Game Trailer Roundtable with industry figures *

[Acert93]

Nice conversations, but what the hell are they babbling about in regards to Plasma screens and Blu-Ray and HDMI near the end of Part 1? They all seem to be talking about different points simultaneously and not really making much sense on many of them. (Like Rubin's talking about people who've already picked up their plasma screens/etc without HDMI and insinuating they will get "burned" specifically by the PS3/Blu-Ray as opposed to perhaps getting burned by any of the HD DVD options sometime in 2011 or 2012 or whenever if the industry doesn't backpedal from its' current stance on the broadcast flag.

I think there is a nuance here: I think we here at B3D are above the curve in regards to "what is going on when and how" on many issues.

We may be familiar with some of the backdoor information on the ACCS Image Constraint Tokens (ICT) and how there is now a 2011ish date on when that goes into effect (grandfathering), but interestingly I think some of this stuff flies below the radar. First because most normal people have no clue about ICT to begin with (just check the stats on peeps using HDTVs in standard resolutions THINKING they are getting HD images!), and also because the issue was mostly inner geek/HD Media circles that the news of a resolution was likewise limited.

There are a lot of fears and unknowns, both relevant and irrelevant, about the DRM technologies being thrust on consumers as well as what the new HD optical formats can, and cannot do, for user experiences and what is require to use them and what is required to maximize them. Based on the piss poor labelling of HD displays (HD ready and HD Compatible for example) and the lack of concrete information the concerns are legit in many ways. Now industry "insiders" should be up to date for the most part, but it may not be something that they, personally, have had to deal with on a practical level. If you are doing games and Sony/MS tell you "you have to support 720p framebuffer" what does it really concern you in regards to copy protection on HD movie media?

I agree it seems they all had different concerns, possibly talking at different levels of interest, but as for getting burned YES, all the formats can burn consumers. But in regards to his point I think it was more the, "Ok I bought this nice HDTV a couple years ago and now I am going to invest a lot of money into a nice media center with BluRay... and what happens when I found out that all that money didn't get me exactly what I expected... maybe only half?" You would feel burned. But this issue is more on the Movie Studio side of the fence. If I were Sony I would be doing everything I could to make sure that every consumer possible gets as much benefit as they can from such an investment. And that is the solution, and thus far sensability as reigned.

 

[cthellis42]

I thought that rubin guy was an idiot, I mean, what fool would complain about hdtv when he was stupid enough to go out and buy 3 plasmas that were SD? Everyone has pretty much known from the start that LCD and Plasma resolution would only improve yet he goes and gets THREE then complains

Your point of complaint is rather nonsensical here. But then Rubin's was there as well. But the proper thing to say is "why are you complaining about having your plasma screens perminantly installed to the point where plugging in a different device would be such a hassle?" Because that was his only valid personal point there--and the point that he was trying to make--that DVD and people's current A/V setups setups will look great on those kinds of screens regardless and that Blu-Ray wouldn't blow it out of the water so much that you would feel the urge to pick one up and stick it in your media center. (Not that there are too many people who'd have his SPECIFIC complaint with that, either. )

Unless Rubin honestly doesn't have an idea about certain technical matters, but I'd find that hard to believe. It's not like an HDMI-less machine would have issues playing PS3 games at any resolution or Blu-Ray movies at any resolution until at LEAST 2010 (and by that time they'll probably have worked out something different regarding the broadcast flag situation anyway, and if not there will certainly be device workarounds). His points are kind of confusing to follow.

You can definitely say that you don't think Blu-Ray would appear so obviously better to customers that they'd feel compelled to rush out to pick up a PS3, buy a new TV, or whatever--but that's not really what he's saying. Or at least he's saying any number of things in such a roundabout fashion that he's insinuating a whole lot of stuff otherwise that is just plain dumb or wrong.

's weird.

His other comments are much more apt, but I'm not sure where he's going with his HDMI comments.

 

[cthellis42]

I think there is a nuance here: I think we here at B3D are above the curve in regards to "what is going on when and how" on many issues.

