Slashdot Mirror
Game Wars 2 - Battle for the Living Room
securitas writes "The New York Times' John Markoff writes about the fight to own the living room in the next-generation game console wars, with a digital divergence predicted instead of the much-hyped convergence. With games historically being a driving force in consumer PC growth, Intel is pushing PC-based systems as the dominant platform while the videogames industry is looking to the next generation of consoles as media hubs. Sony, Nintendo and IBM are firmly in the console camp. Microsoft has one foot in each of the PC and console camps, cooperating with Intel on the PC front while looking to IBM for the next Xbox. Meanwhile, Apple is taking its own tack, buoyed by the phenomenally successful iPod. Steve Jobs has been highly critical of iPod clones with video and gaming features, and some are looking to Apple for the next home entertainment revolution. Markoff also talks to WildTangent's founder Alex St. John, who predicts the PC makers and Intel have a losing strategy."
The next level of entertainment has always been content. "The medium is the message." If what you deliver on the new medium is content meant for an older one, your device won't survive.
Convenience only goes so far. Specific content that exploits the medium is what drives an entertainment device into mass consciousness.
Film technology spawned the art of film, TV spawned the art of television, consoles and computers spawned the art of video games.
What can any of these new devices offer us in terms of cultural identity? Not much.
Whatever system allows the *freedom* consumers want, will end up being what is adopted. I dont want to be told how/when/where I can watch my media, and thats all these companies want to do.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Apple's entered this arena once, with the Pippin Dont expect them to return anytime soon after the large amount of $$$s lost on that debacle.
drunk chemists
People keep claiming the next big console revolution will be a PC killer, but they keep being wrong. I have an X Box and it's great for sports games with your buddies, or for playing when I can't get my husband off the comp, but games like Battlefield, UT 2004, CS and upcoming titles like Doom3 and HL2 require a keyboard, mouse, a desk to prop it all on, and mad processing. Also, I plan to keep investing in monitors over buying an HDTV. I just don't care about the TV in my household. The computer is my entertainment of choice.
The PC already is a multimedia center...
Can I bum a sig?
I just recently played this FoxSports online game and had to install some of their crap just to play this stupid game. I then was informed by someone that WT's plug-in is spyware ridden. Well after running AdAware, I found 400 pieces of infestation from these fuckers. Luckily AdAware fixed this shit.
Avoid anything from WildTangent.
1) Fanatical DRM that predates even TCPA.
They have always had copy restrictions for games (like the PC) but now they come with restrictions against fair use of the media that they play, too. They have far more powerful restrictions than PCs do.
2) Lack of modding abilities.
Console games can't be modded. There'd never be any Counterstrike or Capture the Flag if the consoles had exclusive domain over games. Even now, users cannot mod console games that have identical releases on PCs which are modded (see: Morrowind, NWN).
If DRM conquers the PC market, however, consoles may rise up and totally own all their base in gaming and media.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Apple? No.
Apple tried a set-top / gaming console box in 1996 with the "Pippin", which was going to be manufactured by Bandai and run a version of the Mac OS related to System 7. It was going to run a PowerPC 603 (not 603e) because they were cheap, and be a WebTV-style device and, mostly, a gaming console, and of course since everyone knew gaming and computing and multimedia was all converging, it would be the center of as-yet-uninvented miraculous new killer apps. (Sound familiar?)
Mostly it was a disaster because Apple didn't court any of the right game developers except for Bungie (this was before Halo), and the PlayStation with its hardware 3D graphics support just blew it away when it was introduced in Japan at about the same time as the Pippin announcement to the developers. The Pippin was stillborn.
I don't know who are the "some" people mentioned in the headline who look at Apple to compete with the behemoth forces of the console manufacturers, but if some ill-advised group at Apple is looking to compete in this space, I would expect the same hamhanded approach that Apple has always had with gaming.
Console games outsell PC games 10 to 1, you idiot. It's about a $10 billion industry worldwide, and PC games are maybe $2 billion worldwide.
The fanatical DRM is the reason that all the 3rd party developers are in this business. Without the DRM, the piracy that plagues the PC industry (and keeps it down to this ratio, BTW) would drive everyone out to other more profitable software ventures.
You mean this WildTangent? I have no interest in the views of this builder of adware.
While yes it can be said that the PC and Console game markets are directly competing, the types of games they excel at are worlds apart. Ever try playing Vice City on a PC, it's a completely different experience from the PS2 due to the excellent aiming but horrible driving. Difficult sniping missions become simple with a mouse, and easy driving missions become difficult with a keyboard.
PCs will most likely continue to dominate the online arena, as well as the cutting edge in terms of graphics. Consoles still excel at what they've always excelled in: sports games, multiplayer on a local scale, and ease of use.
It's much easier for parents to buy their children a $100 Gamecube where every game is guareenteed to work without compatibility hassles, where as enthusiasts have no problem shelling out $400 on a video card and dealing with driver issues for when Half-Life 2 comes outs.
There just completely different worlds, quite frankly, I don't want a console that's a media center, I want a console that just plays games.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
I'm more heartened by motherboard makers' explorations into "instant-on" BIOSes which let you use mail and TV functions of your PC hardware without needed to boot Windows and suffer the onslaught of long boot times, a million virii, bad drivers. Windows XP with DirectX9 on it, has given me the black-screen-of-death lockups on more than one occasion when using the multimedia functions on my graphics card.
I liked the blue screen more... at least that way Windows knew it had a problem.
Instant-on technologies seems to be the way to go. With things like bootable USB flash memories, Magnetic RAM, things look more "solid state" and like a console.
Maybe one day my PC will get it's own kernal ROM and boot as fast as my old Commodore 64 did.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
For the amount of money that they cost, does anyone really need a personal video player? How often would the darn thing get used?
I love music, and listen to it all the time, from home, in the car, and at work. I like movies too, but I find rewatching a good much far less enjoyable than listening to a good album. For that, iPods rule.
Overall, I find less time to watch movies than listen to music. I would hardly ever find myself stuck somewhere, wanting to watch a movie on a PVP. I don't go to Grandma's house anymore, and I am not a kid stuck in the back see on the way to the Grand Canyon.
1. Ease of use
a) With consoles all you do is plug it into the tv and power outlet, pop in the game, and you get entertainment.
b) With the PC, you have to plug a bunch of peripherals, login to the OS, install drivers, install the game, install patches, and if this was a perfect world (assuming you also bought the perfect pricey hardware) - you get entertainment. More so than not- you get frustration, even for people intimately familiar with the machine.
oh yeah joe sixpack doesn't mod games let alone know how to installed fan made mods
2. Price
a)A decent PC that plays the latest PC games decently will run around $1000 - $1800 (depending on what is considered decent) (a PC used for just word processing will run about $200).
b)A decent console that plays the latest decent console games will run from $99 - $179.
One more thing while some PCs can now plug into TVs, they still don't consistently look good on Tv's like consoles do....
Based on what the market is saying, consoles are already beating the crap out of the pc for games for the reasons I mentioned above...
I think the battle centers more on the fact that both consoles and PCs have aspired to be catch-alls. Consoles (many of them, anyway), play DVDs and now have multiplayer support. But computers do a lot more besides just gamming...and, with the flexibility PCs provide (not with any real sacrifice in graphics or gamming, IMHO,) they will eventually win out. If only we saw a better market for PC controllers more similar to the ones used in consol gaming.
Every windows user is a sadomasochist.
Steve Jobs has been highly critical of iPod clones with video and gaming features
Why has it become such a common conception that any harddrive based mp3 player is an iPod knockoff? Last time I checked Rio "invented" the mp3 player (Oct 1998, 32MB PMP300), and Creative "invented" the harddrive subcategory (Aug 2000, 6GB NOMAD Jukebox). It took over a year after Creative, and 3 years after MP3 players first appeared for Apple to enter the game with the original iPod (Oct 2001, 5GB iPod). By that time Creative was already releasing second generation harddrive players with twice capacity as Apple's best ipod at almost the same price.
