|
So, Sony has acquired Gaikai. This changes everything.
In my post from a few years ago (you can see it here) I countered the trend at the time on talking about the next round of consoles. So many people were sure that the next consoles we on the horizon, but it made little sense to me.
Now, with the move by Sony, I question it yet again. Microsoft has plans that we’ve seen, but they can change. Nintendo has a lackluster offering that, in the light of current events, will be dead on arrival. For those who might not see what this means, Sony has essentially negated the need for a new console in the manner that we know now.
Feasibly, with this move, they could eventually move away from a dedicated piece of hardware, beyond the Dual Shock controller. Gaikai technology will allow the streaming of games with higher definition than current gen hardware, thereby negating a new console. Any new hardware offering would only carry with it the features that make accessing their network easier.
Those features do not necessarily need to be boxed in a console. They could feasibly be included in their televisions, and through pretty much any device you use to access the internet. Sony can reduce the Playstation down to its most basic element and the one piece of the cloud gaming puzzle than many of us have pondered; the Dual Shock controller.
Properly executed, Sony would only require the user to have a Dual Shock controller to play games through their network. You can play on any device capable of playing the stream and connecting to the controller, even (for all you PC lovers out there) your PC and Mac.
As many of you know, developing for the PS3 has been more challenging for dev teams than for the Xbox. It was the same with the PS2 but with so many in existence it was simply the cost of doing business. Sony has suffered somewhat from this, but now they have the power to turn the tables.
Games can be available on the Playstation Network the moment they are certified for production. While the packaged good is off to the presses, the PSN will have the game ready to play. This is a definite incentive for a community of users with a voracious appetite for the newest experience. It also eliminates the hassle of software updates for the user since that would all happen on the backend.
I mean, really, it’s already in place. Go to a browser of your choosing and type in www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com. Behold your next Playstation. I don’t question so much what will Microsoft do, but how will this affect Apple and iTunes? Surely, a move to cloud gaming will mean massive completion for Apple, but without an input device, how will they be able to host core games? Is an Apple controller on the way?
The console war is over. The service war shall begin. The first casualty is Nintendo I’m afraid. Like Sega, they will need to become a software only company or invest heavily in creating their own cloud gaming service.
With Gaikai gone, and Onlive potentially becoming part of Microsoft, Nintendo is left fighting on a deserted battlefield. Their handheld will live on for a little while, but really, why bother? In my opinion, they could be far more profitable striking a strategic alliance with Sony (or Apple?) as the exclusive carrier of their games. No more hardware to house, to have excess of or shortages of. No more packaged software to manufacture and house.
It will be very interesting to see this all unfold over the coming months and see how the big industry players will react. I’m stocking up on popcorn!
|
Also, while I question Nintendo's relevance right now, never underestimate Nintendo. They are smart enough to know when decisive change is required. Nintendo has proven to be a disruptive force in the past, and I think they still may be. But really only time will tell.
I will miss the days of "owning" something. I already regret spending the $60 to rent Blizzard's latest Diablo.
Yes, I'm sure some consumers are willing to put up with a less than optimal experience and not owning games, but I think there always will be a large amount that won't. And they are being ceded to Nintendo.
Cloud gaming sounds like a good idea but have all the kinks been worked out yet? I've been playing Diablo 3 and the level of lag even in the best case scenarios is very annoying. I put up with it because I love the game otherwise, but there are few games I'd be willing to deal with that level of annoyance.
After that I started downloading max payne 3 on steam at a constant speed of 10MB/s (not 10 Mbits, 10 MBytes).
When cloud gaming companies do a demo they bring the servers on site so customers don't see any lag.
You now always have another level of lag in the game.
Controller lag + Time it takes that your input reaches the server + Time that the game takes to render a frame + Time to compress that frame + Time to send the frame to from the server back to your computer + Time to decompress and display that frame.
Before you just had Controller lag + Time to render a frame.
And that is in the best case. Most of the time the game itself doesn't respond instantly to player input, and there you go another possible lag to add in the equation.
Cloud gaming still has a lot to improve on and after that they'll just be another niche in a growing and diverse market.
These days we have an abundance of prophets that apparently have issues with diversity and they start predicting all kinds of one-dimensional narrow sighted futures (mobile gaming as the future, consoles as the only gaming platform and the death of pc, console death future and everything being in the cloud, etc.).
I started getting bored while reading about all these kinds of futures. I'll stick to the present :)
BTW. I predict a big earthquake in USA in the future. Feel free to quote my prediction when that earthquake comes.
And why would Nintendo go away? They have the one strength that everyone else covets - games. Well known franchises. Best selling franchises. Many of them. They are a very large highly regarded game developer. It has always been about the games and new ways to play.
For on-live you have to pay for a game and you have to pay separately for their service. You stop paying their service, you loose access to the games that you payed for. Awesome system.
No thanks I'll stick to my home computer. In the long run I'll be able to squeeze more from him than from an onlive account.(probably for the same price) Plus I get to own all games if I decide to change my system.
OR imagine you wanting to play a mmo on OnLive. You have to pay for your on-live account. Then you have to pay for a virtual copy of the mmo that you don't own. Ups but you can't play yet. Now you have to pay for the MMO monthly fee in order to play the game.
I don't know if you've tried OnLive, but they've never had a monthly charge. Yes, they were originally going to launch with a $15 monthly charge, but once it was clear no one would pay that, they dropped it.
They do actually have a monthly charge now, but that is their game pass, which gives you access to a few hundred games for $10. Which is an insanely good deal.
As technology evolves, and games are created specifically for Cloud technology, all the issues experienced now will be dealt with.
And it's very unlikely all the issues that exist now will be dealt with as the technology matures, unless some kind of FTL communication technology becomes possible and widely adopted. There are physical limits. Maybe if they manage to compress all the data of a single frame down to 1 MTU and send that over a connection that always has guaranteed single-digit latency and 0% packet loss, then it might be possible that the delay created is low enough to not negatively affect the experience, except for the fastest of games (fighters and such). That probably involves planting a data centre in every neighbourhood and breaking some information entropy law in the process, though.
Technical issues aside, the bigger problem may be that it means having to trust publishers and service providers to keep games available indefinitely. Historically, they have proven themselves to not deserve that trust.
I think the pressures at work here will push everything in the direction of cloud gaming, regardless of some current issues with it. Everything digital will eventually be delivered in the most frictionless way possible, the main reason for this being it saves manufacturers/developers money. Infrastructure will definitely need to be upgraded but wouldn't this happen anyway because of the ever growing demands on the internet? There are just too many upsides for the industry for cloud gaming not to happen. Mobile has/is having a huge effect on the gaming industry and it looks like cloud gaming will add to the revolution which is currently happening.
I do think though there will be one more generation of consoles, precisely because of the latency/infrastructure issues, but they will be the last and might well eventually just become portals for the services.
Those of us who actually architect in online games know that there are real limits to bandwidth and latency that majorly restrict what you can do. But don't take my word for it. Try playing any FPS over Onlive from anywhere in the country other then the SF bay area and see for yourself. Its laggy and has terrible visual quality. What the Gaikai purchase *really* means I think was best analyzed here:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-02-sony-and-gaikai-the-clouds-silv
er-lining
Lagginess and reduced visual quality are not an issue in this case as actual gameplay after-purchase is local.
Also, if Gaikai could eliminate all consoles than it would be worth a hell of a lot more than $380 million dollars.
Congrats to the Gaikai team, it just goes to prove if you build it they will come with checkbooks in hand!