You know, for all the complaining about unoriginality in games, people sure are quick to shoehorn things into incredibly narrow idea-sets. I mean, if you're just going to do stuff like lump anything not human into "aliens" then that really only leaves three different kinds of enemies you can ever use in a game: humans, aliens and mechanical things.
Why didn't you go all the way and call them "self-locomoting bio/mechanical beings?"
Really, I think this goes a bit too far. People don't really classify things to that extent, or if they do, it's because it's deserved. Aliens these days are all the same, they're typically reptilian or insectoid because it's easier to render than fur with the bonus of looking freakier and we're more comfortable killing things that don't look like us.
Technically, Ratchet and Clank is all about aliens, but it's not lumped into the same space marine genre because its aliens are different. Many seem based on animals and are quirky and fun to look at.
What about Mario, are goombas and koopas aliens or monsters? They're kind of in a category all their own, we don't call Mario a space marine or a fantasy epic.
Fable doesn't have aliens, but it does have "balverines," which are obviously just werewolves. I don't feel bad about classifying them as such because honestly it's just not that creative of a concept, it's been done before. Not that I dislike it.
Paintings, sculptures, figurines, movies, books, movies, tv shows, comic books etc; they are all filled with similar works by different artists.
It goes back to the discussion we had yesterday about Duke Nukem in comparison to immature movies. The writers that cover video games try to make it sound like video games are the only medium that has these issues. As though ever other art-form is on a higher plane and video games can't reach them. Yet even a company as refreshing as Pixar is making huge money off of sequels and our fantasy books are littered with adventurers fighting the same creatures that we've seen in every fantasy book for decades.
Yeah. I will generally say that bigger companies seem to be taking fewer risks with new IPs.
But I would say that has more to do with the situation of the economy than anything.
Edit: And like AZ said...end of the console cycle is nearing.
(Note - No clue if my post's tone makes it clear, but I am agreeing with you)
Big devs take few risks because losing millions hurts. Smaller devs have been consistently trying out new ideas since the dawn of gaming, and the ones that actually make decent games from them stay afloat.
I've never understood why some people constantly bitch about games lacking originality. Do they just not want to spend a few minutes browsing XBLA/XBLIG/Steam?
I'm a bit shocked because these news are following some decent sales (but then again THQ's expectations were probably very high), and the release of a multiplayer demo. Due to the latter, I've discovered that the game had some good in it, and hopefully the people involved in the multiplayer get picked up to do more.
I'm a bit shocked because these news are following some decent sales (but then again THQ's expectations were probably very high), and the release of a multiplayer demo. Due to the latter, I've discovered that the game had some good in it, and hopefully the people involved in the multiplayer get picked up to do more.
THQ had already hinted at moving the developers to Canada. I imagine that the cost of running a studio in NY is way too much. Especially with so many places offering tax breaks.
I'm a bit shocked because these news are following some decent sales (but then again THQ's expectations were probably very high), and the release of a multiplayer demo. Due to the latter, I've discovered that the game had some good in it, and hopefully the people involved in the multiplayer get picked up to do more.
THQ had already hinted at moving the developers to Canada. I imagine that the cost of running a studio in NY is way too much. Especially with so many places offering tax breaks.
I didn't consider the upkeep costs. It makes sense for them to move them if it will lower the budget of future titles.
The big publishers taking fewer and fewer risks because they don't want to risk losing numbers like $40-$100 million in dev+marketing costs on something that isn't a guaranteed hit. That's one of the reasons this generation is seeing big publishers taking fewer risks; the need (or at least perceived need) for sky high development costs / production value and the blockbuster model. It is also the reason we see so many mid-sized devs going under; they don't have the resources to do $20m budget games and spend $10m-$20m on marketing or have trouble finding publishers that do. So we see these small to midsize devs shutting down like we have pretty rapidly the past few years. It's not the sole reason but it's a part of the reason; big money is a big risk - the big guys don't want to risk it and the smaller ones can't afford it.
And so we start to see mid size companies shutting down or downsizing. The ones that don't vanish end up focusing on smaller projects in other avenues, be it handhelds or more often digital distribution platforms (xbla/steam/psn/wii-dsi-ware/etc).
