Quantcast
Community Discussion: Blog by meteorscrap | The Future of GamingDestructoid
LIGHTS:  ON | OFF
surf dtoid with arrow keys

HOT GAMES
REVIEWS VIDEOS COMMUNITY FORUM SHOP

pc PS4 PS3 NEXT XBOX XBOX 360 WII U 3DS PS vita ANDROID APPLE

REMOVE ALL ADS?
Guaranteed contest entry?
A new video show?
Something else?

Vote in our membership poll

click to hide banner header
About
My name is meteorscrap.

Occasionally I'll post random thoughts and musings here which are too long, too detailed, or otherwise don't fit in the comments section. Given the length of some of the stuff I've left as a comment, you can well imagine what I consider long.

Do you like words? 'cause I got a lot for you.

Promoted Articles
I've written a couple really good pieces which no longer show up on this blog. Check them out below.

02/11 MM Groundhog Day: Final Fantasy Tactics
04/11 MM AaMaazing: Final Fantasy II
05/11 MM P2 Press Start: A torrid co-op love affair
Digital Distribution: Developers are poisoning the well
Downloadables: Sequence
Reveling In The Joy Of Movement

Destructoid owes me a six-pack! Woo!
Player Profile
Follow me:
meteorscrap's sites
Badges
Following (12)  

meteorscrap
5:02 PM on 09.09.2011

Alright, so I've discussed why retail bans of games won't work as a way of stopping digital distribution, as well as touching on the issue of how GameStop can prevent themselves from going the way of Blockbuster or HMV. That leaves me with only one way to go: Where Games Are Going in the Future.

As I said before, physical media is never going to fully disappear. However, it will not remain the same. Right now, we're starting to see the point where games are going to have to think about migrating from DVDs and BluRay to some other media. A large part of why consoles from the last few generations don't have the longevity of older consoles has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with the amount of moving parts in each. While the storage capacity and cost of manufacturing are impressive for DVDs and BluRay, the failure rate and noise the drives which read them make are less so.



While optical media is fine for data that can only be read in a single way, like music or video, it just isn't practical for games. I can't be the only one who installs certain titles to my Xbox 360 just to keep it from sounding like a jet turbine. Likewise, a lot of PS3 games have to install to the system's hard drive because of the same factor that makes the Xbox 360 loud: Transfer rate. Even if you doubled the transfer rate of currently available optical drives, they are slow, plodding beasts beside friction-free media like USB 3.0 thumb drives, current-generation SD Cards, and similar media.

Currently the transfer rate for those friction-free forms of media is scaling with increases in size, unlike optical media. This means that when video games finally get to the point where they need to transfer dozens of megs a second to keep up with the demands of a game's engine, they can do so with ease and do so silently, two things that even BluRay discs have problems have already, let alone in the future.

As a desirable media for tomorrow, optical drive media are in an arms race that they have already lost. They are a dead end clinging onto relevance only due to the extraordinarily cheap cost of manufacturing, and sooner or later that's an area where friction-free media will catch up as well. As a bonus for console manufacturers, the need to put in an expensive-at-launch optical drive will be eliminated, driving the cost of manufacturing the units down and decreasing the odds that some part of the console will fail.



I do, however, think that digital distribution is the future, as I mentioned. About the only thing that's going to change is the ability to purchase digital titles in actual stores. Perhaps even go a step further and actually offer a way for customers to bring portable storage media to the store and allow them to purchase and then take home downloadable titles. I imagine there are still going to be people who choose not to put their consoles online, or just don't feel comfortable purchasing their titles online. Even if it's a relatively small portion of the market, they'll be worth catering to.

A big thing coming in the future is the idea of console unification, or even the death of consoles entirely. A lot of analysts are saying that in the future, your TV is going to have the computer needed to play the latest games, that you'll have a controller that you use with it for your gaming, and that at the end of the day, it's going to be all about software and not hardware. To be honest, I don't buy all that.



One of the reasons people use consoles in the first place is that they are easy. You don't have to worry about having the right video card, about having enough RAM, or anything else. You just set the console up, put the game in, and play. No fuss, no muss, no problems. The same principal works for developers, too: When they develop for a specific console or even two or three consoles, they know right from the start exactly what specs they're working to, what behavior they can expect from the hardware, and what method or methods of input will be available to the player.

