With the announcement that Microsoft will be releasing a version of Xbox One without Kinect at $100 less than the current retail package, I'm going to go ahead and say the customers have spoken, and gimmicks aren't going to sell systems.
We've actually been seeing this coming for a while. Even the Wii, which was hugely successful, was a disappointment for a lot of people. Not because it was underpowered and standard def when everyone else was going HD, although that was disappointing enough, but because we never really got that 1:1 experience we all expected to have, where we swung the remote around like a real sword fight and our on-screen counterpart did the same. Instead we mostly got to waggle the controller around a bit and hope we didn't develop tennis elbow. That's not to say the Wii was without any quality software, but most of the games I enjoyed either used very little motion control, or let me plug in a Classic Pro and drop the Wii Remote completely. One area I did enjoy the Wii Remote was FPS games, using the pointer for pixel-perfect aim, and they released somewhere around 2-3 decent ones through the entire console's life. Go figure.
The 3DS was priced too high when it was released and people lashed back, saying they didn't want glasses free 3D anyway, so they weren't going to pay a premium for the technology. Nintendo answered first with a price drop, and more recently with the 2DS, which drops 3D from the system altogether. Personally, I like 3D in most games, and think it adds a bit of depth and makes the experience more immersive in some cases, but I figured I'd make the point that the 3D gimmick was NOT a system seller. It wasn't until the system built a library of some of the best games on the market that people started buying the it. Games sell systems, not gimmicks.
Nintendo is falling prey to this line of thinking once again with the Wii U. "Hey, we have a Gamepad with a touch screen and some cool features" they're saying, while not releasing a single piece of software that sells anyone on the tech. So far the best use of the Gamepad I've seen has been off screen gaming, which is fantastic if, like me, you like to play while someone else is watching TV, but useless if you have a dedicated TV for gaming or something like that. It's been cool to have a map in my hands, and there have been some neat uses for inventory and stuff like that, but there's absolutely nothing about it that screams "you need this to play games!"
Microsoft, as they tend to do, saw another company's success and said "me too!" What they didn't seem to realize was the Wii was an anomaly, and priced to kill when it was released. With Kinect, they have some cool ideas for sure, but 9.9 times out of 10 people are going to opt for the simple press of a button rather than flailing around their living rooms like a spider just landed on their face. And talking to your TV never makes you look cool. If I can quietly press a button to do the same function as yelling at a little black box, I'm going to chose the button, for fear that the men in white coats will come after me. I haven't played around with an Xbox One, but I'm sure the voice commands work wonderfully in a quiet setting, but I have a feeling I'f use them once or twice, then forget about it and go back to a controller for input.
Sony seems to have caught on to this, and just released a super powerful system with a standard controller that just works right out of the box and plays and controls like every game system before it but just looks better. And that brings us to the problem...
After all my ranting and ripping companies apart, what does this all mean for gamers? Personally, I think it's both good and bad. On the good side, I think when developers don't have to worry about integrating gimmicks in to their games, especially cross-platform games, they can focus on just delivering quality content and more resources can go to things like story and graphics. The same thing can be said for the console makers. When they don't have to spend time and money coming up with gimmicks, they can focus on making top quality consoles that are powerful and less expensive. Clearly, with Microsoft cutting a full $100 off the price of their console just for taking out Kinect, there is some room to save costs when you're not paying for a product you're likely not going to use much anyway.
On the bad side, it kind of kills the innovation. If Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all stop gimmicks and put out ultra powerful consoles with pretty similar looking, standard controllers, where is innovation in the industry going to come from? Is all innovation just going to be graphical? If so, I think we're hitting a bit of a limit. I remember the jump from SNES to N64 and being blown away by real 3D graphics. I remember the jump from N64 to Gamecube and PS2 that smoothed out those rough edges and blocky textures and made things feel more real. I remember the jump to HD with Xbox 360 and PS3 that upped the realism and made things look amazing on my brand new HDTV. This recent jump to Xbox One and PS4... meh. Things looks amazing, don't get me wrong, but I don't think we're even going to experience those types of dramatic jumps where anyone, even someone that's never played a game in their life, can look and say "wow, that looks so much better than before".
