- Active Posts:
- 1288 (1.19 per day)
- Most Active In:
- General Discussion (313 posts)
- 04-June 10
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Today, 04:50 AM
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown
- Reading, UK
Posts I've Made
20 May 2013 - 02:16 PMNo, I wouldn't expect service packs to free unless those were "bug fixes". I'm saying that something FIFA doesn't really change much per year but gets full price for a player rooster change. The last PC game I bought I paid extra for the "service pack" and didn't think about it since it was cheaper, although I did pay a lot for both combined.
In fairness, EA do a lot more than they could do. As well as the roster update (and updating player values and stuff, which presumably takes a lot of research) they also add features every year to the franchise. Part of this is because they've got a pretty prominent competitor I guess.
The fact is though, if people pay for it, why wouldn't you? The difference between lots of iterations of products is evolutionary or negligible (take iPhones, or most popular movie franchises). Its not surprising the games industry follows the same track.
I'm all for it if it funds innovation.
I also do understand the economics behind why game consoles are sold for a loss to push sales. Which worked until the last few years. The golden age of arcades has long past and the days of having a killer quarter game and a sub-par console experience that still sold like crazy is gone.
It's a complex issue between customers, consoles and games. Customers will buy if the consoles and games are there. But I have feeling that consoles have saturated the market and moving to a new platform is like de using to buy a new PC -- if I'm just getting a smaller box and hardly and speed benefit why bother???
Xbox (for example) is still a billion dollar business. I'd hardly say the days of making money from consoles has gone.
The reason that people move to new consoles is because the speed (and other benefits) are usually pretty big. In the same way, I'd guess that PC gamers usually upgrade their machines every 7 years (if not more frequently).
There's also the fact that newer games won't be released on older consoles. You don't have to update as soon as the next one comes out, as long as you accept the fact that you're on a burning platform and that you'll get less and less games/support over time.
Games -- well who really ever expected them to build games on movie budgets? At least with movies they have a box office, rental and network release. Games only get cheaper years later when their appeal has long past.
I'm not really sure what your point is here. The games industry is by far the most successful (financially) of the entertainment industries.
Whilst game industry titles become less valuable over time, the same can be said for movies. Once they've got past the cinema release, and the initial DVD release, they're constrained to the bargain box in supermarkets (except in very rare cases). I'd say the trend is pretty much identical in games (or any other form of entertainment).
Users have grown used to PC upgrade ability and consoles just don't really do it. Is there any major spec difference in any of the PS line?
PS could probably blame IBM which was a bane for Mac users for years. Xbox! Why go powe PC after apple dropped that CPU too! At least Sony got the cell! I have no idea what powers the ex-playing cards (nintendo) hybrid mechanical pencil (Sharp) console now known as Wii.
The PS1 used a 33MHz RISC chip. The PS3 uses a 3.2GHz and has multiple cores. Thats a pretty major spec difference...
The reason that all major console manufacturers used PowerPC (the wii is PPC and 1 core of the PS3 is) is because of cost - the Xbox (and probably others) needed a custom chip to give the required performance at the required price point. Intel's off the shelf products at the time wouldn't offer the performance needed in critical areas for cheap enough. PowerPC allows the manufacturers to build custom chips which specialise in what they need.
For the next generation that won't be the case - I wouldn't be surprised to see some the x86 architecture.
Maybe sharp should produce TVs with built in again!
I think this means consoles in TVs?
TVs and Games Consoles are separate things. Decoupling them means that I can buy a high definition 50" screen if I want, or I can buy a old school CRT screen, but still play the same games. It also means I can play my old consoles from years ago, rather than having to lug out an old TV.
The current industry trend is 'smart TVs' which are basically TVs with apps. I reckon we'll see that carry on for a bit.
Anyway, the industry needs a revolution or at least evolve enough to bring people back from their phones.
I'd love to see a component system by onkyo or pioneer! Audio quality, TV control, android connection and still the same gaming quality as today. I want those units to occupy space under my TV. Hmmm, would apple revive the pippin to finally take control of the home entertainment systems! Lol, that word doesn't really even include gaming ... Well at least Microsoft sort of tried!
I don't really think that gaming needs a 'revolution' as such. Its already had one in the last couple of years in regards to casual gaming (the wii and the kinect) and mobile gaming. Consoles are still profitable as hell, and will be for a long time. There's simply no sense in playing the latest halo game on your iPhone, and there'll always be a market for that sort of thing.
What's also interesting will be Stream Boxes, Ouya, Onlive and the like. They have real potential to disrupt the major players.
