Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Consoles Are 'Fundamentally Doomed,' Says Lord British
zacharye writes "Microsoft sold nearly one million Xbox 360s last week alone, but we're nearing the end of the road for video game consoles according to one industry visionary. Richard Garriott, known for having created the fantasy role-playing franchise Ultima, says converged devices such as computers, smartphones and tablets will soon render dedicated game consoles obsolete: '... the power that you can carry with you in a portable is really swamping what we've thought of as a console.'"
He doesn't really talk about consoles being doomed per se. He talks about how tablets and smart phones are soon so powerful that they can render the same quality graphics that consoles can, and people can just plugin their smartphones to TV to play. He also says the technical limitations again push people to make fun and interesting games instead of just going for the graphics. He then mentions how Facebook games are an interesting platform and they're fundamentally very same to MMO games which sell users items, just that they are played on Facebook. He also said that mobile phone games have given him much more fun than computer or console games. As far as computers go, he didn't say computers are going to render game consoles obsolote - just that people are going to play on Facebook, or their service, using them.
;-).
And I agree with him. The technical limitations does make developers concentrate on the fun side of things. But that is also true for indie titles. Indie developers don't have the budget to make the best looking games, so they have to concentrate on making them fun. But I have to admit, large companies have started to notice too. They do have their big name franchises like Call of Duty and Battlefield, which are very fun in their own ways, but you have to admit that even large companies have put out very fun games lately.
Of course, Valve was again one of the first western companies who saw this and did it right with Team Fortress 2. They put out the game for free and let people buy weapons and miscelannelous items from the store. Yet, the weapons people can buy are not overpowered and can be got via drops, trading or crafting too. In some cases the stock weapons new players get are actually the best ones. The other ones only vary your gameplay style, so it's up to you which you use, but none is really better than another. And the game is absolutely fun and hilarious online, as it has great comedic aspect too.
As much as Slashdotters hate everything-Facebook, I do like some games there. It's getting really really better lately, and is only going to do so as companies are starting to fight to gain users. This is only good, as it means better quality games which aren't out there just to make quick cash. They have to put out quality to get any new players. The social aspect in Facebook games is great. I have several South Korean girls I play Sims Social with and have had interesting chats with them on the side (and they're cute too, ofc
I also played Civilization World, which is Facebook version of Civilization series. You get assigned to some server with up to 200 players (if some of your friend is already playing, you usually end up on same). If you don't join others you're independant nation, but if you do and it's recommended, you're one city of the civilization you join. You improve your own city, take battles by assigning your troops along with other players troops from your civ, and just work together. Even if it was still a little bit buggy, I had a late fun night playing with some US guy when all others had already went to sleep and we had to defend our civilization together. As the battles take time (so that players have time to come put more troops even if they're not in the game all the time), it got hectic and a gamble of which weather (and effects) we would get to defend against much larger nation.
So yes, game consoles might be going away, but not the way it's implied.
As a PC gamer I can't wait for consoles to finally die, fewer crap console ports and PC exclusives tend to be better anyway.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
I don't see the game console going away.. It's just going to evolve into more of multimedia device. Really it already has..
My game consoles spend more time streaming Netflix then playing games these days.
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
We have come to a point where most of the computing elements are way more powerful than what the human eye demands in graphics even to the extent of photorealism. See, i ran the hell out of star wars the old republic with my 6950 radeon gpu and amd phenom ii 965 cpu in its beta - and in 5040x1080 3 monitor eyefinity resolution. it played overly smooth in 40 fps minimum. Granted, swtor is not a photorealistic 3d rendered game, however, it is very taxing when you factor in the fact that it is a mmo with endless differently textured toons (clothing, armor, face differences) converging on small spaces like coruscant. So, my phenom ii 965 cpu, which is not even a top tier offering in current cpu generation, not only ran the game perfectly, but also stayed so idle that i didnt even hear the cpu fan increase speed at all -> i use a 12 cm fan, and its already VERY silent too. if you go into games like crysis 2 et al, you will find that these games run on consoles very well, and on pc they run even faster.
so, we can easily say that cpus are already over a point where we could consider them a limiting factor for good looking games. the only remaining factor becomes, gpu.
granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card. and even if cpu power had become way too much over the needs of games and graphics cards to become irrelevant after a certain tier, its not possible to play down the mandatory element, the graphics card yet.
but, there are already major strides in this area - amd has already succeeded in fusing cpu and gpu in the form of 'apu', and these apus do low power usage and provide good performance in entry-mid level laptop and netbook market. granted, they are not enough to provide top performance as we see it in pcs yet, but more apus will be coming. this means, we are moving towards a future in which the two indispensable elements of gaming, the cpu and gpu, will be both merged in one unit with top grade components. (next gen apus are to come with 7xxx cores)
so then, indeed lord british is right. you already merged, and optimized cpus and gpus in a form that it will be possible to game in a notebook. the only thing you need for this to become a reality in smartphones, is only more miniaturization and increased efficiency of this concept. and it is, as you know, a given in tech world. and im not even talking about the processors that are developing from the mobile computing vector.
there are already versions of 3d games that play on smartphones. in future, we will indeed be able to plug a device to tv or a monitor and just play.
