Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Video Game Consoles Are 'Fundamentally Doomed,' Says Lord British

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the depends-on-your-timescale dept.

Cellphones 374

zacharye writes "Microsoft sold nearly one million Xbox 360s last week alone, but we're nearing the end of the road for video game consoles according to one industry visionary. Richard Garriott, known for having created the fantasy role-playing franchise Ultima, says converged devices such as computers, smartphones and tablets will soon render dedicated game consoles obsolete: '... the power that you can carry with you in a portable is really swamping what we've thought of as a console.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What he talks about (5, Informative)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245326)

He doesn't really talk about consoles being doomed per se. He talks about how tablets and smart phones are soon so powerful that they can render the same quality graphics that consoles can, and people can just plugin their smartphones to TV to play. He also says the technical limitations again push people to make fun and interesting games instead of just going for the graphics. He then mentions how Facebook games are an interesting platform and they're fundamentally very same to MMO games which sell users items, just that they are played on Facebook. He also said that mobile phone games have given him much more fun than computer or console games. As far as computers go, he didn't say computers are going to render game consoles obsolote - just that people are going to play on Facebook, or their service, using them.

And I agree with him. The technical limitations does make developers concentrate on the fun side of things. But that is also true for indie titles. Indie developers don't have the budget to make the best looking games, so they have to concentrate on making them fun. But I have to admit, large companies have started to notice too. They do have their big name franchises like Call of Duty and Battlefield, which are very fun in their own ways, but you have to admit that even large companies have put out very fun games lately.

Of course, Valve was again one of the first western companies who saw this and did it right with Team Fortress 2. They put out the game for free and let people buy weapons and miscelannelous items from the store. Yet, the weapons people can buy are not overpowered and can be got via drops, trading or crafting too. In some cases the stock weapons new players get are actually the best ones. The other ones only vary your gameplay style, so it's up to you which you use, but none is really better than another. And the game is absolutely fun and hilarious online, as it has great comedic aspect too.

As much as Slashdotters hate everything-Facebook, I do like some games there. It's getting really really better lately, and is only going to do so as companies are starting to fight to gain users. This is only good, as it means better quality games which aren't out there just to make quick cash. They have to put out quality to get any new players. The social aspect in Facebook games is great. I have several South Korean girls I play Sims Social with and have had interesting chats with them on the side (and they're cute too, ofc ;-).

I also played Civilization World, which is Facebook version of Civilization series. You get assigned to some server with up to 200 players (if some of your friend is already playing, you usually end up on same). If you don't join others you're independant nation, but if you do and it's recommended, you're one city of the civilization you join. You improve your own city, take battles by assigning your troops along with other players troops from your civ, and just work together. Even if it was still a little bit buggy, I had a late fun night playing with some US guy when all others had already went to sleep and we had to defend our civilization together. As the battles take time (so that players have time to come put more troops even if they're not in the game all the time), it got hectic and a gamble of which weather (and effects) we would get to defend against much larger nation.

So yes, game consoles might be going away, but not the way it's implied.

Re:What he talks about (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245690)

Aren't most of those Facebook games flash based? I think Adobe abandoning flash on mobiles could be a big roadblock here. Without flash they'd have to code a version for "full featured" computers and a completely separate version for mobile users.

Flash is dead; long live AIR (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245896)

Just because Adobe is abandoning Flash-in-the-web-browser doesn't mean it isn't pushing a Flash-in-a-separate-app environment that it calls AIR.

Re:Flash is dead; long live AIR (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246004)

Adobe are not abandoning flash on the web. It's abandoning flash on mobile.
Show me where it says Adobe are abandoning flash on the web browser? From my understanding of the situation, they're pushing it as the new Shockwave in all but name, what with the whole Hardware 3D graphics engine they've put in the latest version.

The reason they're discontinuing on the mobile platform is so they can stick to computers that have dedicated graphics cards and therefore have a better chance of making it work well cross-platform.

Re:What he talks about (-1, Troll)

wickedskaman (1105337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246112)

Facebook shill much? Wow. Haven't seen one of these yet...

Re:What he talks about (2, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246200)

Serious question despite the trolling tone: Are you "everyone is a shill" guys in a guild of retards or something?

Re:What he talks about (1)

wickedskaman (1105337) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246214)

This is the first time I've put the APB out on anyone as a shill. It just seemed really obvious and it's the first time I've seen it coming from Facebook.

Re:What he talks about (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38246156)

He talks about how tablets and smart phones are soon so powerful that they can render the same quality graphics that consoles can

Of course this is also slightly limited though. They can render the same quality as the *current generation* of consoles, which are actually 5-year old tech. The next generation of consoles (not here yet) will produce much better quality graphics and it'll be another 5 years for chipsets to shrink in size, heat and power usage to see a handheld device catch up.

Good (5, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245336)

As a PC gamer I can't wait for consoles to finally die, fewer crap console ports and PC exclusives tend to be better anyway.

Re:Good (1)

ehiris (214677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245392)

Very true. First Crysis was soo much better than the second for that reason alone.

