Square Enix boss Yoichi Wada says his company is prepared for the death of physical, disc-based console games, which he predicts will have happened within ten years.
Speaking to MCV, Wada said format holders like Sony and Microsoft are already prepared for the death of traditional console games - and games publishers must catch up too.
"In ten years' time a lot of what we call 'console games' won't exist," he said.
Wada warned that "all the distributors and sales firms will suffer a big negative impact" from a new era in which games switch from discs to server-based offerings, game streaming and digital distribution.
"Somewhere around 2005 the console manufacturers' strategy shifted," he said. "In the past the platform was hardware, but it has switched to the network. A time will come when the hardware isn't even needed anymore.
"With that, any kind of terminal becomes a potential platform on which games can be played - that's exponential growth in the potential of gaming. The potential size of the market is enormous."
Wada explained that Square Enix is preparing for this change by boosting production of social and browser games in Japan, and also closely watching next year's Final Fantasy XIV beta.
"Social and browser games are going to grow dramatically - especially in areas like Asia which does not have as big a console market," he said.
One day yes, not anytime soon though. I think more like 15-20 years.
I read this by ex-CVG man Richard Leadbetter: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article It makes for some good reading. More so if you have been looking at onlive as something you might want to buy into.
I'm with svd here. Right now a server glitch costs you maybe some advancement, hardware issues cost you save slots.
But if I pay for a game and the server crashes and loses my transaction, I have no recompense - that money is just gone. Now I'd still have the disc, and while starting over might be annoying, at least it's free.
Whilst the UK broadband speeds are what they are, there will still be Disc Based consoles..my Broadband is 1.5Mb at best (that's why im crap at COD). When our infrastructure is quicker (like South Korea that run at an average of 100mb) i could see the streaming/virtual consoles taking a bigger section of the market. And my Xbox looks cool under my TV.
i would never sign up to one of they onlive things.
i want my full peice of technology sitting in front of me. no streaming pish. (pun)
whether running off a disc or HDD, i still want a console - one that plays all types of discs and entertainment.
plus they just look good. or ps3 does anyway.
I agree that that's the best way of doing it right now, and for some time to come. OnLive etc. simply don't have the capacity at the moment to do what they expect it to.
But that's not to say in the future that won't be the way all "console" games will go. Only 10 years ago we were only just seeing the first glimpses of online console gaming, for example, and look where we are now. There's no reason to believe that some time in the future this way of playing games won't become a reality, but 5 years is a bit optimistic if you ask me.
It'll take for a market leader to delve into the tech before it really takes off and I imagine there will be resistance, much like the resistance to optical media or the patching of console games over XBL.
Wada is known for not knowing what the hell he's talking about. Ever! Anything you see coming out of his mouth, you should just ignore and move on. I mean, hell, just look at the state of Square-Enix right now. All his doing.
i would never sign up to one of they onlive things.
i want my full peice of technology sitting in front of me. no streaming pish. (pun)
whether running off a disc or HDD, i still want a console - one that plays all types of discs and entertainment.
plus they just look good. or ps3 does anyway.
I agree that that's the best way of doing it right now, and for some time to come. OnLive etc. simply don't have the capacity at the moment to do what they expect it to.
But that's not to say in the future that won't be the way all "console" games will go. Only 10 years ago we were only just seeing the first glimpses of online console gaming, for example, and look where we are now. There's no reason to believe that some time in the future this way of playing games won't become a reality, but 5 years is a bit optimistic if you ask me.
It'll take for a market leader to delve into the tech before it really takes off and I imagine there will be resistance, much like the resistance to optical media or the patching of console games over XBL.
The infrastructure is a long, long way from managing this. For instance Virgin Media offer a fantastic Streaming service for films and TV, however their HD is not 1080p and is heavily compressed and is missing dolby digital (let alone dolby HD). And that is over a network that they control! Until the network is treated as a utility and therefore has one publicly accountable company handling the backbone then it will never be good enough as there is little incentive for a private company to spend millions getting a small village up to speed.
Also in my opinion there is no way on earth that streaming game service will ever work on a large scale. There is just no way the companies will have enough server hardware to satisfy peak demands let alone taking the network latency into account.