That's why I love Nintendo. They don't care. They swing for the fences every damn time, and hope something connects. For the Wii, they had a home run. For the 3DS, it took some time, but they got there. Especially in a world where I can download a great looking game like Infinity Blade 3 to my phone in a couple of seconds, the success of the 3DS is a testament to Nintendo's quality. The Wii U might be flailing a bit now, but if they look at it like the 3DS, consider a price drop, and get some quality software out there, it'll be ok. At least they stick to their guns, and I can't wait to see what they come out with next.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has been just coming off as spineless this entire generation. Last year's E3 was embarrassing. I loved my 360, but have been strongly considering switching to PS4 for this gen simply because MS doesn't seem like they have a clear plan. They say something, get their ass handed to them, then say "yeah, we're going to do what they're doing too. We're still cool, right?" Make a choice and stick with it. Even this announcement is all over the place. I read something basically saying "we're dropping Kinect but we still think it's an integral part of our strategy". If it's integral, leave it in there. If you need to play catchup, drop the price and take a loss for a bit. Don't flop around and make desperate decisions. An art teacher I had in high school would always say "make a decision. Make a choice, even if it's the wrong one, and go with it." and I always try to remember that in life. You're going to make dumb calls. You're going to do things that don't make sense, or that other people don't get right away, or at all. But you made that choice. Follow it through. I think Microsoft could learn from both Nintendo and Sony. Right now, it's trying to have the best of both worlds, and it's not doing the best at either.
Showing posts with label iPhone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iPhone. Show all posts
Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Friday, 7 March 2014
A future scenario with my idea of smart technology
After using my Pebble for a week and really enjoying the experience, I can't help but wonder what's next in the wearable market. Apple has a great track record of taking a concept that already exists and boiling it down to what that product can do better, and while I mentioned in my review, I think Pebble is on the right track for what I personally want in a "smart watch", I think Apple's experience with the iPad can teach us a lot. Most people (myself included), immediately brushed off the iPad as a bigger iPhone/iPod touch, which they already had, so why did they need one they couldn't fit in their pocket? But Apple knew that the iPad would be better at a few key things, namely browsing the Internet, looking at photos, and reading email. Obviously, looking at the market now where tablet sales will overtake traditional computer sales within a year or so, they hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure what it will be, if I did I'd hopefully be working for Apple, but I'm sure they're going to come up with something for their wearable product that all at once makes you go "I can't believe I didn't think of that" and "I can't live without this from now on".
All of this has gotten me thinking about the future of technology, and what we might expect to see in the next few years. Particularly, as smart phones get fast and more powerful, what kinds of new experiences we might get as a result of carrying around a powerful, capable computer in our pockets. With the Pebble, no longer needing to reach in to my pocket to see every notification is nice. While I'm driving, being able to tap my wrist to answer call without taking my eyes off the road, or hands off the steering wheel, has been useful already. Weather is a glance away with the right watch face. Not needing to turn on my phone's screen for these simple tasks has actually been extending my iPhone's battery life more than keeping my connection to the Pebble drains it, as I guessed it might in my review. The iPhone does all the heavy lifting and the watch is a simple way for it to relay the information I need at a glance. What else could the iPhone do while still in my pocket?
With iBeacons, some companies are already exploring what I think will be a standard technology in a few years. For those of you that don't know, iBeacons can be placed throughout pretty much any location and relay information to and from your phone. For instance, a recent concept I saw allows you to open an app for a store you're visiting, scan items with your phone to add to a wish list, get information through descriptions and video relevant to where you are standing in the store, and more. The thing that interested me the most, however, was the iPad set up in the store that would detect the app on your phone and recognize you, even if your phone was in your pocket, and bring up your wish list when you touched the screen. This is great for shopping experiences, but I can see more every day use of this kind of technology. Since an iPad can function as an iBeacon, what's stopping an iMac or other kind of computer from functioning the same way? Or a special monitor? I'll explain what I mean.