So obviously iPod had nothing to do with creating the harddrive player. Maybe everyone is copying the iPod look? A general examination of the market doesn't seem to agree with this. iPod has a unique style of smooth curves and controls that blend into the unit. It's coloration and texture make it look almost ceramic from a distance. Compare that with just about every other player on the market: Rubberized edges and buttons, contrasting colors like sharp blues and reds stripping plastic silver. Where as the iPod look is like a bar of Ivory soap, the rest of the market is flooded with devices that look like tiny boom boxes. The only device that seems to come close to iPods smooth colors is the original Nomad Jukebox, the very product the iPod was copying (even then the Nomad retains more of the mainstream consumer electronics feel with its metallic silver highlights). Even the iPod look and feel is basically confined to the Apple court. The navigation system, an evolution of Sony's jogdial thumb navigation, is patented, and the placement of controls below and screen above is nothing new (the granddaddy of all MP3 players used that arrangement). Everything about the iPod screams different (a good reason for its success).
The logic that just because the iPod has market dominance now means that all products that meet the same need are clones is silly. If that kind of crazy logic where true then every desktop OS would be a "clone" of Microsoft Windows, even Mac OS X.
Frankly, there's 2 main contenders for the living room, namely the traditional console, and the PC.
Console Advantages:
Already based in the living room.
True Plug and Play (negligable installation + setup time, for both hardware and software).
Generally better hardware design.
Generally cheaper costs.
Console Disadvantages:
Usually uses propietry hardware/software.
Lack of standards and customizability (e.g. PS2 hardware would not work with GC hardware).
Generally more troublesome to develop for consoles.
PC Advantages:
Greater customizability.
Better storage options.
Generally more advanced hardware (at a cost).
Ease of development.
Better standards.
Greater compatability.
Technically feasible at present.
PC Disadvantages:
Troublesome and expensive to setup.
Non-negligable startup time.
Public perception.
(if I missed out any points, please add)
The key problem with PC is with it's setup and startup, else PCs would win the race hands down (but then, those are the key advantages of consoles to begin with).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sick of it - totally sick of wrestling with drivers and the OS and hardware and whatever just to get games working.
And it has ALWAYS been this way. I remember using debug to free up more EMS memory so Falcon 3.0 would run faster on my 386 sx 20 with 2 megs of RAM. I remember spending hours tweaking autoexec/config.sys to get the most conventional memory possible (i think 622 was about as high as I got)
So then enter Windows - yay its so much better - no its not - I have YET to run my legally purchased copy of Neverwinter Nights on PC without it crashing, I didn't return it out of support for a canadian software development company. And in the end I've nearly given up on gaming and I can't beleive that I'm alone. I see the hoops I have to jump through just to get a game to work on a PC - how many people really have the know how or the time to do this? Not many - will the PC die as a gaming platform - probably not but it will never go mainstream unless there are some serious changes that occur in usability. I long for the day I can put a disc in and load up a game without having to download a patch - without having to update my graphics card/soundcard/chipset drivers. Oh wait its called a Console.
One thing I don't understand is the level of media coverage that Sony/Microsoft get in comparison to Nintendo. Let's not forget that Nintendo is still very much in this race and last time I checked, Nintendo was far ahead (and gaining) compared to Microsoft in World-wide Marketshare. Yet the general media, still acts is if Nintendo is a non-player.
Something intelligent here.
You failed to grasp the argument in the article. His argument is not that people will stop playing games, but that people will stop shelling out huge amounts of money to play new games. The fact that someone was entertaining themselves by playing burgertime supports his point that the entertainment people gain by playing games is not directly related to the technology being used to display the game. He is making the argument that the video game (or, rather, console game) industry will collapse because subsequent console generations will offer only slight, barely perceptible improvements in graphics rather than breakthroughs allowing radically different game types.
