Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft CEO Says Next Gen Consoles Closer Than We Think
An anonymous reader writes "Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot tells CNBC that he believes the next generation of video game systems isn't as far away as the public has been led to believe. Guillemot noted that public demand for the best machine possible, as well as coming competition from companies such as OnLive could spur Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to roll out new systems sooner than they want. That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create."
Considering all of this generation of consoles suck.
Wii: Poor graphics, and lots of shovel ware -- this is the best console of this generation.
Xbox 360: Horribly unreliable hardware, even after the jasper redesign.
PS3: A BD player that can also play a few games.
The next generation of consoles can not come fast enough.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It should say "Ubisoft"
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Would not be the first such thing on Slashdot.
If you go back all the way to the Atari 2600, you'll notice a consistent pattern of 5 year console "lifespans" (most recently, the Xbox and PS2 broke the pattern a little at 4 and 6 years respectively, but not by much).
Atari 2600 -1977
Atari 5200 - 1982
NES - 1986
SNES - 1991
N64 - 1996
PS1 - 1995
PS2 - 2000
PS3 - 2006
Xbox - 2001
Xbox360 - 2005
Of course, no one wants to admit that they have a new console just around the corner until they're pretty damn close to having it ready (within a year or so), lest it kill current-gen sales. But there is NO WAY it's going to be 2015 before we see a new Xbox 720 or PS4 (as some are trying to claim). Even with the economic downturn, there is no way we're no going to start seeing see ten year gaps between generations, when it's been 5 year gaps for the last three decades.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"That's not good news for publishers, though, as he says games in the next generation will likely cost $60 million to create.""
And only $0 Million to BT all over the planet.
That might work for a slow game like an RPG, but good luck getting a twitch game like Tetris to feel lag-free through a home Internet connection, even in urban areas of developed countries.
It should be SPELLED.
My Babylon
Are they really trying to shorten the console generation cycle down from what Playstation 1 had?
Are they still clueless about what is a good game and what is pointless graphics/realism crap?
New generations don't make games better.
Yeah, right. More like "Ubisoft wants more easy graphics-are-everything cash-ins and the current crop of consoles is losing its marketing effectiveness."
Some 50% of the marketplace currently indicates that public demand is not, in fact, for "the best machine possible": people just want better games, and they don't care very much about the technology used to deliver them. The only ones demanding "the best machine possible" are technophiles more interested in the hardware than they are in the games, and Ubisoft is looking to throw them a couple of buzzwords as an easy way to spur sales.
Something tells me that if consumers aren't ready to fork over money for new hardware, console makers aren't ready to turn their backs on products that still haven't, or are just now starting to, turn a profit, and game developers aren't ready to start making games for hardware with even higher development costs, it's not going to happen. Anyone who jumps the gun here is going to see exactly what Sony did with the PS3, that is consumers and developers clinging to older hardware as long as they can while the newer, overpriced machines languish on shelves for a couple years until everyone is ready.
I'm happy with a system that can display good games in high definition and take advantage of my home theater setup. The PS3 delivers that for me, but I'd like to see better games available. That said, Rock Band 2 gets a lot of play, and I really appreciate that the PS3 can play just about any media you throw at it.
The Wii has some fun games, and I have one of those too, but they look like absolute crap on a hi-def TV.
An updated Wii makes sense, a new PS3, no way. The PS3 has all the hardware I need -- just make some games already.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Actually, what we are most likely going to see is incremental -- but significant! -- updates to the existing consoles. Updates that are large enough to be considered a "new release" but small enough not to be totally new architectures. We know, for example:
- Microsoft is planning an all-out marketing campaign + release schedule around Natal. It's not quite a new console roll-out, but Microsoft is treating it as such. Fully backwards compatible.
- Nintendo needs to get on the HD bandwagon, but doesn't necessarily need to push the envelope for HD gaming. Expect something that meets 720p criteria and is approximately [some smaller integer greater than 1 but less than 5]x as powerful as the Wii. Fully backwards compatible.
