Gabe Newell on the PS3
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Gabe Newell on the PS3 I think I'm in love.
Isn't Gabe Newell also the man behind those restrictive thing called steam and those shady licence agreements?
Well, if Gabe says it, it *must* be true!!! LOL
He doesn't really go into any detail at all about why it's a disaster. Looks like a bit of a slur otherwise. It's like someone here posting a game and a forum member just says
"It's crap"
It doesn't help anyone, and should be best ignored.
"It's crap"
It doesn't help anyone, and should be best ignored.
Yeah, I mean, what would Gabe Newell know about software development? Pfft!
(edit: spelling)
(edit: spelling)
my view on the PS£ might be like every one else's don't know, but here's my two pence....
it's using untried technology which people dont' trust, i.e. blu-ray. It's more than twice the cost of a xbox 360, even though most of the games are going to look the same.
The online aspects are still better on xbox360 than on the PS3 too.
it's using untried technology which people dont' trust, i.e. blu-ray. It's more than twice the cost of a xbox 360, even though most of the games are going to look the same.
The online aspects are still better on xbox360 than on the PS3 too.
Gabe 'my password is gaben' Newell?
Speaking of Steam, I sat down to play Half Life 2 again last week. The installer couldn't extract a lonesome icon from the DVD, so it proceeded to download the entire 3 GB via Steam, at a whopping 40 KBPS. Suffice it to say, I didn't get to play Half Life 2 that evening. I haven't bothered since.
Speaking of Steam, I sat down to play Half Life 2 again last week. The installer couldn't extract a lonesome icon from the DVD, so it proceeded to download the entire 3 GB via Steam, at a whopping 40 KBPS. Suffice it to say, I didn't get to play Half Life 2 that evening. I haven't bothered since.
It's too early to say if the PS3 is a disaster, but it's certainly not looking good. Their decision to include blu-ray is quite risky because it increases the production price (hence the high price) and if blu-ray fails (like all of the other Sony media like UMD and Mini-Disc), the PS3 is going to be deep trouble because nobody will want the blu-ray features that are being used to justify such a high price.
It's too early to say if the PS3 is a disaster
Nah, it was easy to point that one out at the begining. And every interview (with sony or non-sony alike) simply reinforce it.
A. It was over hyped.
B. It was under produced.
C. It is a bloated system (in technology).
D. Sony keeps trying to 'convice' everyone it's the next thing. (yet we're not idiots, we can tell when someone is just feeding us the same thing over and over).
E. Developers are complaining about developing for it (despite the huge amount of tech built into it).
F. The target market is complaining about how overly expensive it is. Not just as they usually do mind you, this one is a whopper of a price tag.
G. The system has risky tech which Sony pretty much flipped a coin to support "And the winner is going to be........ BluRay! YEAY, k everyone, get on your 'I Love BlueRay Hats' and lets go buy lots of BlueRay DVDs before everyone else gets them first". "Sir, what about the HD-DVD crowd?". "Bahhh, they no nothing, they have no clue the future is in BluRay!". "Good Point Sir, glad yer so smart!". "That's why I am CEO, that's why I make the big bucks!".
Sorry, the ps3 was a flop from the moment of it's conception. Sony was trying to take a very large stride in the console industry, however they forgot that with large strides you must own long legs and have the ability to see that long stride through to the end (or fall on your arse).
Cheaper and quicker would have given them a reserved spot at the top. But justifying a huge development cost for a game to be released on a next-gen/buggy/over-priced system that few own just isn't a good marketing strategy.
Although on the other hand, I don't give the creators of Steam'-ing pile of sheit' any credit at all.......
Heh, I remember when the PS2 was a disaster and impossible to develop with also...
I only predicted exactly this. My next prediction is that Sony will disappear as a big time company. With PS3, Blu-Ray, and related flops, they have effectively ruined themselves. They will have no choice but to drop out of the games industry entirely. Why? Cause games aren't their big ticket. They make all kinds of electronics. They will pull out of games entirely.
Then, You'll either see Microsoft burn themselves out because they mistake nintendo for a Mac situation, which they aren't. Or we will have a true devide in games for the first time. You won't have casual and core anymore. You'll have at least 4 groups.
Simple gamers which are the casuals. Moderate Casuals who get Wii and Wii-child systems which are something like toys. and then Gameplay Core and Graphics Core gamers, The gameplay core gamers will perpetuate the real core games. While the graphics gamers will play graphics systems. You'll have gameplay innovation on one system, and graphical advancement on the other.
It'll be like music.
There are people who just listen to music if it is on, or at a club but they didn't go to the club for the music.
There are people who buy some CDs here and there and listen to music to relax, but they don't really consume it.
Then there are people who just EAT popular music up like it is crack.
Then there are true Audiophiles, who consume music that they love in great amounts.
That is my prediction. I was right about the Wii blowing everything away back when it was called the revolution. I was right that no one would care that it has lower quality graphics. I was right that the Xbox 360 would do better than the PS3 based only of price, and I was right that this would mean the end of AAA game designer complacency in regard to graphics-focus. This is the first of soon to be many of the bigger guys to say STFU to their marketing departments, thier money-people and to the manufacturers. (Even if it doesn't mean that don't have to make games on these systems, but expressing things like this is a HUGE step)
Then, You'll either see Microsoft burn themselves out because they mistake nintendo for a Mac situation, which they aren't. Or we will have a true devide in games for the first time. You won't have casual and core anymore. You'll have at least 4 groups.
