Harrison: Gaming's Future is the Web Browser, Not Consoles

[blankedboy]

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

 

[SoulSalmon]

BROWSER games? pah!

I'll be the first to scream "PC > EVERY OTHER CONSOLE" to anyone and everyone

But BROWSER games? sure little flash games can addict you for hours if not days or even weeks, but thats the thing, LITTLE flash games, running a 'full' 3d game inside a browser is terrible.
Anyone who played HolyBeast before Ijji moved it into the "Reactor" knows what I mean o.o

 

[SadisticPretzel]

No way! I DEMAND an Xbox version of Farmville! Now! /snark

 

[justnotcricket]

Maybe...

When sufficiently fast internet becomes cheap?

When there is no lag?

When computers are universally kitted out to run top-tier games?

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

 

[Killerbunny001]

Well that was ... random.

Who else thinks the man just saw a game or two, has no idea of the technology behind it and started day dreaming with his mouth open ?

 

[Fumbl3s]

Am I the only one who read this and thought "Yeah, I can see that happening."? Microsoft and Nintendo cater more and more to the "casual gamer" because they spend a lot more money on games and the 4 unique pieces of hardware that come with each one (you know, since they've been busy leading productive lives earning money up until now while we, the hardcore fanbase, have been sustaining these goliaths for the past several decades with our allowance money and parents yearning to buy our love). Zynga makes BILLIONS on their games that are proven to be psychologically addictive.

My point is, wherever the money goes, that's where the gaming industry goes. If they run into the rendering/programming/software/WHATEVER issues that have all been pointed out, people will get creative and find a solution. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Harrison painted a PLAUSIBLE scenario.

 

[mad825]

snip

I was merely saying that 4GB or more of RAM would be required which is plausible as a standard game for Vista/Win7 would require 3GB with the browser as well would take at least 400MB of RAM.

Browser can be more unstable due to the "add-on" feature that is added and even then most of them are prone to memory leaks.

 

[VulakAerr]

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Consoles AREN'T as powerful as computers, but they are more accessible and more simple. That is their selling point. I used to be a PC gamer, I still do for MMOs, but frankly I just got sick of being on the hamster wheel. I know a large number of people who feel the same way as I do. When you buy a console, you have everything you need to make it play the games in the way they're advertised. Therein lies a console's attraction and that's why most of the games I play these days are on a console. When I play games I don't care what I can connect to my console or PC. That's all well and good for other applications, but for games, I want to put a disc in and have it work.

And thank you for the generalisation, but I do indeed understand how my computer works. I've worked in the IT industry for long enough. Your issue is that other people are disagreeing with you and you don't like it. Not that they're wrong. Quoting a dozen posts and writing "No" under them isn't adding much to the discussion either, so I've taken it upon myself to report you. I doubt I'd be the only one. Maybe it'd be best if you just calmed down about things. It can't be healthy getting so worked up about this.

 

[Corpse XxX]

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

And to top that, in internet explorer?!?!?!

The game would not even start before it set itself to autodestruct, caught on fire and killed your cat..

 

[zombie711]

You didn't really say nearly all of that, and you are preempted by reality, where it is completely doing the things you nay-say. Also, uh... 4GB? Christ. This is why I say you don't know how to use your own computer. Don't mention system requirements if you don't understand them.

Sorry, but you're just wrong. Consoles AREN'T as powerful as computers, but they are more accessible and more simple. That is their selling point. I used to be a PC gamer, I still do for MMOs, but frankly I just got sick of being on the hamster wheel. I know a large number of people who feel the same way as I do. When you buy a console, you have everything you need to make it play the games in the way they're advertised. Therein lies a console's attraction and that's why most of the games I play these days are on a console. When I play games I don't care what I can connect to my console or PC. That's all well and good for other applications, but for games, I want to put a disc in and have it work.

And thank you for the generalisation, but I do indeed understand how my computer works. I've worked in the IT industry for long enough. Your issue is that other people are disagreeing with you and you don't like it. Not that they're wrong. Quoting a dozen posts and writing "No" under them isn't adding much to the discussion either, so I've taken it upon myself to report you. I doubt I'd be the only one. Maybe it'd be best if you just calmed down about things. It can't be healthy getting so worked up about this.

Who doesn't know how to use a computer? Any old simpleton can typically use a program or two, even install programs, and at the minimum install plug-ins like Flash. Everything is handed to you. The only way consoles are more simple is in the sense that they are restricted by design, so in terms of usage it could be more simple. But then if you stick a browser in it you're in the same exact position you are in with the PC, except you have the addition of the mouse to help you navigate!