- Sony: not entirely clear. Open to suggestions. They have a PS3 slim in the works. No, not a new console. They released the PSP Go, dropping UMG support. That's interesting. The Cell is a pain-in-the-ass to develop for, but various shops are starting to get the hang of it. Maybe we will see a PS3, Mach II with 2 Cells, slim body and, of course, the now-mandatory motion tracking controllers.
The fact that future games are going to cost somewhere in the $60M ballpark is precisely why we will NOT see brand new architectures any time soon. No one, except maybe 1st party entities, is going to give up all of the applied dev resources to hop to an untested platform.
If you want to commence an interesting dialogue, I propose something like "What, exactly, constitutes a NEW console?"
As many missteps as each of the Big 3 Video game makers have had, I think knowing and developing new systems is something they are on top of. They are all real secretive on their R & D, so I am sure they are further enough along then the CEO Ubisoft knows. I think he overestimates OnLive role in video games, which will be minimal at best.
Games don't take $60 Million to make. Spectacular extravaganzas with high-detail hero models, high-detail set designs, high-detail world designs, full-orchestral scores, full-cinematic cuts, companion toy merchandising, and highly-predictable-never-escapes-the-rails storylines. That's what takes $60 Million to make.
The cat will enjoy a ball of tinfoil more than the eighty dollar robo-mouse. Give the player an enjoyable challenge, something they'll understand on the first play but want to play again and again. Don't try to reinvent the concept of gameplay.
[
Right now would be an awful time to put forth the expense of a whole new console launch. I think the smart players will wait for at least two more years... even Nintendo, do they really need more power or do they just need more publishers to take full advantage of the Wii as we are just starting to see?
I think the new motion stuff announced by Sony/Microsoft is a stop-gap meant to offer something new but not have a new platform for some time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, what we are most likely going to see is incremental
What I think we are more likely to see is excremental.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
He seems to overlook the fact that the most popular console is the weakest machine, and its popular games (Wii Fit, Wii Sports...) are simple enough that I am not sure how they could benefit from a hardware upgrade beyond input devices. Add to that the motion-control expansions for all the consoles and you have consoles with longer life than usual. Add in the fact that PC gaming tends to work better for the big-ticket games that push performace, and I see no reason why a console maker or game publisher would care to start a new cycle already (I'll leave it to other comments to provide reasons for Ubisoft to want this).
My webcomic
More like "Ubisift..."
This generation has seen console gaming taking the first painful steps into HD. Sony and Microsoft have lost billions on this step, while the comparibly simple Wii is far more profitable. So what are they going to do to increase profits for the next generation?
That's simple-next generation consoles will be entirely DLC-only. Forget about exchanging games, bringing your games over to a friends' house, etc. All games will be download-only and you'll max out your broadband cap by downloading a single game, unless you switch to a certain broadband provider that has a deal worked out with Microsoft so that M$ downloads don't count against your cap.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
>eternal torment in the bowels
I've got that already after having a 'special edition' curry last night.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The 16 bit consoles were clearly miles ahead of the 8 bit machines, but each generation the improvement has been less significant. PS2 games and original XBox games still don't look that bad. The real advantage with the latest generation is higher resolutions. Reflections and shadows are just eye candy.
Now, the question is, why will it cost so much more to develop for a newer generation? Doubling the number of polygons isn't double the work. A lot of effects have already been written so they just need to use existing libraries for them. Game worlds may well get larger but games themselves don't need to do so substantially.
And the main point to realise is that budgets will not magically expand to match the cost of developing a game. The budget for a game is the amount that it can be expected to make in terms of sales so that the investors have a decent profit. The game will have to shrink to match that budget.
heaven : harps, clouds, christians
hell: strippers, hookers, playboy models, alcohol, year long campfire
Why should I pick heaven?
I think that both Sony and Microsoft would be insane not to build upon their current platforms with their next generations. Skipping to a new architecture (x86 + Larrabee has been suggested for Sony) would likely cost a lot to implement, and I think that both companies want to break even fairly close to launch this time.
Sony's best path, in 2011, is to launch a PowerXCell32 based PS4. This is basically a Cell with 2 PPUs and 32 enhanced SPUs (although I think they could do a 4 PPU version). Couple that to a GT300 series GPU and you've got a 1080p monster.
I also don't think that Sony can single-chip the PS3 unlike the PS2, because of the NVIDIA GPU. This might make it less economical to cost-reduce like the PS2 later in life.
Microsoft can just have an octo-core CPU running at higher clocks and whatever ATI can come up with in 2011 - R900 at 3TFLOPS?
Regardless, we'll only start hearing about the next generation when the current generation has had another price drop so people don't put off their purchase. I expect to start hearing concrete details in early 2010.
7th grade spelling FAIL
role != roll
Is driven by hardware manufacturers, not consumers: The most popular game in the world today look dated on its release almost 5 years ago.
God lied, Adam didn't die.
Satan was the one who wanted man to be smart and think for himself, god wanted to just be a control freak "the SIMS" player with his little garden.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
One that can take advantage of newer technology to deliver a better gaming experience?
Yeah I know the Indrema failed, but if the people making Linux distros for mobile devices and smart phones decided to port their code to the newer game console technology to creating a game console distro it would be a good idea if many gaming companies joined in and started to work out a standard for game consoles that will help reduce the cost of developing new game consoles for everyone. Not only that but if it is a Linux distro games can be put on LiveCDs that boot and then run the game on PCs and Macs.
I suppose one can just develop video games in Java or Python to be used across any computer platform and port Java and Python for various game consoles to run such games as well.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Which would you rather sit in for eternity: clouds or a campfire?
Then again, if all your nerves died with your body maybe it wouldn't matter.
The hardware issues seem to be worked out now with the latest motherboards. Xbox Live is really maturing and branching out into family fun kind of games like 1 vs. 100. Participating in a live game show is more fun then I thought it would be. I couldn't be happier with it right now and it just keeps getting better. Natal, looks gimicky too me will be good for casual gamers like the Wii is and probably attract a good following that way if it's not too expensive.
Unfortunately my favorite game last year was by far Fallout 3 on PS3. That was a monster of a game, and it turned out incredible. They may have set the bar very high!
I love 2D platformers. The last one that truly impressed me was Astal on the Saturn. Imagine what today's machines could do for this genre; imagine a new Turrican or Shinobi, in high-res 2D, all hand-drawn, with multiple layers of parallax and translucency, with more action and animation than the old systems could dream of handling. To sum it up: something that would be to platformers what The King of Fighters XII is to fighting games.
But sadly, no. These days, 2D platformers are relegated to portable systems. And I'm stuck playing a genre I love with emulators.
Won't somebody think of the platformer fans?!
Circumcision is child abuse.
PS I'm not singling Microsoft out, I'm sure Sony has something in the works too...the day that my console choice affects my broadband provider choice is the day I go PC only for games (and hope my broadband provider has a deal with Steam).
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
As someone who just recently purchased a PS/2, I'd go so far as to say that it has yet to give up the ghost. While a lot of development effort is being put into the PS/3, it's hard to call the PS2 dead when new games are still being released.
It seems to me that the Wii, and PS/2 are still in their infancy in many ways. While the 360 has come down in price and stabilized to a degree, all three consoles are still a little expensive for the casual consumer, IMO. There's still a lot of life left in each console.
Based on previous experience with the Saturn/Dreamcast, as well as with the amount of time, money, and energy spent bootstrapping the PS3, I cant see any of the major manufacturers doing much more than a refresh on their major consoles. Releasing a new console requires a huge amount of tooling effort with the developers, and generally tends to kill the installed base on your old console. With the huge development requirements of today's consoles, I wouldn't be surprised if developers were to see a console refresh as a form of betrayal, and turn their backs on the next gen offering.
If anything, I expect the current generation of consoles to last even longer than the last generation.
With Ubisoft putting out such fantastic titles such as "Imagine: Horsez" by the bucketload, they'll need to show me their full financials before I buy into the $60 million argument.
Developers had no problem jumping ship to the current gen and making money. Games went up $10 on average if you own a 360 or a PS3. They charge you for updates that used to be free, and they charge you to download unlock codes for maps, levels, game modes, costumes, and fucking furniture for your virtual corporate tool. Developers will work out plenty of ways to make morons pay through the nose to cover increasing costs.