To me it has been looking like the industry is evolving in two major ways - the big guys are relying more and more on existing ips/franchises and sequels and spending more and more on production values, and the tiny studios (like.. teams of 5 or fewer people) are starting to finally reach out to the market through digital distribution in ways that have never been available before. So now there is, at least, the option for finding a great variety of games that don't necessarily rely on tried-and-true franchises/mechanics and high production values. And hopefully the midsize teams that are shut down due to the nature of the retail market end up finding success through digital distro.
its integration of Bing search into Kinect was perhaps the most impactful announcement of the show."
WTF? That's stupid, even for Pachter.
It might be a stealth troll. Maybe?
Seriously the Bing thing was one of the worst parts of E3. Microsoft still trying desperately to avoid simply putting a web browser on the console by incorporating browser-like capabilities. Is there even any reasoning behind this stubborn insistence?
Meanwhile we've been able to search Bing and Google and Yahoo and Ask Jeeves and Altavista on PS3, Wii, PSP, and DS for ages now.
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
I'm not sure if you're telling me personally to do those things somewhere else, or if you're actually agreeing with me and saying MS is dumb for providing half-hearted Bing when searching is far more convenient on other consoles or the PC.
Or whether you're saying that MS has a legitimate problem with the 360 being considered a PC, or if you consider the idea laughable.
Personally it's a little baffling that the 360 has gone for this long without any kind of internet search, considering the Wii and PS3 have them out of the box. Santa's explanation is probably the one that makes the most sense.
Obviously, the last thing MS would want is people using the Xbox as a replacement PC, since the majority of their products are made for PCs.
Personally I'd love it if the Xbox was more PC like.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Functionally, there's very little potentially different from any enemy in any video game, aside from backstory (and appearance I guess.). You can just easily make a game with robotic or monstrous opponents that plays exactly like Modern Warfare. It's all ultimately in the presentation. Which is why it weirds me out a little when a company actually tries to do something a little different than "aliens spaceships come down and invade." and still gets lumped in with the things they're trying to be different from. Makes me wonder why they should bother.
If the originality is the aliens come from the ground instead of space, who cares? I'm not sure that's originality worth fighting for. "Our alien creatures come from another dimension! Whooooooooo~~~!"
That's like arguing the zombies coming from a virus, and zombies based a on magic curse are really different. You may be able to expand the idea in different directions, but overall concept? You're dealing with zombies.
Gears of War shares many visual and thematic similarities with games that involve space marines.
Technically, Ratchet and Clank is all about aliens, but it's not lumped into the same space marine genre because its aliens are different. Many seem based on animals and are quirky and fun to look at.
It's entire look is different. If I put a gaming neophyte in front of Ratchet & Clank and Gears of War, they won't think the title the same at all.
Fable doesn't have aliens, but it does have "balverines," which are obviously just werewolves. I don't feel bad about classifying them as such because honestly it's just not that creative of a concept, it's been done before. Not that I dislike it.
I do love the addition of being able to install games to the HD, not only because of the improved performance, but also because of the giddy sense of nostalgia. Like in the old days, rushing out to buy a highly anticipated game, and thumbing through the manual as I impatiently wait for the game to install.
If MS is adding a simple search engine, not sure why they just don't add a web browser. For the past couple months, I've already been thinking of my 360 as a "cute little PC" anyways
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
I'm not sure if you're telling me personally to do those things somewhere else, or if you're actually agreeing with me and saying MS is dumb for providing half-hearted Bing when searching is far more convenient on other consoles or the PC.
Or whether you're saying that MS has a legitimate problem with the 360 being considered a PC, or if you consider the idea laughable.
It looks like you're saying that MS is dumb for not going full-browser.
I'm saying their goals are to prevent the Xbox from being thought of as a PC so having a full-browser would confuse that issue even more. They do not support the mouse and a keyboard only works for data entry. You have to know at least one person who's said that they don't own an Xbox because they can already play those games on a PC. It's an issue they've had to deal with from Day One ten years ago.
Think of the 'you' in the top quote as being a royal 'you'. Why should MS make the Xbox do something it doesn't want it to do, especially if it can be done so easily everywhere else? You can already do all those searches on most cell phones now. Does that mean everybody should put phone capability into their devices, too?
