By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
Clearly somebody here hasn't heard of the Creative 3DO Blaster.
If you have an open hardware specification for gaming, it's just going to get integrated into whatever addin cards are required for PC gaming.
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
Lotsa controlled and unknown variables in this charming experiment eh?
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
Lotsa controlled and unknown variables in this charming experiment eh?
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
Lotsa controlled and unknown variables in this charming experiment eh?
Crazy hypotheticals make for good conversation.
The best of the best.
So how about that new console by samsung coming in 2009 eh? Gonna be HUGE in it's native korea!
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
Lotsa controlled and unknown variables in this charming experiment eh?
Crazy hypotheticals make for good conversation.
The best of the best.
So how about that new console by samsung coming in 2009 eh? Gonna be HUGE in it's native korea!
By the way, is everyone noting computers as hardware platforms for gaming? If there was one unified console wouldn't it still be competing with PC/Mac on a hardware scale?
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
Lotsa controlled and unknown variables in this charming experiment eh?
Crazy hypotheticals make for good conversation.
The best of the best.
So how about that new console by samsung coming in 2009 eh? Gonna be HUGE in it's native korea!
A merger amongst the 3 companies would need some /serious/ legal cajoling to get past the antitrust issues. The department of justice would slap this the fuck outta the court in no time.
Yumcake on
Cake is yum, is yum cake? I think, therefore I am. I am... Yumcake.
A merger amongst the 3 companies would need some /serious/ legal cajoling to get past the antitrust issues. The department of justice would slap this the fuck outta the court in no time.
We're not talking about merging, just a standards consortium. Interesting link though!
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.
For some reason in my mind a better example is the time it takes Microsoft to port Xbox games to PC. You know, Windows. That other thing they kinda do.
I think it's a better example because for Microsoft to port one of its own Xbox games to windows, timewise would only take them about 3 and 1/2 hours, and that's only a slight exaggeration of how easy it would be.
However Halo 3 sells consoles. It might theoretically sell computers as well, but at a profit to Nvidia, ATI/AMD, Intel, HP, Dell, etc, not to microsoft.
Microsoft keeps things exclusive from their own other platform for $Texas reasons. They would make incredible margin selling the PC version, because it would cost them $30 worth of code monkeys to do the port and they would be making $49 per game. But the hype, the business around it, the pressure of maybe having to say "No I haven't played Halo 3 because I don't own a 360." That's the moneyhatz.
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.
For some reason in my mind a better example is the time it takes Microsoft to port Xbox games to PC. You know, Windows. That other thing they kinda do.
I think it's a better example because for Microsoft to port one of its own Xbox games to windows, timewise would only take them about 3 and 1/2 hours, and that's only a slight exaggeration of how easy it would be.
However Halo 3 sells consoles. It might theoretically sell computers as well, but at a profit to Nvidia, ATI/AMD, Intel, HP, Dell, etc, not to microsoft.
Microsoft keeps things exclusive from their own other platform for $Texas reasons. They would make incredible margin selling the PC version, because it would cost them $30 worth of code monkeys to do the port and they would be making $49 per game. But the hype, the business around it, the pressure of maybe having to say "No I haven't played Halo 3 because I don't own a 360." That's the moneyhatz.
Err, no. You can't just take a game developed for a standard set of hardware and toss it in to the PC world, where you could run in to any of thousands of different devices.
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.
For some reason in my mind a better example is the time it takes Microsoft to port Xbox games to PC. You know, Windows. That other thing they kinda do.
I think it's a better example because for Microsoft to port one of its own Xbox games to windows, timewise would only take them about 3 and 1/2 hours, and that's only a slight exaggeration of how easy it would be.
However Halo 3 sells consoles. It might theoretically sell computers as well, but at a profit to Nvidia, ATI/AMD, Intel, HP, Dell, etc, not to microsoft.
Microsoft keeps things exclusive from their own other platform for $Texas reasons. They would make incredible margin selling the PC version, because it would cost them $30 worth of code monkeys to do the port and they would be making $49 per game. But the hype, the business around it, the pressure of maybe having to say "No I haven't played Halo 3 because I don't own a 360." That's the moneyhatz.
