Posted this over at game trailers after being asked the same question a couple of times.
It got long so for a while I wasn't sure I could keep it all together. I really have to work harder on not writing such long posts because at the end of the day they are pointless.
--
So.. is there room for another platform?
Or is it as simple as reinventing the PC?
I asked the question a long time ago but started it with a kernel running off of the motherbard. WinMin or something like it which handles all the drivers for instant booting to a ready status. After if you need to boot a full OS, you have that option. Run a game OS (like those on consoles), run classic Windows for productivity, or run something custom like a linux distro. But to start with.. you have to have a rock solid foundation. Windows 7 does do that but as usual it only manages it by being bloaty and as disgusting as ever. Where you can now download graphics drivers and update them without restarting your computer. That's the theory and it doensn't exactly work that well in practice, but in theory it does work. Why not push all that crap into a protected section of system memory, OR dump it all into flash memory that's always there and always running? Why aren't operating systems embedded in non volatile RAM decades after the concept was proven?
What irks me is that PS3 just lost some very critical functionality (or will as of September 1st). Sony keeps saying that they are only mid way through their platforms lifecycle. Sony is aware that PS3 is not just defficient for what it's supposed to do.. but that it's just a console. At the end of the day it is not the top of the class and both 360 and PS3 lag far behind PC.
So my original question was could Sony drop a 1000 dedicated box on the market to continue what they started with Playstation 3?
Think about it, Sony sold some few million of us on the dream.. a full hd dream. It should cost more because it does more. But it's little warrior has failed to capture the market the way it should have, furthermore both 360 and PS3 have done a great deal to expand the market, but don't satisfy it. People are moving back to PC. Or at least want to.
There are small things like not wanting to put a PC in the living room. Nothing like a BSoD to kill the mood right? With PS3 giving you everything you need and 360 there to fill in whatever other gaps there might be, and Wii for the kids.. you should be all set right? Hell no. There's still everything else that you can only do on a PC, especially with PS3 dropping PS2 game compatibility and the ability to run an OS. It's no longer a PC, it's a games console no better than the others. While PC functionality is missing from the living room.. forcing you to own everything, or some.. but still not being really satisfied.
Where is the PC for the living room? Apple's entry into HTPC?
But Apple isn't good for games.. you'd have to have a Windows PC attached to your HDTV and the internet.. That's just sickening really. Remember the end of Akira? or Bubble Gum Crisis 2040? That's Microsoft. You don't want that in your living room. By extension 360 doesn't belong their either. It's a console which like Wii.. should be in the den, or children's rooms. It offers very little to adults if anything at all.
This has always been the biggest caveat. Moving away from a manufacturer gaming device means you aren't sitting under a certification umbrella that does quite a bit to ensure a quality end product. Microsoft is culpable in that lack of quality on both of it's platforms. While there is still certification on Xbox.. it's not what it used to be. PC on the other hand doesn't have any real certification process for software. Which is a pity.
So again to the question which Godmars asks twice.. where to now? Raytracing and hardware build for it?
Can the PC be reinvented.. can it be welcome in the living room for entertainment and gaming while being every bit as rock solid as certified game code, certified productivity code, and open the door to HD movies current and next generation? But.. could it manage to combine everything and kill piracy.. kill it at the source. That source for some is just a lack of quality software worth buying. If the OS was reliable, people would pay for it. If software was reliable, people would pay for it. People only pay for game software because it's difficult to pirate, and available, not because of quality. The money went to consoles because console games work and don't crash constantly and get updates when they don't.
It's obvious that games have outgrown consoles and that the only place they can go is back to PC. But nothing has changed. Microsoft hasn't changed anything to make their other platform better. Third time's the charm or is MS simply so corrupt that neither platform can really be saved. Unless a new breed or gaming platform appears to take advantage of the hardware, higher resolutions monitors with blistering fast refresh rates, higher frequency and bigger pools of system memory and multicore processors... nothing is going to change. Very few developers care about multicore in the PC space. Hell the OS barely takes advantage of hardware acceleration when present. What little it does nudges the baseline further. But nothing is accomplished. Microsoft has this conflict of interest. They split and pushed gaming to their console and will do nothing meaningful to PC that would hurt that investment. Even when D3D 11 hardware is just around the corner.. who cares? Xbox 360 barely supports 9.0c.. that's the baseline and will be until it is put to rest.
That and licensing has always been the bane of game development big budget and small.
Microsoft makes so much more money off of the licensing of their platforms they don't have to produce anything anymore. They grow fat and diseased. Again not something that belongs in the living room. Assuming a new dedicated gaming platform that does PC stuff second, aksing MS to do anything with it and not be able to get license fees.. is ludicrous. Expecting such a platform to run off of linux somehow still seems more ludicrous still.
