Slashdot Mirror
Wired Proclaims the Death of the Game Console
SternisheFan points out an article at Wired arguing that game consoles and the business model that sustained them are now "obsolete." Quoting:
"Years from now, 225 million devices will almost certainly be seen as the point at which the console business peaked. Gamers are going elsewhere for their fix. The console’s time at the top of the heap is drawing to an end, and these machines won’t survive without radical change. ... Consoles used to do everything best, but those strengths are now being wiped away. Unlike PC games, which may require finicky custom settings, consoles 'just work,' fans have long pointed out. Well, so does the iPad. Consoles are cheaper than PCs? Not when you factor in the growing disparity in game prices. Consoles have all the good content? Well, if you want Nintendo- or Sony-exclusive games, you’ll need to buy their hardware. But for many gamers, Angry Birds is becoming more attractive than Mario.
Until Netcraft confirms it.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
i never understand how people who rant about software freedom, openness and how evil apple is will then run out and buy an microsoft xbox and a sony playstation.
My brother's wife's aunt's grandkid's roommate in college brother's son just bought a console so this PROVES that this article is complete horseshit.
Now, mod me up "Insightful" or "Informative"!
Gamers need great controls, and frankly the controls on touch screen games stink. Racing game on touch screen vs racing game on console with Xbox S controls or steering wheel? I'm choosing the console.
Mini-games just work! Many respectable young japanese salarymen are already playing with their Game and Watches for more time then their Family Computers.
The current console generation has already gone one for a year too long, and it will be at least one more year before the new Xbox and Playstation come out. In games media people do seem to be switching to the PC, but as soon as the new consoles come out the unwashed masses will move to them.
As for the iPad and the like? Sure they will take the causal and non gamer markets, pretty much the people who purchased the Wii as their first and only console. Game console might not see as high of sales, but just like happens with every new console generation and the reports of PC gaming being dead, the death of consoles is high exaggerated.
It's not as if people who play Assassin's Creed have suddenly shifted over to Angry Birds in droves. The audience who plays Angry Birds is a separate audience. Furthermore, Angry Birds costs less than console games, so comparing by number of total players is misleading.
"Consoles used to do everything best"
You mean back in the seventies right? The old TI we had back then didn't compare to the 2600... oh wait yeah it did. I can't really think of a time when consoles were king. Maybe because we always had computers around. The console, and it superiority (at any time) was really just a myth perpetuated by people who experienced that as their first home gaming device. P.S. Parsec for ever!
Gamers are going elsewhere for their fix.
They are?
Unlike PC games, which may require finicky custom settings, consoles 'just work,' fans have long pointed out. Well, so does the iPad.
And that proves ...?
Gaming has been getting better than ever.
A silly recession isn't going to doom an entire industry, just kill off the weak.
Mobile consoles, yeah, possibly. But consoles won't die in their entirety. Dedicated hardware will die down most certainly. People like their multi-devices.
What I would have given if PS Vita and 3DS had a phone add-on that 3rd parties could create for it. And just in general a simple add-on system for features.
These companies don't realize how much more units they would have sold if they made their hardware with expansion in mind. Seriously don't realize it. It is insane how silly they are.
The next generation will likely recover unless the general world finances fall even further. One thing is companies won't be as risky as they were until next next generation. (given it doesn't crash again that is, but it seems we are in a very slow recovery overall)
For once PC gaming is supposedly gaining while consoles are dying...I guess you can only predict the death of PC gaming so many times.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I have to question anyone that finds an angry bird more attractive than a fat plumber.
Slashdoters have been proclaiming the death of Slashdot for years now, yet the body still twitches every once and a while.
This is just one of those "X is dead" stories where the author knows nothing about anything including market diversity.
It is obvious that McD attracts more customers then 3 star restaurants, therefor 3 star restaurants are dead...
Logic dictates this. But McD has been around for a long time and so is the whole Michelin guide thing, which has also been declared dead many times.
There are indeed people for who Angry Birds is enough and they can buy an iPad Mini for 329. And there are those for who mario is enough and they can buy a Wii U for 350. Wow! Look at that price difference!!! Anyway, for SOME, Angry Birds is NOT enough just as a dry patty on an even dryer piece of fluffed corn isn't good enough for some. And they will buy a PC, put in a video card and play real games.
And there are even some people, who one day buy a hamburger and the next day visit a 3 star restaurant. Amazing!
And some people never buy any pre-made food and cook at home!!! It is almost like there are kinds of different people out there with others catering to their needs!
Right now, in 2012 EA/Maxis is preparing Sim City for a 2013 launch and EVERYTHING looks like it will be a real Sim City again for real men on real PC's. And some gay guys on mac's. No more consolfication attempt, just a hard core sim game like we used to have. And it got just as many fanboys as Angry Birds has, except these fans can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Everytime someone declares something dead, it springs back on its feet. The world is a more complex place then you think and people have different needs and wants, often on the same day.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Microsoft Kinect Spy System - Revisited
"So you just got the Kinect/Xbox360 gaming system and you're having fun, hanging out in your underwear, plopped down in your favorite lounge chair, and playing games with your buddies. Yeah, it's great to have a microphone and camera in your game system so you can "Kinect" to your pals while you play, but did you read that Terms of Service Agreement that came with your Kinect thingy? No? Here, let me point out an important part of that service agreement.
If you accept the agreement, you "expressly authorize and consent to us accessing or disclosing information about you, including the content of your communications, in order to: (a) comply with the law or respond to lawful requests or legal process; (b) protect the rights or property of Microsoft, our partners, or our customers, including the enforcement of our agreements or policies governing your use of the Service; or (c) act on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public."
Did you catch that? Here, let me print the important part in really big letters.
"If you accept the agreement, you expressly authorize and consent to us accessing or disclosing information about you, including the content of your communications⦠on a good faith belief that such access or disclosure is necessary to protect the personal safety of Microsoft employees, customers, or the public."
OK, is that clear enough for ya? When you use the Kinect system, you agree to allow Microsoft (and any branch of law enforcement or government they care to share information with) to use your Kinect system to spy on you. Maybe run that facial recognition software to check you out, listen to your conversations, and keep track of who you are communicating with.
I know this is probably old news to some, but I thought I would mention it because it pertains to almost all of these home game systems that are interactive. You have to remember, the camera and microphone contained in your game system have the ability to be hacked by anyone the game company gives that ability to, and that includes government snoops and law enforcement agents.
Hey, it's MICROSOFT. What did you expect?
And the same concerns apply to all interactive game systems. Just something to think about if you're having a "Naked Wii party" or doing something illegal while you're gaming with your buddies. Or maybe you say something suspicious and it triggers the DHS software to start tracking your every word. Hey, this is not paranoia. It's spelled out for you, right there in that Service Agreement. Read it! Here's one more part of the agreement you should be aware of.
"You should not expect any level of privacy concerning your use of the live communication features (for example, voice chat, video and communications in live-hosted gameplay sessions) offered through the Service."
Did you catch it that time? YOU SHOULD NOT EXPECT ANY LEVEL OF PRIVACY concerning your voice chat and video features on your Kinect box."
# http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z20/TyrantAsh03/tf_spy_fyi_i_am_a_spy.png
Continued..
"Listen up, you ignorant sheep. Your government is spending more money than ever to spy on its own citizens. That's YOU, my friend. And if you're one of these people who say, "Well I ain't ever done nothing wrong so why should I worry about it?' - you are dead wrong. Our civil liberties are being taken away faster than you can spit. The NSA is working away on its new "First Intelligence Community Comprehensive National Cyber-security Initiative Data Center' to keep track of every last one of us. This thing will be the size of 17 football stadiums. One million square feet, all to be filled with more technology and data storage than you could imagine. And 30,000 spy drones are s
This isn't exactly on-topic, but since the article mentions it, I'll bring it up. As someone who has played games my entire life (starting with Pong on a black ad white TV, growing up through the Arcade craze of the 80s, and every game console in between), I just don't see the appeal of Angry Birds. Sure, the game is well implemented - graphics, sound effects, and music are all very well done.