So, you asked if there was reasoning and I gave you the reasoning. MS does not want people to think of the Xbox as a PC or PC-clone. What they want it to be, what they've always wanted it to be, was the ultimate set-top box. The device that all home entertainment is built around.
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
This will end with the Xbox 720. It'll have some version of Windows 8 in it and, chances are, MS will try to treat it as an STB that also plays games. Similar to Sony and the PS3.
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
This will end with the Xbox 720. It'll have some version of Windows 8 in it and, chances are, MS will try to treat it as an STB that also plays games. Similar to Sony and the PS3.
Putting 'some version of Windows 8' as the OS for the console doesn't make it a PC. The Dreamcast operated on Windows CE, that didn't make it a palm device.
Everything else you said was always the goal. They just don't want the Xbox to be a PC.
So, you asked if there was reasoning and I gave you the reasoning. MS does not want people to think of the Xbox as a PC or PC-clone. What they want it to be, what they've always wanted it to be, was the ultimate set-top box. The device that all home entertainment is built around.
All right. My reasoning is that it's now a matter of competition, that everyone else has browsers and they should probably have one too just for parity's sake.
People complained that the Wii couldn't play DVDs and the response was similar, that it wasn't part of Nintendo's vision and that everyone has DVD players anyway. Didn't stop anyone from complaining about it. Though at the same time I don't think anyone could argue that this hurt its sales at all.
Something I'm not entirely clear on: Is Bing for Xbox for searching anything else than Xbox Live Marketplace? I mean, they showed it off by searching for Lego and it returned Xbox 360 Lego games. Does it not have a search funtion on the console already?
So, you asked if there was reasoning and I gave you the reasoning. MS does not want people to think of the Xbox as a PC or PC-clone. What they want it to be, what they've always wanted it to be, was the ultimate set-top box. The device that all home entertainment is built around.
All right. My reasoning is that it's now a matter of competition, that everyone else has browsers and they should probably have one too just for parity's sake.
People complained that the Wii couldn't play DVDs and the response was similar, that it wasn't part of Nintendo's vision and that everyone has DVD players anyway. Didn't stop anyone from complaining about it. Though at the same time I don't think anyone could argue that this hurt its sales at all.
Yeah, but it also didn't stop people from buying Wiis.
Personally for me it was like...
"Yeah, Wii should play DVD. But, honestly...I've already got 5 machines in my house that can play DVDs."
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
This will end with the Xbox 720. It'll have some version of Windows 8 in it and, chances are, MS will try to treat it as an STB that also plays games. Similar to Sony and the PS3.
Putting 'some version of Windows 8' as the OS for the console doesn't make it a PC. The Dreamcast operated on Windows CE, that didn't make it a palm device.
Everything else you said was always the goal. They just don't want the Xbox to be a PC.
One of the goals of Windows 8 is to connect all manner of devices together under one overall user experience. Tablet, phone, and PC.
Windows CE wasn't a palm OS. It was an embedded OS and the Dreamcast could browse and supported a Mouse and Keyboard.
MS' stated goal of keeping the Xbox a game machine and the PC a PC was formulated back when there was little market convergence between the two. At that point in time, internet appliances and the like failed miserably because the market was geared towards doing PC things on a PC and not incorporating them else where. Largely because the technology was in it's infancy.
Now days? Completely different market. Google TV. Apple TV. Catch-all appliances doing a little bit of everything. The market and the technology is ready for convergence and I expect MS to drop it's decade old philosophy of keeping them separate.
So, you asked if there was reasoning and I gave you the reasoning. MS does not want people to think of the Xbox as a PC or PC-clone. What they want it to be, what they've always wanted it to be, was the ultimate set-top box. The device that all home entertainment is built around.
All right. My reasoning is that it's now a matter of competition, that everyone else has browsers and they should probably have one too just for parity's sake.
People complained that the Wii couldn't play DVDs and the response was similar, that it wasn't part of Nintendo's vision and that everyone has DVD players anyway. Didn't stop anyone from complaining about it. Though at the same time I don't think anyone could argue that this hurt its sales at all.
So...
MS should include a browser because everybody else does.
But then, it might not hurt sales so they probably don't have to.
MS should include a browser because everybody else does.
But then, it might not hurt sales so they probably don't have to.
It probably does hurt sales though.
I know that in my house at least, the phrase 'Google so-and-so's name and see what other movies she was in.' is one of the primary reasons I can't find my 360 controller and that even if I did find it the batteries are either dead or missing, and because of that myself and all of my roommates buy games on the ps3 instead of the 360 whenever possible.
MS should include a browser because everybody else does.
But then, it might not hurt sales so they probably don't have to.
Right. It's just a discussion and I'm not afraid to admit that it probably won't affect sales. A lot of small "value-added" features probably don't affect sales, but people still love them.
The main problem I have with what they're doing is replicating small bits of the internet without just allowing a browser and being done with it. If you're not embracing the internet on your console because you don't want people to think it's a PC, then stick with that manifesto, rather than playing games over the course of several years.
There's also the consideration that MS is moving towards a more blue ocean strategy. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Hulu, etc. It may not be a huge detriment, but when your competition does the same and can also Google up a recipe or a movie show time and you can't because you want to adhere to an outdated design philosophy...
It was an good read, although he does complain about some things that get brought up in nearly every generation. Some of his points seem more unique to this particular time, though.
I don't think we're approaching a creative bankruptcy, unless he's referring specifically to AAA-budgeted titles and nothing else. That much money means companies have to bet on something safe, as others have mentioned (even then, there are still incremental innovations here and there). But I think the current gaming landscape is more wide open than it's ever been for developers to get new or interesting ideas out to large audiences. I'm starting to write games myself, since the distribution networks are there already and relatively easy to use. Not something I could have done 15 years ago. And anyone who does a cursory search on XBLIG/PSN/WiiWare/iPhone/Steam will find lots of original content.
One of the more interesting points to me is the feeling that developers and gamers don't really know what's coming next. Like we've reached some sort of crossroads with no clear end-state. The graphical leaps are getting smaller and smaller, online multiplayer works for the most part, they've tried more buttons, less buttons, and no buttons on controllers and the industry revenue had stayed fairly flat and consistent. So I wonder where gaming is headed from this point. The author's breakdown of cheap simple games, full-price cinematic games, and subscription/freemium multiplayer games as the future may be likely (although I disagree that they shouldn't be called "games." We have dozens of different movie formats and genres, but we still call them all "movies"). We've heard of more and more companies branching out into social and phone apps, and maybe those will generate enough profit to subsidize the larger-budget games. Or maybe everything branches out into smaller, cheaper containers of entertainment, added on with layers of DLC.
But given all that, in the past 30 years of gaming, this feels like the best time to be a gamer. Even with all the annoyances and costs. So, as difficult as it is for me to not be a pessimist, I'm actually pretty happy with the way things have been going.
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
I've been thinking over the past few days about how this year's E3 went, I came to a realization.
As a quick statement to how horribly exciting this E3 was for me, l'll state for the record that the most unexpected and exciting thing announced this E3 for me was the MGS and ZOE Collections for the 360.
Yes, the most exciting thing was HD bundled remakes of PS2 games.
I've been thinking over the past few days about how this year's E3 went, I came to a realization.
As a quick statement to how horribly exciting this E3 was for me, l'll state for the record that the most unexpected and exciting thing announced this E3 for me was the MGS and ZOE Collections for the 360.
Yes, the most exciting thing was HD bundled remakes of PS2 games.
How sad is that? :?
it is impossible for news so awesome to be associated with any feelings other than happiness
and possibly arrousal.
Skull2185 on
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
There's also the consideration that MS is moving towards a more blue ocean strategy. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Hulu, etc. It may not be a huge detriment, but when your competition does the same and can also Google up a recipe or a movie show time and you can't because you want to adhere to an outdated design philosophy...
I admit that I've been genuinely excited about Youtube coming to Xbox Live, much like I was for Netflix and Hulu. I have two netbooks, a laptop, an enthusiast-level PC box, and a media PC hooked to the TV, but sometimes surfing content on the 360 or PS3 is quicker. I currently stream Youtube to the consoles using PlayOn, but native support gets my vote. And while the PS3 has a brower, if's very fast. It's much easier to search through Netflix the PS3 app than it is to search through Netflix on the PS3 browser if I'm sitting on the couch.