I imagine a few years from now my day could look like this;
I wake up in the morning and my watch transfers my sleep data to my phone, where I can look up my movement and monitor sleep patterns. I go to get a shower and my phone tells the tiny screen on my mirror that I'm in the room, which then displays the weather for the day and reminds me of my meeting at 9am. In the car, my dash recognizes both my phone and my girlfriend's phone (actually she'll probably kill me if we're not at least engaged by then) and lets us choose who's music library we'll listen to (mine). It can sort out our maps and appointments as well, and since it knows who's driving, create a route that makes sense with me dropping her off first, then continuing on my way.
At work, my iMac will still be my primary work station, but it will wake up and log in once it detects my phone/me. I can set up using touch ID on my watch or phone as a password to unlock the computer if I choose for some extra security. Today, I use an iPad at work if I need to show an ad design or something to someone else in the office, and just transfer the image to the iPad through email or dropbox. I'd like to think if Apple wanted to, iPads as they currently exist could be cut out completely. Instead, you have the option to buy a thin, light screen in a few different sizes. They'd still call these things iPads probably, but like the watch, the heavy lifting is done through the iPhone, and the new iPad is thinner and lighter than ever before because the iPhone is providing all the muscle. They could still have decent processors, capable of browsing and the tasks most people use iPads for, but like the 15 inch Retina MacBook Pro can switch between integrated and discreet graphics now, it could tap in to your phone or a nearby computer to borrow some juice for more intense activities. AirDrop and iCloud allow you to share files between devices more easily than ever.
After work, I head to the mall, where I approach a monitor that talks to my phone and detects which apps are already there and what I might have looked up prices for. It knows my buying habits and brings up a map highlighting which stores have sales on things I might be interested in, any coupons or deals I might want, and generally makes the shopping experience much more personal, just upon entry. Entering a store brings up things from that store's app, and purchases can be paid for through a simple Touch ID transaction from my watch. If I don't have the app, iOS can detect the iBeacon and suggest I download it, which I can accept right from my watch without having to pull my phone out of my pocket. These iBeacons also allow my phone to be location aware without always having to resort to battery draining GPS, making check-ins a snap, and there's an option in iOS to allow iBeacons to intelligently open and close relevant apps automatically, keeping you from needing to have multiple apps running at the same time, again saving battery life and the need to take your phone out and manually select which apps are open.
Through monitors like the ones in the mall, or even other people's computers, you could access your email, documents, etc through iCloud, with your phone seamlessly logging you in, while nothing is stored on the monitors themselves, keeping security risks of using public terminals at a minimum. Obviously with all of this connectivity there are security and privacy risks, but again if I could figure out all of this stuff on my own, I'd likely be working at Apple or somewhere like that, instead of daydreaming in my blog.
At the end of the day, brushing my teeth before bed, that same mirror could display my steps for the day vs. any fitness goals I may have set, and other monitored activity, my appointments for tomorrow, and the weather forecast.
I'll stop there, because I could go on for pages thinking about different little concepts, but through that whole day I hardly mentioned having to take my phone out of my pocket.
I really see the phone as the center of our computing lives in the future. With the A7 chip, I've experienced blazing fast speeds in everything from games to video editing. Give it a couple of years, and I still don't see it replacing a desktop for professional level stuff, but I can envision it lending it's smarts to other devices and affording them to be cheaper, smaller, lighter, and much more convenient.
What do you think? Is all of this a bit too much? Did I miss any kind of integration you'd like to see? Let me know in the comments.