However, the basic gameplay mechanics are just so-so. It's just a physics simulation. The real problem is that there is such a massive luck factor involved. For example, when someone beats a difficult "level", what is the chance that they can actually reproduce their success in the exact same way? Pretty much impossible. Things happen in a way they neither intended nor predicted. So in other words, Angry Birds is more of a "slot machine" than a skill based game. Is it just the visual satisfaction of seeing a physics simulation smoothly unfold and crap fall down? Sort of like how the bouncing cards after winning Windows Solitaire was always so satisfying in a strange kind of way?
Now that's all good and well. Some people like to play luck based games. But why such a large percent of the population? With this game your skill quickly plateaus and then you're relying on mere chance, which isn't so appealing to me. Is it that their marketing is that good, or that they reached some magic threshold that the franchise is simply self sustaining now?
How many Slashdot readers feel that Angry Birds is the deserved pinnacle and poster child of non-console, non-PC gaming? And if not, what game should be the flagship of this new gaming market?
Better known as 318230.
Ouya!
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.03/ff_push.html
Perhaps it time they declared the death of magazines.
I'm one of those kids who's prime was the 80's, I grew up with Atari 2600, Nintendo NES and Commodore 64. I used to program on the commodore 64 in assembly language because I wanted to make those games myself, and did...
However, now...much MUCH later, I still play console games. And I've noticed something over the years next to all my PC gear and consoles...is that consoles have a distinct advantage over the PC, I'll try to mention a few:
- Console games are just...you just start playing already, no need for all the driver-installation fuzz. Very practical.
- The PC is much more forgiving when it comes to BUG fixes, PC versions tend to have more bugs and bug-patch releases, on consoles - you can't afford this so the games actually comes with less bugs in my experience.
- Less cheating: One of my no#1 pet peeves when it comes to online gaming, are cheating bastards, they destroy the fun for everyone else, and they can literally WIPE out an entire planet of avid gamers with their stupid aimbots, wallhacks and frustrate the hell out of seriously good gamers. On consoles, it's not so easy to cheat that any wannabee script kiddie out there can add a patch, simply...it's too hard for them to do it. Less cheating, wonderful!
- Games last longer: This might sound a bit odd, but I love to keep my games forever, and so I keep the consoles forever as well. I still have my Atari 2600, repaired the joystick a 100+ times, but enough OT. The games last longer because the games ages with the consoles. When you purchase NEW PC's or upgrade, you need endless patches and driver updates - buzz killington right there!
Nope, enough reasons above. The consoles will stay. (At least in my house) ;)
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I bought an X-box 360 5 or 6 years ago when my kids were 7 or 8 years old. It crapped out on me a couple of times and both times Microsoft "fixed" it and sent me another. Perhaps about 2 years ago, the kids got bored with it and began using the computer for gaming. The Xbox, along with the $1000 or so worth of games, controllers, and other swag sits gathering dust and the kids seem more interested in a fancy phone or tablet these days while they play minecraft online. I'll probably throw the Xbox up on ebay along with all the games and accessories before it becomes completely worthless. No plans here to buy a replacement.
did the wii u really suck that much?
The "life span" of other consumer hardware can be measured in months while consoles, which are supposed to be high tech pieces of equipment, move at a glacial pace. It isn't surprising that some believe this is why consoles as a "sealed set top box" is done. Hell 5 years from now the TV itself could have a hardware that is more advanced and powerful than console released next year.
It feels like the industry is shifting more towards a PC-style "We provide the software, you provide the hardware" which would seem to favor Android. Apple can stay in the game if they are aggressive with design and hardware releases with proper generation support. The classic players need to adjust to a more "sliding spec" platform that others feature or be left in the dust by simple technology drift.
Unlike PC games, which may require finicky custom settings, consoles 'just work,' fans have long pointed out. Well, so does the iPad.
My washing machine "just works", it doesn't mean game consoles are losing market share to it.
Games consoles and iPads are completely different things. Just because it has a processor and a screen and UI doesn't mean its the bloody same.
However in this economy if you have to choose between a pc that can do school work and play a game decenly and a device that can only play games great since it has dedicated hardware optimized for pushing pixels, guess which one wins.
I do agree that they are becoming less relevant for the average household but they are not obsolete.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Casual gamers. Yes, casual gamers, the ones who still play at consoles, these guys will have a real chance of moving to new devices, like iPads. Casual gamers are the ones who put millions in that damned Facebook app market of games. Casual gamers will be always casual gamers. The chicken of the golden eggs, obviously, has moved from real pro gamers to the casual. Real pro gamers can't even feel comfortable playing at small screens. Don't care about facebook gaming and all that stuff. Real pro gamers are not in the consoles, they build their machines to the games, they buy games, they buy a keyboard of $150. This tinny market still lives, very small, but still lives.
I have to admit I like to play phone games simply because many are free or really cheap and I can play anytime, anywhere.
I started playing videogames in 1982/3 when my father bought a Franklin Ace 1200 (think it was a 1200), an Apple II clone. The first game I remember playing was one called Short Circuit, in fact I played it recently on an emulator. From there I played various games on a Canon 8086, ATT PC6300 (8088), then in 1987 we got an NES. Amazing! From there my brother and I pretty much played PC and console games in parallel, maybe a bit more NES. in the 1990's we played a lot of SNES. Then the internet rolled around, FPS and online multiplayer started becoming big and we went mostly PC (some Playstation thrown in along with N64 and GC and finally the 360).
Today I have a demanding job and side business and I simply don't have the time for video games like I used to. I used to put in many hours of TF2 per week (at least 10), and play on the 360 from time to time but now I just break out the phone while relaxing in bed watching TV after a long day. I still play PC games, spent an entire sunday a few weeks ago playing TF2 MvM and a bit of Crysis warhead. The Xbox360 has mostly just collected dust and probably be put to use an a netflix player in the future. My console buying days are over. I also don't own a tablet but I may buy an android tablet if I can find a good use for one. To me a tablet is an oversized smartphone without the cellular radio. I find its only useful for games and internet which my phone does just fine. It can't run EDA tools, CAD, compilers or FPS games which my PC and laptop do just fine.
My brother is a much different person, he is a video games junkie, and that led to him to going to college to become a developer. He went in not knowing C code from a screw driver and came out with a ton of programming knowledge (his final group project was a simple networked multiplayer RTS which worked) . He recently worked for a web developer doing back end code and is now trying to get into Blizzard where his girlfriend currently works. He mainly plays PC games and has an extensive Steam library.
Right now Bad Piggies from Rovio has me hooked. Simple physics based game that can have hilarious results. The kind of games where you can pop on and play for a few minutes, close it and come back are becoming more popular, the so-called casual gamer market. And casual games are simple enough to work on phones and tablets as they require minimal interaction (world of Goo and plants vs zombies are good examples that started out on the PC). You mostly tapping or swiping a finger around vs juggling multiple keys on a KB, a mouse while yelling into a mic and getting yelled at.
It is free (I played it and did NOT feel ANY need to buy any more levels), it is extremely simple and it just plays.
I can't show of a console or pc game to friends at work and they can't install it right there and then on their devices.
Angry Birds is Garfield, it is the most read comic strip in the world but nobody would claim it is the best, it just is so easily available, so easily digestible, that the rest of the comics just can't really compete. First off, not all who read Garfield even want to read comics let alone ones that take effort and further the remaining comics are less all encompasing so they appeal to a smaller section of the general public. Some people like Nukee but it is hard to find, hard to read (you can't just jump in anywhere) and just not funny at all. You might not think Garfield is that funny anymore but at least it raises a smirk for normal people.
Angry Birds is indeed comparable to Solitaire, it is so easy to get, it doesn't have to overcome as much of human laziness.
This doesn't mean it is better then harder to get games, it just means more people seen it.
