Ninja Dodo Posted January 18, 2005 Not really you so much, anyway... Point is, maybe it would do the games industry good if they froze hardware development and allowed people the time to just really experiment with the tools that are available now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twilo Posted January 18, 2005 Point is, maybe it would do the games industry good if they froze hardware development and allowed people the time to just really experiment with the tools that are available now. I made the point earlier on that this isn't feasible, because there's nothing to stop one developer from running ahead of the "freeze" and releasing something new (which captures the market). The "industry" doesn't act as a single body, no group of capitalist concerns do (for example, the RIAA doesn't represent all the labels). Consoles are in a sense "frozen" because they tend these days to come out within a year of eachother, and are controlled by a single company and have 5-ish year cycles. An open standard as discussed in the article would have a counter-intuitive result; a variety of different hardwares running the same software a la windows pc's is going to work exactly like windows pcs running on a variety of hardwares. it'll be a mess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lailoken Posted January 18, 2005 i guess in an ideal world we (the consumers that is in this instance) would be totally focused on gameplay and not care about visualls and technology and could steer the industry into the right direction, i guess we only get what we want, or... them... anyway most gamers want things to be exactly the way they are and that's not going to change for a long time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ninja Dodo Posted January 18, 2005 It happened with film, it will happen with games, sooner or later technology will hit a plateau. Already, you can't really sell a game on graphics technology anymore. Visual aesthetics help to be sure, but "Now with normal maps and realtime shadows!" is not going to sell a game. As the article describes though, if game developers just play their cards right and continue developing for older hardware in the early stages of the next generation, a lot of smaller developers may be saved from going under. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redwall Posted January 18, 2005 What about Doom 3? Well, maybe graphics and nostalgia. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris Posted January 19, 2005 The plateau hasn't really happened with film. A movie can still make big box office numbers, if not longtime appreciation, by just looking really spectacular. However, it's evened out enough such that filmmakers don't really need to think about it if their movies don't warrant it. In games, any developer still needs to constantly think about minimum requirements and compatibility issues. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simon Posted January 19, 2005 It will be interesting when games technology hits a plateau, because presumably, it's going to affect the usual cycles of the industry, i.e. there won't be as great a call for another generation of consoles and graphics cards every x months/years. This might be ignorance/short-sightedness, but that seems something possible, and something that would affect how the industry operates in big ways. It's hard to imagine a climate in which there aren't massive launch titles, and certain games that everyone 'has to upgrade for', every few years. But that could happen at some distant point in the future. This industry pace shift would probably be a good thing for developers, overall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twilo Posted January 19, 2005 Film is a fundamentally different animal to video games because one is interactive and the other isn't. Game technology is going to continue advancing because we're always going to be looking towards total immersion. This means more complexity, as we are given more and more choices within a game, and obviously the better graphics/sound etc. It's not going to stop just so people can get used to the tools. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simon Posted January 19, 2005 But I don't think that the ultimate in interactivity is 'total immersion', I think it's more like 'total fun', and they don't necessarily equal each other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erkki Posted January 19, 2005 Film is a fundamentally different animal to video games because one is interactive and the other isn't. Yes, on the user side all a film needs to do in the end is put pixels to a screen and sound to speakers. A computer game can be millions of times more complicated than that at run-time. So I think they can't be compared like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
