Future of console gaming

[borowki]

I've been thinking about this for a bit after the reading about EA's call for a single, open gaming platform. The best candidate for this would be the PC, I believe. In the coming years, will the PC become the gaming platform of choice? Will home consoles get swept away by a convergence of entertainment around the computer?

Here are the obstacles I see to realizing such a scenario:

1. Most people don't want to have a PC in their living room. This can be overcome though, with a scheme where the computer would situate somewhere else, while the audio-visual data is streamed to a set-top box over a wireless home network. Such a scheme would additionally give users the flexibility to play games where it happens to be most convinient. Sometimes you can play on the big screen TV. Sometimes you might have to play at your desk. It also opens up interesting possibility for on-demand, server-based gaming.

2. A typical Windows PC is a mess, with all sort of weird programs running and possible compatibility issues as a result. Visualization can really help here, I believe. The move to multicore processor means it won't be hard to partition out a separate environment with guaranteed CPU and GPU performance level.

3. Gaming PC specs are confusing for adverage users. A certification system would help here. I can definitely see Microsoft moving its Gaming for Windows badge onto the hardware side.

4. Gaming PCs are expensive compared to consoles.


Thoughts?

 

[archangelmorph]

I think your arguement of the PC becoming the single dominant, unified gaming platform is flawed on so many levels (The success & simplicity of the Wii proves this point..)

The fact that consoles are what they are today is largely because the Pc is not really a sustainable platform for gaming in the long term.. Now don't get me wrong, i'm notsaying that Pc gaming will ever go away, it's just never going to become the dominant gaming platform anymore than the Dreamcast ever was..


I'm skeptical towards the possibility of a unified console platform ever materialising purely because all the major platform holders have a vested interest in "owning" the platform and thus, I can't see any one ever agreeing to collaborate on it.. On the other hand since conventionally these companies have sold the platforms as a loss leader and made all their profits from software I guess it does definitely have it's advantages (lower cost of investment into the hardware, meaning more money to be ploughed into software development, firmware development and services development on th platform.. All you're devs would be happier having to only ever develop games for a single platform and much more resources could be dedicated to making the most of the hardware over bloating your engine with multiplatform support or wasting resources porting it..)

There seem to be alot of developer's touting such a vision however i'm not sure just how willing MS, Sony or especially nintendo (who are even making money on their hardware sales in the droves) would be..

Plus if you think about it, alot of the expanse of the industry of late has come from the increase in diverse gaming platforms and not any particular reduction of it.. (e.g. success of two handheld platforms on the market instead of just one, introduction of MS into the fold with the original xbox, introduction of Sony into the mix with the original PSX, mobile phone gaming platforms, flash games, downloadable games etc..)

 

[assen]

1. Most people don't want to have a PC in their living room. This can be overcome though, with a scheme where the computer would situate somewhere else, while the audio-visual data is streamed to a set-top box over a wireless home network.

1280x720 x 3 (bytes) x 60 (fps) x 8 (bits in a byte) = 1.265 Gbps, which is between one or two orders of magnitude above current consumer wireless technology.

 

[archangelmorph]

1280x720 x 3 (bytes) x 60 (fps) x 8 (bits in a byte) = 1.265 Gbps, which is between one or two orders of magnitude above current consumer wireless technology.

The other option is a *really* long cable that runs from your HDTV to your PC in the other room & a wireless keyboard & mouse.. But again, this setup is not only unwieldly but never going to be accepted by the mainstream..

Hence another reason why PC will never become the dominant mainstream gaming platform..

 

[Gubbi]

My $0.02:

1. Console war will continue between the three players. If one or two of them c*cks up on execition they'll go the Sega-way (Software only).
2. Digital distribution. Download complete games to consoles (with internal storage)/local computer (ie. Media extender idea expanded to support whole games).

Cheers

 

[Arwin]

Hardware won't be a single platform for a long time, but in terms of software, we could see a kind of Java for games that runs on all platforms, next to the platform specific stuff that will very likely still be released to show off specific hardware capabilities (future versions of motion control, graphics capabilities, etc.) Engines like Unreal, but moreso perhaps Id's version, will lead at least a certain group of titles in that direction.

 

[StefanS]

Let's not forget what EA's motives for a unified open platform are:

A) less development costs
B) no license fees
C) generally bigger unified audience

Basically it's an EA dream-come-true: More profit for less costs. But who would bear the hardware development costs? I am pretty sure is not willing to take the risk here and reduce their profit margins for a few years to see if the experiment will work out.

The PC doesn't fit that picture: Even though it is a quasi unified OS market (gaming wise), it's hardware is not unified. Lots of different hardware parts, etc.

So what about a single does-it-all console: Not happening, the remaining 3 key players all have different vision for the market. Sony and MS are battling it out for the living room: Sony will wants to push its HD video format, MS is definitely eyeing the future digital distribution market. Nintendo has carved out its own market segment of social gaming. Apart from conflicting interests, it seems that all companies could have very viable and profitable long-term strategies (we will get a clearer picture over the next four years).

 

[archangelmorph]

So what about a single does-it-all console: Not happening, the remaining 3 key players all have different vision for the market.

Your assessment is interesting Stefan..

Sony will wants to push its HD video format,

Blu-Ray..

MS is definitely eyeing the future digital distribution market.

Live..

Nintendo has carved out its own market segment of social gaming.

Waggle..

With these three areas differing quite clearly you seem to have only reinforced the possibility that all three companies could co-exist on a single unified platform (i.e. cheap & powerful spec console + Bu-ray + Live + waggle = PSWii60) rather than refuting it..?

I'd like to hear what your thoughts are in this regard?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In theory it'd happen, except they'll never cooperate! MS won't have a console without it running their systems - that's why XB was created when both Nintendo and Sony turned them down last gen. Sony wants the whole pie to themselves, presumably shown regards the failure to compromise on a single HD format, though I don't know the debate there. The last two gens Sony have taken a good 5x as much as their competitors in software sales. Do you think they'd happily compromise toa third of that (maybe half in total units sold) split three ways? Nintendo like to do their own thing and don't want to get tied to another's platform I imagine. The profitability on their hardware is fantastic and they'd be taking a big cut splitting that three ways. You'd also have major disagreements on design. Sony would want Cell. MS would want x86 I imagine. Nintendo will want whatever's cheap and works with their software systems!

I doubt any of them could be convinced that a three-way compromise was worthwhile. The best chance of a unified platform IMO is two of them getting together and driving the other out. At the moment you'd think Nintendo + someone else, though in 5+ years time the rivals may have their own decent wagglers and then who knows who'll lead?

 

[RobertR1]

Look at Nintendo stock. They'd laugh for ages. If all 3 are suffering then you could imagine such a scenario but this is EA's hoop dream to benefit them and no one else.

We should look at EA's financials when they come out to see the real motivation behind such but stefan has already pointed it out well.

 

[StefanS]

I'd like to hear what your thoughts are in this regard?

Preamble: I'll completely neglect the effect of missing out on license fees in my argumentation.

For starters digital distribution targets (will target) the same market as a the hardware based HD movie market. Sony for the moment prefers a hardware solution (but if the music market is an indicator of things to come in this regard) digital distribution will eventually be a major competitor. Essentially it's the same market (i.e. selling movies,etc. to consumers). In that regard you say that the Xbox / PlayStation consoles are the same trojan horse with different content. One tries to capitalize the demand for entertainment via license fees, the other via the control over the distribution channel (i.e. the shop). For now, MS seems in the more comfortable position while the format war is raging. Actually, it's in their best interest if it continues. It will only speed up the transition to DD.

I am also fairly sure, Sony will in the end jump the DD bandwagon as well. It is going to be too big a market to ignore. So when talking about HW media vs. DD is was talking more about the current gen.

Nintendo is a bit of a different story. Their current efforts (Wii, DS) (more so than the previous consoles) is rest on two pillars: Profit from selling their hardware and profit from their software. Their only interest in distribution channels is a way to distribute their software (whether new games or old classics)
A universal console would definitely cut one of their legs off. Moreover, they'd give up a very essential advantage: Shaping / Defining their platform. Part of success of Nintendo's software titles (on their current platforms!) is the good integration of hardware design with their software development (both sides always cooperate rigorously in the design phase). Nintendo always gets the early start, so to speak. They were the first to introduce non-gaming titles on DS (Brain Training, etc.) or social gaming on Wii, symbolized by the iconic Wii Sports.

So in the end - neglecting the profit and revenue sharing problem by the 3 manufacturers - it's insurmountable conflict of interest. You've got two rivals fighting for the same market (in this context: entertainment media, not the console market per se) and one player having a completely different modus operandi with regard to cost structure, strategy, etc.

 

[ERP]

At some point (probably in the next couple of generations) it'll simply stop being about the hardware, incremental improvements won't justify the cost of new consoles. Nintendo obviously thinks that point is closer than me...

At that point it'll be about controlling the software platform, and the distribution channel, whether that's a single entity is another matter.

I don't think PC's will be the hardware platform of choice, as much because of where people expect to put them as any technical or cost limitation. I think it will be some hybrid of current set top boxes (that are now moving into casual games) and current consoles, that are moving towards being broader entertainment platforms.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I doubt it will ever happen. The transition would be killer.

 

[borowki]

I'm just pondering the possibilities. The basic idea is that Microsoft could leverage its dominance in personal computing to crush Sony and Nintendo. It's not that far-fetched as you think. I don't think it'd be hard to persuade enthusiasts who currently own both a console and a powerful gaming rig to give up the console, if the PC can deliver the same sitting-on-the-couch experience. With this crowd is denied to consoles, the business model start to fall apart--unless you do what Nintendo does now, selling an unsophisticated machine at profit.

Presuming Microsoft is successful with its IPTV initiative, they could use the same infrastructure to deliver server-based gaming to the casual audience. Nothing to buy, nothing to set up--what could be easier? Latency will probably suck, but the graphics can be as good as the provider wants it to be. All the backend stuff will be running Windows, of course.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'm just pondering the possibilities. The basic idea is that Microsoft could leverage its dominance in personal computing to crush Sony and Nintendo. It's not that far-fetched as you think. I don't think it'd be hard to persuade enthusiasts who currently own both a console and a powerful gaming rig to give up the console, if the PC can deliver the same sitting-on-the-couch experience. With this crowd is denied to consoles, the business model start to fall apart--unless you do what Nintendo does now, selling an unsophisticated machine at profit.

Presuming Microsoft is successful with its IPTV initiative, they could use the same infrastructure to deliver server-based gaming to the casual audience. Nothing to buy, nothing to set up--what could be easier? Latency will probably suck, but the graphics can be as good as the provider wants it to be. All the backend stuff will be running Windows, of course.

The only way it could even begin to happen is if you turn the PC into a closed platform. People don't want to deal with the PC hassles.

 

[borowki]

If we look at media convergence, we see that the computer beats the console hands down.

Music distribution--the computer owns this already. It's easier to browse through songs and edit playlists at your desk.

Video distribution--the computer will win this one eventually, by the virtue of being an open platform. Hollywood won't let itself be a hostage to a single distributor, as the squabble between Apple and NBC has shown. That means key titles missing from any Sony or Microsoft distribution network. The console's only advantage is that it's connected to a TV.

Digital photography--the computer swipes the floor with the console. Sony's idea of people keeping their photo album on their PS3 is totally fanciful. People want to photoshop their pics. They e-mail them and put them on their Facebook. Occasionally, they print them out.

E-books--okay, this is getting a bit brutal...

If convergence is inevitable, there is no question which would emerge as the winner.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If we look at media convergence, we see that the computer beats the console hands down.

Music distribution--the computer owns this already. It's easier to browse through songs and edit playlists at your desk.

Video distribution--the computer will win this one eventually, by the virtue of being an open platform. Hollywood won't let itself be a hostage to a single distributor, as the squabble between Apple and NBC has shown. That means key titles missing from any Sony or Microsoft distribution network. The console's only advantage is that it's connected to a TV.

Digital photography--the computer swipes the floor with the console. Sony's idea of people keeping their photo album on their PS3 is totally fanciful. People want to photoshop their pics. They e-mail them and put them on their Facebook. Occasionally, they print them out.

E-books--okay, this is getting a bit brutal...

If convergence is inevitable, there is no question which would emerge as the winner.

All of the things you've mentioned are just software, they really have little to do with the platform, if people wanted those things in consoles, there's no reason MS or Sony couldn't bring them via console. If the demand is there, I don't doubt you'd see some of these things on consoles.

An open platform creates hardware and software issues that many people just don't want to have to deal with, until you solve that problem for the PC, its not going to push out consoles any time soon. I'd say as it stands right now Apple has a better chance of taking over the living room than an open PC platform.

 

[borowki]

The only way it could even begin to happen is if you turn the PC into a closed platform. People don't want to deal with the PC hassles.

I know it's a hassle, but can this be overcome--that's the question. Visualization means that you can create a controlled environment on a PC, that the end user can't tinker with. It won't be that different from a console.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I know it's a hassle, but can this be overcome--that's the question. Visualization means that you can create a controlled environment on a PC, that the end user can't tinker with. It won't be that different from a console.

Controlled environment on a PC means dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator. A $300 console brutalizes a $600 PC in gaming performance. That's not even to mention the massive sacrifices you'd have to make to keep compatibility across different CPU's/GPUs at that price point in an open system. Then the issues of getting thousands of IHVs and ISVs on board. Even assuming you manage to accomplish this I doubt you're going to convince people to take a huge step backward in fidelity.

It's not going to happen.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Most of the PC "convergence" examples involve other hardware, such as iPods and cameras. While the iPod dominates the MP3 player market, the other players aren't going away, nor is the PC replacing them. Similarly, the PC hasn't replaced the digital camera, nor has the camera market converged, but is rather quite diverse. If it weren't for the fact that consoles are rather capable of Internet access and basic related tasks, I could see the PC becoming the center for digital downloads of games you play on your console. Perhaps it may be that for handhelds some day.

But as for replacing console gaming, video games are far more hardware-dependent than looking at photographs or listening to MP3s, so the diverse hardware of PCs already poses a problem. Another problem with PCs is that despite the "hundreds of millions install base" cited by enthusiasts, the actual number of PC gamers is far, far smaller than that. Most PCs sold aren't sold for gaming, and having the PC standardized to the point where every PC is game-ready requires game-related hardware to become so cheap and so sophisticated that the latest $400 graphics boards don't offer a noticeable improvement over integrated video. There's also the simple fact that most people don't connect their PCs to their TVs and likely don't keep their PCs in their living rooms to begin with. Finally, there's marketing. There are too many PC vendors to communicate a unified vision to the market of the PC as ultimate gaming platform in order to have a large-scale hardware launch, and the ones that are big enough aren't dependent on gaming for their core business.