How long until Blizzard launches its own console?

[Laa-Yosh]

Looking at Blizzcon... achievments, friend lists, ingame chat, all cross-game through Battle.net, and they're working on their fourth IP.

So seriously, put some PC hardware in a box with the Blizzard logo on top of it and we have a fourth console platform.

Edit - there's even a Marketplace now.

 

[V3]

When Intel get shut out from consoles race, maybe ?

 

[Scott_Arm]

You could say the same about Steam.

 

[woundingchaney]

Realistically what is the incentive for either Blizzard or Valve to release a console?? Its not like MS or Sony have been overly successful in the console industry (in fact it is the opposite) nor is the Nintendo approach overly realistic for Blizzard or Valve.

Blizzard and Valve are both rather successful currently and I cant see them moving onto the hardware front any time soon, particularly a venture as risky as console manufacturing.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Realistically what is the incentive for either Blizzard or Valve to release a console??

They build a closed box cheap PC config that can run Diablo III and SC 2 at a given res and detail, and have less to worry about engine settings, QA testing, and so on. Helps standardize online play too and so on.

Its not like MS or Sony have been overly successful in the console industry (in fact it is the opposite) nor is the Nintendo approach overly realistic for Blizzard or Valve.

This console is more like a virtual one, giving out the badge only to existing hardware manufacturers. Or partner with a single one like ASUS to build it and make money on the machine.

I'm really just wondering about toying with the idea. They are building an entire infrastructure running in paralel with the internet and on top of the PC OS. You can get rid of MSN/ICQ and other small apps, don't have to worry about hardware components etc. and even browse the net and play back all kinds of media. Maybe add a customized version of Win7 on top? MS would probably jump on the idea, now that Games for Windows seems kinda dead...

 

[obonicus]

Why not say the same about Steam?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Valve doesn't have nearly enough of a userbase for their own games... Blizzard has about 11 million WoW users already, and I'd say with Starcraft and Diablo it will add up to about 20-25 million at least. This is a market that could be worth to try something unique with it.

Steam as a distribution platform is the coolest thing ever, obviously, but I don't get this feeling that they could do more with it.

Blizzard on the other hand is making active steps in separating their user base away from the rest of the PC gaming world IMHO. Which also means closing out the competition. Linking every one of them together with Battle.net - which they make obligatory in SC2 - is a very big and bold move. And I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that D3 will be the same. Notice they only mention user benefits at Blizzcon but it obviously isn't there just for the gamers.

This way they can have a stronger presence and extend it to their other games and services.
Realize that people will probably chat less and less using ICQ/MSN when they have a B.net version for their online gaming pals... And seeing others' achievments in games you don't yet have is also a huge motivational force to buy that particular game. They're still building the groundwork but probably have other plans for the future as well.

So all in all I feel like Blizzard is building a closed gaming platform for themselves. It's software only on the client side at the moment... But they already control the hardware on the server side and so it would be a natural next step to extend their reach to the actual gaming machines too. Imagine all those Korean net cafes buying Blizzard gaming systems by the dozens or even hundreds. And it wouldn't be just about revenue, they could make sure to include hardware features they could make further use of.

But Valve isn't interested in locking out other games because they get revenue from that, so Steam won't become any more closed then it is now (pretty much everyone's free to join and add their games). Their own game development is probably migrating to the X360 anyway and they're probably designing HL3 with a controller in mind.

Also note that I'm not saying that Blizzard's evil or anything. It's natural that they try to capitalize on their supersized presence in the PC gaming market.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Valve doesn't have nearly enough of a userbase for their own games... Blizzard has about 11 million WoW users already, and I'd say with Starcraft and Diablo it will add up to about 20-25 million at least. This is a market that could be worth to try something unique with it.

To get the benefits you mentioned previously would mean that they would have to abandon the PC and successfully make people to buy a another machine in addition to their current PC. I see that transition as problematic. The games would at least have to work on both platforms for a long time and it might be hard for Blizzard to convince people to move to their own more limited platform and in that case they wouldn't be enjoying any of the single platform benefits.