True, but Rubin should be well above OUR curve, too. He's just making statements that sound like an uninformed press. Or else he's thinking at a level well above and beyond and not listing the points that are actually AT the core of his complaints. (But since he's trying to "talk it down" to Joe Q. Consumer levels, I would think he's be more careful and specific, not flip.)

I agree it seems they all had different concerns, possibly talking at different levels of interest, but as for getting burned YES, all the formats can burn consumers. But in regards to his point I think it was more the, "Ok I bought this nice HDTV a couple years ago and now I am going to invest a lot of money into a nice media center with BluRay... and what happens when I found out that all that money didn't get me exactly what I expected... maybe only half?" You would feel burned. But this issue is more on the Movie Studio side of the fence. If I were Sony I would be doing everything I could to make sure that every consumer possible gets as much benefit as they can from such an investment. And that is the solution, and thus far sensability as reigned.

Which is true in a fashion, but is true of all current HD DVD, and NOT true of PS3 gaming (which gets insinuated since he mentions the PS3 and Blu-Ray separately). And for anyone spending $3000 on top-end A/V equipment, they're either by now A) used to it, or B) have so much money they don't care. (I leave unstated, of course, those that know what they're doing. 'cuz they know what they're doing. Hehe...)

This, btw, is one of the main reasons I find his fixation odd:

We may be familiar with some of the backdoor information on the ACCS Image Constraint Tokens (ICT) and how there is now a 2011ish date on when that goes into effect (grandfathering), but interestingly I think some of this stuff flies below the radar.

The actual issues with HDMI do fly under the radar for the most part, and Joe Q. Public only knows of them in the "marketing bullet point" way. It explains only part of Rubin's "burned" comment (not the emphasis he gives it, though, since he goes into explaining no specifics), and doesn't at all explain the first "issues" he's talking about, or assigns random prices you "need" for the PS3.

Like I said. 's weird, that's all.

 

[Acert93]

The actual issues with HDMI do fly under the radar for the most part, and Joe Q. Public only knows of them in the "marketing bullet point" way. It explains only part of Rubin's "burned" comment (not the emphasis he gives it, though, since he goes into explaining no specifics), and doesn't at all explain the first "issues" he's talking about, or assigns random prices you "need" for the PS3.

Like I said. 's weird, that's all.

Well, I think you had it right above: High technical level, Joe-Q-Public audiance, fast paced panel discussion, etc... + I think his main thrust, from what he said, was the issue was two fold a) HD optical media doesn't give the same bump that DVDs did, which in his words are "90% there to a theater experience" so he questions the large investment for that last 10% and b) that many early adopters who are already invested in newer equipment, who typically push new technologies, are finding themselves also "obsolete" in a number of new technologies.

All that crammed in with a Joe-Q-Public interviewer + 2 other industry guys with their opinions made it kind of garbled. He has some valid points, but they all did. It all is perspective. The real question will be how much will consumers care, how fast will HD adoption continue to be, how "tech dumb" will consumers continue to be on these topics, and which will be more important in the next 3-5 years: HD, Online, both, or neither? I found it VERY interesting how the analyst and the developer founder tended to contrast at times--which makes sense.

Random Fact: Sony had no less than 174 titles sell over 1M copies last gen. There lies the tension. Sony is the Goliath of the industry. They have tossed history to the wind in many regards. How will these tensions play out? I think the safe bet is Sony will continue to lead, but 174 titles breaking 1M in sales in 6 years seems... insane!

Another Random Fact: Maybe not so insane afterall. The X360 is outpacing the PS2 and Xbox1 in terms of software sales to-date-from-launch. 360 hardware units are not moving at a record pace, but the software sure is. So maybe even with fewer console unit sales, Sony could still break 174 title mark. It will be interesting to see how consumers react (are they buying more software?) and how different market segments respond as well.

The dynamics of the industry shift every generation. This is how we have 3 very different consoles. Everyone is placing bets. Which is right? Who knows... fun to discuss.

 

[cthellis42]

Ah, but what is better...? To have 174 titles break 1 million in sales, or to have ONE MILLION TITLES break at least 174 in sales?!