Isn't shameful that MS hasn't designed a pure gaming kernel, from the ground up? They'll make all kinds of commitments to their gaming platform except none of them are altruistic.. or really that dedicated. Yes, MS could make an open source next generation game kernel. Mermaids Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy would head up the team.
But why not? How long has PC and dedicated gaming and entertainment convergence been simple speculation in headlines. Who's moving us forward in that direction?
Isn't it Microsoft to imbed itself at the core of everything? While not being paid for the kernel, they could put forth that kernel if the hardware it was destined for was something they controlled to a degree. If it meant the death of competing kernels and streamlining of the game industry and then by consequence the personal computer industry.. what's in it for them becomes and issue of how well they code the rest of the platform to destroy it's competitors. That would be long term. Short term everyone's inovations on that kernel benefit Microsoft. Like in terms of gaming alone it couldn't hurt to move forward with something that would effectively remove Sony's hardware and software strategy from view. If the windows platform is then moved to the new hardware platform and kernel, then Microsoft wins for having designed it in the first place. And we all win for having shit that works for a change.
Would it be possible for a dedicated HD Console to run with only bluray as the main licensed component? because there are too many arguments against games on demand for the highest tier of games, they would be too big at 20-50 gigs or more. Especially if you can get top tier developers that can make their engine push 4-6 gigs of game into ram and have it run smoothly. It would take ridiculous amounts of processing power to make it worth it, but hardware isn't usually the problem with a dedicated gaming platform. It's a barrier to entry once, that's for sure, but once you've paid it, it comes down to those games.
Would you pay more for such games? Activision is taking heat for that, sure, but I'd pay $100 if games finally started living up to the hype and my overblown standards. The current crop of top tier games just don't.
So.. we do have options.. Onlive is still one option though they've been suspiciously quiet. They'll have next year for our love, but I'm still not convinced you can stream a 1080p game over the current DSL infrastructure. They'll have to wait for fiber just live everyone else (HD movies on demand and IPTV). Having said that though.. just where is the motivation for ISPs to provide such service?
But what it does for games is they would have substance. Real physics processing in dedicated hardware. If you can have a larabee processor, or cell processor dedicated entirely to physics, games would get more immersive. If you can have a really powerful graphics processor, textures and shadows get handled at HD resolutions to deliver photorealism. Consider Ray tracing in realtime on a big screen Bravia not some pansy ass 4:3 computer monitor. Consoles will never manage it. Trying to fit gamings troll feet into dainty little cereal box platforms like Xbox and Playstation wasn't ever going to work. Both Microsoft and Sony are daft for thinking that way.. it, like the original Xbox, limit progress. They steal gamers away from PC while offering nothing to the graphics whores.
When posed the question, what would your $1000 hardware platform consist of?
Microsoft's answer
More Xbox Platform. Sharing Natal with windows and no doubt licensing out the platfrom to other companies in order to keep making money through appropriations and less focus on innovating and really moving the industry on and up.
Sony's answer
I really have no clue when they decided they had to nerf the PS3. Did PSOne and PS2 slim require nerfing the platform? I don't recall so. If anything they are feeling the crunch that Xbox 360 is causing [to the industry at large] more than anyone else. With Microsoft undermining their offering at every turn and with Sony's steadfast refusal to reach the 299 magical price point under way late in the game.. Isn't the Playstation platform just as ineffective and underpowered as the 360? Yes they have multiplatform titles, and more great first party titles.. licensing has to be killing them. What's there to do but cut losses and try to cheat death?
Like 360, the greatest shame about PS3 is that they've discovered the glarringly obvious, I mean since Geometry Wars, and Super Stardust HD and other pocket titles on services that are clones of each other, Both Microsoft and Sony have noticed that on demand gaming can work. Sadly their entire platforms are being tailored to them. All that mythical power reduced to playing Shadow Complex and glorified mobile games on a big screen. You're sure to run them flat out and never experience frame rate stuttering like the bigger games on any platform. But even that is false. Even the glorified mobile games on 360 and PS3 cause the systems to stutter. It's shameful... but that's what people want to play anyway.. that's why they are paying the big money for the console. They must already have a big screen TV for watching broadcasts and movies.. gaming is secondary. Gaming is for the family and their pets.. it's not about playing the top teir of games and never has been. It doesn't belong in the living room unless everyone can play too.
So for Sony with a for granted purchase of their console as a peerless (considering 360 and Wii) HD movie player, their machine playing games never was that big of a deal. A price drop wasn't necessary while it was the defacto future proof HD movie player. They won that battle but ignored the games war.
