I was listening to TechStuff (pretty good podcast from howstuffworks.com) today at work and they were discussing the future of video game consoles, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are pertaining to this. We are living in an interesting period of history as it pertains to technology, because we have seen technology go from a seemingly linear growth to a complete exponential explosion. And, naturally, this has bled over into the world of gaming and entertainment. So, how will technology be impacting the games we are playing (and how we are playing them) in the near and not so near future?
Questions/Topics to consider:
- Will Natal force consumers and developers to rethink the way games are played? Will game consoles ever become truly "controllerless"?
- How will peripheral technologies continue to impact the effects of "immersive" gameplay?
- How will technologies like the Wii remote and Sony's "wand" technology continue to blur the line between physical controller and "gesture" gameplay?
- Which technologies (Natal, 3D gaming, etc.) are simply novel fads, and which ones will be considered revolutionary and have true staying power?
The Future of the Console
I want to use a control. If I wanted to visually act out killing a man in cold blood I'd join the army.
Am i the only one who liked good old simple arcade games more?
" @Synthballs said:This." I want to use a control. If I wanted to visually act out killing a man in cold blood I'd join the army. ""
Though I did at one point love the idea of a Hitman game for the Wii using the Remote and Nunchuck to strangle people and you would need a "friend" to wrap the cord around(not really a friend, you're going to kill him) to make Agent 47 do it to someone in the game
"I was listening to TechStuff (pretty good podcast from howstuffworks.com) today at work and they were discussing the future of video game consoles, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are pertaining to this. We are living in an interesting period of history as it pertains to technology, because we have seen technology go from a seemingly linear growth to a complete exponential explosion. And, naturally, this has bled over into the world of gaming and entertainment. So, how will technology be impacting the games we are playing (and how we are playing them) in the near and not so near future? Questions/Topics to consider: - Will Natal force consumers and developers to rethink the way games are played? Will game consoles ever become truly "controllerless"? - How will peripheral technologies continue to impact the effects of "immersive" gameplay? - How will technologies like the Wii remote and Sony's "wand" technology continue to blur the line between physical controller and "gesture" gameplay? - Which technologies (Natal, 3D gaming, etc.) are simply novel fads, and which ones will be considered revolutionary and have true staying power?"
Have you considered that motion based games have been around since the PS2(probably earlier), no one really cared that much then, neither were they that precise. The same with the Ps3 and 360, they've both have had their own respective games for their cameras and no one really cared then either. The Wii's motion technology is adequate but not ideal. I don't see why the current fascination exist with these technology when both respective have already done stuff with it and no one cared then. Peripherals have always existed, they haven't really "revolutionized" gaming. I'm really getting tired of these discussions when they are rarely grounded on reality.
" @BigLemon said:I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Of course the technology has been around for a while, but it's only now starting to become effectual and worthwhile, and it's being viewed less and less as just novelty. And the technology will only continue to strengthen and evolve."I was listening to TechStuff (pretty good podcast from howstuffworks.com) today at work and they were discussing the future of video game consoles, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are pertaining to this. We are living in an interesting period of history as it pertains to technology, because we have seen technology go from a seemingly linear growth to a complete exponential explosion. And, naturally, this has bled over into the world of gaming and entertainment. So, how will technology be impacting the games we are playing (and how we are playing them) in the near and not so near future? Questions/Topics to consider: - Will Natal force consumers and developers to rethink the way games are played? Will game consoles ever become truly "controllerless"? - How will peripheral technologies continue to impact the effects of "immersive" gameplay? - How will technologies like the Wii remote and Sony's "wand" technology continue to blur the line between physical controller and "gesture" gameplay? - Which technologies (Natal, 3D gaming, etc.) are simply novel fads, and which ones will be considered revolutionary and have true staying power?"Have you considered that motion based games have been around since the PS2(probably earlier), no one really cared that much then, neither were they that precise. The same with the Ps3 and 360, they've both have had their own respective games for their cameras and no one really cared then either. The Wii's motion technology is adequate but not ideal. I don't see why the current fascination exist with these technology when both respective have already done stuff with it and no one cared then. Peripherals have always existed, they haven't really "revolutionized" gaming. I'm really getting tired of these discussions when they are rarely grounded on reality. "
I mean, there were people that thought 3 D graphics were just a dumb fad, and would never revolutionize gaming.
And as far as peripherals go, think of the vast majority of games we wouldn't have because of them. Guitar Hero and all its run off.