The day this happens is the day I hang up my controller and call it quites.
Though apart from japan I think we are a huge way away from this, 20-25 years probably (maybe 15 years), for starters while there are download caps games would have to take a step backward, then there's the fact that x-mas makes a big part in yearly profits and lets face it, receiving a points card doesn't really have the same effect as a boxed game on disc, they'd lose a fair bit of money, and last but not least, how many people actually trust their memory units and the companies servers, as has been pointed out already, something wipes the server and all your games are gone, and I've had far too many memory cards corrupt themselves for no apparent reason in the past to put any faith in them.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of this but I feel these would need to be addressed before anything of this sort could work.
But it may lead me to leave the world of games to that generation. The idea of paying for something which I will not own on a subscription basis or even single purchases makes me worry. For the casual market thats fine. But for those of us who like to make choices about how they pay and play will be over a barrell. One company sell from one online store. Lack of competition (in pricing).
Plus what benifit is a subscription based gaming for those people with 2 or more consoles. The ability to choose based on what version of a game you want and exclusives is important. You pay your price and you gets your game. You've payed your one off price for your console and you get to use it as much or as little as you like. But to do this with subscription you could be paying for 3 services each month and only using one.
One off purchases could work but the problem with that is the lack of ownership when servers go down, internet connections fail, or in 5+ years when the company no longer wants to support that game.
There are to many holes in this for gamers. Casuals will make it happen but hopefully some company out there wont forget us, their first love.
I'm with svd here. Right now a server glitch costs you maybe some advancement, hardware issues cost you save slots.
But if I pay for a game and the server crashes and loses my transaction, I have no recompense - that money is just gone. Now I'd still have the disc, and while starting over might be annoying, at least it's free.
This, plus add in the issue of connectivity as others have also mentioned.
Sure, it could happen in 10-20 years time however, I would like to remind people of predictions made in the 1950s that by 2000 we would all be living like the Jetsons. Robots doing all the housework, super highways running on the top of giant skyrises, etc. Some of this is slowly coming to fruition and some of it could be done right now if the will and financial backing lined up behind it yet our current reality is in many areas a far cry from some of the predictions made. That's the nature of predictions: make enough of them and sooner or later you are bound to be right about some of it. I strongly suspect there are far more inaccurate predictions than accurate ones.
There are also a number of legal issues that they had best clear up well before launching any such system. For example, if you currently register your EA games on an EA account (which you have to do if you want certain updates,) and you are then banned for misbehaving in the forums (not in the game,) that has resulted in at least one instance where a person lost access to all the games he/she had bought and registered on EA's website. That sort of thing should be very clearly outlined in the law as to what can and can't be done. For instance, it should never be possible to ban a person from using all his/her games registered to a user ID for messing around in the chat forums; ban them from the chat forum but not from the legally purchased game(s). Also, if you are banned for certain violations in one game it should only apply to that game and none of the others, and that's just for starters.
As Dajmin alluded to, what happens if a server crashes and all data is lost? How do you prove you already paid? You certainly shouldn't have to pay twice for something failing which you had no control over. If companies want to go this route then they must accept full responsibility of all that transpires on those servers, including reparations and/or replacements from losses incurred on their watch - anticipated or otherwise. If they don't want to take on that responsibility then they must leave it in the hands of the customers which means they will have to give the customers something they can tangible hold and control. Servers do not offer this currently.
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
Plus people often confuse the general speed as their connection speed. If you had a 1Gb connection and there was a bottleneck somewhere along the packets route that slowed it to 1Mb then 1Mb is what you would get from that stream. There are a lot of bottle necks on the worlds networks, not to mention the connection that the host server is on is also finite.
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
There are a lot of benefits to the idea, though. Imagine being able to go round a friends' house with nothing but a controller, plugging it into their TV and being able to play all the games you own. Or what about going away on holiday - if you end up in a monsoon, just stay indoors and pick up your games from where you left off at home. The bandwidth would be the only limitation too (not hardware), so assuming mobile broadband gets faster, you'd even be able to play the same games on your mobile whilst on the move.
But as I said before, that would be a looooong way down the line when there is the infrastructure in place to support that kind of system. Even then there'd be a lot of creases that would need ironing out before I'm totally convinced, but the potential is promising.