Should Sony have any say on a revolution in PC gaming.. it wouldn't matter to them unless it kept them on top in their home market and didn't otherwise impinged on any of their other business. Meaning they won't try to revolutionise their VAIO line since it's just a brand and otherwise nothing special. Their contributions outside of bluray in terms of cell.. while not meaningless, is academic. Should cell be considered a necessary element.. what would it be for? Could it be added just to complement a GPU for calculating AO (shadows) or full raytracing? Is it better than a dedicated larabee chip for physics?
What does Sony really do for mainstream top tier PC gaming? Nothing.
EA's answer
EA is a monolith. EA wastes ridiculous amounts of money on multiplatform gaming. More than once it has been speculated on that EA should make it's own gaming platform. They've got the developers, with well over 20 of them. They could keep on buying up struggling developers to fill out whatever genres where they haven't already market a market presence.
What OS should it be based on? Linux always works, because it's one of the cheapest platforms to license for this type of thing. But EA wouldn't really be able to manage without microsoft. Sony just offers ad money.
Apple's answer
Apple has always been a non starter in the realm of gaming. BUT it really is the time for it since they have the content distro infrastructure in the form of iTunes.
But what would they offer for $1000? unlike the others Apple wouldn't be focused on subsidizing the hardware platform for the sake of competing with others. That's not their game. However, if they did create both a 40 inch cinema display and a $1000 dedicated x86 based gaming platform with their certification process. We'd have a winner. But no real advancement over the idiocy that is Microsoft and greed of Sony. If anything Apple would be in the middle of that road.
That and they'd have a hard time convincing the industry. I'd have to wonder why since they've got so much riding for them. And unlike Google, Apple can get it done. It's just their lake of practice, how would they float an HD gaming hardware platform and online service infrastructure without any first party developers for such a platform? Only Microsoft seems to be able to stab itself in the balls like that and manage to lumber on on their own momentum.
Again though, what Apple does have is technical competence. In spades. Not only that but they sell software and media effectively. Whatever the case is about the kernel being used, Apple's online stores would sell movies, tv shows, music, games etc. That's what it was built for and that's what it does well. It's not just about the logo but the service. Microsoft could easily do for itself what it helped Apple to accomplish by dropping it's ass logos and work on services that work. Not that compete with existing services but that just work.
Search is pointless. Zune is pointless. Kill them. Xbox Live works. Integrate the Live unbrella of services into that one service that works. Specifically why is there a games for windows live anyway? no one cares. Xbox Live works because people have no choice but to use it. Give them, who pay for their participation access to services like Zune and Search. Gallery is also a service that could be offered to Xbox Live gamers. Shockingly they might be interested in screenshots. Giving them access to Soapbox would encourage sales of the camera peripheral not to mention video messages at the live website. What's the purpose though without direct integration into windows live messenger or Xbox Live. Especially Xbox Live.
But Microsoft treats people like animals. Animals with wallets and no valid opinions. Hard to feel anything good for such a company.
So it would be easy to see Apple doing it all by themselves except for the money involved. They have all the services and could up there hardware strategy to obliterate Windows as the defacto gaming platform. They could. with Mermaids Unicorns and Dragons making all the hardware. And somehow getting getting the top developers in the industry to take them seriously as a development platform let alone the defacto one and to abandon Windows.
Admit you'd want to see MS finally explode and die. But would Apple do any better?
Combined
Or with all of them combined, Microsoft for the underlying technology, Activision and EA for their games (to help make decision about what they need to bring new games to the 240hz plus Full HD gaming platform and beyond), Sony for their TV's aggressive marketing strategy in Japan and bluray, Apple for their on demand distribution services and certification processes. With those three there might even be agreement without too much necrosis in terms of policy. Microsoft would have to make consessions to Activision and EA while Sony chirps quietly to itself about more esoteric policy. Apple would be on hand also to preserve their OS platform. They deserve a big stake in the HTPC HD gaming market. All they need to do is start making games for people to start taking them seriously. Then they could start innovating the way Microsoft has. Get a game engine going.
But specifically those developers that are being hurt, as Godmars puts it by how glarringly deficient Xbox 360 is as an HD gaming platform, would get their playground if the major players could put aside their differences and stop forcing us to choose between shitty platforms that do nothing to live up to the potential of available hardware.
Epic (Gears, Unreal). Bungie (massive back catalogue). Id (Rage, Quake). The Activision umbrella (Bizarre Creations Racing, the rest are kinda sad). The SCE umbrella (Team ICO, PD, Naughty Dog, SMS, Guerilla Games, Evolution Studios, and the rest are also kinda sad). EA's umbrella (Bioware Pandemic) the list goes on.