OnLive as competition?
Yeah, and I hear that Apple is going to be seriously entering the game market aaaaaaaaaaaany second now.
This is a fucking joke.
The next generation will come around when the current players decide that it's strategically viable.
Let's look at the charts, shall we?
Nintendo has won. They want the current generation to last for as long as they are making buckets and buckets of money.
Nintendo will be the last of the three to go to the next generation (in terms of hard announcements). The ONLY possible scenario that would cause Nintendo to be the first to announce would be the motion controllers from MS or Sony taking away from Nintendo's profits. Nintendo would then make an announcement merely to fuck with the competitors' time tables. (Hint: Natal and Sony's tech will NOT save the 360 or PS3.)
Nintendo will be the last to announce.
MS is in second place, and will likely be the first to announce their next console. MS really want to push Natal to try and steal Nintendo's thunder, but despite their lines about Natal being the next generation XBOX, the fact is the only way MS can capitalize on it is if it's bundled with ALL systems. MS will push this generation as long as it can sell Natal units or Natal + 360 bundles. They need to recoup major cash from their warranty fiasco. MS likely wants Natal to get an extra 18 months to 2 years out of the 360. I don't think it'll be the hot shit they want it to be, but who knows.
MS will announce their next-gen hardware first.
Sony is fucked. I own a PS3 myself and enjoy it, but there's no denying that it simply didn't have the success of the PS2. I think five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars may have had a part to play with that. And with the 360 a year ahead, no one wanted to learn how to develop for the Cell. The bottom line is that Sony will announce the slim PS3 this fall and try to get some momentum, especially in Japan. Sony can capitalize on the release of Final Fantasy XIII along with the slim PS3 in Japan at the end of this year. I don't know if they can do the same thing in the US, especially since FFXIII is on the 360 as well. I expect Sony to keep trying for the "year of the PS3" until someone else makes an announcement. Sony has lost so much cash with the PS3 that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can and can't risk jumping ship too early. Once MS reveals their hand, Sony will be free to show theirs without much risk of cutting off the PS3 before it's prime, or being one-upped tech wise or timewise for the next gen.
Sony will be second to announce.
The timeline as I see it is basically:
MS releases Natal and Natal + 360 bundles in 2010.
Sales aren't great.
MS announces E3 2011.
Details about the PS4 "leak" in the fall of 2011.
Sony announces E3 2012.
Nintendo teases E3 2012, in response to Sony's announcement. Nintendo won't have a full reveal until E3 2013.
Late 2013 MS launches.
Early 2014 Sony launches.
Fall 2014 Nintendo launches.
Collecting scenery videos, converting them to a polygon-based rendering engine, installing it on a server and then playing it using video-streaming sounds a bit retarded to me. You could just as well hire 1000 Chinese for their lifetime, give them Wireless cameras and send them into the jungle. Ok, it may be a bit costly. It will likely cost about $60 million ... oh wait.
Then it's officially cheaper to play PC games than console games. It's almost the same price now anyways. And considering 50%+ of the best next gen games for 360 are just ported from PC (or ported to) that are inferior to their PC counterpart, what would be the point?
The only games I play right now on 360 are Halo 3 (occasionally) and Guitar Hero, everything else I would otherwise play has a better version that I just played on PC (Fallout 3, L4D, Call of Duty). Oh wait, I played Braid, but I could probably run that game on a PSX (and it's available on Steam, I just wanted to use a big HDTV and it felt right to play it on a console).
No way a new gen is released anytime soon... I mean, there hasn't even been ONE final fantasy release on the next gen consoles... PS2 had 3.
What a load of BS.
It sounds like someone is looking to convince consumers that a 50% increase in the price of games is reasonable.
Isn't anyone learning anything from what's happening in the world's economy? People paid about the same retail price for Halo as for Oblivion as for Half-Life 2. Obviously, their production budgets were different.
When I read that Grand Theft Auto 4 cost "$100 million" to make, I just have to assume that they must have used military contractors to produce it.