The reality of the situation is that there are new developments being made in how video game consoles will work in the next generation.
" @HypoXenophobia said:" @BigLemon said:I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Of course the technology has been around for a while, but it's only now starting to become effectual and worthwhile, and it's being viewed less and less as just novelty. And the technology will only continue to strengthen and evolve. I mean, there were people that thought 3 D graphics were just a dumb fad, and would never revolutionize gaming. And as far as peripherals go, think of the vast majority of games we wouldn't have because of them. Guitar Hero and all its run off. The reality of the situation is that there are new developments being made in how video game consoles will work in the next generation. ""I was listening to TechStuff (pretty good podcast from howstuffworks.com) today at work and they were discussing the future of video game consoles, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are pertaining to this. We are living in an interesting period of history as it pertains to technology, because we have seen technology go from a seemingly linear growth to a complete exponential explosion. And, naturally, this has bled over into the world of gaming and entertainment. So, how will technology be impacting the games we are playing (and how we are playing them) in the near and not so near future? Questions/Topics to consider: - Will Natal force consumers and developers to rethink the way games are played? Will game consoles ever become truly "controllerless"? - How will peripheral technologies continue to impact the effects of "immersive" gameplay? - How will technologies like the Wii remote and Sony's "wand" technology continue to blur the line between physical controller and "gesture" gameplay? - Which technologies (Natal, 3D gaming, etc.) are simply novel fads, and which ones will be considered revolutionary and have true staying power?"Have you considered that motion based games have been around since the PS2(probably earlier), no one really cared that much then, neither were they that precise. The same with the Ps3 and 360, they've both have had their own respective games for their cameras and no one really cared then either. The Wii's motion technology is adequate but not ideal. I don't see why the current fascination exist with these technology when both respective have already done stuff with it and no one cared then. Peripherals have always existed, they haven't really "revolutionized" gaming. I'm really getting tired of these discussions when they are rarely grounded on reality. "
Drumania and Guitarfreaks, even Duck Hunt are all peripherals that have existed for years. Has the plastic Stratocaster benefited your FPS, puzzle, platformer? No. It only benefit a specific series. DDR pads only benefit DDR. Donkey Konga drums only benefit that game. There are hundreds of peripherals out there, they don't revolutionize gaming. They only teach you how to play within the construct of their specific game. You can play Devil May Cry with a Guitar Hero controller, doesn't make it ideal. Same with people playing fps on the Wii. It's possible, doesn't make it ideal.
3d graphics are still pretty much a fad, because they don't really benefit the play experience. Why would a $3000 3d tv really benefit just to play G-force or Avatar? They won't.
A lot of your ideas are based on speculation and things of that nature. I'm not trying to be condescending, and I apologize if I appear that way. But peripherals are just one off experiences. As I said, guitar controllers only for music games. But when you have something like "Natal" trying to do things like a rhythm game, you'd end up with things like: Just Dance, Let's Tap, or Wii Music(I hope you realize the pattern). Peripherals are meant for one game, when they are stretched beyond that and bandaged onto other games, they appear out of place. Like the Guitar hero controller in DJ Hero. Two opposite music styles. While I encourage innovation in video games, I feel I'm a realist in saying, that motion controllers won't really innovate the world of gaming.