If Angry Birds was really as good as "proper" games, its owners could have bought Apple by now, they can't. Because people play the free version and that is it. If all who played it bought it, and if all who COULD play it, bought it, it would have ignited the makers bank account. It didn't.
Back to the michelin guide I use in another example, Angry Birds get 0 stars. That doesn't mean it is bad, it just ain't noteworthy while it still might get swamped by local customers.
Your local McD might have lines waiting to be served but it will NEVER be a 3 star restaurant, an experience worth the journey itself. Angry Birds is fast-food, it serves lots but nobody is going to make an hour long journey just to get it.
That people still put up with finicky PC's and expensive consoles just goes to proof how much people still want them.
Want to test Angry Birds appeal for real? Make its users go through a debug session to get it running. If they give up, then it obviously wasn't desirable enough.
If this wasn't slashdot, I could use the girl example. The amount of shit you put up from a girl is directly related to how attractive she is.
Angry Birds would be out the door if she said "hello".
Skyrim can kill your cat, fuck your best mates and pay them for it with your salary while telling everyone your pc is in reality a Dell.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The game console will never die, but calling it that certainly will. When people spend far more time doing non-gaming activities, it behooves Microsoft and Sony not to call it that anymore so they can try to grab a wider audience. They want people to rent movies, buy TV shows, listen to music, download apps, etc... in addition to playing games on this device. In fact, if you could record and watch live TV, the cable set top box would be dead (and that's the real market they are trying to go after). With the apparent success of the $99 Xbox 360 w/ subscription, we are going to see Microsoft push that model further with the next Xbox. I'd say buy the console for $200 (high-end SKU), then for $30/month for at least 2 years, get Xbox Live Gold, Xbox Music, and maybe 1 free movie rental a month. The last part clearly indicates it's a media machine, and people have gotten used to paying monthly bills for cellphones and stuff like Netflix and Hulu Plus. Considering the Xbox 360 isn't that much cheaper now than it was when it launched ($299 & $399), the only reasonable reason not to buy a new console immediately is because it lacks any tangible functionality over the old one (back when they only played games). Oh, and the next Xbox must be FAR better at multi-tasking. Taking 3 minutes to boot an app is ridiculous. NEEDS MORE RAM.
... lets face it, it's just trying to cause controversy where there is none for hits and ad revenue. For anyone who can think seriously, the video game industries costs grew too fast as CPU and 3D hardware power relentlessly advanced at breakneck speed between 1995 and 2007 (about the time we hit ghz speed limit) that increased the costs of developing games on all platforms. Teams of 10-30 people grew to teams of 400+ that is a huge sea change in how games are made and developed and many companies are still on the edge of failure (just look at THQ's stock price). Compare early games like Doom, Descent and wolf 3D to any modern game graphics wise and you'll begin to understand enormous costs increase in terms of time, talent and money. The time it took to create the art assets for those games vs a modern game is enormous.
The fidelity that allowed better visuals attracted a new audience to games that would not have been interested in games in previous eras: People who are essentially tenuous/non-gamers. So you have a generational divide of people who's first console or PC games were games from 2002 ish onward and have never played any games from previous generations on both console and PC.
All games on all plaforms that go for AAA visuals and audio have been suffering growing pains, many games have suffered quality reduction in gameplay while gaining story and great audio visuals. There is a massive divide: Players that want movies rendered on their computers, and players that want actual games.
These articles are just nonsense because the whole industry still is undergoing massive structural changes in order to develop procedural generation tools to drive down the costs of making high fidelity AAA games and even Nintendo is struggling to put out quality games (witness the reaction to metroid other M).
Lots of fad type successes like minecraft and angry birds were clones of games that already existed, and minecraft is more software you can just tool around in then a game. Angry birds is a rip off of tonnes of games that were done better long before it was made.
What goes into many games success is sheer chance and randomness of the aesthetic presentation, Angry birds as the typpe of game it is was done before with different art and graphics. Trying to argue that angry birds 'is the future of games' is nonsense because they aren't even the same audience. People who play angry birds a tenuous / casual gamers, or angry birds is the type of game you load up while waiting in a doctors office/line to get on a plane/etc. It's no a sign of some massive sea change in gaming.
Arcade cabinets were single game systems with dedicated hardware -- Then the hardware became more general purpose and support more games, but you still had one game per box. Game consoles allowed you to swap games and re-use the hardware, but the hardware wasn't as good as the Arcades, so arcades flourished...
Then, consoles took over as the primary game systems -- Their graphics eventually reached and surpassed that of the arcade cabinet graphics, and were far cheaper both in time and money to play. They were smaller, more approachable by the masses. Consoles were still limited by the selection of games you could play on them though. The Personal Computer was evolving in much the same ways as the consoles, more general purpose (you could run different OSs not just different games), but much of the hardware wasn't as good as a dedicated game console, so game consoles flourished...
Soon, personal computers will take over as the primary game systems -- Their graphics have reached and surpassed that of the dedicated game console, and are smaller (mobile) and more approachable by the masses; Indeed, most folks already have one (even feature phones run games), and will continue to need some form of general purpose computer -- Why buy an Arcade full of cabinets when you can buy 3 or 5 game consoles? Why buy 4 game consoles when you can buy one Personal Computer.
What's interesting to me is that the OS is next in line for obsolescence. Game developers don't want to be locked in to one platform or the other -- Ignoring market segments is throwing away money needlessly. Cross platform games are only marginally more effort (in testing) than single platform games. Face it: Few studios make engines, and engine devs are under pressure from publishers to increase market share via multi-platform support.
It's not so much the death of a "game console" it's the death of dedicated hardware. A Calculator? A Document Viewer? A Watch? A Web Browser? A Game Console? General purpose hardware is the future -- OS choice shouldn't limit your selection of applications... MS and Apple don't want true OS agnostic cross platform software (they want THEIR software to run on different hardware, but they don't want end user programs to have the same benefit in regards to OS platforms). This is why ensuring we can run whatever software we want on our hardware is essential...
The Death of Game Consoles is the Death of Vendor-Locked-in Applications. It's only a matter of time. Those complaints console fanbois have about controllers, screens, or hardware support will eventually be ironed out (they largely are already). I can hook my wireless controller to my Nexus7, and my Nexus 7 to my TV -- I do the same with my PC. Is it a "Game Console" when I use it like one, or do you think they really mean, "Death of the Dedicated Game Console"?
I find that the reasons that I favor consoles in our family is simply that it get's us in the same room around the same screen doing something that is important to human beings: Interacting socially.
Just today my kids were playing New Super Mario Bros on the Wii. Are tha graphics great? No. Is it a cutting edge and super innovative game? No. But do they get along better than one of them hogging the Android tablet and shoving the others away? Hell yes.
Do I think phones/tablets will replace consoles? Definitely. But only once we can (hopefully wirelessly) connect them to the TV and the controllers. Playing alone sucks.
.: Max Romantschuk
yeah, but what happens when there's a generation of kids who grew up playing angry birds as their first game instead of super mario?
Poor parenting has been an ongoing issue for generations!
If Wired had predicted the death of portable consoles, I would have agreed with them. Tablets/smartphones can and will take that market, in time.
PCs are no more likely to destroy consoles now than they were 5 years ago, or at any time.
The next generation of consoles will be cheaper than the last (through the consoles life-cycle) - console manufacturers know that the global recession has changed the playing field. MS has already been successful in promoting very cheap up-front console prices, $99 plus 2 year online contract ($360 over 2 years, $15/month) for the 360.
If console manufacturers chose to make even more costly machines with even more costly games, that would be a fatal mistake. But I don't think it will happen.
This is why you'll continue to see COD, GOW, and other epic titles getting way more play than Angry Birds. I really can't believe the best iPad app game the author could come up with that is Angry Birds. Yes, never mind a shooter game that takes 23 hours of game play, has a plot, is multiplayer, horde/survival/whatever modes, etc isn't even in the same league or continent as a game where I slide my finger across a screen to whack pigs with a bird. Actually, now I'm angry at the editor or whomever that published such a retarded piece of dung, aka an article... Then again, it is the Internet.
