AT&T, Verizon Moving Into Gaming

Verizon announced today that they are working on a service to deliver games through their broadband service for a monthly fee. The service will begin this summer in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Along similar lines, IndustryGamers reports that AT&T is "investing millions in gaming." In addition to revamping the games section of their website, they are also working on an IPTV service and trying to find a way to unify the gaming experience across mobile platforms, computers, and consoles. "[AT&T's Executive Director of Gaming, Glenn Broderick, said,] 'What we're doing is trying to incentivize [gaming companies] to take some risks by tethering mobile games to console or PC experiences.' ... He continued, 'We're putting a ton of money into back-end systems for both mobile and the broadband site... We're making serious investments in the games space because it's now seen as a huge strategic initiative for AT&T. And before it just wasn't; it wasn't on the executive agenda.' Broderick also is optimistic that cloud-based gaming services like OnLive that provide games on demand will take off in the next 5-10 years, and he sees AT&T and its network as a big player in that."

Comments

Hooray for the end of buying used games!

[interkin3tic]

Oh, good, yet another way to prevent me from selling back crappy games or games I'm done with. I'm all for destroying gamestop, but it seems to me that one of the best checks against a company profiting off of a game that is utter crap is the resale market.

If your game is terrible, you get many people buying your game because they don't bother reading reviews, many find out it's crappy sell them back, the next line of consumers who also don't read reviews buys the used copies. People who have a passing interest wait for it in the bargain bins or to buy used. You don't sell as many copies as you were hoping and you learn your lesson and don't make crap games.

Now though you buy it you're stuck with it, and all those gamers who don't bother making sure a game is good before wasting their money on it aren't getting any smarter or decreasing in numbers: shovelware is going to get rewarded even more.

Fuck.

Re:Hooray for the end of buying used games!

[sopssa]

What the hell are you talking about, its a monthly fee for a service. You aren't buying the games, you're kind of renting them. Like with cable tv.

I would more than welcome having a monthly fee for a nice games library where I could just play whatever game I like. Hell, it would probably be even smaller price than a single game, maybe half of it. Then you could easily download the game you want to play, and if you dont like it you go try the next. No extra costs. Too bad I dont live in the usa, so I wont probably see it for a long time.

Re:Hooray for the end of buying used games!

[jaggeh]

it looks like a steam clone with a stupid pricing system.

Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can translate this...

"We cannot seem to squeeze any more margin out of our sub-standard networks (when compared to Europe/Japan/etc, both land line and cellular, so instead of upgrading those networks and building out something worthwhile to the customer, we will have some MBAs think of some new space we can pump our money into. We want to change the story, rather than improve the current story."

Somehow, I don't think this is going to work out too well for them.

Re:How is this net neutrality related?

[Anonymous Coward]

You honestly think that they will be above using the same mafioso blackmail tactics on Blizzard and independent game server admins as they have on say, VOIP and IPTV? The broadband gaming revolution was nice while it lasted, but once this scheme is running as intended you can expect to see your favorite Counter Strike server become mysteriously laggy (or disappear from the list altogether) unless it is part of their approved, regulated, sponsored group (in which case no one from outside that walled garden will be able to play there).

"Unifying the game experience"?

[Rogerborg]

Say what?

On the mobile side, AT&T is taking its .net website to phones for a "more consistent experience" between PC and mobile. Essentially, AT&T has a "three-screen focus," Broderick said. "We're looking at the TV, broadband connected PC and mobile almost as a unified platform," he stressed. "What we're doing is trying to incentivize [gaming companies] to take some risks by tethering mobile games to console or PC experiences.

Does anyone know what language this guy is speaking? It's almost like English, but seems to convey no useful information.

Is he saying that the same game will be playable and look pretty much the same on mobile, PC and on a TV (presumably through a set-top box)? Wow, that should be a shitty experience for at least two out of three platforms, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it sucking on all three.

Or is he proposing multiple clients with potentially wildly disparate UIs playing in the same game world, chosen from a vast content range such as video poker, scrabble, or video poker?

Would anyone care to risk their sanity by trying to decipher the meaning behind his marketdroid hoots and wails?

Re:"Unifying the game experience"?

[FrozenFOXX]

Sure, what he's saying is that they want someone else to make a way for them to sell you TV, your Internet Connection, and your phone, and then keep you hooked on all three. Basically some "game" that you'd say, "Well I thought about changing my phone to T-mobile but then I wouldn't be able to play this game since I wouldn't have all three services! I CAN'T have THAT!"

It's just another way for them to try and stick you with three services. The rep makes no sense because he doesn't understand what he's talking about. People think you can just use this magickal, "game," thingie that seems so popular and suddenly use it to make people buy all your useless shit. It's the same kinda thing that Microsoft tries to pull but really isn't as good at as it claims (witness how well Shadowrun for tie-in worked out).

Don't think too hard about it because they've got no idea how it works either (it comes from not playing any games...seriously, most of these people don't even know what a game IS, and that I say from a lot of experience). When we hear something like, oh I dunno, that you'd be able to plot raid groups in WoW from your phone, watch those same dungeon runs you plotted out on your server on your TV, and even play in them the conventional way with your computer, *then* you can feel free to start puzzling over it again.

Internet

[EvilRyry]

...and trying to find a way to unify the gaming experience across mobile platforms, computers, and consoles.

I got it! We'll build a giant computer network that spans the entire globe. Then we can hook all of these mobile platforms, computers, and consoles up to it so they can communicate seamlessly. In fact, we can hook just about anything up to it. I propose we call this new invention "The Internet."

"core" gamer

[dontPanik]

Broderick said it's going to be rebuilt from the ground up "to serve everyone from the casual gamer to the core gamer."

Here's a new term, the "core" gamer. The same as "hardcore," but none of the negative connotations.

I like it! Real respectable-like!

Re:How is this net neutrality related?

[bughunter]

I dont see how this is a net neutrality issue.

Because AT&T has a history of acting like a thug to protect its markets, even (and especially) the ones that its entering.

So now, as an Earthlink DSL* subscriber who rides on AT&T wires, I now have to worry that AT&T is going to mess with my WoW connection.

*(Ya, I know, I need to do something about that. It seemed like a good idea 13 years ago.)