Re:Good (2)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245452)

+1, give us hi res, huge worlds, servers and many monsters. No more 640p efforts ported back to PC.

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245726)

The obsession with high quality graphics is a large part of what's wrong these days on both platforms. Stop kidding yourself.

Re:Good (2)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245852)

you are right that high quality graphics alone don't equal good gameplay but half gig of total memory that xbox360 and ps3 have is pathetic by today's standards no matter how you slice it. It actually harmed many games with great concepts because the memory constraints made them simplified and linear.

Re:Good (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246066)

Elite
Morrowind
Final Fantasy
Duke Nukem 3D

While I agree that consoles are holding back Graphics, you have your head up your arse if you think that the hardware is making games linear.

Re:Good (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246174)

Strictly a point of view which depends on why you buy and play a game.

I've played Alic in both versions and the current is much like wandering a world. The first, wandering a child's story book. I purchased the current version simply to look at the graphics.

It's almost irritating to have to 'fight' my way through, I'd rather just wander. I have a very powerful machine for my art graphics and I'd rather it didn't just feed me comic book pages.

Re:Good (2)

cyachallenge (2521604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245480)

How long have we been talking about this end? If anything console development is simply slowing and giving way to add-on devices (PS3 move, kinect, etc). As far as I can see game industry is stronger than ever.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245734)

I feel its the opossite. Ive played more PC games than consoles, but even for a game as Skyrim, I m playing it in an XBOX, i m having a good time

Why? Because playing it in my pc would mean a spend of at least US$ 400 in a new video card, plus new processor, ram, etc (was a over-the-top PC about 3 years ago) A total of at least US$ 1500, and adjust my room to connect my PC to my full screen tv.
Instead I decided to drop pc game playing, selling my desktop and buying a notebook (which basically means: good bye pc games!)
Maybe the XBOX doesnt give me th best graphic experiences but its good enough. And I think thats what behind Richard Garriot speech, Graphics arent everything, and I dont know about others but I cant spend in a new desktop PC every 2 years to play games in "extreme" graphic mode.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245890)

What exactly is stopping you from playing Skyrim in low graphics mode on your PC?

Re:Good (1)

Vaphell (1489021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245924)

pay for the upgrades with money you save thanks to cheaper pc versions. Avg console game is what, 10-20 bucks more expensive?
Also who said you need 400 bucks for gfx card? 150 dollar ones are plenty fine and wipe the floor with 6 year old console hardware.
Besides, you may even stop upgrading your pc altogether, consoles in general hold multiplatform games back due to limited specs and the whole thing pretty much plateaued. Yes there are ultra-high-whatever quality settings in pc versions but even medium is leaps and bounds above the consoles.

Re:Good (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245986)

Again the $ excuse. Any PC you buy at the local store - provided it doesn't have a crap intel graphic card - could run Skyrim. Skyrim's a console port, it doen't need a lot of horsepower.
Your top end PC from 3 years back certainly could have run it.
400$ video card? More like a 150$ one. Throw in an old Core 2 duo (why buy an i7 to play console ports ?), 4Gb of memory for a few bucks and Skyrim would be plenty happy.

Re:Good (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245488)

I'd much rather sit back on my couch while playing games than sitting in my office behind a desk playing PC games. While yes, PCs can be upgraded faster, graphics are usually better, etc., that doesn't make up for the comfort of couch-gaming.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245644)

Buy a better chair.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245662)

man its so hard to buy a gamepad and hook your tv to the computer these days, where are all the nerds when you need them

Re:Good (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245808)

Actually, it is. I'm not going to unhook my 60 pound workstation from my multiple monitors and peripherals and lug it to the living room. Especially not when I just want to take an hour or so break from working.

I suppose I could instead buy a separate machine for my TV. Doing that I could even design/get it specifically designed for a livingroom environment. Hey- wait a minute.

Nintendo is unfriendly to the smallest developers (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245888)

I suppose I could instead buy a separate machine for my TV. Doing that I could even design/get it specifically designed for a livingroom environment. Hey- wait a minute.

The difference between such a PC and a console is that a living room PC would have solo productions like Bob's Game and indie games developed by a 2- or 3-man family business. But then next to nobody wants to play a game developed by a micro-ISV in a small city; instead, as CronoCloud has pointed out in a previous comment [slashdot.org] , they want to play games developed by people who have had to move to a different state for their video game development apprenticeship.

Re:Nintendo is unfriendly to the smallest develope (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245926)

You say that like the major consoles don't have marketplaces. From my understanding it is not terribly expensive to develop an indie game for xbox. With the current popularity of app stores I would be blown away if the next generation of consoles did not have Android/iPhone style marketplaces. (Also pretty disappointed.)

Microsoft is friendlier than Nintendo (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246184)

From my understanding it is not terribly expensive to develop an indie game for xbox.

Xbox Live Indie Games overhead is comparable to that of iPhone or iPad, and in fact Apple appears to have copied the iOS Developer Program's price structure from that of XNA Creators Club (now App Hub). But Nintendo's overhead costs are much higher than that, and I can provide citations if you want.

