Games are not just lans and acne. You are accumulating stereotypes.
What you are describing is a world with only casual games. That would be a success for sure, but for many it's a nightmare.
We need great games, and great games cost a lot to produce.
And I don't know why you are talking about the Wii. Do you think Nintendo could sell Super Mario Galaxy (a great game) at 2 dollars?
Your argument is like saying 'let's only do 2 minutes long youtube videos. Movies are expensive and violent!"
I think the YouTube v. Cinematic Films are great example. A $150 million dollar sci-fi/action movie might be all the talk but YouTube and Vevo will get a lot more views (Gangnam Style has 1.25 billion views on YouTube. Consider the ad revenue from that many views on that single video compared to the risk of investing in a huge blockbuster film).
I hate to say this but the future isn't more of these huge investments in entertainment but a lot more smaller operations that will then be expanded if they become a hit.
I don't get Angry Birds. I played it, and it's like: meh. However, I'm no fan of "Steambox". Just ship PC and Mac games: those platforms have excellent hardware. I don't want yet another device fighting for a wall outlet, Ethernet uplink, and an HDMI port on my TV.
How does one measure what is a AAA game? If we go by popularity then I think iOS games like Angry Birds will win hands down. Is that a good way to judge interest? How much money is there for games like Crysis than games like Angry Birds?
I'm not a gamer but I do have several strategy and puzzle games that I play for a minute or two here and there. Words with Friends, Strategery, Sudoku, Chess with Friends. The most intensive game I play is Kingdom Rush (love this game!) which I assume "serious" gamers would find sad.
No, it's not a question to find 'sad'. If you like it, cool.
To answer your question, there is a way to establish the quality of videogames, just ask those who know videogames. IGN, Kotaku, EUROGAMER, any game website. It's not a matter of being hardcore, just of people who are well placed to judge, and it's possible to judge games as any other art form to an extent. I don't see a problem in having games like those currently on iOS on my TV. What's worrying me is the fact that Gabe somehow feel threatened by that, and that would mean to me that Steam intends on playing on the same ground. It might be great for their revenue sure, but really terrible if all industry turned to that only.
The hope I have is that Apple makes something really powerful. But I don't see them doing it. The idea that some have brought of a console updated each year seems not very realistic and would, again, a huge loss for gamer, who can currently count on their 6 yo consoles to play great games, still with amazing experiences.
Apple should do streaming. Maybe even partner with Steam to offer their games via streaming, that's my idea.
How does one measure what is a AAA game? If we go by popularity then I think iOS games like Angry Birds will win hands down. Is that a good way to judge interest? How much money is there for games like Crysis than games like Angry Birds?
I'm not a gamer but I do have several strategy and puzzle games that I play for a minute or two here and there. Words with Friends, Strategery, Sudoku, Chess with Friends. The most intensive game I play is Kingdom Rush (love this game!) which I assume "serious" gamers would find sad.
No, it's not a question to find 'sad'. If you like it, cool.
To answer your question, there is a way to establish the quality of videogames, just ask those who know videogames. IGN, Kotaku, EUROGAMER, any game website. It's not a matter of being hardcore, just of people who are well placed to judge, and it's possible to judge games as any other art form to an extent. I don't see a problem in having games like those currently on iOS on my TV. What's worrying me is the fact that Gabe somehow feel threatened by that, and that would mean to me that Steam intends on playing on the same ground. It might be great for their revenue sure, but really terrible if all industry turned to that only.
The hope I have is that Apple makes something really powerful. But I don't see them doing it. The idea that some have brought of a console updated each year seems not very realistic and would, again, a huge loss for gamer, who can currently count on their 6 yo consoles to play great games, still with amazing experiences.
Apple should do streaming. Maybe even partner with Steam to offer their games via streaming, that's my idea.
How does one measure what is a AAA game? If we go by popularity then I think iOS games like Angry Birds will win hands down. Is that a good way to judge interest? How much money is there for games like Crysis than games like Angry Birds?
I'm not a gamer but I do have several strategy and puzzle games that I play for a minute or two here and there. Words with Friends, Strategery, Sudoku, Chess with Friends. The most intensive game I play is Kingdom Rush (love this game!) which I assume "serious" gamers would find sad.
No, it's not a question to find 'sad'. If you like it, cool.
To answer your question, there is a way to establish the quality of videogames, just ask those who know videogames. IGN, Kotaku, EUROGAMER, any game website. It's not a matter of being hardcore, just of people who are well placed to judge, and it's possible to judge games as any other art form to an extent. I don't see a problem in having games like those currently on iOS on my TV. What's worrying me is the fact that Gabe somehow feel threatened by that, and that would mean to me that Steam intends on playing on the same ground. It might be great for their revenue sure, but really terrible if all industry turned to that only.
