Layoff hits Obsidian?

[greylord]

The problem comes in is that GAMES always pushed the PC Market. Once they got all the DRM stuff, it pushed people out. Period. What may have seemed like a bright idea originally, especially with their Anti-Pirate attitude, is what killed their market. When Windows 95 came out, having games exclusively for that OS was genius. It's what I see made PC gaming gain momentum in giant strides, and as gamers pushed the PC forward, it pushed everything with the PC forward, RAM, Processors, Graphic cards, etc. Your PC wouldn't be able to run SQUAT within 2 years in the late 90s with how fast it was moving.

 

Today, I can buy a computer with the same specs as one I got 7 years ago, cheap...yes...but still can actually BUY it at RETAIL. That was unheard of a decade ago.

 

The gamers have fled the PC, and with it the PC advances and market have stagnated. Sure, you have better cards and RAM...but not on the scale it used to.

 

So if MS if having a hard time to Apple, I'm not surprised.

 

Apple took the EXACT OPPOSITE approach in many of it's ideas. Sure, everything is vetted through apple to ensure that it's not infected, but it removed DRM from everything it could unless the owner's absolutely refuse to have it removed. Even then, Apple has strong armed some industries regardless, for example the Music industry. Once Apple had the numbers, it basically said, you want our business, remove your DRM...and overall most have complied for Apple d/ls in regards to music.

 

Apple also didn't go for jacking up prices regardless...it has apps for everything. It made EASE of acquisition and use the foremost on it's ideas. Instead of restricting access, it made it so that a phone user can simply select an app and d/l it at leisure or whim.

 

I don't know if Apple or MS is doing better, but if MS is having a hard time against Apple, I can name a few reasons why. If MS want's to do better the first thing they need to do is kill the DRM on games, (that should at least get people using the OS more for the games, even if those games are pirated...), get it so that they have contracts for games ONLY for Windows (as they did with Win95/98), promote those to buyers, and then work on getting an app store that is EASY to use.

 

Maybe a joining with Sony with the BLU-RAY (instead of the battles they had against each other with HD/Toshiba and Xbox vs. Sony) for a more ease of use storage, get some Flash companies uniquely on their side, and a team up with somebody like Google and they could up their ability to compete drastically.

 

IMO of course.

 

Sorry for commenting in the layoff thread, just following some of the discussion above on this.

 

PS: I'm part of the cult following for Alpha Protocol.

[Morgoth]

Heck, I'm all for home consoles losing market shares. It means that devs are gonna get their asses back onto PC development. At least those who're not interested in the mobile/tablet market.

 

With the Xbox 8 about to release in 2014, with 2010 level hardware, you really have to wonder if MS/Sony are ever again going to repeat the success of the predecessors. Probably not.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

The PC gaming market is plenty healthy. The current console generation is probably reaching market saturation, especially at the current price levels, I'd guess. I don't know many folks (then again I mostly know gamers, so...) who would buy a 360 but haven't yet.

 

From my knowledge: games can lose plenty of money on consoles and they can lose plenty of money on PC. They can also make money on both platforms. Cross-platform games tend to do better on consoles, however 1) PC development is substantially easier and thus generally cheaper and 2) there are some types of games that are not feasible on consoles for various reasons. I think there's an opportunity for both to be successful and it's absolutely possible for them to co-exist in the market.

 

All of this has very little to do with relative power of the hardware, by the way, so I doubt that the next-gen consoles will do any worse if they are weaker relative to PCs when they come out when compared to the previous generation relative to PCs of that time. For many of the people who buy console games, PC gaming might as well not exist, and vice versa.

[Gorth]

As somebody who couldn't develop a shader to save his life, I wonder how much of a deterrent the multitude of pc configurations is for publishers, since they are (in theory) the ones who's supposed to do aftersale support when people can't get their purchases running.

[Wombat]

All of this has very little to do with relative power of the hardware, by the way, so I doubt that the next-gen consoles will do any worse if they are weaker relative to PCs when they come out when compared to the previous generation relative to PCs of that time. For many of the people who buy console games, PC gaming might as well not exist, and vice versa.