Nobody has an HTPC (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245862)

man its so hard to buy a gamepad

Actually, it is hard. First, most game controllers sold for use with PCs are either Microsoft, Logitech, or Gravis, and those brands have had decidedly subpar directional pads over the years compared to, say, Nintendo or Sony.

and hook your tv to the computer these days

Actually, it is hard. Most major-label PC games are not made with modes designed for PCs connected to televisions because apart from a tiny market of HTPC geeks, nobody wants to connect a PC connected to a television. (See previous comments: 1 [slashdot.org] 2 [slashdot.org] 3 [slashdot.org] 4 [slashdot.org] 5 [slashdot.org] ) A lot of gamers have trouble even connecting a DVD player to a TV, let alone a PC. (6 [slashdot.org] 7 [slashdot.org] ) Furthermore, the major PC game publishers think they can make more money by selling a separate copy of the game per player vs. per household, as Cracked columnist David Wong has pointed out [cracked.com] .

Re:Nobody has an HTPC (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38246160)

A 360 or PS3 pad both work wonderfully on a computer. The PS3 controller's pad is just fine, miles above the 360's. Although you can't use the MS chatpad unless you make some changes and even then it is hit or miss. Additionally, I have been using TVs for computer monitors for years and I have only had issues when I have been trying to setup multiple displays. Most LCDTVs today have a dedicated VGA port and and audio in that make the process neigh idiotic to accomplish. Most new video cards of moderate power have the ability to output through HDMI or s-video, either through adapter or dedicated port. Some even support a component or composite cable through a S-video port. So almost any TV has the ports you need unless you are such a hipster that changing the channel on your TV causes your dog to freak out. Using your PC as a console today is far easier than it was just 5 years ago.

This was posted from my computer hooked up to a 32" and 19" LCDTVs after i just got done playing Skyrim with my 360 controller.

Re:Nobody has an HTPC (1)

Wildfire Darkstar (208356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246178)

The wired Xbox 360 gamepad can be hooked up directly to most any modern PC. Most console-to-Windows ports even support this right out of the box. The PlayStation 3 pad is only marginally more difficult to set up. Even the Wii remote can be made to work with a Bluetooth connection and only a minimal bit of jiggery-pokery. If the directional pads are subpar, it's a problem that afflicts consoles in exactly the same way.

Re:Good (2)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245756)

Trying to put traditionally PC features (web access, office apps, media players) into game consoles just makes the console more like a PC anyway (xbox360). I'd much rather take an old mini-ATX PC with my fave Linux distro (Debian), put in a decent graphics card and hook it up to one of the HDMI inputs of my home entertainment system. Then I can run Windows games with Wine and I can use the web with little fear of nasties like viruses or malware (with a little security sense), and the cost... nothing because I just use second-hand hardware.

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245904)

Not to mention that the best thing about consoles is that everybody is playing on the same machine. You don't have to worry about whether you have a good enough machine and how good the framerate will be on your machine when buying console games. You don't have to worry about silly driver issues, or upgrading your machine every year because. All the current consoles are at least 5 years old. Even if you bought the original PS3 60 GB for $600 at launch (chosen because it was the most expensive), you still go an amazing deal, because that's 5+ years (still no replacement in the next year or two) without having to spend a single penny on upgrades. If you ask me, consoles will be all anybody owns in the future. I've seen where this is going. Most people will have a console, a tablet, which can be hooked up to a monitor keyboard and must when you have some work to get done. Desktop PCs with crazy specs and prices to go along with it will be the territory of a small set of enthusiasts. And everyone else will be exteremely happy because they no longer have to worry about driver issues, upgrades, minimum requirements, and all that other stuff. Me, I'll still own a desktop PC for many years to come.

Re:Good (2)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246086)

I'd much rather sit on my couch and play a PC game than go out and buy a console.

Yes, my home PC has a couch infront of it.

Re:Good (1)

bjwest (14070) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246134)

My media center PC is more than up to the task of playing whatever games I want. Sure, it can't run the latest and greatest at full resolutin, but I'm not a hard core gamer so the duel core Athlion and GeForce 9600GT does just fine. I've just ordered a new MB and six core Phenom for my desktop, so my MCPC will be getting my old quad core desktop motherboard and 8 GB ram (6 more gigs than it now has).

You want to play games on your big screen? It's much easier to hang a PC on it and do it that way. Sure, the cost may be double what a console would cost, but you have so much more you can do with it than you can with a console. Most games now days can use controllers if your in to that. Me, I prefer the keyboard/mouse, but controllers can be sued with PC games.

Re:Good (1)

Fned (43219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245630)

Careful what you wish for... any day now we'll start seeing crap smartphone ports.

Re:Good (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246054)

Too late. Gameloft already does that.

Re:Good (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245646)

PC exclusives tend to be better anyway

Then you shouldn't care about console ports or console gaming dying at all. Keep playing your PC games and stop whining.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245680)

Bwahaha. Good luck in the future with those smartphone and tablet ports to the PC instead.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245820)

As a PC gamer I can't wait for consoles to finally die, fewer crap console ports and PC exclusives tend to be better anyway.