 

[-tkf-]

They build a closed box cheap PC config that can run Diablo III and SC 2 at a given res and detail, and have less to worry about engine settings, QA testing, and so on. Helps standardize online play too and so on.

Their strength right now is the wide user base, how would a 100-200 dollar added entry fee help them?

 

[liolio]

I can't see Blizzard launching a console, given the very online nature of most their games (thus most users should have quiet potent Internet access) I could see them interested in cloud rendering computing. For me it would make more sense for them to buy onlive or its competitor (don't remember the name J.Perry stuffs) or develop their own.

 

[Arwin]

I can't see Blizzard launching a console, given the very online nature of most their games (thus most users should have quiet potent Internet access) I could see them interested in cloud rendering computing. For me it would make more sense for them to buy onlive or its competitor (don't remember the name J.Perry stuffs) or develop their own.

I was just coming back to this thread to post pretty much exactly this. It also suits their pricing model.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I thought it'd be crazy for Blizzard to launch a console, but it's just occured to me there could be no entry cost at all. Blizzard is about subscription services. Clients would just subscribe and get a box through the post.

Of course, the question then is, what's the point? Who else will develop for the platform when it's obvious the poeple owning it only care to play WoW?! I guess the whole of ActivisionBlizzard could go BlizzardBox exclusive, but that'd be a bit crazy.

 

[Rangers]

When Intel get shut out from consoles race, maybe ?

You know I was thinking about this, if we assume there will only be two "high end" players next gen, Sony and MS, then you have three vendors that assumedly all really, really want to be in the consoles. Nvidia, ATI, and Intel (Larrabee). Intel and Nvidia have stated they really want in next gen consoles.

Somebody is going to get frozen out unless I miss something.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

They are already building a closed platform with Battle.net and the investments there must be huge compared to assembling a certain PC config from 3rd party hardware.

Which is why I'm thinking out loudly here... what benefits could there be if they were to extend this platform from pure software to hardware?
Something like a "Blizzard recommended" label could be a good start to make the transition and would require very little from them.

But I also agree that the online component is the more important and thus they require good internet access above everything else.

 

[-tkf-]

Clients would just subscribe and get a box through the post.

Right now their Hardware platform is upgraded by the users and paid for by the users. If they go for their own hardware they would have to cover that as well.

 

[Rolf N]

They build a closed box cheap PC config that can run Diablo III and SC 2 at a given res and detail, and have less to worry about engine settings, QA testing, and so on. Helps standardize online play too and so on.

Those savings don't exist unless the games become exclusive to that hypothetical box (=no PC/Mac versions).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I don't see any potential for profit here.

All I see is increased costs for both Blizzard and consumers. And the added cost to consumers would quite significantly reduce the userbase of Blizzard games.

Heck just look at all the Blizzard fans getting their panties in a bunch that SC3 will be semi-episodic with 3 seperate episodes. They are already complaining about the cost of the main engine + first episode and then 2 expansion episodes.

Or heck all the Blizzard leeches getting their panties in a bunch because they'll actually be required to "buy" the game to play any form of multiplayer rather than just pirating it.

Regards,
SB

 

[rekator]

Well may be a better solution is to rent the ActiBlizzRing more than to sell it… Users can update regularly the ActiBlizzRing… 2 or 3 years or more. And in the rent you have formula for unlimited acces at all the ActiBlizzard games .

 

[tha_con]

I don't think they'd launch a console. It wouldn't make sense for them.

They'll be better off supporting current gen hardware and putting their software on that market, considering it's already established. I don't think it would be worth their efforts to put out their own console. It's not their business.

To take it one step further, I'd say that "Battlenet" is technically their own platform within PC gaming.

 

[AzBat]

If not Blizzard, then what other software publisher would make sense? We already discussed EA, but with the recent economical climate & their new larger than life competitor Activision, I'm not so sure it makes much sense anymore. Right now I don't think it makes sense for anybody but Apple to get in the console business.

Tommy McClain