Read radical news here
Phones today are capable but when the latest gen of consoles were released the phones were much more primitive. Certainly whatever you can pack into a phone, you can then pack 10x the power into something 10x bigger that a phone. I don't see this fundamentally changing soon?!
Apple are dumbing down the Mac, moving it away from being a high end professional computer, turning it into an overgrown iPad. Microsoft are turning Windows into an oversized Windows Phone OS. PCs are turning into consoles, and it is the serious personal computer that is threatened with extinction.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
I don' t have a PC any more. Between my iPad, my phone, my network storage device, and my Xbox 360, I didn't really need it any more. When it died, I chucked it and haven't looked back.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
If you can get people to pay as much for console games as for tablet/mobile games, maybe, otherwise you're just not getting the return to make 'blockbuster' titles like GTA/GoW/Uncharted etc. (or is that already considered 'hardcore gaming'?)
Technology is not the issue here, it's just cash. If a game costs millions to produce, you're not gambling on a market where you need sell 100M but on a market where 1M units will make you break even. Consoles are not technological wonders, they are content platforms.
A 7"/10" tablet or a 4" phone screen will NEVER replace a gaming console. There are many many factors that make this an insane and retarded statement.
1) Game controller. Yes the kinect is interesting. Yes gyros can provide an intersting experience as well. But can you do a 16 hour gaming session waving your arms around like that (both kinect style or wii style with a large tablet). The standard game controller is a perfect interface for most games, and an OK stand in for others (FPS games should be with a mouse).
2) As mentioned above: Screen size.
3) Social gaming (in close physical proximity). A big screen is ideal for this. Tablets (or worse phones) are just too small to share.
4) Touch screens suck for the vast majority of stuff. Motion control is just behind it in usability. With touch screens a large number of games are not playable because your hand is blocking critical space on the screen.
There are more.. but there's beer in the NOC and I'm thirsty.
That's what some in the industry would love to happen, no doubt. They can have my desktop machine (with its desktop interface) when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
What is going away is the console that can only play a game, which is being replaced by devices that have apps as well as games. This is already happening in the current generation of consoles.
I've had one of those for thirty years. We call it 'a computer'.
I stopped playing PC games around Vice City. It was just easier to get the same titles on a console that you knew was going to run.
I didn't like spending the equivalent of a new console every year or two on a video card.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Yes, he gave us the Ultima series and Ultima online. He also failed to get the sequel done, and gave us...Tabula Rasa. This is the game he changed genres on in midstream, put out an unfinished game, then, as the game danced on the edge of oblivion, decided to play Major Tom. Yeah, a prophet he is not.
man its so hard to buy a gamepad
Actually, it is hard. First, most game controllers sold for use with PCs are either Microsoft, Logitech, or Gravis, and those brands have had decidedly subpar directional pads over the years compared to, say, Nintendo or Sony.
and hook your tv to the computer these days
Actually, it is hard. Most major-label PC games are not made with modes designed for PCs connected to televisions because apart from a tiny market of HTPC geeks, nobody wants to connect a PC connected to a television. (See previous comments: 1 2 3 4 5) A lot of gamers have trouble even connecting a DVD player to a TV, let alone a PC. (6 7) Furthermore, the major PC game publishers think they can make more money by selling a separate copy of the game per player vs. per household, as Cracked columnist David Wong has pointed out.
I suppose I could instead buy a separate machine for my TV. Doing that I could even design/get it specifically designed for a livingroom environment. Hey- wait a minute.
The difference between such a PC and a console is that a living room PC would have solo productions like Bob's Game and indie games developed by a 2- or 3-man family business. But then next to nobody wants to play a game developed by a micro-ISV in a small city; instead, as CronoCloud has pointed out in a previous comment, they want to play games developed by people who have had to move to a different state for their video game development apprenticeship.