Simple gamers which are the casuals. Moderate Casuals who get Wii and Wii-child systems which are something like toys. and then Gameplay Core and Graphics Core gamers, The gameplay core gamers will perpetuate the real core games. While the graphics gamers will play graphics systems. You'll have gameplay innovation on one system, and graphical advancement on the other.
It'll be like music.
There are people who just listen to music if it is on, or at a club but they didn't go to the club for the music.
There are people who buy some CDs here and there and listen to music to relax, but they don't really consume it.
Then there are people who just EAT popular music up like it is crack.
Then there are true Audiophiles, who consume music that they love in great amounts.
That is my prediction. I was right about the Wii blowing everything away back when it was called the revolution. I was right that no one would care that it has lower quality graphics. I was right that the Xbox 360 would do better than the PS3 based only of price, and I was right that this would mean the end of AAA game designer complacency in regard to graphics-focus. This is the first of soon to be many of the bigger guys to say STFU to their marketing departments, thier money-people and to the manufacturers. (Even if it doesn't mean that don't have to make games on these systems, but expressing things like this is a HUGE step)
They will pull out of games entirely.
Well, I think you're wrong on that. If PS3 is a major flop for Sony, they'll just rethink. They've made far too much money, and the console is too big of a portal to the living room for them to simply give up. That's the point of the PS3, and I'm pretty sure they will push it and push it and throw money into it and sell their own kidneys just to get it in as many living rooms as possible. Because once people have it, then Sony can sell them films, music, and games all through one shiny box. It's too valuable just to forget about the whole market.
I was right that the Xbox 360 would do better than the PS3 based only of price,
You forgot the 360 had a year headstart and the PS3 had one of the largest shortages in history. Even with its hefty price tag and being over pimped on eBay, it still sold out completely before the end of 2006. As for 2007, thats another story...
and I was right that this would mean the end of AAA game designer complacency in regard to graphics-focus.
Not really, while the Wii is intriguing with its controls and cheap prices to garnish the attention of even non-gamers, it won't be heading the game industry. Graphics powered games for the 360, PS3, and the PC will continue to drive the technology for gamming.
Well, I knew that before -.-
Gabe Newell just tells me what I already know.
Gabe Newell just tells me what I already know.
"Not really, while the Wii is intriguing with its controls and cheap prices to garnish the attention of even non-gamers, it won't be heading the game industry. Graphics powered games for the 360, PS3, and the PC will continue to drive the technology for gamming."
I disagree entirely. The public is who drives the industry. If the wii sells best of the 3, then you'll see more wii-like system. It is proof that graphics a game doth not make. And that will sink in for these graphics monkies.
Graphics are the easiest part of games to understand from a box, but with today's internet world the boxes hold less and less meaning, especially for the big titles. Core gamers buy based on a mixture of reviews, rentals, and what their friends like. They don't buy based on a box.
If the industry splits, then you'll see plenty of graphics games of 'pop' systems. They are the blockbuster movies of the game world. But it isn't that big blockbuster action movie that sets the trends. It is the low budget indie films and the mid-budget films. It is the things people took a risk on with few exceptions.
If the industry don't split, then everything will become wii-like. Simply because that is what sells.
You forget. 'technology' isn't what games are about to the core gamer. The PC, and possibly graphics based consoles will still exist, yes. They will continue to advance and get bigger and better everything. However, that isn't or at least shouldn't be the driving force behind games. For one major reason this can't work, We are hitting that wall now.
Graphics, Power, Processing, all these things grow exponentially. However, the tools to create those graphics are crude and ill-conceived and even if they were great, they still require an exponentially larger workforce to create.
Games on the ps3 can cost 20 million or more. That will go up another factor of 10 for the next system based on the growth of computers. So it'll cost 200 million or more. Then 2 billion.
It doesn't work. Just because you -can- have super amazing graphics, doesn't mean you need it. And if it doesn't make the game better, it is a waste of money.
Games CAN'T follow the technology. They have to fall behind at some point, or the tools have to become drasticly better.
Want proof? Squaresoft could have used the same sprites from final fantasy 5 in final fantasy 6. They didn't. They could have used the same textures in 8 and 9 as they did in 7. They didn't. However. They made FFX, then FFX-2 with a good chunk of re-used graphics. Then FF-12 which uses a lot of lore from another game, and a big chunk of graphics from a bunch of others. And kingdom hearts and KH2. This is something that Square didn't do before. Why now?
Cause it costs a lot more to make these graphics and textures and models and they only way to make it work is to force them to do double duty.
You will see more and more recycled graphics, more and more cut corners. More and more gameplay losses to graphics until a game is impossible to make a profit from.
The real genius behind the wii is not the motion control. No no no. It is the fact that the motion control got millions of these things into people homes when it is way under-powered. And people will realize that it is much better to have a game that isn't crap, than it is to have fancy eye-candy
I disagree entirely. The public is who drives the industry. If the wii sells best of the 3, then you'll see more wii-like system. It is proof that graphics a game doth not make. And that will sink in for these graphics monkies.
