I've seen the same thing over and over again and I'm sure you have to. If it isn't ReviewTechUSA ranting about how mobiles are gonna take over the industry, then it's someone saying that digital distribution will be the only way to get games.
People have been saying these things a lot lately and there are a few things they didn't seem to consider. First of all, digital distribution.
Let me ask you this: Why does DD NEED to takeover and 'replace physical distribution? Why do we need to have DRM all across the board? Why do we need to alienate not only the people who prefer physical copies, but the places and people who don't have access to a steady internet connection? If they have one that is.
It's funny how people like RTU were completely crapping on the XBO (Not defending the thing) and then the next second, he's talking about DD taking over, also known as DRM.
Look at Netflix. That service has been around for a long time and we still have DVD's and BluRay discs. Why does gaming have to be any different in that respect? Look at iTunes and CDs. There will always be a demand for physical copies. Point. Blank. Period.
I also think that saying DD is gonna take over is a very western way of thinking. Look at Japan. Now I've not seen a single JRPG on a streaming service for consoles. Not to mention that the second hand gaming market is HUGE over there.
Now this is something that you have to admit: The original XBO policies were by Americans, for Americans. That's what they really were. They were basically shafting everyone outside America. And even America hated it!
My point is, DD is not taking over for several reasons, the biggest factor being that a shit ton of the customers that MS and Sony get with the Xbox and PlayStation are in places which have very crappy internet if they have one at all. You'd be shafting MILLIONS of customers and therefore sales if you did that. And please don't tell me that everwhere will have a stable and or robust internet connection in 5 years, because I'll just ask you: Where's my hoverboard? Think about what you're saying. Games are becoming larger and they're doing it very rapidly, faster than the advancement of bandwidth. Now imagine GTA6. A bigger game than GTA5 with better graphics and physics simulation. Imagine trying to download that 50gb+ game at launch along with a few million other people. Exactly. On top of that there is one simple fact: No matter how great your bandwidth is, there's always a risk of data loss. Also, we're talking about consoles, not PCs! I know someone is gonna come up in here and say: 'Putting a disc in a tray is so late 90's' so all I have to say is this: You can go completely digital. But there will always be demand for physical media. Why do you think people responded to the XBO policies so badly? They knew that what those policies were doing was rendering a physical copy useless. As RTU rightfully said a while back: You don't own the game, you just have the license to play it. I don't trust that I own my game when a buy a digital copy. I really don't.
Now onto mobile gaming and smartphones.
I really have no idea as to how people think you'll be able to have a smartphone that is miles ahead of both the XBO and PS4 in terms of specs, without devloping quantumn physics. You can only make transistors and chips so small and powerful until they burn out. Not to mention the lack of ventilation and cooling in smartphones. Even if you could plug it into a TV and play, there's no way a tiny and slim phone could handle as much processing that something like BF4 demands for a prolonged period of time without frying. Size does matter. Why do you think that the best PCs are so big? I hear people saying: 'Phones and tablets are catching up to the PS3 and 360.' But it took eight years. With the iPhone, which is probably the most popular phone brand, you can see that Apple makes very minimal changes to each new phone. To the point that I think the iPhone 5S should be calles the iPhone 5.101. So even though the PS4 and XBO are not a massive leap (I don't think this gen will last more than 7 years either), but it is decent. So how long will it take for phones to catch up to the next gen consoles? Another 6-8 years? If phones caught up to the next gen consoles, we'd have PCs and console infinitely more powerful by then.
Seondly, you do realize that you'd be paying a monthly bill to play your games, right? Not even for the online, to play your games in general. Obviously, I'd pay the phone bill anyway as I do now, but it just doesn't seem right. Not to mention that these phones and tablets are not dedicated to gaming at all. Like Windows, a lot of the already limited power in phones is used for the OS. A lot. And do you think that they'll make a gaiming dedicated phone? No. When people pick up a phone, they want it to make their calls listen to their music, post crap on Twitter, Facebook all that stuff. Not to hook it up to a TV with a long ass HDMI cable across the room and play games. That's what the consoles are for.
Think about it: Would GTAV still have made Rockstar $1 billion in the space of 3 days and gotten 10's and 9.5's all across the board, WITHOUT a playable online mode? Hell NO. Hell. No.
Now as for the whole Sony and MS becoming a streaming service with PS and Xbox, come on. If the PS4 is getting 1 million preorders in the US alone, you can bet there will be PS5. Hardware is way better than streaming and there will always be a demand for it. When I play mobile games, to me they're just apps. Obviously a game is an application for a console or a PC, but you know what I mean. It's just to pass time when I'm outside of my place. I have no idea as to how angry birds found so much success though. That game is so shit, it's not even funny. Mobile gaming is for casuals and always will be. What casual wants to buy a $500+ phone, buy a controller for it and then hool up a long as HDMI cable across the living room and taking in an out? Exactly. Consoles are the easiest way to play games. We'll keep getting dedicated gaming consoles.