2006:the death of consoles.
2007:the death of the gaming PC
2008:the death of consoles.
2009:the death of the gaming PC
2010:the death of consoles.
2011:the death of the gaming PC
2012: (now) the death of consoles.
Both seem just fine.
The fact is that yes, ipads can play Angry Birds gloriously. I (personally) don't know how well they play the bazillion flash games at armorgames.com or kongregate.com that seem to be very entertaining for the gamer-set that likes those sorts of tactical-reflex games. So they're not replacing PCs EVEN IN THAT SPECIFIC DEMO.
Further, I'm not a consoleer, but for them intuitive quick controls and immersiveness seem to be almost everything. The controls on touch pads are, well, touchpads (and suck, mostly). You are also never going to get the immersiveness of Call of Duty 4 on a 9" ipad screen, compared to the 54" plasma with 7.1 sound.
I'm sure they're just trying to sell more magazines but seriously can we move on from this conception of the zero-sum gamer's market?
-Styopa
The business model for books is coming to an end. Books are obsolete compared to magazines.
You can't compare Angry Birds to Mario, because, quite frankly, Mario is not what it once was.
Also, no, gamers are not flocking to the micro-download market. There is still the exact same demand for hard-core gaming there always ways. Either it's a sidestory to the hardcore games they are still going to buy, or it's people who weren't buying hardcore games in the first place. Yes, gamers want an iPad, because, honestly, EVERYONE WANTS AN iPAD.
Instead of Mario, why don't we compare Angry Birds to say, BIOSHOCK. Yeah, doesn't compare anymore, does it?
"Angry Birds is becoming more attractive than Mario"?!? That sir is blasphemous!
If you play any kind of tactical shooter, or turn-based/real-time strategy, you're going to want to play it on a computer. There's just no comparison to a proper keyboard and mouse setup for more-involved, complex games.
body massage!
Isn't that some weird Nethack game along the lines of Warcraft and Starcraft?
People keep conflating casual gamers with actual gamers. Casual gamers bought the Wii as a fad. They had their little Wii parties. They bought Wii Fit and no other games. After about 6 months when the fad died down they put the Wii in the closet and forgot about it. This is the same demographic whose only other games are Angry Birds, Farmville, and Words With Friends. They might have owned an NES when they were 10 years old, or maybe their older sibling's hand-me-down PlayStation 1, but they never bought their own games, they have no retail PC games, they don't have Steam installed, they don't own a full sized PC, and they certain don't own a PS3 or Xbox 360. If they are parents, they might have bought a console for their kid, but they only use it for NetFlix.
This casual gamer demographic caused a massive spike in sales from the Wii fad, and a tiny spike from the smaller follow-up Kinect fad, but it's unlikely they'll buy any consoles in the upcoming generation, and that's fine. If the console manufacturers were relying on them for their own projections, then that's their mistake from not understanding their audience. It doesn't mean consoles are dead. The core gamer demographic is still going to buy consoles, and still going to grow slowly and steadily. Maybe some other fad will come along and give them a similar spike, but they would be fools to rely on it in their business model.
i never understand how people who rant about software freedom [...] will then run out and buy an microsoft xbox and a sony playstation.
It's because not enough PC games support USB gamepads well or support more than one player on one HDTV monitor. Some people prefer the multiplayer model traditionally associated with consoles, especially for games that aren't FPS or RTS. PCs can do it; it's just that major PC game publishers choose not to in order to sell a copy per player instead of a copy per household.
or PC-based gaming.
I played them for the social aspect, like a bunch of guys getting together for a LAN based game, all the while missing the old fashioned pinball games with a real table and a metal ball banging against the glass.
There would be a beer standing on the shelf next to the table and a cigarette dangling from my lips, the smoke getting in my eyes and the score getting better as I got more inebriated. Or teaching the hot chick how to play pool, even though we both knew I knew she already knew how to shoot.
Angry Birds on the phone brings a little of that old feeling back. A dumb game to be sure, but playing it, side by side with my wife, trading tactics and discussing the issues of our lives is very relaxing.
But the hunt is missing; I already know I'm getting laid later.
Sorry, a little off-topic, but I've been through all the 'this is dying, that is dying'. So what? It's always been an evolution.
personally, I'm thinking of getting an Archos Gamepad
Why aren't products like this advertised in the United States or shown in stores in the United States? How would the average gamer in Slashdot's home country learn of their existence in the first place?
So long as we have big TVs, we'll need some kind of box to plug into it.
Consoles can act as a Tivo recorder, DVD/Blu-Ray player, internet TV/movie streaming device, cable/satellite decoder, internet browser .....
They are pretty good at running games, too ...
For FPS' - let's face it, the vast majority of console games
For this to be true, more than 50 percent of console titles this generation would have to be first-person shooters. I haven't seen evidence that this is anything but an exaggeration.
Consoles are a bad deal all around
Even when there are plenty of multiplayer console games that work with one copy per household, as opposed to the tendency of one copy per player on a PC?
Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous.
The problem is that players have to use them. In general, PC game controllers present their face buttons in an unpredictable order. So unless your controller happens to bean Xbox 360 game controller and the game you are playing happens to use "XInput" (specific support for Xbox 360 controllers under Windows), you have to go through at least some sort of configuration form before the computer knows which button to use for jump, attack, switch weapon, and pause.
Since when it choice a bad thing?
Since researchers discovered that people freeze up when they see too many choices. From this page:
It all depends on the game.
What would you choose for, say, a platformer or a fighting game?
Some consoles just don't really have enough good exclusive games worth playing, like the Xbox which offers very little besides Halo and Gears or War.
Unless you live in a country that has the "Indie Games" store. Developers not yet big enough to attract the attention of Sony or Nintendo can't publish on any console but the Xbox 360.
The iPad has a really small screen compared to my TV, and a lot of games I want to play just aren't available for it. Sometimes I want to use my iPad while I'm in the middle of gaming, and that would get really annoying, especially if it was connected to my TV to display the game (in an ideal scenario). What gamepad would I use to control it anyway? There are multiple bluetooth game controllers but not one standard, and most iPad games don't even support them at all. I don't game on my touch device as it is, I don't find myself drawn to any of the games, and I don't think that will change soon.
In addition, I also don't like the way many touch games display ads and promotions and offer upgrades, even if you have paid for the full versions. Some of this stuff is making its way into console games in certain ways and I don't appreciate the influence. I hope the touch experience stays far away from console gaming.
Twinstiq, game news
I've played Angry Birds a lot on the road - it's rather hard to bring a full console/PC to play on the bus.
That's what a Nintendo 3DS or a PS Vita is for. It's portable like a cell phone, and it's got physical buttons like a console. The trouble is that it also has stringent developer criteria like a console.
no one has an attention span capable of doing anything for more than five seconds and i feel peoples gaming needs are reflecting that currently. instead of games being simple because of hardware limitations, it seems almost like games are becoming more simple (and the simple old school ones are being revived) just so that this next generation of media zombies can get their gaming fix as well.
Remember when we had the VCSs, Intellivisions and ColecoVisions? Then around 83-84 the Big Crash of Videogames? See e.g. here.
We've heard these stories before.
What's more of a problem is that the "ownership" of your personal computer is slowly but surely wrestled away from you and towards Microsoft.
The old TI we had back then didn't compare to the 2600... oh wait yeah it did. I can't really think of a time when consoles were king.
In 1989 (Sega Genesis introduction) through about 1995, was a home PC capable of multiplane parallax scrolling with over 64 sprites at a solid 60 frames per second? From 1995 (PlayStation introduction) through about 1997 (when the Voodoo Graphics card came out), was a home PC capable of general 3D graphics with real-time lighting at a solid 30 frames per second? And until the mid-2000s, were there PCs capable of more than Chess for less than $400? Even now, do PCs support multiplayer games using one machine? Consoles still do this routinely (e.g. New Super Mario Bros. Wii and Super Smash Bros. Brawl), but PC games tend not to with a few exceptions (e.g. Street Fighter IV).