Graphics are the easiest part of games to understand from a box, but with today's internet world the boxes hold less and less meaning, especially for the big titles. Core gamers buy based on a mixture of reviews, rentals, and what their friends like. They don't buy based on a box.
If the industry splits, then you'll see plenty of graphics games of 'pop' systems. They are the blockbuster movies of the game world. But it isn't that big blockbuster action movie that sets the trends. It is the low budget indie films and the mid-budget films. It is the things people took a risk on with few exceptions.
If the industry don't split, then everything will become wii-like. Simply because that is what sells.
You forget. 'technology' isn't what games are about to the core gamer. The PC, and possibly graphics based consoles will still exist, yes. They will continue to advance and get bigger and better everything. However, that isn't or at least shouldn't be the driving force behind games. For one major reason this can't work, We are hitting that wall now.
Graphics, Power, Processing, all these things grow exponentially. However, the tools to create those graphics are crude and ill-conceived and even if they were great, they still require an exponentially larger workforce to create.
Games on the ps3 can cost 20 million or more. That will go up another factor of 10 for the next system based on the growth of computers. So it'll cost 200 million or more. Then 2 billion.
It doesn't work. Just because you -can- have super amazing graphics, doesn't mean you need it. And if it doesn't make the game better, it is a waste of money.
Games CAN'T follow the technology. They have to fall behind at some point, or the tools have to become drasticly better.
Want proof? Squaresoft could have used the same sprites from final fantasy 5 in final fantasy 6. They didn't. They could have used the same textures in 8 and 9 as they did in 7. They didn't. However. They made FFX, then FFX-2 with a good chunk of re-used graphics. Then FF-12 which uses a lot of lore from another game, and a big chunk of graphics from a bunch of others. And kingdom hearts and KH2. This is something that Square didn't do before. Why now?
Cause it costs a lot more to make these graphics and textures and models and they only way to make it work is to force them to do double duty.
You will see more and more recycled graphics, more and more cut corners. More and more gameplay losses to graphics until a game is impossible to make a profit from.
The real genius behind the wii is not the motion control. No no no. It is the fact that the motion control got millions of these things into people homes when it is way under-powered. And people will realize that it is much better to have a game that isn't crap, than it is to have fancy eye-candy
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25247543&page=0
"Disaster" seems an appropriate word.
"Disaster" seems an appropriate word.
I've played the wii. It's alright. But i can't be bored with all the moving :D Just like to come in from work and sit still and play games after a hard day. Only time will tell, but i think the gimick will wear off.
However, that isn't or at least shouldn't be the driving force behind games.
Well, you're right. Its not driving it, but i believe its a big part of it.
We are hitting that wall now.
I disagree. We havent hit that wall because there really isn't any wall to hit. Games are going to change and evolve. Gameplay will change and evolve, graphics will change and evolve - not for the worse but better.
Just because you -can- have super amazing graphics, doesn't mean you need it.
Of course not. But it depends on the game. You wouldn't want photorealstic graphics for games like Monkey Ball, Rayman, or Warioware. But the tone in blockbuster games like Half Life 2, FEAR, Gears of War, or even Eternal Darkness would make more sense to have better than average graphics than cutsey little bunnys running around.
This is something that Square didn't do before. Why now?
An executive decision? Who knows? Why arent we using the Doom 2 engine for all the FPS games that are out now? Why is CryTek building a new advance graphics engine when they could be using the same old one? Why are Nvidia and ATI still building graphics cards?
It is the fact that the motion control got millions of these things into people homes when it is way under-powered.
Well we all for a fact that know that theres a lot of factors that come into play here : Consistent Marketing (name one day that you don't see a Wii commercial), Gimmicky controls (obviously), extremely cheap as compared to the other consoles (major selling point here), and the wide availability. Thats how they did it. Because as much as we can say ooh and ahh to the gimmicky controls, none of their current crop of games are really THAT good as compared to the other systems. But still, I myself am sold, and still want one also.
And people will realize that it is much better to have a game that isn't crap, than it is to have fancy eye-candy
But then again...games like Gears of War, Resistance, Oblivion, Tony Hawk, God of War, HL2, and GT have all been known for fancy graphics and gameplay. I don't recall if any of them were crap...or were they?
"Do Over" ... LOL that's friggin' hilarious!
Tony Hawk is pretty crap. The others are ok, but nothing new. Sept Oblivion and God of war.
I think you really missed the point. You can't make money if the graphics of your game cost more than you can possible sell...
For example. Lets say there are 20,000,000 units of "PS5" and the games sell for 100 a pop. Now, lets say, because there are SO MUCH graphics and they are so complex and detailed that you need a team of 2000 to generate them, and the levels, and the programming and all that. A team of 2000. for 3 years. If they only make 40,000 a year on average. Thats 230,000,000 JUST in pay. To cover JUST that you need to sell 2,400,000 units of the game. Which is more than 10% of the market. This doesn't take into account all the assets and is a pretty low pay-scale, and is just breaking even. You would need your game in 20-30% of all 'PS5" owners to support that.
This is the wall.
Computer power grows exponentially. What you -can- do grows greater and greater each year. However, what a person can do doesn't. That same person can only do the same ammount of work, so to cover the cost you have to use more and more people.
Games on the Ps1 cost less than 1 million to make. Far less. Games on the Ps2 cost over 2. Games on the Ps3 can cost in the 20 Million range.
The cost doesn't just get a little more each year. It doubles every year.
It isn't sustainable, that is a wall. There is a point where it will cost MORE to make a game, than there are people to buy the games.
In the example I gave, the game sold for 100, and the company got to keep all 100. In reality, they keep a fraction because Sony and the package/production companies need to pay their employees. So Say they keep half... Now they need 50% of all "Ps5" owners to buy the game to make money. But that's at 100 a game. If it was 70 a game, then they would need almost -everyone- to buy the game to make money on it. It isn't possible.
Most games don't do great. So the games that sell well are what fund the games that don't sell well. So that fictional game would have to sell EVEN MORE than double what it cost to make to really be a success. This isn't possible in that system. It wouldn't be possible if the unit was in 200,000,000 homes and not just 20.
The modern game industry wasn't started by people who were good at business. The consoles were, but the people making the games to sell on those consoles weren't business people. Now we have EA and others who are run by business people who don't know anything about the reality of the future cost of games. There is a missing link here that is going to create a wall. A wall we are brushing up against right now.
How are they dealing with the wall? Making games they -know- they can sell. Not making any that they can't sell. And hyping the games up greatly no matter how bad they are to get some initial sale. They are cutting costs by elimating parts of the game in favor of the graphics. They have to make compromises on everything. But it will only get worse.
Games CAN'T follow the cutting edge of computer-power. It isn't cost effective. The Wii will show that they don't have to follow the cutting edge to be competative in the marketplace. The fear of having "Bad Graphics" has been stalking the game industry for a long long time. The Wii is a big departure in thought. One that is being successful.
I think you really missed the point. You can't make money if the graphics of your game cost more than you can possible sell...
For example. Lets say there are 20,000,000 units of "PS5" and the games sell for 100 a pop. Now, lets say, because there are SO MUCH graphics and they are so complex and detailed that you need a team of 2000 to generate them, and the levels, and the programming and all that. A team of 2000. for 3 years. If they only make 40,000 a year on average. Thats 230,000,000 JUST in pay. To cover JUST that you need to sell 2,400,000 units of the game. Which is more than 10% of the market. This doesn't take into account all the assets and is a pretty low pay-scale, and is just breaking even. You would need your game in 20-30% of all 'PS5" owners to support that.
This is the wall.
Computer power grows exponentially. What you -can- do grows greater and greater each year. However, what a person can do doesn't. That same person can only do the same ammount of work, so to cover the cost you have to use more and more people.
Games on the Ps1 cost less than 1 million to make. Far less. Games on the Ps2 cost over 2. Games on the Ps3 can cost in the 20 Million range.
The cost doesn't just get a little more each year. It doubles every year.
It isn't sustainable, that is a wall. There is a point where it will cost MORE to make a game, than there are people to buy the games.
In the example I gave, the game sold for 100, and the company got to keep all 100. In reality, they keep a fraction because Sony and the package/production companies need to pay their employees. So Say they keep half... Now they need 50% of all "Ps5" owners to buy the game to make money. But that's at 100 a game. If it was 70 a game, then they would need almost -everyone- to buy the game to make money on it. It isn't possible.
Most games don't do great. So the games that sell well are what fund the games that don't sell well. So that fictional game would have to sell EVEN MORE than double what it cost to make to really be a success. This isn't possible in that system. It wouldn't be possible if the unit was in 200,000,000 homes and not just 20.
The modern game industry wasn't started by people who were good at business. The consoles were, but the people making the games to sell on those consoles weren't business people. Now we have EA and others who are run by business people who don't know anything about the reality of the future cost of games. There is a missing link here that is going to create a wall. A wall we are brushing up against right now.
How are they dealing with the wall? Making games they -know- they can sell. Not making any that they can't sell. And hyping the games up greatly no matter how bad they are to get some initial sale. They are cutting costs by elimating parts of the game in favor of the graphics. They have to make compromises on everything. But it will only get worse.
Games CAN'T follow the cutting edge of computer-power. It isn't cost effective. The Wii will show that they don't have to follow the cutting edge to be competative in the marketplace. The fear of having "Bad Graphics" has been stalking the game industry for a long long time. The Wii is a big departure in thought. One that is being successful.
if it didn't take up so much space, I would quote DampeS8N word for word. I could not have said it any better myself.
As an artist myself, I've been saying for a while that the art pipeline is no longer the issue, it is the time and budgets that will determine the graphics quality now.
As an artist myself, I've been saying for a while that the art pipeline is no longer the issue, it is the time and budgets that will determine the graphics quality now.
They've made far too much money, and the console is too big of a portal to the living room for them to simply give up.
Agreed. Besides which, Microsoft is still out more than 4 billion on the XBox. I think we'll see Microsoft cave in before Sony. the PS3 had one of the largest shortages in history.
I suppose that's one way to put a positive spin on "The PS3 was one of the most rushed to market consoles in history". Besides which there is no shortage. In Denmark I can go into any EBGames (well okay there's only one within 100kms or so of where I live) and pick one up, if I really wanted to buy a console that costs as much as a car. Not really, while the Wii is intriguing with its controls and cheap prices to garnish the attention of even non-gamers, it won't be heading the game industry.