The industry NEEDS consoles. PCs are all different and constantly changing and you already know about the mobiles. I've also seen a lot of PC gamers screaming and shouting, that if mobile gaming doesn't kill off the consoles the Steam Machines will. Oh, how wrong are they about that huh?
And finally, mobile gaming is just not immersive. You'd have to pause the game when you got a text, a phone call, the list goes on. Consoles and the the primiere way to play games. Mobiles are just over saturation in the market.
Anyway, thanks for reading guys! Hope you enjoyed it and sound off in the comments.
Hardcore Gamer Writes "Bring the fight back to earth in this action packed epic that will leave your jaw on the floor."
GameSpew: With its phenomenal visuals, sublime soundtrack and varied gameplay, Stellar Blade has far surpassed our expectations.
Stacey Henley from TheGamer Writes "Stellar Blade's marketing has been All About Eve, but it feels like Much Ado About Nothing"
I really enjoyed the blog but I don't see smartphones killing consoles. I do see the smartphone becoming the competition for your consoles. Think about it the xbox one and PS4 have a soup up "ultra mobile APU processor" designed for ultra thin laptops, tablets, and notebooks. So even though it has better clock speed, double the physical cores, and more shaders it's still an ultra mobile processor. So it easily explains how the vita is capable of running PS4 games despite the fact it has lesser technical specs than the PS4. So as far as tech specs go well the consoles are not as powerful than a smartphone thanks to the bloody ultra mobile APU processor. Now yes battery life, monthly payments, and signal strength will always prevent smartphones taking over consoles. But five or three years from now we as gamers may see GTA V on a smartphone.
The most likely scenarios to happen five years from now are handled and consoles becoming one product. Scenario One is basically a console hooked to your television set with a handheld system as the gamepad. Scenario two will be a gaming tablet coming from the big three hooked to your television set via usb3.0 wireless of course. It brings the software of say tablets mixed with the gaming libraries of a console. Worst case scenario is console gaming turning into a service and charge gamers a monthly fee for say service. I am talking about the streaming option and the reason is based on the investment of cloud computing. This all seems from fact that gamers themselves want their console gaming experiences on the go. Look how excited people are in regards to PS Vita tv, PS4 games being played on the vita. Look at Nintendo fans raving how the wii u gamepad is revolutionary when really is just a tablet. All in all there is a demand for games to be played at home and on the go.
The benefits of the first two scenarios far outweigh the negatives. Scenario One is the one most gamers are going to be okay with due to there is still a box hooked to your tv the only difference is the handheld device as the controller and the device that let's you play games on the go. No more billions of dollars spent on two products just one product, no more piss poor console ports onto a handheld devices, no more sending out the best console game franchise to upcoming or unknown game developers like Socom or jak and daxter come to mind. No more asking game developers to make silly portable games. Benefits for the gamers such as buying one product instead of two plus be able to play their favorite games on the go whether is uncharted or gears of War as an example..
Come on you like scenario one don't you. Okay onto Valve Steam machines. Man oh man does the steambox be able to turn console gamers into PC gamers absolutely freaking hell yeah. Worst case scenario Valve gets too excited for the steambox so much so that it decides to release 12 different versions of it with the low end steambox costing $600.00. But I extremely doubt that is going to happen.
Valve decides to release a $200.00 Nvidia Integra 4 steambox no I am just kidding that's not going to happen either okay that's just for shit and giggles. Most likely a $400.00 steambox with AMD Pile Driver CPU, AMD Sapphire GPU, 8gbs DDR 3 ram, 500gb HDD. Fully upgradeable, free online gaming, backwards compatibility, mods, deals and steals, able to dual boot with Windows. For $400.00 that's a beast of a Gaming PC. Then the elite version $800.00 intel Core I7, Nvidia gtx 780, 2tb of HDD, 50gb SSD for steam OS, 8gbs GDDR5 ram. Well you get the picture powerful Gaming PCs at low cost of entry with loads of flexibility, dual booting, oh the amazing sales, backwards compatibility, freeee online gaming and you are saying is not going to affect consoles. Man the steambox make consoles look ancient and pathetic.
Actually upgrading a PC for gaming purposes sounds redundant unless you are upgrading it for graphic design, game design, video editing, special effects. Really a $400.00 AMD Gaming PC with the Pile Driver CPU (8 cores) , 8gbs of DDR 3 ram, Sapphire GPU. What upgrade for gaming purposes do you need I ask. The only thing may be the hard drive other than that is about it. Don't forget the steambox can be dual boot with Windows. What Valve is going to offer is brilliant but too many steambox systems will confuse customers so I agree with that.