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
There are a lot of benefits to the idea, though. Imagine being able to go round a friends' house with nothing but a controller, plugging it into their TV and being able to play all the games you own. Or what about going away on holiday - if you end up in a monsoon, just stay indoors and pick up your games from where you left off at home.
But as I said before, that would be a looooong way down the line when there is the infrastructure in place to support that kind of system. Even then there'd be a lot of creases that would need ironing out before I'm totally convinced, but the potential is promising.
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
There are a lot of benefits to the idea, though. Imagine being able to go round a friends' house with nothing but a controller, plugging it into their TV and being able to play all the games you own. Or what about going away on holiday - if you end up in a monsoon, just stay indoors and pick up your games from where you left off at home.
But as I said before, that would be a looooong way down the line when there is the infrastructure in place to support that kind of system. Even then there'd be a lot of creases that would need ironing out before I'm totally convinced, but the potential is promising.
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
How would it be any different than buying an XBLA game with your XBL account, going to a friend's house, retrieving your account and then being able to download and play that same game? When you go home and retrieve your account on your 360, the other person can no longer play it.
Locking it to a single device rather than account would just be ridiculous.
You're getting into the politics too much for something that's only recently been conceived. I'm just saying that the potential freedom is very intriguing.
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
There are a lot of benefits to the idea, though. Imagine being able to go round a friends' house with nothing but a controller, plugging it into their TV and being able to play all the games you own. Or what about going away on holiday - if you end up in a monsoon, just stay indoors and pick up your games from where you left off at home.
But as I said before, that would be a looooong way down the line when there is the infrastructure in place to support that kind of system. Even then there'd be a lot of creases that would need ironing out before I'm totally convinced, but the potential is promising.
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
Let's just say that I tend to not trust many companies any further than I can throw them. Which is to say not very far, if at all.
The thought of any company having all but 100% control of something that I truly value in my life terrifies me and it is not an outcome I am inclined to accept, no matter what the cost of defiance may be.
While I am slowly warming to the idea of digital distribution, I am with others in that I am totally opposed to cloud gaming. I want to be able to just buy games and play them, not pay for games repeatedly. Plus what has been said about broadband speeds. In Japan and Asia, where you can get 50mb WIRELESS broadband and speeds can go in excess of 1000mb, cloud gaming and digital distribution would work. Here, in the UK and even in the US, where broadband is still stone-age and the average speed is 8mb (though you're lucky to get that, I'm on 2mb), it can't. Not for a long time.
There are a lot of benefits to the idea, though. Imagine being able to go round a friends' house with nothing but a controller, plugging it into their TV and being able to play all the games you own. Or what about going away on holiday - if you end up in a monsoon, just stay indoors and pick up your games from where you left off at home.
But as I said before, that would be a looooong way down the line when there is the infrastructure in place to support that kind of system. Even then there'd be a lot of creases that would need ironing out before I'm totally convinced, but the potential is promising.
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
How would it be any different than buying an XBLA game with your XBL account, going to a friend's house, retrieving your account and then being able to download and play that same game? When you go home and retrieve your account on your 360, the other person can no longer play it.
Locking it to a single device rather than account would just be ridiculous.
You're getting into the politics too much for something that's only recently been conceived. I'm just saying that the potential freedom is very intriguing.
I just think that the whole download system is geared toward restricting what we do and increasing profits for the companies involved rather than benefiting us. Also your idea is not much different from being able to take your game over to your friends and putting it into their console. You can even lend them that game if you like (although I am pretty sure it is effectively illegal to do so). Also after you have finished with the game you can go and trade it in for a new game, something that you will never again be able to do if we go fully download only.
There are also a number of legal issues that they had best clear up well before launching any such system. For example, if you currently register your EA games on an EA account (which you have to do if you want certain updates,) and you are then banned for misbehaving in the forums (not in the game,) that has resulted in at least one instance where a person lost access to all the games he/she had bought and registered on EA's website. That sort of thing should be very clearly outlined in the law as to what can and can't be done.
