http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/30game.html

Looking at articles like this makes me remember how people still treat video games as one huge object, a “video game lump” of sorts, when a more practical model might be a few separate entities based on genre. For instance, games on a handheld are in a whole different market category than games on a console, and both exclude random little flash games on the Internet. If you’re getting a console game, then you’re going for an immersive experience that high definition graphics and a bigger screen can bring, and no handheld or Internet can satisfy that kind of need.

This is why I’d rather to see them focusing their strengths more on developing new business models than considering the option of making tiny little games for iphones or websites. I certainly wouldn’t mind more competition for console/PC blockbusters, as this would mean higher chance for us to see awesome games that blow minds away, instead of petty games that we waste time on because we’ve got nothing better to do.

OnLive was pretty big in the news last week. It claims to be able to have people play console/PC-quality games over the Internet. Now if they’re able to do all those calculation-intensive tasks like rendering graphics or collision detection reliably over the convoluted protocols that define the Internet, whatever technology they’re using might be applicable to MMORPGs to push them up a tech level. OnLive would have to be able to respond and do lots of calculations while maintaining real-time responses for the users. MMORPGs, on the other hand, don’t have to be as calculation intensive per game instance (no need for graphics processing, for one), but it has many game instances, so maybe it balances out.

Whatever happens, I will continue to hope for awesome super immersive blockbuster games for consoles and PCs, and I will continue to hope for technological breakthroughs in MMORPGs.