In the box

I've been thinking about consoles vs PC and mobile gaming, and add-on peripherals.

I recently bought a PS3/PC racing wheel for a steal ($10.00 clearance from The Source)

I borrowed Test Drive Unlimited 2 from the library... It's an Ok game, but not optimized for racing wheels. There are parts of the game which switch to on-foot first person view (!)  that can only be controlled using a Dualshock 3... Or at least it is VERY DIFFICULT to control using the wheel.

Anyway, the point is I am wondering how many console  racing games are TRULY made for racing wheels?  The answer is probably few to none. Why? Because what game company wants to make a game that needs a controller that is not included "in the box"? That the consumer needs to not only buy the game but also another controller to properly play it?

If a game does that it is automatically limiting its own market. Not every PS3 gamer will buy a PS3 game, but then if the game requires a certain kind of add-on, like Move, not only will not every PS3 gamer buy that game, but not every Move owner may buy it. It makes a smaller pool of customers.

That is definitely why stuff like the Wii Balance Board failed. But what about the Wii itself? Motion controls are" in the box" for every Wii.

But because ONLY the Wii had those controls, companies wouldn't develop for it. That's why I am a bit worried about Xbox One's kinnect "in the box". Yes, that is a smart move so every Xbox One has Kinnect, but I think because both or all consoles don't have a "Kinnect"  type of controller included, that third parties will still shy away from developing for it. Most companies want to be able to quickly port their game to both Xbox and Playstation.

"In the box" is really important, but what is more important is "in every box". Unfortunately, only the dual analogue stick controller is central to every console now, so that is the control that will be used for most games. Makes it almost impossible for anyone to innovate.

There is a notable exception to this idea: the Guitar Hero/Rockband series of games. Clearly the initial popularity of those games flies in the face of this idea, people bought the controllers in droves and for awhile these were some of the best selling games. But that fad has passed, and it is now back to normal, where companies don't want to take any chances.

It is such a shame, because we are at the point now where there are tons of gaming choices, Android/Apple phones/tablets, consoles, handhelds with both physical and touch interfaces, and of course the ever versatile PC. We can use bluetooth to wirelessly attach a controller to a phone or tablet... but there will be almost NO great games that take advantage of these options because bluetooth controllers are not "in every box" of phones/tablets.


later
don

Console conundrums

So I've placed pre-orders for both Xbox One and PS4... but I don't know if  I will actually purchase either of them at this point, really.

Xbox One has many issues, most notable being the need to be connected to the Internet at least once every 24 hours. But  I have other concerns that I haven't seen addressed anywhere. It ships with a 500 GB hard drive, yet all disc games must be installed to the system. Say a game averages 30-40 GB and considering that 500 GB is not *really* how much user available space there is, let's say 400 GB is around what's available... then we can only have about 10 games installed on our Xbox Ones? I heard we can add our own external hard drive to the console (presumably USB connected)  but I wonder how well an external hard drive would run the games off it? No hiccups? There are often problems with external storage with the Wii U for example.

Not to mention that Xbox One seems to be marketed as an all-around media device, so aside from games, the 500 GB hard drive will be filled up with videos and other media which will crowd out the space for games.

I can understand why it would be good to have a game stored to the hard drive, but I wish it was more a choice rather than all games must be stored on it.

Then there's the PS4. It's a box that plays games. Well, I have a bunch of boxes that do that, but the most notable example is my PS3. What does the PS4 *really* offer that the PS3 doesn't? A little better graphics, and a few differences in interface (touch pad, move light on the controller) but what *REALLY* sets it apart from the PS3? Why pay $400.00 + tax for it now?

In both cases, I have to look at the launch games, is there anything that blows me away, to the point that I Must buy one or both of these systems to play that game? Only one game was teased at E3 2013 that fits that description: Star Wars Battlefront. Yes, I have been waiting years for a new Battlefront game. But it was only a teaser, development has only just begun on it. Who knows when it will be released? A year? 2 years from now? I can say that for that game I *WOULD* buy a console just to play it.

But since it is not coming anytime soon, maybe I should just wait?


Later
Don