This.
Getting hammered and playing pool with attractive women is awesome.
Come to Phuket or Pattaya, you won't regret it.
booze-fuelled
Mark my words. It'll happen someday.
Speaking as a curmudgeonly old man PC gamer, I'll be glad when consoles die die DIE. I'm sick of every game being some crappy port from a console version, with crappy controls and in many cases not using the mouse at all. As for iOS and Android games, there's no way you're going to ever get anything with the complexity and sheer fun level of say Civ IV onto a phone. Gaming's being dumbed down and has been for a long time.
There's no substitute for a large screen when it comes to playing games with a group of friends. I don't care how big your phone is, it's too small for a 4-person Halo session. There will always be a living room experience and that will require some sort of console.
Angry Birds is Garfield, it is the most read comic strip in the world but nobody would claim it is the best
In your metaphor, which game is Square Root of Minus Angry Birds?
That is quite possibly true. The current generation of game consoles has lasted longer than any other generation and thanks to Nintendo, there have been many consoles sold to non-gamers in this generation that are likely to defect to other devices in future console generations.
Now you're starting to lose me. Maybe casual gamers are going elsewhere, but that is because their Wii has gotten stale and right now people are choosing to buy tablets, not necessarily as gaming devices, but as multipurpose devices that happen to allow them to game. But the hardcore gamers, the ones that play XBox and PS, will likely buy a new console once MS and Sony get around to releasing new consoles.
Now you're going way over the top and providing little to no evidence. The article does not cite console sales, but if it did it would show that sales are down. It would also show that PC game sales are up. This always happens near of the end of each console generation. And each successive generation of consoles usually outsells the last. While that might not happen for the next gen of consoles, they will be far from dead.
No they didn't. They were nice because they provided a single platform of uniform specs, but PC games have often offered similar or better graphics and are usually better at providing fans with methods of creating custom content.
Are you seriously suggesting that the millions of fans of FPS suddenly switch over to playing on an iPad? This proves that you know absolutely nothing about makeup of the gaming market and everyone can stop listening to you right here.
The thing with this is that I never considered fans of Angry Birds gamers. Tablet games can be fun, but they are in a completely different league from PC or console gaming.
Since the author of this article is a fool, let me provide some perspective on this subject. Gamers can be divided into at least three categories. First, there are hardcore gamers. They buy consoles as soon as they come out - the hardware is fresh and there are usually a bunch of exclusive titles that are worth owning. As the consoles age, this group upgrades the video card in their PC and uses that for gaming until the next console is released. Next, there are average gamers. This group likes playing video games on a fairly frequent basis but doesn't want to be bothered with the hassle of fine-tuning their video card and game settings. They will buy the consoles within the first year of their release and will continue playing them even though the same games they are playing are available on the PC with better graphics. Finally, you have the casual gamer. These people are likely to be playing games on smartphones, tablets, or in their browser. These people never bothered with consoles until the Wii came out. Nintendo was very successful at selling consoles to these people, but many of these consoles collected dust in people's living rooms only a few months after they were purchased. These people will likely realize that they didn't use their Wii console that much and they will not be likely to buy a console again, substituting tablets and internet games in place of
there are too many variables on the horizon (Ouya and 'android-consoles' and expanded smart TV capabilities)
however, in the end, this prediction is laughably wrong. consoles will never die. even if i were 20 years old, there already exists more good games than i could possibly play in my entire lifetime unless playing games were my job. what will keep the console rat-race going are the people that see the 'new, cool thing' in a commercial and buy it. then everyone else follows suit like mice following the piper. people are too stupid to let consoles die.
I can't show of a console or pc game to friends at work
You can show off a Nintendo 3DS or PS Vita game to friends at work. Those systems are just like consoles (physical buttons, stringent developer criteria) except that they're portable. Or if a PC game works well on older PCs, you can show off a PC game on the 10 inch laptop that you carry in a messenger bag to pass the time while riding the bus to and from work. And even for full-size console games or PC games that require a recent PC, you can show off a Let's Play on YouTube provided the game's publisher isn't a complete private part about copyright on gameplay videos.
This is the same magazine that published a multi-page article trying to figure out why Felix Bumgarten's skydiving descent took less time than Kittinger's. Lot's of graphs, lots of math and lots of theories but none add up. End of story. What a mystery! Until a commenter mentions that Kittinger's chute deployed much higher than Bumgarten's did.
If that was the only article in Wired like that it'd be one thing but unfortunately, there are more, many more.
If it wasn't for Steven Levy's rare articles, I wouldn't bother with Wired.
The Xbox, along with the $1000 or so worth of games, controllers, and other swag sits gathering dust
You can use wired Xbox 360 controllers with a PC. You can use wireless Xbox 360 controllers too if you buy the bundle with a wireless receiver for PCs. And some more recent PC games even have "XInput", which means they detect Xbox 360 controllers and automatically map the buttons properly.
while they play minecraft online
How many copies of Minecraft for your kids (plural) to play? And how many gaming PCs did you have to buy for them to play? A Wii game like Super Smash Bros. Brawl or New Super Mario Bros. Wii supports up to four players with one console and one copy of the game, though I'll grant that Animal Crossing: City Folk has the same problem as Minecraft.
Intel integrated graphics probably runs circles around the XBox 360
I wouldn't be entirely sure of that. Ivy Bridge only recently became able to run a PS3-class game like Skyrim at a playable frame rate, with AA and AF off. See Anandtech's benchmark.
On the other hand, PC games are far less likely to support single-screen multiplayer, even though PCs are capable of using USB gamepads and HDMI out. So in this economy, if a household has more than one gamer in it, one has to choose between a single gaming PC, a single console, and three extra controllers vs. four gaming PCs. Guess which one wins.
Imagine trying to control the hero in Super Mario Bros. or Kirby by "tapping or swiping a finger around". Has anyone come up with a control scheme that would work for such a platformer on a phone?
And calling them Consoles is rediculous
So what's a better term for a device that 1. comes with a game controller with physical buttons and 2. is marketed for connecting to a television as opposed to sitting on a desk?
Gamers need great controls, and frankly the controls on touch screen games stink. Racing game on touch screen vs racing game on console with Xbox S controls or steering wheel? I'm choosing the console.
I remember a time when people said the same thing about smart phone keyboards:
"... to be useful to professionals, a smart phone must have a physical keyboard" went the conventional wisdom
And so the standard bearer for making the best smartphone keyboards was RIM, and everyone benchmarked their mobile devices against the Blackberry keyboard
... until the iPhone and several Android devices arrived and showed that one could approximate the physical keyboard productivity using an on screen touch screen keyboard.
Of course a touch screen keyboard will never be able to emulate the feel, responsiveness and feedback of a physical keyboard... the same can be said for virtual game controls on a touch screen device.
However, people that emphasise this aspect of physical game controls are under the same misapprehension that RIM, Palm, Microsoft, Nokia and their ilk were under when they convinced themselves that the original iPhone could never be a serious contender without a "real" keyboard - based on research showing how important smartphone users rated the quality of the keyboard to be in their decision making process.
From the CD to MP3, Email to Twitter and physical keyboards to virtual keyboards... we have seen a gradual dumbing down of what mankind finds to be of acceptable standard or quality. The virtual game controls (and they don't have to be touch screen... we have seen interesting game controls using gyros and motion sensors), like the touch screen keyboard, simply need to approximate the feel, responsiveness and feedback of the physical controls... and there comes a point in the cost-benefit equation when virtual controls cross the proverbial "good enough" line such that most gamers convince themselves that they are getting more out of the new paradigm than they are loosing out on by letting go of the old paradigm.
Trust me, many Blackberry power users have gone through the agony of having to tamper their idea of what the best data input mechanism for a smart phone is in order to take advantage of what an all glass screen can do (such as having a different virtual keyboards for different data entry requirements).