" @BigLemon said:Um sorry bro' but the last statement was wrong, the term 3D gaming doesn't mean things popping out of a screen but actually meaning something like a 3D model such as how near all games are now. Take Super Mario that's a 2D game and now they have New. Super Mario for the Wii and that's a 3D game, same thing with GTA and GTA 2 they are 2D and now since GTA III they have been 3D. The statement "3D is just a fad" would have been said around the 2001 Era when Playstations and N64s had arrived and people were wanting their Genius and Snes not 3D. I hope this has cleared it up for you." @HypoXenophobia said:Drumania and Guitarfreaks, even Duck Hunt are all peripherals that have existed for years. Has the plastic Stratocaster benefited your FPS, puzzle, platformer? No. It only benefit a specific series. DDR pads only benefit DDR. Donkey Konga drums only benefit that game. There are hundreds of peripherals out there, they don't revolutionize gaming. They only teach you how to play within the construct of their specific game. You can play Devil May Cry with a Guitar Hero controller, doesn't make it ideal. Same with people playing fps on the Wii. It's possible, doesn't make it ideal. 3d graphics are still pretty much a fad, because they don't really benefit the play experience. Why would a $3000 3d tv really benefit just to play G-force or Avatar? They won't. "" @BigLemon said:I am sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Of course the technology has been around for a while, but it's only now starting to become effectual and worthwhile, and it's being viewed less and less as just novelty. And the technology will only continue to strengthen and evolve. I mean, there were people that thought 3 D graphics were just a dumb fad, and would never revolutionize gaming. And as far as peripherals go, think of the vast majority of games we wouldn't have because of them. Guitar Hero and all its run off. The reality of the situation is that there are new developments being made in how video game consoles will work in the next generation. ""I was listening to TechStuff (pretty good podcast from howstuffworks.com) today at work and they were discussing the future of video game consoles, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are pertaining to this. We are living in an interesting period of history as it pertains to technology, because we have seen technology go from a seemingly linear growth to a complete exponential explosion. And, naturally, this has bled over into the world of gaming and entertainment. So, how will technology be impacting the games we are playing (and how we are playing them) in the near and not so near future? Questions/Topics to consider: - Will Natal force consumers and developers to rethink the way games are played? Will game consoles ever become truly "controllerless"? - How will peripheral technologies continue to impact the effects of "immersive" gameplay? - How will technologies like the Wii remote and Sony's "wand" technology continue to blur the line between physical controller and "gesture" gameplay? - Which technologies (Natal, 3D gaming, etc.) are simply novel fads, and which ones will be considered revolutionary and have true staying power?"Have you considered that motion based games have been around since the PS2(probably earlier), no one really cared that much then, neither were they that precise. The same with the Ps3 and 360, they've both have had their own respective games for their cameras and no one really cared then either. The Wii's motion technology is adequate but not ideal. I don't see why the current fascination exist with these technology when both respective have already done stuff with it and no one cared then. Peripherals have always existed, they haven't really "revolutionized" gaming. I'm really getting tired of these discussions when they are rarely grounded on reality. "
" @BigLemon: Gesture gameplay is for 2-3 year olds. Pew Pew Pew, I'm shooting you with my finger gun. If you have any dignity left, you're not going to use the Wii, Natal or the Sony wand. "Has it ever accurd to you that Harry Potter is behind the PS Wand?
I don't see how people can reconcile hating on the Wii all these years for one specific reason then loving this Natal thing which is that, but moreso. Unless you're just full of shit. There's a correct median for everything, and I think how much the Wiimote has you moving has as much to do with the popularity as anything. And requiring more physicality could take it too far for a lot of people and both of the new motion things look like they require more precision and physicality. So I don't think evolving on the motion thing will really lead anywhere. The future is somewhere else.
"For me, if a developer can make a game that is fun to play AND has Motion Controls, this is all I need. I'm pretty sick of everybody complaining about Motion Controls, if it's a good game, then who gives a crap right? more importantly, most of the games out right now don't have motion controls, so... Yeah.
If developers can make great controlling and varied motion control games, then great. So far, I have seen nothing on the market that controls better than the instant feedback of button and analog controls (as pertaining to consoles). "
" @BigLemon: A lot of your ideas are based on speculation and things of that nature. I'm not trying to be condescending, and I apologize if I appear that way. But peripherals are just one off experiences. As I said, guitar controllers only for music games. But when you have something like "Natal" trying to do things like a rhythm game, you'd end up with things like: Just Dance, Let's Tap, or Wii Music(I hope you realize the pattern). Peripherals are meant for one game, when they are stretched beyond that and bandaged onto other games, they appear out of place. Like the Guitar hero controller in DJ Hero. Two opposite music styles. While I encourage innovation in video games, I feel I'm a realist in saying, that motion controllers won't really innovate the world of gaming. "Case in point SixAxis.
I have not seen a game since, Killzone that actually implemented any feature, that worked,
Worst decision they made, although they did have that court case about the rumble feature,
- No, and if they do I will quit gaming.
- They won't, better graphics and sound will. 'HD' is almost like 3D - it's going to take another gen to really utilise all the potential invested in the better hardware.
- They won't, simply because R&D costs put a limit on the technology in these controllers. Natal is a webcam which just so happens to use the 360's power to do some fancy things - Wii remote and Sony dildo are some accelerometers and gyroscopes crammed in a plastic shell. There is nothing evolutionary about them, and I think the Wii in its current state proves this.
- None of them. They will all soon discover that Nintendo's success lay in the re-invention of its image and clever marketing.
"This!- No, and if they do I will quit gaming.
"
- They won't, better graphics and sound will. 'HD' is almost like 3D - it's going to take another gen to really utilise all the potential invested in the better hardware.