As far as companies like EA, Activision, etc are concerned, it is already clearly outlined legally - you just need to read the EULA. Of course, someone would have to challenge that in court in order for any kind of court decision to be made. Probably just need to give it time until Erik Estavillo get's onto that one
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
That's the idea of just having a terminal at the end point, all you need to do is login and you can play from anywhere there is a terminal.
There are also a number of legal issues that they had best clear up well before launching any such system. For example, if you currently register your EA games on an EA account (which you have to do if you want certain updates,) and you are then banned for misbehaving in the forums (not in the game,) that has resulted in at least one instance where a person lost access to all the games he/she had bought and registered on EA's website. That sort of thing should be very clearly outlined in the law as to what can and can't be done.
As far as companies like EA, Activision, etc are concerned, it is already clearly outlined legally - you just need to read the EULA. Of course, someone would have to challenge that in court in order for any kind of court decision to be made. Probably just need to give it time until Erik Estavillo get's onto that one
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
That's the idea of just having a terminal at the end point, all you need to do is login and you can play from anywhere there is a terminal.
That is not the idea of a thin client at all (in this application). The idea of a thin client is to reduce the cost as no major hardware is needed at the client end and it also means that the distributer has full control of anything you want to do (which could easily include restrictions on what terminal you can play the game on).
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
That's the idea of just having a terminal at the end point, all you need to do is login and you can play from anywhere there is a terminal.
There are also a number of legal issues that they had best clear up well before launching any such system. For example, if you currently register your EA games on an EA account (which you have to do if you want certain updates,) and you are then banned for misbehaving in the forums (not in the game,) that has resulted in at least one instance where a person lost access to all the games he/she had bought and registered on EA's website. That sort of thing should be very clearly outlined in the law as to what can and can't be done.
As far as companies like EA, Activision, etc are concerned, it is already clearly outlined legally - you just need to read the EULA. Of course, someone would have to challenge that in court in order for any kind of court decision to be made. Probably just need to give it time until Erik Estavillo get's onto that one
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
That's the idea of just having a terminal at the end point, all you need to do is login and you can play from anywhere there is a terminal.
That is not the idea of a thin client at all (in this application). The idea of a thin client is to reduce the cost as no major hardware is needed at the client end and it also means that the distributer has full control of anything you want to do (which could easily include restrictions on what terminal you can play the game on).
Thin clients require no installation or the use of generic, pre-existing (and likely common) resources. If in the future TVs have a certain generic protocol built-in then all you need to do is log in and use your account to play.
I can't think of any examples of thin clients that don't use location convenience as one of their primary functions alongside minimising hardware.
There are also a number of legal issues that they had best clear up well before launching any such system. For example, if you currently register your EA games on an EA account (which you have to do if you want certain updates,) and you are then banned for misbehaving in the forums (not in the game,) that has resulted in at least one instance where a person lost access to all the games he/she had bought and registered on EA's website. That sort of thing should be very clearly outlined in the law as to what can and can't be done.
As far as companies like EA, Activision, etc are concerned, it is already clearly outlined legally - you just need to read the EULA. Of course, someone would have to challenge that in court in order for any kind of court decision to be made. Probably just need to give it time until Erik Estavillo get's onto that one
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
That's the idea of just having a terminal at the end point, all you need to do is login and you can play from anywhere there is a terminal.
That is not the idea of a thin client at all (in this application). The idea of a thin client is to reduce the cost as no major hardware is needed at the client end and it also means that the distributer has full control of anything you want to do (which could easily include restrictions on what terminal you can play the game on).
Thin clients require no installation or the use of generic, pre-existing (and likely common) resources. If in the future TVs have a certain generic protocol built-in then all you need to do is log in and use your account to play.
I can't think of any examples of thin clients that don't use location convenience as one of their primary functions alongside minimising hardware.
In a business environment (where they are mostly used) then I would agree. However they have different benefits for different uses. For instance in schools they can be used to save on power and protect against theft (as students are unlikely to steal a thin client that is no use without the server. The thin clients will still need a degree of hardware as they will be decompressing the stream and decoding the transfer protocols etc however it is entirely possible that this could also be built into the TV (which is essentially what Cell was designed for). However they will have to adhere to a specification in order to be allowed to communicate with the server so they could easily me made to send mac addresses etc in order to prevent games being played on another persons machine.
