The Smile of a Devil

[IskatuMesk]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3180255&cmpid=0101

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has spoken out against dedicated videogame consoles, claiming that his company could be making significantly more money on more open platforms like the PC.

Speaking to the Financial Times (registration required), Kotick claims that 60 percent of Xbox Live users are there "principally because of Call of Duty," and that Activision doesn't see a fair share of the money from it.

Kotick described closed console networks as "walled gardens," and said that his company would "very aggressively" support PC manufacturers such as Dell and HP in any efforts to produce gamer-friendly PCs that plug directly into televisions, creating the opportunity for Activision to open an online network of its own.

Kotick made similar statements to The Wall Street Journal last month, claiming at the time that only 30 percent of the company's profits come from console games.

Yep, same guy who has Blizzard under his feet.

[Lavarinth]

A computer.. That can connect to the.. Television...

GENIUS!

[imgwh 520x337]http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/up ... _front.jpg[/imgwh]

[IskatuMesk]

GAMER-FRIENDLY PCS! MY GOD THIS WILL REVOLUTIONIZE EVERYTHING!

[Magic]

Yep, same guy who has Blizzard under his feet.

No he doesn't, the two companies operate independently of each other, they just share the same corporate umbrella.

Not saying he isn't a tool though, but he's a rich man who tells his shareholders what they want to hear.

A computer.. That can connect to the.. Television...

GENIUS!

[imgwh 520x337]http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/up ... _front.jpg[/imgwh]

That is genius.

[IskatuMesk]

That's what they all say.

[Xelxiuz]

Magic take two seconds to think about it. Would there be any strategic or legally compromising issue with not telling the truth in this case? No there isn't, because orders don't have to be official when you play the game at that level of business. Even Blizzard never just flat out says they failed at something when they did (Bnet 2.0 if your memory can't go back over a year) let alone Kotick.

[Magic]

Magic take two seconds to think about it. Would there be any strategic or legally compromising issue with not telling the truth in this case? No there isn't, because orders don't have to be official when you play the game at that level of business. Even Blizzard never just flat out says they failed at something when they did (Bnet 2.0 if your memory can't go back over a year) let alone Kotick.

Bullshit still smells of bullshit and I don't like that. I imagine he'll exaggerate the success of his company, like any businessman (arguably), but I'd really like to know what he's basing his statement on exactly.

Either way, he's a man who said he wants to take all of the fun out of developing games., so I take everything he says with a pinch of salt and a dose of scepticism.

And why are you singling me out when Mesk posted to similar effect? 

[GreatGodSajuuk]

Oh so he's going to fight against dedicated video game consoles by making pc's that are dedicated ga...

oic

[Magic]

Or playing games through a 'monitor' over the internet.

OnLive isn't a pipe dream. Plenty of debatable points but the technology is quite amazing and could really be the future of gaming or at least part of it.

[UntamedLoli]

For people that can't afford or don't want a powerful PC and don't like owning their games.

[IskatuMesk]

Or playing games through a 'monitor' over the internet.

OnLive isn't a pipe dream. Plenty of debatable points but the technology is quite amazing and could really be the future of gaming or at least part of it.

The technology will probably be used somewhere but I highly doubt in this context. Latency, quality, and bandwidth costs would far outweigh the benefit. You can't defy the speed of light, unfortunately. (Or CAN YOU?!)

[Marco]

If you can make a less useful Tablet PC and sell it, anything can be sold with the right marketing.  I don't think they have it like Apple does though.  Another ambitious piece of technology for the history books.

[Magic]

For people that can't afford or don't want a powerful PC and don't like owning their games.

Or playing games through a 'monitor' over the internet.

OnLive isn't a pipe dream. Plenty of debatable points but the technology is quite amazing and could really be the future of gaming or at least part of it.

The technology will probably be used somewhere but I highly doubt in this context. Latency, quality, and bandwidth costs would far outweigh the benefit. You can't defy the speed of light, unfortunately. (Or CAN YOU?!)

150 to 200 ms is very much bearable for most games, yet advances in telecomms will surely only make it better.

As someone in the EG comments points out, it seems (apparently) that you'll have to pay a subscription fee PLUS payment for each game. According to Wikipedia, it's $14.95 a month with no mention of game costs, though I could imagine the prices being like those on Steam.

If you can make a less useful Tablet PC and sell it, anything can be sold with the right marketing.  I don't think they have it like Apple does though.  Another ambitious piece of technology for the history books.

AOL spring to mind. God awful technology with extremely high levels of marketing. Crazy.

Apple presumably have the experience and finances - OnLive are just starting out. Who knows where they'll end up...

[GreatGodSajuuk]

Well actually 200ms delay on your controls will make any singleplayer game unplayable. your mouse will have 200ms of delay in it's movements, it's awful.

[IskatuMesk]

150-200 ms ... BEARABLE? Um, no.

And this isn't your regular latency this is latency on your INPUT as well. It is even worse than what you experience right now.