If you’ve been around since the 80′s it may be hard for you to envision the interactive landscape without some sort of cumbersome console laying under your television waiting for you to put a cartridge or DVD into. Fortunately for you this won’t soon be the case as our ability to stream vast amounts of content has increased substantially over the past decade or so.
The “Console War” would be a term that has come to define the competition between hardware industry giants for the past three decades. The well defined lines of warring fans have been blurred over the years. This is due in part to the number of quality titles being released exclusively on certain consoles. The other and more likely reason is that the initial video game generation has grown up, and obtained the expendable patronage with which to purchase all of the consoles if they so choose. There is no denying that Nintendo has been the longest standing competitor, but with Sony’s and Microsoft’s cemented establishment in the console market the ascendance of one particular platform is unlikely and with major changes once again looming in the interactive industry it may not matter.
We’ve all already seen the beginning of this shift through the live clients available on the Wii, Xbox 360, and Playstaion 3, but many industry professionals are predicting the day that we will acquire all games in this fashion. While this concept is not only exciting, and capable of creating even more of a boom in the current economic climate of the video game industry, it is going to have serious repercussions for the firmly vested hardware contenders.
With the advent of downloadable content we will soon see the day when consumers no longer have to purchase hardware consoles that have recently broken the half a grand mark. We are reaching what is being called the 8th official console cycle which is estimated to be between 2013 and 2014. There are however doubts among many in the community that we will see a 9th.
Some have even claimed that we will not see an 8th cycle, and this would certainly be true if everyone who plays video games had affordable access to the technology required for such a transition in the game market. While interactive companies have brought about a great deal of advancement in the medium they still must abide by the constraints of the market majority. With this proposed digital distribution of all game titles one would be effectively alienating all those who do not play games online whether consciously or circumstantially. I know there are still quite a few of you out there who have yet to join the online community.
Even with the removal of the familiar hardware from our living rooms there will be no getting around having some sort of device sitting sitting bellow the television. How the technical aspects of this endeavor are going to work out between Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, I’m not sure. I shall leave the particulars up to those who are compensated for the task. However, OnLive seems to have given us a preview of what is to come.
Overall this issue raises some interesting questions about the future shape of the interactive medium. What role will Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo play in this frontier? Will separate live clients be available from the three hardware distributors, or will third party software companies be given avenue to enter the fray? How will the exclusivity of certain titles be employed in this framework? This is unexplored territory to be sure, and at this point there is no telling how things are going to play out at the moment. Considering this is a change that will take place over the next decade we may not see it to fruition for quite some time.
No matter what the end result this transition seems as though it is going to be froth with copyright issues. I would not be surprised if companies begin slinging lawsuits back and forth at each other for quite some time to come.
It is not only the hardware and software companies that will feel the unease of the moment, but a company like Game Stop may have serious issues with their business model if people refrain from purchasing games at a retail chain.
There are a great deal of problems to be addressed when the heads of the industry finally decide to make a concerted effort to change an entire, and well entrenched, distribution process. It will be interesting to see how these issues are approached and resolved by those commissioned to wade through the mire. What the industry should be careful to avoid is the dominance of one particular software distribution service. The Console War may be coming to an end, but a new and more indistinct one may take its place.
I for one am excited about the possibility of being able to download all of my games via a broadband connection, if only for the fact that Nintendo will no longer be able to make and market an excess of peripheral nonsense.
Who am I kidding? I’m sure they’ll find a way.
Related posts:
Great article…….I would like to see those consoles take a hike. And by the way MACK, get a grip. It’s one person’s opinion. Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t make it retarded.
I see this happening far into the future at some point. Maybe not within the next 5 years but definitely within the next 10. As internet speed and quality increases gaming through this method will slowly become a possibility and then a real reality.
The first step will be buying all games online though, we already see this starting with each console’s online store.
This is not gong to happen. Sony Microsoft and Nintendo are not going to have one console. THis articce is some what retarded. its not going to happen this is a business first about games second. Sharing profits is not going to work for the big 3. nuff said
The way all 3 console giants are going about handling gaming is working fine supporting dlc & physical software & i doubt that’s gonna change because they make equal amounts of profits from both physical software & dlc.
