Gaming Is Console Gaming Dying?

I'll be pissed the day physical media disappear...


This photo represents years and years of gaming (you could also add 12 NES and 10 GameBoy games, as well as countless PC games). Those discs and cartridges are important to me as they remind me my youth, much like old toys could.

Digital distribution (which is inevitable) would mean that I could never go back to a game 15 years after it's release because it wouldn't be available anymore (same as Steam)

The future will suck. No doubt about it. Add to this electric cars and automatic transmissions and Yeah , the future will suck ass

 

So?

You'll still have all those games and the memories associated with them even after new games stop being distributed in physical form. It's not like some evil God of digital distribution is going to burst into your house and take them all away from you. Besides, that collection is much smaller than that of some people I know (although admittedly they don't have 3 copies of NHL 2005 ).

And who says you won't be able to play current games 15 years down the line? If Steam is still around in 15 years time I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to, aside from hardware and/or OS compatibility, and we have those problems now with games that were released on the PC 10 years ago. It's not anything to do with digital distribution specifically.

 

Meh ...

I know I will still have the games I have now but I won't have those that I got after it all went digital if (that was the missing word,I guess) the service becomes unavailable in the future

Also, I know my collection is not huge by any means but who cares, those are my games, those that I love (except some PS2 games that I got out of nowhere)

Good point about compatibility. It's actually another issue about not having a physical console

Anyways I don't like that kind of drastic change. I have been playing for almost 20 years and have kept all my games since (except those that I lost, somehow) and I would hate not being able to do that with new games

 

I own all the current consoles and a gaming PC. My son and myself find ourselves gaming 95% of the time on our PCs. The consoles just aren't as fun and I buy the top AAA console titles. Yet they still bore us compared to out PC gaming. Gaming with your thumbs just isn't than fun IMHO. Especially FPS/Strat/rts/etc genres.

I've come to realize the more the consoles have become "PC like" the less I use them. Why play games on what are essentially baseline PCs (360/PS3).

 

Interesting point KornedB... but what is it that truely separates consoles from the PC? ...

You can argue that while a console comes with a controller and just plugs into the TV and plays while the PC needs a keyboard, mouse and monitor and then it plays... that is not it.

What separates the two platforms is not what they are but where they are played; consoles from the sofa/floor, PC's from the desk!

You need a desk to operate a PC. And a PC is better for it as it allows a PC game to a more involved experience than it's console twin.

 

Hm... seems BT lied. I'm further away than they said. But still, it's not exactly miles and miles and miles... about 300m...

I dislike broadband advertising in the UK. Being able to sell a product like a car or phone or PC as something it's not is illegal, so why is is legal for broadband to sell on a falsity?

memeroot - we'll obviously have to agree to disagree.

javaman - thanks for the sanity.

 

Anyone who thinks "console" gaming will soon die out is absolutely disconnected from reality. This "wishful" thinking comes from hurt and angry PC gamers who see their "platform of choice", the PC, being shunned and ignored like the ugilest girl in the room. Since there is no more denying this fact, even by the most hardend PC fanboy, they're now basically saying "if our system goes, yours will too"! Sorry sparky, this is not the case, the console will get even bigger and better! Why? Because the console manufacturers have one goal in mind, and that is too own your living room! To control everything you see, hear, and play there! To have one set-top box that does everything! Just look at the PS3 advertising, "the PS3 does everything" says it all. It's already started. If you were a hardend PC gamer and now have bought a console...you've been assimilated! You will no longer need a DVD or Blu Ray player, you will no longer need to go to the store for your movies, music and games, you'll just download them to your console! All of the evidence, trends, and people that matter, point to continued PC decline and total console domination. The console is not going anywhere!

 

I think the main thing that separates a PC from a console, in terms of gaming market sales penetration, is the fact that consoles and console game titles are HEAVILY marketed on TV to the mass public, wheras PC gaming is not, except for World Of Warcraft. Even epic PC titles such as Crysis are only advertised to EXISTING hardcore PC gamers in PC magazines.

The fact that consoles require such an extremely high amount of game sales in order for Microsoft and Sony to just break even, means that whenever you turn on your TV, you will be bombarded by adverts that tell you to get a console or a new game for that console. If it's a cross-platform game that is being advertized, you will never hear them say to get the PC version. But you will surely hear them say to get it on XBOX or PS3.

