But in the rush to pronounce the winners and losers from a few days of showcasing games and systems that may or may not get to the consumer in the same form they were presented in, few takes the time to consider what this E3 may mean for gaming in the years to come.
Oh, sure, there's the occasional passing mention of virtual reality, but it seems to be more out of hope that such technologies are the future than it is expectation that what we are seeing now will be in living rooms the world over in a by the end of the decade.
In terms of what is ready and functioning right now, there are two groups: the hardware makers, and the hardware users. Trying to discuss what the latter will be doing years into the future is pointless, as third-party publishers are always reacting to hardware the exists at the time their games are being made.
No, what matters is the companies making the hardware. PCs, despite being absolutely, unquestionably superior to consoles in every imaginable way, do not actually have the same impact on the market. Their status as personal computer means that people will buy PCs whenever they want, for whatever purpose they want. There isn't one single company behind them, whose future depends on them. They simply are what they are.
Consoles, on the other hand, have been central to video games for the past thirty years. The direction consoles take necessarily affects the entire industry. All the biggest publishers focus on consoles first, so if there's a shift in popularity, or a change in the way consoles function, the publishers will follow.
So, with this in mind, what did E3 2015 tell us about the three console makers?
To these eyes, it actually suggested some very important things that aren't obvious on the surface. At face value, Sony had a great conference, Microsoft did fine, and Nintendo did poorly. The narrative from this being that the PlayStation 4 will continue to sell great guns, the Xbox One will need continued efforts to bring it to respectable sales, and the Wii U and 3DS are nearly at the end.
But this narrative says nothing about why these things are the case, and what they may say about how the companies themselves perceive their consoles.
Sony's big announcements were all for games that will be out in 2016. This suggests a great deal of confidence in the position of the PS4 this year, and why wouldn't they have such confidence? The PS4 is on track to be another 100+ million seller, leaving its immediate predecessor in the dust. The things that they got wrong with the PS3 they have rectified, and they have taken back their position as the console of choice. The greatest barometer of this is the fact that Call of Duty and Star Wars: Battlefront are both being advertised in association not with Xbox, as would seem traditional, but with PlayStation. If even mass appeal shooters are sticking with Sony, it must be doing something right.
As far as Sony's concerned, then, they just need to keep doing what they're doing. At E3 2020 we will, barring something catastrophic, be dealing with the new PS5 (and we'll get a release date for the FFVII remake, haw haw). Sony's formula, at this point, seems basically spot on.
Microsoft's big announcements were peculiar, in that they involved cross-system play. Many of the announced games were noted to be exclusive not merely to Xbox One, but to Windows 10 as well. This isn't merely a matter of the same game being available on two systems either. For example, someone playing Fable Legends on the One will be playing in the same world as another person playing on PC. Without being an expert on these things, this is surely thanks to two things: the internal workings of the Xbox One, which (like a PC) runs x86 architecture; and the operating system for the One, which just so happens to be be...Windows 10.
Yes, the One has the same architecture and operating system as a PC. In fact, this all seems rather similar to another notable gaming company. Valve Software, a company that no longer makes software but instead runs a digital games marketplace, has launched its own operating system and gaming machines that run this operating system. The idea behind them is to enable people to play their PC games from their living room, building on Steam's Big Picture Mode, which was designed for PCs plugged into televisions, using a controller.
The Xbox One appears to have the same purpose, with the added incentive of a few games - mostly the biggest guns like Halo - not appearing on PC. Yet. Outwardly, there is no indication of a shift in direction for Xbox, but it is absolutely clear that they have abandoned the concept of an all-in-one console, something that would have full control of the living room. It is also clear that Microsoft is not in any position to be taking Sony head on. Sony prides itself on its position at the forefront of hardware technology, willing to take a hit on hardware for the sake of market share, something they see as an investment with long term returns. Sales seem to suggest they have a point. Microsoft is not in the same position, having made its fortune on software.
The similarities between the positioning of the One and Steam's movement into operating systems and hardware suggest that in five years from now the main purpose of Xbox may well be as a competitor to Steam. Microsoft will presumably continue to make Xbox machines, but may also hand over production to a third party, as Valve has done. But in turning Xbox into a marketplace, Microsoft will gain flexibility. The biggest selling point of Xbox has always been convenience, which is why being more expensive than the PS4 was such a killer blow for the One. By turning Xbox into a digital brand, and by producing multiple Xbox machines for different markets, Microsoft will be able to create something sustainable.
