Convergence myths and cold, hard convergence realities

Console video game sales are growing and PC game sales are declining. Let’s face it, it makes more sense to have a dedicated, inexpensive device that is purpose-built for playing games than to tie up the family computer.
This is more evidence (if more is needed) that device convergence is a myth. Someone once told me (attributing it to Andy Seybold) that the only successfully converged devices were the toaster oven and clock radio.
Meanwhile, visionary journalists still cling to the idea of back-end (newsroom) convergence–one reporter, many media. Despite their optimism, this will result in newspapers selling out to broadcasters, newsroom staff cuts, and “convergence” between edit and advertising.

2 thoughts on “Convergence myths and cold, hard convergence realities

  1. The last thing I want is to set up a home network so my game console shares the same cable/DSL connection as my PC. Few non-techies would ever do such a thing. And I sure as heck don’t want to pay for two broadband connections, one for my PC and one for my game console.
    The prospect that future game consoles may *only* work with the manufacturer’s subscription ISP service pretty much seals the deal.
    Sorry, single player games are boring. I’ll stick to less expensive multiplayer gaming on my PC.

  2. Fair enough. Computers still have the edge in networked games because (1) they’re more likely to be networked, and (2) the console manufacturers insist on owning the network of users.
    The first problem is easy to solve. In a year or so, you’ll need wifi to sell a console. It’s less clear that the console makers will relinquish control of the network. If they don’t, they’ll never own the networked game market.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.