Instruments Vs. Ideas in the console gaming space

I find the title to this article to be sufficiently effective in typewriting terms, but if Blogger allowed for subtitles, I would have probably gone for a more explicative "... or what people don't get about roles in the gaming industry". As you might have heard, something very interesting is happening in the console space, where Sony and Microsoft are bringing about the latest technological trends (VR, 4K rendering, and the introduction of HDR colour gamma) in pretty different ways - the former by creating an enhanced version of the current PS4, the latter by going generational with a new and exponentially more powerful platform. It's a moment of intense water testing for the companies, and the console market as a whole is poised to massively change its configuration from the next year on. Looking at the social networks output, the general gaming public is not too happy about the situation.

Some complains about companies jumping too soon onto the 4K bandwagon, while forsaking the implicit promise of this generation - true 1080p/60fps gaming. Others, apparently more concerned with a general lack of innovation in game design, are asking console manifacturers to put the technological theme aside, and instead focus on giving devs more ways to express their creativity. The oxymoron here is strikingly obvious: what should manifacturers do other than providing the hi-tech gadgetry needed to flex the software makers' creative muscles (and offering appropriate promotion, of course)? In terms of pure game design, higher resolutions and color depth have next to no impact on gameplay features, but the thing is, every developer is entitled to use the additional power as they see fit. Having a 4K capable machine doesn't mean you have to run your software at that resolution, especially if you plan to have lots of on-screen objects, advanced AI, physics or any combination of those.

That's to say that nowadays, if a team has a really good idea and the talent to back it up, chances are the available machines are powerful enough to turn it into an actual product

That's to say that nowadays, if a team has a really good idea and the talent to back it up, chances are the available machines are powerful enough to turn it into an actual product. Traditional consoles are perfectly good instruments. Paying a little bit of attention, people should be able to realize that a good chunk of the most brilliant gameplay concept of the last decade can be replicated on much less powerful machines than those they were brought on - the demake culture has made a whole point out of this. The problem is, a sizeable part of the gaming audience is neither able to, nor concerned with, assessing the basic relationship between ideas and instruments.

This leads to sadly frequent, yet almost comical misunderstandings such as comparing the VR phenomenon with the 3DTV one to prove how the former is actually just a gimmick and it's going nowhere after these days' boom... Believe it or not, some people are actually convinced of that. Instead, they should realize how VR constitutes a new instrument with enormous potential to deliver radically different experiences than what we're accustomed to - new design ideas that stems from VR and makes real sense exclusively in that purview. In other words, it's the manifacturers' most appropriate answer to those concerned with the lack of new avenues for creativity (*): once game creators will have found their footing with it, we can realistically expect them to develop a specialized creative mindset and come up with something really evolutive. And that, sirs, is how the roles really are laid out.

(*) unless Nintendo NX turns out to be something truly groundbreaking, but nothing seems to suggest it at the moment.

The clash of identities at E3 2016

While the Internet is full of journalists, analysts and commentators predicating the progressive loss of relevance of gaming trade shows, common people still floods these events year after year, eager to dive into the restless stream of content that the industry churns out, both in the hardware and software departments. 3 years into a new console generation, fairs like E3 serves more as an indicator of what the market balances are, what the developers are able to do with machines they've properly gotten to grasp with, and how the manifacturers' commercial offering shapes up their identity. I'd like to elaborate on the latter point, and more specifically on what are the overarching reasons why people are more attracted to Sony or Microsoft at this point in time.

Redmond's giant played out its E3 2016 conference on an alternation of tones that gave it an enjoyable rhythm: it started with a Battlefield 1 demo focused on its expansive 64 players online battles, followed by a more light-hearted overview of Dead Rising 4's over the top undead carnage. The hot trail of action went on with a colossal boss fight demo of Final Fantasy XIV, a live multiplayer session for the paint-trade friendly Forza Horizon 3, and a blood drowned run through a campaign mission in Gears of War 4. Action seems to be the underlining theme at Xbox, along with a pronounced taste for big scales and online interactions that projects a very dynamic, "in your face" image to consumers. Sure, there's more subtlety to be found among the platform's independent offering, but it's not something that really transpires from the company's communication, and experiences like the aforementioned ones tends to get more time under the spotlights. As the wording of Project Scorpio's annoucement demonstrates ("The most powerful console ever", "Uncompromised 4K gaming"), the company adresses a crowd which is more sensible to impact messaging.  