I just think that the whole download system is geared toward restricting what we do and increasing profits for the companies involved rather than benefiting us. Also your idea is not much different from being able to take your game over to your friends and putting it into their console. You can even lend them that game if you like (although I am pretty sure it is effectively illegal to do so). Also after you have finished with the game you can go and trade it in for a new game, something that you will never again be able to do if we go fully download only.
I just think that the whole download system is geared toward restricting what we do and increasing profits for the companies involved rather than benefiting us. Also your idea is not much different from being able to take your game over to your friends and putting it into their console. You can even lend them that game if you like (although I am pretty sure it is effectively illegal to do so). Also after you have finished with the game you can go and trade it in for a new game, something that you will never again be able to do if we go fully download only.
This.
I bet you think the US government planned 9/11, don't you
There are also a number of legal issues that they had best clear up well before launching any such system. For example, if you currently register your EA games on an EA account (which you have to do if you want certain updates,) and you are then banned for misbehaving in the forums (not in the game,) that has resulted in at least one instance where a person lost access to all the games he/she had bought and registered on EA's website. That sort of thing should be very clearly outlined in the law as to what can and can't be done.
As far as companies like EA, Activision, etc are concerned, it is already clearly outlined legally - you just need to read the EULA. Of course, someone would have to challenge that in court in order for any kind of court decision to be made. Probably just need to give it time until Erik Estavillo get's onto that one
Do you honestly think that they would allow you to play games on another machine when they can prevent it and force your friend to buy the game as well?
That's the idea of just having a terminal at the end point, all you need to do is login and you can play from anywhere there is a terminal.
The binding legality of EULAs is questionable and in some countries - notably in various EU countries - means squat. It is a very fancy attempt by companies to make their own company rules appear to be the law of the land. They are not and they never should be. That is the role of the state. A recent court ruling in the US is slowly granting more legitimacy to EULAs in the US. Thankfully the same process has been derailed in Canada for the time being. Just one of the issues with EULAs is that in Germany, and likely elsewhere as well - if I'm not mistaken - a contract can not be binding until you have read it and signed off on it. In the case of software many stores will not accept a return once the packing has been opened...Which you have to do in order to read and accept the EULA. Good luck testing peoples patience in stores with 20-30 page legal jargon when purchasing any sort of software which the store staff would be obligated by law to ensure the customer understands (nevermind them understanding it for themselves) before signing off on. In short: companies touting their EULAs can stick it.
I would dearly love to see a high profile and very public lawsuit raised over this issue. It would bring much needed attention to the issue and might result in the courts ruling in favour of the consumers and finally bring some much needed sanity to the software & media markets, which for some self-serving reaosn seem to believe that they should be exempt from the consumer rights that apply in other markets. If I were to win big in a lottery I would initiate this process tomorow, but alas that has not happened yet. Guess I'll have to do it the old fashioned way by making my own fortune and steadily grind away at the scum the way the oceans surround and patiently wear away at land masses.
Each time Wada opens the mouth he shows he doesnt have a clue on whats happening.
Its so sad to have this retarded running one of the most beloved software developers.
Consumers are a lot more attached to properly own their purchases than what "plattform holders" may think.PSP Go is a good indicative of this.
And the day disc-based games arent there most of the hardcore crow wont be buying that plattform.And casuals ,I can assure you ,arent too much into downloading things and putting their credit card numbers on the net.
I just think that the whole download system is geared toward restricting what we do and increasing profits for the companies involved rather than benefiting us. Also your idea is not much different from being able to take your game over to your friends and putting it into their console. You can even lend them that game if you like (although I am pretty sure it is effectively illegal to do so). Also after you have finished with the game you can go and trade it in for a new game, something that you will never again be able to do if we go fully download only.
This.
I bet you think the US government planned 9/11, don't you
Do you really trust the content industry after all the fabricated figures, law suits and law changes they are involved with? If you do then you are madder than the mad hatter on drugs.
