🚀 go-pugleaf

Dean Siren wrote:
> 
> Another obstacle is that online gaming currently requires accessories (modem,
> hard drive, microphone or keyboard for communication) and a credit card, both of
> which PC gamers are willing to use, but console gamers aren't.

Except for the hard drive, you've just described the Sega Dreamcast and it's
accessories.  They didn't help it very much. ^_^ 

> I think online console gaming today is where CD-ROM console gaming was 10 years
> ago; everyone is talking about it and it provides many benefits, but the current
> consoles aren't made for it and it's too expensive and complicated.  I also feel
> that console gamers want to play against others online, and have access to every
> title made without leaving their home, but they also want none of the current
> hastles.  I believe that online console gaming will take off on the next
> generation of consoles, starting in 2005 or 2006.  And, just like in 1995-1996,
> somebody (probably Nintendo, again) will ignore online gaming and lose most 3rd
> party and consumer support.

The CD-ROM took off because it offered both publishers and consumers something
they wanted.  Publishers wanted a cheaper media than cartridges, and consumers
wanted bigger games with more features.  It was a win-win situation.

I don't see anything similar with on-line console gaming.

If the game goes totally (or near-totally) server-side, then the publishers
will really LOVE that, as their distribution and publishing costs go WAY
down and there's no chance of getting stuck with tons of unsold copies.
But, the consumer won't be at all happy with that arrangement because he's
used to paying money and getting something in his hands, not stored off on
some server somewhere he can't even see.

If the game stays mostly client-side, then there's really not much of a
difference for publishers to make online game features worth their while,
as their costs are higher but they can't get more money out of the consumer
for it.  The consumers may like it, but the publishers won't net any profit.

Unless there's a way for both sides to benefit substantially, there's going
to be a natural resistance to change by one side or the other.
All imho

<snip>

-- 
ense petite placidum sub libertate quietem;
With the sword she seeks calm repose under
liberty: By the sword we seek peace, but
peace only under liberty.
(motto of Massachusetts)