Things gets pretty different on Sony's court. The japanese company has always strived to valorize more nuanced, alternative contents on its platforms, resorting to impressive presentation styles: at this year's E3, they brought a full orchestra and had it score the biggest demos live, on the fly. The trick added a further emotional layer to Kratos' return as a father in God of War, and more atmosphere to the gritty apocalyptic open world of Days Gone. Speaking of worlds, one thing that this generation of PlayStation titles is doing on a regular basis is opening up to exploration and experiencial narrative: whether it's full-on open worlds like Horizon: Zero Dawn's or wide sandboxes à la Uncharted 4 and God of War, space seems to play a key role on the visual expression of games this side of the barricade. The Last Guardian will have players constantly checking out their surroundings for ways to leverage the interaction between the hero and his animal companion, and the same goes for the criminally overlooked Gravity Rush 2 with its physics altering mechanics. Along with a strong, recurring attention to heroes' design and characterisation (Detroit: Become Human), these elements seems to resonate greatly with Sony's audience.

There's both a necessity and a struggle to mix things up while mantaining a certain degree of uniqueness - in other words, a reason for people to choose one product over the other

It is interesting to point out these differences in a time where the gaming offering, on both sides of the pond, is getting somehow more homogeneous in its pursuit of diversity. After all, there's an infinite landscape of tastes to cater to, and manifacturers are modulating their software lineups accordingly: Microsoft is more inclined to put light-hearted things like Sunset Overdrive and ReCore on the forefront, while Sony is cutting down on the racing and shooting departments to reinforce its focus on exclusive, atmospheric AAA titles. There's both a necessity and a struggle to mix things up while mantaining a certain degree of uniqueness (in other words, a reason for people to choose one product over the other). This leads to an evolving exchange in communication styles where Microsoft's "call to power" about Scorpio sounds like a more extreme take on what Sony did with the PS4.

As discussed in a previous article, the way new hardware is going to be introduced in the coming months will change the market's configuration in ways that we've never seen before, but let's not underestimate how the shape of both manifacturers' identities is going to evolve as a result.

Time to ditch the console generations paradigm?

There's a very interesting blog post over at Gamasutra (source) reflecting on how the advent of PS4K is going to change the way console cycles are handled from its release on. Author David Galindo speculates on how we might be in for a new, incremental update model that basically erases the concept of "new generation console" entirely, incorporating some tenets of the PC world: manifacturers have all shifted to x64 architectures, meaning that running the same games over multiple hardware iterations becomes much easier than it was before. However, are we really done with cycles and generations?

The so called seventh generation, marked by hugely popular consoles as the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii, has lasted much longer than the previous six, a situation that had both negative and positive implications: people mantains that improvements on graphical fidelity and complexity of game mechanics have been held back, but at the same time we've seen Sony and Microsoft's online platforms grow bigger and stronger, hosting services and initiatives that shaped them into the viable, attractive environments of today. A completely new gaming market blossomed during the seventh generation by way of indie games, often put under the same spotlight as their AAA counterparts.

As technological advancements slow down their pace, consoles needs to stay around longer and provide the developers with opportunities to make their super expensive games last longer too

Where hardware stood still, the market responded with new opportunities. As technological advancements slow down their pace, consoles needs to stay around longer and provide the developers with opportunities to make their super expensive games last longer too: the era of "enhanced modes" is upon us, driven by (you name it) stop gap incremental updates to existing machines without having to re-release the software entirely. Word on the Web is that programmers are not very happy with what's happening in the console world right now, but their tune may change as soon as they start seeing more revenues coming from their games over time.

What about consumers, then? What will their perception of this new marketing model for consoles be? This is a trickier question, as the masses' idea of what they consider "new" or "progressive" is extremely brand driven: they are not likely to change their equipment until something that is branded as new and progressive comes across. This is what leads me to think that the concept of "generation" is not really going to go away, even with its meaning reduced to a simple marketing hook. But from now on, people will have to think very well through when buying a new console, as waiting for the cheaper model to show up is probably not going to happen anymore.

If you're looking for culprits (and I'm entering pure speculation territory here), VR is probably your best option as the new technology's sudden and unexpected uptake is what prompted Sony to come up with the PS4K idea in the first place, not the will to disrupt the current market setting. The japanese company had no reason to even think about a new console, having an almost 100% sales' lead over its main competitor, but they surely need a stronger base platform supporting their position as the cheapest VR solution provider around - bar Google Cardboard. For once, creating a "just in case" prototype like Project Morpheus turned out to be a very good stroke for them!

Better resolutions and framerates for games may have been the only cascade effects of PS4K, if the vision of a new marketing scenario didn't come along with it.

Facebook compra Oculus VR. Per la gioia di Sony.

Se siete appassionati di tecnologia, certamente sarete al corrente di quanto sta accadendo in questo periodo nel campo della Realtà Virtuale. Quella che un tempo era ritenuta una chimera dell'intrattenimento elettronico, oggi è vicinissima a diventare una realtà vera e concreta: dispositivi come Oculus Rift rendono finalmente credibile l'esperienza di immergersi in ambienti virtuali governati dal proprio punto di vista, dai propri gesti fisici. Descrivere testualmente la portata di questo traguardo è quasi impossibile, e vista la sua natura, l'esperienza diretta costituisce l'unico modo per afferrare realmente la portata dei traguardi di Palmer Luckey e del suo team. Perché allora la notizia dell'acquisto di Oculus VR da parte di Facebook ha generato tanto sdegno tra il pubblico e persino qualche addetto ai lavori?

I motivi sono diversi, primo tra tutti un fraintendimento dei diritti di chi decide di partecipare ad una raccolta fondi su Kickstarter. Il donatore non è un azionista né un investitore, quindi non può accampare alcun diritto sui progetti finanziati che vada aldilà delle ricompense previste dalle relative campagne. Nel caso di Rift, la ditta produttrice si impegnava a fornire ai propri supporters esemplari del primo prototipo in quantità proporzionale alla donazione, per un massimo di 10 unità. Questo impegno è stato rispettato, ma ciò non significava a priori che Oculus VR sarebbe scomparsa nel nulla, o che l'evoluzione del suo straordinario dispositivo si sarebbe fermata li: i fondi in eccesso, nonchè quelli arrivati successivamente attraverso canali diversi da Kickstarter ma sempre assimilati al concetto di donazione, hanno permesso di arrivare al modello Crystal Cove ed alla situazione di oggi.

Una situazione che con l'ingresso in campo di Mark Zuckerberg, porterà Oculus Rift ben oltre le applicazioni ludiche per le quali era nato. In nessuna occasione, stando ai dettagliati rapporti che si leggono sul Web, il patron di Facebook ha mostrato un interesse specifico verso i videogiochi, ma ha avvicinato i creatori di Rift semplicemente chiedendogli di poter contribuire in qualsiasi forma ad una sua evoluzione più ampia: è chiaramente una scommessa, quella di Zuckerberg, dettata dalla volontà di "mettere le mani avanti" su un ritrovato tecnologico che potrebbe seriamente rivoluzionare i panorami dell'intrattenimento, della formazione e di certi settori professionali. Tale lungimiranza gli era mancata con Whatsapp, servizio per il quale ha dovuto sborsare una cifra dieci volte superiore a quella spesa per Oculus VR (19 miliardi di dollari contro "appena" 2).