Yeah, because a game written with a 4" touchpad foremost in the mind of the developer will make a great FPS port.

I'm actually totally with you on this, I just think that the horrible console thumbspaz controllers going away won't be sufficient to fix the problem. The only way I can see game developers getting it is if someone keeps kidnapping a random game development studio executive every few weeks and sending their head back in a box with a note reading "A friendly reminder that a keyboard and mouse is the controller setup that brings the most enjoyment of games to those who care about optimizing their game-playing performance. Thanks!"

Sadly, the people that make the big games really don't care about the top-end quality anymore. It's only about the money.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38246136)

Do you really think that the games ported from phones and tablets to the PC will be better than the ones ported from consoles to the PC?

Eivind.

a jack of all trades (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245366)

... is master of none

Here we go full circle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245374)

Weren't PCs going obsolete a couple of years ago because the new gaming platforms (360, PS3, Wii) could also stream media?

Re:Here we go full circle (2)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245606)

I don' t have a PC any more. Between my iPad, my phone, my network storage device, and my Xbox 360, I didn't really need it any more. When it died, I chucked it and haven't looked back.

Re:Here we go full circle (4, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245704)

I stopped playing PC games around Vice City. It was just easier to get the same titles on a console that you knew was going to run.

I didn't like spending the equivalent of a new console every year or two on a video card.

Re:Here we go full circle (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245802)

the lag.... I always buy the NCAA games on the ps3, the lag between screens , the loading times the update times... finishing the season or advancing the week towards the end of the season can take minutes... at this point in time with ssd, my pc cold boots faster in skyrim (45 sec) then to load NCAA2011FB (+2 mins)

Re:Here we go full circle (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246072)

I agree that loading times are really a pain when I play some of my PS3 games. But to be fair, isn't it possible to put an SSD into the console to replace its HD?

New console every two years (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245940)

I didn't like spending the equivalent of a new console every year or two on a video card.

The first of the three current-generation video game consoles, the Xbox 360, was first sold six years ago. This means if you own all three consoles, you've already been spending the equivalent of a new console every two years since 2005, plus the extra $10 or more per game that a lot of developers charge for their game to cover the console maker's fee. Are PC games nowadays really so demanding that you can't run them on a couple-years-old video card even if you turn the detail down?

Re:Here we go full circle (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246036)

I never understand the video card thing, I bought a geforce2 GTS in like 2001, it was 2007 before I really HAD to upgrade it for pixel shaders, and the 2 since then (one for me one for the wife) both cost under 100 bucks and can run all current games in HD since current games are based for consoles with 2005 era hardware... so yea 3 video cards for me in a decade at less than 100 bucks each, means I still haven't reached the cost of an XBOX360 elite today, combined with the PS2 I used to own, over the same amount of time.

and as a bonus, I can still play my entire game collection over the last 25 years, on one box, which also does many more functions.

Not Doomed.. Just evolving (4, Insightful)

Pontiac (135778) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245432)

I don't see the game console going away.. It's just going to evolve into more of multimedia device. Really it already has..
My game consoles spend more time streaming Netflix then playing games these days.
 

Re:Not Doomed.. Just evolving (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245558)

My game consoles spend more time streaming Netflix then playing games these days.

Well, there goes the 'sell below cost and recoup the money on game licensing fees' business model.

Re:Not Doomed.. Just evolving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245656)

OTOH, the current generation of consoles are old. None of them approach, let alone define, the state of the art. Do you really think they're still being sold below cost?

Re:Not Doomed.. Just evolving (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245760)

OTOH, the current generation of consoles are old. None of them approach, let alone define, the state of the art. Do you really think they're still being sold below cost?

The current generation of consoles are old and nowhere near the capability of a modern PC. How long do you think people will keep buying them before console manufacturers have to invest billions of dollars in developing the next generation?

Capability of players per machine (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246006)

The current generation of consoles are old and nowhere near the capability of a modern PC.

Yet a lot of console games still support two, and in some cases four, players per machine while most PC games (with a handful of exceptions [pineight.com] ) support only one despite the fact that PC-compatible TVs have been affordable for the past half decade. Part of this capability comes from a mental set [wikipedia.org] among gamers against connecting a PC to an HDTV, and part comes from publishers wanting to sell multiple copies to a single household [cracked.com] .

Re:Not Doomed.. Just evolving (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245766)

So you have to buy Nintendo, instead of MS or Sony... Nintendo have't sold below cost since the NES days.

Xbox Live Gold (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245964)

Well, there goes the 'sell below cost and recoup the money on game licensing fees' business model.

Hence the requirement for a valid $60 per year subscription to Xbox Live Gold to use Netflix on an Xbox 360.

Re:Not Doomed.. Just evolving (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246026)

My game consoles spend more time streaming Netflix then playing games these days.

Well, there goes the 'sell below cost and recoup the money on game licensing fees' business model.