I just think that the whole download system is geared toward restricting what we do and increasing profits for the companies involved rather than benefiting us. Also your idea is not much different from being able to take your game over to your friends and putting it into their console. You can even lend them that game if you like (although I am pretty sure it is effectively illegal to do so). Also after you have finished with the game you can go and trade it in for a new game, something that you will never again be able to do if we go fully download only.
This.
I bet you think the US government planned 9/11, don't you
I don't know. There are some outstanding questions about what transpired that day I would like to have a full investigation in to by an independent panel without any intereference being run from third parties.
I just think that the whole download system is geared toward restricting what we do and increasing profits for the companies involved rather than benefiting us. Also your idea is not much different from being able to take your game over to your friends and putting it into their console. You can even lend them that game if you like (although I am pretty sure it is effectively illegal to do so). Also after you have finished with the game you can go and trade it in for a new game, something that you will never again be able to do if we go fully download only.
This.
I bet you think the US government planned 9/11, don't you
Do you really trust the content industry after all the fabricated figures, law suits and law changes they are involved with? If you do then you are madder than the mad hatter on drugs.
The more stories i read like this and the more i hear about Live/PSN/Steam/Onlive the more i am convinced games companies are longing for a return to the days of the arcades. But this time we the public rent the machines not the arcade owners of old. And we, just like before start paying £1 a game 3 lives and thats it another game ? thats another £1,maybe you get lucky,get an extra life finish the campaign so the whole game has cost you a pound. Or maybe it costs you £30 or maybe after a certain amount a message appears saying "Our system has noticed (your shyte) you maybe better accessing one of the monthly arcade bundle options £***insert credit card and soul here***.
The more stories i read like this and the more i hear about Live/PSN/Steam/Onlive the more i am convinced games companies are longing for a return to the days of the arcades. But this time we the public rent the machines not the arcade owners of old. And we, just like before start paying £1 a game 3 lives and thats it another game ? thats another £1,maybe you get lucky,get an extra life finish the campaign so the whole game has cost you a pound. Or maybe it costs you £30 or maybe after a certain amount a message appears saying "Our system has noticed (your shyte) you maybe better accessing one of the monthly arcade bundle options £***insert credit card and soul here***.
God, that's a nightmare scenario. While it's a somewhat different expression of it, it is precisely this insidious single-minded pursuit of constant control that has me up in arms over DRM. This potential system is simply another offshoot of that awful mentality.
I will quit gaming before I knowingly go along with this sort of scheme. To some that might sound alarmist, yet make no mistake: there are people out there who desire precisely that sort of set up and they must constantly be guarded against. The price of freedom truly is eternal vigilance.
I know that what i wrote some may say it's a little crazy and far fetched ,but then if you told me ten years ago people would be gambling millions a year on a computer generated and controlled roulette table online .
For this guy to say that the best way forward for the industry is to go online only is very strange. Is he forgetting that the most popular console this gen has all but ignored the online community? It's also been the most successful console for decades in terms of expanding the gaming market.
There are potentially many, many people online that could be introduced to gaming, but playing a free version of tetris on your dinner hour and paying a for subscription service to play new games every week are two totally different things.
Many analysts see the cloud as the future for gaming, but I think they'll get a very nasty suprise when they realise that the audience they are chasing show them that they are perfectly happy just playing Bejewled on Facebook for nowt.
I find it funny how many people think things will stay the way they are simply because THEY want them to. Nobody cares if you want a DVD and a case if the market can handle getting rid of them. "I want my physical media because it looks cool!" First, no it doesn't and second, nobody cares. I myself like film better than digital simply because it has a more "personal" feel. Did I think that was going to keep digital from dominating? No. Many people like the way vinyl sounds over CDs and MP3s but you don't see too many new releases on vinyl anymore. Will it be 10 years or 20? Who knows. Will Iran send a nuke into some other country and make all of this pointless? Who knows.
Having an opinion, horngreen, is not pointless. Wanting the industry to do what you want is. But people have a right to speak there mind.
Alot of companies and analysists have been talking about this subject for some time now and they continually talk nonsense. A recent example from last months edge mag quoted someone as saying the preowned market could work in the DLC market. How exactly would a preowned download differ from a new download?
