Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 8 Jul 2011.
I can quite believe it. Some of it's down to the smaller native resolution of the screens on mobile devices. How does the grunt of a Vita, iPad 2 or Galaxy S II compare to an x360 or PS3?
You're talking about completely different paradigms though. Mobile games don't need to run on over-specced custom desktop rigs to provide value to their users; my most played games on the iPad include Countdown, GWars Touch, Angry Birds and eBoy FixPix. Mobile games are more dependent on innovative control methods and interaction rather than raw power, but they in no way infringe on the amount I still use my Xbox 360- I just happen to play mobile games a lot more now that I've got devices that they run on.
People who play PC and consoles gains have to actively pursue doing so, but when everyone who has a smartphone or a tablet can play Plants v Zombies or Boggle, it's not hard to see which will reach ubiquity quicker.
Edit: In hindsight I'm not quite sure whether the article's claiming that mobile gaming will become more successful than console gaming or more powerful, but my points above remain.
It was talking about power I believe. Considering the 360 and PS3 based on pretty old tech it's not unreasonable to expect mobile devices to catch up. The PS Vita is coming this year so in a couple of years the likes of the PowerVR chips will impressive in comparison to the 360 and PS3. I just wish they'd release some new battery technology to go with it, otherwise we'll be playing games on mobile phones that have to be constantly plugged in, which kinda defeats the point.
I can see where you're coming from, but look at how far mobile phones have come already. Nokia's Snake game was one of the first and you can now play that on every youtube video. The amount of power needed to run Angry Birds as smooth as it does is phenomenal compared to what a phone's hardware was back then. It's because of the strides forward that you're able to play these new types of games and it's why you're finding yourself playing them more as the current hardware is able to offer a lot more than something as simple as Snake.
The games themselves are a lot more engaging because of the gfx and sound and the fact they are always to hand and nearly immediate to play. They are only ever going to get more sophisticated gfx wise - the interface could change or alter to include mind or eye control I guess. The sound can't really have a lot more to it - small speakers aren't known for producing stellar audio.
My only hope is that phones don't go '3d' necessitating wearing 3d ready glasses all the time. I can see prescription 3d glasses being an available line in Specsavers.
Substance, please, Carmack. Give us a REASON to be listening to you. Does he ever say anything that is not either patently obvious or just bullsh*t, anyway? Of course in many way mobile platforms will surpass current gen consoles. He's describing one as dynamic and the other as static.
If he talks about power and capability then I am sure that the next development of consoles will be more powerful than any 'portable device'.
He is right about portable games being diversion rather than destination, but again, tell me something we don't know, John. Or better yet, make a game that's good and relevant instead. That is your job, isn't it?
Will mobiles surpass current consoles ? yes given enough time.
The question should be will they surpass the next Gen of consoles in the consoles life time?
It microsoft and sony plan on the long life the current gen have had, then the answer will be OH YES.
What?!?!?! You mean things will be faster in the future.... surely not!?!
To summarise the article, and the gentleman's comments, technology that's developed in the future will be more powerful than something that's already 5 years old.
Gee whizz. In similarly ground-breaking predictions, my mate said that it's going to be hotter in London next week than it was six months ago, when we had all that snow.
To give him some slack, he did state that mobiles would suprass current consoles "in two years".
In all fairness, taking the contents of a PS3 and shrinking it to a tiny handheld device with a built in screen in seven years is pretty good going!
Mobile gaming has been around a long time, it has been and always will be an activity for waiting rooms and toilets.
Good ol' Carmack. Probably one of the first big names to point out that Farmville =/= Deus Ex.
Really, the whole "There are ton of flash games on PC! How can you say PC gaming's not great right now?" shits me no end.
I think he is probably correct in some ways. As a few commentators have pointed out, the PS3 and others have been around for a long time. Current generation dual core ARM processors are packing about 1/2-2/3rds of the computational power of a current Atom dual core and the graphical prowess is also approaching probably about half to two thirds of an Intel HD2000 SB integrated GPU (for the more powerful ARM graphical processors).
Considering that mobile CPU and GPU power is increasing at a rate well above Moore's law, it wouldn't suprise me that in 2 years there will be either ARM or x86 mobile chips with 6-10x the power of current processors (or about a mid-grade old Core 2 dual processor like an E7500 or something). That puts it easily on par or beyond what current generation consoles are capable of.
If manufacturers continue 7-10 years product runs mobile gaming probably will continue to "leap ahead" at least in the last 1-4 years of a consoles life time. Of course next generation consoles are likely to have a lead for several years when they are first introduced, but as I mentioned if they have the extended life cycles that this generation has, mobile processing is again likely to over take them before the consoles' EOL.
I think though that processing in the tablet arena is more likely to be what really steps ahead. That isn't to say that a phone couldn't, but a tablet has anything from 3-6x more battery capacity, which means it can pack a much more powerful processor for similar battery life as a phone, or a somewhat more powerful processor with a longer battery life than a phone. Its also easier to make a higher resolution display because of all the extra screen real estate, combined with more space for interface and controls.
Speaking as an iPad 2 owner, mine certainly won't exceed a PS3 or Xbox 360, but it'll beat the pants off a Wii, an Xbox or PS2 and I can imagine in a generation or two of processor reaching parity with current generation consoles. I like me both my casual and my more in depth games on a tablet.
Frankly, everyone wins.
Just a headline grab
+1 to you. I'd rather he just stuck to making games, and got back to making good ones.
It's interesting thought that perhaps one fo the reasons mobile stuff is doing so well is ebcause it only has to power a very small screen compared to the 30inch+ that consoles and PCs have to populate?
The Vita is pretty close to a PS3, there was a tech demo of MGS4 running on Vita hardware that comes to mind. At what resolution and frame rate I can't quote but suffice to say it's not far off from the real deal.
Just a bit hard to be impressed by someone stating the obvious. Carmack "reckons" what any average Joe can go and observe for himself: Mobile devices are getting quite powerful and, if they keep advancing at the same rate, are destined to overtake current generation consoles pretty soon. Granted it's a pretty neat to think about how quickly mobile technology is advancing, it's just not really news worthy to mention.
okay, sure. In 5-10 years, 1080p capable full consoles will be small enough to be called "mobile". Maybe they'll even have a screen just because the cost difference makes it a waste not to have a small screen.
but we're still going to want to plug it into the hdtv and surround sound.
"mobile" gaming is only good for short, pointless games, boredom killers on the ride to work. You can't get into an epic storyline or go on a raid while on the subway.
All hail Captain Obvious!
I was going to make a comment of my own, but this one says it all.
Separate names with a comma.