Just because Adobe is abandoning Flash-in-the-web-browser doesn't mean it isn't pushing a Flash-in-a-separate-app environment that it calls AIR.
yea ok, everyone is going to have the exact same phone with the same apps, and if you have not noticed motion control is clunky and only really works for a few games no matter how hard companies are trying to shove it down our throats as the whole thing has been around for decades and has never made it past "isnt that cute"
Mobile phones are just another platform to experience gaming. Mobile platforms are becoming more like gaming consoles. With technologies like wireless display (WiDi), etc you may be able to run a virtual xbox 360 straight from a mobile device on to the display of your choice. Good times!
Every phone so far that has attempted to be a gaming console has been a failure. And frankly, I don't want a phone to do that any ways. I want my game console to be connected to my TV, and have a controller that works well for the game. Any game that is significantly more complicated than Tetris isn't worth playing on any phone that I would want to own.
... what's the word ... talk on our phones. And a dead battery from too much Call of Duty Twelve doesn't help that.
And on top of that, phones are doing so many things now that battery life is starting to fall again. If we throw more games at them, battery life will only get worse. Some of us want to
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The current generation of consoles are old and nowhere near the capability of a modern PC.
Yet a lot of console games still support two, and in some cases four, players per machine while most PC games (with a handful of exceptions) support only one despite the fact that PC-compatible TVs have been affordable for the past half decade. Part of this capability comes from a mental set among gamers against connecting a PC to an HDTV, and part comes from publishers wanting to sell multiple copies to a single household.
I never understand the video card thing, I bought a geforce2 GTS in like 2001, it was 2007 before I really HAD to upgrade it for pixel shaders, and the 2 since then (one for me one for the wife) both cost under 100 bucks and can run all current games in HD since current games are based for consoles with 2005 era hardware... so yea 3 video cards for me in a decade at less than 100 bucks each, means I still haven't reached the cost of an XBOX360 elite today, combined with the PS2 I used to own, over the same amount of time.
and as a bonus, I can still play my entire game collection over the last 25 years, on one box, which also does many more functions.
From my understanding it is not terribly expensive to develop an indie game for xbox.
Xbox Live Indie Games overhead is comparable to that of iPhone or iPad, and in fact Apple appears to have copied the iOS Developer Program's price structure from that of XNA Creators Club (now App Hub). But Nintendo's overhead costs are much higher than that, and I can provide citations if you want.
But to be fair, isn't it possible to put an SSD into the console to replace its HD?
Read the title of the thread you're replying to.
Most LCDTVs today have a dedicated VGA port and and audio in that make the process neigh idiotic to accomplish.
I understand this. You understand this. Most people reading this comment understand this. In fact, for a while, I was using an HDTV as my primary computer monitor. But outside of geeks like us, almost nobody is willing to carry a PC tower into the living room and then carry it back to the computer desk once finished playing the game.
Most new video cards of moderate power have the ability to output through HDMI or s-video, either through adapter or dedicated port.
I am aware of this, and I own such an adapter. But these adapters are sold only online, not in stores, and most people don't know they exist.
Using your PC as a console today is far easier than it was just 5 years ago.
I know this. You know this. Yet after five years, HTPCs are still a rounding error compared to the console market.
"A friendly reminder that a keyboard and mouse is the controller setup that brings the most enjoyment of games to those who care about optimizing their game-playing performance. Thanks!"
Good luck plugging four mice and four keyboards into one PC for a 4-player fragfest like people used to do with N64 gamepads in the Goldeneye 007 days.
How do you ordinarily run games designed for Windows 3.1?
I've heard that Windows 3.11 will run inside DOSbox, if you have the install media for it. I haven't tried this myself yet, though.
PCs have had enough power (including GPU power) to compete with game consoles for a long time. Why didn't they?
Phones and tablets are beginning to approach the level of power of a PC. But they won't replace game consoles either. Why? Because, as with PC's, it's not about the processor or GPU power.
The game console has some strategic advantages over PC's and tablets: 1) it's cheaper than a PC or tablet, 2) it is specifically made for playing games, and 3) it sits next to the TV, permanently connected and ready to play. Just turn it on and go. No need to set up a connection each time you want to play. No need to go fetch the tablet to hook it up to the TV. It's already there.
Simply put, a multi-purpose device will never be quite as good at gaming as a dedicated gaming device.
Doomed? Like every game Richard Garriott has been involved with since 1998?
http://xkcd.com/484/
And I agree, I may have a fast PC to Crysis or whatever, but if I can, for example, play a Nintendo DS game on it's larger screen via an emulator, and if it's entertaining enough for me, why look else where?
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!