 

[-tkf-]

man i love apple. i remember steve jobs bragging that they released 4 OS's in the time since microsoft released XP, and the crowd loved it. "Yeah, we paid $100 five times!"

I would rather have a OS that gets updated (and pay for it) than one that stays flawed and is patched endlessly like someone trying to empty the sea with a teaspoon.

Anyway, does apple practice the same insane license key policy that Microsoft does?

I have 2 Server 2003 licenses, from now on, every fucking time i install them i will have to call Microsoft, explain to them "it´s a reinstall", and get numbers before i can proceede. I wonder when they will say stop? If the bastards just did a rutine validation every 2 months they would notice i only have 2 machines running, but nooooo.

Ohh you have a OEM version, sorry, you can only install that at one machine, if that machines breaks down, good luck.

They got me so angry i skipped 2 office generations and is pushing Open Office 2.0 whenever i can.

 

[cthellis42]

Also, if you want to get TRULY technical, since the two initial versions of XP launched, MS has released Media Center edition, any number of Server 2003 editions, 64-bit editions, and a number of other versions for more specialized hardware (Tablet PC's, legacy systems, etc.), so you've actually had any number of upgrade possibilities depending on your hardware and upgrades--certainly more than OSX's three--if you're inclined, and the same "at least one" worthwhile upgrade if you've kept the same system since 2001.

Or you could... you know... keep using whatever version you started with and still be perfectly happy?

 

[London Geezer]

Ah, but what is better...? To have 174 titles break 1 million in sales, or to have ONE MILLION TITLES break at least 174 in sales?!

I'm sure they'd be happy even with 174 Million titles that sell ONE copy each.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm sure they'd be happy even with 174 Million titles that sell ONE copy each.

And if every title costs $1 million to make, and makes $30 in profits, that'll be a loss of $1.74*10^14 = $174,000,000,000,000. That's what, 174 trillion dollars? I'm sure they'll be ecstatic (depending on who 'they' are)

 

[see colon]

I would rather have a OS that gets updated (and pay for it) than one that stays flawed and is patched endlessly like someone trying to empty the sea with a teaspoon.

Anyway, does apple practice the same insane license key policy that Microsoft does?

I have 2 Server 2003 licenses, from now on, every fucking time i install them i will have to call Microsoft, explain to them "it´s a reinstall", and get numbers before i can proceede. I wonder when they will say stop? If the bastards just did a rutine validation every 2 months they would notice i only have 2 machines running, but nooooo.

Ohh you have a OEM version, sorry, you can only install that at one machine, if that machines breaks down, good luck.

They got me so angry i skipped 2 office generations and is pushing Open Office 2.0 whenever i can.

there is no activation with OSX, just your word of honor, so that is nice. some of the OSX releases were welcome. especialy because 10.0 was broken in so many ways (hell, it isn't even supported nowadays and it was released in 2001). but others were more atune to what microsoft releases in service packs, only they cost $130.

Also, if you want to get TRULY technical, since the two initial versions of XP launched, MS has released Media Center edition, any number of Server 2003 editions, 64-bit editions, and a number of other versions for more specialized hardware (Tablet PC's, legacy systems, etc.), so you've actually had any number of upgrade possibilities depending on your hardware and upgrades--certainly more than OSX's three--if you're inclined, and the same "at least one" worthwhile upgrade if you've kept the same system since 2001.

Or you could... you know... keep using whatever version you started with and still be perfectly happy?

on the mac there were 4 releases (soon to be 5) each with a server edition.

I think his main thrust, from what he said, was the issue was two fold a) HD optical media doesn't give the same bump that DVDs did, which in his words are "90% there to a theater experience" so he questions the large investment for that last 10% and b) that many early adopters who are already invested in newer equipment, who typically push new technologies, are finding themselves also "obsolete" in a number of new technologies.

that's what i got out of his rant as well. and i can agree with it 100%. i was the first person i knew with a DVD player, but with BRD and HD-DVD i just don't care. sure it looks nicer, but i just don't care. i didn't upgrade from VHS to DVD just because it looked better. it was the bonus features, skip to chapter, and no rewinding that did it for me. the image and sound quality was just icing on the cake.