Yep, I've spent about $700 on PS3 hardware (2 consoles, 2 extra controllers, camera) and maybe $150 on game titles since I got the first one in 2007. Too bad that the hardware is such crap too - early unit howled like a vacuum cleaner and consumed 300W+ all the time, new unit is quieter and cooler and the disc drive crapped out almost immediately.

Still, I like my $100 in hard drive based games (GT5 and a pile of kids' games and demos), and Netflix streaming keeps it in the living room. When the 2nd unit dies, I don't think I'll be getting a 3rd - already pissed at them for killing my Linux installation, and there's just not that much I really like on the console that I can't get just as well somewhere else.

Starting with the original Atari game console, game consoles were cheap computers that could play games. Now you can buy a Raspberry Pi with HDMI out and about a gagillion times the processing power of the original Atari game console for $25 (more like $75 by the time you have a case, power supply, cables, etc.) Sure, it sucks for "the latest" games - give it 5 or 10 years and a $50 computer will play today's latest games better than your bleeding edge rig from 2010.

Store war is next (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245450)

The console war is over. The next war will be the STORE WAR: Steam vs Origin vs PSN vs Live vs...

Re:Store war is next (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246116)

That war looks already won. People understanding gamers on one side - and reaping the benefits, execs and suits on the other - forever clueless...

yea but (1, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245456)

your smartphone is a bit more difficult to pile a bunch of buddies on a couch and have a fuckton of fun for hours on end, and a touch screen is a bitch for complicated controls.

now go back to whatever cave you crawled out of lord brittish

Re:yea but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245520)

Not when everyone has a smartphone and most control is motion based.

Now go back to whatever cave you crawled out of, troll.

Re:yea but (3, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245930)

yea ok, everyone is going to have the exact same phone with the same apps, and if you have not noticed motion control is clunky and only really works for a few games no matter how hard companies are trying to shove it down our throats as the whole thing has been around for decades and has never made it past "isnt that cute"

Re:yea but (1)

MattSausage (940218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246144)

Mod Parent up.

Sure, motion controls are all the rage now, but trust me, the number of hours spent in total using motion based controls vs a gamepad or KB and mouse to control a video game is 1 vs 100, and I'm being VERY generous with that estimate. Motion controls, and controlling anything on a touch screen is nowhere NEARLY as precise as a controller, which is nowhere nearly as precise as a mouse and keyboard.

To illustrate: You have generic multiplayer FPS/RPG/RTS game X. Who wins in a three way battle, player skill all being equal? The guy with the kinect or wiimote? The guy with a game controller? Or the guy with the KB and Mouse. I daresay anyone on Slashdot would know the answer to that.

So until you can give me the precision of a Mouse in a motion controller, or hell, even the precision of a gamepad... motion controls will be for the 'wow your parents' factor or the occasional party game. Not for gaming in general. I love me a good party game, but that's once a month gaming there, not five times a week or more.

Oh yes, they're... (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245462)

...They're FUN-damentally DOOM-ed.

I GET IT!

He is right. And here is reason : (4, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245492)

We have come to a point where most of the computing elements are way more powerful than what the human eye demands in graphics even to the extent of photorealism. See, i ran the hell out of star wars the old republic with my 6950 radeon gpu and amd phenom ii 965 cpu in its beta - and in 5040x1080 3 monitor eyefinity resolution. it played overly smooth in 40 fps minimum. Granted, swtor is not a photorealistic 3d rendered game, however, it is very taxing when you factor in the fact that it is a mmo with endless differently textured toons (clothing, armor, face differences) converging on small spaces like coruscant. So, my phenom ii 965 cpu, which is not even a top tier offering in current cpu generation, not only ran the game perfectly, but also stayed so idle that i didnt even hear the cpu fan increase speed at all -> i use a 12 cm fan, and its already VERY silent too. if you go into games like crysis 2 et al, you will find that these games run on consoles very well, and on pc they run even faster.

so, we can easily say that cpus are already over a point where we could consider them a limiting factor for good looking games. the only remaining factor becomes, gpu.

granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card. and even if cpu power had become way too much over the needs of games and graphics cards to become irrelevant after a certain tier, its not possible to play down the mandatory element, the graphics card yet.

but, there are already major strides in this area - amd has already succeeded in fusing cpu and gpu in the form of 'apu', and these apus do low power usage and provide good performance in entry-mid level laptop and netbook market. granted, they are not enough to provide top performance as we see it in pcs yet, but more apus will be coming. this means, we are moving towards a future in which the two indispensable elements of gaming, the cpu and gpu, will be both merged in one unit with top grade components. (next gen apus are to come with 7xxx cores)

so then, indeed lord british is right. you already merged, and optimized cpus and gpus in a form that it will be possible to game in a notebook. the only thing you need for this to become a reality in smartphones, is only more miniaturization and increased efficiency of this concept. and it is, as you know, a given in tech world. and im not even talking about the processors that are developing from the mobile computing vector.

there are already versions of 3d games that play on smartphones. in future, we will indeed be able to plug a device to tv or a monitor and just play.

Re:He is right. And here is reason : (0)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246028)

We have come to a point where most of the computing elements are way more powerful than what the human eye demands in graphics even to the extent of photorealism. See, i ran the hell out of star wars the old republic with my 6950 radeon gpu and amd phenom ii 965 cpu in its beta - and in 5040x1080 3 monitor eyefinity resolution. it played overly smooth in 40 fps minimum. Granted, swtor is not a photorealistic 3d rendered game, however, it is very taxing when you factor in the fact that it is a mmo with endless differently textured toons (clothing, armor, face differences) converging on small spaces like coruscant. So, my phenom ii 965 cpu, which is not even a top tier offering in current cpu generation, not only ran the game perfectly, but also stayed so idle that i didnt even hear the cpu fan increase speed at all -> i use a 12 cm fan, and its already VERY silent too. if you go into games like crysis 2 et al, you will find that these games run on consoles very well, and on pc they run even faster.

so, we can easily say that cpus are already over a point where we could consider them a limiting factor for good looking games. the only remaining factor becomes, gpu.

granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card. and even if cpu power had become way too much over the needs of games and graphics cards to become irrelevant after a certain tier, its not possible to play down the mandatory element, the graphics card yet.

but, there are already major strides in this area - amd has already succeeded in fusing cpu and gpu in the form of 'apu', and these apus do low power usage and provide good performance in entry-mid level laptop and netbook market. granted, they are not enough to provide top performance as we see it in pcs yet, but more apus will be coming. this means, we are moving towards a future in which the two indispensable elements of gaming, the cpu and gpu, will be both merged in one unit with top grade components. (next gen apus are to come with 7xxx cores)

so then, indeed lord british is right. you already merged, and optimized cpus and gpus in a form that it will be possible to game in a notebook. the only thing you need for this to become a reality in smartphones, is only more miniaturization and increased efficiency of this concept. and it is, as you know, a given in tech world. and im not even talking about the processors that are developing from the mobile computing vector.

there are already versions of 3d games that play on smartphones. in future, we will indeed be able to plug a device to tv or a monitor and just play.

Another troll by unity.
You said "granted, my 6950 is a last generation, top offering card". The AMD 6xxx series is THIS generation, the 7000 series is not out yet, and has no hard release date. Furthermore, the 6970 is the flagship part, with the 6990 being the "top offering". The 6950 is mid range.
You did not play SWTOR on a 6950 and Phenom II 965 at 40 fps minimum at 5040x1080 across 3 monitors. The Phenom II 965 is a dog, and 5040x1080 across 3 monitors means your monitors are 1680x1080. I've never seen a panel that size. Perhaps you meant to craft your way-too-long lie with 3 monitors at 1680x1050?

Re:He is right. And here is reason : (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246090)

dont talk about things you dont know. idiot. 6990 is just 2 6970s in crossfire in ONE card, and 6970 is just 6950 with 25 more shaders. 6950 even has more clock speed than 6970.

and, im in beta, and yes, i have played swtor accross 3 monitors, one 28 inch and two 22 inch, with a SINGLE 6950 card, and i got 40 fps out of it at the minimum. my reports are in swtor test forum as of this moment.

'phenom 965 is a dog' -> i dont even know whatever the fuck that does mean, but i dont think you are saying something good. ill assume you as an intel troll and mark it so i will be able to evade you in future.

Re:He is right. And here is reason : (2)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246206)

The 6950 is vastly inferior to the 6970, especially at higher resolutions where VRAM makes a big difference. Yes, the 6990 is just 2 6970 GPUs. That's why the I said the 6970 was the flagship.

I called you out on your bullshit. Just admit it.
You didn't even try to explain away the crap where you said a 6950 was a last gen part, or where you have 3 1680x1080 monitors.

"know for"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245494)

We have to tell a bunch of geeks now who Richard Garriott is?

Anyway, he's right: mobile devices are going to kill consoles, and probably PCs too. Mobile convergence is the future: wireless connections to your screen and keyboard when you need it from a device that fits in your shirt pocket and has a modern GL-ES GPU on board for gaming needs.

Already Gone (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245510)

By this definition of consoles, they died out five years ago. The current generation are already going very far out of their way to be multipurpose devices. They all have Netfllix, which is an ENORMOUS draw, and probably drives most Wii purchases these days. Two o them have browsers, they can all play music and display your photos, two of them can initiate voice/video chat over the internet. They can all send messages.

They're locked down, yes, but so is the iPad. It's so locked down, and its base software is so limited that I'd say the only difference between it an a current-gen console is online store policy. If Xbox LIVE allowed third parties to sell utilities and productivity tools, the two platforms would be conceptually identical.

Wii is far more locked down than iPad (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246064)

[Consoles like Wii are] locked down, yes, but so is the iPad.

There's a difference. Nintendo requires each developer to have a dedicated secure office and a track record on another platform, and it also requires all games to be rated by ESRB (minimum $800 per title) instead of self-assessed. For a micro-ISV, these requirements alone dwarf the circa $1600 entry fee (Mac+iPad+first year of iOS Developer Program) for iPad software development.

PC Developer Declares Consoles Dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245562)

Man who built his fortune and reputation on one platform declares the competition to be obsolete, overrated.

I'm sure this isn't an opinion he's had since the 1980's or so...

A console is 10 phones working together. (2)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245566)

Phones today are capable but when the latest gen of consoles were released the phones were much more primitive. Certainly whatever you can pack into a phone, you can then pack 10x the power into something 10x bigger that a phone. I don't see this fundamentally changing soon?!

Re:A console is 10 phones working together. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245848)

Like most people don't need an audiophile home theater system with the best TV money can buy, there's a point where most people won't be able to tell the difference between what a phone can put on the TV and a console. The thing is though, more people will always have the phones and there will be less demand for basically a crappy DRM'd up HTPC that you have to keep buying every 4 or so years.

Dumbing down OSs threatens general purpose PC... (2, Interesting)

GrandTeddyBearOfDoom (1483117) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245572)

Apple are dumbing down the Mac, moving it away from being a high end professional computer, turning it into an overgrown iPad. Microsoft are turning Windows into an oversized Windows Phone OS. PCs are turning into consoles, and it is the serious personal computer that is threatened with extinction.

Re:Dumbing down OSs threatens general purpose PC.. (2)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245636)

That's what some in the industry would love to happen, no doubt. They can have my desktop machine (with its desktop interface) when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Re:Dumbing down OSs threatens general purpose PC.. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245792)

They don't have to. They can just not sell you a new one when it breaks. They can just not allow "non-trusted devices" on the internet.

You'll bend to their will. Wait and see.

Consoles will not die (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245590)

As long as people like me exist who want to play games on the big TV in the living room with an actual controller, consoles will not die. What is going away is the console that can only play a game, which is being replaced by devices that have apps as well as games. This is already happening in the current generation of consoles.

Re:Consoles will not die (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245652)

What is going away is the console that can only play a game, which is being replaced by devices that have apps as well as games. This is already happening in the current generation of consoles.

I've had one of those for thirty years. We call it 'a computer'.

Okay, side question. (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245592)

When the hell did a computer become a 'converged device'?

Re:Okay, side question. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245666)

When the hell did a computer become a 'converged device'?

I prefer the phrase 'non-crippled device' myself.

content (2)

Sentry23 (447266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245620)

If you can get people to pay as much for console games as for tablet/mobile games, maybe, otherwise you're just not getting the return to make 'blockbuster' titles like GTA/GoW/Uncharted etc. (or is that already considered 'hardcore gaming'?)

Technology is not the issue here, it's just cash. If a game costs millions to produce, you're not gambling on a market where you need sell 100M but on a market where 1M units will make you break even. Consoles are not technological wonders, they are content platforms.

If that were the case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245622)

The GameBoy/GameGear/Lynx would have killed the industry some 20+ years ago. PSP has been around for years. Remember the Nokia N-gage? Gaming rig and phone all in one, and (ignoring its shortfalls) akin to a modern smart phone in many ways.

Statements predicting doom and gloom for the console industry seem to surface every now and then, i'll believe it when I see it. And don't get me started on the PC industry killing the console industry, I've heard that one before too.

WTF.. Why do we let retards like this post... (4, Insightful)

blkmajik (3321) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245626)

A 7"/10" tablet or a 4" phone screen will NEVER replace a gaming console. There are many many factors that make this an insane and retarded statement.

1) Game controller. Yes the kinect is interesting. Yes gyros can provide an intersting experience as well. But can you do a 16 hour gaming session waving your arms around like that (both kinect style or wii style with a large tablet). The standard game controller is a perfect interface for most games, and an OK stand in for others (FPS games should be with a mouse).

2) As mentioned above: Screen size.

3) Social gaming (in close physical proximity). A big screen is ideal for this. Tablets (or worse phones) are just too small to share.

4) Touch screens suck for the vast majority of stuff. Motion control is just behind it in usability. With touch screens a large number of games are not playable because your hand is blocking critical space on the screen.

There are more.. but there's beer in the NOC and I'm thirsty.

Re:WTF.. Why do we let retards like this post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245830)

> A 7"/10" tablet or a 4" phone screen will NEVER replace a gaming console.

A gaming console will NEVER supplant the PC as the prime gaming environment. This is an insane and retarded statement. The PC will NEVER replace Motorola 68000 based workstations. That is an insane and retarded statement.

> Tablets (or worse phones) are just too small to share.

You don't, you network two or more of them wirelessly. That's even better: everyone has their own view.

> Game controller.
> With touch screens a large number of games are not playable because your hand is blocking critical space on the screen.

Games will adapt to the controls just like they adapted to console's lack of a keyboard/mouse combo.

Re:WTF.. Why do we let retards like this post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245916)

Or another scenario:

You place your tablet on the table. It wirelessly sends the video to your TV. You pick up the controllers that are wirelessly synced to the tablet. You finish playing, you pick up the tablet, turn the streaming stuff off, but you can still access some of the console dashboard features on the tablet (friends, settings, saved data), maybe even accessing tablet versions of the apps (non gaming things mostly, like Netflix, but possibly even some games). We can even be fancy and throw in that while you were playing it was on a charging pad.