I've been thinking over the past few days about how this year's E3 went, I came to a realization.
As a quick statement to how horribly exciting this E3 was for me, l'll state for the record that the most unexpected and exciting thing announced this E3 for me was the MGS and ZOE Collections for the 360.
Yes, the most exciting thing was HD bundled remakes of PS2 games.
How sad is that? :?
it is impossible for news so awesome to be associated with any feelings other than happiness
and possibly arrousal.
There is also the fact that very little of what was announced at E3 would come as a surprise to anyone that posts or lurks around here. I think I spoiled a lot of E3 for myself just by visiting Penny Arcade regularly.
We're not quite sure what the gaming industry did to earn the ire of all those Angelina Jolie types out there, but here we are, reporting on yet another attack. Bethesda was the target this past weekend, as a hacker group tried to infiltrate the studios' sites. A post on the Bethesda Blog warns that these hackers may have accessed "user names, email addresses, and/or passwords."
If you frequent any Bethesda forum or have taken advantage of Brink's stat-tracking site, Bethesda says you should change your login info and be on the lookout for suspicious emails. Of course, it goes without saying that if your Bethesda login info mirrors your account name and password on other sites, be cognizant of the danger posed and change your info there, as well.
Because I think the hack attacks have gone from just picking on Sony to a full-on feeding frenzy. Their success has gone to their heads, and they're now lashing out at, well, anybody who hasn't been hacked lately.
Well, I mean, at least with Sony they're a huge corporation that has made some decisions in the past few years that have infuriated some people. But Bethesda is a (relatively) small publisher that has done nothing worse than maybe publish a few mediocre games lately.
Posts
Why didn't you go all the way and call them "self-locomoting bio/mechanical beings?"
Really, I think this goes a bit too far. People don't really classify things to that extent, or if they do, it's because it's deserved. Aliens these days are all the same, they're typically reptilian or insectoid because it's easier to render than fur with the bonus of looking freakier and we're more comfortable killing things that don't look like us.
Technically, Ratchet and Clank is all about aliens, but it's not lumped into the same space marine genre because its aliens are different. Many seem based on animals and are quirky and fun to look at.
What about Mario, are goombas and koopas aliens or monsters? They're kind of in a category all their own, we don't call Mario a space marine or a fantasy epic.
Fable doesn't have aliens, but it does have "balverines," which are obviously just werewolves. I don't feel bad about classifying them as such because honestly it's just not that creative of a concept, it's been done before. Not that I dislike it.
Not only do I doubt that, but I am also pretty sure he will never give it a shot. :P
Twitter
Paintings, sculptures, figurines, movies, books, movies, tv shows, comic books etc; they are all filled with similar works by different artists.
It goes back to the discussion we had yesterday about Duke Nukem in comparison to immature movies. The writers that cover video games try to make it sound like video games are the only medium that has these issues. As though ever other art-form is on a higher plane and video games can't reach them. Yet even a company as refreshing as Pixar is making huge money off of sequels and our fantasy books are littered with adventurers fighting the same creatures that we've seen in every fantasy book for decades.
[/end rant]
I'm still waiting for Wii Relax.
(Note - No clue if my post's tone makes it clear, but I am agreeing with you)
Big devs take few risks because losing millions hurts. Smaller devs have been consistently trying out new ideas since the dawn of gaming, and the ones that actually make decent games from them stay afloat.
I've never understood why some people constantly bitch about games lacking originality. Do they just not want to spend a few minutes browsing XBLA/XBLIG/Steam?
Twitter
THQ Digital Warrington cut staff too.
I hope they like Canada.
I'm. So. Shocked.
Kaos produced nothing but gems!
I'm a bit shocked because these news are following some decent sales (but then again THQ's expectations were probably very high), and the release of a multiplayer demo. Due to the latter, I've discovered that the game had some good in it, and hopefully the people involved in the multiplayer get picked up to do more.
Twitter
They showed Medieval Moves instead, which could very well be what Sorcery evolved into over the past year.
THQ had already hinted at moving the developers to Canada. I imagine that the cost of running a studio in NY is way too much. Especially with so many places offering tax breaks.