All of this has gotten me thinking about the future of technology, and what we might expect to see in the next few years. Particularly, as smart phones get fast and more powerful, what kinds of new experiences we might get as a result of carrying around a powerful, capable computer in our pockets. With the Pebble, no longer needing to reach in to my pocket to see every notification is nice. While I'm driving, being able to tap my wrist to answer call without taking my eyes off the road, or hands off the steering wheel, has been useful already. Weather is a glance away with the right watch face. Not needing to turn on my phone's screen for these simple tasks has actually been extending my iPhone's battery life more than keeping my connection to the Pebble drains it, as I guessed it might in my review. The iPhone does all the heavy lifting and the watch is a simple way for it to relay the information I need at a glance. What else could the iPhone do while still in my pocket?
With iBeacons, some companies are already exploring what I think will be a standard technology in a few years. For those of you that don't know, iBeacons can be placed throughout pretty much any location and relay information to and from your phone. For instance, a recent concept I saw allows you to open an app for a store you're visiting, scan items with your phone to add to a wish list, get information through descriptions and video relevant to where you are standing in the store, and more. The thing that interested me the most, however, was the iPad set up in the store that would detect the app on your phone and recognize you, even if your phone was in your pocket, and bring up your wish list when you touched the screen. This is great for shopping experiences, but I can see more every day use of this kind of technology. Since an iPad can function as an iBeacon, what's stopping an iMac or other kind of computer from functioning the same way? Or a special monitor? I'll explain what I mean.
I imagine a few years from now my day could look like this;
I wake up in the morning and my watch transfers my sleep data to my phone, where I can look up my movement and monitor sleep patterns. I go to get a shower and my phone tells the tiny screen on my mirror that I'm in the room, which then displays the weather for the day and reminds me of my meeting at 9am. In the car, my dash recognizes both my phone and my girlfriend's phone (actually she'll probably kill me if we're not at least engaged by then) and lets us choose who's music library we'll listen to (mine). It can sort out our maps and appointments as well, and since it knows who's driving, create a route that makes sense with me dropping her off first, then continuing on my way.
At work, my iMac will still be my primary work station, but it will wake up and log in once it detects my phone/me. I can set up using touch ID on my watch or phone as a password to unlock the computer if I choose for some extra security. Today, I use an iPad at work if I need to show an ad design or something to someone else in the office, and just transfer the image to the iPad through email or dropbox. I'd like to think if Apple wanted to, iPads as they currently exist could be cut out completely. Instead, you have the option to buy a thin, light screen in a few different sizes. They'd still call these things iPads probably, but like the watch, the heavy lifting is done through the iPhone, and the new iPad is thinner and lighter than ever before because the iPhone is providing all the muscle. They could still have decent processors, capable of browsing and the tasks most people use iPads for, but like the 15 inch Retina MacBook Pro can switch between integrated and discreet graphics now, it could tap in to your phone or a nearby computer to borrow some juice for more intense activities. AirDrop and iCloud allow you to share files between devices more easily than ever.
After work, I head to the mall, where I approach a monitor that talks to my phone and detects which apps are already there and what I might have looked up prices for. It knows my buying habits and brings up a map highlighting which stores have sales on things I might be interested in, any coupons or deals I might want, and generally makes the shopping experience much more personal, just upon entry. Entering a store brings up things from that store's app, and purchases can be paid for through a simple Touch ID transaction from my watch. If I don't have the app, iOS can detect the iBeacon and suggest I download it, which I can accept right from my watch without having to pull my phone out of my pocket. These iBeacons also allow my phone to be location aware without always having to resort to battery draining GPS, making check-ins a snap, and there's an option in iOS to allow iBeacons to intelligently open and close relevant apps automatically, keeping you from needing to have multiple apps running at the same time, again saving battery life and the need to take your phone out and manually select which apps are open.
Through monitors like the ones in the mall, or even other people's computers, you could access your email, documents, etc through iCloud, with your phone seamlessly logging you in, while nothing is stored on the monitors themselves, keeping security risks of using public terminals at a minimum. Obviously with all of this connectivity there are security and privacy risks, but again if I could figure out all of this stuff on my own, I'd likely be working at Apple or somewhere like that, instead of daydreaming in my blog.
