Virtuos is one of the world's largest providers of digital production services to the game and movie industries, specializing in 3D art and game co-development. Virtuos has over 600 staff across its production centers in Shanghai and Chengdu, and offices in Paris, Vancouver and Tokyo.
Serving 15 of the top 20 games publishers worldwide, as well as renowned developers, Virtuos has developed full games on PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, NDS and PSP for leading publishers.
Visit us today at virtuosgames.com
|
You would still need to port the game to the PS3 and porting a high end PC game to the PS3 is not easy. Just ask anyone at Valve how they liked doing the Portal PS3 port.
But it's also potentially dangerous to the market. Currently, a hardware manufacturer, such as Sony, Nintendo or Apple, holds a de-facto software monopoly over their platform, but there is still some competition between platforms (not as much as you would think, though, because e.g. Wii, PS3 and iPhone have different target groups). Now, imagine you buy all your games via Steam, regardless of what hardware you're using at the moment... That's a much stronger position than what big store chains had ten years ago. It's as if someone owned the entire Internet backbone, or all the world's highways.
Unlike Sony or Apple, Valve doesn't have a consistent record of abuse of power just yet. But it would be naive to hope that it will last.
I'm not convinced competition can stop Steam, unless Valve makes a major mistake, or some new tech makes them obsolete. Steam already has a foothold on PC, Mac and even PS3, and I guess non-Apple smartphones and the likes of OnLive are next. The more hardware platforms Steam supports, the less sense it makes for a hardware manufacturer to prevent its users from having access to Steam.
I think the time is coming for this to become a political issue. Digital content delivery systems are becoming crucial to modern society, and there are a number of issues with private-owned systems that a modern society should not accept (not least of those being what sometimes amounts to content censorship).
I guess there is a need for separation of content delivery system (we only need one) from content vendors (we need as many of those as possible, including non-profit ones). The former could be made public and operate under a national or international agenda (one common system being preferable to a multitude of separate systems for the EU, the US, China, India, Russia etc.). The latter should be private. Steam, MS, Sony, Apple, Impulse etc. would effectively become virtual storefronts operating within public "cloud".
Furthermore, you would solve this "issue" by creating a unified content delivery system. Yet by doing so you're ultimately taking choice away from creators and consumers. Currently anyone has the freedom to sell anything from a website, regardless of quality, message or merit. It's currently the most free system on Earth. Yet you would socialize that in the name of freedom, thereby eliminating choice, experimentation of method, and introduce an expensive bureaucracy, raising the barrier of entry? And how would that be managed?
Currently everything I buy is from a privately owned store. I fail to see how that is an issue - and they benefit me, by choosing worthwhile inventory, providing assistance and returns, etc. Your vendors would either be hamstringed to sell everything available, and therefore worthless, or able to choose, and therefore the same as present, but having to pass on extra tax to the consumer and introducing a draconian and backwards system that would absolutely stifle creativity and progress.
Your system would punish the truly successful (Valve), stifle innovation (by removing competition), and hamstring progress (by tying everything to a slow, impossible bureaucracy.)
It's clean and it's simple.