I didn't consider the upkeep costs. It makes sense for them to move them if it will lower the budget of future titles.
Twitter
And so we start to see mid size companies shutting down or downsizing. The ones that don't vanish end up focusing on smaller projects in other avenues, be it handhelds or more often digital distribution platforms (xbla/steam/psn/wii-dsi-ware/etc).
To me it has been looking like the industry is evolving in two major ways - the big guys are relying more and more on existing ips/franchises and sequels and spending more and more on production values, and the tiny studios (like.. teams of 5 or fewer people) are starting to finally reach out to the market through digital distribution in ways that have never been available before. So now there is, at least, the option for finding a great variety of games that don't necessarily rely on tried-and-true franchises/mechanics and high production values. And hopefully the midsize teams that are shut down due to the nature of the retail market end up finding success through digital distro.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
And for ages now, MS has been trying to avoid everything that might make people think the Xbox is a PC. If you can do all those other things some where else, then do them somewhere else.
I'm not sure if you're telling me personally to do those things somewhere else, or if you're actually agreeing with me and saying MS is dumb for providing half-hearted Bing when searching is far more convenient on other consoles or the PC.
Or whether you're saying that MS has a legitimate problem with the 360 being considered a PC, or if you consider the idea laughable.
Personally I'd love it if the Xbox was more PC like.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If the originality is the aliens come from the ground instead of space, who cares? I'm not sure that's originality worth fighting for. "Our alien creatures come from another dimension! Whooooooooo~~~!"
That's like arguing the zombies coming from a virus, and zombies based a on magic curse are really different. You may be able to expand the idea in different directions, but overall concept? You're dealing with zombies.
Gears of War shares many visual and thematic similarities with games that involve space marines.
It's entire look is different. If I put a gaming neophyte in front of Ratchet & Clank and Gears of War, they won't think the title the same at all.
Bingo.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
If MS is adding a simple search engine, not sure why they just don't add a web browser. For the past couple months, I've already been thinking of my 360 as a "cute little PC" anyways
It looks like you're saying that MS is dumb for not going full-browser.
I'm saying their goals are to prevent the Xbox from being thought of as a PC so having a full-browser would confuse that issue even more. They do not support the mouse and a keyboard only works for data entry. You have to know at least one person who's said that they don't own an Xbox because they can already play those games on a PC. It's an issue they've had to deal with from Day One ten years ago.
Think of the 'you' in the top quote as being a royal 'you'. Why should MS make the Xbox do something it doesn't want it to do, especially if it can be done so easily everywhere else? You can already do all those searches on most cell phones now. Does that mean everybody should put phone capability into their devices, too?
So, you asked if there was reasoning and I gave you the reasoning. MS does not want people to think of the Xbox as a PC or PC-clone. What they want it to be, what they've always wanted it to be, was the ultimate set-top box. The device that all home entertainment is built around.
This will end with the Xbox 720. It'll have some version of Windows 8 in it and, chances are, MS will try to treat it as an STB that also plays games. Similar to Sony and the PS3.
Putting 'some version of Windows 8' as the OS for the console doesn't make it a PC. The Dreamcast operated on Windows CE, that didn't make it a palm device.
Everything else you said was always the goal. They just don't want the Xbox to be a PC.
All right. My reasoning is that it's now a matter of competition, that everyone else has browsers and they should probably have one too just for parity's sake.
People complained that the Wii couldn't play DVDs and the response was similar, that it wasn't part of Nintendo's vision and that everyone has DVD players anyway. Didn't stop anyone from complaining about it. Though at the same time I don't think anyone could argue that this hurt its sales at all.
Yeah, but it also didn't stop people from buying Wiis.
Personally for me it was like...
"Yeah, Wii should play DVD. But, honestly...I've already got 5 machines in my house that can play DVDs."
One of the goals of Windows 8 is to connect all manner of devices together under one overall user experience. Tablet, phone, and PC.
Windows CE wasn't a palm OS. It was an embedded OS and the Dreamcast could browse and supported a Mouse and Keyboard.
MS' stated goal of keeping the Xbox a game machine and the PC a PC was formulated back when there was little market convergence between the two. At that point in time, internet appliances and the like failed miserably because the market was geared towards doing PC things on a PC and not incorporating them else where. Largely because the technology was in it's infancy.
