Gaming Is Console Gaming Dying?

You're saying this like you expect OnLive to come to the UK. With the large bills they would face for setting up multiple datacentres here (infrastructure, bandwidth, staff, taxes), I can't see it happening for an extremely long time.

And if the service doesn't take off in the US as well as they're hoping it will, the whole thing will be dead before it has a chance to expand to other countries.

 

Microsoft announced after they released the XBOX, that it was part of a plan to get people back into PC gaming. Ultimately the XBOX is becoming a Media center PC with Gaming abilities. This is what will eventually happen. There will be a future one day where the only entertainment device in the house will be a PC, everything else, TV, Video, Music, Radio, Games, will all go through the one machine.

It's a future Microsoft envisioned, and seems to be getting closer all the time.

 

@Bursar

Onlive server centers are localy based. As such the costs to service any localy based population center is about the same anywhere in the world.

Besides the timeframe this article is looking at is the next gen of consoles which is 2-3 years away.... I'd be willing to be Onlive (or similar) will be there by then (investment market permitting)

 

great read, I see console and PC gaming dying out slowly being taken over from something like onlive and then shifting to browser based gaming
the browser is where its all leading I think, one centralised platform accesible from pc's/laptops/phones and even tv's these days....take alot of time and someone like onlive to push it forward

 

Now there's an idea why don't Microsoft release a console that sort of dual boots either into the games console OS or a windows OS. Sort of a budget pc and games console in one.

 

According to Activision/Blizzard then its not the Console gaming thats dying but PC gaming.

 

Just nitpicking but I think you have too many nines in the first figure

 

I'm playing games since I got my first C64 back in 1983. I've had tons of different systems inbetween ranging from C128d, Amiga 500, NES, PS1 and everything between 286 and my current gaming-rig.

All of these consoles and PCs had one thing in common, they were most fun to play with others. Either sitting on the couch together, via network or the www.

So if you ask me of the future of games, then my answer will be: online-gaming. Be it MMOs, or whatever, but hardcopies of games are going to vanish and everything will only be available via online-portals like Steam or monthly fees, as there's no way to hack those. Either you pay, or you won't be able to play.

Consoles don't play a role in that scenario tho, as the future will be tiny media-PCs, like the ION-based mini ITX-systems that are quiet capable of playing games and every other media you throw at them.
Maybe the OS will change at some point or the other, making it easier to install and remove software, like on OSX (just copy the folders instead of having a registry), to make it more accessible for the people, but that's another story then

 

.

 

^^ online play may be the way of things at the moment but does have alot of disadvantages...a lot of people have moved from pc online gaming to the console because of hacks/cheats etc...but even doing that does not mean that people aren't going to ruin your gaming experience by glitching, trashtalking or even just boosting....I'm fed up with MW2 at the moment it is hard to finish a game without some dick that has been boosting cutting the game short by calling in a nuke strike.

It is quite possible that as AI models improve and utilize multi threaded computing structures like the GPU that the most satisfying experience may return to the single player game or even mutliplayer type games against AI without ping/lag/cheating problems.

 

I am also a PC and console gamer. But prefer PCs. Not for the reason that many others PC gamers have who prefer the keyboard and mouse ( I much prefer controllers ) but because of the extra picture quality due to better framerates, resolution and AA etc and the tweakability. Also the convenience of having a single machine that does everything, including gaming.

I play the 360 at work. The Wii never gets played these days (by myself, anyway). The Wii is nothing but a gimmick and the gimmick novelty has expired. The games are boring (for me, anyway).

I don't think PC gaming OR console gaming will die. I just think that the newer generations of consoles will take much longer to be released to market, due to the extremely expensive console business model. So by the time of a playstation 5, you might have graphics stagnation for 20 years before playstation 6 comes out. Meanwhile the PC will be miles ahead in terms of graphical and physics advances.

 

I don't see that happening. Too many browsers, on too many Operating Systems, with too many graphics/audio capabilities. Consoles have a fixed hardware platform, and PC gaming generally means Windows gaming - which means DirectX.

Browser based gaming will need different plugins for the different OS's and browsers. I think it will be development/support nightmare

 

Console gaming will not die. Not for a long, long time. Console gaming is easy. In the beginning you just pop in the card and play. Nothing else to it. Now it's slightly harder, pop in the disc, maybe let it install itself, and maybe at worst patch and update. All you have to do is hit Ok. PC? Lets face it, other than browser games, PC gaming is complicated. Anyone that doesn't keep up with PC hardware will have no clue what those requirements on the side of the box means. Core 2? Athlon? Ati? Nvidia? Hell, even if you have the lastest hardware because you're neighbor's uncle's son is a computer guru, you still have to install it, patch it, and then settings... It may seem easy to us here on a PC enthusiast site, but so is knitting to my mom, but can you? Don't answer that... for both of us. =P
I don't know when this 5yr cycle came about, but when I bought the original Nintendo, I purchased games for it for over 10 years. When you've been selling the hardware for a loss, or barely breaking even, there's not many reasons to make a more expensive piece of hardware. Especially when the current hardware is more than enough for it's purposes.
As for OnLive. I don't know if it will be successful, yet. Not because of technology, but the fundimental idea of not having any of your games. There's something about having a physcial collection of something you like. Having said that, I don't know why everyone is talking as if the ONLY game Onlive will play is games like Gears of War or MW2. Sure in those games you need 720P and low pings. However there's many games that don't. Look at every single Wii game. Those will run perfectly fine at 480p, even 480i, you sure as hell don't need 1080p. RPG games like Dragon Age will run perfectly fine at pings under 200ms. Infact, I would think the most successful games will be MMOs. Who needs (or even gets) <100ms ping in WoW? Imagine if Onlive were to signup with Activision to include WoW at $5 discount. Also, the service can, and will most likely be tiered. With low bandwidth, high latency games available world wide. Just because you can't stream some games, doesn't keep them from charging you for others. At least that's how I would do it.

 

who cares much about having a physical selection of music anymore?

 

Think it was amstrad who tried that with the mega pc, which was a 386 with a sega megadrive/genesis built in. It flopped.

 

Not even close in the UK, We get "up to" packages. my download speed is 3mb/s on a good day, normally sits at 1mb/s or less. Thats 1/8 of what I can get "up to to"

"Unlimited" is far from unlimited. We're subject to "fair useage policy" which is decided by the company who supplies the broadband. "fair useage" can vary between 20gb/month - fully unlimited. If the company thinks your using too much, your capped or in worse case, cut off if they say its over excessive. Although Ive never heard of anyone being cut off the threats are their in the contract.

If we're not achieving good download speeds, then we will definatly have terrible upload speeds. This is important as the server needs to receive constant updates. If you can't work out the conquence of this then this conversation is well over your head.

So whens it worth while doing something? Why build anything? Its called building for the future. I can guarentee that if home consumers are complaining about getting the short end of the stick then buisnesses will always be gratful for the extra bandwidth. I know that my unversity would like the extra bandwidth but after all, it is involved in research into faster data transmission. Part of Britains pan is to get 100% broadband access. With on demand TV growing and downloadable media growing too Id be more inclined to say that closer to 75% of the country will benifit from improvements. Certainly since, as I said, current plans are for 100% coverage for the entire population.

then companies loose reputation and the government shoots itself in the foot as business grow in a digital direction.

Im sorry, but now your just acting like a retard. stupid answers like that won't get you far in life nevermind online. Its responses like that, that make the daily mail jump on the "games pollute your mind" bandwagon.

Maybe a poor attempt at humor.....Even so see point above.

You have to remember that the uk built its communications in the victorian period (1800's) when most of those other countries used telegram. Sooner or later it will be require to upgrade. Even those other countries will need to as demand increases and technology develops. Not every country can be bleeding edge without sinking insane amounts of money. Its enevatable that sooner or later that technology will become old be it a week, a month or a year.

 

There are 3 parts to this equation; the box, the game and the connection.

As many have said above, the connection for most in this country is between poor and terrible. Until that improves the UK market will remain a poor one net for hosted games and downloads.

The box as it is is pretty close to the apex of what is achievable. Crap! I here you say. Truth is though the near term upgrade path for the box is like taking Crysis from minimum settings to high. Most people aren't that bothered... atleast not to the tune of another £350 or more. There is I believe,one exception. It similar to what's happening to an certain extent in the cinema and that's 3D. It could be possible to persuade people to fork out for fresh hardware if it was 3D capable.

The games. Other than how the games are played (Wii) there's been nowt that's new with a capital N for quite sometime. The games market, including the PC, is waiting for the next big thing.... any ideas?

 

If the UK is able to solve its current broadband problem, I think OnLive will have one more reason to get into this country and it could have the potential to change the market.

 

3D visision and eyefinity are a start. Both wouldn't be possible without with consoles slowing graphics engine development IMO.

Your right about consoles not needing more power. All ill say is "you can't polish a turd". How many developers have went the route of the most stunning looking game but gameplay was utter ****? Far cry 2 I think is an example of this. The wii at least tried something new with motion, hopefully microsoft can build on that and deliver proper motion sensors. After all you could go for the full tennis swing or just sit on the sofa and move your wrist with the wii. I think its this that killed the wii for me. Games where short and consisted of limp movements. Shooters and driving games work nicely tho.

 

For hardcore gamers like me, the OnLive thing is a big FAIL. Regardless of the internet speed and availability challenges, people like me prefer to own our games and software (disk or download versions) and have local control over our settings, save files and our decisions regarding whether we choose to play single player, multiplayer online or multiplayer locally via LAN.