- They won't, simply because R&D costs put a limit on the technology in these controllers. Natal is a webcam which just so happens to use the 360's power to do some fancy things - Wii remote and Sony dildo are some accelerometers and gyroscopes crammed in a plastic shell. There is nothing evolutionary about them, and I think the Wii in its current state proves this.
- None of them. They will all soon discover that Nintendo's success lay in the re-invention of its image and clever marketing.
I have hilariously little info on future game technology (yes, I suck) but I hope 3D gaming makes it big. How can you not like true 3D gaming? I want a stereoscopic television right now!
"@BigLemon said:Agreed. People jumped on the motion sensoring bandwagon when Nintendo slapeed its name on it and called it innovation. It's been around for awhile people."I was listening to TechStuff (pretty good podcast from howstuffworks.com) today at work and they were discussing the future of video game consoles, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are pertaining to this. We are living in an interesting period of history as it pertains to technology, because we have seen technology go from a seemingly linear growth to a complete exponential explosion. And, naturally, this has bled over into the world of gaming and entertainment. So, how will technology be impacting the games we are playing (and how we are playing them) in the near and not so near future? Questions/Topics to consider: - Will Natal force consumers and developers to rethink the way games are played? Will game consoles ever become truly "controllerless"? - How will peripheral technologies continue to impact the effects of "immersive" gameplay? - How will technologies like the Wii remote and Sony's "wand" technology continue to blur the line between physical controller and "gesture" gameplay? - Which technologies (Natal, 3D gaming, etc.) are simply novel fads, and which ones will be considered revolutionary and have true staying power?"Have you considered that motion based games have been around since the PS2(probably earlier), no one really cared that much then, neither were they that precise. The same with the Ps3 and 360, they've both have had their own respective games for their cameras and no one really cared then either. The Wii's motion technology is adequate but not ideal. I don't see why the current fascination exist with these technology when both respective have already done stuff with it and no one cared then. Peripherals have always existed, they haven't really "revolutionized" gaming. I'm really getting tired of these discussions when they are rarely grounded on reality. "
@ZeForgotten said:
" @Akeldama said:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" @Synthballs said:This. Though I did at one point love the idea of a Hitman game for the Wii using the Remote and Nunchuck to strangle people and you would need a "friend" to wrap the cord around(not really a friend, you're going to kill him) to make Agent 47 do it to someone in the game "" I want to use a control. If I wanted to visually act out killing a man in cold blood I'd join the army. ""
@Synthballs said:
"I want to use a control. If I wanted to visually act out killing a man in cold blood I'd join the army. "
:D Agreed.
@Slippy said:
"1) We don't care.1 No, and if they do I will quit gaming.
"
2 They won't, better graphics and sound will. 'HD' is almost like 3D - it's going to take another gen to really utilise all the potential invested in the better hardware.
3 They won't, simply because R&D costs put a limit on the technology in these controllers. Natal is a webcam which just so happens to use the 360's power to do some fancy things - Wii remote and Sony dildo are some accelerometers and gyroscopes crammed in a plastic shell. There is nothing evolutionary about them, and I think the Wii in its current state proves this.
4 None of them. They will all soon discover that Nintendo's success lay in the re-invention of its image and clever marketing.
2) What makes you think technology can't progress on more than one front at the same time?
3) It was my understanding that Natal has multiple sensors that allow it to do what it does. Sony Gem incorporates the playstation camera to track location in a 3d space as well as the accelerometers and gyroscopes. Totally different than the Wii controls, and if they work they could be REVolutionary, not just evolutionary. Where are you finding R&D numbers? What do you even mean by that? If all three use different tech, how is it possible to judge one by another?
4) I agree with your assessment of Nintendo. That has nothing to do with Natal or Gem. Don't be so quick to judge that which you have never tried.
I'm waiting for Natal to be integrated into PC, Minority Report here i come! Natal will be so much more useful on PC than console just because of the amount of things it could be used for.
i think if these game companies want the industry to go anywhere they have to quit thinking that they all have to do the same thing. I think that if the Sony wand or Natal sells, people aren't really going to like it. I also think that those with multiple consoles are going to care less. I think the whole peripheral age is already being beaten to death, and it barely went anywhere. As cool as that technology is, weither it may be priority for some 360 or PS3 games. I don't want it EVERYWHERE. It's fine on my Wii, They should realize that and get over it.
Call me crazy, but if that's the way gaming wants to go. It's going to suck.