Now days? Completely different market. Google TV. Apple TV. Catch-all appliances doing a little bit of everything. The market and the technology is ready for convergence and I expect MS to drop it's decade old philosophy of keeping them separate.
So...
MS should include a browser because everybody else does.
But then, it might not hurt sales so they probably don't have to.
I know that in my house at least, the phrase 'Google so-and-so's name and see what other movies she was in.' is one of the primary reasons I can't find my 360 controller and that even if I did find it the batteries are either dead or missing, and because of that myself and all of my roommates buy games on the ps3 instead of the 360 whenever possible.
Right. It's just a discussion and I'm not afraid to admit that it probably won't affect sales. A lot of small "value-added" features probably don't affect sales, but people still love them.
The main problem I have with what they're doing is replicating small bits of the internet without just allowing a browser and being done with it. If you're not embracing the internet on your console because you don't want people to think it's a PC, then stick with that manifesto, rather than playing games over the course of several years.
It was an good read, although he does complain about some things that get brought up in nearly every generation. Some of his points seem more unique to this particular time, though.
I don't think we're approaching a creative bankruptcy, unless he's referring specifically to AAA-budgeted titles and nothing else. That much money means companies have to bet on something safe, as others have mentioned (even then, there are still incremental innovations here and there). But I think the current gaming landscape is more wide open than it's ever been for developers to get new or interesting ideas out to large audiences. I'm starting to write games myself, since the distribution networks are there already and relatively easy to use. Not something I could have done 15 years ago. And anyone who does a cursory search on XBLIG/PSN/WiiWare/iPhone/Steam will find lots of original content.
One of the more interesting points to me is the feeling that developers and gamers don't really know what's coming next. Like we've reached some sort of crossroads with no clear end-state. The graphical leaps are getting smaller and smaller, online multiplayer works for the most part, they've tried more buttons, less buttons, and no buttons on controllers and the industry revenue had stayed fairly flat and consistent. So I wonder where gaming is headed from this point. The author's breakdown of cheap simple games, full-price cinematic games, and subscription/freemium multiplayer games as the future may be likely (although I disagree that they shouldn't be called "games." We have dozens of different movie formats and genres, but we still call them all "movies"). We've heard of more and more companies branching out into social and phone apps, and maybe those will generate enough profit to subsidize the larger-budget games. Or maybe everything branches out into smaller, cheaper containers of entertainment, added on with layers of DLC.
But given all that, in the past 30 years of gaming, this feels like the best time to be a gamer. Even with all the annoyances and costs. So, as difficult as it is for me to not be a pessimist, I'm actually pretty happy with the way things have been going.
@ShiftyPumpkin on the Twitterings. Book the Faces at [facebook.com/PerceptivePumpkinProductions]
As a quick statement to how horribly exciting this E3 was for me, l'll state for the record that the most unexpected and exciting thing announced this E3 for me was the MGS and ZOE Collections for the 360.
Yes, the most exciting thing was HD bundled remakes of PS2 games.
How sad is that? :?
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
it is impossible for news so awesome to be associated with any feelings other than happiness
and possibly arrousal.
I admit that I've been genuinely excited about Youtube coming to Xbox Live, much like I was for Netflix and Hulu. I have two netbooks, a laptop, an enthusiast-level PC box, and a media PC hooked to the TV, but sometimes surfing content on the 360 or PS3 is quicker. I currently stream Youtube to the consoles using PlayOn, but native support gets my vote. And while the PS3 has a brower, if's very fast. It's much easier to search through Netflix the PS3 app than it is to search through Netflix on the PS3 browser if I'm sitting on the couch.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
There is also the fact that very little of what was announced at E3 would come as a surprise to anyone that posts or lurks around here. I think I spoiled a lot of E3 for myself just by visiting Penny Arcade regularly.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
Twitter 3DS: 0860 - 3257 - 2516
Because I think the hack attacks have gone from just picking on Sony to a full-on feeding frenzy. Their success has gone to their heads, and they're now lashing out at, well, anybody who hasn't been hacked lately.
Twitter 3DS: 0860 - 3257 - 2516