My advice to all those who find physical game controls to be sacrosanct is to look as how quickly the sanctity of the physical smart phone keyboard evaporated when the utility of their virtual approximations out striped the usefulness of their physical manifestations.
Soon, personal computers will take over as the primary game systems -- Their graphics have reached and surpassed that of the dedicated game console
Yet the console remains ahead of the PC in the number of players that a single machine can service. The PC hardware has supported multiple USB controllers since 1999, and TVs have had PC compatible video inputs (VGA and HDMI) since about 2007, yet major labels remain stuck in the mind set of one player, one PC, one copy of the game.
and are smaller (mobile) and more approachable by the masses
Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita are almost as small as a phone.
It's not so much the death of a "game console" it's the death of dedicated hardware.
Dedicated hardware allows the best input device for the job. Imagine playing Mega Man on the flat sheet of glass that is current smartphones. I haven't seen any indication that a lot of people are willing to buy a $62 Bluetooth gamepad to play a 99 cent game.
A Calculator?
The input devices on calculators such as the TI-8x series are intentionally limited to make them eligible for use on standardized college entrance examinations.
A Watch?
If your device is small enough to fit into a wristband, such as the sixth generation iPod nano, good luck getting any sort of good gaming input on it.
I can hook my wireless controller to my Nexus7
You can; how many people who aren't the sort of geek who reads Slashdot actually do?
and my Nexus 7 to my TV
How does this work? The Nexus 7 has no TV output, unlike several other 7" Android tablets.
I do the same with my PC.
You do; how many non-geeks do the same? CronoCloud and others have told me that very few people actually do this.
Having one's own screen is the best
In FPS or RTS, I'm inclined to agree with you. In a fighting game or a cooperative platformer, not so much.
The record-breaking sales of MW3, as well as Battlefield 3 and Skyrim's success are enough to prove this guy completely wrong. Just another sensationalist thing written in a sensationalist magazine. What next, the desktop market dying because of tablets?
Yet another 'end of the era of.......' article. How many times have PC's, consoles, TV's etc been declared dead on Slashdot? Not long till the next cloaking device article.
The virtual game controls (and they don't have to be touch screen... we have seen interesting game controls using gyros and motion sensors), like the touch screen keyboard, simply need to approximate the feel, responsiveness and feedback of the physical controls
I agree. But to date, no commercial smartphone or tablet that I'm aware of has had any sort of tactile feedback, be it bumps on the surface to let your thumbs know where the edges of the buttons are, or the bumps receding into the surface to let your thumbs know that a button has been pressed.
PC gaming is dead, as it has had to adapt to become more like a console in order to survive.
When you consider that a moderate gaming PC really isn't that much more expensive than a console
Users within a household can share a PC or a console by taking turns in single-player activities. They can share a console at the same time by playing a game that supports two to four players on one screen. In theory, that works on a PC as well, but in practice, It's a lot less practical to share a PC at the same time for two reasons: 1. most PCs are on desks as opposed to in living rooms, and 2. not enough major labels include support for gamepads in multiplayer PC games. So depending on the number of gamers in a household and the number of gamers that they invite over for an evening, it's a question of one PC and one console vs. multiple PCs.
and most computer still want a PC around anyways - so you're really just looking at the price DIFFERENCE between a gaming-capable PC and one that's not
Unless they have recently bought a PC that's not deemed gaming-capable, such as one with Intel integrated graphics prior to Ivy Bridge, and it's of a type that can't be upgraded easily, such as a laptop.
Yawn.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
If the next generation of consoles blocks playing secondhand games, then for me the console dies with this generation
Consoles are hardly at their peak. Thing is a lot of people don't want to dick around with a computer, they just want a gaming experience. For instance the Wii gaming experience, is not something easily replicated on a PC by the average person. A custom console machine designed specifically for games will have a place for many years to come, and the best is certainly to come.
Just today my kids were playing New Super Mario Bros on the Wii. Are tha graphics great? No. Is it a cutting edge and super innovative game? No. But do they get along better than one of them hogging the Android tablet and shoving the others away? Hell yes.
So tablets can't kill consoles, but maybe PCs can. PCs have been able to take input from multiple USB gamepads since 1999, and they can use pretty much any TV sold in the past six years as a monitor. If a cooperative platformer similar to NSMB Wii were released for the PC, would you consider buying it and a few USB game controllers? If so, you might want to give Trine a try.
Playing alone sucks.
Tablet makers would want you to buy a separate tablet for each player and have each player join the online game. It's only $600 for three Nexus 7 tablets, one for each of three kids.
I'm sick of every game being some crappy port from a console version, with crappy controls and in many cases not using the mouse at all.
For a game like Street Fighter series or Mega Man series, what would a mouse add to gameplay?
As for iOS and Android games, there's no way you're going to ever get anything with the complexity and sheer fun level of say Civ IV onto a phone.
I agree that there just isn't enough physical space on a phone or on a 4" tablet like the Archos 43, Galaxy Player, or iPod touch. But I don't see any reason why a turn-based game that relies on mouse clicks, such as Civilization series, won't fit on a 10" tablet.
I wouldn't say gaming consoles are obsolete. Rather, gaming has branched out to other markets where previously there was none. So while consoles will no longer hold market dominance for gaming, it's a long stretch to call them obsolete too. Everyone seems so fixated on the physical device and platform paradigm all while completely ignoring the social locality aspect. It comes down to where and when you want to play games. Are you a mobile gamer (handheld), perhaps solo control freak (PC gamer), or maybe you're just the social type where everyone can gather around a single venue (console setup).
What I find so interesting is that while Wired proclaims the obsolescence of consoles, Apple is looking for a stealthy move back into the industry. They already tried (and failed) with the original Apple Pippin, but I think they will make a comeback leveraging their Apple TV platform which is already running iOS. All they have to do is release a more powerful version of AppleTV, throw in some console gamepad accessories, and now you have an instant "Apple Pippin-X". I'll mention that Apple AirPlay doesn't really count IMHO (as that's just a media extension from one device to another). In this cut-throat industry, Apple would be best to not capture the attention of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony. My money is on Apple entering the console market in a hardware generation or two with Sonic the Hedgehog being just one of many titles and launch.
Life is not for the lazy.
It's funny people seem to forget that a console is just a PC in a funny case with different peripherals.
People buy consoles specifically for the "funny case", which fits in better next to a television than a typical PC tower does. They also buy consoles specifically for the "different peripherals", which allow same-screen multiplayer, which in turn allows in-person socialization around the context of gaming.
Online mutliplayer is better because I'm not 13 years old
If all games were made just for adults, then all games would probably be rated M for money. True, Call of Duty series and Grand Theft Auto series have proved that M rated games can make money. But E, E10+, and T rated games are still made, and to me, this demonstrates that parents buying games for after-school kid gamers to play are still an important part of the video game market.
There's the big difference here - these games were designed to be played multi-player on one screen as they were top-down, side-view or isometric views.
Even a fixed camera like that isn't enough to make multiplayer on one screen practical. The game world also has to be small enough, or the gameplay carefully designed, so that the players don't split up and move more than a screen width away from each other. Not everybody is a fan of games in genres that put all the action in a single room at a time, like Bomberman and Street Fighter and Smash TV and Super Smash Bros. Motor racing games in particular need a separate view per player if they don't want to use a gimmick like scoring points and stopping and restarting the race once a player is ahead by a certain amount (as seen in Micro Machines).
There's usually only one hardcore gamer per household, though the others might be casuals
Do hardcore gamers and casual gamers as you define them form a dichotomy with nothing in between, or is it more like a continuum? For example, consider gamers that might join as Yvan, Luigi, or Wolley in a game of New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Are they hardcore or casual?
I agree with you that nowadays, a commercial multiplayer video game SHOULD support an online play mode, using lag-hiding techniques such as those seen in GGPO. In essence GGPO works by delaying all keypresses by 3-5 frames (just over half a ping time), timestamping all keypresses as they're sent over the wire, and then rewinding to the last agreed frame and fast-forwarding from there when a player's action during a ping spike over 150 ms causes the game states on both ends to lose sync. I just disagree that online-only is the only way to make a multiplayer PC game, especially now that 21" desktop PC monitors are as big as 19" bedroom TVs used to be.
