The Upcoming (And Pointless) Console War

[Steve the Pocket]

The problem with touch screen is essentially that the cursor, which is my finger, is about 80 times larger than the single pixel point at the tip of my mouse cursor, it's like throwing a hundred darts taped together at a dart board and trying to figure out which one to count for points, so the software has to try and figure out which part of my finger I'm trying to use as the cursor tip. The only way for a touch screen to be accurate is when you use a stylus, and if the touch screen is in the controller like the DS and you want to use the buttons as well you have to switch between the two.

Eh. That's why you design the interfaces with large controls that are easy to aim at. And since video game GUIs already are, needing to be easily readable on a screen ten feet away and all, I don't see any issue.

 

[Colt47]

Having two screens to play with can only be justified if both screens are used synchronously. It makes sense on the DS because the screens are right next to each other and there's a dearth of screen real estate on a handheld, but my living room TV is very big and lots of stuff can fit on it.

Bully for you. My living room TV isn't all that big, and a lot of games tend to look quite cluttered and cramped on it because of all the HUD crap thrown onto it. Have you seen the HUD for Battlefield 3? A messier collection of maps and info I have yet to see. If the Wii U controller can be used for something even as simple as decluttering the utter mess that has become the Shooter HUD screen, then I'll be thankful. Being able to go through inventories and menus and keyboards without having to wrestle with D-pads and bumpers is another plus. Being able to play directly on my controller while someone else watches the TV is a third.

There you go: three direct benefits that can arise from having a touchscreen controller, none of which require any touch-screen gameplay gimmickry, and all of which would make gaming more enjoyable for the likes of me, who can't afford 40" HD monstrosities. That's just off the top of my head.

I envision people going back and forth on this one depending on their home set up. The primary use of the screen seems to be focused more around a means for kids to play games while the parents are watching TV. Other uses for the device are kind of an after thought. It's still not as much of a dead end as core handheld gaming is and is continuing to be, with lesser versions of mainstream console titles continuing to be ported to them just to give them a facsimile of a game library. However, it's probably a feature that will exist solely in this coming generation of consoles and then cease to be, much like the Dreamcast.

 

[David Chadwell]

Yahtzee is demonstrably wrong this time. The so-called 'video game crash' of 1983 was due to non-exclusivity. Consoles aren't viably sold at a price that covers their manufacture. What subsidizes that manufacture is software. In 1983 Ataris and Colecolovisions and whatever elses all had the same Pong, PacMan, Q-bert and no reason to buy any particular console. Hence, each one failed to stay profitable and the concept of home videogames nearly took one in the face. Shigeru Miyamoto's work allowed an NES to exist: a console with exclusive content. Nintendo became a powerhouse as the only place to get Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc.

If Yahtzee's thesis was that the future can get away from this with leaps in tech and market (cloud computing giving access to games via a service and access devices become interchangable, for example) then fine. But MS is only in the console business to make sure other companies don't make that money (in the same way Google docs is a free service from a search engine/advertising company). MS has no vested interest in stopping the console war, neither does Sony and Nintendo remains the only company in any hope of a position to win one (regularly going after yet-to-be gamers, in house great-not-just-good properties). To ask for a console and NOT a console war is kinda stupid.

Even this Steam Box is just a leap down the same road. Valve will make money from Half-Life 3 to cover any other endeavor and giving developers a direct line to customers for a cut is a profitable and respectable service. Linux plus a free install of the Steam service allowing it to go home brew kicks other console makers in the teeth. EA getting jacked on Origin, X-Box/PS? being undersold and out-manuevered...all that helps not only customers but Valve in the long run. But companies still need a reason for a customer to make the choice to purchase their particular device instead of another to maintain the growth of capabilities of consoles. Even if not every experiment agrees with every customer (Wii controls for some people apparently).