What it basically means is that there are going to be a lot fewer games produced and most of them are going to suck. Then, someone will produce a game on a small budget that will make huge profits and then that developer/designer is going to get $100 million to make a game and it will suck.
We've seen this wash/spin/rinse/repeat cycle in the movie industry for the past few decades. Tell me, for those of you who watch a lot of movies, how many of them are really the huge blockbusters and how many are the low-budget indie films. Now think of the ones you liked the best, the ones that stayed in your head long after the movie was over. How many of those were the huge blockbuster?
Now, a show of hands: how many of you spent full price to go see the Tom Cruise movie where he plays the nazi with the eye-patch? How many of you saw Superbad? Which one did you like better?
Why do entertainment providers think that huge budgets are going to impress us? Or is it, as I suppose, a matter of them looking to excuse their having to keep raising prices and using draconian copyright protection measures?
100 million to produce a video game... They really believe all their customers are morons.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you ask me, hardware became good enough when the Sega Megadrive came out. I've had more fun with old Sega games than I've had with any PS2 game.
After 1996, it seems like games are getting worse with each new game system.
Short game, but it's really good.
http://www.gamespot.com/search.html?qs=braid&om_act=convert&om_clk=search
And using Steam would be different how, exactly?
More appropriately, I call this BS FUD. It reminds me of the prelude to the current gen of consoles how all the publishers were whining that the games are so much more advanced and that they are spending a lot more money developing them. They tried to use that as a vehicle to bump game prices up. They succeeded to a degree, but not as much as they initially wanted. They wanted to charge (in NZ Dollars as that's what I'm familiar with) an average of $140-$150. As it is, most games are being released at $100-$120 with big releases going up to $140, where the last generation they cost $90-$100 with big releases at about $110 or $120.
So I think that this is just a way of them putting the seeds out to try and bump prices up again.
Why do I believe this is bullshit? Because these days game developers use ready-to-run engines. The amount of work they have to do is pretty minimal compared to their workload if they had to build the engines from scratch each time. It also means that using one engine, the game can be released on multiple platforms with minimal rework.
So I'm calling BS. They're able to get games into production much faster thanks to ready made engines, and they can release the games on multiple platforms to maximise their profits. They've never been able to do that as much as they have with the current gen consoles. Next gen it will be even better for them, therefore minimising their cost per platform.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Why would you want the Next Gen consoles? They explode every time the Enterprise gets fired on!
I bought more PS2 games in the past two years than Wii, PS3 and XBox 360 combined.
I'm not into console FPSs, sports games, or generic action/adventure games. I'm not excited for the next gen because I have no reason to buy the vast majority of games on the current gen. I have not enjoyed the "bigname" games from this generation and niche games seem harder and harder to come by.
If games are going to be even more expensive to make next generation, then games I enjoy are going to be even harder to come by.
I know I'm not the most mainstream gamer, but in previous generations I had dozens of games to play... now I feel pushed to obscure PC games.
The first three games had 3D characters on top of pre-rendered backgrounds.
In other words, graphics like Final Fantasy VII. But you don't need 3D graphics for Final Fantasy: the Super Famicom/Super NES had three Final Fantasy games, and even the Famicom/NES had three. On the other hand, Animal Crossing would have been impossible on the NES due to lack of RAM.
Are you my stock broker?
If not, you should be!
It wouldn't be any different. I guess I should have put a smiley on it. Steam is shit, but at least it kinda works for PC because most games are 1 player per PC. On a console with multiple players, that could be a real hassle. I should say, "will be a real hassle," because it's gonna happen.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
The Wii was the only true next gen system due to its control system. All that Sony and Microsoft are interested in right now is playing catch up.
It was pretty obvious that for realism you can't drive a car with buttons and analog sticks. It's amazing how much emphasis is put on graphics and so little has been put on the human interaction aspect of gaming.
The controllers in use on the XBox 360 and PS3 are barely more sophisticated than those on first generation games consoles.
Oh please, Project Natal didn't take off years ago when it was called EyeToy, what makes you think it'll take off now ?
The E3 Project Natal - Milo Demo with Peter Molyneux is pretty damned impressive.