The hope I have is that Apple makes something really powerful. But I don't see them doing it. The idea that some have brought of a console updated each year seems not very realistic and would, again, a huge loss for gamer, who can currently count on their 6 yo consoles to play great games, still with amazing experiences.
Apple should do streaming. Maybe even partner with Steam to offer their games via streaming, that's my idea.
I have been saying for 4 years now that Apple could easily turn the Apple TV into a casual gaming console. The iPhone and iPad could be used as a controller. It wouldnt take much to convert iPad and iPhone apps and games to the Apple TV... If Apple is entertaining this which they should, its just a matter of time for Apple TV to really start saturating the living room. To me this is a no brainer.
[quote]"I think that there's a scenario where we see sort of a dumbed down living room platform emerging %u2014 I think Apple rolls the console guys really easily," Newell said. "The question is can we make enough progress in the PC space to establish ourselves there, and also figure out better ways of addressing mobile before Apple takes over the living room?"[/quote]
I think Gabe actually needs to go outside for a walk instead of designing amazing 3D worlds at his desk that you can walk around in. In fact, I think I need to go for a walk too.
Not sure if you referring to his weight, but if you were I can assure you it has more to do with his diet than lack of exercise. And I don't mean to imply he needs to go on a 'diet', but that he's most likely easing the wrong stuff. Sodas come to mind, too.
That's funny. I went outside once too and the graphics were just amazing. Nothing else comes close. Unfortunately, the story and gameplay sucked, so I had to go back inside.
You should play again, they upgraded it to "write your own ending".
There is a crossover though. If you sit on the couch with your iPad and it beams screen images to the AppleTV which puts them up on the TV, and you just swipe on the iPad like it was a pure controller, then suddenly all those mobile games become TV games. And this already works ("AirPlay").
I can assure you that AirPlay is no solution to a decent gaming experience on your TV. It's an ad hoc gimmick in my opinion. It's too fiddle-y and would still be no matter how Apple pushed it. No, the only way for Apple to get serious in the living room IMO is for a dedicated TV App Store, with an actual hardware controller available for purchase. This is the only way to have a decent gaming experience on the TV. And if they do this my bet is they make the App Store experience an iTV exclusive feature. This would give people one more reason to choose the iTV over the Apple TV box, or when buying their next TV.
No, the only way for Apple to get serious in the living room IMO is for a dedicated TV App Store, with an actual hardware controller available for purchase. This is the only way to have a decent gaming experience on the TV.
In my opinion, Linux is what will hurt the Steam box the most. A quick check shows there are currently 13 multi-player Steam games available on that OS. The majority of single-player games are also not AAA that gamers are used to playing. I think Gabe just loves Linux too much; he stated users could install Windows on it themselves when they get it. But really at that point I could just hook my desktop or laptop(with a good GPU) up to a tv and use Steam. In fact that's something I've already done and it works perfectly.
Gabe should be more worried about not having games to play instead of making stupid comments like this. The reason the console guys do well and have an audience is because of all the exclusives. You can ONLY play Mario and Zelda games on Nintendo systems for instance.
I think you are right about the Linux, but Gabe and Steam are aware of it and doing it deliberately in hopes that users will hop on the Linux train once they see big name support for it. It came out of the 'Windows 8 is a disaster for developers' rant Gabe did a while back. They aren't moving to Linux because they love it, they are deliberately supporting it to avoid what they see happening in the industry. With Microsoft trying to close off its system following in Apple's footsteps, Gabe et al. see a system where developers automatically get bilked for 30% of their revenue (not even profits, revenue) for any game they want to sell on either on either a Microsoft or Apple platform. Windows' success was largely based on its openness for development. With Microsoft closing that off, Steam is willing to invest in open source so they will always have a delivery platform.
His view now is that Apple will hop in, take over, and milk developers for 30%. It makes sense that he, as a developer, would support an open system that doesn't skim a substantial amount off his revenues.
It could be a familiar story. Apple gets in, makes a ton of money. Microsoft under Balmer continues to be on the ice and skating around randomly. They are not really even skating to where the puck is, they are skating to where Apple had the puck 5 years ago. Users leery of a closed system that charges them a high price don't have an alternative. Open source system enters market can offer the same stuff at a lower price. Apple will try to obstruct competition and be limitedly successful. In the long run they will fail, in the short run they will be able to protect their margins long enough for them to enter the market for 'the next big thing.'