Your other point about games only makes sense to me in the scenario of a clueless parent and a little kid that doesn't know any math. The kid asks for games, and the parent buys a systems and games for it. And if they are lucky, they don't get games for the wrong system. Then you avoid any need for math to compare two numbers: the ones on the box and the ones in your System Properties window. What a complex process that must be. By the way, this concept is also completely outside the scope of the topic.

Also thanks for letting me know you're being a little girl about it. Like omg you reported me, and for what? "Not adding much to the discussion". What a great fucking reason. I didn't know that rule was under your sole discretion. Then... just why the fuck did you respond to me? Fucking hypocrite.

a lot of people prefer console games. and just because people doubt this will happen because its just not likely to happen, with the ammount of piracy on the pc. Onlive is a step in the right direction but I hate the idea of subscription fee attach to a console. lastly I will leave you with a modern day example of what is being proposed. Assassins creed 2 drm.

 

[Kuriko]

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

I'm sorry that you don't like people disagreeing with the original post, and that we prefer to use consoles rather than computers, as they prefer the fact that mostly you can just sit back an relax while playing on a console, rather than sitting at a desk on a computer.

It's all about opinion. You can have yours, and we can have ours.

Back to playing on my DS.

Oh, and I'm well aware of what my computer can and cannot do.

 

[kir4]

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

PROBATION!

Back under the bridge troll.

 

[Bob_F_It]

No

Is that "No" in agreement that like for like performance is more expensive in a PC, or just "No" and then no intelectual input.
Sure, you CAN do all the stuff a console can do on a PC, but is it worth the money and effort?

 

[SaintWaldo]

[semi-trolling cut]

Don't accuse others of being dumb when you are simply gainsaying the entire thread. Which is what trolls do. Saying "No" to everyone without adding to the discussion is an asshole tactic if I ever saw one.

I'm a 15 year career software engineer, and I most certainly DO understand how my computer works, thank you very much. Evidence of this is in my original post. Your post provides nothing but ample reason to call you a jerk. Not that I'm calling you a jerk, I'm jsut saying I would understand someone's motivation for doing so.

Pro Tip: You're not going to make very many friends this way.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

Stop complaining about consoles.

 

[mad825]

You didn't really say nearly all of that, and you are preempted by reality, where it is completely doing the things you nay-say. Also, uh... 4GB? Christ. This is why I say you don't know how to use your own computer. Don't mention system requirements if you don't understand them.

A 32-bit OS can only access and understand 3.12GB of RAM, the amount of RAM that I calucated is 3.4GB therefore a 64-bit OS/program would be needed to access/read that 3.4GB of RAM (which will require 4GB). It will not use the whole 4GB.

anyway bye-bye troll.

 

[Nieroshai]

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

PROBATION!

Back under the bridge troll.

Was about to report when I saw this.

 

[Norix596]

Well seeing as I have a brand new computer released in 2010 and I have found out through attempting to use Steam that my computer is lacking in the graphics capacity to play any game made for the current generation of console gaming, yes, I would say my argument is valid.

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

 

[Nieroshai]

Spoiler: Snip from Hell

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

PROBATION!

Back under the bridge troll.

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

Stop complaining about consoles.

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

PROBATION!

Back under the bridge troll.

Was about to report when I saw this.

Well seeing as I have a brand new computer released in 2010 and I have found out through attempting to use Steam that my computer is lacking in the graphics capacity to play any game made for the current generation of console gaming, yes, I would say my argument is valid.

To the people whining about how computers aren't as simple or casual or powerful or accessible or capable or whatever as consoles:

Stop complaining about computers. None of you understand how your own fucking computers work.

A computer can fit any environment, take any input device, use any output device, and totally do more shit than you would ever know! Shut the hell up and stop bitching about your crappy ass PCs made in 2002 when it was still a challenge for a mid-range PC to run Windows XP.

Yeah, can't see this happening since a lot of people are on the wall on digital distribution and physical copies will always win out in terms of equal price. I don't find playing on a browser appealing, and I think many people forget why console gaming is fun. Because you sit back and play, PC you sit forward and focus more.

No.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

No.

I doute this because flash games are fun but there money comes from advertising. that and the fact that there is no quality control isnt very good. I know streaming video to play a game is fun but some people dont always have internet, more importantly the joys of pc gameing( moding and such) as lost when all you get is a video.