The problem is nobody is willing to section off the market. Which is dumb, because if the 360, PS3, and Wii all had very specific identifiers they wouldn't be competing with each other as much. Of course losers on the net would still compare them but the consumer market would be fine. People would know if you want to play games in the style of x, you get system x. Instead, the 360 and PS3 want to make it into a pissing contest where everyone does the same thing but system x does it "best". Barbies and GI Joes don't compete with one another because they've been refined to appeal to specific people and consoles have to be willing to do that instead of stealing anything that the other guy does that seems to work.
I think that I only kind of want an immersive peripheral. The Wii and my Rock Band gear sits around for the most part, unless I have friends coming over. Sometimes I want to just sit down and push some damn buttons. I hope that buttons and thumbsticks are something that sticks around in games.
1) Thanks for posting, he wanted to hear our opinions so I gave him one. Quit being an asshole just because you don't agree with me.
2) It can, but I don't expect it to in the case of new control schemes. I'm basing this on my experience with the Wii so far. We were promised innovation and a completely different way to play games... that never happened as far as i'm concerned. Bar a few exceptional cases, the games coming out for the Wii have merely replaced the button press with a waggle movement. That is not progress - that is a side-step. In terms of hardware pregression, all you have to do is take a glance at Moore's law and you get your answer.
3) By R&D costs I mean the cost associated with developing these so called 'innovative' controllers. I place innovative in inverted commas because they are anything but - off the shelf parts, your accelerometers and gyroscopes, merely shrunk down to fit into an attractive mould and bundled with some basic tracking software. What I am saying does not need 'numbers', as it is common sense: R&D departments at these companies are not going to spend billions developing anything truly innovative, for a games console no less. It's the car manufacturers, the university science teams, the military etc etc thinking up new ways to accurately track movement, not R&D at Sony's game division. They don't have the budget of any of the above organisations, so what exactly can come of it beyond the repackaging of existing technology?
And I am judging it on the face value, namely tech demos I have seen and the empty promises of the past. How many times must I listen to "this will change gaming forever" as an attractive woman struggles to have her moves recognised in a paint mini-game? How many times do I have to sit through Peter Molyneux cramming fud down my throat as another attractive woman 'demos' a highly scripted (from the looks of things) pedo simulator? Never again am I going through with this crap... Not even Spielberg himself can convince me.
4) It has everything to do with it. Analysts were damning the Wii from the start, yet it ended up as the leader of this generation. It was not the technology that did that, it was the advertising and public perception of the console. In theory, Sony and MS could have all the 'innovation' in the world powering their tech, and it would not mean shit if the public perception was not in their favor. Point is, an advancement in gaming is not their objective; they have seen the success of the Wii, and now they want to replicate it ASAP using similar technology which they believe is the key, when it really isn't. Simply put, they are on the wrong thought train.
The 360 and PS3 aren't "safe", bottom line. They're toys for manboys, and when your kid says they want one you react the same way you do when they want to see an R rated movie. You take them to a Disney film instead (Wii) because you perceive that to be a safe system that you could occasionally derive use from as well.
Not to say this perception is entirely correct, but like Slippy said, that's what Nintendo ingrained into the perception of their system.
This is sort of what I was thinking. The ability to have a touch sensitive controller face, where regions could be programmed to certain buttons, would allow ridiculous flexibility in controls. Of course the analog sticks would still need to be analog, but the ability to choose the number of buttons, their positioning, et cetera, would mean that developers would finally be able to work WITH controls, rather than AGAINST them. Do I think it's feasible in the near future? Hell no, since the lack of tactile feedback would make the process incredibly imprecise, but it would sure as hell be cool." A touch sensitive controller (like the PS3 power button but for all the buttons) would be about as funky I'd wanna get with a controller. "
" @Daryl said:YES! You and me are going to make a console.This is sort of what I was thinking. The ability to have a touch sensitive controller face, where regions could be programmed to certain buttons, would allow ridiculous flexibility in controls. Of course the analog sticks would still need to be analog, but the ability to choose the number of buttons, their positioning, et cetera, would mean that developers would finally be able to work WITH controls, rather than AGAINST them. Do I think it's feasible in the near future? Hell no, since the lack of tactile feedback would make the process incredibly imprecise, but it would sure as hell be cool. "" A touch sensitive controller (like the PS3 power button but for all the buttons) would be about as funky I'd wanna get with a controller. "
Fellas, fellas, some really strong discussion going on , and let's be respectful of everyone's opinions. It's conversations like these that are going on in R&D departments throughout the gaming industry right now. Now, a couple of things:
I may be wrong, but I feel that the gaming community can be fairly parochial some times. We like things a certain way, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". However, I think this inability to be open minded about certain "niche" or "fad" trends may be what slows the development and nurturing of some really good ideas. I still don't think we're looking at the big picture, maybe 15 or 20 years down the road
.@bonbolapti said:
" I also think that those with multiple consoles are going to care less. I think the whole peripheral age is already being beaten to death, and it barely went anywhere. As cool as that technology is, weither it may be priority for some 360 or PS3 games. I don't want it EVERYWHERE. It's fine on my Wii, They should realize that and get over it. Call me crazy, but if that's the way gaming wants to go. It's going to suck. "This is a really good point. We see how the technology can be cool, and it shows flashes of true innovation sometimes, but sometimes people think they can take it and slap it on anything to make a quick buck instead of thoroughly researching the limits of the technology and making it something really cool. Do I have to mention Tony Hawk RIDE?
