Slashdot Mirror
Scientific-Atlanta Mulling Video Game Set-Top Box
NickNiel writes "According to Yahoo, Scientific-Atlanta (a digital cable set-top box manufacturer) is 'planning to develop television set-top boxes with high-performance video game capabilities, which could compete with game consoles such as Nintendo's GameCube and Sony's PlayStation 2.' My favorite quote, from CEO James McDonald: 'I can give (game players) the same performance you get out of those game boxes," he added. 'There is no question that games is one... market we will be in.'"
I can give (game players) the same performance you get out of those game boxes
Details? It takes quite a bit of effort and expense to produce a good, fast, modern gaming console that is as good as currently existing ones. I'm rather skeptical that a cable box company will follow through on such a plan.
I can see them making a gaming box that plays simpler less resource-intense games, like solitaire and tetris, but a console to match the current top consoles? I doubt they'll get that far. With the lack of details, I'm pretty sure they haven't even reached the phase where they begin the actual engineering of the box. It's just an idea in the head of some executives right now
I predict vaporware
There's just no room for a new player in this area right now. Starting up from scratch with no game support, no previous industry experience and no real synergy from other product ranges (the cable set top box is a bit peripheral), not to mention probably not with the cash reserves to carpet-bomb the consumers with marketing and ads. This is either vaporware or the downfall of SciAtl.
I'm sure many non-console-owning cable customers would just love being able to play solitaire and bejeweled on their television - and remember these kinds of software take a very short time to develop. How many people would actually pay $5 a month for 20 games or so? I'm not talking specifically about you or the people you know, but the normal cable customer base.
So the simple puzzle games may not be such a bad idea, and if you can port a Sega Genesis (say) emulator or even add actual on-board hardware to run Genesis software you have a library of hundreds of real titles. Pay $5, play Sonic for up to 30 days. Not a bad deal for some people. Again, not for you, but for some people.
Now, as far as modern games are concerned, there are two ways to go about it. Convergence (combo cable box + xbox + DVR) which may or may not make sense to some people (but not to us) and developing a new competing next-gen platform which is probably not such a good plan.
'There is no question that games is one... market we will be in.'"
The "..." stands for overloaded.
I think it's a good idea, but right now, you've got three pretty massive players in Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. If you ask me, that's already one too many. I didn't mind it when pretty much only Sega and Nintendo were there, but when these companies start making excellent games ONLY for one system, you aren't serving your clientele, you're forcing them to choose your product or another. This is sort of like the VHS. Remember the Betamax issue? In the end, there was only one format. This is not the case in video games. Instead of one standard, we're forced to use all these proprietary game systems if we want to play all the best games. If you think about it, most hardware manufacturers have standards. Everyone agreed on CD and DVD standards, and for the most part PC standards. (well, until it came time for DVD-R and DVD+R, but I won't even go into that.)
Yet none of this seems to faze the video game world. So now we're going to have yet another competitor, not even counting the Infinium Labs Phantom system, in the market. And Nokia with its N-Gage, and now Sony in the handheld market too? Wow, can you think of a worse time to try and enter a market? And this just pushes the whole ownership issue, with cable able to control the content it provides.