get that could negate the issue, I'll agree. But that's not to say in the near future it will be a problem. When these hardware add-ons get better, the whole 'touch-control' issue won't be an issue at all.

[Slothy]

Ok, now those kinds of things I can get behind. But honestly I think that's a very niche market, whereas the public is aware of the Wii, PS3, and 360 and it's easy to navigate and use their same multimedia functions. Not to mention they're more reliable, less prone to issues, with more accessible interfaces.

So? Game consoles used to be a very niche market as well. One of the big things holding HTPC's back is that manufacturers haven't been quick to really market them (with the exception of stuff like Apple TV anyway, though that stumbled so hard for years it's had an uphill battle to try and gain any traction). It's also a bit of an issue that, especially outside the US, networks have been slow to allow regular TV content online. Canada is particularly bad since every network holds exclusive broadcast rights to a lot of current programs and won't let other services show them for years, not to mention those broadcasters generally being owned by the two big telecomm companies here and them not wanting to give up any edge they have over potential competition (I really hate the broadcast regulations in this country).

But as content shifts more and more to online services there's absolutely no reason that PC manufacturers couldn't market HTPC's more heavily and in direct competition with consoles. And there's nothing stopping them from developing custom front ends to stream line the experience every bit as much as consoles have. Again, the point you seem to be missing is that I'm not talking about a year from now, or two years from now. I'm talking long term, 10+ years down the road.

I don't see why more manufacturers couldn't compete directly with consoles by making HTPC's, especially when consoles are basically just HTPC's without some of the functionality that people normally think of PC's having. You seem stuck in this mindset that things could never possibly change and the console experience could never be replaced by, or even suffer competition from, something else entirely. But if the only road console manufacturers have seen fit to move down in recent times is to make them more like HTPC's, then things have already changed drastically, and it started way back when consoles started letting you play music CD's in the 90's.


I think you're confusing the scope of this thread. We're not talking about Trion Worlds and CCP. We're talking about Rovio, Funzio, and the hordes of wanna-bes and imitators that outnumber them 10,000:1. If your definition of a real indie developer is one who's making money then I think we got some problems here. And yes, Vivi, a lot of talent from the big pubs are going independent, but a lot of those companies are facing just as harsh economic times, laying off employees and closing their doors.

I hate to break it to you Bolivar, but indie developers are just what the name implies: independent. They aren't owned by another company or dependent on a publisher for funding. They aren't beholden to some executives in an office at another company half way across the country for the direction their game takes. They choose what they develop and how they want to grow their business.

Companies like Rovio are as legitimately independent developers as companies like Valve and Mojang. What they choose to make makes no difference, so I'm not sure where your elitist attitude comes from.

More to the point, taking Rovio as an example, they've built an entire business around one franchise. Not just by making and releasing Angry Birds (which is a fairly enjoyable diversion in and of itself honestly), but by expanding to include things like merchandising. Now they're getting offer of over $2 billion to sell the company and turning them down.

They're no less legitimate a developer just because they've made a casual franchise and taken it for all that it's worth. No one gives Nintendo shit for selling figures, shirts, and Mario themed chess games (my personal favourite is Donkey Kong Jenga (http://www.thegeekchic.ca/shop/donkey_kong_jenga.html)). And certainly no one but you has ever implied that Rovio somehow doesn't know what's going on in the industry. Given their success in an emerging market, I'd say that they either know exactly what's going on with the industry, or they got very lucky. But even if it's the latter, they wouldn't be the first company that was built by some good luck.

And to address your comment about wannabes and imitators, I'm really not sure where you're going with that. Are you trying to criticize the mobile market for having a lot of derivative crap that isn't worth buying? Because I've been noticing the same thing happening on consoles for more than 20 years.

And as for the comment about indie developers going independent and then having to close up shop because the economy is rough, again, I don't see what that has to do with anything? Is it supposed to be some criticism of the mobile market that I'm not getting? Because, again, it happens to companies developing (or at least attempting to develop) AAA titles all the time.

[Bolivar]

Wow, lots of confusion here. First, I'm not saying Rovio doesn't know what's going on, obviously they're ahead of the curve when you see angry birds plushies on the board walk. I was just giving a description of some of the friends I have who are indie devs. I don't know if you guys know what the IGDA is, but I've gone to a lot of their social events here in Philadelphia, many of their prominent members are good friends of mine and I've gotten to talk to a lot of others as well. And while they're very in tune with that market, I can reiterate what I said earlier: they don't know what the big console manufacturers are up to, what the big game of the month is, and they'll never come in contact with a title that has the potential to make them cry.

Rostum, I'm not an elitist - an elitist, to me, is someone who sticks to an ideal for the sake of doing so. I'm just telling you what I like and what I don't like. I've played a lot of games on smartphones, some of which have been made by people I personally know, and I just can't say if finger-touch is a viable interface for gaming. Even if it's adequate, as you seem to be suggesting, I have no idea why I wouldn't rather grind a couple levels in Dragon Quest or catch a couple Pokemon on my commute instead.

Also, all I meant about indie devs having financial problems is that you all seem to make it sound like the big games business industry is dying and losing all of its talent for greener pastures. I agree a lot of people have "seen the light." But I was just pointing out that there's financial hardships all over, both camps are struggling, while some of their exemplars are having unprecedented success. I don't think it's particularly germane as to whether smartphones will replace handhelds, so maybe we should table that for now.


I'm not saying I love all the games on my iPhone, I'm saying that all signs point to it continually growing at a rapid rate as a viable handheld gaming device.

And like I said, we're 100% in agreement on that. I'm simply saying that while Sony and Nintendo can kiss the non-gamer crowd goodbye, dedicated handhelds are still relevant to a very strong demographic.

[Rostum]

I don't know if you guys know what the IGDA is, but I've gone to a lot of their social events here in Philadelphia, many of their prominent members are good friends of mine and I've gotten to talk to a lot of others as well. And while they're very in tune with that market, I can reiterate what I said earlier: they don't know what the big console manufacturers are up to, what the big game of the month is, and they'll never come in contact with a title that has the potential to make them cry.

I go to IGDA meetings every now and then (going to a great BBQ this Saturday!), and it really must depend on the industry location because most of the extremely talented people I meet and talk to seem to really conflict with your friends.


Rostum, I'm not an elitist - an elitist, to me, is someone who sticks to an ideal for the sake of doing so. I'm just telling you what I like and what I don't like. I've played a lot of games on smartphones, some of which have been made by people I personally know, and I just can't say if finger-touch is a viable interface for gaming. Even if it's adequate, as you seem to be suggesting, I have no idea why I wouldn't rather grind a couple levels in Dragon Quest or catch a couple Pokemon on my commute instead.

Also, all I meant about indie devs having financial problems is that you all seem to make it sound like the big games business industry is dying and losing all of its talent for greener pastures. I agree a lot of people have "seen the light." But I was just pointing out that there's financial hardships all over, both camps are struggling, while some of their exemplars are having unprecedented success. I don't think it's particularly germane as to whether smartphones will replace handhelds, so maybe we should table that for now.

It's fine if that's not what you like, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can close your eyes and try and dictact where the handheld market is heading. The fact is it is a hugely increasing market that is taking over, and big developers have (if not already) garnered a lot of interest in the platform. Of course, I don't doubt Nintendo and Sony won't cave in (as they've already announced they have no interest in developing for the iOS or Android). There might possibly be a case for dedicated handheld system, but in saying that I wouldn't be so surprised if you end up seeing a Nintendo smartphone or another Sony smartphone that will do it all.

I haven't exactly been discussing what you in particular like, but moreso where the market is heading in general. Whether I like it or not. And whether anyone likes it or not, you can not deny the incredible presence that smartphones have over handheld gaming at the moment.

I don't think anyone here at all is saying the big guys are dying, no way in hell. Despite the success of Rovio and Halfbrick, they're still not doing as well as the big guys. However, also keep in mind the big guys are developing for smartphones too. And despite financial hardship in indies, their overhead costs are so small that it's still viable for them to live their life doing what they love. They aren't going to making a lot of money, and I don't think they expect it, for the most part they just love their work and they live for their work (something I can't do, which is why I also freelance out to film and tv studios and have been thinking of changing careers anyway).

[G13]

Wow... Xbox 720? What a terrible name.

[Laddy]

...Says the guy who hasn't made a good game in fifteen years...

[Bolivar]

It's fine if that's not what you like, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can close your eyes and try and dictact where the handheld market is heading.

I don't know how many times I can say "I agree with you 100%" before it starts broadcasting out into space and alien historians believe those words were earth's planetary anthem :kakapo:

[Rostum]

It's fine if that's not what you like, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can close your eyes and try and dictact where the handheld market is heading.

I don't know how many times I can say "I agree with you 100%" before it starts broadcasting out into space and alien historians believe those words were earth's planetary anthem :kakapo:

WHY WON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME.