Consoles going beyond gaming: The next generation full of possibilities.

This has been discussed at length in the past, but basically it is never going to happen. Microsoft loses money on each Xbox sold, but makes an absolute fortune from their OS business. If what you suggest comes to pass, essentially they'll be savagely cutting into their most lucrative market.

 

I'd guess it really scales back, most consumers aren't that interested in a lot of the media functionality, and Sony and MS have lost way too much money this generation on these much more enhanced multimedia devices. Since a lot of the game industry is follow the leader, or follow the money as someone once said, expect them to imitate Nintendo's philosophy more than anything else.

 

Did MS really spend much money on the media side? They dont have any extra hardware for that like sony has so its only software, most if which could probably even be taken from the windows code for a large part.

I dont think media options are bad or unwanted. I think they are very wanted, though they might need some marketing. The main problem is that MS (and sony?) failed at building a decent media system. Its just pathetic that withing 5 minutes you can get your pc to play every file out there but on x360 your forced to a few formats and even within the formats not every file works properly. Than there is the useless way of sharing to top it off.

The 360 and ps3 could have been great multi media devices if they just botherd making them play every filetype out there and in case of the 360 (dont have a ps3 so I wont know for that one) make a decent sharing system. Just let me select a bunch of shared folders and let the 360 list everything inside. Now that works half, for video and pictures but not for music and mediaplayer makes a total mess of my brothers mp3 collection.

 

It's going to take more than hardware to replicate the Wii experience.

Neither MS nor Sony has the cutesy Mario, Zelda, etc. games.

 

I think Nintendo got three points right : Hardware, games and advertising (well, duh! What else is there to this biz?!)

Um, after pointing out the obvious...the hardware can be matched, but whether it's fresh enough, I don't know. The games I think Sony have a track record in EyeToy and such that they can pull off the cutesy, fun thing. MS don't seem to have really managed that, always with a sort of serious slant to things, or just plain broken concepts like 'Your In The Movies'. The advertising anyone can match Nintendo on, but only if they have the content to appeal. If MS have a cutesy cart racer, they too can show lifestyle happy families playing their games. Without the racer, it won't work quite the same with Halo 4.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with that.

The majority of the money MS makes from the OS sales is to OEM's and they don't sell operating systems to OEM's at the cost you see on the shelf. So if they are making $60 on the OS they sell to Dell whats the difference if they make that money back up on the Xbox Client Computer sales? Hardcore gamers and the like will still want a desktop solution, people will still need laptops and servers, schools and libraries will still have desktops. The difference is that little Timmy wants a computer and Dad and Mom don't want him on theirs. Right now they have only 1 option (easily setup option) and that is to buy Timmy a computer. If the Xbox could use a client computer and Mom and Dad only need to spend $100-$200 on it I think MANY people (even those who have enough computers in thier home) would buy one because its so inexpesive and easy to use (hello Mac!).

Also the OS that needs to run on the client computer wouldn't have to be that beefy, would run more effiecently and be a seemless integration to the Xbox itself. We always say the problems with gaming on a PC is that too many different configurations are available and thats also a problem with an operating system. In essence that BIG mess is gone...MS could spend the time and effort to make a better OS with less time and resources increasing profit. Heck everytime they release a new Xbox you would also get a new operating system with more features and the like. I don't see a loss of profit unless they start giving the OS away for free, but since you have to buy the Xbox client computer they can recoup the cost. They could charge $200 for the client computer and people would buy it, you can't buy a PC for that amount; let alone one that can do HD gaming.

If the next Xbox could do that I would buy it in a hearbeat and throw/give away my $500 desktop because I wouldn't need it anymore. I only use my desktop for web surfing, checking email and running my office applications. Many people I know who have an Xbox for thier kids and have a computer (some just recently purchased) don't even use it for everything it can do..they are not interested. They bought it for the kids school work or so they can go onto the internet and thats all.

The biggest advantage for MS in my mind to do something like this would be to combat the latest insurgence from Apple into the desktop area. MS is painted as not caring and too complicated for most people as well as being "boring". Could you imagine the commercials MS could produce with something like this.

 

You don't want to see how something like Youtube or Gmail or Facebook runs on something like Firefox or Chrome or IE8 running on the Xbox 360 CPU, believe me.

 

Excuse me? Or were you only referring to Sony there?

 

Even Nintendo has the Classic controller, with a series of games that play best on it.

 

Its not comparable in the slightest, its just an addon that doesn't actually come standard with the system.

 

I refer to the two-stick 10-button gamepad layout that has been stable since the original Dual Shock came out in 1997. I'm obviously not referring to Sony only.

 

No one dare change it lest alienate gamers and developers who find the alternative, like the Wiimte, to just plan SUCK for a lot of established, successful, and enjoyable titles.

The evolution of the gamepad has typically been an upward one that was compatible with previous incarnations. Moving from the NES (Dpad+A/B) to the SNES (Dpad+A/B/X/Y+2 bumpers) didn't prevent SNES games from playing NES style game mechanics in their full glory. Neither did the N64>SNES or GCN>N64.

Nintendo fans may not care and casuals may have no clue, but the end of the day is that games like a Madden suck on the Wii relative to their console counterparts because the Wiimote doesn't map well to the game at all. So while the changes to the 360 and PS3 controllers were friendly to the evolution of a proven software design the Wii took a bold new approach, netted a new audiance, but alienated another.

And it would be shocking if MS and Sony both said, "Lets make Wiimotes and no longer support a 6M selling franchise like Madden." We call that surrendering a market.

On a tangent, I think people are mistaken if they believe everyone has to make a "Wii" to be successful. Last gen it was everyone had to do a PS2 (cutting edge optical, expensive processors, etc) and before that the PS1, and so forth. One thing that is clear is that we now are seeing some stratification in the consumer market based on hardware lines--something we haven't seen so clearly before where harcore enthusiest and self-titled "gamers" gravitated to one end and the casual market to another.

One thing is for sure is that if MS or Sony vacate the "enthusiest" segment (which is about half of the current market--a segment that also buys a lot of games) is that it will leave this market to one player. From this perspective I really doubt MS or Sony will blink too long because neither would want to conceed to living room trojan.

 

Personally, I'd say that the "living room trojan" is a pretty dead concept by now. Microsofts fears of this was a strong motivator for them to buy into the games console market, fueled by some of Kutaragis visions and the success of the PS2. Both of the consoles developed along those concepts are soundly beaten in the marketplace by the console that has few such aspirations.

Not only would I say that the trojan is a dead concept, I'd also contend that the living room in general is a less interesting arena than it used to be. These days, people carry their entertainment along, and for the life of me, I can't really see that trend reversing. What this will mean for Microsoft and Sony in terms of traditional stationary games consoles is difficult to say - will they extend their technologies further along a trajectory that seems to be only moderately in demand, and is quite costly to pursue? Sony doesn't really have the financial strength, and Microsoft doesn't really have any motivation to throw a lot of money into a small volume hole to meet a threat that it should be clear by now simply isn't there. My guess is that they will move a bit further yes, but not far, and at minimal cost. And if I were Microsoft, I would take a long hard look at whether it really makes sense to strengthen a 7-8 million unit per year market, when it weakens the appeal of their 250-300 million unit cash cow.

 

I'm wondering if Microsoft will practically make their next console a general purpose Windows 8 (example) PC in a small, more marketable package (with gaming advertised as a main selling point). In terms of features, gaming is just a single option of consoles nowadays, and with the close ties between Games for Windows and Xbox 360 in terms of both software technology and developers, they could become more symbiotic (if that's the right word to put to it). Also, with technology prices dropping, in a few years it would possibly be more viable to make such a unit that can play high spec PC games for a good few years, if we were to really go wild with the ideas, a console that is highly modular with 'plug and play' upgrades. Well, that is a thought based on the idea console gaming may have a change in format.

An idea of a few years ago I like (again suggested with Xbox), is that Microsoft makes an Xbox OS/Platform so to speak, and licenses it to 3rd party companies to develop the hardware themselves. So, there could be several different brands of Xbox unit in the living room from companies such as Samsung and LG to Alienware or Dell; teaming up with semiconductor companies if necessary to mass produce CPU/GPU chipsets. Say bye to h/w shortages, prices will be driven down and faulty h/w will be the responsibility of each respective company.

I haven't got too many wild ideas for Sony and Nintendo yet, I'll have to think about that

 

Little offtopic, but I remember that Madden was getting higher grades on wii because of its controlls. Same goes for the first pes on Wii I remember.

 

Look at Wii sales and look at Madden-Wii sales. There is a reason for this: when you cannot accomplish a move on the field a) 100% of the time and b) without lag your control setup is NOT better and is undeserving of higher marks--and the huge 6M annual userbase knows this.

Sure, the controls are "better" for total newb casual players but as a refined and responsive experience ... NO!

The Wiimote brings a lot to the table, especially in terms of accessibility and interactivity, but it definately has not mapped well to a lot of franchises, like Madden, and the idea that Wii versions get higher scores because of the controls is 100% out of sync with people who actually play the game and is a casual perspective/Wii friendly slant. And that was my point to begin with: a huge segment of the market isn't jumping with joy at the idea of nerfing games for the promise of new and "better" experiences potentially coming. The idea MS/Sony would ditch the gamepad is equivalent to forfitting a ton of established and profitable franchises unless their new input device is also a lateral move at worst for tese titles.

 

That the game sold bad doesnt have to mean it plays bad. Anyway, I havnt played both so I wouldnt know for myself, it just stated something I read when these games came out.

I dont think a new controller has to be a bad thing. People who complain about something new should just stfu because if it wernt for people doing new stuff we would still be stuck with 1 action button. I dont think the wii remote is a bad thing, it just has is flaws, just like alot of new products it hard to get everything right the first time. Devs arnt really helping either in the case of the wii as they often put useless waggle in it.

I really do think a controller like the wii remote is the future. But it will need work on the technical side and on the layout side. It doesnt have to be a waggle only device, with better button placement im sure you can design a controller which has the best of both type of controllers. It might not be perfect for all games, I think fighters would probably suffer a bit but otoh there are also games that would benefit like shooters, rpg, rts, mmorpg.

So I dont see why we cant see a shift in controller design the next generation. Nintendo showed what can be done, now its a case of nintendo and others learning from that and improve it.