A large contributor to the thought that consoles will eventually be eliminated comes from the idea that the processing power of devices in the future will be so powerful that developers won't need to worry about what the players are using: Everything will be powerful enough to run whatever game the player wants, just because the internals are so beefy that no game could possibly use all the resources available to it. I can't help but think that such a view is hopelessly naive, at least as far as the next few decades are concerned.

Games have a lot more room to grow. Games haven't quite hit their peak yet: graphics, environment detail, size, interactivity, and a lot more factors that we take for granted at the moment have some room to grow. Even factors players don't see like artificial intelligence still have leaps and bounds of improvements yet to be made.



Since we're talking hypotheticals here, let's discuss a hypothetical installment of Grand Theft Auto. In this version, every person in the city is tracked by the game, even if they're not rendered on-screen. They have schedules where they wake up, leave their home or apartment, go to work, maybe go out to a bar or restaurant, and then go back home. They can do this because the city the game takes place in is rendered fully thanks to procedural generation during development, right down to the individual rooms in apartments. An environment which, like Red Faction, is fully destructable with NPCs whose job it is to repair any damage you do. Just like a real construction worker.

And of course, sometimes people will spot the player and run in fear. That's because they recognize the player from that time one week ago when he drove his car into the restaurant the NPC works in and ran over three people. Of course, if the player has changed clothes, they might not recognize them right away, or at all. Of course, the persistent state of the people in the game will also give the player new ways of tackling missions: You can break into a warehouse during the day, allowing you to steal a needed car and kill a target, or you can break in at night and then drive to the target's house in the car you just stole.

Of course, the NPC population in general can also recognize patterns. If the player starts to just drive around willy-nilly spraying automatic fire into crowds, there's going to be a lot less crowds hanging around. Maybe more civilians will start to carry guns to fight back just in case they start getting shot at. If the player starts to jack only nice cars, people will respond by trading in their nice cars for cheaper vehicles, and the player might be able to start stealing those nice rides out of used car lots instead of jacking them from the street. Or the game could react to and emulate a thousand, ten thousand, or a hundred thousand other natural cause and effect changes.



Does this sound like a game computers will be able to handle, even ten years from now? Even with today's graphics, that game would be impossible with the computers we'll have in ten years... And we all know that in ten years, games will not have today's graphics. And all of that is just an argument for why computers outpacing game developers is impossible: It doesn't even touch on the fact that consumers don't want consoles to go anywhere.

While there is change on the horizon, I don't think in the end all that much is going to be different about gaming over the next twenty years. We'll have the opportunity to buy our games at launch through our consoles and finding a GameStop might be a little harder to do than it is now, but for the most part we'll still be playing our games on dedicated consoles instead of through a computer in our TV.

The controllers might have another button or two, we might have switched back to cartridges, leaving disc-based gaming in the dust, and games will certainly be bigger, better, and more beautiful than they are even today. Maybe we'll get a true 3D display somewhere down the road, instead of the illusion of 3D the industry is currently borrowing from film theaters.

And honestly, I'm looking forward to what the industry has to show us. Even if it's just so I can look back and see how far games have come since they first appeared in arcades. It's already quite the view today, and it's only going to get better as the industry grows older.

Well, I hope you've enjoyed this series of articles. I've had fun writing it, and I think I'm going to find the time to write more like it in the future. And hey, I'm open to topic suggestions.
Photo Photo Photo



Is this blog awesome? Vote it up!




Those who have come:



Did you know? You can now get daily or weekly email notifications when humans reply to your comments.

Legacy Comments (will be imported soon)


Hey... that's my router and it is an AWESOME router... cheap and way better than most of the other routers out there... I run 2 PS3's, an Xbox, laptop, ipod and an ipad off the thing and have NEVER had an issue or internet drop!

I agree with most of what you've said, but I also think that consoles may well fade and not be needed. The iPad can already run OnLive... soon bluetooth controllers will be used with the iPad version and the iPad can plug into a TV for the full TV experience. I think that "cloud gaming" is a better future option rather than simply digital distribution, though likely it will initially be mixed... with most games stored on the cloud and only a few downloaded for offline play.

Meh... I still remember using a typewriter for writing my papers at university. Technology has progressed incredibly fast and I don't see it stopping any time soon. Who knows what the future will hold!
Cloud-based gaming, I feel, is one of those dead ends I mentioned. No matter if it's a server in New York or a system in your home, there is, somewhere, a computer which needs to be able to run the game for you to be playing it. I personally feel that the same issues which currently plague digital distribution will also hold true for cloud-based gaming like OnLive.

