I agree with all of this list. I hope they can live up to it. I also hope they try to shy away from multiple, and highly-priced, subscription services. In theory, wouldn't that bring an annual total of fees quite high? If they do the thin client deal with fees, add your netflix sub, hulu sub, and if companies are forced (because of the great business model of it, investors and boards will demand it, make no mistake) into the dlc-20 bucks a pop like activision does with COD, I would hate to have to pay an extra 100 bucks or so a year to play my console. I feel like that is why i play it less and less and my PC more and more. PC just seems like better value overall. Just my opinion.
I don't like the idea of a thin console. Frankly latency will always be an issue, and despite one being able to grow accustomed to it, I don't want to have to grow accustomed to a degradation in game play. Also, with the state the internet may be in in the next few years (with the high probability of being put behind massive public NATs), what will happen to the experience of using a thin client type of console? While the problem would be bad enough trying to connect to a server through the NAT, I feel like it would be a bigger problem for a thin console. I like having my game play processed locally.
Thinking online content only by 2013 is idiotic. The US infrastructure does not and will not have that type of bandwidth by then. Not only that you negate much of the market world wide that does not. Yes, cloud computing will be critical going forward but at this point it just isn't there. Yes, it won't just be the US gaming market but it is a huge market that cannot be ignored.
I hope the new technology gets fleshed out, not flushed out.
I'm certainly in favor of choices. I happen to prefer keyboard and mouse, as my poor balance would make having to jump and flail around to conduct a sword fight a very hazardous endeavor, to myself and to those people, kitties, and [breakable] objects nearby.
Thin clients are a great idea, but for many games such as FPS, nothing beats local rendering. For that, you are going to need some pretty powerful and efficient CPU/GPU architecture, and that will drive prices up. The "my GPU is bigger than yours" contest will continue for at least one more generation of consoles. Prices could be subsidized by subscription fees towards respective online gaming.
People complained that they had to upgrade their pcs to play the latest games ever so often etc. Welcome to that same trend but with Consoles. I hope you can still play all your old games like you can with the pc.
Oh well, it's all about the money at the end of the day
Your 7 features hardly flow together. You talk of slim efficient boxes which serve to pull information from the cloud but then talk about it being the home media and entertainment hub as well as "will require extremely powerful processors".... The list is interesting in theory but written and thought out very poorly.
The Onlive system will never replace a stand alone console or PC as an entertainment system in the current state of broadband throughout the US. It is a novel idea and the price is right. But at the same time having a physical copy in home for when the Internet is down or too slow will always win for now. Also even though Steam is slightly similar, you still have a physical copy on hand once you download it. OnLive does not, so if they somehow change hands, charge more, or flat out die off, then you are left with nothing while if any current console or pc game goes down, besides online based MMO's and such, you will always be able to go back and play what you purchased. Maybe in another 20 years we will finally be rid of 56K and anything else below 6Mbit but until then, the next systems just have to be reliable and extra powerful in this HD day and age.
While cloud based gaming is probably the future, I'm not too fond of the idea. First of all, many people still have slow or even metered connections. Second, I just like seeing and drooling over hardware and game boxes. And call me a control freak, but I want files on my system, not somebody else's. Especially if that someone else is an enterprise.
I agree with all other points though. I'll just think positive and look at 'thin console' as a physically slim console (yes please!) rather than follow my voice of reason and read it as 'thin client' (no thanks!).
[citation][nom]bill gates is your daddy[/nom]2. Merged Entertainment System - Perfect. To me this would be the grail, just keep it away from "the cloud". My stuff, my house, my control. 5. Hybrid Data Storage - Take cloud computing and blow it out your butt. 6. Blu-ray - Keep the disc or some other physical ownership of the games. I want something in my hand not stored on a virtual server somewhere.[/citation]
Why are people so afraid of could gaming?
You sound like an 80yr old that refuses to learn about computers.
Cloud gaming is a GOOD THING..
1. You don't need expensive hardware to play HD games.
2. Your saves and "Your stuff" can be saved on your console's HDD.
Apperently this guy has never purchased a movie from the playstation store. If that playstation blows up is the movie you bought gone with it? NO!! You get a new playstation login and download the movies and other stuff you already own. If they sell virtual items they will always be force to keep a record of your purchase so they know you have the rights to it. Also, if we can learn anything from onlive it's that monthly subscriptions that many different games will likely be an option in the future. This would mean that don't have to actually BUY the games. It's like infinite rental.
Cloud yea right more like a deadly fog on what limited freedoms and control that still remain for the average user. I much rather have the games that I paid for on a device that I can hold in my hands rather than a "cloud" hosted by some monolithic all consuming corporation. Consoles need to be upgradible and from the start have a more modular build incase of failure that bricks the whole damn system. The ps3 isn't that very powerful. one SPE is disabled to help improve yields, another is reserved for the os. The RSX is horribly outdated and is the only Gefroce7 gpu still in production and it is horribly slow and holding games back as badly as the limited system ram. 256mb you got to be kidding I got a pentium mmx rig with twice that. The x360 well if you like red ring then buy! At least the online gaming is going good so long one has a decent lag free connection.
Weak areas of consoles, no upgradibility except for storage. Weak or lack luster gpus. Very minimal ram. Poor cooling that leads to failure of the physical machines. Cloud will only make things even worse.
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]next gen consoles should have an upgradeable parts path so they aren't obsolete every other year and can play the games that were made after the console was debuted.[/citation]
You mean a PC?
1. Entire content library of future consoles available via digital download. No DVD, Bluray, CD, etc. Its too messy to find all of that stuff and it would make so much more sense to just download them from the cloud. Basically Steam for the consoles.
8. full set of options in the package... like webcam, microphone, keyboard, HDMI cable (or the connectivity of the day) etc...
9. customizable user interface
10. voice recognition
11. NAS storage support or remote disk access (to be able to share/retrieve documents like photos, saved games, music etc...)
Also the NAS storage will add a layer of backup and security to the console.
12. bluethooth connection to connect the console to the cell phone and be able to talk through the console... (well... skype everywhere is also an option )
13. support for touchscreen TV (or devices like the surface device)
14. ability to rip DVD and make a local library which made all the movies available without having to change the DVD (and without doing this through a computer)