If you make a good game people will want to buy it, they will want to support it, build on it, mod it. It doesn't need perfect graphics just something new and interesting. We really don't give a crap if you spent $ X millions of dollars on developing a physics engine that makes the hero's shoe laces move when he/she runs. And we don't care if you spent 5 years making a revolutionary lighting and shadow system that is indistinguishable from the real world. Graphics enhance games they don't make them, GAMEplay makes games. Graphics, physics engines, they should all be secondary to gameplay.
Just wondering... I heard that the PS3's graphix potential hasnt even been fully exploited. Drakes Fortune, though not the newest title, was a masterpiece, imo, graphically. Yet, I heard that that particular title was barely using 33% of the PS3's capabilities. If this is the case, why would Sony even consider putting out a new console, when game developers still have so much room for improvement? Besides, another console race will inevitably produce systems that are rushed and not up to par. Ring of Death ring any bells? (Xbox 360).
Can we have world size, lots of monsters and HD for real this time? :)
The interweb detectives will find out again
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re: Microsoft
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the dominant console cycle for the past few decades has been about 5 years. Microsoft released the 360 four years after the original Xbox probably for two primary reasons: 1) losses associated with the manufacture of the Xbox, and 2) to get the jump on Sony. The cost of that strategy has been record-setting poor quality, and they have had to compensate with a $1 billion 3-year limited warranty replacement/refurbishment system to stay in the game. So far from their current market share of about 30% (if one includes the Wii) or 60% (if one only includes the PS3), they are still very much in the game, but I wonder about the long-term effect on customer loyalty. Maybe I am completely wrong here in questioning this aspect of their business, and we should look as this whole RRoD (and E74) experience with reverence?
Re: technology and costs
As the videogame medium contains a very significant technical element, it is probably prudent to consider where performance is heading for the next generation. Realism as style in this medium has been very influential affecting everything from real-time ambient lighting, physics-based animation, precise collision detection, industrial design in modelling, and detailed, organic entity design. All of this detail can make for a more involving experience, and I believe it is essential for maturing the medium. The market for games has grown significantly, and so it makes a lot of sense that the industrial systems that produce films (with all those producers, directors, writers, actors, designers, and expert consultants) will also move into the creation of videogames, which of course carries with it significantly increased costs. The console as a device for creating these virtual experiences should provide as much capability as possible, as efficiently as possible. Currently the hardware designs most suited to processing the vast amounts of data required for constructing these virtual worlds involve many cores coordinating access to a very fat bus. Sony has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they understand these relationships, and appear to be set to launch a low-cost version of the PS3 sometime this year that will probably give them parity in the marketplace with their competitors.
I expect backwards compatibility to be more important for the next generation, especially considering the increased investment in software and services. I'd be surprised if any current player can again afford to start from scratch. As others have mentioned, Microsoft is likely to launch first probably in 2011, with Sony not too far behind. I believe Nintendo sees themselves as more of a toy company, and so occupy a different part of the market, but will still probably follow the 5-year-cycle.
Re: Motion control
Sony is obviously positioning themselves to both relate to the market that Nintendo created, and to offer a new experience to their customer base. Microsoft is attempting to break new ground by creating something entirely different, but I am not so sure that their technology gives them an advantage that Sony cannot largely replicate with some clever software, their motion and PSEye peripherals.
Re: OnLine
OnLive is interesting as the Cloud Computing/Timeshare model for gaming, but of course it depends on some pretty wide, low-latency pipes (which most of us can expect at some point in the future). It could offer a unique MMO experience where thousands of users could be in one shared virtual environment, but it is unclear whether this will be a compelling experience any time in the near future. OnLive's suitability for any serious gaming of course comes down to the latency and image quality issues, and I question whether this is a viable business in the near-term. But of course, I have not seen the demos, and I am not an investor, but I doubt any of the other console players are seriously concerned as of yet. When this model becomes viable, what prevents the other players from doing the same? Or will they have some arrangement with OnLive's service?
how is this off topic?, the guy is pointing an evident fact! ow wait, sorry I forgot this is /. all of you are nerds, do not have girls, ergo You are unaffected by this trend/couldn't care less, carry on
A marketing strategy that makes it *harder* for people to give you money? Brilliant!
Why should I pick heaven?
Let me help:
heaven : harps, clouds, christians[^w people who, rather than paying lip service as christians, actually live by the higher morals and ethics which entry to heaven would demand]
I would assume that would lead to more intellectuals, but I know that many Nobel Prize recipients, scientists, and charitable philanthropists can be just as human as the guy at the bar, the stereotypical redneck, and for good measure [removed for invoking Godwin's law].
hell: strippers, hookers, playboy models, alcohol, year long campfire[, Belgians]
Now do you see why? If not, I fear it may be too late for you. :/
The Wii is exciting because of the controller mechanic .. graphics are not a priority as has been debated and agreed.
If Nintendo released a Wii2, how many casual gamers who have a Wii would buy one? Not many I'd assume. Unless the controller mechanic radically changed again, most of these casual gamers would simply say that their Wii is good enough (remember, graphics are not a priority).....
Maybe Microsoft wants to go download-only and nickel-and-dime its users even more, but Nintendo relies heavily on its retail ecosystem (including the used market), which provides massive amounts of free marketing for the company. This is particularly true in Japan.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
The slow down in processor speedups and the egalization of the GPU market (thank you ATI) has made PC gaming pretty cheap. MMORPGs are also pulling gamers back to the PC and that won't stop (MMORPG gaming on consoles is a joke, they take too much time investment to not invest in the best platform to play them ... which will always be the PC). If consoles fall too far behind the PC will start eating into their business.
Even though I have 4 controllers for the damn thing, I actually haven't had enough people over or dragged it to a Halo LAN in forever now, mostly due to Xbox Live and the logistics respectively.
I guess my perspective must be tainted by the fact that I provide the video games at an annual family party, which is held somewhere without cable or DSL access, and I'm not ready to pay $720 a year for MiFi service. Over the past near-decade, Super Smash Bros. series has got the most play time.
if I could get it hooked up to my TV that would be an added bonus.
If your PC has a DVI-D or DVI-I out, most HDTVs have an HDMI in. If your PC has a VGA or DVI-I out, most HDTVs have a VGA in, and you can use a $40 adapter to convert VGA signals into composite and S-Video signals for an SDTV.
It's not a platformer, really, but Odin Sphere is full 2D, side scrolling, unique and has incredible art. Might be a little hard to get now - it was a niche title for the PS2 - but it's worth it.
I'm sorry, but you really have no idea what you're talking about.
Modern AAA games for the Xbox360/PS3/PC are developed by large teams of 100-200 people or more. They can have as many as 50 programmers working on them FULL-TIME for 2-3 years. (Programmers are not cheap; do the math).
I'm an engine programmer whose worked on a couple of AAA games you might have heard of. Let me tell you, the codebases are millions of lines of code, and a LOT of that code (possibly as much as a third) is written from scratch or reworked, for each project. We typically have between 10 and 20 engine programmers who work full-time on JUST THE ENGINE, for each AAA game. We don't just take a ready-made engine and slap it into the box! It takes a *helluva* lot of work to make everything fit and run fast and add all the little touches that make a game polished and high-quality.
These numbers like $60 million that they are throwing around, are not as ridiculous as they sound. The development budgets of my last 3 projects were all 7-digit budgets. (Then there is the marketing budget, which is often as large as the development budget. That's part of why GTA 4 reportedly cost $100 million; a lot of that cost is marketing, not development).
I cant see DLC-only being limited to being your console only. These companies know that even though there has been less emphasis on playing together with friends in the home (as opposed to over the internet) in recent years, its still a major reason to own a console and a major part of the video game experience. So, the companies like Microsoft could easily follow the steam approach, where a user could login to there friends console through Xbox Live, download the games and DLC that they have and still enjoy the gaming experience with there friends, only to be booted off if he signed in somewhere else. Still though, its a long way away. A majority of the market still doesn't participate in Live or even PSN, and the requirements for DLC content, bandwidth, etc, to be reliable and worth the money to push for, aren't in most homes yet, and don't meet the budgets of most console gamers.
www.squizzi-designs.com | graphic & web design