People keep on bringing up the pirate issue, forgetting that the PS3 is the only console still pirate proof this generation. ONLIVE will fail. If any one remembered the specs you needed to play the games in HD with a 0.7 seconds lag you’d think…. Nah scrap it for another 6 years.
Sure every console has been hacked in the past. But it goes to show. With futuristic technology it will be ages before anybody would be able to crack it anyways. Its almost been 4 years and the PS3 is still hack proof!… how logn was the 360 hack proof? 5 months?
Brent,
About piracy. Yes, a streaming system would absolutely decrease if not end video game / digital piracy. However, again, you wouldn’t actually own anything you were to buy. Sorry, the fact remains that the control of the content, be it a game or movie, or whatever, will be with the publisher. It wont happen because, as close to sheep as the average consumer are, those who call them selves video gamers surely would never be ok with something like this…right? Maybe not. Again, it comes down to the fact that this tech really only appeals to two markets, people who couldn’t otherwise afford to buy a console, PC, and games, but have high speed internet, and tech junkies. Theres really no calling for this type of thing from anyone else.
And by the way, your entire comment lost all credibility and I concluded that you were stupid once I read
“it receives a remote feed that tells it what to put up on the screen (could even be a straight digital TV format feed… or just a set of commands that tells the GPU what to draw)”
Specifically, the “or just a set of commands that tells the GPU what to draw)”
First of all, GPUs cost money! Especially ones which can run HD video games. People will want to play these games at the best settings with no hiccups if they’re paying top dollar for the game to be processed elsewhere and then pumped to them. Crysis 2 for example. And if youre going to have a GPU onboard, uh, why would you outsource the main processor? It just creates unnecessary lag between the GPU and CPU as youre accessing the CPU data over the internet instead of a high bandwidth line inside the unit itself. DUMB DU-DU-DU DUMB.
And, on the same topic of a GPU on board, do you know the bandwidth requirements on the RSX on the PS3? It runs at 550 MHz. The memory has a bandwidth of 22.4 GB/s. and the bandwidth between the RSX and the Cell (its processor) is 20 GB/s read to the Cell and XDR memory and 15 GB/s write to the Cell and XDR memory.
The rated speeds for OnLive are what, 4 – 5 MB/s ? Yeah, sorry, cant be done. I knew that and Im just your run of the mill 19 year old who has just the most basic understanding of how electronics work.
@AlKi
You should move to Sweden then, because that’s what the PS3s pricetag was on the release day. Gaming is not a luxury, it’s a lifestyle. If I can’t afford it I have to find alternative methods to play as many games as possible since it’s also my job to know pretty much all games.
Onlive is pretty much going to suck..
With everyone expecting more and more from hardware how is a little box going to help anything?
Many countries do not even have a fast enough internet speed to support HD gaming from the cloud.
Its going to be like that for quite some time.
On live will fail
I’m surprised at the response to this article, and I thank everyone for taking the time to read it, even if you disagree with just about everything I wrote. I would like to mention however, that I don’t think OnLive is the future of gaming, in fact I think I mentioned it only once. I really though it was just a good example of the shape home gaming may take. Maybe I should have made that more clear, but que sera, sera.
I expect that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will all eventually move to stream their games, but it will likely not be for a few more console cycles, so ten to fifteen years give or take, but that’s just my opinion and I’m no expert on the technological aspects of what it would take.
Once again I want to thank everyone for their opinion and readership.
Onlive is doing far from good. its probably 10/15 years too early for such a business model from working.
and yes, pg-25 author is a dick. and this article is ridiculously late
OK,ive siad it a hundred times….Gaming is a luxury.Just like drinking,drugs and whores.So if u dont have money for it then u dont have ANYTHING to say about it…rather get yourself a hobbie u can afford!ill pay a $1000 for my ps3 if thats wot it costs…
Haven’t we been throught his before? Whilst computers and gaming may double every 2-3 years that isn’t the case with internet lines and data capabilities of ISP’s. Consoles will always be with us, at least for the next couple of generations…
Is your brain controlling you or are you controlling your brain?