This is why I thought cloud gaming had an upper hand. It doesn't require maintenance from the user side, who indeed, need to invest on their connections, though. The companies can collect user data more freely since it is the user who is allowed to use their servers. This solves most part of the "piracy" issues, too, - A better control on IP form the greedy IP holders. ...Well, at least, it seems the distribution, or more precisely, the service has a certain advantages for both publishers and the users. Then, again, this is just a view from a gamer, who doesn't have any inside-industry experience.

[funcroc]

OT: https://twitter.com/...809606998495232

 

Seen on VGM, Obsidian Entertainment (@Obsidian_Ent) is looking for a contract Sound Designer. Sorry, no linky... ?#gameaudio?, ?#gamejobs?

[Nathaniel Chapman]

All of this has very little to do with relative power of the hardware, by the way, so I doubt that the next-gen consoles will do any worse if they are weaker relative to PCs when they come out when compared to the previous generation relative to PCs of that time. For many of the people who buy console games, PC gaming might as well not exist, and vice versa.

This is why I thought cloud gaming had an upper hand. It doesn't require maintenance from the user side, who indeed, need to invest on their connections, though. The companies can collect user data more freely since it is the user who is allowed to use their servers. This solves most part of the "piracy" issues, too, - A better control on IP form the greedy IP holders. ...Well, at least, it seems the distribution, or more precisely, the service has a certain advantages for both publishers and the users. Then, again, this is just a view from a gamer, who doesn't have any inside-industry experience.

 

Cloud gaming is technically tricky, has huge upfront costs (that cloud costs serious dough), is even trickier to work out licensing for, and has fundamental latency issues for many people (with much less ability to disguise latency using client side interpolation). It's definitely very promising but it's not really totally prime time ready for all types of games.

[greylord]

All of this has very little to do with relative power of the hardware, by the way, so I doubt that the next-gen consoles will do any worse if they are weaker relative to PCs when they come out when compared to the previous generation relative to PCs of that time. For many of the people who buy console games, PC gaming might as well not exist, and vice versa.

This is why I thought cloud gaming had an upper hand. It doesn't require maintenance from the user side, who indeed, need to invest on their connections, though. The companies can collect user data more freely since it is the user who is allowed to use their servers. This solves most part of the "piracy" issues, too, - A better control on IP form the greedy IP holders. ...Well, at least, it seems the distribution, or more precisely, the service has a certain advantages for both publishers and the users. Then, again, this is just a view from a gamer, who doesn't have any inside-industry experience.

 

Cloud gaming is technically tricky, has huge upfront costs (that cloud costs serious dough), is even trickier to work out licensing for, and has fundamental latency issues for many people (with much less ability to disguise latency using client side interpolation). It's definitely very promising but it's not really totally prime time ready for all types of games.

 

Maybe, but I think blizzard is trying it, at least halfway with Diablo 3. Much of the information, including the character you play is kept in what some could call a cloud. It's a cloud on their own computer network, but some clouds are bigger or smaller than others. So not total cloud, but probably a halfway point.

 

According to them they sold 6.5 million copies.

 

Not that I think it was a great idea (a counter argument could point out the massive problems that arose upon Diablo 3's launch as well as some continuing problems). Just my thoughts.

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's.. kind of ironic that you mention Blizzard to Nathaniel, considering he works there now. Unless that was the intent, and you were just being *super-sneaky*.

[Wombat]

Cloud gaming is technically tricky, has huge upfront costs (that cloud costs serious dough), is even trickier to work out licensing for, and has fundamental latency issues for many people (with much less ability to disguise latency using client side interpolation). It's definitely very promising but it's not really totally prime time ready for all types of games.

Yeah, maybe too early for gaming but we are witnessing many computer-related services going to cloud. Even now, there is a rumour of the partnership between Playstation Network and "a leading cloud gaming service", too.

 

Maybe, but I think blizzard is trying it, at least halfway with Diablo 3. Much of the information, including the character you play is kept in what some could call a cloud. It's a cloud on their own computer network, but some clouds are bigger or smaller than others. So not total cloud, but probably a halfway point.

 

According to them they sold 6.5 million copies.