Games in particular
I'd like to see Epic games do anything with next generation $1000 dedicated PC gaming platform. Gears wouldn't be my first choice because they'd have to keep dealing with Microsoft, a practice that needs to stop. It's like giving yourself and all your loved ones cancer. So Unreal would surely be my first pick. But it's time for new IP. Something completely fresh.. Hell they could even do that Gears RTS Pendulum Wars. Something no one has ever seen before, an RTS so massive it rocks an entire planet to it's pitted out core.. cities caving into the rotted out sublevels of Sera. Though it's a bit late to try to push an RTS based on oil, it certainly would be well received.
Bungie needs to bring back Marathon. Yes they have several more IP they could bring back, none would draw out the zombie hordes to buy a new hardware platform to replace ailing PCs like Marathon could. They could also try new IP because honestly given all the hardware in the world to bring their vision to us, Bungie sans Microsoft pulling strings could do no wrong.
Quake would be the only classic FPS I'd want to see brought vritually unchanged over to the new platform. Id just has a way if doing things that doesn't piss me off. Their game [quake], although just so much more space marine drek, isn't. It's so much more since it practically an original concept, and they just keep itterating on it like any good movie studio would. It's a franchise that just can't be tapped. It's just a pity Rage is being held back on the 360.
That even the most self respecting of independent developers would waste time with the 360.. yes it's shameful but its a sign of the times. This is Microsoft's vision no matter how disasterous.
The Activision umbrella by way of Bizarre would create some good racing games for a renewed commitment to awesome game play and speed. With 240hz on HDTVs and high resolution, they'd have to really push the hardware to the bleeding egde. We can't really judge their potential by Blur, I mean my personal problems with that game aside.. they might as well be making PSP minis for now if this is the best they can manage. It isn't shameful to go into an induced coma if you're trying to cheat death. They been with Microsoft so long, a period of convalescence can only do them good till they figure out how to make greatness like PGR again, but for themselves. How to put the rubber to the road, and physics into every object in the game. They really need a platform that can give them that kind of freedom. So again personally, what my vision of Blur was.. can just be a continuation of what they've started. Just push it ahead a few centuries (more like Fatal Inertia but with craft that can fly) and more paritical effects. Otherwise it's just another Mario Kart clone. As far as Blizzard goes.. They could be a driving force behing the platform in terms of bringing the Warcraft base over. Consider the three most massive franchises.. Diablo Starcraft and Wow. Alone they would generate millions of conversions. Without doubt bringing Activision level at least with EA. Sadly with both Starcraft and Diablo being committed to PC.. and really not innovating much (as if they'd have to), wouldn't it be another 10-15 before Blizzard could be bothered to work on them again? Leaving Wow, still that would be millions converting to Wow 2 on a dedicated gaming platform.
And the worst off of all are those under the Sony umbrella. You can see how they all what to exceed even the supposedly limitless potential of the playstation 3 hardware platform. But with such a tiny amount of ram, limited support for online, limited graphics, limited physics, etc, there games can't live up to 240hz at Full HD. Nevermind getting ray tracing or at least better shadows and ambient occlusion to work that fast at ridiculously high resolution without a 16 core GPGPU. It's not time for that or people are just happy milking current technology to move forward and step games up to photorealism.
And unless you actually stand in front of a Bravia doing 240hz, you won't understand the difference having 240 frames per second can really make. It's immersive in a way that's so deep and primal. Actually getting gaming hardware that can not only push 240 frames per second but fill it with lush scenes without any artifical motion blur, will put games into the living room as the defacto choice for entertainment. Until movies and tv shows catch up. It's so blisteringly fast you can't miss anything. While all the Mermaids, Unicorns and Pixies work on 240hz panels with a 6 colour pallette for deeper richer colour reproduction. I mean the games could care less, they drive each pixel these days with millions of possible colours for each pixel. If they are programmed with a deeper colour pallette, TV's with more pixel colours, the base 3 red green blue, and extras like cyan magenta yellow emerald and amber.
But I've said dedicated gaming platform... I don't mean that it can't run an OS. Of course it should. But I can't expect Microsoft and Apple to work on new personal computer platform and finally join forces.. that's simply ridiculous. BUT if it is like PS3 in it's ability to run multiple operating systems.. if it's just hardware with a slot for an OS like it has slots for CPU, GPU, harddrives... then yes, like any good PC you should be able to boot whatever OS you want, meaning running current OS software that are certified. No updates can be released until they are certified. So with the priorities being revised, gaming first, then productivity software second, certification for that software becomes defacto instead of being totally ignored. Like you can't expect people to pay for shitty software. It's not happening. But if it does work the first time, without updates later on, people would have more faith in the system.
