It's way too early to comment specifically on OnLive. But what it represents is of great interest and concern to everyone. I hear "cloud" gaming is a popular topic of discussions at the GDC. Here are a few predictions of my own.
First, I doubt this heralds the end of consoles. It's possible, but I'd be surprised if consoles ever disappeared. It doesn't matter if nearly all the games are the same. It doesn't matter if they share essential hardware and software features. Competition can flourish on things such as brand loyalty, familiarity, aesthetics, and ease of use. Look at automobile competition. Look at the PC-vs-Mac.
Second, OnLive sounds good for PC gamers. The greatest barrier to consumers interested in PC games has always been compatibility issues. And the costliest issues for PC game developers are compatibility and (arguably) piracy. If OnLive works as they say it will, those problems are eliminated.
Third, this isn't the end of traditional PC gaming. Modding has become increasingly popular over the years, and a person can't modify a game unless he has access to the code. Also, many consumers will want hard copies of games so that they don't have to worry about a service changing, provider-publisher contracts, internet access interruptions, etc.
What do you think? Where is cloud gaming leading us?
Showing posts with label platforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label platforms. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
console MMOs
Playing off Tobold's insights, here are some thoughts of my own on the advent of console MMOs.
First, PC gamers should be excited about console MMOs even if they don't intend to play them. I agree with Tobold that console MMOs will necessarily be different from PC games. Yet they'll still compete with PC games since many, if not most, gamers who own a console also play games, at least occasionally, on their computers.
Any way it happens, the design concepts in console MMOs will bleed into PC MMOs. Each will affect the other design-wise. As a result, we might see more variety in PC MMOs. Certainly, console MMOs will more often focus on real-time combat. That's one feature which will bleed over.
Second, keyboards might not shame console controls in versatility much longer. Voice commands, ala Tom Clancy's EndWar, aren't very popular now, but they will be once a console maker comes up with a more comfortable headset. We could eventually see something as small as Bluetooth earpiece, and voice recognition technology will continue to improve.
All console manufacturers are also making headway on gesture recognition software and hardware. If a console can tell which way you're tilting your controller, which way your body is moving, where your eyes are directed, then that's further control which can be offered intuitively to the player. Advancement of such technology is certain, though intelligent use of it is not. I'm not saying this tech will greatly empower console MMOs, but it could.
Communication isn't a problem, though console communication must rely on voice chat. By next console generation, voice chat will probably appeal to more gamers due to exposure. And voice masking technology continues to improve, so by next generation no one will have to know whether your young or old, male or female, etc. Still, I won't say voice chat isn't without its drawbacks. For one thing, most people are particular about the style and quality of their voice, and those who don't like the available voice masks are likely to not chat at all.
As for payment, I'm sure multiple strategies are possible, including subscription models. People are already accustomed to paying monthly fees on top of their basic subscriptions to cable and satellite TV for additional programming (such as sports packages or movie packages). So paying a fee on top of a monthly subscription to Xbox Live is likely a feasible business model. Of course, Sony doesn't charge for the PS3 online service, so subscription MMOs might be easier for them.
Xbox Live already has customers accustomed to microtransactions, as does PSN. Many people have downloaded additional content for Oblivion, Crackdown, and other games.
Free-to-play models are possible, but I've never seen a free-to-play MMO of the graphical quality that the PS3 and 360 demand. The production costs such quality requires might not make sense for these games. If a free-to-play MMO were released on Xbox Live, I expect it would be released via the Live Arcade.
What other issues might arise in the shift from PC to consoles for MMOs?
First, PC gamers should be excited about console MMOs even if they don't intend to play them. I agree with Tobold that console MMOs will necessarily be different from PC games. Yet they'll still compete with PC games since many, if not most, gamers who own a console also play games, at least occasionally, on their computers.
Any way it happens, the design concepts in console MMOs will bleed into PC MMOs. Each will affect the other design-wise. As a result, we might see more variety in PC MMOs. Certainly, console MMOs will more often focus on real-time combat. That's one feature which will bleed over.
Second, keyboards might not shame console controls in versatility much longer. Voice commands, ala Tom Clancy's EndWar, aren't very popular now, but they will be once a console maker comes up with a more comfortable headset. We could eventually see something as small as Bluetooth earpiece, and voice recognition technology will continue to improve.
All console manufacturers are also making headway on gesture recognition software and hardware. If a console can tell which way you're tilting your controller, which way your body is moving, where your eyes are directed, then that's further control which can be offered intuitively to the player. Advancement of such technology is certain, though intelligent use of it is not. I'm not saying this tech will greatly empower console MMOs, but it could.
Communication isn't a problem, though console communication must rely on voice chat. By next console generation, voice chat will probably appeal to more gamers due to exposure. And voice masking technology continues to improve, so by next generation no one will have to know whether your young or old, male or female, etc. Still, I won't say voice chat isn't without its drawbacks. For one thing, most people are particular about the style and quality of their voice, and those who don't like the available voice masks are likely to not chat at all.
As for payment, I'm sure multiple strategies are possible, including subscription models. People are already accustomed to paying monthly fees on top of their basic subscriptions to cable and satellite TV for additional programming (such as sports packages or movie packages). So paying a fee on top of a monthly subscription to Xbox Live is likely a feasible business model. Of course, Sony doesn't charge for the PS3 online service, so subscription MMOs might be easier for them.
Xbox Live already has customers accustomed to microtransactions, as does PSN. Many people have downloaded additional content for Oblivion, Crackdown, and other games.
Free-to-play models are possible, but I've never seen a free-to-play MMO of the graphical quality that the PS3 and 360 demand. The production costs such quality requires might not make sense for these games. If a free-to-play MMO were released on Xbox Live, I expect it would be released via the Live Arcade.
What other issues might arise in the shift from PC to consoles for MMOs?
Saturday, March 01, 2008
PC gaming is never dead
Spurred by this and a half-dozen other articles, I'd like to explain why I think PC gaming is not dead, dying, or even dogpaddling in the kiddie pool and screaming that it can't swim.
A market will always be there.
As long as PCs are capable of gaming, people will be playing games on them, and other people will be making those games. Desktop PCs might very well disappear in the next 20 years, perhaps to be replaced by a non-centralized interface and AI that follows you from wall to wall to ceiling to countertop to oven to dashboard to [any flat surface you can think of], like a dog you cuddled too much as a puppy and now just won't go away. That is, afterall, the ultimate goal of Microsoft's LiveAnywhere project. When that day comes, there will be games for that platform. But until then, millions of people will play games on their PCs every day... and often when they're supposed to be working.
Modes of profit and delivery can and will adapt.
In fact, they already are adapting. As the first linked article mentions, companies are already experimenting with the use of advertisements to fund games. Some games will integrate advertising seamlessly and invisibly, but don't think the annoyance other games cause will prevent advertising from catching on. The first TV commercial wasn't three frogs croaking "Bud... Weis... Er!" -- it was probably three jerks, obviously high on Mountain Dew, yelling at the screen how Dapper Dan's hair gel could change our lives. Yet, despite our almost-constant loathing, we've come to the point where roughly a third of primetime television is commercials.
If you doubt this development for a second, consider that Battlefield: Heroes (which looks like a fun game, incidentally) will place its advertisements at the loading screen between levels/battles... just like TV commercials between plot events. Hopefully, the additional profit scheme, undisruptive microtransactions for things like appearance, will stave off greed long enough that we won't see 5-minute loading screens for another 10-20 years.
And let's not forget franchising -- the new industry buzzword. Even if Spore is pirated left and right, Maxis will recoup those losses from custom trading cards, creature models, and any number of other peripherals. On top of that, they'll be providing a number of online services which strongly reward connection to official (key-accessed) EA servers, thereby making pirated copies of the game weak and shabby by comparison. A thief hidden in anonymity is much more likely to respond to positive incentives than to threats, because he ain't scared of you.
Far from being on the decline or soon to be replaced by Asian business models, I bet we've only seen the beginning of subscription gaming. Prices and plans will vary greatly, largely because savvy developers will realize that they can start publishing content within six months or less if they simply abandon the nonsense that is the traditional MMORPG world. Start with less, expand more often -- made possible by increased dynamics and decreased emphasis on power and balance. Of course, that's only one of many development styles that will take advantage of subscriptions.
Games will be better
The quality of games matters. The PC platform, like console platforms, will occasionally have a bad series of years on the development side. The original Xbox was the victim of poor development throughout its life. Aside from the Halo games, few other games released on that console were worth a damn. Today, the 360 is the most profitable console out there -- selling more games per console than the Wii --because it hosts so many quality games. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone raving about the Wii, they're raving about Wii Sports... which comes with the console (I hope to own a Wii eventually, so don't take this as an attack). When PC game sales slump, a major factor is probably the abscence of quality-focused and reasonably limited game design on that platform.
"Reasonably limited?" I mean games, like WoW, that don't spit on owners of older PCs through insane processing requirements. I mean developers thinking about what they could do with a fraction of the funding and team size that has become the norm, rather than automatically accepting any resources available to them. I don't mean designing the next great solitaire game for Flash, cellphones, and a 5-year-old's Etch-a-Sketch. Games don't have to be quick, easy, or shallow to appeal to millions.
What sort of PC games are selling best? Of the top 40 best-selling PC games of 2007, nearly all are open-ended. MMOs, Sim games, RTS games, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Diablo (yes, still!) ... almost every one is a game with months or even years of gameplay, most with a strong social component. Even on consoles, what are the most anticipated games of this year? The ones with dynamics and replayability: GTA IV, Fable 2, MarioKart, etc.
open-ended gameplay + simple but smooth graphics and a limited scope = lower costs, greater revenues
But then, I'm not a dev, so why listen to me?
Speaking of open-ended games:
A market will always be there.
As long as PCs are capable of gaming, people will be playing games on them, and other people will be making those games. Desktop PCs might very well disappear in the next 20 years, perhaps to be replaced by a non-centralized interface and AI that follows you from wall to wall to ceiling to countertop to oven to dashboard to [any flat surface you can think of], like a dog you cuddled too much as a puppy and now just won't go away. That is, afterall, the ultimate goal of Microsoft's LiveAnywhere project. When that day comes, there will be games for that platform. But until then, millions of people will play games on their PCs every day... and often when they're supposed to be working.
Modes of profit and delivery can and will adapt.
In fact, they already are adapting. As the first linked article mentions, companies are already experimenting with the use of advertisements to fund games. Some games will integrate advertising seamlessly and invisibly, but don't think the annoyance other games cause will prevent advertising from catching on. The first TV commercial wasn't three frogs croaking "Bud... Weis... Er!" -- it was probably three jerks, obviously high on Mountain Dew, yelling at the screen how Dapper Dan's hair gel could change our lives. Yet, despite our almost-constant loathing, we've come to the point where roughly a third of primetime television is commercials.
If you doubt this development for a second, consider that Battlefield: Heroes (which looks like a fun game, incidentally) will place its advertisements at the loading screen between levels/battles... just like TV commercials between plot events. Hopefully, the additional profit scheme, undisruptive microtransactions for things like appearance, will stave off greed long enough that we won't see 5-minute loading screens for another 10-20 years.
And let's not forget franchising -- the new industry buzzword. Even if Spore is pirated left and right, Maxis will recoup those losses from custom trading cards, creature models, and any number of other peripherals. On top of that, they'll be providing a number of online services which strongly reward connection to official (key-accessed) EA servers, thereby making pirated copies of the game weak and shabby by comparison. A thief hidden in anonymity is much more likely to respond to positive incentives than to threats, because he ain't scared of you.
Far from being on the decline or soon to be replaced by Asian business models, I bet we've only seen the beginning of subscription gaming. Prices and plans will vary greatly, largely because savvy developers will realize that they can start publishing content within six months or less if they simply abandon the nonsense that is the traditional MMORPG world. Start with less, expand more often -- made possible by increased dynamics and decreased emphasis on power and balance. Of course, that's only one of many development styles that will take advantage of subscriptions.
Games will be better
The quality of games matters. The PC platform, like console platforms, will occasionally have a bad series of years on the development side. The original Xbox was the victim of poor development throughout its life. Aside from the Halo games, few other games released on that console were worth a damn. Today, the 360 is the most profitable console out there -- selling more games per console than the Wii --because it hosts so many quality games. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone raving about the Wii, they're raving about Wii Sports... which comes with the console (I hope to own a Wii eventually, so don't take this as an attack). When PC game sales slump, a major factor is probably the abscence of quality-focused and reasonably limited game design on that platform.
"Reasonably limited?" I mean games, like WoW, that don't spit on owners of older PCs through insane processing requirements. I mean developers thinking about what they could do with a fraction of the funding and team size that has become the norm, rather than automatically accepting any resources available to them. I don't mean designing the next great solitaire game for Flash, cellphones, and a 5-year-old's Etch-a-Sketch. Games don't have to be quick, easy, or shallow to appeal to millions.
What sort of PC games are selling best? Of the top 40 best-selling PC games of 2007, nearly all are open-ended. MMOs, Sim games, RTS games, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Diablo (yes, still!) ... almost every one is a game with months or even years of gameplay, most with a strong social component. Even on consoles, what are the most anticipated games of this year? The ones with dynamics and replayability: GTA IV, Fable 2, MarioKart, etc.
open-ended gameplay + simple but smooth graphics and a limited scope = lower costs, greater revenues
But then, I'm not a dev, so why listen to me?
Speaking of open-ended games:
Friday, July 06, 2007
Cross-platform games; PC vs 360
A repost of my response to Ryan's blog:
PC vs 360
I own a decent PC and a 360. If a game comes out for both, I generally buy the 360 version (for $10 more) because (1) a console usually more reliable than a computer, with no software interruptions, viruses, etc., and (2) I don’t have to worry about upgrading my graphics hardware. I’ll buy the PC version if (1) the game is better suited to complex controls and/or mouse targeting, or (2) it’s a game I can play online with friends or family who only own a PC.
If Two Worlds has decent multiplayer, I’ll probably sacrifice better graphics for the chance to adventure with my brother online.
CROSS-PLATFORM GAMING
As for cross-platform gameplay, I think it makes sense mainly (perhaps only) for asynchronous multiplayer. Spore, for example, would be a good cross-platform game, because the players are only indirectly interacting.
But for most games, particularly action games, the problem seems to be less about fairness than about muddy gameplay. Each control scheme has powerful strengths. To make most games cross-platform, it seems necessary to settle on a middle ground than doesn’t take full advantage of either control-hardware's strengths. Such games aren't doomed by being cross-platform… they’re just made into a lesser experience.
That said, I think Microsoft is probably trying to use the idea of cross-platform gaming to convince PC players to buy controllers; and, to a lesser extent, convince 360 gamers to buy those keyboard attachments for instant messaging. The whole concept may be little more than marketing slight-of-hand.
PC vs 360
I own a decent PC and a 360. If a game comes out for both, I generally buy the 360 version (for $10 more) because (1) a console usually more reliable than a computer, with no software interruptions, viruses, etc., and (2) I don’t have to worry about upgrading my graphics hardware. I’ll buy the PC version if (1) the game is better suited to complex controls and/or mouse targeting, or (2) it’s a game I can play online with friends or family who only own a PC.
If Two Worlds has decent multiplayer, I’ll probably sacrifice better graphics for the chance to adventure with my brother online.
CROSS-PLATFORM GAMING
As for cross-platform gameplay, I think it makes sense mainly (perhaps only) for asynchronous multiplayer. Spore, for example, would be a good cross-platform game, because the players are only indirectly interacting.
But for most games, particularly action games, the problem seems to be less about fairness than about muddy gameplay. Each control scheme has powerful strengths. To make most games cross-platform, it seems necessary to settle on a middle ground than doesn’t take full advantage of either control-hardware's strengths. Such games aren't doomed by being cross-platform… they’re just made into a lesser experience.
That said, I think Microsoft is probably trying to use the idea of cross-platform gaming to convince PC players to buy controllers; and, to a lesser extent, convince 360 gamers to buy those keyboard attachments for instant messaging. The whole concept may be little more than marketing slight-of-hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