@ryanwho said:
" The problem is nobody is willing to section off the market. Which is dumb, because if the 360, PS3, and Wii all had very specific identifiers they wouldn't be competing with each other as much. Of course losers on the net would still compare them but the consumer market would be fine. People would know if you want to play games in the style of x, you get system x. Instead, the 360 and PS3 want to make it into a pissing contest where everyone does the same thing but system x does it "best". Barbies and GI Joes don't compete with one another because they've been refined to appeal to specific people and consoles have to be willing to do that instead of stealing anything that the other guy does that seems to work. "
Well now this brings up another question. Is the market too constricted right now with really only three consoles available?
-Would a more diverse selection of consoles promote or hinder the video game market?
- Are there any companies out there that would ever venture back into building and marketing another console? Will Sega ever make another console? Might we see Apple start to think about getting into the console market? Of course, Steve Jobs is making all the money he needs off of propietary software and hardware, but it's an interesting thought.
@Daryl said:
" @jukezypoo said:" @Daryl said:YES! You and me are going to make a console. "This is sort of what I was thinking. The ability to have a touch sensitive controller face, where regions could be programmed to certain buttons, would allow ridiculous flexibility in controls. Of course the analog sticks would still need to be analog, but the ability to choose the number of buttons, their positioning, et cetera, would mean that developers would finally be able to work WITH controls, rather than AGAINST them. Do I think it's feasible in the near future? Hell no, since the lack of tactile feedback would make the process incredibly imprecise, but it would sure as hell be cool. "" A touch sensitive controller (like the PS3 power button but for all the buttons) would be about as funky I'd wanna get with a controller. "
That is a really neat idea. Sort of like using an iPhone or something as a controller interface, but with more flexibility in control. Of course, like you said, it would still need some sort of tactile analog stick or control pad. And your point about tactile feedback being inaccurate is already a major grievance against gaming on iPhones and iPod touches.
" I'm waiting for Natal to be integrated into PC, Minority Report here i come! Natal will be so much more useful on PC than console just because of the amount of things it could be used for. "Does anyone think PC gaming will ever be phased out, what with all the integrations that are already occuring? In my opinion, I don't think that's likely to happen, but there seem to be a lot of people that woul say otherwise.
The future of consoles will not be so much about "new" ways to control a game, I think that it will be mostly about speed, digital distribution, and more storage. Graphics do not have much further to go before they reach the uncanny valley of creepyness. Load times will almost disappear (hopefully) and there will be almost no need for game stores due to digital distribution. Thats at least what I realistically see.
"@Daryl said:This is sort of what I was thinking. The ability to have a touch sensitive controller face, where regions could be programmed to certain buttons, would allow ridiculous flexibility in controls. Of course the analog sticks would still need to be analog, but the ability to choose the number of buttons, their positioning, et cetera, would mean that developers would finally be able to work WITH controls, rather than AGAINST them. Do I think it's feasible in the near future? Hell no, since the lack of tactile feedback would make the process incredibly imprecise, but it would sure as hell be cool. "" A touch sensitive controller (like the PS3 power button but for all the buttons) would be about as funky I'd wanna get with a controller. "
Do you mean like a touch screen controller???
Personally I think that 3D and motion controls are both gimmicks, I'm fine with my standard controller. When 3D does become something amazing, rather than just a few effects that make me go 'ooooh' for about five seconds or so, then it'll be interesting to see where developers take the new technology. (Especially in the horror genre.)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment