Consoles are no longer Consoles

People these days talk a lot about how the next console generation will be the last console generation. They are wrong. The era of the XBox, PS2, and Gamecube was the last console generation. What we have now are not consoles. They are entire home entertainment systems contained in a small chassis. Other than the ability to receive phone calls, your smartphone and your entertainment chassis are pretty much the same thing. Everyone wonders when the next "console" generation will come out, and many were disappointed about the lack of announcements at this year's E3. Well, I hate to tell you, but it won't be for a while. Why? Contracts.

Let me break it down for you. Sony and Microsoft have contracts with many different companies to deliver media on their systems for a price. XBox alone has Netflix, ESPN, Hulu Plus, Amazon Video, DVR capabilities for Verizon and Comcast, and contracts with dozens of different production companies to stream and sell movies and music via their Zune service. With a new console, they would have to double up these contracts to get the same services on next generation hardware. Furthermore, the price of these contracts would go up. A more expensive console means the service providers would want a bigger piece of the pie. The apps for delivering all this content would have to be rewritten to be compatible with next generation hardware. The cost of a new entertainment chassis would be at least $699, or the price of a cheap computer.

It seems, though, that Microsoft may have a leg up on the competition in the form of Windows 8. Windows 8 was only briefly mentioned at their E3 press conference, and what was mentioned was the fact that XBox 360 games will be playable in the operating system. Also remember that Kinect is now compatible with Windows and Windows 8 uses the Metro UI, the same UI found on XBox 360 and Windows Phone 7. What this says to me is that the next XBox will be a Windows 8 computer, one with an app store where Microsoft can let these companies program their own executables. Unfortunately there will be no way to guarantee all the services at launch of the new XBox that are available as apps on the 360, but if it does just ship with Windows 8 then all those services will be accessible via their websites anyway.

One other bullet Microsoft will have to bite with a Windows 8-powered next gen XBox is that the platform will have to be more open. They can do their best to close it off, eliminating access to the registry, command prompt, control panel, etc. but they won't be able to do anything to stop developers from distributing apps over their own websites, or competing services like Steam. The only way they could would be if it did not have Internet Explorer installed from the start (which it will, what with it coming out on 360 this fall) or blocked installation of programs without some kind of digital approval stamp, much like what Apple is doing for OSX programs now. No matter how closed they try to make it, at its core it will be Windows 8-powered, and someone will find a way to gain access to the full Windows buried deep inside. At that point, there'll be no stopping it from becoming the rumored Steam Box.

So where does this leave Sony? Well, pretty much in the dust, unless they team up with Microsoft to create a Playstation-certified Windows 8 VAIO which, believe it or not, is a definite possibility. Heck, we've heard rumors that the next XBox will have a Blu-Ray drive. Since 360 games will be playable in Windows 8, they'll just all become PC games. That would just leave new, specialty Blu-Ray games to be playable in the system's drive, ones that would only be compatible with this system. Yes, I understand there is a lot of conflict here, mainly between Playstation Network and Xbox Live, but are either of those going to matter when you have Steam games running on your 60" TV? Don't think so.

In the end, the PC is going to be the winner, just as it has been for every console generation. At the beginning of a console generation, everyone thinks the PC is dead. By the end, PC game sales have embarrassed console game sales (cough Diablo 3 cough); they end up with more services, openness, usability, and power; no contract requirements on the end of the manufacturer; and PCs do not become outdated as quickly as consoles (with the exception of laptops built to be weak like netbooks).

Windows has won the console war. Deal with it.

Oh, right, Nintendo. Yeah, um, whatever.

Don't Be a Dick

Too often I hear people give excuses for not having an XBox Live Gold account for a reason similar to "everyone on there is an asshole." Unfortunately, I don't disagree. The last decade created a culture of immaturity in online gaming that can only be surpassed by anyone who thinks George W. Bush is still the President. But before that, I remember making some really great friends in online games, friends with whom I ended up going to college, friends who now have jobs at some pretty prestigious companies. So what went wrong, and when did the general dickishness anonymity of the internet bleed over into games?

To find out, we need to return to the beginning of the last decade, as the N64 was beginning to be phased out and online gaming was just becoming a possibility on consoles. Up until this point, multiplayer gaming across the information superhighway more commonly known as "the interweb" had been a strictly PC gaming affair, with DOOM pioneering the same Deathmatch mode we still play to this day, and MUDs laying the groundwork for MMOs. These were games where the community was limited and new games with internet connectivity were sparse enough that you could actually get to know a player or two before they moved onto a different game, maybe even get their e-mail address or AIM or ICQ information to keep in touch. Back in late 90's/early 2000's, I played a ton of Jazz Jackrabbit 2 online, and to this day I view it as the best online experience I have ever had and will ever have (but more on that in a bit). This culture of sociable multiplayer bled over to the Dreamcast, as again, not many people had the connectors to hook their Dreamcasts up to the internet, and most people were still on dialup anyway.