It got long so for a while I wasn't sure I could keep it all together. I really have to work harder on not writing such long posts because at the end of the day they are pointless.
--
So.. is there room for another platform?
Or is it as simple as reinventing the PC?
I asked the question a long time ago but started it with a kernel running off of the motherbard. WinMin or something like it which handles all the drivers for instant booting to a ready status. After if you need to boot a full OS, you have that option. Run a game OS (like those on consoles), run classic Windows for productivity, or run something custom like a linux distro. But to start with.. you have to have a rock solid foundation. Windows 7 does do that but as usual it only manages it by being bloaty and as disgusting as ever. Where you can now download graphics drivers and update them without restarting your computer. That's the theory and it doensn't exactly work that well in practice, but in theory it does work. Why not push all that crap into a protected section of system memory, OR dump it all into flash memory that's always there and always running? Why aren't operating systems embedded in non volatile RAM decades after the concept was proven?
What irks me is that PS3 just lost some very critical functionality (or will as of September 1st). Sony keeps saying that they are only mid way through their platforms lifecycle. Sony is aware that PS3 is not just defficient for what it's supposed to do.. but that it's just a console. At the end of the day it is not the top of the class and both 360 and PS3 lag far behind PC.
So my original question was could Sony drop a 1000 dedicated box on the market to continue what they started with Playstation 3?
Think about it, Sony sold some few million of us on the dream.. a full hd dream. It should cost more because it does more. But it's little warrior has failed to capture the market the way it should have, furthermore both 360 and PS3 have done a great deal to expand the market, but don't satisfy it. People are moving back to PC. Or at least want to.
There are small things like not wanting to put a PC in the living room. Nothing like a BSoD to kill the mood right? With PS3 giving you everything you need and 360 there to fill in whatever other gaps there might be, and Wii for the kids.. you should be all set right? Hell no. There's still everything else that you can only do on a PC, especially with PS3 dropping PS2 game compatibility and the ability to run an OS. It's no longer a PC, it's a games console no better than the others. While PC functionality is missing from the living room.. forcing you to own everything, or some.. but still not being really satisfied.
Where is the PC for the living room? Apple's entry into HTPC?
But Apple isn't good for games.. you'd have to have a Windows PC attached to your HDTV and the internet.. That's just sickening really. Remember the end of Akira? or Bubble Gum Crisis 2040? That's Microsoft. You don't want that in your living room. By extension 360 doesn't belong their either. It's a console which like Wii.. should be in the den, or children's rooms. It offers very little to adults if anything at all.
This has always been the biggest caveat. Moving away from a manufacturer gaming device means you aren't sitting under a certification umbrella that does quite a bit to ensure a quality end product. Microsoft is culpable in that lack of quality on both of it's platforms. While there is still certification on Xbox.. it's not what it used to be. PC on the other hand doesn't have any real certification process for software. Which is a pity.
So again to the question which Godmars asks twice.. where to now? Raytracing and hardware build for it?
Can the PC be reinvented.. can it be welcome in the living room for entertainment and gaming while being every bit as rock solid as certified game code, certified productivity code, and open the door to HD movies current and next generation? But.. could it manage to combine everything and kill piracy.. kill it at the source. That source for some is just a lack of quality software worth buying. If the OS was reliable, people would pay for it. If software was reliable, people would pay for it. People only pay for game software because it's difficult to pirate, and available, not because of quality. The money went to consoles because console games work and don't crash constantly and get updates when they don't.
It's obvious that games have outgrown consoles and that the only place they can go is back to PC. But nothing has changed. Microsoft hasn't changed anything to make their other platform better. Third time's the charm or is MS simply so corrupt that neither platform can really be saved. Unless a new breed or gaming platform appears to take advantage of the hardware, higher resolutions monitors with blistering fast refresh rates, higher frequency and bigger pools of system memory and multicore processors... nothing is going to change. Very few developers care about multicore in the PC space. Hell the OS barely takes advantage of hardware acceleration when present. What little it does nudges the baseline further. But nothing is accomplished. Microsoft has this conflict of interest. They split and pushed gaming to their console and will do nothing meaningful to PC that would hurt that investment. Even when D3D 11 hardware is just around the corner.. who cares? Xbox 360 barely supports 9.0c.. that's the baseline and will be until it is put to rest.
That and licensing has always been the bane of game development big budget and small.
Microsoft makes so much more money off of the licensing of their platforms they don't have to produce anything anymore. They grow fat and diseased. Again not something that belongs in the living room. Assuming a new dedicated gaming platform that does PC stuff second, aksing MS to do anything with it and not be able to get license fees.. is ludicrous. Expecting such a platform to run off of linux somehow still seems more ludicrous still.
Isn't shameful that MS hasn't designed a pure gaming kernel, from the ground up? They'll make all kinds of commitments to their gaming platform except none of them are altruistic.. or really that dedicated. Yes, MS could make an open source next generation game kernel. Mermaids Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy would head up the team.
But why not? How long has PC and dedicated gaming and entertainment convergence been simple speculation in headlines. Who's moving us forward in that direction?
Isn't it Microsoft to imbed itself at the core of everything? While not being paid for the kernel, they could put forth that kernel if the hardware it was destined for was something they controlled to a degree. If it meant the death of competing kernels and streamlining of the game industry and then by consequence the personal computer industry.. what's in it for them becomes and issue of how well they code the rest of the platform to destroy it's competitors. That would be long term. Short term everyone's inovations on that kernel benefit Microsoft. Like in terms of gaming alone it couldn't hurt to move forward with something that would effectively remove Sony's hardware and software strategy from view. If the windows platform is then moved to the new hardware platform and kernel, then Microsoft wins for having designed it in the first place. And we all win for having shit that works for a change.
Would it be possible for a dedicated HD Console to run with only bluray as the main licensed component? because there are too many arguments against games on demand for the highest tier of games, they would be too big at 20-50 gigs or more. Especially if you can get top tier developers that can make their engine push 4-6 gigs of game into ram and have it run smoothly. It would take ridiculous amounts of processing power to make it worth it, but hardware isn't usually the problem with a dedicated gaming platform. It's a barrier to entry once, that's for sure, but once you've paid it, it comes down to those games.
Would you pay more for such games? Activision is taking heat for that, sure, but I'd pay $100 if games finally started living up to the hype and my overblown standards. The current crop of top tier games just don't.
So.. we do have options.. Onlive is still one option though they've been suspiciously quiet. They'll have next year for our love, but I'm still not convinced you can stream a 1080p game over the current DSL infrastructure. They'll have to wait for fiber just live everyone else (HD movies on demand and IPTV). Having said that though.. just where is the motivation for ISPs to provide such service?
But what it does for games is they would have substance. Real physics processing in dedicated hardware. If you can have a larabee processor, or cell processor dedicated entirely to physics, games would get more immersive. If you can have a really powerful graphics processor, textures and shadows get handled at HD resolutions to deliver photorealism. Consider Ray tracing in realtime on a big screen Bravia not some pansy ass 4:3 computer monitor. Consoles will never manage it. Trying to fit gamings troll feet into dainty little cereal box platforms like Xbox and Playstation wasn't ever going to work. Both Microsoft and Sony are daft for thinking that way.. it, like the original Xbox, limit progress. They steal gamers away from PC while offering nothing to the graphics whores.
When posed the question, what would your $1000 hardware platform consist of?
Microsoft's answer
More Xbox Platform. Sharing Natal with windows and no doubt licensing out the platfrom to other companies in order to keep making money through appropriations and less focus on innovating and really moving the industry on and up.
Sony's answer
I really have no clue when they decided they had to nerf the PS3. Did PSOne and PS2 slim require nerfing the platform? I don't recall so. If anything they are feeling the crunch that Xbox 360 is causing [to the industry at large] more than anyone else. With Microsoft undermining their offering at every turn and with Sony's steadfast refusal to reach the 299 magical price point under way late in the game.. Isn't the Playstation platform just as ineffective and underpowered as the 360? Yes they have multiplatform titles, and more great first party titles.. licensing has to be killing them. What's there to do but cut losses and try to cheat death?
Like 360, the greatest shame about PS3 is that they've discovered the glarringly obvious, I mean since Geometry Wars, and Super Stardust HD and other pocket titles on services that are clones of each other, Both Microsoft and Sony have noticed that on demand gaming can work. Sadly their entire platforms are being tailored to them. All that mythical power reduced to playing Shadow Complex and glorified mobile games on a big screen. You're sure to run them flat out and never experience frame rate stuttering like the bigger games on any platform. But even that is false. Even the glorified mobile games on 360 and PS3 cause the systems to stutter. It's shameful... but that's what people want to play anyway.. that's why they are paying the big money for the console. They must already have a big screen TV for watching broadcasts and movies.. gaming is secondary. Gaming is for the family and their pets.. it's not about playing the top teir of games and never has been. It doesn't belong in the living room unless everyone can play too.
So for Sony with a for granted purchase of their console as a peerless (considering 360 and Wii) HD movie player, their machine playing games never was that big of a deal. A price drop wasn't necessary while it was the defacto future proof HD movie player. They won that battle but ignored the games war.
Should Sony have any say on a revolution in PC gaming.. it wouldn't matter to them unless it kept them on top in their home market and didn't otherwise impinged on any of their other business. Meaning they won't try to revolutionise their VAIO line since it's just a brand and otherwise nothing special. Their contributions outside of bluray in terms of cell.. while not meaningless, is academic. Should cell be considered a necessary element.. what would it be for? Could it be added just to complement a GPU for calculating AO (shadows) or full raytracing? Is it better than a dedicated larabee chip for physics?
What does Sony really do for mainstream top tier PC gaming? Nothing.
EA's answer
EA is a monolith. EA wastes ridiculous amounts of money on multiplatform gaming. More than once it has been speculated on that EA should make it's own gaming platform. They've got the developers, with well over 20 of them. They could keep on buying up struggling developers to fill out whatever genres where they haven't already market a market presence.
What OS should it be based on? Linux always works, because it's one of the cheapest platforms to license for this type of thing. But EA wouldn't really be able to manage without microsoft. Sony just offers ad money.
Apple's answer
Apple has always been a non starter in the realm of gaming. BUT it really is the time for it since they have the content distro infrastructure in the form of iTunes.
But what would they offer for $1000? unlike the others Apple wouldn't be focused on subsidizing the hardware platform for the sake of competing with others. That's not their game. However, if they did create both a 40 inch cinema display and a $1000 dedicated x86 based gaming platform with their certification process. We'd have a winner. But no real advancement over the idiocy that is Microsoft and greed of Sony. If anything Apple would be in the middle of that road.
That and they'd have a hard time convincing the industry. I'd have to wonder why since they've got so much riding for them. And unlike Google, Apple can get it done. It's just their lake of practice, how would they float an HD gaming hardware platform and online service infrastructure without any first party developers for such a platform? Only Microsoft seems to be able to stab itself in the balls like that and manage to lumber on on their own momentum.
Again though, what Apple does have is technical competence. In spades. Not only that but they sell software and media effectively. Whatever the case is about the kernel being used, Apple's online stores would sell movies, tv shows, music, games etc. That's what it was built for and that's what it does well. It's not just about the logo but the service. Microsoft could easily do for itself what it helped Apple to accomplish by dropping it's ass logos and work on services that work. Not that compete with existing services but that just work.
Search is pointless. Zune is pointless. Kill them. Xbox Live works. Integrate the Live unbrella of services into that one service that works. Specifically why is there a games for windows live anyway? no one cares. Xbox Live works because people have no choice but to use it. Give them, who pay for their participation access to services like Zune and Search. Gallery is also a service that could be offered to Xbox Live gamers. Shockingly they might be interested in screenshots. Giving them access to Soapbox would encourage sales of the camera peripheral not to mention video messages at the live website. What's the purpose though without direct integration into windows live messenger or Xbox Live. Especially Xbox Live.
But Microsoft treats people like animals. Animals with wallets and no valid opinions. Hard to feel anything good for such a company.
So it would be easy to see Apple doing it all by themselves except for the money involved. They have all the services and could up there hardware strategy to obliterate Windows as the defacto gaming platform. They could. with Mermaids Unicorns and Dragons making all the hardware. And somehow getting getting the top developers in the industry to take them seriously as a development platform let alone the defacto one and to abandon Windows.
Admit you'd want to see MS finally explode and die. But would Apple do any better?
Combined
Or with all of them combined, Microsoft for the underlying technology, Activision and EA for their games (to help make decision about what they need to bring new games to the 240hz plus Full HD gaming platform and beyond), Sony for their TV's aggressive marketing strategy in Japan and bluray, Apple for their on demand distribution services and certification processes. With those three there might even be agreement without too much necrosis in terms of policy. Microsoft would have to make consessions to Activision and EA while Sony chirps quietly to itself about more esoteric policy. Apple would be on hand also to preserve their OS platform. They deserve a big stake in the HTPC HD gaming market. All they need to do is start making games for people to start taking them seriously. Then they could start innovating the way Microsoft has. Get a game engine going.
But specifically those developers that are being hurt, as Godmars puts it by how glarringly deficient Xbox 360 is as an HD gaming platform, would get their playground if the major players could put aside their differences and stop forcing us to choose between shitty platforms that do nothing to live up to the potential of available hardware.
Epic (Gears, Unreal). Bungie (massive back catalogue). Id (Rage, Quake). The Activision umbrella (Bizarre Creations Racing, the rest are kinda sad). The SCE umbrella (Team ICO, PD, Naughty Dog, SMS, Guerilla Games, Evolution Studios, and the rest are also kinda sad). EA's umbrella (Bioware Pandemic) the list goes on.
Games in particular
I'd like to see Epic games do anything with next generation $1000 dedicated PC gaming platform. Gears wouldn't be my first choice because they'd have to keep dealing with Microsoft, a practice that needs to stop. It's like giving yourself and all your loved ones cancer. So Unreal would surely be my first pick. But it's time for new IP. Something completely fresh.. Hell they could even do that Gears RTS Pendulum Wars. Something no one has ever seen before, an RTS so massive it rocks an entire planet to it's pitted out core.. cities caving into the rotted out sublevels of Sera. Though it's a bit late to try to push an RTS based on oil, it certainly would be well received.
Bungie needs to bring back Marathon. Yes they have several more IP they could bring back, none would draw out the zombie hordes to buy a new hardware platform to replace ailing PCs like Marathon could. They could also try new IP because honestly given all the hardware in the world to bring their vision to us, Bungie sans Microsoft pulling strings could do no wrong.
Quake would be the only classic FPS I'd want to see brought vritually unchanged over to the new platform. Id just has a way if doing things that doesn't piss me off. Their game [quake], although just so much more space marine drek, isn't. It's so much more since it practically an original concept, and they just keep itterating on it like any good movie studio would. It's a franchise that just can't be tapped. It's just a pity Rage is being held back on the 360.
That even the most self respecting of independent developers would waste time with the 360.. yes it's shameful but its a sign of the times. This is Microsoft's vision no matter how disasterous.
The Activision umbrella by way of Bizarre would create some good racing games for a renewed commitment to awesome game play and speed. With 240hz on HDTVs and high resolution, they'd have to really push the hardware to the bleeding egde. We can't really judge their potential by Blur, I mean my personal problems with that game aside.. they might as well be making PSP minis for now if this is the best they can manage. It isn't shameful to go into an induced coma if you're trying to cheat death. They been with Microsoft so long, a period of convalescence can only do them good till they figure out how to make greatness like PGR again, but for themselves. How to put the rubber to the road, and physics into every object in the game. They really need a platform that can give them that kind of freedom. So again personally, what my vision of Blur was.. can just be a continuation of what they've started. Just push it ahead a few centuries (more like Fatal Inertia but with craft that can fly) and more paritical effects. Otherwise it's just another Mario Kart clone. As far as Blizzard goes.. They could be a driving force behing the platform in terms of bringing the Warcraft base over. Consider the three most massive franchises.. Diablo Starcraft and Wow. Alone they would generate millions of conversions. Without doubt bringing Activision level at least with EA. Sadly with both Starcraft and Diablo being committed to PC.. and really not innovating much (as if they'd have to), wouldn't it be another 10-15 before Blizzard could be bothered to work on them again? Leaving Wow, still that would be millions converting to Wow 2 on a dedicated gaming platform.
And the worst off of all are those under the Sony umbrella. You can see how they all what to exceed even the supposedly limitless potential of the playstation 3 hardware platform. But with such a tiny amount of ram, limited support for online, limited graphics, limited physics, etc, there games can't live up to 240hz at Full HD. Nevermind getting ray tracing or at least better shadows and ambient occlusion to work that fast at ridiculously high resolution without a 16 core GPGPU. It's not time for that or people are just happy milking current technology to move forward and step games up to photorealism.
And unless you actually stand in front of a Bravia doing 240hz, you won't understand the difference having 240 frames per second can really make. It's immersive in a way that's so deep and primal. Actually getting gaming hardware that can not only push 240 frames per second but fill it with lush scenes without any artifical motion blur, will put games into the living room as the defacto choice for entertainment. Until movies and tv shows catch up. It's so blisteringly fast you can't miss anything. While all the Mermaids, Unicorns and Pixies work on 240hz panels with a 6 colour pallette for deeper richer colour reproduction. I mean the games could care less, they drive each pixel these days with millions of possible colours for each pixel. If they are programmed with a deeper colour pallette, TV's with more pixel colours, the base 3 red green blue, and extras like cyan magenta yellow emerald and amber.
But I've said dedicated gaming platform... I don't mean that it can't run an OS. Of course it should. But I can't expect Microsoft and Apple to work on new personal computer platform and finally join forces.. that's simply ridiculous. BUT if it is like PS3 in it's ability to run multiple operating systems.. if it's just hardware with a slot for an OS like it has slots for CPU, GPU, harddrives... then yes, like any good PC you should be able to boot whatever OS you want, meaning running current OS software that are certified. No updates can be released until they are certified. So with the priorities being revised, gaming first, then productivity software second, certification for that software becomes defacto instead of being totally ignored. Like you can't expect people to pay for shitty software. It's not happening. But if it does work the first time, without updates later on, people would have more faith in the system.
naruka:
Hahah hthanks alot
batmite:
Unfortunately no.. I have to wait till next week. Hopefully I can get it on the 1st, which is my Birthday.