I want hard copies not because I collect games but because I have control and if anything goes wrong its my fault. My choice is my choice, when it stops being that way I will leave my money in my wallet. But before that I would like to atleast take part in a debate that might reach an audience and highlight the good the bad and the thick of these services.
ps4 is in development with another IBM chip that outperforms the cell ten times over (but they made it developer friendly this time)
how are they going to stream that kind of quality to everyone seamlessly? surely 1080p standard.
and once the ps4 releases, the ps5 will go into development. you really think a s**tty subscription box is gonna combat this?!
whats the brand power of something thats not even there?
That's so very naive. 15 years ago could you have imagined that we would be able to stream video as quickly or with the "HD" quality we now have on YouTube? At that point would you have considered the fact that we could have game worlds with thousands of people connected all at the same time?
I agree that OnLive will be a failure, but that's not to say in the next 10-20 years we won't have the infrastructure in place for full-HD streaming (or higher) that would allow a system like this to work. OnLive will go the way of the Phantom, in my opinion. And as I say it will take for one of the market leaders to push into this technology for it to take off.
There's a lot of stuff being pushed into the cloud these last couple of years, so it seems inevitable that computing power will be transferred at some point in the future. NOT 5 years time, though.
whats the brand power of something thats not even there?
I love it when people make stupid comments like this! You realise that the PLaystation had no brand power back in the 32bit gen to start of with, but completely flattened the Sega Saturn which was the direct desendent of the Mega Drive which had HUGE brand power. In this industry things can change in a flash, never write something off becuase its new. Write it off becuase its bo11ocks. See here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article
ps4 is in development with another IBM chip that outperforms the cell ten times over (but they made it developer friendly this time)
Where on earth have they said this? IBM are developing a new chip (as they have dropped the cell due to poor commercial performance). Their new chip is going to be based on a similar architecture to Cell (in being a heterogeneous, single-chip multiprocessor) However the architecture of Cell is exactly why it is not developer friendly, their new chip will be just as unfriendly to program for as the Cell (If not more so). AMDs new chips look a better option as they will be simpler architecture but still pack a punch with the CPU and GPU on the same die). However Sony have not said that they are going to use anything at the moment and the biggest rumors are suggesting that they will go more along the Nintendo route of upgrading their hardware by simply strapping two Cells together. This would make sense in two ways. It would allow them to keep costs down and Developers will be reasonably familiar with the architecture so will reduce the development costs a little too. However it will not sort out the problem that is inherent with the Cell and that is of its general unsuitability as a gaming chip (Which is proven by the fact that the 360 produces the same graphics from a much cheaper and less complex chip that is theoretically much less powerful).
ps4 is in development with another IBM chip that outperforms the cell ten times over (but they made it developer friendly this time)
how are they going to stream that kind of quality to everyone seamlessly? surely 1080p standard.
and once the ps4 releases, the ps5 will go into development. you really think a s**tty subscription box is gonna combat this?!
whats the brand power of something thats not even there?
That's so very naive. 15 years ago could you have imagined that we would be able to stream video as quickly or with the "HD" quality we now have on YouTube? At that point would you have considered the fact that we could have game worlds with thousands of people connected all at the same time?
I agree that OnLive will be a failure, but that's not to say in the next 10-20 years we won't have the infrastructure in place for full-HD streaming (or higher) that would allow a system like this to work. OnLive will go the way of the Phantom, in my opinion. And as I say it will take for one of the market leaders to push into this technology for it to take off.
There's a lot of stuff being pushed into the cloud these last couple of years, so it seems inevitable that computing power will be transferred at some point in the future. NOT 5 years time, though.
There is no way in 20 years our rural areas will have good enough broadband. It is simply not in the interests of the private companies to spend such a huge amount of money for little gain. I also do not think cloud computing will be replacing the more traditional approach for a very very long time (although it may gain a foothold for mobile computing) as there is just too much risk involved. Imagine something as simple as an Internet connection goes down and stops an entire business to stop functioning! The t-mobile sidekick cloud went down recently and took many of its users data with it (including contacts)! The users were left with essentially useless phones for a while. Also imagine the cost of the server hardware that would be needed to run even 1000 360 games sessions let alone millions. Then imagine the bandwidth that the server farm would need to stream those millions of sessions in realtime HD! Knowing how much our rather modest servers cost, I can't see it ever being cost effective.