Apple is pretty well positioned to do well for a very long time. As they converge their markets (music, mobile, tv) their 'stickiness' or 'trappedness' of their ecosystem really weighs in. Users just don't want to leave when they'll no longer be able to access the stuff they've bought that is trapped in the Apple ecosystem.
No one is talking about major structural changes. Simply upgrading the CPU (or even the GPU) wouldn't prevent existing games from running - they'd just run faster.
Actually it could. Look around on Google and you can find information about when people have tried to speed up their older consoles. The games were programmed to expect very specific hardware speeds and such and when they saw different speeds, most of the games would just lock up and not play or glitch all over. I'm not sure if this is still how the console companies approach things, but it was certainly true as recently as PS1/PS2 era. Also, you might end up w/a similar problem to trying to run old DOS games on modern systems. A lot of them, you might get to run, but they run at a ridiculously higher speed b/c the cpu is so many times faster. You have to use programs like DOSBox to givethem an envvironment and keep their speeds correct.
The game console world has always been pretty different from the PC world, even when you're talking porting the same game. As things have become more stramlined in that process, they may finally be getting away from a lot of those hard codings, but historically, your suggestion wouldn't work. Also, those new processors cost more money, eating into their profit structure. It took 3 years for the XBOX 360 to be profitable from selling the console and that doesn't count the MASSIVE writeoff they had to take for all the millions of Red Ring of Death errors.
Currently, the Apple TV does not officially support gaming apps and lacks the hardware necessary to run such software effectively, like a more capable processor and traditional controller.
It would be so easy too:
I suppose HL3 wouldn't be in the list but it could be powerful enough to run full AAA games. The current iPad is PS3/XBox 360 quality and they have 1GB shared memory and it runs passively cooled.
"I'm not interested in being in the console business in what is thought of as traditional gaming".
If he's talking about the current business model of games, that makes sense because selling loss-leading consoles to make money on software hasn't been a good strategy so far profit-wise. But, every ?TV is sold at a profit and with more functionality, they'd sell more units and with better games, they sell more software.
I mean, games should be for fun, playing with friends and family. Getting fat, full of acne, closed on a room all week, loosing the ability to have a decent conversation with someone else without using a mic and headphones, IS NOT fun.
You can't really dictate what is fun for other people. There are well over 100 million people who like immersive single player or online multiplayer games. They shouldn't be forced to end up like this:
[VIDEO]
Teen suicide rates will go through the roof. Fortunately, there are alternatives:
We are reaching a new era for gaming, and that's great. Gaming was so much fun when all the guys would go to lan houses together or a bar and play CS 1.6 for a one hour, than having a drink, talk, see a few girls... Look at what we have now.
That seems like an overly rosey picture you paint of LAN gaming but I see what you mean with the isolation part. The problem is that games aren't all social. You wouldn't suggest that we should do away with books and force everyone to go to the cinema just because it's more social. A few games have a deep single player narrative that is meant to be enjoyed by a single player. If you try to play those games socially, poeple just sit wondering when it's their turn and you don't want to watch someone else play.
Social games should never become the norm for gaming because they lower creative standards for interactive experiences.
Yeah, billionaire Gabe Newell who made his billions from the gaming industry knows nothing. He might be wrong on his view about Apple's focus on the living room but iOS devices are replacing PS Vitas and Nintendo DSs. Airplay already gives them a setup almost identical to the Wii U. Whether they choose to capitalize on it is up to them but it's a very real possibility. All it needs is the console developers to put in some more effort. I'm not sure Apple can roll them the way Gabe suggests because the App Store has been around for a while and you still don't see the likes of the full Tomb Raider games or anything like that but it could happen.
I wish Apple would make it happen quite honestly. Think of the top 50-100 PC games of all time. Apple can pay them each $1m to port their game over. $100m is nothing to them and they'd get so many big players on board as well as massively increase ?TV sales. That's when they get the leverage over the TV studios.
What's up with that? Processors and graphics for PCs are upgraded on a regular basis, but Sony, Nintendo, and MS take years to upgrade theirs?
There are a number of factors. They usually make a loss or break-even on the console so it only goes into profit after a number of years. Also games take a long time to develop (3 years minimum usually) so by the time someone got a developer kit and game ready, they'd be on a new console and they change the design so much that it breaks older games. Nintendo does it a bit better than Sony and Microsoft but they are mostly for younger players.
They are really going to struggle if they keep leaving out backwards compatibility. The PS4 is rumoured to be going this route and it will be the end of Sony in console gaming.
For some people, games are about entertainment, not about creating highly detailed, graphically rich environments. Think about some of the most widely played games ever: poker, chess, checkers, Monopoly, Scrabble, and so on.
