The Days of Consoles Are Numbered, Says EA Founder

[Flamezdudes]

I hope that this never comes to fruition, i love being able to own my games and hope to create a large collection or games so in the future i can always go back to them instead of having to pay for them as a service and have to rent the damn games. I doubt companoes like Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony will agree with this though.

 

[Deathfish15]

The problem is: Cloud based gaming sucks. I mean, consider the "warm welcoming" that Ubisoft got for it's games that needed constant connection to their servers, which even had issues of going down a lot during it's first few weeks of service.

When the internet goes down (which it does sometimes), doesn't that mean that all cloud-based games and internet required games will be inoperable to use? Yes, that's what that means. All of your gaming library would be USELESS! That would suck.


And games are not services, they're products. TV, such as the News, is a service and that aligns more with the internet in general. But, movies are PRODUCTS that are purchased and kept and used, just as a video game is. Neither of which are services.

The only video game that is a service is a MMORPG, and that's because it is a service of constant virtual 3D worldly living and experience. Weird when compared to other online games, I know..., however most other online games have an ending, a small map with a single objective that eventually ends at some point and will reload or load a new map. For an MMORPG, the map is ever consistent and never has a clear ending objective that makes it give a "You Win/You Lose" screen right before kicking you to some load or menu (except for included mini-games within said universe known as Battlegrounds, but those end and then drop you back into the game's regular map world).



Edit: P.S. Many more of these foolish developer/publisher need to take a page from Valve and see that when they support their customers through their products with open arms, then they'd make more money and get more general appreciation. Instead of milking the DLC, provide much of it free, that way the gamers will jump on to your next product without a second glance; instead of hosting your own servers and then shutting them down months later, open up the option of player ran dedicated servers (saves money and pleases audience); instead of crappy games, make QUALITY products that has some actual development and QC time put into them.

 

[Neuromaster]

The news title doesn't really match what I took away from the source material. In fact, several contributors offer opinions that seem to point in the opposite direction, like at 6:50 and again at 7:18 - "I don't think the Halo player is suddenly playing Farmville".

Yes, yes, we know social/casual gaming is blowing up in a big way. And the media is all over it because the big publishers are all over it because that's where the new money is. Huge growth potential, millions of new customers and all that.

But then how do you make the jump to services like Onlive or Gaikai? And how do you figure that the days of consoles are numbered? That seems counter-intuitive to me. If I took anything away from the explosion of social/casual games it's that people enjoy getting tidbits of their games on different devices. Plants vs Zombies on the iPad and the PC. WoW armory on the iPhone. Cloud savegames. And haven't we been clamoring for PC-console multiplayer crossover for years?

Digital distribution won't fundamentally change anything. How much of the gaming experience is picking up a box or clicking a link? It might be painful and exciting for industry executives, but it's honestly not that big of a deal to the average gamer. Our preferences and expectations may change over time, but I've yet to meet the person more excited about getting a digital download from Steam than the game itself.

The social/casual market is expanding rapidly, and distribution opportunities are changing. But I still don't think the Halo player has moved over to Farmville. I can see how execs might get all hot and bothered over this stuff but as a core consumer I'm just not too impressed.

 

[Mr. Omega]

They keep talking about services instead of product. You know what I'd like my video games to remain a product. This reason being that I enjoy "owning" the product instead of paying for a service. That sounds like a way for them to charge more for less

^^Agreed at 100%

seconded.
Also, internet distribution for games would be a problem at this point becuase not everyone has internet at their own home. I they need to focus on giving everybody easy acess to the internet before making it the only place we can get games. I do agree that digital distribution is the way of the future, but you know what? So are flying cars, androids, world peace and giant robots. It'll happen everntualy, but I'll most likely not live long enough to see it. Plus, I agree with most of this thread; I like having a physical copy of the game in my home.

 

[traineesword]

May I be dead and buried before this happens. I like my systems, and I like owning a physical copy of my game. Granted, the idea of getting rid of multiple counsels sounds appealing, but let's be honest here. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will never get along enough to agree, "Yeah, I'll get rid of mine (and promise not to make a new one) if you get rid of yours."

The way you word it reminds me of my History Lessons concerning Dis-armamemnt pacts that were supposed to be made... and thankfully because those worked, we live in a world of peace

it also reminds me of this chart http://www.halolz.com/2009/07/22/videogame-message-board-reaction-chart/

 

[viranimus]

NO!

Just because you have the ability does not mean you have to use it.

I mean its mind boggling that the game industry thinks it has the inherent right to keep charging you for something, even though your not using it. One thing this will likely do is kill replayability in gaming. moving it toward a model more akin to the movie industry. If you have to pay for each time you play a game, the largest bulk of people will play it once and never bother with it again.

It frees the developers up to do whatever they like with the content too. Look at XBL and Halo 2 for example. A title that practically made the console. Say if you got an urge for nostalgia and want to play some halo 2 multiplayer. Good luck because its no longer supported.

This is an absolutely horrible idea that basically every gamer should be railing against, but I know I am basically screaming in a packed stadium of people who are ready to buy into it, because I have been screaming the same thing against the precursor to this which is digital distribution.

No!, seriously. No.

 

[zHellas]

I long for this day.... fuck off console zealots, hello games for all....

...Console zealots? Where are they? Never seen them.

 

[Nimzar]

I long for this day.... fuck off console zealots, hello games for all....

Console Zealots? Is it bad that the image that draws in my mind is of a bunch of Protoss Zealots guarding a stack of 360s and PS3s?