 

Not that I think it was a great idea (a counter argument could point out the massive problems that arose upon Diablo 3's launch as well as some continuing problems). Just my thoughts.

I agree that "cloud" here is defined rather loosely. As for Diablo III, I have this traditional and/or conventional attitude to grinding/item-collecting "culture" in "role-playing" games. However, even someone like me, it was natural to expect Blizzard to put Diablo fans into World of Warcraft-like money-milking scheme through battle.net network, bound with the account-based payment system. In any way, however technically defined it can be , in theory, it seems to be more convincing way to let the players to spend their money than DRM, which seems to benefit only the IP holders. The problem is that it doesn't always work as expected as you and Chapman mentioned.

 

In any case, as a gamer, naturally, I'd like to have some benefits from the trend even if they inevitably have some draw-backs. I found some existing apps on Steam getting Mac-compatible, widening the meaning of "PC-compatible." I'm rather happy with Mac users being able to enjoy Psychonauts. Hopefully, such "distribution" routes could make niche market bigger.

 

It's.. kind of ironic that you mention Blizzard to Nathaniel, considering he works there now. Unless that was the intent, and you were just being *super-sneaky*.

That explains a lot...I wondered how he had seemingly first-hand info about network gaming. For, Obsidian are not, well, a specialist in this area even dating back to NWN2.

[zero_or_more]

Maybe it's a bit OT, but the most important thing about my PC is that I was able to put a proper soundcard into it. (No proper linux driver though... ) The freedom of choice I guess?

 

And 'cloud' is just a buzzword imho. Why not on-demand gaming or streaming or something? Reminds me of my sig.

[sorophx]

http://www.lar.net/2012/01/09/how-larian-ended-up-self-publishing/

Obsidian should be doing it too

[pmp10]

http://www.lar.net/2...elf-publishing/

Obsidian should be doing it too

Laran has a long history of publishing their own IPs and a build-up fanbase.

Obsidian on the other hand lived of sequels and published only one original IP.

 

Besides there are matters of running costs to consider.

What can work for Laran/PB/CDP in Europe may not be viable for Obsidian in California.

[C2B]

Not to mention that Larian is probably waaaaay smaller than Obsidian.

[sorophx]

well, there you go, Obsidian is losing people fast, their next step should be moving to Europe :D

 

or Austin, TX at least

[C2B]

well, there you go, Obsidian is losing people fast, their next step should be moving to Europe :D

 

or Austin, TX at least

 

I can just assume you are not serious here

 

1. You're asking a bigger group of people to leave their homes and relocate.

 

2. Obsidian still consits of ~90 people. How many people do you want to kick out of their job exactly?

 

Both of these go hand in hand. And both of these could result in losing even more important Obsidianities.

Edited May 30, 2012 by C2B

[Nathaniel Chapman]

All of this has very little to do with relative power of the hardware, by the way, so I doubt that the next-gen consoles will do any worse if they are weaker relative to PCs when they come out when compared to the previous generation relative to PCs of that time. For many of the people who buy console games, PC gaming might as well not exist, and vice versa.

This is why I thought cloud gaming had an upper hand. It doesn't require maintenance from the user side, who indeed, need to invest on their connections, though. The companies can collect user data more freely since it is the user who is allowed to use their servers. This solves most part of the "piracy" issues, too, - A better control on IP form the greedy IP holders. ...Well, at least, it seems the distribution, or more precisely, the service has a certain advantages for both publishers and the users. Then, again, this is just a view from a gamer, who doesn't have any inside-industry experience.

 

Cloud gaming is technically tricky, has huge upfront costs (that cloud costs serious dough), is even trickier to work out licensing for, and has fundamental latency issues for many people (with much less ability to disguise latency using client side interpolation). It's definitely very promising but it's not really totally prime time ready for all types of games.

 

Maybe, but I think blizzard is trying it, at least halfway with Diablo 3. Much of the information, including the character you play is kept in what some could call a cloud. It's a cloud on their own computer network, but some clouds are bigger or smaller than others. So not total cloud, but probably a halfway point.

 

According to them they sold 6.5 million copies.

 

Not that I think it was a great idea (a counter argument could point out the massive problems that arose upon Diablo 3's launch as well as some continuing problems). Just my thoughts.

 

Diablo 3 is more of a traditional client/server model, though. Very similar to Guild Wars.

 

Whereas, usually when people are talking about Cloud Gaming they are referring to a model where all of the game's simulation and rendering is handled by a server, which then pipes output to your "client", which operates more like a terminal in the old mainframe sense. The only things your machine does in a cloud gaming system are to gather and pass input to the server and receive and present output.

 

This is why you can have Arkham Asylum running on tablets with OnLive, the tablet is basically streaming a movie (that is obviously an oversimplification, but the idea is the same).

[Humanoid]

I would have thought that Larian being Belgian would, if anything, cost more per head to run than Obsidian. Heard somewhere that Belgium is the highest-taxing country in the world?

[Labadal]

I (think) you heard wrong. Denmark and Sweden are the highest-taxing countries as far as I know.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Labadal

[Bendu]

Humanoid is right. But it's not a question of taxation. Belgium has the highest labour costs within the EU.

[Nepenthe]

I (think) you heard wrong. Denmark and Sweden are the highest-taxing countries as far as I know.

He's right, you're wrong. Belgium is out of this world.

[greylord]

All of this has very little to do with relative power of the hardware, by the way, so I doubt that the next-gen consoles will do any worse if they are weaker relative to PCs when they come out when compared to the previous generation relative to PCs of that time. For many of the people who buy console games, PC gaming might as well not exist, and vice versa.

This is why I thought cloud gaming had an upper hand. It doesn't require maintenance from the user side, who indeed, need to invest on their connections, though. The companies can collect user data more freely since it is the user who is allowed to use their servers. This solves most part of the "piracy" issues, too, - A better control on IP form the greedy IP holders. ...Well, at least, it seems the distribution, or more precisely, the service has a certain advantages for both publishers and the users. Then, again, this is just a view from a gamer, who doesn't have any inside-industry experience.

 

Cloud gaming is technically tricky, has huge upfront costs (that cloud costs serious dough), is even trickier to work out licensing for, and has fundamental latency issues for many people (with much less ability to disguise latency using client side interpolation). It's definitely very promising but it's not really totally prime time ready for all types of games.

 

Maybe, but I think blizzard is trying it, at least halfway with Diablo 3. Much of the information, including the character you play is kept in what some could call a cloud. It's a cloud on their own computer network, but some clouds are bigger or smaller than others. So not total cloud, but probably a halfway point.

 

According to them they sold 6.5 million copies.

 

Not that I think it was a great idea (a counter argument could point out the massive problems that arose upon Diablo 3's launch as well as some continuing problems). Just my thoughts.

 

Diablo 3 is more of a traditional client/server model, though. Very similar to Guild Wars.

 

Whereas, usually when people are talking about Cloud Gaming they are referring to a model where all of the game's simulation and rendering is handled by a server, which then pipes output to your "client", which operates more like a terminal in the old mainframe sense. The only things your machine does in a cloud gaming system are to gather and pass input to the server and receive and present output.

 

This is why you can have Arkham Asylum running on tablets with OnLive, the tablet is basically streaming a movie (that is obviously an oversimplification, but the idea is the same).

 

this was posted elsewhere, but I think it also illustrates some of the items about D3. I said it was about a half way (characters and other information is streamed from Blizzard's server/cloud to the user's computer, but from what I understand it's all computed and figured on Blizzard's end).

 

http://www.rockpaper...t=Google+Reader

 

the pertinent part would be

 

Really, though, that

Edited May 30, 2012 by greylord

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Again, D3 is a traditional client/server game. It's not a matter of being "halfway" - services like Gaikai are OnLive are pretty fundamentally different technologically. Which isn't to say that they can't be successful, but it's a very, very different process and requires an even greater level of network reliability. There's a lot less ability for a client to "smooth over" rough patches in a connection when the client is doing literally none of the simulation/rendering.

[Nonek]

All this talk of cloud gaming always makes me think of that Kate Bush song Cloudbursting that had Donald Sutherland in the video.

[funcroc]

OT: ex-OEI designer Katie Susoeff's LI profile updated

senior writer

Bigpoint GmbH

July 2012