Here's another thought, why aren't there cross compatible consoles? You know just like PC hardware that can run windows or Linux.
I really would love to see a gaming renaissance!
Money mostly. Consoles are still a very closed ecosystem and it benefits pretty much everybody to keep it that way.
Again, things like Ouya and Streambox might see that change though.
17 May 2013 - 03:27 PMThanks for the "fixes" but that is not what I'm getting at. In saying that its time the console app makers and console manufacturers rethink their strategy.
At the moment, I've thought about throwing an android stick tv on the back of my tv but I'm not I retested in putting together a "Mac mini" just for gameing or even browsing + music. I had windows XP running in my car with a touch screen and most goodies a carpc has. I took out since it was more of hassle than just a dumb radio unit that was in their originally. So, I could just move my mini-atx board over to the TV and be done with it. But that still doesn't solve what I first mentioned. It's just a hack / fix.
Why can't I just get a gaming console that works, has service package to go from winning 11 to 13! Or something like that? Why do I have to buy full new games?
Xbox, Sony and Nintendo are going to have work harder to get me to buy one of their units so that I can fork out for about 4 games that cost as much as the console! Nahhhh, my iPhone covers my addiction at the same time providing a phone and what not; all in one.
Until then, I'll remeber my wonderful dream cast that was fun until the market killed it
The reason that this won't happen is because its fundamentally against the economies of the games industry. Games cost an absolute ton to make, both in terms of development and marketing. They tend to be really technically complex, and subject to very strict deadlines (its difficult to push back a game when millions of pounds of marketing have gone into it).
Additionally, consumers don't want the 'big bang' of paying tons for a console up front but increasingly complex technology makes the manufacturing costs of consoles quite high.
For those reasons, Sony and Microsoft both sell their consoles at a loss, making money from other things (Xbox Live subscriptions and games).
If you make incremental updates to games free, essentially you lose the major revenue source for games. Consoles will either become prohibitively expensive, or companies will artificially limit technical development to keep the costs of production down. A lack of profit for publishers will mean that they only fund games they know will be successful (arguably this is true now - I'd predict it'd be more widespread) - without the tons of money that companies make off your FIFA's and your Call of Duty's, they'd be even more risk averse. These changes would exacerbate the already widely reported issues in games development - smaller wages and longer hours to go with the tighter profit margins.
In some ways though, console games are going in that direction. It seems like both Sony and Microsoft are stepping further towards digital distribution with every release or update (I for one hope we start seeing Steam like deals on consoles more frequently), DLC and patches are regular fare in games nowadays, and with an increase in streaming models and app stores, I wouldn't be surprised to see at least one of those innovations being present by the end of the next generation of consoles (PS4 and Durango).
29 April 2013 - 09:07 AMIt really doesn't seem like that much of a big deal. The real thing with 'walled gardens' is stopping people from getting apps anywhere except for officially vetted, proprietary stores. As everybody has recognized, this isn't something that Google is doing.
It seems like they're specifically closing a loophole which only Facebook (and as far as I'm aware very few other people) are using. Having one way to do common things (updating, installing, uninstalling, managing privacy, etc) is a really powerful usability feature, and I'm not surprised that Google is taking steps to protect that.
To be honest, my preference would be that Google clamped down on things even more. It'd be good to have a really high quality official app store, with appropriate vetting etc for non-expert users, whilst still allowing more 'expert' power users to choose their app store if they want to. Sort of like the Apple situation, only with Google making 'jailbraking' as easy as possible (a checkbox like it is already) and generally encouraging it.
26 April 2013 - 08:46 AMIts the general point about proprietary vs open source solutions I suppose.
Unfortunately, Open Source Software still has a lot of distrust in a lot of commercial situations. Companies don't want to accept the risk.
Because there's not really one place to point the blame, if something goes wrong it can be more difficult to manage. For example, if somebody happened to submit GPL code into a popular open source blogging site, the company using it could (or may think they could) be in a difficult legal/IP position.
There also tends to be a lack of support and customer service with Open Source Software over commercial software.
If you buy a CMS from a well established company, then you have a place to point the blame if anything goes wrong, you have somebody to pick up the phone to and call if something goes wrong.
Some of this is obviously not correct for some open source solutions in certain situations, but in other cases it is. That unfortunately means that OSS generally gets painted with the same brush. As the old saying goes "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
If you've already got a CMS with Adobe and you're happy with their service, you probably don't care too much about using Business Catalyst.
24 April 2013 - 02:05 PM