Harrison: Gaming's Future is the Web Browser, Not Consoles

[Kuriko]

Nahh, won't happen.

I'd rather sit back and play on my Xbox 360 than sit in a not-so-comfy office chair, sit forward, and concentrate on my computer.

 

[Vykrel]

lol maybe in 20 years

 

[Binerexis]

I doubt this will happen unless the games in question incorporate Facebook in a way that will make the Farmville fans want to play it.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

I'm still waiting on Civilization Network on Facebook.

 

[josemlopes]

The only good Web Browser game in terms of quality in visuals is Interstellar Marines

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Because, as we all know, when Phil Harrison says something is going to happen [http://www.1up.com/news/sony-rumble-generation-feature], it happens.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

I strongly disagree

 

[mad825]

Ha.

maybe when I'm more cynical and dying of bitter old age would this ever happen, we have yet wait for 64-bit browsers/operating systems to go mainstream and I do find that browsers are far more unstable (firefox's plug-in container is somewhat of a fail).

 

[lacktheknack]

Didn't InstantAction tried it? and look where they end up.

Who?

Oh. Maybe that's the problem...

 

[Credge]

Uhh, yeah. Portable systems tend to have even less buttons than the console controllers I keep whining about, so if they really are the future of gaming, we can say bye to any complexity whatsoever.

Well, seeing as how browser based games are typically played on a computer and computers have many more buttons than a controller...

There's a reason RTS is still only doable on a PC.

But this guys entirely wrong. Just like he was wrong about rumble. Just like he was wrong about Home.

 

[RatRace123]

Gotta be honest, that sounds like an awful future.

I hate browser games, my computer can't run them, and if you have a browser based game that a lot of people are playing you subject yourself to slowdown.

Plus any half-rate hacker could take down the game with ease. (Probably)

 

[Sniper Team 4]

In fifty years, when high-speed internet and graphically powerful computers are universal, maybe.

And when people won't have to drop several hundred dollars every two years to keep their computer up to spec.

 

[Bob_F_It]

The best case in point would be Quake Live. Let me point out one flaw in Harrison's arguement: hardware. Quake Live runs on the PC's hardware, which is comparitively more expensive than grabbing a console. Tom mentioned the kind of thing that doesn't require horsepower (OnLive and Gaikai), but that needs live video through a browser (not a big obsticle) and the internet connection competing with Windows Update. So, no.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Eh, maybe for rpgs or turn based games. I'd love to see someone praising it's virtues after lagging on the last platform on mario. Input lag is a mother fucker, it makes fighting games impossible online.

Go boot up smash bros and try and play as marth.

I dare you.

 

[_Janny_]

I wouldn't mind playing on a browser; it would make certain school/work hours much more enjoyable.

I like the picture. I never new google.com could be used to play Modern Warfare!

Hah, nice catch! I totally didn't see it until you pointed it out.

 

[SendMeNoodz84]

Hmmm....
No. Just, no.

 

[Bobbovski]

He's not talking about games that you can only play with your PC web browser. He talks about games that you can play on any machine which has a webbrowser and has support for the game. So in the future you might play the game on your console or PC web browser and then when you have to go to school you can continue to play the game on your phone while you sit on the schoolbus for example. Games that are platformless if you will, as long as the chosen platform has a web browser.