I'm not saying it won't hold a chunk of the marketshare or have a place, but here's the thing: At the end of the day, all the games you've 'bought' on OnLive are stored on a server you have zero access to. Your ability to play your game is entirely dependent on the company keeping their bills paid, and even with the funds which come in, they've still got to essentially pay for bandwidth and operation of the servers every time you log on to play your games, even if the last game you got was six months or a year ago. Frankly speaking, it's not a sustainable method unless people abandon their consoles and move to Cloud gaming, something I don't see happening.

The real test, of course, is going to be the first really big multiplayer game. Something like Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3, even with the relatively small size of the OnLive community compared to, say, Xbox Live or Playstation Network, would absolutely decimate the company's servers. Right now they're avoiding the issue by either choosing not to (or not being afforded the opportunity to) put such a game on their service, but realistically, such a title would be a financial disaster for them.

OnLive games right now are structured with the same pricing format that PC games use, i.e. 49.99. Modern Warfare 2, a game which is now nearly two years old, still has a vast online community, numbering well into the hundreds of thousands. A success like that on their service would completely cripple OnLive, entirely thanks to the way Cloud-based gaming works. It puts all the expense on the provider instead of on the consumer, and I think cloud-based gaming is going to die on the vine when those providers realize that the marginal costs associated with it are eating into their profits like hungry piranha.

Processing power requires... Well, power. You'd basically need an entire server farm to handle the player volume that Modern Warfare 2 has, and that right there would cost a lot of money. So right off the bat you have a monthly expense that you have to pay for to keep your customers happy. Then there's the bandwidth expense: OnLive and other Cloud-based gaming services have a horrific bandwidth usage, something in the order of ten to twenty times the bandwidth requirements of playing a game hosted on your console through Xbox Live or PSN. While bandwidth is cheap, it's not so cheap that OnLive will be able to handle the associated costs - According to reports, OnLive can require about a gig of transfer for every hour of gameplay... per person. That would quickly bankrupt them at just a penny a gig even if they sold a game with an online community like Modern Warfare 2 for ten times the asking price.

The problem, economically speaking, is that OnLive's entire payment structure almost requires that you buy your game, but don't play them all that much. Every minute you spend playing the game eats into their profits, and sooner or later the game they sold you starts to cost them money rather than profiting them. I really don't think that hoping people don't play the games they purchase will work out for them in the end.

Oh man, this was practically an article. Sorry about that. But to answer your question, I don't think that OnLive will be sustainable. It's a neat trick, and I can see some uses for it that wouldn't require nearly the bandwidth or the expenditure to maintain, but right now the product as presented is rife with flaws which will probably lead to a swift downfall sooner or later. And it's unfortunate because that fall will probably leave a lot of gamers with money spent on products they can no longer play, which will taint any notion of cloud-gaming and harm any truly useful and beneficial applications of the technology.

Ah, but what do I know. I'm just ramblin'.
I dunno... it does seem that a lot of stuff is going cloud based. It's not just games. Apple's next IOS update will bring a LOT of cloud based storage to their portable devices. All of it free. Your photos, email, movies, calendars... most data that you currently store on a computer will be able to be stored on a cloud. Book stores are doing the same... with the way many of the new book stores work, your entire book collection is stored on the cloud and you only download one book for offline reading, with everything else only being accessible when internet connected.

Wifi ranges will soon be expanding greatly into the bandwidth previously occupied by TV... with new ranges and coverages possible. Being "internet connected" in the future may be even more viable than assured electricty (and would be unavailable as rarely). The costs will also decrease due to the new bandwidths available by old TV ranges with the conversion of TV to digital.

Just in the last 5 years my own internet has gone from 1 to 10 to 15 to 25 and then last month I'm now at 50mbps download speeds. Most apps on the iPad/IOS devices are now cloud based devices. I think that cloud based gaming may well be very viable in the future. (and the ability to access my data from most any device is also an attractive side benefit)

Back to Top
DLC   |   BEST Games of 2012   |   Best PC Games   |   Best PS3 Games   |   Best Xbox 360 Games   |   Best Wii U Games   |   Best 3DS Games




All content is yours to recycle through our Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing requiring attribution. Our communities are obsessed with videoGames, movies, anime, and toys.

Living the dream since March 16, 2006

Advertising on destructoid is available: Please contact them to learn more