Why not? The non-gamer population is significantly bigger than the gamer one. By the logic that "Windows has 95% market penetration, so it is the most viable platform" making video games for people who aren't traditionally gamers, seems like an okay idea really. Sort of like Blizzard did with WoW - make an MMOG for people who don't traditionally play MMOGs. Worked rather well really. Graphics powered games for the 360, PS3, and the PC will continue to drive the technology for gamming.
True. While early markets generally drive high-tech forward, and one can even become sucessful buy selling to them exclusively - the real money is in the mainstream market. The public is who drives the industry.
No they drive the market. Not the same thing. Games CAN'T follow the technology. They have to fall behind at some point, or the tools have to become drasticly better.
And they will. In fact they already have. Compare the options available today, to the options available just 5 years or so ago. Why is CryTek building a new advance graphics engine when they could be using the same old one?
Because that's what they do. Like iD software, Cryteks primary business practice is developing game engines. They don't make games, they make interactive demos of their engines. Consistent Marketing (name one day that you don't see a Wii commercial)
Any day. none of their current crop of games are really THAT good as compared to the other systems.
What? The XBox 360 has been out for over a year and the only two marginally good games for it are the 200th R6 game and Uno. Does the PS3 even have any games out for it yet? What? The XBox 360 has been out for over a year and the only two marginally good games for it are the 200th R6 game and Uno. Does the PS3 even have any games out for it yet?
Yeah, ARCADE games, but what about the REAL games for X360? Saints Row, Gears of War, GRAW, Dead Rising, etc...?
I think I'll be getting an X360 after Forza 2 is out. For whatever reason (I'm not really into cars at all in real life) I really get into racing games that require some skill. I've logged more hours than I care to share on Gran Turismo 3.
Yeah, ARCADE games, but what about the REAL games for X360?
Define: Real game. Saints Row, Gears of War, GRAW, Dead Rising, etc...?
Saints Row - Never heard of it. The website says "Available September 1st". Got any examples of games that are actually out yet?Gears of War: Middle of the road FPS. Too much like Unreal 2.
GRAW: Is also avialable for XBox, PS2 and the PC, so is hardly an XBox360 game. Or any good for that matter.
Dead Rising: Also not out yet. Looks like Resident Evil, but with more action, and less suspense. Also isn't out yet.
I seem to seem a pattern emerging here. Real games = Shooters. Oh that's so big and clever. Played Rogue Trooper? Tons better than the lot of those "XBox360" games you mentioned there, nice try tho'.
Saints Row - Never heard of it. The website says "Available September 1st". Got any examples of games that are actually out yet?
Dead Rising: Also not out yet. Looks like Resident Evil, but with more action, and less suspense. Also isn't out yet.
Huh? These games have been available for months in the US, Asia and Australia. Have they not been released in Denmark/Europe yet?
Saints Row is basically a high-definition version of GTA. Enjoyable.
Dead Rising is a zombie arcade action TPS blend. Incredibly frustrating due to numerous design flaws, IMO. I won't be finishing this game. A shame because it has an interesting atmosphere and decent production values.
Gears of War: Not like Unreal 2, really. Most reviewers and gamers are raving about this third person shooter. I was somewhat less impressed, but it was at least entertaining...
GRAW: I enjoyed this game, though the controls took me a while to familiarise.
Huh? These games have been available for months in the US, Asia and Australia. Have they not been released in Denmark/Europe yet?
I don't know. It doesn't say which year. I suppose it could be Spet. 1st 2006. Games CAN'T follow the technology. They have to fall behind at some point, or the tools have to become drasticly better.
"And they will. In fact they already have. Compare the options available today, to the options available just 5 years or so ago."
They are the same. I don't see your point. To make game art today. 100% of 3D games use Maya, 3DStudio Max, or something -like- those. A good portion still use those to make levels too.
Editors created specificly for games or used to make games have 3 possible options of design. They either require the level editor to make every single surface, select from a list of pre-fab objects and parts (Like the Oblivion Editor) or some combo of the 2. All the objects and parts were made in some 3D package like Maya or 3D Studio Max.
All 3D editors, at least the professional ones and not things like SketchUp use convoluded and poorly designed interfaces. They all force 'artists' to understand 'technology'. (Which is why all 2D animated films have better animation than 3D animated films, meaning from an animation perspective not a 'still' perspective)
I've seen -some- exploration into proceedural generation of things. Such as some of Oblivion. However, this is often less aestheticly pleasing. It is harder to control the player with these without heavily editing the raw procedural content and it still requires 99% of the content to be created as a pre-fab.
Some, make plants and trees and landscapes, but they aren't capable of really working around an artistic theme. Which is ok for some games that strive for 'realism', but still limits creativity.
What am I forgetting? All of these things still require people. Those people don't work any faster, so in order to make a 3 year deadline, you need more people. 5 Years ago, games cost 500,000 to 2,000,000 to make. Today they cost ten times that. So that seems to fly in the face of your "And they will. In fact they already have. Compare the options available today, to the options available just 5 years or so ago." theory.
Up until recently I have never bought a console in my life - just didn't appeal to me to spend hundreds of £ on one, then hundreds more on the games when I already had a PC sitting at home.
Now I have a Wii. All my family and friends are hooked - "ordinary" non-gamer people- my wife, my in-laws, OAPs, the vicar and his wife. Most of them the first people in the queue to denounce gaming, now desperate to buy their own as soon as stock becomes available.