Err, no. You can't just take a game developed for a standard set of hardware and toss it in to the PC world, where you could run in to any of thousands of different devices.
OMG YOR SO RITE I had no idea what I was talking about thanks for correcting me on that
I mean I know sometimes it's hard to understand tone on the internet. But jesus people.
That's why I even used the $30 worth of code monkeys phrase. Do I really think it's that easy? No. But seriously, is it really really really fucking easy compared to any conversion of any software from one system to another? Yes.
Should people understand hyperbole better and not try to prove me wrong like I meant it literally?
Here's what I see as the major strengths of all the current players:
Nintendo: Enough A-list franchises to help sell the idea of a collaborative console to developers.
Microsoft: Top-notch marketing, ridiculously good at making easy to use development frameworks.
Sony: Has all the hardware industry connections.
At the moment most people have to choose between 1/3 or 2/3 systems, and miss out on others until years later.* Could there be some sense in the big three collaborating on one console and sharing profits, bringing their strengths together, rather than beating each other over the head with sales numbers and system specs?
*Note: Just because some people can justify buying 2 or 3 consoles does not mean this fragmentation is good for the industry's growth.
Enjoy antitrust lawsuits!
Or if we have a republican administration, enjoy paying $800 for a console to the Micronintendisony monopoly.
kaliyama on
0
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
I'll admit I haven't read the thread, but I do think I'd be happier with two consoles than with three. One console is too few and could only lead the a raping from that particular manufacturer, and three is too many because you just can't afford all three consoles and the games for all of them.
But two consoles? I can stand by that.
There are too many consoles nowadays. Please eliminate one.
I'll admit I haven't read the thread, but I do think I'd be happier with two consoles than with three. One console is too few and could only lead the a raping from that particular manufacturer, and three is too many because you just can't afford all three consoles and the games for all of them.
But two consoles? I can stand by that.
There are too many consoles nowadays. Please eliminate one.
I'll admit I haven't read the thread, but I do think I'd be happier with two consoles than with three. One console is too few and could only lead the a raping from that particular manufacturer, and three is too many because you just can't afford all three consoles and the games for all of them.
But two consoles? I can stand by that.
There are too many consoles nowadays. Please eliminate one.
PS3.
Oh wait, that wasn't a question. Sorry
Anyway, we can't eliminate the PS3. Unless they release LittleBigPlanet on 360. Then yes, get rid of the PS3.
Does competition between consoles really help? We care about games and we want competition between the game studios, not the hardware. All 3 consoles do is make the developer waste time and resources on multiple ports or learning multiple hardwares and limits the amount of competition between game studios. I never got the competition in relation to hardware. Its like PC and Macs currently. Its nice to have a different option but I would rather everything be interoperable and let the software people compete. Id rather just have an open architecture like the PC and let developers do their competing so we get better games instead of fighting over which console to develop for.
i think the current set-up is awesome. we have a choice between three consoles and, lets not kid ourselves, whichever way you go you're going to get a damn good experience. the fact that you can no longer fulfill your OCD needs to have every good game on a limited budget is an inevitability from any kind of robust videogame market. in fact i find it surprising that anyone ever could own all the systems and all the games.
make a choice, stick with it, and worry about what you have got rather than what you haven't
Does competition between consoles really help? We care about games and we want competition between the game studios, not the hardware. All 3 consoles do is make the developer waste time and resources on multiple ports or learning multiple hardwares and limits the amount of competition between game studios. I never got the competition in relation to hardware. Its like PC and Macs currently. Its nice to have a different option but I would rather everything be interoperable and let the software people compete. Id rather just have an open architecture like the PC and let developers do their competing so we get better games instead of fighting over which console to develop for.
D-Pad. Analog stick. Optical discs. Rumble. Dual analog sticks. Internal memory. Motion sensing.
