The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I think that the future of gaming will depend on three things: the console/computer manufacturers, the buying public and the software houses/publishers. Each of these is influenced by the other two.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer and will they be able to make a profit with the design currently under consideration.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony. There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer and will they be able to make a profit with the design currently under consideration.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony. There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
Page:
I am a sausage.
Further to yesterday's piece about the lifecycle of a platform, I'd like to continue with a look at the past, present and future of gaming controllers - those vital pieces of kit that we use to interact with our machines.
Game controllers for the video consoles of the late 70's/early 80's already came in numerous forms, one or two of which may surprise you - paddles, joysticks, keypads and light guns! Admittedly these controllers were crude by today's standards, but they set the stage for the rest to follow. A paddle was simply a rotating knob which could allow the player to move a 'bat' up and down the screen in a simplistic game of tennis (pong); the digital joystick with its central stick protruding from a square base gave eight-way movement and only had a single fire button; the keypad was just a collection of buttons; and the light guns could detect when a target in the form of a LARGE white square passed in front of them.
Then came the joypads which allowed much more control over the on-screen action. They replaced the vertical handle of the joystick with a cross shaped pad which still offered eight-way movement, but more importantly, included more buttons which allowed the player to do much more than was previously possible. Here is an example of a peripheral that was probably influential to the advancement of game design itself.
Other controllers included a glove with various sensors and switches on it, infrared controllers which would lose control when someone walked in front of you, or if you got a bit excited and inadvertantly pointed it at a strange angle, and touch-sensitive pads which could be programmed for each particular game.
Steering wheels and pedals are now commonplace, as are analogue joysticks. In fact, PCs' joysticks have always been analogue (as was the BBC Micro's), yet for consoles it is a relatively new feature. Digital controls are either on or off, there's no in-between. With analogue controls, however, there are many states in-between allowing much greater precision in games such as flight simulators and driving games. In fact, two other analogue devices have been around for many years already - mice and trackballs (upside down mice with large balls).
In an effort to make the gaming experience more interactive, controllers now often vibrate or physically push your hand according to the on-screen action. This feature, when implemented properly, can add to the realism of a game remarkably. Hydraulic chairs and cabinets found in arcades have implemented this type of feature for many years, and may one day make it into our homes.
A number of years ago, one company publicised its soon to be released console by saying that there would be a moving seat that could be connected to it. The console was touted as being the most powerful yet, but alas it never materialised at all. The reason was probably due to a misjudgement of one or more of the points I listed in my previous article.
Movies about the future often include full-body suits which sense and stimulate the whole body. With the inclusion of some sort of visual interface that blocks out the real world and allows the participant to only see what is displayed, games will take on a whole new dimension. Current visual headsets, although less bulky than earlier versions, are still too obtrusive, so future versions could be in the form of contact lenses. This technology would most likely arrive before another much touted method of visualisation, connecting directly to the brain. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather wear some contact lenses than wire my brain up to a machine! What happens when you get a 'guru alert' or 'page exception' in mid-flow, or a spike in the power supply? This is one technological advance I can certainly wait for.
To sum up then, progress in controller technology has been a rather slow affair, more of an evolution rather than a revolution. There have been some notable, innovative designs, although some have been more influential than others. The ultimate controller, in whatever form it might take, would cater for all five senses. By the time this is available, processing power which is already increasing at a phenomenal rate, would be able to render 3D worlds virtually indistinguishable from the real world. The boundaries between reality and virtuality would blur and we may be at risk of not knowing which we were in. Many years ago (long before 'The Matrix') I used to wonder if we were all part of some gigantic simulation; unless we can find an 'exit', I guess we'll never know...
Game controllers for the video consoles of the late 70's/early 80's already came in numerous forms, one or two of which may surprise you - paddles, joysticks, keypads and light guns! Admittedly these controllers were crude by today's standards, but they set the stage for the rest to follow. A paddle was simply a rotating knob which could allow the player to move a 'bat' up and down the screen in a simplistic game of tennis (pong); the digital joystick with its central stick protruding from a square base gave eight-way movement and only had a single fire button; the keypad was just a collection of buttons; and the light guns could detect when a target in the form of a LARGE white square passed in front of them.
Then came the joypads which allowed much more control over the on-screen action. They replaced the vertical handle of the joystick with a cross shaped pad which still offered eight-way movement, but more importantly, included more buttons which allowed the player to do much more than was previously possible. Here is an example of a peripheral that was probably influential to the advancement of game design itself.