He certainly did not say that people will stop playing games -- he's saying people will stop buying new consoles because the coming generation of consoles has so little to offer over the current generation. Sure, a few mindless boobs will continue to shell out $500/year to play the latest, greatest console games, but that number will shrink rapidly as the core market that has sustained the industry for 20 years ages and the budget-limited portion of the market catches in. As a result, their margins will thin and as a result their research budget will thin, leading to an even smaller advance for the next generation console, creating a downward spiral of ROI.
If you don't believe that this is at the very least a worry of the 3 current contestants in the battle for the living room, then explain why all three outsourced both their core processor and their graphics processor to the same two companies (IBM and ATI). Once IBM and ATI got the first console contracts, they could offer better deals to the remaining two. If either of the remaining two thought there was a lot of growth left, they would have invested heavily in R&D to come out ahead with a superior product to win market share. They both went with the cheaper alternative, though, which would lead a logical person to the conclusion that the console manufacturers, or at least the second two, already see their industry as one of diminishing returns rather than growth.
Assuming that horsepower simply makes prettier 'graphics' is the shortcoming of this logic.
/maybe/ an attempt at some fuzzy logic. With more horsepower you can maintain the visual status quo but move forward with opponents that can 'think' without having to 'know' the entire gamestate just to path toward the player.
/outside/ the building.
More horsepower is required to expand gaming. Adding horsepower for the next few upgrade generations will allow developers to increase the gamespace.
Consider interactivity: making the environment something you can break, manipulate, or build. How many items in the average 3d game scene are interactive? maybe 1%? walls aren't, windows aren't, 90% of doors aren't. You're lucky if one of the chairs is.
Right now machines aren't capable of tracking many interactive objects and maintaining the graphics that everyone seems to think are 'good enough'. Half-life2 is going to try, but thumb through the specs they've passed out to would-be licensees and mod makers: there are hard (and relatively low) limits on numbers of interactive objects. Slower systems severely limit the number of interactive objects one can use before the engine bogs down.
This is not to slam Valve, they are at the cutting edge of interactive environments, but rather to show how the cutting edge is still pretty limited.
Then there's AI.
Right now AI are most often straight scripts with
The fact that (nearly) everyone is still using a hacked A* algorithm to get a computer opponent where he needs to be is telling enough by itself. Algorithms more complicated than A* need more processor time. Heck, more processor time for pathing can yield improvements even without changing the algorithms. If you ever played Baldur's Gate, you'll remember that people complaining about pathing could edit their config files to 'up' the number of nodes used to calculate paths. The faster your machine, the more nodes you could add, the better the path-finding.
Even today this problem persists. Much moreso since the problem is now 3 dimensional, rather than 2 dimensional. This problem is at its worst in games with large numbers of units and dynamic maps (RTS games with their placeable buildings). To go back to a Bioware example - their Neverwinter engine doesn't even have a true Z-axis as far as its pathing is concerned. Their engine cannot model a footbridge that a model can walk across and under. They made a good number of concessions to make their game as interactive as possible, and run well.
Then there's lighting.
With as many textures as we have precalculated (lightmaps, bumpmaps, reflection maps) things like truly dynamic lighting are still out of reach. Games like Doom3 and Splinter Cell attempt to mask this by making their scenes predominantly dark and showing off how great dynamic lighting looks with a handful of light sources.
Yet they both limit the number of light sources and also the number of models you'll see on-screen at one time, so the horsepower needed to calculate those few dynamic lights isn't bogging down the machine when the action happens.
Then there's my favorite issue: overdraw.
When's the last time you played a 3d game that modeled, say, an office building that ended up looking like any office building you've ever been inside? I'm betting never. If you had, it'd have been in a 'portal' style-engine, in which case that game will never render the open spaces of the office park
Level designers work within the constraints of the engines. Modern bsp-derived engines overdraw polygons so much that you never see an actual downtown street with buildings you can enter without a load time.
Why isn't there a broad thoroughfare in an Everquest town? Why are the hallways in a counterstrike map so twisty? Why haven't you seen a large office building where you could enter each room?
It isn't for gameplay - though designers do a great
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"