I could do with a two-console race again, like in the Sega vs. Nintendo days. Back then, could only afford one.
Now, I can barely manage two. Now that there are three on the market. I figure that if I can ever manage to afford three, there will be a fourth.
I think there may be causality in that.
When majority of consumers would only buy one console, there was enough buying power in the market to support 2 consoles. When majority of consumers buy 2 consoles, there is enough buying power to support 3 consoles.
I mean that is really over simplified, but it works.
you guys are crazy. Microsoft and Sony should NEVER join forces. The competetion between the wii and the xbox is making the price of the ps3 go down. You people can have you playstation-box980 for 1200 dollars, I'll stick to my three consoles thank you very much.
EDIT: Not to mention that most companies take a hit money wise on consoles. Obviously the good people of Sony or Microsoft will still take a hit hardware wise if they are the only company left, right? /sarcasim
Because they can do both and make a metric shitton of money rather than a metric shitload of money?
As I ninja-edited: the savings on R&D in hardware could go into new IP. Hardware has all sorts of issues from production lines to support to contract agreements and all sorts of aggravation. Software development would play to Nintendo's core strength.
What makes you think they're hurting in the slightest for funds for new IP?
Because they can do both and make a metric shitton of money rather than a metric shitload of money?
As I ninja-edited: the savings on R&D in hardware could go into new IP. Hardware has all sorts of issues from production lines to support to contract agreements and all sorts of aggravation. Software development would play to Nintendo's core strength.
What makes you think they're hurting in the slightest for funds for new IP?
Nothing, but I think Nintendo can afford to fill their schedule with a few more first-party games, don't you?
I like this thread. It's nice having a decent discussion with logic instead of clouded fanboyism for once.
I hope I didn't jinx it.
I would appreciate having only one console. I think the software developers would still compete with each other, so quality wouldn't suffer. Thing is, the big 3 would have to decide who would create this console, and they each have such different views of the way things should be, this will never happen.
I guess a single format world with different players that could each play everything could happen, much like the rest of the entertainment industry. That actually makes a lot of sense to me.
you guys are crazy. Microsoft and Sony should NEVER join forces. The competetion between the wii and the xbox is making the price of the ps3 go down. You people can have you playstation-box980 for 1200 dollars, I'll stick to my three consoles thank you very much.
EDIT: Not to mention that most companies take a hit money wise on consoles. Obviously the good people of Sony or Microsoft will still take a hit hardware wise if they are the only company left, right? /sarcasim
That's actually a good point. The $600 PS3 is what you get when a company [thinks it] has no competition.
So fuck your one-console future. I like being able to pay $250 for my gaming machine.
you guys are crazy. Microsoft and Sony should NEVER join forces. The competetion between the wii and the xbox is making the price of the ps3 go down. You people can have you playstation-box980 for 1200 dollars, I'll stick to my three consoles thank you very much.
EDIT: Not to mention that most companies take a hit money wise on consoles. Obviously the good people of Sony or Microsoft will still take a hit hardware wise if they are the only company left, right? /sarcasim
That's actually a good point. The $600 PS3 is what you get when a company [thinks it] has no competition.
So fuck your one-console future. I like being able to pay $250 for my gaming machine.
And the 400 dollar X-Box 360 is what you get when a company desparately wants to compete. That's still too much, I think. I love my Wii and it fills my gaming time to the brim, but I always have that little voice in the back of my mind telling me how many awesome games I'm missing out on.
EDIT: I wish I could play Gears of War, Halo 3, Little Big Planet and Metal Gear Solid 4 on my 250 dollar gaming machine, but I can't.
you guys are crazy. Microsoft and Sony should NEVER join forces. The competetion between the wii and the xbox is making the price of the ps3 go down. You people can have you playstation-box980 for 1200 dollars, I'll stick to my three consoles thank you very much.
EDIT: Not to mention that most companies take a hit money wise on consoles. Obviously the good people of Sony or Microsoft will still take a hit hardware wise if they are the only company left, right? /sarcasim
That's actually a good point. The $600 PS3 is what you get when a company [thinks it] has no competition.
So fuck your one-console future. I like being able to pay $250 for my gaming machine.
And the 400 dollar X-Box 360 is what you get when a company desparately wants to compete. That's still too much, I think. I love my Wii and it fills my gaming time to the brim, but I always have that little voice in the back of my mind telling me how many awesome games I'm missing out on.
EDIT: I wish I could play Gears of War, Halo 3, Little Big Planet and Metal Gear Solid 4 on my 250 dollar gaming machine, but I can't.
No, but at least you get a gaming machine, and that's the point of competition. The $400 360 is because Microsoft thought it was going to be competing against Sony again this gen. I guarantee you, not a single system next gen will retail for more than $300.
A bit off point and possibly flaim bait, but I still can't get over how people think that a company who is actually trying something new with a controller is a gimmicky fad, but playing the same games with the same flimsy, loose mechanics that have plagued video gaming for the past 20 with a fresh (and admittedly very hot) coat of paint is accepted as the path to the future.
Playing Ridge Racer in PS3 in a game store the other day, I felt embarrassment. It was such an amazing piece of shit. Sure there will be a ton of solid games which look amazing and play beautifully, but the resistance to a new control scheme among the hardcore is dumbfounding.
you guys are crazy. Microsoft and Sony should NEVER join forces. The competetion between the wii and the xbox is making the price of the ps3 go down. You people can have you playstation-box980 for 1200 dollars, I'll stick to my three consoles thank you very much.
EDIT: Not to mention that most companies take a hit money wise on consoles. Obviously the good people of Sony or Microsoft will still take a hit hardware wise if they are the only company left, right? /sarcasim
That's actually a good point. The $600 PS3 is what you get when a company [thinks it] has no competition.
So fuck your one-console future. I like being able to pay $250 for my gaming machine.
And the 400 dollar X-Box 360 is what you get when a company desparately wants to compete. That's still too much, I think. I love my Wii and it fills my gaming time to the brim, but I always have that little voice in the back of my mind telling me how many awesome games I'm missing out on.
EDIT: I wish I could play Gears of War, Halo 3, Little Big Planet and Metal Gear Solid 4 on my 250 dollar gaming machine, but I can't.
GoW, Halo 3, etc. etc. require more than $250 worth of hardware to run, that's all.
Look, we had this happen before. Good ol' Trip Hawkins came out with his glorious vision of a single-console future, where one company licensed out the design and specification for anyone to manufacture, and what happened? None of the manufacturers could compete on features, and none of the manufacturers could sell at a loss, so they all cut corners on quality and still ended up with a $700 console.
Fair point, but I don't think the mobile market is applicable. If you wanted a touch-screen interface to a home console, you could do it via the wonders of peripherals.
In a one-console world, yes. They already have the box, they get the peripheral bundled with the game.
Peripherals segments your market. I mean if I release Wii Sports, what do I do with Wii Sports 2? How about MP:3 any other future game that could use it? Another problem is what if another party wants to make use of peripheral, you as a software maker, created? (Welcome to the Hell Hole of GH / RockBand)
By releasing there own system, they are guaranteed certain conditions. It also gives the same freedom and conditions to other developers.
I am not disputing the sound business, just the idea that Nintendo ceasing hardware production is impossible.
A one-console setup can work. Is it desirable for consumers? That's a point of view. I think it is. Developers can reach wider audiences. Consumers are fully aware of the capabilities of what they have and what they can do with it. They hear about "that Mario game" and they go to the store and they buy it for their "game player thing", just like they do a DVD or music CD. I believe consoles are platforms to which developers deliver games, and that splitting games across platforms is a distinction made because the manufacturers are unwilling to sit down and make a standard.
Is it desirable for the manufacturers? Not now, but is it possible in 20 years? I think it is.
Consumers have benefited from standards in almost all other areas of technology.
Here's a question: what if you didn't buy one box; but there was a standard development SDK, so that all games made for Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are interoperable? How does that change the problem?
Unfortunetly, Games are far more complex then say a DVD player. Sure a standard exists for those and all the developers can add in there extra bells and whistles.
The problem lies in the fact that Technology is a moving target.
The 3 Companies would have to agree year and year about future hardware about basic power, cost and functionality.
Which brings up the whole BLU-Ray HD-DVD and the DVD+/-R fiacso too.
If those, simplier, models couldnt agree. I dont think a Game Console could either.
Peripherals segments your market. I mean if I release Wii Sports, what do I do with Wii Sports 2? How about MP:3 any other future game that could use it? Another problem is what if another party wants to make use of peripheral, you as a software maker, created? (Welcome to the Hell Hole of GH / RockBand)
By releasing there own system, they are guaranteed certain conditions. It also gives the same freedom and conditions to other developers.
Hmmm... very true.
It is not often someone limes a counter-argument to their own idea in G&T
Here's another interesting idea: What if game exclusivity was banned? Thus paving the way for all games to appear on all platforms?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa
hahahahahahahaa
haha
a
whew
So, wait, you think that the government should require that anyone making a software title (I mean, how do you define "game", anyway) produce it for every platform in existence?
Peripherals segments your market. I mean if I release Wii Sports, what do I do with Wii Sports 2? How about MP:3 any other future game that could use it? Another problem is what if another party wants to make use of peripheral, you as a software maker, created? (Welcome to the Hell Hole of GH / RockBand)
By releasing there own system, they are guaranteed certain conditions. It also gives the same freedom and conditions to other developers.
Hmmm... very true.
It is not often someone limes a counter-argument to their own idea in G&T
Man thats a first for me, happening to and seeing it
Here's another interesting idea: What if game exclusivity was banned? Thus paving the way for all games to appear on all platforms?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa
hahahahahahahaa
haha
a
whew
So, wait, you think that the government should require that anyone making a software title (I mean, how do you define "game", anyway) produce it for every platform in existence?
hahahahahahahhaaaaa
Game A coming out in 7 years because we need to develop the title on all game platforms...
Games would never come out if you had to develop on all systems
Here's another interesting idea: What if game exclusivity was banned? Thus paving the way for all games to appear on all platforms?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa
hahahahahahahaa
haha
a
whew
So, wait, you think that the government should require that anyone making a software title (I mean, how do you define "game", anyway) produce it for every platform in existence?
hahahahahahahhaaaaa
Have you ever done any hypothetical thought experiments in order to provoke interesting brainteasers? They're fun you know. You should live a little.
Anyway, I didn't say requiring release on all platforms. My meaning was something that stopped developers/publishers/manufacturers signing golden handcuff agreements, thus removing the incentive to make exclusive games.
Here's another interesting idea: What if game exclusivity was banned? Thus paving the way for all games to appear on all platforms?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa
hahahahahahahaa
haha
a
whew
So, wait, you think that the government should require that anyone making a software title (I mean, how do you define "game", anyway) produce it for every platform in existence?
hahahahahahahhaaaaa
Have you ever done any hypothetical thought experiments in order to provoke interesting brainteasers? They're fun you know. You should live a little.
Anyway, I didn't say requiring release on all platforms. My meaning was something that stopped developers/publishers/manufacturers signing golden handcuff agreements, thus removing the incentive to make exclusive games.
From the looks of things, the market's sorting that out just fine on its own. I'm guessing that this gen, all but a handful of exclusives will be first party, at least between the 360 and PS3 (the Wii has a vast difference in hardware and control scheme, so it's out of that equation). Every major third-party exclusive except MGS4, FF13, and maybe Bioshock (if that counts as major) has magically become non-exclusive. Costs of development are getting higher and MS/Sony can't bribe enough anymore.
Here's another interesting idea: What if game exclusivity was banned? Thus paving the way for all games to appear on all platforms?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa
hahahahahahahaa
haha
a
whew
So, wait, you think that the government should require that anyone making a software title (I mean, how do you define "game", anyway) produce it for every platform in existence?
hahahahahahahhaaaaa
Have you ever done any hypothetical thought experiments in order to provoke interesting brainteasers? They're fun you know. You should live a little.
Anyway, I didn't say requiring release on all platforms. My meaning was something that stopped developers/publishers/manufacturers signing golden handcuff agreements, thus removing the incentive to make exclusive games.
Then you might as well ban all 1st and 2nd exclusivity as well. Developers (and publishers) sign these agreements for a reason.
$TEXAS
Consumers might not like it, but the devs are sure fine (initially) with it.
Another aspect is that some games make such intricate use of the HW, it becomes very difficult or barely feasible to port said game.
i dont know if this was said already or if its still on topic but the 3 help eachother through competiton. They make great games because they want to be better then the opposer. if they didn't have competition there wouldnt be any real threat to make something great
thedude_frombaywatch on
xbl tag: Dynamis King
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
GoW, Halo 3, etc. etc. require more than $250 worth of hardware to run, that's all.
That's fine. But it begs the question:
"Where do you draw the line?"
$599 US DOLLARS?
I mean, seriously, this is the major theoretical problem (practical problems were discussed earlier; ctrl+f "trip hawkins") with the "one console to rule them all" mindset: you need to figure out how much people are willing to pay, and having multiple consoles at different price points helps keep the market from falling apart.
so does mass effect, i would add that to the list.
and done confuse support and financing with bribery. a common misconception. i hate how people always just assume exclusive = moneyhat. it does not.
It doesn't always just mean straight-up moneyhats, but a good chunk of the time that's what it is. You want to know why Grand Theft Auto took so damn long to hit the Xbox? It ain't because of time porting it; the PC version was long since done.
This whole debate (multiple consoles or one console) is basically competition vs convenience. Competition drives advancements in the industry all around whether software, hardware, or service, while convenience makes accessability easier for the consumer and the developer. Both have their pros and cons and neither side is necessarily the right or wrong side of the fence. In the end, it's the games that matter and whether you there's one platform or ten, there'll always be competition amongst the games themselves.
I ponder though whether game design would be far more advanced and intuitive (not to mention more widely received) if there weren't hardware advancements to fall back on consistantly.
Let's look at it this way: what's the worst-case scenario for each proposal?
One console - industry stagnation, leading to less creativity, and artificially inflated prices.
Multiple consoles - you can't purchase every game available because you can't afford each console (until the end of the generation when each console is ~$100).
At least with the multi-console angle, you can still play every game. You just have to wait a bit. Seems a lot less dire than the monopoly angle.
Let's look at it this way: what's the worst-case scenario for each proposal?
One console - industry stagnation, leading to less creativity, and artificially inflated prices.
Multiple consoles - you can't purchase every game available because you can't afford each console (until the end of the generation when each console is ~$100).
At least with the multi-console angle, you can still play every game. You just have to wait a bit. Seems a lot less dire than the monopoly angle.
Again, on the creativity issue I agree for hardware, but it might stand to reason that software would be better designed and thought out since there wouldn't be technology to fall back on for the "wow" factor. This also adds to the fact that the hardware platform would be easier to learn and more accessable for many developers because of unified middleware, development tools, and of course hardware.
It's a hypothetical of course, but still a point worth noting. Software competition wouldn't end if there was one console.
Posts
I think there may be causality in that.
When majority of consumers would only buy one console, there was enough buying power in the market to support 2 consoles. When majority of consumers buy 2 consoles, there is enough buying power to support 3 consoles.
I mean that is really over simplified, but it works.
If we remove competition, we remove the reason the three companies strive to outdo each other, and thus slow down the rate technology would advance.
The Wiki on him is very vague. Is that a reference to something?
EDIT: Not to mention that most companies take a hit money wise on consoles. Obviously the good people of Sony or Microsoft will still take a hit hardware wise if they are the only company left, right? /sarcasim
What makes you think they're hurting in the slightest for funds for new IP?
Nothing, but I think Nintendo can afford to fill their schedule with a few more first-party games, don't you?
Seriously, it's business 101 here folks.
IIRC the expected lifetime for Playstation 3 until the next PS was somewhere in the ten year range? Can it get much slower?
I would appreciate having only one console. I think the software developers would still compete with each other, so quality wouldn't suffer. Thing is, the big 3 would have to decide who would create this console, and they each have such different views of the way things should be, this will never happen.
I guess a single format world with different players that could each play everything could happen, much like the rest of the entertainment industry. That actually makes a lot of sense to me.
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
agreed... haven't you people ever heard of standard oil?
That's actually a good point. The $600 PS3 is what you get when a company [thinks it] has no competition.
So fuck your one-console future. I like being able to pay $250 for my gaming machine.
And the 400 dollar X-Box 360 is what you get when a company desparately wants to compete. That's still too much, I think. I love my Wii and it fills my gaming time to the brim, but I always have that little voice in the back of my mind telling me how many awesome games I'm missing out on.
EDIT: I wish I could play Gears of War, Halo 3, Little Big Planet and Metal Gear Solid 4 on my 250 dollar gaming machine, but I can't.
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
No, but at least you get a gaming machine, and that's the point of competition. The $400 360 is because Microsoft thought it was going to be competing against Sony again this gen. I guarantee you, not a single system next gen will retail for more than $300.
He's been out in the press a lot talking about this very thing.
When he's not suing Epic for the unreal engine having shitty tech support.
yes. yes we do.
Someone should make a shirt that says "One is not enough!" on the front with the three console logos on the back.
Playing Ridge Racer in PS3 in a game store the other day, I felt embarrassment. It was such an amazing piece of shit. Sure there will be a ton of solid games which look amazing and play beautifully, but the resistance to a new control scheme among the hardcore is dumbfounding.
tl:dr: more Excite Truck please.
GoW, Halo 3, etc. etc. require more than $250 worth of hardware to run, that's all.
Look, we had this happen before. Good ol' Trip Hawkins came out with his glorious vision of a single-console future, where one company licensed out the design and specification for anyone to manufacture, and what happened? None of the manufacturers could compete on features, and none of the manufacturers could sell at a loss, so they all cut corners on quality and still ended up with a $700 console.
Peripherals segments your market. I mean if I release Wii Sports, what do I do with Wii Sports 2? How about MP:3 any other future game that could use it? Another problem is what if another party wants to make use of peripheral, you as a software maker, created? (Welcome to the Hell Hole of GH / RockBand)
By releasing there own system, they are guaranteed certain conditions. It also gives the same freedom and conditions to other developers.
Unfortunetly, Games are far more complex then say a DVD player. Sure a standard exists for those and all the developers can add in there extra bells and whistles.
The problem lies in the fact that Technology is a moving target.
The 3 Companies would have to agree year and year about future hardware about basic power, cost and functionality.
Which brings up the whole BLU-Ray HD-DVD and the DVD+/-R fiacso too.
If those, simplier, models couldnt agree. I dont think a Game Console could either.
Hmmm... very true.
It is not often someone limes a counter-argument to their own idea in G&T
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa
hahahahahahahaa
haha
a
whew
So, wait, you think that the government should require that anyone making a software title (I mean, how do you define "game", anyway) produce it for every platform in existence?
hahahahahahahhaaaaa
Man thats a first for me, happening to and seeing it
Game A coming out in 7 years because we need to develop the title on all game platforms...
Games would never come out if you had to develop on all systems
Have you ever done any hypothetical thought experiments in order to provoke interesting brainteasers? They're fun you know. You should live a little.
Anyway, I didn't say requiring release on all platforms. My meaning was something that stopped developers/publishers/manufacturers signing golden handcuff agreements, thus removing the incentive to make exclusive games.
but halo 2, god of war 1/2, mgs3, RE4, ninja gaiden, FFXII, splinter cell, DMC3, SotC, Metroid:P, WW, KOTOR, GTA:SA, etc etc etc don't. :-P
I'm just saying, you don't need $400 worth of hardware to make absolutely amazing games. Hey, it helps, but I'm just sayin is all.
From the looks of things, the market's sorting that out just fine on its own. I'm guessing that this gen, all but a handful of exclusives will be first party, at least between the 360 and PS3 (the Wii has a vast difference in hardware and control scheme, so it's out of that equation). Every major third-party exclusive except MGS4, FF13, and maybe Bioshock (if that counts as major) has magically become non-exclusive. Costs of development are getting higher and MS/Sony can't bribe enough anymore.
Then you might as well ban all 1st and 2nd exclusivity as well. Developers (and publishers) sign these agreements for a reason.
$TEXAS
Consumers might not like it, but the devs are sure fine (initially) with it.
Another aspect is that some games make such intricate use of the HW, it becomes very difficult or barely feasible to port said game.
That's fine. But it begs the question:
"Where do you draw the line?"
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
so does mass effect, i would add that to the list.
and done confuse support and financing with bribery. a common misconception. i hate how people always just assume exclusive = moneyhat. it does not.
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
$599 US DOLLARS?
I mean, seriously, this is the major theoretical problem (practical problems were discussed earlier; ctrl+f "trip hawkins") with the "one console to rule them all" mindset: you need to figure out how much people are willing to pay, and having multiple consoles at different price points helps keep the market from falling apart.
as long as i can hold on to the notion that somewhere, somehow, somebody is giving out wearable hats made entirely out of hundred dollar bills.
It doesn't always just mean straight-up moneyhats, but a good chunk of the time that's what it is. You want to know why Grand Theft Auto took so damn long to hit the Xbox? It ain't because of time porting it; the PC version was long since done.
I ponder though whether game design would be far more advanced and intuitive (not to mention more widely received) if there weren't hardware advancements to fall back on consistantly.
One console - industry stagnation, leading to less creativity, and artificially inflated prices.
Multiple consoles - you can't purchase every game available because you can't afford each console (until the end of the generation when each console is ~$100).
At least with the multi-console angle, you can still play every game. You just have to wait a bit. Seems a lot less dire than the monopoly angle.
Again, on the creativity issue I agree for hardware, but it might stand to reason that software would be better designed and thought out since there wouldn't be technology to fall back on for the "wow" factor. This also adds to the fact that the hardware platform would be easier to learn and more accessable for many developers because of unified middleware, development tools, and of course hardware.
It's a hypothetical of course, but still a point worth noting. Software competition wouldn't end if there was one console.