This type of people account for significantly more of the population than the hardcore gamers and this type of people doesn't give a rat's arse about blu-ray, superior graphics or cell processors.
Wii has found a market, just as the original Playstation did when it dragged gaming out of the domain of teenagers and into the hands of adults, bachelors who wanted to come in from the pub and play against their friends. That's what made the original Playstation so popular, and that's exactly what Sony has missed out on this time round - they've gone full circle and created a monster machine that only the hard-core teenagers are interested in, leaving the rest of the market to Nintendo.
Now I have a Wii. All my family and friends are hooked - "ordinary" non-gamer people- my wife, my in-laws, OAPs, the vicar and his wife. Most of them the first people in the queue to denounce gaming, now desperate to buy their own as soon as stock becomes available.
This type of people account for significantly more of the population than the hardcore gamers and this type of people doesn't give a rat's arse about blu-ray, superior graphics or cell processors.
Wii has found a market, just as the original Playstation did when it dragged gaming out of the domain of teenagers and into the hands of adults, bachelors who wanted to come in from the pub and play against their friends. That's what made the original Playstation so popular, and that's exactly what Sony has missed out on this time round - they've gone full circle and created a monster machine that only the hard-core teenagers are interested in, leaving the rest of the market to Nintendo.
Saints Row is basically a high-definition version of GTA. Enjoyable.
Also, it seems to be more interactive than GTA as well. Seems like you can actually customize your car, not just have a quick repair and color change like the Pay 'N Spray routine. Yep, I'd have to say that Volition did things that R* left out, due to technology limitations.
To cover JUST that you need to sell 2,400,000 units of the game. Which is more than 10% of the market. This doesn't take into account all the assets and is a pretty low pay-scale, and is just breaking even. You would need your game in 20-30% of all 'PS5" owners to support that.
Well obiviously not all games are gonna do that but considering that some of the heavy pushers will usually sell in excess of 3 millions and up, I still think its possible.
But it will only get worse.
So now we're on a path to having games with less quality graphics technology for the future? I'll believe it when I see it. Even the Wii with far less graphics power than the other new platforms is supposely twice as powerful than the Cube, which means that the Wii is currenlty more powerful than the PS2 and X-Box. Something has to give, the market will not accept going backwards in technology unless it benefits it. And considering both PS3 and Wii is only about 3 months old, its too early to even proove anything.
Consistent Marketing (name one day that you don't see a Wii commercial)
Any day.
Any day.
Within the last 20 minutes I've just seen 3 Wii commercials on 3 different channels. Theres appears to be a Wii commerical every 1 - 2 hours 24/7 on the all of the major networks. Oh wait, there goes another commercial...you know, the ones with those two Japaneese guys who goes to nearly every type of neighborhood and challenges everyone? Everyone knows what a Wii is by now.
Besides which there is no shortage. In Denmark I can go into any EBGames (well okay there's only one within 100kms or so of where I live) and pick one up, if I really wanted to buy a console that costs as much as a car.
Heh, well its nice that you can. The other several millions who actually wanted one without having to resort to eBay or whatever, wasn't quite as lucky. Even now with all the "PS3 is piling up on shelves" talk everywhere, most of the PS3s (at least in the Washington DC area) sell out within the day, before they're restocked again the following week.
Gears of War: Middle of the road FPS. Too much like Unreal 2.
You're talking out of your ass.
Gabe Newell, another idiot on the 'just bad talk everything for no reason' bandwagon.
FYI I'm not saying games should backtrack in graphics. I'm saying that they can't hug the technological curve. They can't keep maxing out the potential of the technology until the tools catch up to let them do so. It isn't cost effective.
That doesn't mean we have to backtrack. The Wii is twice the power of the cube? Fine. It isn't 10 times as powerfule. Twice is ok growth for 5ish years. That is acceptable.
Many games on the Wii don't utilize all of that power, also.
Look. If you don't get why games can't hug the technological curve that hardware can set. That's fine. But consider it like this.
I want you to draw a house with 10 lines. Then with 100 lines. then 1000. And tell me when you have maxed out the potential of the pencil.
That doesn't mean we have to backtrack. The Wii is twice the power of the cube? Fine. It isn't 10 times as powerfule. Twice is ok growth for 5ish years. That is acceptable.
Many games on the Wii don't utilize all of that power, also.
Look. If you don't get why games can't hug the technological curve that hardware can set. That's fine. But consider it like this.
I want you to draw a house with 10 lines. Then with 100 lines. then 1000. And tell me when you have maxed out the potential of the pencil.
When you run out of lead?
Bill Gates use to say that he cant see why any program need more than 640K memory ... well..today his baby need minimum 1Gig to show me graphics on screen, without any serious use of computer..so..Gabe is Gabe and Sony is Sony...I would say PS3 rocks not becouse I love it, and becouse I am sure Sony will make it work..for sure..
Yes. Correct. Draw a house until you run out of lead.
Don't stop drawing the house until you've maxed out the potential of the pencil. Maxing out the potential of computers is the same stupidity. Only pencils don't get 10 times bigger every time you buy one.
Don't stop drawing the house until you've maxed out the potential of the pencil. Maxing out the potential of computers is the same stupidity. Only pencils don't get 10 times bigger every time you buy one.
Look. If you don't get why games can't hug the technological curve that hardware can set. That's fine.
Well, i'm not dismissing your point. I'm just not agreeing with it. You say graphic rich games are getting too expensive to make and that they'll have to sell a certain amount to make a profit which you don't think will happen anymore. I'm saying that it still will. You think the market for graphic rich games has failed. I say that it hasn't and I've told you why. We can agree to disagree here.
Don't stop drawing the house until you've maxed out the potential of the pencil. Maxing out the potential of computers is the same stupidity. Only pencils don't get 10 times bigger every time you buy one.
Umm..maybe cause its so late or i'm too drunk (lol its 3 in the morning)...but I can't quite understand the point you're trying to make with the pencil thing? If i run out of lead, wouldn't i just get a new pencil? Is that a bad thing?
..dont bother..take one beer more and things will be clear.. hehehehe
I'm not saying there isn't a market for graphic rich games. I'm saying at a certain point, it'll cost more to make the game dut to the graphics, that they would have to sell more games than there are systems to play them on. But anywhere up to haveing to sell 30-50% of the total number of systems in copies is a problem. Because most games don't sell that well. Some do, And it is those few that pay for the others. If that great sale barely pays for the one game, then you can't make more games.
when the cost of a game reaches the "limit" for a set % of income, because the game is too expensive to make (due to graphics etc), there's only one thing that's going to happen.
Prices for the games will go up, and people will still pay more, just so that they can the next "most realistic and graphics intesive game ever"..
Prices for the games will go up, and people will still pay more, just so that they can the next "most realistic and graphics intesive game ever"..
there's only one thing that's going to happen.
Prices for the games will go up, and people will still pay more, just so that they can the next "most realistic and graphics intesive game ever"..
Prices for the games will go up, and people will still pay more, just so that they can the next "most realistic and graphics intesive game ever"..
Absolutely not true. If game prices rise to $70...$80...$100...$120,
people will be jumping the boat like mad.
Only the hardest of hardcore would pay $80 or above for a
game. The rest of us (the very large majority of us)
would wait for the price to lower to sane levels.
[edit] Or move to a new platform, more likely.
Bill Gates use to say that he cant see why any program need more than 640K memory ...
Urban legend.
Urban legend.
I believe so, although, didn't he at least imply that statement, given that 640k was all the mem available, at the time? :P I hope the implosion happens...fast! It'll mean more customers for my MUD. XD
drew has it right. As it is I refuse to pay full price for any game. I tend to pay 20-30 for games I want. I've bought 3 games in the last few years at full price. Oblivion, FF13, and Kingdom Hearts 2. All others were either rented from gamefly or bought at a later date. 95% of games I play, I rented from gamefly.
Since when did you all turn into fortune tellers?
If only continually criticising something would make it a poor selling product to everyone else, I've been doing this for over a decade with Windows and it's not done a single thing to hurt its success.
If only continually criticising something would make it a poor selling product to everyone else, I've been doing this for over a decade with Windows and it's not done a single thing to hurt its success.
PS3 is like the PC. Big, bulky and ugly. The only difference is that there isn't much worth buying a PS3 for at the moment :-D
If I look into the future I see computer generated textures taking over. Only some of the more complitcated being still done by people.
In all areas computers are taking over peoples jobs. The game industry will be the same!
For an idea of what research is being done that look at this guys work. He has done work with 3D objects and textures that will, in the future, change the work pipeline in game design.
http://research.microsoft.com/~hoppe/
In all areas computers are taking over peoples jobs. The game industry will be the same!
For an idea of what research is being done that look at this guys work. He has done work with 3D objects and textures that will, in the future, change the work pipeline in game design.
http://research.microsoft.com/~hoppe/
For things other than people, unique objects, cartoony games, and non-realistic textures. Sure. It'll change the way we make 'realistic' games.
Ok, I'm jumping in:
I have now spent more than a few hours with the PS3 and the WII. I own the X360.
Yikes, the WII is so hyped and overrated it is not even funny.
The PS3 is PS crap. Sony knows it, that is why they are gagging developers from even sharing their opinions on the machine with the public NDA and all.
Nintendites will be the only people still in love with their WII's after a months time with it. They'll lavish love on it but won't actually be playing with it much.
As for online, the PS3 is awful, repeat AWFUL. The Wii is a bit better but I already have a browser and it is an order of magnitude faster the the Wii browsing experience.
I know the MS haters out there turn themselves inside out trying to find ways to hate MS but, the X360 really is as good as the X360 fanboys rave on about. It actually lives up to the "hype" not that there is much.
I should also say that I hate(with passion) the Japanese "RPG". I find them shallow, awful and yucky on almost every level. So for those of you who need a system that plays that kind of drivel, Sony loves you!
Allan
I have now spent more than a few hours with the PS3 and the WII. I own the X360.
Yikes, the WII is so hyped and overrated it is not even funny.
The PS3 is PS crap. Sony knows it, that is why they are gagging developers from even sharing their opinions on the machine with the public NDA and all.
Nintendites will be the only people still in love with their WII's after a months time with it. They'll lavish love on it but won't actually be playing with it much.
As for online, the PS3 is awful, repeat AWFUL. The Wii is a bit better but I already have a browser and it is an order of magnitude faster the the Wii browsing experience.
I know the MS haters out there turn themselves inside out trying to find ways to hate MS but, the X360 really is as good as the X360 fanboys rave on about. It actually lives up to the "hype" not that there is much.
I should also say that I hate(with passion) the Japanese "RPG". I find them shallow, awful and yucky on almost every level. So for those of you who need a system that plays that kind of drivel, Sony loves you!
Allan
I should also say that I hate(with passion) the Japanese "RPG". I find them shallow, awful and yucky on almost every level
Heh sucks to be you! :)
BTW, I own a couple of 360s and owned a PS3 at one point and since we're switching topics again, the 360 is a good system if you like the slow load time, fan noise, and occasional lockups or SODs. But then again, Gears was definately worth it though...
But ever since i got Eternal Darkness for the Cube i havent really touched the 360 lately...but I still want the Wii before i can make an opinion on it.
Oh yeah, I love my X360 based on Saints Row alone, it's leaps and bounds over any former GTA games out there, thanks to the technology that Microsoft provided Volition. As for Gears of War, I have it, but I haven't got around to it, which I should have (stupid me). I felt that I couldn't even get past that first part where you have to unlock a door with that broken ledge thingy. I have to get around to trying the game out again. It's TOUGH AS LEATHER, GoW is. We'll have to see where we go with games in the future for the X360... I enjoy the Burger King games, tho, not too shabby for $4 games.
WedgeBob
You have to roadie run to clear that door. It pops up and says that might you might have missed it. Hold down 'A' for a second and you'll start running.
You have to roadie run to clear that door. It pops up and says that might you might have missed it. Hold down 'A' for a second and you'll start running.
I'm looking forward to the next generation of consoles - if only to hear the legions of idealists and fanboys saying:
"Sony sucks! The PS4 is a total failure. It's too expensive and difficult to develop for. No one will buy it! And the XboxXtreme? Don't make me laugh - it'll be a cold day in hell before Bill Gates gets his hands on my money."
and also:
"Nintendo are gonna win the console war this time! It's a sure thing. The Nintendo Smellovision is gonna rule! And, no, the smell port is not a gimmick!!!
"Sony sucks! The PS4 is a total failure. It's too expensive and difficult to develop for. No one will buy it! And the XboxXtreme? Don't make me laugh - it'll be a cold day in hell before Bill Gates gets his hands on my money."
and also:
"Nintendo are gonna win the console war this time! It's a sure thing. The Nintendo Smellovision is gonna rule! And, no, the smell port is not a gimmick!!!
LoL@justluke
That's pretty much what happens everytime a new console is released.
That's pretty much what happens everytime a new console is released.
My biggest gripe with the Xbox 360 is the noise issue, as mentioned by Neuro.
Regarding Japanese style RPGs - It’s like any genre: there are good representatives and bad representatives. The ones I’ve played certainly weren’t ‘shallow’. Tedious, yes, but sometimes there are compelling elements that inspire me to continue onward regardless.
Case in point: Enchanted Arms. It has that annoying ‘feature’ of frequent, without warning, random combat encounters. Ordinarily this would kill a game for me, but I find the characters and the setting interesting enough to keep going. That and the combat is actually ‘psychologically rewarding’. Incidentally, Enchanted Arms is one of the longest games I’ve played in years.
Regarding Japanese style RPGs - It’s like any genre: there are good representatives and bad representatives. The ones I’ve played certainly weren’t ‘shallow’. Tedious, yes, but sometimes there are compelling elements that inspire me to continue onward regardless.
Case in point: Enchanted Arms. It has that annoying ‘feature’ of frequent, without warning, random combat encounters. Ordinarily this would kill a game for me, but I find the characters and the setting interesting enough to keep going. That and the combat is actually ‘psychologically rewarding’. Incidentally, Enchanted Arms is one of the longest games I’ve played in years.
Lately I've really got into a couple of Japanese RPGs, particularly Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne. To be honest, I often find the excessive number of battles a bit annoying, but that's bearable as long as the story, characterisations and setting are interesting.
I think it's pretty early to start predicting the death of any new console just yet, but I will happily predict the death of both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. These will both be as lame as VideoCD and LaserDisc combined. They're rush releases hoping to catch interest before video delivery goes online. The fact there are two competing standards is just going to encourage the consumer to avoid both. And nobody is buying a PS3 to get Blu-Ray right now. How many Blu-Ray movies does your local Best Buy stock? If Blu-Ray does magically win the HD war, then maybe it could be a selling point in the future.
For that matter there are only a few things people really want in HD anyway, and of those sport is the main one, and as for that, it's not something you're going to have on a DVD anyway. Not many movies demand HD either, unless you're really into seeing how bad most actors really look.
As for the Wii, other than Zelda, nothing much on it is very compelling to me. The missus (a non-gamer) loves it though, and she keeps coming back to Wii Sports and Rayman.
For that matter there are only a few things people really want in HD anyway, and of those sport is the main one, and as for that, it's not something you're going to have on a DVD anyway. Not many movies demand HD either, unless you're really into seeing how bad most actors really look.
As for the Wii, other than Zelda, nothing much on it is very compelling to me. The missus (a non-gamer) loves it though, and she keeps coming back to Wii Sports and Rayman.