Jesse,
Actually, this sort of system leads to the software being very secure from pirates. Why? Because processing power has also been increasing. Ultimately the companies are going to want to host the software on their servers, where it is physically locked up from access by pirates. And getting rid of smart consoles is how you do that… the only thing the public need in their house is a device like a cable box (and quite possibly the same box as your cable box), it receives a remote feed that tells it what to put up on the screen (could even be a straight digital TV format feed… or just a set of commands that tells the GPU what to draw) and sends back commands from the “remote”. The user never has a copy of the software in their house… they can use the analog hole to intercept the incoming feed, but that would just give you a movie of one play, no a game you could play. But you wouldn’t be buying the game at all… what you’d be buying is server time. This will dramatically cut the demand for high performance hardware and push the prices up… eventually most people won’t have machines in their houses even capable of playing the software even if they did break in and steal a copy.
And this is why is doesn’t matter if it “should” be done, or whether it locks out some of the gamer marker (it will likely just push most of them into getting connected, so that loss will be temporary and minimal), or even caring about what people will do when the cable cuts out. And Apple has been paving the way in recent years by showing them exactly how far you can cut the users rights on a device you sell them (apparently pretty darn far, given that they still have raving fans that have launched them to a market evaluation higher than Microsoft). This sort of system allows the companies the ultimate in control of their IP, plus the added benefit of a cash cow of selling on-going server time to everyone (not just to people that want to play online games)… I can’t see them not jumping at that opportunity as soon as they can make it feasible (which would be console generation 8 or 9).
I have to say, most people dont even kn0w what OnLive is. And a good chunk of people DO NOT want digital only copies of games.
If Microsoft were to invest in google’s plan for 100x faster internet speeds,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wusklcNKDZc
the new format could be download only even sooner than later or streaming/cloud gaming.
It’ll probably be necessary for faster speeds anyways just to run games online. Could today’s PS360 games run on 56k?
I hate to say this but it has to be said. This article seems like it was written by a 15 year old who just caught wind of what services like Onlive and others have to offer. Fact of the matter is, is that particular service/client won’t appeal to everyone much less anybody at all. I seriously doubt that any company would be foolish enough at the moment or even in the near future to offer everything online or though streaming. As vast as the internet is it “does” occasionally run into slow down issues, and when those “issues” occur, possible profit is loss. Why offer something completely online and elminate the wholesale profits of the retail market which makes up currently 90% of video game revenue? I’m sorry but I doubt either console or game makers are that foolish enough. Until there is a vast potential for profit increase expect to see new consoles and disc based games for the next 5-10 years longer.
I disagree that video game distribution should be through an online connection. In some cases many people do not have an online connection which can totally exclude a gamer from purchasing games through an online service. Besides, broadcasting information through an online system is never safe from pirates. There are so many things that could go wrong online and it is never secure. If the internet goes down because of a blackout then how can you play the games? Or payment options, it won’t be secure or safe. I think the way games are being sold and played now is fine. The world isn’t ready to go into the purely digital age. Movies aren’t totally reliant on digital distribution, so why should video games?
Well then, this article sure blows.
Consoles have always been expensive. “Before the Playstation 3 debuted in November of 2006, it was already generating bad press for its $600 price tag. It wasn’t the first expensive console—the Atari 2500 cost $330 when it was released in 1982, just under $740 in today’s currency, and 3DO Interactive Multiplayer console cost $699.95 when it was launched in 1993.” http://most-expensive.net/video-game-console-system.
Downloadable content is fine. Downloadable games are fine too I suppose. At least with these services, you have a copy on your harddrive to use anytime you want, regardless of internet connection. And yes, the internet does go down. Servers go down for maintenence, usually for hours. Fact remains that you will never be guarenteed 100% that you can use the content youve paid for if all you do is stream a video of a server based solution running your game and spitting video at you.
Which brings me to OnLive. With OnLive, you dont own anything you buy. It it just a glorified rental service. Not only that, the OnLive micro console and the PC based solution literally just stream video. How is that anything consumers will want? Maybe poor people who cant afford the tools of the trade, but, this whole idea is ridiculous.
I enjoyed reading this.