For developers though, there are profits to consider as well as unique selling points. Social games aren't very innovative and they generally have very repetitive mechanics. It would be difficult to convince someone to spend $60 on a card game but a major franchise like Uncharted, it's fairly easy and the profits from a good game are insane. Angry Birds only makes about $50m/year. That's good return for the investment but Call of Duty Black Ops 2 made $500m in a single day - obviously pre-orders but it made another $500m in the next 2 weeks.
I think you are right about the Linux, but Gabe and Steam are aware of it and doing it deliberately in hopes that users will hop on the Linux train once they see big name support for it. It came out of the 'Windows 8 is a disaster for developers' rant Gabe did a while back. They aren't moving to Linux because they love it, they are deliberately supporting it to avoid what they see happening in the industry. With Microsoft trying to close off its system following in Apple's footsteps, Gabe et al. see a system where developers automatically get bilked for 30% of their revenue (not even profits, revenue) for any game they want to sell on either on either a Microsoft or Apple platform. Windows' success was largely based on its openness for development. With Microsoft closing that off, Steam is willing to invest in open source so they will always have a delivery platform.
His view now is that Apple will hop in, take over, and milk developers for 30%. It makes sense that he, as a developer, would support an open system that doesn't skim a substantial amount off his revenues.
It could be a familiar story. Apple gets in, makes a ton of money. Microsoft under Balmer continues to be on the ice and skating around randomly. They are not really even skating to where the puck is, they are skating to where Apple had the puck 5 years ago. Users leery of a closed system that charges them a high price don't have an alternative. Open source system enters market can offer the same stuff at a lower price. Apple will try to obstruct competition and be limitedly successful. In the long run they will fail, in the short run they will be able to protect their margins long enough for them to enter the market for 'the next big thing.'
Apple is pretty well positioned to do well for a very long time. As they converge their markets (music, mobile, tv) their 'stickiness' or 'trappedness' of their ecosystem really weighs in. Users just don't want to leave when they'll no longer be able to access the stuff they've bought that is trapped in the Apple ecosystem.
Consoles have always been closed platforms: Xbox, Sony, Nintendo (and others). Fully, 100% curated. OTOH, Windows (x86) and Mac OS X remain open: anyone can distribute software over retail or the Internet without approval (or "taxation") from Microsoft or Apple for those platforms. Windows RT and iOS are not open in this sense. But in terms of gaming platforms, the PC and Mac are better suited anyway with support for high resolution displays and better 3D chipsets.
So what problem does Steambox solve? What is Valve trying to prove?
I think it is interesting how people (including the story author) are reading this as "Apple is going to morph the AppleTV into a gaming console to directly compete with Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and the secret thing Valve is working on." Newell didn't say that at all; Merely that Apple is a threat. They don't need to have a directly-competing product; just one that replaces the console in people's lives.
I don't expect Apple to produce a dedicated game console, or bring console-style gaming to the AppleTV. However, their current product lines already satisfy much of the potential market growth.
We have had an Xbox and a Wii for a few years, connected to a pretty good home theater system. The problem is that it DOMINATES the living room environment, and can't be taken elsewhere very easily - I don't have another room to have a permanent setup in. My wife isn't very interested in gaming, and would rather watch TV, listen to music, or have some relatively quiet time. Many of the games I want to play are inappropriate for my 3-year-old son to watch. Children's games are too complex for him at this point, mainly due to the controllers. He is absolutely fascinated by it, but it just becomes a frustration for me. Finally, family life is full of interruptions, and most console games need focus and continuity.
iOS gaming, as it is today, is almost the opposite. The small, personal screen and low sound doesn't impede on what other people are doing, and leaves the TV available for watching TV. The style of games allow for a quick pick-up and put-down at any time. There have been times where we have all been in the same room, wife and I on our phones, and son on the iPad. Occasionally, we will use Airplay and mirror to the TV.
I am certainly curious about next-gen consoles, but I am hardly waiting in line with a fist full of cash, and iOS gaming has much to do with that.
I bet Angry birds has more players than crysis, so more people want angry birds.
If responsible parents start to tell kids to buy their own games, instead of paying 60 bucks for each one (or going to piratebay), or to go run outside/play football, you would realize how the number of crysis 3 players would aproach to 0 very quickly.
I mean, games should be for fun, playing with friends and family. Getting fat, full of acne, closed on a room all week, loosing the ability to have a decent conversation with someone else without using a mic and headphones, IS NOT fun. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the tipical "pc gamer", the tipical "crysis 3 HD" guy.