* 3rd party Modding. On console neigh impossible. Look at the numbers of mods for skyrim. Look at the number of mods for minecraft. Compare with the same evrsion on console.
* Some game category much better on PC than on console hand down. FPS for example (in fact some game are not possible without dumbing down. Try space game with a lot of function on the keyboard, you can't have it with 8 button without tricking.... or dumbing down) .
* Cheating. Yes you don't like multiplayer cheating. i like single player cheating. Many reason for that. Nigh impossible on PS3. I am finding myself replaying PS2 game because I can cheat out but PS3 game all gather dust after I finished them once.
And I am sure there are more.
It is not that console or PC is betetr. it is that they cover differing capability , on a Venn diagram you could have console, PC and touch screen tablet with 3 circle crossing each other.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
We will always need a device attached to the big screen in the living room.
A PC interface is just not practical, the physical form factor generally not slick enough, and the hardware not subsidized.
Developers love the security of console DRM as well.
The set top box, console, whatever you want to call it will give us video and single-screen multi-player gaming for years to come.
The hope is that we can have the best of both worlds with PC and console gaming.
Console: power on and go, no worries, a monkey can do it.
PC: no generation hardware stagnation, modding, no vendor hardware lock in
Now if we can just be free of the OS, or have an open OS.
That is where Ouya and Android come in to play.
Hardware is getting powerful enough that a Virtual Machine layer with some Just In Time compiling will be delivering sufficient performance on dirt cheap hardware.
Now if we can only sell the developers on the platform and get them away from Sony and Microsoft's closed gardens.
Ouya may not be the final solution, and open or Linux consoles have been threatened before...but I am still hoping!
Mouse+keyboard is different, not better. It gives you (virtually) unlimited turning speed. This makes FPS's play *differently* - not better. Twitch FPS's can be fun, but it can also be loads of fun to play an FPS with limited turning speeds.
Every game is like this. All games have arbitrary rules. Good games have them tuned so players can enjoy the competition. What you are suggesting is like saying, bicycle races aren't fun, because motorcycles have been *proven* to beat them.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
There are vast differences between different types of gaming. You have MMOs, which generally require a dedicated computer and not a massive amount of processing or graphical power. Modern FPSs such as the Crysis series are extremely taxing, and therefore more likely to be played on a system that costs more from a manufacturer/distributor or was custom-built by the user.
Then there are your Call of Duty style games which are FAR more popular on consoles simply because the buy-in and hookup is easier than PC-side -- you don't need TeamSpeak, matchmaking clients, dedicated servers, etc., to have a fun time. You only need to "plug and play" and hop online; the game itself will cost you $10 or 20 more than its non-console counterpart, but the hardware on which its running is at most half the price of a good gaming rig...and you probably already own an HDTV so that's not extra cost out of your pocket just to play.
Then we consider mobile or tablet gaming. Angry Birds and Words With Friends don't need all that real-estate, even though an iPhone or iPad (or equivalent device) may cost as much or more than a console. You play them anywhere, any time...and that's great for someone who can't or won't commit the time to a 45 minute MOBA match, a 2+ hour MMO raid, or dozens of hours on a single-player RPG or hack-and-slasher.
The TLDR is this: whether consoles have hit their "high point" and are on the decline is irrelevant. They're still going to be around because they are geared toward a different type of gamer than many other platforms. They'll change shapes, sizes, capacities and functions...but they'll continue to exist in one form or another.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
the iPad and iPod-touch are a console. They are built like a console, they are as closed as a console, just because they are using software that is also sometimes useful doesn't exclude them from being consoles, they are like a PSP, just a little thinner.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
The Mega Drive came out in the fourth quarter of 1988 in Japan, and it reached the U.S. in the third quarter of 1989 as the Genesis. This was the first home console to have true 2-plane scrolling.
I can imagine one future path for game consoles is to be hardware integrated into TVs just like cameras are now integrated into cellphones. It's rare nowadays to buy a dedicated camera unless you're an enthusiast. I can totally imagine 5-10 years from now having PS/Wii/XBox enabled TVs being a standard feature set while gaming enthusiasts will continue to purchase cutting edge PC hardware just like photography enthusiasts buy SLRs and the rest of us just use the camera built into our cellphone.
Runesabre
Enspira Online
It never ceases to amaze me how out of touch Wired writers tend to be about the very topics they try to write about.
Frankly what I predict will happen is the video game industry will end up splitting down the middle. The massive, story driven games and first person shooters that you find on consoles and the PC will be referred to as what they are; interactive movies. While the little casual games like Angry Birds and the like will be considered the short term time wasters akin to Tetris or Pac-Man of the old days.
Video games are engineered to be addictive, and even if they're not, they're better than reality for a lot of kids. They will keep buying and playing them until something else replaces it and fulfills the same needs. I don't think fresh air is on the list either.
Eyes Open Self-Hypnosis for Victory: Summon the Warrior
[Cheating] doesn't happen on consoles.
Tell that to any Animal Crossing: Wild World player whose town got "seeded" by a cheater.
I don't quite understand this zero sum attitude towards it, where only one type can exist at once.
Time is money. Multiplayer modes take time to make, debug, and balance. Based on my impressions of the past threads where Slashdot users hashed all this out before (see my collection of links to past threads), I guess the assumption is that a publisher is going to be willing to pay for only one multiplayer mode in a PC game: online or shared screen, but not both. And because few PC gamers are willing to buy gamepads and use a big TV as a monitor, online will cause more PC gamers to buy the game than shared screen will. If a particular game is substantially better shared-screen than online, any major developer will be big enough to be able to afford the overhead of console game development. This causes genres most suited to shared screen, such as fighting games and cooperative platformers, to be heavily underrepresented on PC compared to the consoles.
What exactly does he mean by a console? Because from my perspective, a cell phone is a console. So is a tablet. And, with Windows 8, so is the PC.
Its fun and that's all that counts.
Retards like consoles so they don't have to worry about all that "computer stuff" like clicking the Windows update button. They are kind of like the AOL of gamers.
Smart people like computer PCs because, not only can they play their games, mod them, and control them much better with a full, real keyboard, but because they can switch to Excel later for work stuff. They also like having higher resolutions, faster computers, and enjoy advances like the G13 keypad.
Only retards pay as much as they do for console games. Have you ever seen them go fanboy in arguments over whether Microsucks or Sony is better? It's just unbelievable. Complete and total retards.
people do seem to be switching to the PC, but as soon as the new consoles come out the unwashed masses will move to them
Perhaps because PC's are all different, meaning that none stand out, and in that way they're all the same... whereas when a new console comes out - it's a new shiny !!!
More people play Angry Birds, but I highly doubt more gamers play Angry Birds. People like Angry Birds because it is simple yet sophisticated. You can play it within minutes, and (if not too addicted) put it down, and pick it up later. Angry Birds is actually better than a lot of the other mindless games out there. But the thing is, MOST people who play Angry Birds won't be buying a console. If it wasn't for Angry Birds (or other similar things) they wouldn't be playing games.
Will "console" games die? Perhaps, but not for some time, and only when entertainment centers and computers truly converge. And they won't be replaced by the iPad.
None of us on here are developers or publishers, though.
In this world, a video game with production values competitive with commercial console or PC games isn't practical to make on a hobby budget. So considering why commercial developers or publishers reject an idea is valid.
That's not the reason why the OP said "Because shared screen sucks".
Then let me reword it a bit: Shared screen sucks just enough that publishers don't consider it a selling point when competing games have online. It's not very useful for genres that rely on hiding information from your opponents, such as FPS, RTS, and many card and tile games. Nor is it useful when a game isn't already popular enough to have several players within a 2 mile radius.
I grew up on Atari 2600 and Vic-20 games. Mobile platform games are light years ahead of those. Today I use mostly my xbox but have a few games on my phone for times i'm stuck in a line somewhere and bored.