They aren't the only console maker that may be shifting to a more flexible model. Every indication Nintendo has been giving about their otherwise secretive 'NX' project suggests that it will not be a traditional console. While some have taken this to mean that Nintendo will be, for example, turning their model into something like Vita TV, a more sensible conclusion can be made from two Q&A sessions between Nintendo president Satoru Iwata and investors.
Before 'announcing' NX, Iwata gave this answer to a question about the future:
I am not sure if the form factor (the size and configuration of the hardware) will be integrated. In contrast, the number of form factors might increase. Currently, we can only provide two form factors because if we had three or four different architectures, we would face serious shortages of software on every platform. To cite a specific case, Apple is able to release smart devices with various form factors one after another because there is one way of programming adopted by all platforms. Apple has a common platform called iOS. Another example is Android. Though there are various models, Android does not face software shortages because there is one common way of programming on the Android platform that works with various models.
The point is, Nintendo platforms should be like those two examples. Whether we will ultimately need just one device will be determined by what consumers demand in the future, and that is not something we know at the moment. However, we are hoping to change and correct the situation in which we develop games for different platforms individually and sometimes disappoint consumers with game shortages as we attempt to move from one platform to another, and we believe that we will be able to deliver tangible results in the future.Then, when answering a direct question about NX:
We will not announce any details about NX until 2016. I used the name "NX" during our joint press conference with DeNA on March 17 because we thought that our announcing the business alliance with DeNA to start a smart device business could result in such misunderstanding as "Nintendo is making a transfer to smart devices because it is pessimistic about the future for dedicated video game systems." I intentionally chose to announce the development of NX so early because I wanted to confirm the fact that we are developing a new dedicated video game platform, that we have never lost passion regarding the future for dedicated video game systems and that we have bright prospects for them. Though I cannot confirm when it will be launched or any other details of the system, since I have confirmed that it will be "a dedicated video game platform with a brand new concept," it should mean that we do not intend it to become a simple "replacement" for Nintendo 3DS or Wii U.From these answers, we can gather this much: NX will not simply be a handheld or home console; Nintendo wishes to have the flexibility to offer the right consoles for as many countries as possible; having two consoles to make games for has impeded Nintendo's ability to deliver games for both consoles quickly; Iwata favours a model like that of iOS or Android, where multiple devices run on the same platform.
Your question also included the "current notion of thinking about home consoles and handheld devices." When it comes to how dedicated game systems are being played, the situations have become rather different, especially between Japan and overseas. Since we are always thinking about how to create a new platform that will be accepted by as many people around the world as possible, we would like to offer to them "a dedicated video game platform with a brand new concept" by taking into consideration various factors, including the playing environments that differ by country. This is all that I can confirm today.
From here, the pieces fall together quite nicely. NX will surely be the name given to the new platform on which multiple Nintendo devices run. Nintendo will be able to release their handheld and home machines as often as they feel necessary, to whichever markets will respond best, and down-res some games to work on less powerful devices. We've already seen two examples of Nintendo release more powerful versions of the same hardware - the DSi and New 3DS - so the concept shouldn't be too foreign. We know that Nintendo has been experimenting with getting the 3DS to run within the Wii U's framework, with some success. It wouldn't be too surprising if the Wii U is considered part of the NX generation either.
This would also mean no more of the difficulties with Virtual Console between generations, as games will be attached to an account, which can then download the game to every device that will come out in the future. The real question may be not with digital games, but physical games. I suspect Nintendo will do something along these lines: every disc has a unique code attached to it, so when you put it into your console, that unique code will be attached to your account. You can then download the game on other devices that are attached to your account (as long as they are capable of playing the game). If you want to sell the game or lend it to a friend, you can unattach the game, and every copy of the game on all your devices is locked out. Each copy can only be linked to one account at a time. This puts it on par with digital, and seems like the kind of approach Nintendo would use.
Looking at these two approaches from Microsoft and Nintendo, they actually seem rather similar. The only real difference is which devices are their focus, which is a result of the history of both companies. In both cases, everything seems to be pointing to a significant shift away from releasing one console every five or six years, towards emphasising the software platform on which multiple devices will run, released regularly.
This is, of course, no guarantee of being true. Check back in a few years from now.
No comments:
Post a Comment