 

[mckmas8808]

good point but we (and maybe they) know more about Live than PSN at this point.
.

Man HELL NAW! They didn't know more because this was shot before Gamer's Day and you know it. Not to mention it (if it was shot after Gamer's Day) would be stupid. Plain and simple they didn't know much about Sony's online abilities.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Man HELL NAW! They didn't know more because this was shot before Gamer's Day and you know it. Not to mention it (if it was shot after Gamer's Day) would be stupid. Plain and simple they didn't know much about Sony's online abilities.

Plain and simple sony's online abilities are nothing but vaporware at this point. You seem to think Sony can overcome 5 years of infrastructure and design that XBLive has had in a span of less than a year, I don't see it happening.

Ya they've promised some pretty nice things, lets see how it all plays out when they launch in less than 2 weeks...

The reason they say Sony might never catch up to MS with XBLive is that MS will never stop moving forward, and they already have a 5 year headstart, I don't see what's so unreasonable about that. Do you expect MS to stand still while Sony plays catch up?

 

[mckmas8808]

Plain and simple sony's online abilities are nothing but vaporware at this point. You seem to think Sony can overcome 5 years of infrastructure and design that XBLive has had in a span of less than a year, I don't see it happening.

Ya they've promised some pretty nice things, lets see how it all plays out when they launch in less than 2 weeks...

The reason they say Sony might never catch up to MS with XBLive is that MS will never stop moving forward, and they already have a 5 year headstart, I don't see what's so unreasonable about that.

Vaporware is not the best word. I know what you are trying to say, but you are using the wrong word. You seem to have the mindset that Sony can't catch Live in a year.

I'm thinking they can get very very close while still being free. See that's the big thing that some people don't want to acknowledge. Being free helps Sony alot with competing with Live. All Sony has to do is execute what they showed off so far.

Execute, execute, execute!!!! That should be Sony's new cheer. If they execute then yes I think Sony's online strategy would be equal to Live's in 2007. And the biggest reason for that would be because it's free.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Plain and simple sony's online abilities are nothing but vaporware at this point.

It's a little bit better than vapourware given the options shown in the XMB and the announcement that users can reserve their own PSN identity.

 

[scooby_dooby]

It's a little bit better than vapourware given the options shown in the XMB and the announcement that users can reserve their own PSN identity.

Not really, it's still vaporware. How will this identity be used across all games? Will there be a universal freinds list? Will each game have it's own buddy list? Isn't resistance doing this right now???

As far as I know these are all unanswered questions, and there are many many more..

 

[Tap In]

Man HELL NAW! They didn't know more because this was shot before Gamer's Day and you know it. Not to mention it (if it was shot after Gamer's Day) would be stupid. Plain and simple they didn't know much about Sony's online abilities.

read it again... that's what I said.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Vaporware is not the best word. I know what you are trying to say, but you are using the wrong word. You seem to have the mindset that Sony can't catch Live in a year.

I'm thinking they can get very very close while still being free. See that's the big thing that some people don't want to acknowledge. Being free helps Sony alot with competing with Live. All Sony has to do is execute what they showed off so far.

Execute, execute, execute!!!! That should be Sony's new cheer. If they execute then yes I think Sony's online strategy would be equal to Live's in 2007. And the biggest reason for that would be because it's free.

Oh anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. Sony is not great with software, never have been, and MS is pretty solid in that department, so I really doubt it.

I do like what Sony is trying to do, which is keep it simple and give the basic features that users want. I'm a little worried about 3rd parties charging for online play, the stability of the network, and whether the username/friendslist will be global.

On a side note, XBLive still pisses me off daily, I tried to get in a game of SplinterCell multiplayer last night, spent 30minutes trying to find a match, everysingle match was closed by the host before the game started, except one, in which all teh spies dropped out, and then the host ended the match. What a load of crap!! Tried everything from cutom match, to quick match, to hosting my own...no luck at all, have hard is it to play a fuckin game!?

