Main > Main Forum
Argument Starter - a Graph of how Classic Games have held up
Rando:
--- Quote from: Donkbaca on September 26, 2011, 04:18:42 pm ---I am always astonished that people find centipede fun
--- End quote ---
One of my wife's favorites, this would be higher on my "Like it now" radar than my "Liked it then" likely because I was never very good and it would eat my quarters quickly.
BobA:
Here is some info that is sort of related but only because we are talking games.
Apparently the amount of money spent on games for PCs or Tablets or Pads is on the increase and will soon be much greater than the amount of money spent on console games.
The biggest driving factor seems to be social network type games and women players. Spending money in farmville or buying angry birds is an example. The money spent to buy non tangible items on many pad type games is becoming a huge source of income. I know WOW started it on the PC but it its now skyrocketing.
There are also alot of older style arcade games gaining new life and money with their release on phone and other touch devices.
Will post the link if I find it again.
Link
Gatt:
@ BobA (Because the quote function hates me)
It's really not much of a surprise, console games have three fatal flaws...
1. Platforms are defined by their controls. Console games are primarily limited to those types of games that can be converted to a gamepad, excluding significant genres such as RTS, and making other genres awkward at best.
2. Consoles are dominated by sequel-itis and "Me too"-itis, because of their buisness structure. As closed platforms, new ideas do not readily enter the system because they usually come from new studios who lack the funding to aquire platform licenses, and because platform owners ultimately have control. Brian Fargo, the old Interplay dev, once complained that he presented Microsoft with an RPG they wanted to develop, and were denied a license because "We have RPG's covered for the next couple years".
3. Consoles suffer from a unchanging hardware base. They cannot innovate, because what you had on day 1 is what you have on day 1000, and you cannot introduce new techniques or features because the hardware itself is limiting over time. Today, cell phones have nearly as much memory as the 360 does.
That's why they tried to do hardware refreshes every 5 years, to avoid the hardware limitations and ease the first two problems by being able to add some new features to the same few games over and over. But, much like the SNES/Genesis era, they've maintained the platforms too long, made the same game too many times in a row, and now people are starting to get fatigued from it. So, they return to the Open PC platform that has a great deal more potential variety, lower barrier to entry, and much more evolved hardware.
Personally, I think we've seen the last generation of consoles. I don't think they can overcome the heat and power limitations of the small form factors, and I think by the time they do, tablets and multi-multicore home servers pushing screens in the house independently will have taken over.
Which is fine with me, because tablets lend themselves well to arcade type games, and I favor PC gaming over console gaming, though I do own both.
jimmy2x2x:
I agree with the bulk of what you are saying:
--- Quote from: Gatt on September 26, 2011, 06:44:16 pm ---because tablets lend themselves well to arcade type games
--- End quote ---
is something I take issue with, how can you possibly justify that?
Arcade type games benefit from rugged, tactile, precise controls - the total opposite of what tablets offer. I would even go as far as to say that tablets offer the least arcade friendly controls seen on any system.
Donkbaca:
Response:
1 - All platforms are designed by their controls, whether it be PC, tablet or console. If anything else, consoles have been the leaders in terms of the way people interact with games, and continue to do so with their peripherals. If people wanted to play RTS games with say a mouse and a keyboard, there is nothing stopping them from doing so, all you would have do is release a mouse and keyboard peripheral. This is not a fatal flaw in my opinion, nor is the argument you are making
2 - That's just the nature of all media, there is a natural gravitation towards copying success. If anything right now, the iphone, ipad and face book are dominated with farmville wanna-be's.
3- This isn't an issue, because there are very few games that are released that push the envelope in terms of what a console is capable of. Long hardware cycles are good because they allow for more market penetration, which means a bigger market for games, which translates into bigger investments into game development. Also, this is not true, peripherals get introduced that add fundamental changes to game play possibilities. Look at the kinect, look at the move, heck look at the motion plus for the wii, the wii fit board, etc. Not to mention the rockband controllers. Constant hardware turnover is BAD for gaming.
The PC platform does NOT have low barrier to entry. You can get a refurbed 360 for a nundred bucks, to find a PC with comparable gaming capability, you are looking at spending at LEAST that much on a video card.
You keep talking about hardware. Hardware doesn't matter, its the software that plays on the hardware that matters most. Look at the failure of the 3DO, the Atari Jaguar and many, many other consoles that touted the virtues of superior hardware.
The main reason there has been this shift in gaming is because the industry is paying attention to a niche of gamer that it never has before. The largest jump in gaming has been women in their forties playing farmville and angry birds, you are telling me this hardware driven?