We are reaching a new era for gaming, and that's great. Gaming was so much fun when all the guys would go to lan houses together or a bar and play CS 1.6 for a one hour, than having a drink, talk, see a few girls... Look at what we have now.
Thank god for Wii. I hope Apple does the right thing.
Stereotyping is really silly.
I know a large number of gamers, working in IT - myself included. I'm yet to meet type you've described. Everyone I know has other hobbies, interests, family/partner. Among them there are pilot amateurs, hobby scubadivers, bikers, car enthusiasts, photography enthusiasts... you name it. One of them is drift-racing, not illegal street racing but proper weekend racetrack stuff, has sponsors etc.
Yes you will eventually find basement - dweller gamers, but it is not gaming that made them, it is that such individuals got attracted to gaming. Without gaming, they would be obsessively watching movies, Star Trek and other fiction shows, reading/collecting/sorting comics, painting Warhammer figurines and playing table role playing games - among other things - in their basements. Lack of video games would not make them any more social and outgoing, only would shift their focus somewhere else.
I prefer playing co-op games with my mates, though I do play competitive online and single player games too. We all consider co-ops a good way of spending time with friends, especially when you don't have much time. While not enough to jump in a car/bus/bicycle and visit someone, you can play 30 minutes or 1 hour on-line and have fun with real people while, say, shooting zombies. We shoot each others almost as much as zombies, try to bring each other in into hairy (in-game) situations and, in general, have as much laugh, teasing, fun as possible. While this is not same as going out with other people, we consider it as good as, say, playing cards with friends.
We will also do lan party every now and then, whenever someone has enough time/space to launch one. We also stay after-work every now and then - usually Fridays - and play CS Source, UT, Halo on company's lan. We are small company, but with colleagues remoting in from our offices in Wellington and Christchurch, we can get up to 16 people shooting each other in CS, and having a blast.
If nothing else, I think that PC gaming has increased significantly, rather than decreased, time we spend with real people, and gives us much bigger variety of how we spend this time.
Consoles have always been closed platforms: Xbox, Sony, Nintendo (and others). Fully, 100% curated. OTOH, Windows (x86) and Mac OS X remain open: anyone can distribute software over retail or the Internet without approval (or "taxation") from Microsoft or Apple for those platforms. Windows RT and iOS are not open in this sense. But in terms of gaming platforms, the PC and Mac are better suited anyway with support for high resolution displays and better 3D chipsets.
So what problem does Steambox solve? What is Valve trying to prove?
I think that Valve fears some Indie games will move from Steam to more casual distribution like AppStores are. For example, everyone with Windows 8 has, by default, access to Windows Store, so that would be first place to look for more casual titles than downloading/creating Steam account etc. Win 8 is still not too common in the wild, but if MS continues in this direction with future Windows releases, Windows Store can start attracting small developers and, eventually, larger ones as well, thus drying out Valve's main source of income.
Comments
I think the YouTube v. Cinematic Films are great example. A $150 million dollar sci-fi/action movie might be all the talk but YouTube and Vevo will get a lot more views (Gangnam Style has 1.25 billion views on YouTube. Consider the ad revenue from that many views on that single video compared to the risk of investing in a huge blockbuster film).
I hate to say this but the future isn't more of these huge investments in entertainment but a lot more smaller operations that will then be expanded if they become a hit.
Nothing will run Crysis 3 at high resolution. It exists to challenge for hardware makers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How does one measure what is a AAA game? If we go by popularity then I think iOS games like Angry Birds will win hands down. Is that a good way to judge interest? How much money is there for games like Crysis than games like Angry Birds?
I'm not a gamer but I do have several strategy and puzzle games that I play for a minute or two here and there. Words with Friends, Strategery, Sudoku, Chess with Friends. The most intensive game I play is Kingdom Rush (love this game!) which I assume "serious" gamers would find sad.
No, it's not a question to find 'sad'. If you like it, cool.
To answer your question, there is a way to establish the quality of videogames, just ask those who know videogames. IGN, Kotaku, EUROGAMER, any game website. It's not a matter of being hardcore, just of people who are well placed to judge, and it's possible to judge games as any other art form to an extent. I don't see a problem in having games like those currently on iOS on my TV. What's worrying me is the fact that Gabe somehow feel threatened by that, and that would mean to me that Steam intends on playing on the same ground. It might be great for their revenue sure, but really terrible if all industry turned to that only.
The hope I have is that Apple makes something really powerful. But I don't see them doing it. The idea that some have brought of a console updated each year seems not very realistic and would, again, a huge loss for gamer, who can currently count on their 6 yo consoles to play great games, still with amazing experiences.
Apple should do streaming. Maybe even partner with Steam to offer their games via streaming, that's my idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How does one measure what is a AAA game? If we go by popularity then I think iOS games like Angry Birds will win hands down. Is that a good way to judge interest? How much money is there for games like Crysis than games like Angry Birds?
I'm not a gamer but I do have several strategy and puzzle games that I play for a minute or two here and there. Words with Friends, Strategery, Sudoku, Chess with Friends. The most intensive game I play is Kingdom Rush (love this game!) which I assume "serious" gamers would find sad.
No, it's not a question to find 'sad'. If you like it, cool.
To answer your question, there is a way to establish the quality of videogames, just ask those who know videogames. IGN, Kotaku, EUROGAMER, any game website. It's not a matter of being hardcore, just of people who are well placed to judge, and it's possible to judge games as any other art form to an extent. I don't see a problem in having games like those currently on iOS on my TV. What's worrying me is the fact that Gabe somehow feel threatened by that, and that would mean to me that Steam intends on playing on the same ground. It might be great for their revenue sure, but really terrible if all industry turned to that only.
The hope I have is that Apple makes something really powerful. But I don't see them doing it. The idea that some have brought of a console updated each year seems not very realistic and would, again, a huge loss for gamer, who can currently count on their 6 yo consoles to play great games, still with amazing experiences.
Apple should do streaming. Maybe even partner with Steam to offer their games via streaming, that's my idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How does one measure what is a AAA game? If we go by popularity then I think iOS games like Angry Birds will win hands down. Is that a good way to judge interest? How much money is there for games like Crysis than games like Angry Birds?
I'm not a gamer but I do have several strategy and puzzle games that I play for a minute or two here and there. Words with Friends, Strategery, Sudoku, Chess with Friends. The most intensive game I play is Kingdom Rush (love this game!) which I assume "serious" gamers would find sad.
No, it's not a question to find 'sad'. If you like it, cool.
To answer your question, there is a way to establish the quality of videogames, just ask those who know videogames. IGN, Kotaku, EUROGAMER, any game website. It's not a matter of being hardcore, just of people who are well placed to judge, and it's possible to judge games as any other art form to an extent. I don't see a problem in having games like those currently on iOS on my TV. What's worrying me is the fact that Gabe somehow feel threatened by that, and that would mean to me that Steam intends on playing on the same ground. It might be great for their revenue sure, but really terrible if all industry turned to that only.
The hope I have is that Apple makes something really powerful. But I don't see them doing it. The idea that some have brought of a console updated each year seems not very realistic and would, again, a huge loss for gamer, who can currently count on their 6 yo consoles to play great games, still with amazing experiences.
Apple should do streaming. Maybe even partner with Steam to offer their games via streaming, that's my idea.
wtf is he talking about?
It's GABE NEWELL ....
Whatever nonsense he spouts is GOLD, Jerry -- gold!!
Not sure if you referring to his weight, but if you were I can assure you it has more to do with his diet than lack of exercise. And I don't mean to imply he needs to go on a 'diet', but that he's most likely easing the wrong stuff. Sodas come to mind, too.
You should play again, they upgraded it to "write your own ending".
Originally Posted by Ireland
No, the only way for Apple to get serious in the living room IMO is for a dedicated TV App Store, with an actual hardware controller available for purchase. This is the only way to have a decent gaming experience on the TV.
Why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MusicComposer
In my opinion, Linux is what will hurt the Steam box the most. A quick check shows there are currently 13 multi-player Steam games available on that OS. The majority of single-player games are also not AAA that gamers are used to playing. I think Gabe just loves Linux too much; he stated users could install Windows on it themselves when they get it. But really at that point I could just hook my desktop or laptop(with a good GPU) up to a tv and use Steam. In fact that's something I've already done and it works perfectly.
Gabe should be more worried about not having games to play instead of making stupid comments like this. The reason the console guys do well and have an audience is because of all the exclusives. You can ONLY play Mario and Zelda games on Nintendo systems for instance.
I think you are right about the Linux, but Gabe and Steam are aware of it and doing it deliberately in hopes that users will hop on the Linux train once they see big name support for it. It came out of the 'Windows 8 is a disaster for developers' rant Gabe did a while back. They aren't moving to Linux because they love it, they are deliberately supporting it to avoid what they see happening in the industry. With Microsoft trying to close off its system following in Apple's footsteps, Gabe et al. see a system where developers automatically get bilked for 30% of their revenue (not even profits, revenue) for any game they want to sell on either on either a Microsoft or Apple platform. Windows' success was largely based on its openness for development. With Microsoft closing that off, Steam is willing to invest in open source so they will always have a delivery platform.
His view now is that Apple will hop in, take over, and milk developers for 30%. It makes sense that he, as a developer, would support an open system that doesn't skim a substantial amount off his revenues.
It could be a familiar story. Apple gets in, makes a ton of money. Microsoft under Balmer continues to be on the ice and skating around randomly. They are not really even skating to where the puck is, they are skating to where Apple had the puck 5 years ago. Users leery of a closed system that charges them a high price don't have an alternative. Open source system enters market can offer the same stuff at a lower price. Apple will try to obstruct competition and be limitedly successful. In the long run they will fail, in the short run they will be able to protect their margins long enough for them to enter the market for 'the next big thing.'
Apple is pretty well positioned to do well for a very long time. As they converge their markets (music, mobile, tv) their 'stickiness' or 'trappedness' of their ecosystem really weighs in. Users just don't want to leave when they'll no longer be able to access the stuff they've bought that is trapped in the Apple ecosystem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No one is talking about major structural changes. Simply upgrading the CPU (or even the GPU) wouldn't prevent existing games from running - they'd just run faster.
Actually it could. Look around on Google and you can find information about when people have tried to speed up their older consoles. The games were programmed to expect very specific hardware speeds and such and when they saw different speeds, most of the games would just lock up and not play or glitch all over. I'm not sure if this is still how the console companies approach things, but it was certainly true as recently as PS1/PS2 era. Also, you might end up w/a similar problem to trying to run old DOS games on modern systems. A lot of them, you might get to run, but they run at a ridiculously higher speed b/c the cpu is so many times faster. You have to use programs like DOSBox to givethem an envvironment and keep their speeds correct.
The game console world has always been pretty different from the PC world, even when you're talking porting the same game. As things have become more stramlined in that process, they may finally be getting away from a lot of those hard codings, but historically, your suggestion wouldn't work. Also, those new processors cost more money, eating into their profit structure. It took 3 years for the XBOX 360 to be profitable from selling the console and that doesn't count the MASSIVE writeoff they had to take for all the millions of Red Ring of Death errors.
It would be so easy too:
I suppose HL3 wouldn't be in the list but it could be powerful enough to run full AAA games. The current iPad is PS3/XBox 360 quality and they have 1GB shared memory and it runs passively cooled.
Tim Cook put a bit of a damper on it though:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/29/3051733/tim-cook-not-interested-in-console-business
"I'm not interested in being in the console business in what is thought of as traditional gaming".
If he's talking about the current business model of games, that makes sense because selling loss-leading consoles to make money on software hasn't been a good strategy so far profit-wise. But, every ?TV is sold at a profit and with more functionality, they'd sell more units and with better games, they sell more software.
You can't really dictate what is fun for other people. There are well over 100 million people who like immersive single player or online multiplayer games. They shouldn't be forced to end up like this:
[VIDEO]
Teen suicide rates will go through the roof. Fortunately, there are alternatives:
[VIDEO]
That seems like an overly rosey picture you paint of LAN gaming but I see what you mean with the isolation part. The problem is that games aren't all social. You wouldn't suggest that we should do away with books and force everyone to go to the cinema just because it's more social. A few games have a deep single player narrative that is meant to be enjoyed by a single player. If you try to play those games socially, poeple just sit wondering when it's their turn and you don't want to watch someone else play.
Social games should never become the norm for gaming because they lower creative standards for interactive experiences.
Yeah, billionaire Gabe Newell who made his billions from the gaming industry knows nothing. He might be wrong on his view about Apple's focus on the living room but iOS devices are replacing PS Vitas and Nintendo DSs. Airplay already gives them a setup almost identical to the Wii U. Whether they choose to capitalize on it is up to them but it's a very real possibility. All it needs is the console developers to put in some more effort. I'm not sure Apple can roll them the way Gabe suggests because the App Store has been around for a while and you still don't see the likes of the full Tomb Raider games or anything like that but it could happen.
I wish Apple would make it happen quite honestly. Think of the top 50-100 PC games of all time. Apple can pay them each $1m to port their game over. $100m is nothing to them and they'd get so many big players on board as well as massively increase ?TV sales. That's when they get the leverage over the TV studios.
You can already do that on some devices and games:
[VIDEO]
There are a number of factors. They usually make a loss or break-even on the console so it only goes into profit after a number of years. Also games take a long time to develop (3 years minimum usually) so by the time someone got a developer kit and game ready, they'd be on a new console and they change the design so much that it breaks older games. Nintendo does it a bit better than Sony and Microsoft but they are mostly for younger players.
They are really going to struggle if they keep leaving out backwards compatibility. The PS4 is rumoured to be going this route and it will be the end of Sony in console gaming.
Minecraft is full of terrapixels.
For developers though, there are profits to consider as well as unique selling points. Social games aren't very innovative and they generally have very repetitive mechanics. It would be difficult to convince someone to spend $60 on a card game but a major franchise like Uncharted, it's fairly easy and the profits from a good game are insane. Angry Birds only makes about $50m/year. That's good return for the investment but Call of Duty Black Ops 2 made $500m in a single day - obviously pre-orders but it made another $500m in the next 2 weeks.
Consoles have always been closed platforms: Xbox, Sony, Nintendo (and others). Fully, 100% curated. OTOH, Windows (x86) and Mac OS X remain open: anyone can distribute software over retail or the Internet without approval (or "taxation") from Microsoft or Apple for those platforms. Windows RT and iOS are not open in this sense. But in terms of gaming platforms, the PC and Mac are better suited anyway with support for high resolution displays and better 3D chipsets.
So what problem does Steambox solve? What is Valve trying to prove?
I think it is interesting how people (including the story author) are reading this as "Apple is going to morph the AppleTV into a gaming console to directly compete with Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and the secret thing Valve is working on." Newell didn't say that at all; Merely that Apple is a threat. They don't need to have a directly-competing product; just one that replaces the console in people's lives.
I don't expect Apple to produce a dedicated game console, or bring console-style gaming to the AppleTV. However, their current product lines already satisfy much of the potential market growth.
We have had an Xbox and a Wii for a few years, connected to a pretty good home theater system. The problem is that it DOMINATES the living room environment, and can't be taken elsewhere very easily - I don't have another room to have a permanent setup in. My wife isn't very interested in gaming, and would rather watch TV, listen to music, or have some relatively quiet time. Many of the games I want to play are inappropriate for my 3-year-old son to watch. Children's games are too complex for him at this point, mainly due to the controllers. He is absolutely fascinated by it, but it just becomes a frustration for me. Finally, family life is full of interruptions, and most console games need focus and continuity.
iOS gaming, as it is today, is almost the opposite. The small, personal screen and low sound doesn't impede on what other people are doing, and leaves the TV available for watching TV. The style of games allow for a quick pick-up and put-down at any time. There have been times where we have all been in the same room, wife and I on our phones, and son on the iPad. Occasionally, we will use Airplay and mirror to the TV.
I am certainly curious about next-gen consoles, but I am hardly waiting in line with a fist full of cash, and iOS gaming has much to do with that.
Stereotyping is really silly.
I know a large number of gamers, working in IT - myself included. I'm yet to meet type you've described. Everyone I know has other hobbies, interests, family/partner. Among them there are pilot amateurs, hobby scubadivers, bikers, car enthusiasts, photography enthusiasts... you name it. One of them is drift-racing, not illegal street racing but proper weekend racetrack stuff, has sponsors etc.
Yes you will eventually find basement - dweller gamers, but it is not gaming that made them, it is that such individuals got attracted to gaming. Without gaming, they would be obsessively watching movies, Star Trek and other fiction shows, reading/collecting/sorting comics, painting Warhammer figurines and playing table role playing games - among other things - in their basements. Lack of video games would not make them any more social and outgoing, only would shift their focus somewhere else.
I prefer playing co-op games with my mates, though I do play competitive online and single player games too. We all consider co-ops a good way of spending time with friends, especially when you don't have much time. While not enough to jump in a car/bus/bicycle and visit someone, you can play 30 minutes or 1 hour on-line and have fun with real people while, say, shooting zombies. We shoot each others almost as much as zombies, try to bring each other in into hairy (in-game) situations and, in general, have as much laugh, teasing, fun as possible. While this is not same as going out with other people, we consider it as good as, say, playing cards with friends.
We will also do lan party every now and then, whenever someone has enough time/space to launch one. We also stay after-work every now and then - usually Fridays - and play CS Source, UT, Halo on company's lan. We are small company, but with colleagues remoting in from our offices in Wellington and Christchurch, we can get up to 16 people shooting each other in CS, and having a blast.
If nothing else, I think that PC gaming has increased significantly, rather than decreased, time we spend with real people, and gives us much bigger variety of how we spend this time.
I think that Valve fears some Indie games will move from Steam to more casual distribution like AppStores are. For example, everyone with Windows 8 has, by default, access to Windows Store, so that would be first place to look for more casual titles than downloading/creating Steam account etc. Win 8 is still not too common in the wild, but if MS continues in this direction with future Windows releases, Windows Store can start attracting small developers and, eventually, larger ones as well, thus drying out Valve's main source of income.