I don't think you can predict what types of platforms people will use based on the games they play growing up.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss.... Wired and facts are not two words I usually picture sitting together.
It's worth remembering that this is an article in Wired, for which a standard article format is: 1) X is a newer product 2) Y is an older product 3) therefore X will totally destroy Y; X = good/the future, Y=bad/obsolete; if you like X (and Wired always does) then you are cool, if not you're a loser. We've seen articles like this about how "The Web is Dead", "Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business" etc. The irony is that IMHO one of the most interesting ideas Wired ever floated was "the long tail" - i.e. that the internet makes it possible to buy/ sell/ enjoy a far greater variety of content than physical shops. In other words, the opposite of the winner-takes-all argument they keep rolling out now.
It's also useful for RPG's, MMO's, racing games, any game where you want to play cooperatively and competitively when YOU have the time and not worry about having to go through a big production of working out schedules.
But doesn't someone still have to work out schedules in order to be playing the game while his online friends are playing the game?
Why would base your own opinion of something like splitscreen gaming, on what the developers/publishers think?
Who would buy a system without games? If there aren't enough developers making worthwhile split-screen games, then gamers won't feel willing to buy the hardware needed for split-screen games, such as multiple gamepads or a separate gaming PC for the TV room.
Nor is it useful when a game isn't already popular enough to have several players within a 2 mile radius
Split screen works fine for FPS games
If you couldn't find any real-life friends to play a particular FPS with you, then what would you do next?
Why on earth do people cripple their own gameplay by using a gamepad with a PC?
Multiplayer. A gamepad gives the other people in your house, who may happen not to have brought their own PCs, something to do other than sit on their hands until you're finished with your own game.
you know, sometimes, adults buy E, E10, or T games for themselves....they need online play too.
Then why can't a game support both? Is the focus on online to the exclusion of same-screen completely a matter of budget? And who'd want to play a game like Mario Party online? Games like that are centerpieces around which to socialize in real life.
And considering that adult gamers outnumber kids, and have done so since the PSone era
Yet multiplayer games for the original PlayStation usually supported same-screen. Of all PS1 multiplayer games that I've tried, only one was among those that supported the PlayStation Link Cable: Command and Conquer: Red Alert: Retaliation. In fact, there were so few of those games that Sony felt it acceptable to remove the serial port from the redesigned PSOne as a cost-saving measure.
The game console said it doesn't comment on zombie's claims.
Did you just say Dnd is not a game? Blasphemy!
It is the game by which all games where born.
I can indeed, but they can't install it. People can play Angry Birds on a iPhone after a demonstration on a Android phone. You can't install a 3DS game on a Vita.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_Societies
Read it and weep.
Anyway, I wasn't talking about the consolfication of SimCity in particular but the consolfication of PC games in general, like Deus Ex and the most recent travesty, XCOM: Enemy Unknown. And yes I spelled that name correctly, I know the original was UFO: Enemy Unknow, that is how bad the consolfication hit.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
gaming is different
In what way?
because you can play with whomever is available, whether they're in your friends list or not.
I take it you don't play many online console games?
I have played Mario Kart DS and Tetris DS online. Fewer options were available without prior out-of-band exchange of friend codes. It got worse in Super Smash Bros. Brawl online, which hides even the nicknames of players in matches without prior out-of-band exchange of friend codes, making it no different from cranking the CPU up to AI level 9. This may have been due to griefers in Mario Kart DS and Tetris DS using offensive nicknames. I have played Animal Crossing: Wild World online. It disallows play at all without prior out-of-band exchange of friend codes, which is why I never got a chance to play Animal Crossing: City Folk online. And whenever I tried to play online with a PS2, I'd always get DNAS error -103, indicating that a game's matchmaking server had been permanently shut down.
Would WiDi require a new PC and a new TV, or can it be made to work with existing PCs and existing TVs?
If someone comes out with an Android console
That is, if Ouya makes it to market and gains a big enough following. The last two efforts at an open replacement for the console cartel's products (Pandora and the nD) ended up delayed so as to have nowhere near the effect that they were supposed to have.
you're willing to speak on behalf of developers, publishers, and Cronocloud, but not yourself.
I'm trying to be realistic. What I want to happen is a video game platform that supports same-screen multiplayer, is open to developers new to the industry, and is marketed in my home country. This platform could be Ouya if it materializes, or an Android tablet with and HDMI out and affordable, standardized Bluetooth controllers, or living room PCs, or even one of the major consoles should its manufacturer open up a bit more.
But CronoCloud has over the past several years defended the status quo on grounds that 1. same-screen multiplayer is no longer nearly as popular as online multiplayer now that video gamers have aged, and 2. the stringent requirements placed on console game developers help ensure the quality of products that reach the public. So he has classified me as a "wannabe" for not devoting my entire life to preparing to leave my relatives behind, relocate, and work on other people's projects for five years before having any chance of bringing my own project to market. I've been explaining the status quo to you as part of trying to figure out how I can work around the status quo or whether, as CronoCloud maintains, I absolutely must work with it.
It's a subtype, which makes it different.
You appear to claim that some entertainment subtypes other than gaming are less suitable for solitary enjoyment than gaming. For example, live concerts, live stage plays, and movies are also subtypes of entertainment, but you appear to claim that they're best enjoyed as a group gathered in person because these subtypes have some quality that differs from gaming. What quality about the subtype of gaming makes this true?
I use primarily Logitech controllers, but if I had to set my buttons via my controller the first time I played, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
But if you forget the first time and choose Play instead of Options, how will you get back to the menu without grabbing the keyboard? Or how should the game prevent players from forgetting the first time? I've been incorporating many of the suggestions so far into my page, and I really want this nailed down to be idiot-proof. The best I can think of right now is to guess based on the number of axes, buttons, and hats, and then display the current setting across the bottom of the main menu: "Controller: Keyboard (arrows)", "Controller: Keyboard (custom)", "Controller: Joystick (Xbox 360)", "Controller: Joystick (Logitech)", "Controller: Joystick (EMS USB2)", or "Controller: Joystick (custom)".
He constantly complains how the big names don't just let "one-guy-in-a-basement" developers do games for the consoles. And he's unwilling to do what it takes to pay his dues to be able to get a professional development gig.
My question is why requiring that these dues be paid in the first place is good and efficient for gaming. Not for the self-reinforcement of the established companies in the industry, but for gaming in general.
So why do a lot of console games that support online play through Xbox Live, such as Mortal Kombat (2011), never get ported to the PC? They support online play with strangers, which is your preferred environment for multiplayer, and they're ported to a platform whose API is very similar to that of a PC.
To say consoles are dead suggests tablets meet or exceed the expectations of ALL gamers. Sadly it falls short in so many ways.
Just because device X sells more than device Y does not mean device Y is dead. I guarantee that the next Xbox and (arguably) the next Playstation will garner 50+ million sales each during their lifetime. Historically this is pretty much what you can expect. In fact you can historically say that any given generation only gets 100 - 200 million consoles sold. So say that is a "failure" is ridiculous just because there are 200+ million iDevices out there. All iDevice users are not gamers, but all game console owners are gamers.
Don't get me wrong, the day I can connect my tablet to a TV and get the same kind of quality and feature set as any dedicated game console will be a great day in my opinion. I think tablet makers are kind of missing a great opportunity to rule the living room by offering REAL connectivity by allowing game controllers and supporting wireless gaming to a TV, not just mirroring the tablet screen. Tablets just don't offer the processing power that consoles offer. Tablets took technology backwards about 15 years and people have accepted that a 1ghz processor as "state of the art". Games look good on tablets the way games looked good on PC's 15 years ago, because they only have to render SVGA resolutions on small screens.
For now while tablets are just an Angry Birds platform, I still want and relish a new generation of game consoles giving me more than just finger flick gaming.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
You mean Wired is still alive? I thought they died off years ago. Next you'll tell us that AOL still exists.