"IF" consoles ever die out in the future, then the high manufacturing and marketing costs, and also the fact that Microsoft and Sony are already complaining that their average gamer is not purchasing enough games, are what may destroy it.

We may continue to see a business success with the extremely basic and casual type of console, such as the Wii. However, 'hardcore' consoles with more advanced graphics and features are becoming extremely expensive - not for the consumer, but for the hardware manufacturer to keep up with the hardcore demand for better graphics and technology. This particular business model may possibly go bust in the future. Then the PC will be the only option for those gamers.

In the meantime, the hardcore consoles will inevitably become more and more like a PC in terms of feeding the consumer with their thirst for even more advanced 'unlimiting' features like being able to play 'any' music or video format like a PC.

If you can already watch TV recordings streamed from a PC to a console, then in the future, more console owners may ask: 'why can't we have the ability to actually record TV directly onto the console'; or they may realize that they could have simply connected their 'TV recording PC' directly to their main living room screen in the first place and call it a HTPC.

Some Playstation 3 owners who have been introduced to Bluray media, may begin to ask for the future Playstation 4 to have a Bluray 'Recorder' like the PC market has had for years.

I still continue to have visitors who are fascinated at the fact that I am playing their favorite console game on a PC. For a start, they did not even know the game was available on the PC. Second, they did not know that a PC could show such good graphics and framerates - better graphics than a console.

So, generally, it's not that the average person even factors in PC gaming as a choice when considering purchasing a new XBOX or Playstation, but that they did not even realise they had the PC as a hardcore gaming choice in the first place.

They only thought that PC games equal MSN games or Solitaire.

The point about the vast majority of people thinking that PCs in the home require a desk is interesting, because it is another reason why new potential 'living room' gamers don't walk into a shop and ever consider the PC as a viable option for the living room. Their options only include consoles, because those consoles are what they see everyday heavily advertized to them and connected to living room TVs.

They automatically think that a PC must only be compatible and supplied with a small desktop monitor and used on a desk in a basement, or pushed away into some unsociable lonely corner of the living room at a desk.

However, the reality is that the PC platform has no real console-like limitations or boundaries.

Most high street consumers are totally unaware that they have the option to connect their PC to any TV. Such as via composite, S-Video, DVI, HDMI, Displayport, Component or VGA.

The PC's flexibility is one of its most attractive benefits.

Which is why some people like myself, who are aware of the benefits, enjoy a full PC experience in the living room on a HDTV from a sofa. That means relaxed web browsing with a full wireless keyboard; Hardcore Gaming with a wireless controller; Work; Music; Full Home Theatre applications, TV and movie watching

- all from the convenience of one PC machine instead of cluttering the room with separate hi-fi; separate dvd player; separate Blu Ray player; and separate games console.

 

Don't know what I can add to the essays here. Except that consoles, in my opinion, are always inferior due to the inability to freely upgrade.

I do think that OnLive will change the scene in a Revolutionary manner. I am sorry to hear that the UK has such crappy broadband, you guys have a Parliament, use it (in the USA you need millions of dollars to effect any change in govt).

And when quoting large numbers for currency, please also list the number in a major international currency like Euros (or even dollars, or both). Alot of your readers live outside the UK and have no idea what 500 million pounds is.

Thanks,
Star¤Dagger

 

the only way i can see console gaming "dying" is if too many rehashed, "casualised" games are released (a la wii games). It could bloat the market with crap and cause a crash similar to '82. but i don't think this will happen soon.

On a different note, does anyone think that if OnLive is successful that it will also help boost the pc market?
Think about it; the games being streamed run on (high end) PCs, so this means that if OnLive reaches console popularity then devs will make bigger investments into PC gaming. This could be very good for PC gaming and if what i described happens then i hope OnLive is a huge success.

 

OnLive doesn't require a high end PC at all, the whole point of it is for it to be able to run on pretty much any PC (so long as it can play high definition video).

 

Doesn't really matter if it's high end or not. the games will still be on the pc.

 

Roughly, just double £ for a guesstimation of $. Or use XE.com.

 

How does it NOT require one though? The promise is of them delivering High end Crysis IQ to us through some box which is fed from thier servers. Broadband aside, that's a Server running the game, and not just on basic settings, but "high end" good graphics ones. Right? So envisage the machine that does that? Exactly, the kind of PCs most of us build.

And then may I point out, they are running some remote application so you can connect in and control the game AND running some video capture and compression technique to send you what is happening. So it renders this, right? It can't do it on that box, only essentially receive a video signal, so I don't see how this is a feasible solution. Economically or otherwise. As the server will be working it's tits off, and serving possibly more than 1 person at a time. But how many can it serve? Surely one client for every GPU, right? I know it could probably do more, but within the GPU you're going to start to hit memory severely, especially in 3D. I mean it's unlikely people will be logging on to play Peggle all day (well they probably will, but they can probably build low end servers for THAT situation), so the machines are going to get a good working each and every day.

First consider the cost of such a server, then add cooling, uptime/reliability, electricty, game license costs, service cost, building costs, land and other local taxes and you buy a small box at a fixed price and pay a small (presumably) monthly fee? I just don't see how this will work. Anyone else see this from an angle I don't see?

 

Now this might sound unrealistic, but there should be a modding community allowed for even console games.

Why? It gives the purchaser another incentive to buy it.

Look at the PC version of the Elder Scrolls games: Thousands upon thousands of mods, not many are above and beyond but there are many of those. Now compare it to FarCry 2, which literally cried(forgive the pun) for modding, and what did we get? None.

Although with that said, the ES series did have many loose ends that were never fixed if not for the modders.

 

Activision blizzard still make all there money from 3-4 main franchises

in the uk this would never truly work I'm In the lucky few i get 18mb/s on bethere with an unlimited service

how many have same options 1-2% maybe?

 

Onlive is a "console" ? They're calling it a "micro console" and it has a 360 type pad. If it is a "console", and has to compete with the current crop of consoles, then it has a daunting, daunting hill to climb.

 

OnLive! have already backed down and said primarily they are going to go for the simpler games to start with, i.e. flash based browser games or other browser based games.

However, the future would be good as and when broadband caps are lifted and speeds increase.

So, if you look at PCs as one side of a war, and consoles as the opponents, then OnLive! has just entered as Player 3.

And if OnLive! dispenses with the problem of PCs or consoles tech specs, theoretically it would become possible to run unlimited server sizes in games, i.e. millions of individuals running around in a WoW server all fighting and trading at the same time.

100,000 individually controlled soldiers on the beaches of Normandy anyone?

 

the key advantage of having a centralised server is that it can service more than one person at a time, think of it like timeshare...

the question is always asked 'what about when every one plays' well perhaps you could scale back the quality, or increase the prices at these times... but the fact is there will be almost no occassion where ' everyone' is playing - heck probably not even 50% at peak.

 

Debating trolls who answer legit points with aggressive "move to a better country where X doesn't suck" is pointless and useless. Ignore the d**khead.

Regardless of technical issues regarding connection speeds and latency, I would think there are other issues for us as gamers.

OnLive! only makes sense if you are a casual gamer. I haven't looked too hard at their business model (as I don't think it's a practical business in the near term, certainly not even long term for me), but I would assume that it will be similar to an ISP for internet access, and there will need to be a graded pricing structure for (I assume) playing time until you reach a cap or unlimited option. And this unlimited option can't be very high per month, otherwise what is the point of the service for the consumer? Any person going for the higher options (such as us gamers) would be better off "investing" in a stand alone console, no doubt it would be cheaper (even far cheaper) over the life of the console. And if, like this article argues, the console refresh time lengthens, then the cost of console ownership becomes lower still.

Furthermore, as I understand it you have to buy the games from OnLive. How is this any different than buying retail? I think I read about a rental option, but it will depend on prices whether this is worth it. And no passing on games to others when you've played it to death (or "selling" - what a dirty word to game publishers! It's almost as if we didn't own the game or something!). It's a one shot deal.

Have they said anything about equipment upgrades? Is this in effect going to be a "virtual console" in that the hardware will remain static for long periods? This will help them recoup initial investment costs, but it still offers no advantage to the user. If they are going to do rolling upgrades, will this hardware be for "premium" users until it gets fully implemented, or application specific (Crysis uses X, and HL2 uses Y).

The only advantage of OnLive is the lack of up-front equipment cost. Everything else is the same.
In fact you could argue that because you will undoubtedly need a very fast Internet connection, which usually cost a lot, there is already a price disadvantage. You can at least play games on your Xbox/PS3/Wii with no/slow connections.

What will probably end up happening is ISPs "value adding" with OnLive, or bundling services. Which once again will pander to the casual market.