Ultima creator speculates that consoles are doomed...
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe. Maybe this year will be better than the last. I can't remember all the times I tried to tell myself. To hold on to these moments as they pass...
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.
"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 smurf does this statement even mean?
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.
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.
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 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, and it certainly won't prevent Call of Duty from selling a guaranteed 20 million units in 2 months, at $60 a pop.
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.Originally Posted by Bolivar
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.
He's an idiot.
Though I'd be just fine if consoles completely died and everything was done through digital distro via cable boxes...or something.
Last edited by DMKA; 12-01-2011 at 01:19 AM.
I like Kung-Fu.
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.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
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.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.
>>Am willing to change opinions based on data<<
Yeah sorry, Angry Birds just isn't going to fill the void of EVERY OTHER GAME EVER anytime soon.
I like Kung-Fu.
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...
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 trout 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.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
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.
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 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.
(^ from steam thread)
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:
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.
Last edited by Bolivar; 12-01-2011 at 07:53 PM.
This.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