At the end of the day, brushing my teeth before bed, that same mirror could display my steps for the day vs. any fitness goals I may have set, and other monitored activity, my appointments for tomorrow, and the weather forecast.
I'll stop there, because I could go on for pages thinking about different little concepts, but through that whole day I hardly mentioned having to take my phone out of my pocket.
I really see the phone as the center of our computing lives in the future. With the A7 chip, I've experienced blazing fast speeds in everything from games to video editing. Give it a couple of years, and I still don't see it replacing a desktop for professional level stuff, but I can envision it lending it's smarts to other devices and affording them to be cheaper, smaller, lighter, and much more convenient.
What do you think? Is all of this a bit too much? Did I miss any kind of integration you'd like to see? Let me know in the comments.
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Downloadable games
I'm a big fan of downloadable media. Years of collecting movies and games have left me with bookshelves full of plastic cases, and I simply don't have room for another giant shelf to store another generation worth of plastic. I've grown used to getting my content through streaming or downloading, thanks largely to Apple's ecosystem. I can download games to my iPhone or iPad, stream movies to my Apple TV, and access my music anywhere, any time. I've used the Nintendo eShop to download a number of titles on my 3DS, and not just download-only games. The last couple of top-tier games I bought, I chose to download rather than get the physical copy in a store. Portable titles, however, seem to be where the convenience hits a turning point for me.
The other night I saw that Ubisoft was having a 30% off sale on the Wii U eShop. "Perfect!" I thought! "This is a perfect chance to get Assassin's Creed 3 on sale, and get some points for my Wii U digital promotion deal". The purchasing of the game was as easy as it could be, but possibly due to other people thinking along the same lines that I was, or maybe due to some other issue, the game hit errors 3 times during the download. I didn't notice these errors right away either. If I had wanted to play this game quickly, it would have been much easier to drive to a store, buy the game, come home, cook a turkey, eat, change in to some post turkey dinner sweat pants, and sit down to play. At the point the downloadable game might have hit its second error message.
What I'm really trying to say is the convenience isn't really there. With mobile titles, the sizes are small enough that I can wait a couple of minutes, grab a drink, and play my game. It's easy. With a console title, like AC3, the size (16 gb in this case) makes it so even on my super fast FibreOp connection, I still have to wait a long time. PS4 seems to have the right idea, claiming you can play while you download, but I'll wait to see this in action before I start singing it's praises.
That's my rant for the day. I love downloading games, hate long wait times, and believe that a better solution needs to be found before people really embrace digital content. What do you think? Do you download now? If so, what are your thoughts, and if not, what would make you consider switching to digital?
The other night I saw that Ubisoft was having a 30% off sale on the Wii U eShop. "Perfect!" I thought! "This is a perfect chance to get Assassin's Creed 3 on sale, and get some points for my Wii U digital promotion deal". The purchasing of the game was as easy as it could be, but possibly due to other people thinking along the same lines that I was, or maybe due to some other issue, the game hit errors 3 times during the download. I didn't notice these errors right away either. If I had wanted to play this game quickly, it would have been much easier to drive to a store, buy the game, come home, cook a turkey, eat, change in to some post turkey dinner sweat pants, and sit down to play. At the point the downloadable game might have hit its second error message.
What I'm really trying to say is the convenience isn't really there. With mobile titles, the sizes are small enough that I can wait a couple of minutes, grab a drink, and play my game. It's easy. With a console title, like AC3, the size (16 gb in this case) makes it so even on my super fast FibreOp connection, I still have to wait a long time. PS4 seems to have the right idea, claiming you can play while you download, but I'll wait to see this in action before I start singing it's praises.
That's my rant for the day. I love downloading games, hate long wait times, and believe that a better solution needs to be found before people really embrace digital content. What do you think? Do you download now? If so, what are your thoughts, and if not, what would make you consider switching to digital?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)