 

[mjc0961]

I long for this day.... fuck off console zealots, hello games for all....

Oh come on, I can see it now. There isn't going to be one universal service (that would be a monopoly which is bad), there are going to be various ones and it's going to be the same shit fanboys that we have now. Only difference is that we'd be at the mercy of some other company's server instead of being able to have an actual product in our hands to play on our console which is a lot worse.

----------

If I may be extremely blunt here, fuck cloud based gaming.

 

[Neuromaster]

The problem is: Cloud based gaming sucks. I mean, consider the "warm welcoming" that Ubisoft got for it's games that needed constant connection to their servers, which even had issues of going down a lot during it's first few weeks of service.

When the internet goes down (which it does sometimes), doesn't that mean that all cloud-based games and internet required games will be inoperable to use? Yes, that's what that means. All of your gaming library would be USELESS! That would suck.

But it doesn't have to suck. I blame this on "the cloud" being a relatively new phenomenon for the industry. Being able to download & play any of my Steam games on any computer rocks. Being able to access my Starcraft II saves at my friend's house is awesome. Being able to see my ladder stats on the Battle.net forums is pretty sweet.

When the cloud is used to serve the customer (as opposed to lock him down), it's very cool. I think the core industry is still learning how to take advantage of cloud opportunities, and unfortunately I think a lot of Evil Execs with a god complex jumped on the opportunity to tighten the reins. That's unfortunate, because it's given us a bad taste for the whole "cloud" thing (Ubisoft, we're looking at you).

The only video game that is a service is a MMORPG, and that's because it is a service of constant virtual 3D worldly living and experience. Weird when compared to other online games, I know..., however most other online games have an ending, a small map with a single objective that eventually ends at some point and will reload or load a new map. For an MMORPG, the map is ever consistent and never has a clear ending objective that makes it give a "You Win/You Lose" screen right before kicking you to some load or menu (except for included mini-games within said universe known as Battlegrounds, but those end and then drop you back into the game's regular map world).

This doesn't have to be the case. MMOs are the most obvious because you pay a monthly fee. But plenty of social/browser games also look like a "service", since you keep coming back to them and they often continue to develop new content. To some extent well-supported games like Team Fortress 2 are a "service", as new maps, updates, and bonuses continue to be rolled out long after you shelled out your $50. What about games with competitive multiplayer ladders like Starcraft or SCII? Or even unabashedly single-player franchises like Mass Effect that extend their life with DLC?

They're not "traditional" services, but they all invest significant time and money into improving the game and cultivating a community around it. A burger is a product. It's sold from you and from that point on the frylord wants nothing more to do with it. Some games are also sold that way - typically bad ones. I think that at least aspects of thinking about video games as a service are quite good, especially those pertaining to gaming communities.

 

[Xiorell]

I want consoles to step back, not become one big "cloud" that exists somewhere in the fucking ether.
I don't want steaming TV on my console, media players, movies to rent, internet, an egg timer, tea strainer.... I want more of the old, "Game goes in, machine make game go, human play game"

 

[Blue Musician]

I do not agree with him, but one thing I am sure: PC will still be my platform of choice.

 

[Souplex]

Every year some PC gaming yutz says that, and every year consoles take more of the market form PCs.

 

[ImprovizoR]

No one cares about cloud gaming. People want to own their games and play them regardless of internet connection. And they don't want to pay monthly just to be able to play games that they already own. Which is why OnLive will fail.

 

[gl1koz3]

Also means days with ma'money in your pockets are numbered.

 

[V8 Ninja]

No. While I do see the possibilities of cloud-based gaming becoming extremely big in the future, I doubt that consoles will die because of it.

 

[manythings]

I long for this day.... fuck off console zealots, hello games for all....

Yes but once they stop having consoles to argue over they'll find something new... resolutions or something equally ridiculous.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Speaking on Scott Steinberg's web show Game Theory [http://gametheoryonline.com/2010/08/10/video-game-industry-sales-nothing-changed/], Hawkins said that for a long time the industry had a single platform, "winner takes all" focus, but that it was clear that that wasn't a viable business model any more.

Yeah, and then we will be required to pay subscription fees like LIVE and they could jack the prices up with no competition. Even if it did happen, there would still be the PC option, so no, it will never work.

 

[felixader]

I will not repeat what has already been said so i am gonna point to this comment:

They keep talking about services instead of product. You know what I'd like my video games to remain a product. This reason being that I enjoy "owning" the product instead of paying for a service. That sounds like a way for them to charge more for less

And this one:

I'm going to be blunt. I disagree wholeheartedly with statements like this and, personally, I hope that things like Onlive do not become the standard. Why? It's very simple. I like to go back and play older games from time to time and I can do this because I don't have to worry about whether there's a server out there somewhere that still supports it.

I purchased Mercenaries 2 and can no longer play the multiplayer elements of it because those servers were shut down. What happens when we start losing servers that cut us off from games we've paid for entirely? Does somebody plan on refunding me the money that I spent at that point? See, I pay to purchase my games, not to rent them for some indeterminate amount of time dictated by somebody's willingness to continue shelling out for a server.

And i am gonna add that the Games industys heads are more and more thinking like politicians in that they restate commenst wich have been already made dozends of times before, wich also could be taken as some kind of Consumer trolling, considering who will in the end read those comments, just to get some undeserved attention to them. ^.^

Well and Gamesjournalism feeds theire demands and we, the gamers, comment on the delivery of their demands.