For this guy to say that the best way forward for the industry is to go online only is very strange. Is he forgetting that the most popular console this gen has all but ignored the online community? It's also been the most successful console for decades in terms of expanding the gaming market.
There are potentially many, many people online that could be introduced to gaming, but playing a free version of tetris on your dinner hour and paying a for subscription service to play new games every week are two totally different things.
Many analysts see the cloud as the future for gaming, but I think they'll get a very nasty suprise when they realise that the audience they are chasing show them that they are perfectly happy just playing Bejewled on Facebook for nowt.
I find it funny how many people think things will stay the way they are simply because THEY want them to. Nobody cares if you want a DVD and a case if the market can handle getting rid of them. "I want my physical media because it looks cool!" First, no it doesn't and second, nobody cares. I myself like film better than digital simply because it has a more "personal" feel. Did I think that was going to keep digital from dominating? No. Many people like the way vinyl sounds over CDs and MP3s but you don't see too many new releases on vinyl anymore. Will it be 10 years or 20? Who knows. Will Iran send a nuke into some other country and make all of this pointless? Who knows.
And what I find funny are petty comments apparently meant to demean another person's point of view and remove their dignity like yours above. Ironically you also fall afoul of the very thing you are criticizing others for because companies do have to pretend to care and they do have to take the customers' likes and dislikes in to consideration to some extent if they want them to buy their products. Business only exists as long as there is a demand. If you produce something that few, or no, people want (i.e. that's the demand part) then you won't be in business for very long. So yes, it does have the potential to change things, or keep things the way they are, if customers are vocal about what they want and don't want while backing it up, or not, with their wallet. Apathy generally won't get you very far in life.
Having an opinion, horngreen, is not pointless. Wanting the industry to do what you want is. But people have a right to speak there mind.
Alot of companies and analysists have been talking about this subject for some time now and they continually talk nonsense. A recent example from last months edge mag quoted someone as saying the preowned market could work in the DLC market. How exactly would a preowned download differ from a new download?
I want hard copies not because I collect games but because I have control and if anything goes wrong its my fault. My choice is my choice, when it stops being that way I will leave my money in my wallet. But before that I would like to atleast take part in a debate that might reach an audience and highlight the good the bad and the thick of these services.
ps4 is in development with another IBM chip that outperforms the cell ten times over (but they made it developer friendly this time)
how are they going to stream that kind of quality to everyone seamlessly? surely 1080p standard.
and once the ps4 releases, the ps5 will go into development. you really think a s**tty subscription box is gonna combat this?!
whats the brand power of something thats not even there?
That's so very naive. 15 years ago could you have imagined that we would be able to stream video as quickly or with the "HD" quality we now have on YouTube? At that point would you have considered the fact that we could have game worlds with thousands of people connected all at the same time?
I agree that OnLive will be a failure, but that's not to say in the next 10-20 years we won't have the infrastructure in place for full-HD streaming (or higher) that would allow a system like this to work. OnLive will go the way of the Phantom, in my opinion. And as I say it will take for one of the market leaders to push into this technology for it to take off.
There's a lot of stuff being pushed into the cloud these last couple of years, so it seems inevitable that computing power will be transferred at some point in the future. NOT 5 years time, though.
And to add another consideration, who is to say that the world won't end up using both the existing system and the cloud system? Sure, that would mean some redundancy in certain sectors, yet it migth become a necessity if certain business interests want to continue making the profits they are accustomed to at present.
As one poster mentioned, I want the control of what I'm using. I don't need to be able to control or manipulate the actual programming code, but I want control over where I use it, when I use it, on what I use it and I will not accept having to be at the complete mercy of a faceless corporate entity that can effectively boot my home entertainment back to the Stone Age by executing a code on their servers. They will lose me as a customer permanently if that is the only option they present me with.
It will be a long time before this ever happens, probably 20 years or more, no need to worry. Just someone who wanted to be in the news for a few minutes, that's all.
Like most people here, I much prefer having a physical copy in my home, as I like to control my own games collection, and not lose it all if a company goes bust and leaves me with just a big bill. I'll never use a streaming-based system.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