No. VVVVVV.

Pfft.

Keep dreaming, it's rather old news but infuriating nonetheless. I don't want to play any browser games, my shitty netbook won't pull that anyways 24/7. I rather prefer my couch, a big ass HDTV and my console with a wireless joystick to get my gaming on.

No thank you, that's not the future, also so much bias because he is investing into such 'petty' things.

No.

Doubt it. Try getting all wii, ps3, and xbox 360 owners to play on their computer. Games will be slower because of connections.

No.

Can you imagine Fallout: New Vegas running under Flash? Brrr...

No.

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

No.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

No.

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

No and no.

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

No.

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

No.

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

No.

Not to mention the unanimous love of a PC over a console. Not everyone wants to play next-gen games on a PC...

Just what does "next-gen" mean? No.

I'm still having problems with Mafia Wars crashing every five minutes, there's no way CoD will work anytime soon.

No.

I don't really think so. You'd have to download it every time you open the game...

No, and you apparently have no idea how a browser functions.

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.

Yes.

I don't think he's thought of everything. For one, FaceBook games are still bound to a proprietary platform in that they have to use the FB API. And if we aren't talking about FB games, we almost certainly are talking about Flash games, which, again, isn't open at all. The platform isn't just hardware. And just because it's not hardware doesn't mean it's open, or even accessible.

Does he really think everyone will want to develop gemes in obfuscated JQuery, or whatever the dominant platform turns out to be?

What about Atom processors or 10 year old hardware with zero 3D acceleration?

Who makes the standard(s)?

What makes any of this non-proprietary or open?

Why would this not just lead to a different type of war where once again non-game concerns intrude on the actual, you know, gaming? Big hint: I still see money in his system, and we know what THAT does to civility amongst players.

What makes you think there will be a "win" in the browser app market? FF and Chrome are still battling it out and that's just on my own desktop!

Why would this market behave any different than the core console or PC format markets, which have never produced a clear "winner" for more than the length of the current cycle?

If it's actually fully open, cross-platform, and uses zero third-party add-ons to work, a browser based platform inherits 100% of the disadvantages of cross-platform PC gaming while gaining 0% of the advantages that a console gives. I'm just curious how that math works, from a developers point of view.

Fuck no.

When computers all meet consistent power standards, and browsers are all the same, I could see this. Otherwise, it is immpossible. Have you ever tried building a website? You have to code the site for every popular browser: IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and all their most recent versions, and the need to keep up with the latest version and security exploits. Not to mention Safari is on a completely different OS that uses different graphics and so on. I couldn't imagine doing this for a game. Game release dates are thrown off enough just because of the hardware differences.

No. Geez, what the hell are you talking about? Lots of browsers work on multiple operating systems. Fuck, Opera is practically used in most gaming consoles as well. Eat that shit.

it'll never work. there are too many people(like me) who just prefer the console interface over a computer with mouse/keyboard. Also, it's much harder for parents to control what games kids play in a browser basis.

No.

He sounds like he's trying to have it both ways. Anyone can play Farmville -- it's not very processing intensive and that's why it's widely available. To be able to play a game on the technological level of Modern Warfare 2, to use his example, you would need a VERY good video card -- in other words you would need a gaming computer/laptop which are even more expensive than consoles. I think the web is a great medium for low tech widely available and casual games but if someone is willing to invest in the hardware that would allow them to play AAA games they're probably just going to buy a console.

No. Which is why he is talking about the god damn future, genius.

100% False. The browser is already dead and dying as it is. Not counting us, most people use Apps for all of their information.

lmfao

Eheheh...
You know how alot of popular flash games and such get downloaded every time you play them because they're in-browser? Imagine if a game like Call of Duty did that xD

No. See above.

I'm sorry, but internet is expensive (I don't want to effectively pay more for a game every time I play it) and so is top-line computer hardware (and the requirements are going to change constantly)

No.

Hey, guys, stop quoting the whole entire post, damn fucking idiots.

Calling the kettle black, aren't we? Yours is the longest post yet.

 

[AceAngel]

Normal Map Parallaxing and 2K Diffuse maps are impossible in Browsers. UE3 Tech Demo on the IPhone has most textures sized at 512K and the Materials are no more then...

Wait, forget everything I said, the fact that my high end PC has problems already playing a 10MB Flash game in my Browser(s) only furthers my point.