TouchMyBox
Member
So PC is a laughable platform because it doesn't have achievements (it does), and you don't own a desk.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
David Jaffe: "The next generation of hardware will be the last consoles."
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
So PC is a laughable platform because it doesn't have achievements (it does), and you don't own a desk.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
sense of ownership is an illusion. easy comes, easy goes. watch your own toes. age of enlightment and baroque taught us the meaningless of earthly posession.
don't bother. give up on physical media. even if you physically own something, you soon wont be able to play anything without the consent of some authentication service in the "cloud" allowing you to play your single player game. ubisoft pc and diablo 3 are just the beginning for that as well.
my suggestion? buy a good chess board out of gold. physical fun forever.
unless your forever alone. then your screwed. like me, lool
What so are MS and Sony going to come to my house and take away a disk?
Silly.Mikey
Banned
I honestly believe that MS is showing us right now with 360 what the future of gaming will be. We will pay for a service like Live that won't cover any of the stuff or apps on Live except multiplayer gaming. The rest we will be paying more and more $ for like DLC like Elite that's 50$ a year, apps like Netflix with monthly charges, services like Zune Movies where a movie is 7-8$ to rent, games will cost more too I'm sure and they'll just get shorter in length. The future in my eyes is very ugly if MS have their say so get ready for it. And the worst part? MS is doing this right now and they're beating everyone. What message are we sending them? Not a good one.
theres a reason i didnt buy diablo 3
rollingstart
Banned
Ignoring the steaming part, the idea of consoles and exclusives is silly compared to other media. There're still reasons why things are how they are, like it's power/architecture, but it's still a dumbness people accept. When similar business happens with film (HD-DVD vs Blu-ray) it's right embarrassing and it corrects itself in no time. But the three big players in the game industry make the software to sell the hardware. So you've got content spread all over the place. I can't just play what I want where I want. Have to go out and buy another box and new controllers and wires and junk. That's the business and it's hard to care anymore. Looking back on the cycle it's easy to regret owning all three systems and a PC. It's just unnecessary. But man, fuck streaming. Jaffe's talking about ~8 years from now and things can get a lot better, but they really need to get a lot better.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
soon there will be a why you wont buy any game because that will be the future. own steam? origin? any mmo? bf3? cod? blizzard games? ubisoft?
all these games run on services. if they shut them down, good luck.
Marty Chinn
Member
Why should we be happy about this? Why are we so willing to give up our rights and access?
yeah because cracking my pc games is so hard
NullPointer
Member
I'm fine with renting/leasing all of my digital possessions, as long as those things are priced way, way cheaper than they are right now.
SpinningBirdKick
Banned
I concur Mr Jaffe.
I agree that the next hardware generation is likely to be the last for dedicated gaming hardware.
But I disagree that it's replacement will be a streamed service on a souped up TV or PC.
I just don't see the necessary bandwidth being available at high enough rates globally to make this viable in places that have poor infrastructure where consoles are currently popular.
Another reason I don't buy into the streamed gaming future on a set top box is that it will require a globally accepted control pad for developers and gamers to take it seriously. I don't see any company currently that would be willing to expend a huge amount of time or resources to make this a reality.
I believe that the next home for gaming will be either tablets or smartphones. Touch is global but still in it's infancy and developers should really make it a viable control method for most genres during this and the next hardware cycle.
Touch is already accepted by the masses with more smartphones in use than all the gaming hardware in total sold this generation.
Mobile and tablets already have a viable software distribution channel that doesn't require physical media.
The popular casual touch titles are orders of magnitude more popular than the best selling console/PC titles.
Publishers, developers and platform holders alike can see the casual friendly touch platforms have a wider reach and appeal to mass market users.
Just because they don't like the thought of it doesn't mean it won't happen.
Adapt or whither and die.
I agree that the next hardware generation is likely to be the last for dedicated gaming hardware.
But I disagree that it's replacement will be a streamed service on a souped up TV or PC.
I just don't see the necessary bandwidth being available at high enough rates globally to make this viable in places that have poor infrastructure where consoles are currently popular.
Another reason I don't buy into the streamed gaming future on a set top box is that it will require a globally accepted control pad for developers and gamers to take it seriously. I don't see any company currently that would be willing to expend a huge amount of time or resources to make this a reality.
I believe that the next home for gaming will be either tablets or smartphones. Touch is global but still in it's infancy and developers should really make it a viable control method for most genres during this and the next hardware cycle.
Touch is already accepted by the masses with more smartphones in use than all the gaming hardware in total sold this generation.
Mobile and tablets already have a viable software distribution channel that doesn't require physical media.
The popular casual touch titles are orders of magnitude more popular than the best selling console/PC titles.
Publishers, developers and platform holders alike can see the casual friendly touch platforms have a wider reach and appeal to mass market users.
Just because they don't like the thought of it doesn't mean it won't happen.
Adapt or whither and die.
But we had a rebirth of platformers. A touch only platforming future would kill them off again! ):
dream
Member
I totally agree, and I think this is what "hardcore gamers" oppose. They want gaming to be their own little niche thing.
MikeE21286
Member
Onnce we reach even more in regards to diminishing returns, I could see this.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
They're about to release a new console and... well....
To Far Away Times
Member
We've seen a move towards the all in one "media box" this gen (and maybe even last gen with the PS2) but dedicated hardware is going to still be with us for a while. Internet speeds are no where near fast enough to stream games at an acceptable 60 fps. I do think Jaffe has the right idea though, eventually all games will be delivered as a service on one type of media box. But I think it's going to take quite a bit longer.
gamergirly
Member
Unless the Wii U fails(and in the future 720/PS4), I agree. This doom and gloom is just a promotion for us all to give up our minds and become casual gamers. Quick, quirky games using just 3 fingers or simple interfaces wont EVER replace the gaming core need of vast experiences from Mario to Halo to Uncharted to Watchdogs.
The only future I can agree with at this point is gaming consoles turning into gaming tablets. Portable, yes. But replaced by TVs? Not in the next decade Dave....
It's less of me wanting it to be my niche to use myself as an example, it's just a lot of the games I like sound like disasters working on a tablet or phone. For example, Final Fantasy Dimensions seems really cool, as the game works for a phone/tablet device, but the Mega Man games on those devices are near-cancerous in how bad they are compared to those games on other platforms, due to the lack of buttons.
I've never said no to using a phone/tablet to play games, but the games I like simply do not work well with that model at all, like platformers. They're encompassed currently with traditional platforms, and I don't see how both cannot coexist.
I personally tried OnLive, and I found it insufferable. The image quality was bad for one, but I know that'll be fixed as bandwidth improves. Input lag was a nightmare, however, and until we can create a wormhole from my PC to OnLive's server farm, that isn't getting fixed.
Whilst you have a point, a lot of people say a lot of stuff about gaming's future, and many of them purport to tell you the wonders of the one true future of gaming. Most of them have something or another to hawk, mind, so don't trust them.
So okay, maybe I over exaggerate a bit, but industry insiders aren't always the most trustworthy people when asking for a quote. They usually have some sort of related product to hawk (example: David Perry thinks cloud gaming is the future, and he just so happens to be with Gaikai -- he also said MMOs were the future and made a lot of shitty ones that lost his publisher a fuckton of cash). And whilst I think Jaffe is almost certainly more sincere than most of the shysters chiming in on gaming's future, he's also pretty frank when he says he doesn't actually know what's going to happen. He thinks the cloud stuff is going to happen, but he doesn't seem to be basing it on any hard facts. He just thinks that technology is pretty swell and can see it taking off, or maybe he just realises the people in the suits want it to go that way so they can have more control over the product. Whatever.
Personally I hope he's wrong, because I don't really like the idea of giant centralised monolithic entities on the Internet. It kind of goes against what the Internet is: a distributed and robust network. I find it bothersome when Facebook or Google or MS or whoever tries to get its tentacles in every website in the form of "+1 this!", "Tweet this story!", "Like it on Facebook!", "Spin it about your ass in Bing!", or when everyone says that everything in my life will be stored on the cloud and that one day I'll have to pay some corporation a continual stream of money just to do computing tasks because my PC will be a hobbled video decoder with an Internet connection, and it kind of perverts the distributed and open nature of computers and the Internet because a few rich companies control it all.
It's not very robust, either. If your provider of something or another goes bust, you probably lose access to all the stuff you invested your money into. People tell me OnLive has been pretty crap lately as far as new releases go. They've promised stuff and haven't delivered (such as The Witcher 2), and things seem to be going downhill, especially after MS pissed on their parade in regards to running MS Office. In fairness that was a dumb move, and made it look like the idea was thought up during amateur hour, but I'm really not confident those guys know what they're doing. It seems like they desperately wanted someone to have bought them out by now. I'm dreading the meltdowns from some people who have invested serious coin in ether games if the service kicks the bucket.
In my view, cloud stuff (especially gaming) is probably an expensive bubble waiting to burst, and I think we're getting to a point where storage is cheap (and getting cheaper), hardware is cheap (and getting cheaper), and that cloud stuff -- again, especially in the gaming realm -- is a solution to a problem we had about ten years ago, when PC gaming was mega expensive, we had tiny fucking hard drives, the internet was shit slow, and few people could afford to build or buy their own gaming system. I think we're passing that point pretty quickly.
soulassssns
Banned
Because tablets are the future? or is it facebook games?
I say no thanks to both.
I say no thanks to both.
I doubt it will be that widespread for one simple reason: needing to maintain servers. At some point fighting piracy can be more costly than just rolling with it, and this can be an example of that. Hell, most of those games either have some big reason for being online only (Diablo 3's RMAH and the very nature of anything that is multiplayer-only on PC), it's not inherently necessary to boot up (Steam, at least when Offline Mode's working properly), or a few of the biggest publishers are being dicks with their games (EA and especially Ubisoft) when that's not really necessary AND may be avoided in the future, Assassin's Creed III popped up awfully fast on Steam and that usually doesn't happen unless a game's Steamworks, plus they already dumped it for Rayman Origins and switched DRMs (arguably to a worse one) for Anno.
Plus with how closed consoles are they very rarely try something like that, and that's where I tend to value game ownership more to be honest. Well, there's rumors about Sony and Microsoft, but if they really are that dumb I'll just stick with Wii U and PC except MAYBE if some exclusive finally pushes me over, and hopefully PC support gets even better then.
faceless007
Member
I have all my Steam games backed up on an external and ready to play offline. No to MMOs, BF3, COD and Blizzard. No-CD cracks for the rest (all purchased of course).
Not me. E3 was even worse than I imagined it would be.
Sapphire Dreams
Member
The future of gaming is scary ...
DidntKnowJack
Member
Even if Sony and Microsoft got out of the hardware business, Nintendo would keep trucking along. Sorry Mr. Jaffe, you're wrong.
Here's is why it's not going to happen any time soon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzhDYd0CPY
I'm not saying it's not possible, but commercial greed is what runs this economy so it won't happen until hardware makers squeeze every last cent out of their products.
I'm not saying it's not possible, but commercial greed is what runs this economy so it won't happen until hardware makers squeeze every last cent out of their products.
Marty Chinn
Member
Why do we assume this is an absolute?
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Your right. It's an ethnical dilemma but we're not thinking about this right now because its awesome and everyone think gabe newell and co. are gods when they give us stuff like DOTA 2 for free. they have bought our trust, and deservingly so.
But any conservative /careful person would be vary. Look at EA. They are capable of doing bad things.
Point taken. I took think people will keep fighting for control over the things they think is rightfully theirs. its another discussion though. particularly one that relates to freedom of communities.
i played the origina halo pc demo six months ago. isnt it amazing how a ten year old multiplayer demo still has servers and players? people have their own community. people who own the regular version of Halo PC, and tons of modern games still play the free multiplayer demo of Halo 1 for pc.
thats the power of communities when there is no middle man like an authorization server.
i wonder about what they are worth. what is my guild wars 2 character really worth? will i ever be able to extract it. when i - 5-10 years from now have spent a fair bit of money on this virtual identity will i be able to extract it on a flash drive.. for a price and relive it forever on a screensaver?
as for cheaper prices - I think the problem more is that a lot of these games we see today feel like they are too long. anyone else feels this way? you have all these 3d person action games with great graphics, but it feels like their game time should be 1-4 hours thanks to some simple mechanic. but often the experience gets stretched out to justify a 60 dollar price tag. they put more water in the soup and that kills the taste.
lower prices for shorter 1-time experience games.
watch_dogs.. it looks cool but realistically how different will that game be on the same playthrough? or something highly scripted like god of war or the last of us? they have amazing cinematic flair but they are so obstructed now in their cinematic flair, that, we might as well be looking at a half priced movie like game experience.
this surprises me. i was the biggest advocate of MGS and it's approach when MGS4 came out. but I guess it caught up to me. After all I am just repeating what others said in 2007 and before. I guess I have hit the get-off-my-lawn-age.
I tend to agree with a lot of what you wrote, wow. How you viewed cloud gaming sort of makes sense. For PC, it seems like a pretty weak option considering how cheap it is to make a PC to get better quality anyway.
MMOs have the potential of private servers, especially after the game goes offline.
Most of E3, particularly for Nintendo, was less about being impressive and more of focusing for the next six months. If you look at E3 as Nintendo's Fall 2012 Press Conference, it is much more acceptable to swallow. The megatons are either saved for times when the games will launch soon (Donkey Kong Country Returns was one) or specificly for next year to combat MS/Sony's event for new hardware.
GhostRidah
Member
As long as America has shit internet and bandwidth caps we will not see his future, I can see that happening in Japan though.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
they can isolate you from the online space though. even if you crack, many others will be isolated from it.
just like how they closed MGO and other games. like they were temporary services. never mind the communities who stuck with it and wanted to keep playing. it makes no sense. UO is still going. Everquest is still going.
I forgot what I tried to argue. I don't think I have a stance on this. I just want you guys to be happy, and I feel smart when I talk about materialistic things, because I recently learned the meaning of that word.
ShirAhava
Plays with kids toys, in the adult gaming world
After what happened to SEGA and Arcades in the U.S. nothing would surprise me
Sega systems at home and Aracdes at the mall WAS gaming for me....now neither really exists
I have no real connection with sony/ms/nintendo everything should just be streamed on my PC/HDTV
Sega systems at home and Aracdes at the mall WAS gaming for me....now neither really exists
I have no real connection with sony/ms/nintendo everything should just be streamed on my PC/HDTV
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Obama will personally make your internet faster. yes he can! (check off topic forum.. thread on it now)
Has Japan even adapted to the online sphere? I thought digital games don't even sell there.
GhostRidah
Member
Good question, not sure how digital distributions is out there, all I know is that they have great internet and can make it happen with a stream type service.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
hehe, a new chapter for castle vid-cons i see.
This sounds too much like "Disc-based movies will be replaced by streaming" argument, which still isn't happening at this stage because bandwidth is still cost-prohibitive for most people even in 1st world country. Not to mention it takes too bloody long. The idea of streaming games sound even less appealing. And 10 years is too short of estimate.
Marty Chinn
Member
Don't think that's happening. Heck, Apple has a higher royalty fee than the other current console manufacturers and developers are eating that up.
AtomicShroom
Member
lol game streaming is never going to take off until the internet has zero latency.
I can't even tolerate the input lag from a LCD TV, still holding on to my CRT HDTV, so imagine goddamn streaming from the web... It's like you people don't care for responsive controls!
I can't even tolerate the input lag from a LCD TV, still holding on to my CRT HDTV, so imagine goddamn streaming from the web... It's like you people don't care for responsive controls!
Rollo Lawson
Banned
This is what I mean by conservative. People see the ubiquity of these services as some sort of threat, when really, it's just an evolution of having a phone number. If you embrace these things and take the time to learn how to leverage them, you are as "safe" as you as have always been. If you explore these things, you will see that your privacy as you know it is still legally yours and under your control, as it always was.
Mind you, when I say "as it always was", I'm being cynical as hell. But that's also a different debate.
Is Apple's cut higher than the average? It's usually 30% for the store and 70% for the publisher/dev, it's the same on Steam, XBLA, PSN, etc.
The problem is that game publishers pay both for selling physical copies, thus, with all taxes and costs added, making between 18 and 24 USD each. On Steam publishers make $35 for each $50 game sold, that's why sales come soon and often.
Marty Chinn
Member
The license fee is something like $7 to $10 per game so even factoring just the percentage between license and money going back to the developer only, it's a smaller percentage. I understand Steam works on similar percentages, but strictly going between Apple, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, Apple takes a higher percentage cut.
Have you seen the posts here? He himself has said he's not talking gospel in this very thread, let alone those who think different.