Immaginate un po' cos'abbia significato per Luckey e per i suoi colleghi vedersi offrire una cifra del genere per un business che aldilà delle enormi potenzialità, non offre particolari garanzie di successo sul mercato di massa. Il dato certo, qui, è che con una tale iniezione di capitali e responsabili tecnologici del calibro di John Carmack e Michael Abrash, sarebbe quasi sciocco non tentare di trasformare Oculus Rift nella piattaforma VR per eccellenza. Il perchè ce lo spiega lo stesso Abrash, una leggenda della programmazione che non ha esitato a lasciare Valve per dedicarsi vita natural durante (sic) alla causa della Realtà Virtuale:

"Il tassello finale del puzzle è stato posato martedi. Molto di ciò che può rendere grande la Realtà Virtuale è ben compreso a questo punto, quindi non si tratta più di ricerca ma di ingegneria; ingegneria complicata, ma chiaramente fattibile. Ad esempio, ci sono una dozzina di miglioramenti che potremmo applicare ai display, ed in nessun caso si tratta di torte nel cielo. Comunque, si tratta di ingegneria costosa. E ovviamente, cì sarà un bel po' di ricerca da fare una volta raggiunti i limiti della tecnologia attuale, il che sarà dispendioso non solo economicamente, ma anche per tempo e pazienza.

Arrivare ad una VR completamente soddisfacente richiederà decenni. Ecco perché di recente affermavo che questa tecnologia può diventare davvero grande solo in presenza di una compagnia che investa grossi capitali nella realizzazione del giusto hardware, e che tali spese potrebbero non sembrare giustificate sino a che il risultato finale non sarà raggiunto. Temevo che questo meccanismo avrebbe schiacciato la Realtà Virtuale sul nascere.

Quella preoccupazione adesso è scomparsa. L'acquisizione di Oculus da parte di Facebook significa che la Realtà Virtuale esploderà in tutto il suo potenziale. Le risorse e l'impegno a lungo termine di Facebook danno ad Oculus la scappatoia che gli serviva per affrontare le sue sfide più difficili - ed alcune lo sono in modo particolare. Adesso mi aspetto di investire il resto della mia carriera spingendo la Realtà Virtuale il più lontano possibile."

Le obiezioni hanno vita breve, quando ad usare questi termini è un luminare come Abrash, e se da un lato per Oculus Rift si aprono orizzonti sconfinati, dall'altro si lascia campo libero ad altri produttori come Sony per applicazioni più settoriali. La presentazione del suo headset VR Project Morpheus alla GDC 2014 ha convinto ampiamente tutti i giornalisti che hanno potuto provarlo, e si potrebbe persino dire che le limitazioni legate all'impiego su console (in particolare i 1080p di risoluzione massima) danno a questa periferica ottime chances di arrivare ad un rifinito modello commerciale molto prima di Rift. Se poi Sony riuscisse ad ovviare al più grande limite del prototipo attuale, ossia l'impiego di schermi LCD con il loro tipico effetto scia (sottile, ma comunque ancora percettibile), supportando da subito l'utilizzo su PC, potrebbe trasformare Project Morpheus nella migliore alternativa "budget" al visore Oculus.

Quando si parla di Realtà Virtuale, è bene specificare che il termine "budget" si tradisce da sé. Difficile immaginare che lo stesso Project Morpheus arrivi sul mercato ad un prezzo inferiore ai 300 euro/dollari, mentre per Rift si prospettavano già prima cifre superiori. Lo scenario delineato dall'accordo Facebook/Oculus sarà anche diverso da quello che i fan della prima ora si aspettavano, ma serve che costoro accettino serenamente l'idea che il loro primo headset virtuale potrebbe non essere quello finanziato su Kickstarter: il marchio sul dispositivo è forse più importante dell'orgoglio di aver contribuito, nel proprio piccolo, a trasformare in realtà un sogno tecnologico inseguito da decenni?