Talk about a huge pain in the ass, and this is supposedly the 'seamless' XBLive, makes me a little apprehensive about how Sony's 1.0 attempt will work...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Not really, it's still vaporware. How will this identity be used across all games? Will there be a universal freinds list? Will each game have it's own buddy list? Isn't resistance doing this right now???

I agree some of the anticipated features are unproven as of yet, but that's quite a cry from 'Sony's online abilities are vapourware'.

I'll also add that it is possible for a company to overtake an experienced rival. It happens all the time. The easiest analogy is "You seem to think Sony can overcome 15 years of development and industry support Nintendo has had in a span of one console, I don't see it happening," but there's plenty of other examples in all industries. It's not like Sony have to start at year 0 with no knowhow at all and have to learn everything for themselves from scratch. They can take everything learnt from MS's Live work and developer feedback from those who have used Live and know what they want, and apply it with their own network services. That's 5 years of RnD ready to be built upon.

 

[mckmas8808]

On a side note, XBLive still pisses me off daily, I tried to get in a game of SplinterCell multiplayer last night, spent 30minutes trying to find a match, everysingle match was closed by the host before the game started, except one, in which all teh spies dropped out, and then the host ended the match. What a load of crap!! Tried everything from cutom match, to quick match, to hosting my own...no luck at all, have hard is it to play a fuckin game!?

Talk about a huge pain in the ass, and this is supposedly the 'seamless' XBLive, makes me a little apprehensive about how Sony's 1.0 attempt will work...

And see that's the thing. I see lots of people pissed off at small things with Live today. It's still a great online system. I'll give it an 'A' on the report card, but you should be the sameway with Sony's solution.

It may not be perfect, but if one small thing isn't right don't act like it can't compare to Live.

 

[Arwin]

Plain and simple sony's online abilities are nothing but vaporware at this point.

That's not quite true, actually. You are forgetting that while PS2 Online may not have been comparable to Live, but it also isn't non-existent. Never mind that games like PES6, MGS3: Subsistance and Socom are successful online games, or that the PS2's Online doesn't have to compete with Live on the same level because it is free, but you are also forgetting the PSP.

Sony has had some time to experiment a little with the PSP, and with the latest download service on yourpsp.com they are showing they are catching up rather fast. The website is set-up as an online store now, where you can currently only put free content in your shopping cart, which after checking it out lands the items on your download page, where you can easily download them to your PSP.

The kind of stuff you have been able to download there is quite varied, too:

- videos
- music
- game demos
- new levels for commercial games
- etc.

All this data is downloaded and stored into the Game Data folder with proper descriptions too, indicating what you've downloaded, what it is for, and in the interesting case of Tekken's Game Sharing mode where the receiving PSP could opt to cache character data to the memory stick, even if you can delete it or not.

Now, with the store up and running, all that needs to be added is stuff that you actually pay for, and Sony'll have covered the first half of Microsoft's Live service.

For the second half, the online gaming, information is trickling in also. Sure, maybe it won't cover Live completely (impossible, really, for reasons of copyright alone I suspect. ), but the matter is will it cover it well enough. From the looks of it, it just might do more than that. And still for free.

You seem to think Sony can overcome 5 years of infrastructure and design that XBLive has had in a span of less than a year, I don't see it happening.

It's not like Microsoft has been hard at work for 5 years doing nothing but build, build, build! And it's not like Sony has just started thinking about this in January.

Ya they've promised some pretty nice things, lets see how it all plays out when they launch in less than 2 weeks...

What I like is that developers can add support for other services, like the Xfire support in Untold Legends. This could open up the playground for a lot more variety, competition and freedom on the different platforms. This may have downsides, but it certainly also has upsides.

The reason they say Sony might never catch up to MS with XBLive is that MS will never stop moving forward, and they already have a 5 year headstart, I don't see what's so unreasonable about that. Do you expect MS to stand still while Sony plays catch up?

Following that same reasoning you could also say that it was impossible for the Xbox to ever compete with the Playstation in the first place, because the Playstation 1 came to market 5 years before the Xbox ever did.

It's always possible to catch up. Have you ever played Micro Machines? I think it's a nice visualisation of the downside of being a leader.