Then, two things happened simultaneously in 2001. First, the XBox was released and Microsoft who, like it or not, had always had a stake in gaming with Windows, officially entered the console market. This gargantuan piece of machinery had, at the time, an unused ethernet port in the back. This allowed for some roundabout multiplayer gaming, but was still fairly limited. You have to assume most users wouldn't have gone through the trouble of logging into unofficially supported multiplayer services if it was tough to even know if they existed in the first place. Most people who did that had most likely come from the PC online gaming crowd, and were used to such roundabout hacks to get games going.

However, the other thing that happened on the XBox launch day was the launch of the Halo series, and with that First Person Shooters began falling into the hands of frat boys around the country, previously relegated to Madden games on the SNES and Playstation. Their assholery at first was confined to their own rooms and houses, and we didn't have to hear them. But their numbers were growing, and they were just waiting to take their hate online.

Then, exactly a year later, XBox Live went, well, live. It started small, but we all suspected what would happen. The Halo 2 was announced, and we knew what was coming. Finally, once Halo 2 was released, that was it. Online gaming would never be the same, and from that point on you would never be able to join a game without someone telling you to suck their dick.

Am I putting ALL the blame on the Halo series? That would be easy, wouldn't it? It's not Bungie's fault. I repeat: IT'S NOT BUNGIE'S FAULT. I'd just like to get that out of the way right now. They made a brilliant game, and it just happened to fall into the hands of a few bad eggs who created a culture of making it okay to turn smack talking into a despicable artform. What did happen, however, and what's ignored, is that children don't buy their own games. Parents buy games for their kids, no matter the regulations on "age restrictions." So before you know it, an impressionable 12 year old is playing Halo 2 online with a bunch of drunk 21-year olds shotgunning each other in the face and mocking each other for it with very colorful language. That 12 year old then grows up not knowing a different way to act online, and teaching their friends to act online in the same way. Before you know it, you have an entire generation formed around making enemies online instead of making friends, which then influences the NEXT generation to get themselves choked via playing games online because they think there are no consequences for their actions.

The Simpsons Did It First!

The solution? Well, there's no absolute solution to the problem, and I think various services will start cracking down on this kind of social behavior (choking not withstanding, which is really, ahem, out of their hands) in one way or another. Maybe black marks against accounts that have a history of verbal abuse that prevent them from joining specific servers online? Maybe just flat out banning users who can't keep their big mouths shut?

Personally, I'd prefer to see a softer approach. No, not ignoring the problem, but a solution no one has come up with: encouraging us game developers to create games that would foster more positive communities through more positive gameplay. Returning to Jazz Jackrabbit 2, what made that game so great to play online was the gameplay itself was light-hearted; there was no punishment for death (respawning was nearly instant); user generated content was distributed effortlessly by just joining a server, including custom made "Hotel" levels where violence flat out was NOT allowed, and yet the gameplay remained just as engaging (try doing THAT in Call of Duty); and the community was small but devoted. Nowadays, when a game isn't big, you can't find anyone playing multiplayer at all, but to this day you can still find a few people playing JJ2 online. All this created a positive multiplayer environment, and that's what we lack today. Social games focus on asymmetrical multiplayer gameplay, so they're actually the least social of all multiplayer games in existence. League of Legends on the surface looks like a fun game to play, but the community takes it so seriously that if you're new you're really not welcome and the game doesn't offer a true chance to learn its rules in-depth. EVE Online... don't get me started. World of Warcraft had to specifically dumb down the first 60 levels to make sure new players could get up to speed as quickly as possible, lest their community start to dwindle over time. Granted, this comes close to fostering positive interaction, but didn't change anything when it came to "partying with noobs." In all honesty, I haven't ever read an article that says anything about a game having a welcoming online community. If you weren't there on Day One, they don't want you there at all, and if you can't get a headshot on every single snipe, get the fuck off of their server.

I think that we, as game developers, can and should do more to foster better communities for our games. Our games, our rules. While we do not have the right to say who can and cannot buy our games, we do have the right to say, "Hey, you're making this a miserable experience for everyone else. Please leave." Followed by a swift strike of the banhammer. You owe it to your players to make sure no one feels threatened by trying to enjoy your art.