Other controllers included a glove with various sensors and switches on it, infrared controllers which would lose control when someone walked in front of you, or if you got a bit excited and inadvertantly pointed it at a strange angle, and touch-sensitive pads which could be programmed for each particular game.
Steering wheels and pedals are now commonplace, as are analogue joysticks. In fact, PCs' joysticks have always been analogue (as was the BBC Micro's), yet for consoles it is a relatively new feature. Digital controls are either on or off, there's no in-between. With analogue controls, however, there are many states in-between allowing much greater precision in games such as flight simulators and driving games. In fact, two other analogue devices have been around for many years already - mice and trackballs (upside down mice with large balls).
In an effort to make the gaming experience more interactive, controllers now often vibrate or physically push your hand according to the on-screen action. This feature, when implemented properly, can add to the realism of a game remarkably. Hydraulic chairs and cabinets found in arcades have implemented this type of feature for many years, and may one day make it into our homes.
A number of years ago, one company publicised its soon to be released console by saying that there would be a moving seat that could be connected to it. The console was touted as being the most powerful yet, but alas it never materialised at all. The reason was probably due to a misjudgement of one or more of the points I listed in my previous article.
Movies about the future often include full-body suits which sense and stimulate the whole body. With the inclusion of some sort of visual interface that blocks out the real world and allows the participant to only see what is displayed, games will take on a whole new dimension. Current visual headsets, although less bulky than earlier versions, are still too obtrusive, so future versions could be in the form of contact lenses. This technology would most likely arrive before another much touted method of visualisation, connecting directly to the brain. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather wear some contact lenses than wire my brain up to a machine! What happens when you get a 'guru alert' or 'page exception' in mid-flow, or a spike in the power supply? This is one technological advance I can certainly wait for.
To sum up then, progress in controller technology has been a rather slow affair, more of an evolution rather than a revolution. There have been some notable, innovative designs, although some have been more influential than others. The ultimate controller, in whatever form it might take, would cater for all five senses. By the time this is available, processing power which is already increasing at a phenomenal rate, would be able to render 3D worlds virtually indistinguishable from the real world. The boundaries between reality and virtuality would blur and we may be at risk of not knowing which we were in. Many years ago (long before 'The Matrix') I used to wonder if we were all part of some gigantic simulation; unless we can find an 'exit', I guess we'll never know...
I think that the future of gaming will depend on three things: the console/computer manufacturers, the buying public and the software houses/publishers. Each of these is influenced by the other two.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer and will they be able to make a profit with the design currently under consideration.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony. There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
When a new hardware platform is on the drawing board, a target audience must be identified. What age group(s) will it be aimed at, how much money have they got to spend, what level of technology will they expect to get for their money, and what sort of styling are they like to identify with. Once these questions have been answered they can turn their attention to the logistics of it all, how much money do they have for research and development, how much will it cost to manufacturer and will they be able to make a profit with the design currently under consideration.
Then comes the software houses. These can help to make or break a platform even before it hits the shelves. If a system is difficult to write for, the software houses may be less enthusiastic about creating software for it, especially if there's a comparable system which is easier to use. Thus, if lots of companies are clambering to get licences to write games for the new system, then the public knows that there should be plenty of games for it in the future. If only a handful sign up, then that sends out a warning to the public that if they buy this machine, they might find good games few and far between. The most powerful games machine in existence is useless if there's nothing to run on it.
Lastly, there's the public. Their previous buying habits influence what the hardware manufacturers make, and the genre of games the software houses write and the publishers make available. The public votes with its wallet and in some sense they vote in a similar fashion to political voters. Some will always buy Nintendo, others always Sega, and yet others Sony. There's nothing the manufacturers can do about these. Where the big money is to be made is persuading the majority who have no particular brand loyalty and, for growth in the industry, those who have never had a games console in their lives before.
In fact, this last group are the people Sony are trying to woo right now with the PS2. By making the playback of DVD movies an integral part of the system and moving the case design towards that of more conventional video and stand alone DVD players, it is hoped that the millions of movie buffs who aren't necessarily into games will adopt the system. After all, if the price is right which would you rather have, just an ordinary DVD player, or a DVD player that can also play games and that also promises the ability to download movies directly in the future?
Once a games console has been established, its lifespan is usually dictated by how long the software houses continue to develop for it. With the introduction of DVD, this may no longer be the case as a DVD in five years time should still work on any machine with DVD capability today. Although true to some extent today, a platform's lifespan will most likely be determined simply by the time it takes for a manufacturer to create a machine so much better than what's already available, that people will be willing to spend their hard-earned money all over again to replace the machine they have.
Page: