Is console gaming dying?

BandrikBandrik Elkhart, IN Icrontian
edited August 2010 in Gaming

Comments

  • UPSLynxUPSLynx :KAPPA: Redwood City, CA Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    OnLive isn't the endgame, but you can bet the concept will go further than it will.

    OnLive's pricing structure and lack of proper media ownership will keep it from rising to the top. No, OnLive will not usher in that new era.

    But cloud computing will.

    Just look at Steam, for example. Steam recently integrated some cloud functions. It stores save games, game settings, control setups, and such in the cloud. No matter where you log into your account, it's as if you're sitting at your own computer back home.

    At Expo, I logged into three different PCs to play my Steam games, since I couldn't bring my own PC. Every time I bounced around, I didn't have to change one setting. I just sat down and played. It was wonderful.

    When I reformatted and rebuilt my PC recently, I reinstalled Street Fighter 4, which uses Games for Windows LIVE, and logged in to play. To my complete shock, ALL of my stats and achievements were gone. Everything was saved in a local file. Despite my LIVE account retaining record of my earnings and achievements, the actual game reflected no such thing. Worse yet - my battlepoints had been reset to zero. The BP system is how the game matches you up to other players in online bouts. Now I have to work my BP way back up to where it was before after months of playing. All because Games for Windows LIVE didn't save jack crap.

    That situation alone makes me not want to use the service anymore.

    Cloud computing is going to change a lot about daily computing, and gaming is one of its flagship examples. Things are going to change in a big way over the next few years.
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    As long as I can't get an Internet connection faster than 1.5M/s without paying out the ass for Comcast overpriced shared bandwidth service, cloud computing beyond Google Docs won't take off for me.

    When the day comes that I can get a 10M connection for less than $50 a month, then I'll embrace offloading my heavy computing to the cloud.
  • timuchantimuchan Fishers, IN Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    @ardichoke ATT u-verse is priced about there. In fact, I *was* going to get 24mbit for about $60. And yes, you can get just the internet... you just have to hassle them a bit. Too bad the service doesn't quite reach to my apartment. :(
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited July 2010
    Console gaming won't die. The end goal is to kill off the media so that all content is digital distribution. If anything console gaming will become more prevalent with this model because they have more lockable control over a console.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    Yeah, I pay $60 for 24mb with u-verse. And it's very low latency.
  • Cliff_ForsterCliff_Forster Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    I feel like I inspired some content here??

    Nicely written, but I still think it largely ignores all the potential cost advantages to everyone in the industry. Gaming on the cloud is the future. Its going to save everyone money. The developers will save because they wont have to develop for three completely unique hardware profiles, distribution is controlled without a middle man and zero inventory, logistics and warehousing cost. The data centers will be scalable to meet demand, so you pay for what gets played, instead of developing an expensive console as a loss leader. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo may all have their versions on this, and they may all trump onlive, and it may even look something like a console, but dedicated hardware on the client end, and optical disks, that era is ending with the current crop. Mark my word, what comes next will be driven by the cloud. They may market them as consoles, but they wont be, they will just be a gateway to a cloud service. Its the logical next step, and if people are really happy with the 360 and PS3 from a graphics stand point (which I think your right, most folks are), then they have a few years to figure it all out.
  • ardichokeardichoke Icrontian
    edited July 2010
    Timu-chan wrote:
    @ardichoke ATT u-verse is priced about there. In fact, I *was* going to get 24mbit for about $60. And yes, you can get just the internet... you just have to hassle them a bit. Too bad the service doesn't quite reach to my apartment. :(

    Yeah, I'm aware of this, the problem is U-verse is only available in very limited locations. My house is not in one of these areas (despite being in the middle of Lansing, MI). This is the "availability" part of my previous post. Sure, it's out there for some people, but it's not available everywhere or even at a majority of locations for that matter.
  • boasistboasist Troy
    edited July 2010
    I agree with the concerns of the ISPs. I have already gotten dinged extra for going over the 250gb monthly limit with comcast. They do have a graph to follow if you login to your account. On the downside though, it is tough for the average user to track that. If (or when) ISPs start charging for internet use like cell companies do, that will kill cloud computing (at this level, not so much save game data i.e. steam).

    Also, lets not forget content, making it easier for developers to put games into our hands is nice. Yet lets hope they don't start all turning into EA. Little gaming factories pumping out 1-2 hour single player games.

    Which brings up price, the benefits of steam are great, yet could be greater to save the cost over retail. Bandwidth is cheaper than retail publishing, so pass some of that along and it will greatly help....Just don't go with the Michael Scott Paper Company business plan.
  • edited August 2010
    @ kryyst

    I think the point should read PC gaming will never die because if it does so do consoles, as a digital artist I can tell you with certainty that 120% of games for consoles are built on PC's/Mac's. If they all of a sudden died or decided to go awol in action consoles would be royally screwed.

    Locked control schemes are actually more a pain in the ass, because they are proprietary technology aside from getting licensed to release your product on a console you also need exclusive rights to make use of the technology behind all that. I think the general public is too easily mislead. Its actually quiet costly to write games for consoles vs computers. That will never change either because it's all part of a corporate weight.

    If anything what you should be asking is: "Why are games so expensive for consoles?" Now you know why happy gaming :)
  • kryystkryyst Ontario, Canada
    edited August 2010
    Tikiwiki wrote:
    @ kryyst

    I think the point should read PC gaming will never die because if it does so do consoles, as a digital artist I can tell you with certainty that 120% of games for consoles are built on PC's/Mac's. If they all of a sudden died or decided to go awol in action consoles would be royally screwed.

    Locked control schemes are actually more a pain in the ass, because they are proprietary technology aside from getting licensed to release your product on a console you also need exclusive rights to make use of the technology behind all that. I think the general public is too easily mislead. Its actually quiet costly to write games for consoles vs computers. That will never change either because it's all part of a corporate weight.

    If anything what you should be asking is: "Why are games so expensive for consoles?" Now you know why happy gaming :)

    Ummm what are you talking about? The fact that the games are designed on computers doesn't mean that the games need to be built to run on computers. It's not that they build a pc game then port it. The PC is the tool. PC's aren't going to die. But PC gaming as a platform could - which isn't me saying that it is. But PC gaming as a platform could die and console gaming could go on.

    Locked down hardware means you only have to develop one code base and not worry about exceptions. You don't need to consider if the console has an ati card or nvidia you know. You know how much ram, cpu speed. You design the game for a specific console that frees resources and should lead to more stable games.

    But that's not even what we are talking about here. Streamed games means the console is essentially just an internet gateway to the streaming server with a controller. It's locked down hardware, it's an appliance the designers of the games don't have to worry about it. Much like TV show producers don't have to care what TV their show is airing on. This is the type of scenario we are talking about. The future of game design is to remove the need for gamers to buy disks which would allow them to share disks and access a used game market that game makers don't directly generate revenue from. You stream a game and the only way you can play that game is to pay no two ways around it. It only exists on the web and you only access it through your paid account.
Sign In or Register to comment.