Re:WTF.. Why do we let retards like this post... (4, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246070)

1) Game controllers can be (and are) bluetooth connected accessories

2) You can already HDMI out from some phones and drive 1080p

3) HDMI out to an 80" plasma, if you've got the bucks

4) see 1) re: touchscreens don't need to be used.

He doesnt say 'screen' fool. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246204)

He says, mobile devices will become so powerful that, we will be able to plug them into monitors or tvs and play games. therefore removing the need for pcs and consoles for games.

fuck you (-1, Troll)

mgabrysPDX (2518126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245708)

Who gives a flying shit? As if this time wasting fagsite means fuck-all.

Does that mean (1)

LaZZaR (216092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245710)

the Smart TV industry will kill the PC industry, because you can now do things like surf the net and Skype? In that case, the PC industry better hurry up killing the console industry, they've been working on that one for two decades.

He's an expert... (2)

haggus71 (1051238) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245722)

Yes, he gave us the Ultima series and Ultima online. He also failed to get the sequel done, and gave us...Tabula Rasa. This is the game he changed genres on in midstream, put out an unfinished game, then, as the game danced on the edge of oblivion, decided to play Major Tom. Yeah, a prophet he is not.

What's next (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245782)

Tablets killed the console killed the desktop killed the video killed the radio...

Re:What's next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245880)

Tablets killed the console killed the desktop killed the video killed the radio...

star!

Lord British (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245884)

Has become a bitter vet... I guess when you get bought out by EA whose idea of innovation is gobbling up studios and churning out Football manager 2008^H2009^H2010^H2011^H2012 ad nauseam, I guess you think that gaming has no future. I've heard this all before - wait, Chris Roberts used to say this 20 years ago. Ah, Chris Roberts also worked at Origin. I see a connection...

The future is always different, but always bet against the guy who says there is no future.

Poppycock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245886)

So let me get this straight, I've got these nice controllers, I've got this motion sensor/mic combo, so in order to play a game, I'm to hook up some random piece of hardware from random manufacturers with random capabilities up to the TV, pair it with the controllers, probably plug it in because the battery life isn't going to be good, and not use it as my phone while I'm doing so?

How about this. I press a button on a box (one that cost me less than my phone did) then pull out my phone to ask my friend to come over and play Gears with me.

Yeah I'm totally sold on that first scenario...

Convergence (2)

simm_s (11519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245934)

Mobile phones are just another platform to experience gaming. Mobile platforms are becoming more like gaming consoles. With technologies like wireless display (WiDi), etc you may be able to run a virtual xbox 360 straight from a mobile device on to the display of your choice. Good times!

I don't want my phone to do that (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38245944)

Every phone so far that has attempted to be a gaming console has been a failure. And frankly, I don't want a phone to do that any ways. I want my game console to be connected to my TV, and have a controller that works well for the game. Any game that is significantly more complicated than Tetris isn't worth playing on any phone that I would want to own.

And on top of that, phones are doing so many things now that battery life is starting to fall again. If we throw more games at them, battery life will only get worse. Some of us want to ... what's the word ... talk on our phones. And a dead battery from too much Call of Duty Twelve doesn't help that.

The Console Experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38245962)

From my perspective, consoles just got good. I grew up with both video game consoles and computer gaming, and they both offered something different. It is true what they are saying that console gaming is becoming more and more like PC gaming, but the result for me isn't that consoles are being eliminated or made redundant/obsolete, but rather consoles have simply gotten better. I have both a gaming computer and a PS3; I'd rather play games on the PS3. Console games today have robust networking and data storage, offer easy software updates, good graphics, good control schemes, and are a natural part of a home theater system.

The real difference is the controls (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246062)

The main difference between the various PC and console platforms is the controls. If you back at the 1990s you can see fundamental differences in game design between consoles (played with one or more gamepads on a sofa) and PCs (played with a keyboard, mouse, and possibly joystick at a desk). Unfortunately, you can't really design for one set of controls if you're making a cross-platform game. It used to be that PCs and console had totally different genres. Now we're adding smartphones to the mix. I wonder what compromises will be made to support touchscreens?

Not Likely (1)

Uhhhh oh ya! (1000660) | more than 2 years ago | (#38246102)

Computers are far more powerful and should be able to demolish consoles in performance but they don't. With all the mobile technology advancements consoles now have the oppertunity to really rival desktop performance since consoles seem to be so much more efficient in playing games. As long as the console developers compete on price the average person will likely prefer to just buy one of the three main consoles at a few hundred dollars than look through the thousands of "gaming computers" available ranging from the same price as a console to up and over a thousand dollars.

The mouse and keyboard keep many gamers on the computer but developers could easily start supporting mouse and keyboard for consoles. At this point it seems like if Steam wasn't around the PC game market would be anywhere near as large as it is now.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?