Does competition between consoles really help? We care about games and we want competition between the game studios, not the hardware. All 3 consoles do is make the developer waste time and resources on multiple ports or learning multiple hardwares and limits the amount of competition between game studios. I never got the competition in relation to hardware. Its like PC and Macs currently. Its nice to have a different option but I would rather everything be interoperable and let the software people compete. Id rather just have an open architecture like the PC and let developers do their competing so we get better games instead of fighting over which console to develop for.
Competition between hardware keeps companies either a) innovating, or b) providing good hardware at a reasonable price.
I mean, sure, the PS3 sounds absurdly expensive. But since we have competition, we don't have to pay $600 for a system. People are voting for the 360 and Wii with their wallets, and we've seen some temporary price cuts into the PS3.. Despite this, however, you'd still be getting a great deal of expensive hardware for less than it costs to produce it when you buy a PS3. Without the competition, Sony would have had no reason to price it in ways to stay at least remotely competitive with the 360.
Competition produces innovation as well. Innovation in terms of improved design of hardware as well as innovative ideas. Nintendo was flailing last gen with the GameCube, and so they went the innovation route in order to compete in this generation, and thereby gives gamers a new way to play games at a very affordable price.
An analogy to your comment, except with regards to the PC, would be:
"Why do we need competition in the video card market?"
i think the media is part of the change, too. all of a sudden anyone with a network cable is streaming videos of every little thing to come out of a games studio before breakfast, and reading non-console specific blogs, and posting on non console specific forums. as such it seems like there's a hell of a lot out there that you can't have all of a sudden, and i guess the first thing is to jump to blame the fact that there's three consoles
but back in the day there was still a lot out there, lots of games, consoles, and you could never have it all, it just seemed like you did because you bought Playstation Monthly or Nintendo Zone and just read about what was coming out for your system. Video game news was scarce back in the day, you had to hunt for it, there wasn't this media saturation and giant marketing and promotional budgets.
[sarcasm] "Why don't we just pay whatever Company X tells us is fair? We can trust them to be completely fair right? I'm sure they'll try their absolute best to maximize the end-user experience above all else. They would never choose higher profits over our satisfaction." [/sarcasm]
Checks and balances from competition keeps them all accountable to real-world performance standards rather than theoretical promises. If they're the only point of comparison, whatever expectations they tell you to accept would be untestable. With competition they are forced to make good on their promises to push progress forward.
Yumcake on
Cake is yum, is yum cake? I think, therefore I am. I am... Yumcake.
I'm of the opinion that we don't need three consoles, but that doesn't mean I think there should only be one. With a 2-system setup, the consumer still reaps the benefits of competition within the market. Its such a pain in the ass that unless you own all 3 systems there's always at least one game you want to play, but can't 'cause you don't have the system.
I went with a PS3/Wii combo, because Sony's exclusives appeal to me more than Microsoft's. But yeah, I would like to play Gears and Ninja Gaiden 2. However, the vast majority of games I want are multi-platform. Why should I buy a $400 system to play 2 or 3 games I can't get on the system I already have?
Actually, if you really only want to have 1 console that is capable of playing all current-gen games, you really only need to do 4 steps in a simple process:
1. Buy a Wii
2. Buy a PS3
3. Buy a 360
4. Duct tape them all together.
Actually, if you really only want to have 1 console that is capable of playing all current-gen games, you really only need to do 4 steps in a simple process:
1. Buy a Wii
2. Buy a PS3
3. Buy a 360
4. Duct tape them all together.
I’ll tell you what happens in Demon’s Souls when you die. You come back as a ghost with your health capped at half. And when you keep on dying, the alignment of the world turns black and the enemies get harder. That’s right, when you fail in this game, it gets harder. Why? Because fuck you is why.
Does competition between consoles really help? We care about games and we want competition between the game studios, not the hardware. All 3 consoles do is make the developer waste time and resources on multiple ports or learning multiple hardwares and limits the amount of competition between game studios. I never got the competition in relation to hardware. Its like PC and Macs currently. Its nice to have a different option but I would rather everything be interoperable and let the software people compete. Id rather just have an open architecture like the PC and let developers do their competing so we get better games instead of fighting over which console to develop for.
D-Pad. Analog stick. Optical discs. Rumble. Dual analog sticks. Internal memory. Motion sensing.
Yes, competition between consoles really helps.
Thank you.
Also referencing a totally unrelated post, saying that porting a game to PC, especially when dealing with the XP/Vista thing currently going on (yay almost buying a gameI can't run due to the OS I'm running), strikes me as a little.... odd. :P
Okay, seriously, everyone needs to stop adhering to the competition helps in all cases mantra and actually listen to each other.
I want one box. I want standardization over the gaming platforms. We have standardization in DVD players--you buy a DVD player, you have a basic idea of what it does. It plays DVDs. What makes you buy one DVD player over another, though? That's right, all the other features like inputs/outputs, UI construction, etc. What if in the future, you have a choice between a Microsoft game-box, a Sony game-box, and a Nintendo game-box; but when you go to pick up a game, it's all in the same section, not separated into companies? That way, you choose which game-box has the features you desire, we all can do away with exclusives, and manufacturing costs go down because less time is spent porting and tweaking for each OS. And, like DVD players, it presents a variety of entries into the gaming world. Have some money to spend? Drop $400 on a game-box and get a bunch of neat features (like Live). Don't have much? Get a $50 Wal-Mart brand one that'll crap out in a year, but hey, at least you're playing video games.
You still have competition, but it also adds convenience for the buyer.
Okay, seriously, everyone needs to stop adhering to the competition helps in all cases mantra and actually listen to each other.
I want one box. I want standardization over the gaming platforms. We have standardization in DVD players--you buy a DVD player, you have a basic idea of what it does. It plays DVDs. What makes you buy one DVD player over another, though? That's right, all the other features like inputs/outputs, UI construction, etc. What if in the future, you have a choice between a Microsoft game-box, a Sony game-box, and a Nintendo game-box; but when you go to pick up a game, it's all in the same section, not separated into companies? That way, you choose which game-box has the features you desire, we all can do away with exclusives, and manufacturing costs go down because less time is spent porting and tweaking for each OS. And, like DVD players, it presents a variety of entries into the gaming world. Have some money to spend? Drop $400 on a game-box and get a bunch of neat features (like Live). Don't have much? Get a $50 Wal-Mart brand one that'll crap out in a year, but hey, at least you're playing video games.
Okay, seriously, everyone needs to stop adhering to the competition helps in all cases mantra and actually listen to each other.
I want one box. I want standardization over the gaming platforms. We have standardization in DVD players--you buy a DVD player, you have a basic idea of what it does. It plays DVDs. What makes you buy one DVD player over another, though? That's right, all the other features like inputs/outputs, UI construction, etc. What if in the future, you have a choice between a Microsoft game-box, a Sony game-box, and a Nintendo game-box; but when you go to pick up a game, it's all in the same section, not separated into companies? That way, you choose which game-box has the features you desire, we all can do away with exclusives, and manufacturing costs go down because less time is spent porting and tweaking for each OS. And, like DVD players, it presents a variety of entries into the gaming world. Have some money to spend? Drop $400 on a game-box and get a bunch of neat features (like Live). Don't have much? Get a $50 Wal-Mart brand one that'll crap out in a year, but hey, at least you're playing video games.
3DO.
I'm confused. What does that have to do with anything?
Okay, seriously, everyone needs to stop adhering to the competition helps in all cases mantra and actually listen to each other.
I want one box. I want standardization over the gaming platforms. We have standardization in DVD players--you buy a DVD player, you have a basic idea of what it does. It plays DVDs. What makes you buy one DVD player over another, though? That's right, all the other features like inputs/outputs, UI construction, etc. What if in the future, you have a choice between a Microsoft game-box, a Sony game-box, and a Nintendo game-box; but when you go to pick up a game, it's all in the same section, not separated into companies? That way, you choose which game-box has the features you desire, we all can do away with exclusives, and manufacturing costs go down because less time is spent porting and tweaking for each OS. And, like DVD players, it presents a variety of entries into the gaming world. Have some money to spend? Drop $400 on a game-box and get a bunch of neat features (like Live). Don't have much? Get a $50 Wal-Mart brand one that'll crap out in a year, but hey, at least you're playing video games.
3DO.
I'm confused. What does that have to do with anything?
Uh, not really. The 3DO tried to do that... coupled with a refusal to lower prices because it wasn't "just a video game console," coming out in the awkward time at the beginning of the CD-ROM era with fifty million other consoles out at the same time, and, oh, yeah, and not actually going out and getting a standardization created. Seriously, the 3DO tried to let other companies use their own software--that's not standardization, that's licensing. Standardization is what happened when all the major digital media companies came together for the DVD, using Toshiba's original Super Density idea and adding a bunch of necessities to it.
Posts
And this is all assuming it doesn't free up room for another company to make a console. It could have the effect of giving an entirely new hardware player a chance.
Clearly somebody here hasn't heard of the Creative 3DO Blaster.
If you have an open hardware specification for gaming, it's just going to get integrated into whatever addin cards are required for PC gaming.
Lotsa controlled and unknown variables in this charming experiment eh?
Crazy hypotheticals make for good conversation.
The best of the best.
So how about that new console by samsung coming in 2009 eh? Gonna be HUGE in it's native korea!
1TB of flash storage: CONFIRMED
Built in 40" 1080p LCD, Starcraft 2 pre-loaded.
A merger amongst the 3 companies would need some /serious/ legal cajoling to get past the antitrust issues. The department of justice would slap this the fuck outta the court in no time.
We're not talking about merging, just a standards consortium. Interesting link though!
For some reason in my mind a better example is the time it takes Microsoft to port Xbox games to PC. You know, Windows. That other thing they kinda do.
I think it's a better example because for Microsoft to port one of its own Xbox games to windows, timewise would only take them about 3 and 1/2 hours, and that's only a slight exaggeration of how easy it would be.
However Halo 3 sells consoles. It might theoretically sell computers as well, but at a profit to Nvidia, ATI/AMD, Intel, HP, Dell, etc, not to microsoft.
Microsoft keeps things exclusive from their own other platform for $Texas reasons. They would make incredible margin selling the PC version, because it would cost them $30 worth of code monkeys to do the port and they would be making $49 per game. But the hype, the business around it, the pressure of maybe having to say "No I haven't played Halo 3 because I don't own a 360." That's the moneyhatz.
Err, no. You can't just take a game developed for a standard set of hardware and toss it in to the PC world, where you could run in to any of thousands of different devices.
OMG YOR SO RITE I had no idea what I was talking about thanks for correcting me on that
I mean I know sometimes it's hard to understand tone on the internet. But jesus people.
That's why I even used the $30 worth of code monkeys phrase. Do I really think it's that easy? No. But seriously, is it really really really fucking easy compared to any conversion of any software from one system to another? Yes.
Should people understand hyperbole better and not try to prove me wrong like I meant it literally?
Yes.
Interesting concept but it probably wouldn't work, even today.
EXCELLENT read on the 3DO
Enjoy antitrust lawsuits!
Or if we have a republican administration, enjoy paying $800 for a console to the Micronintendisony monopoly.
But two consoles? I can stand by that.
There are too many consoles nowadays. Please eliminate one.
To the sickos at Modern Bride:
PS3.
Oh wait, that wasn't a question. Sorry
Anyway, we can't eliminate the PS3. Unless they release LittleBigPlanet on 360. Then yes, get rid of the PS3.
make a choice, stick with it, and worry about what you have got rather than what you haven't
D-Pad. Analog stick. Optical discs. Rumble. Dual analog sticks. Internal memory. Motion sensing.
Yes, competition between consoles really helps.
Competition between hardware keeps companies either a) innovating, or b) providing good hardware at a reasonable price.
I mean, sure, the PS3 sounds absurdly expensive. But since we have competition, we don't have to pay $600 for a system. People are voting for the 360 and Wii with their wallets, and we've seen some temporary price cuts into the PS3.. Despite this, however, you'd still be getting a great deal of expensive hardware for less than it costs to produce it when you buy a PS3. Without the competition, Sony would have had no reason to price it in ways to stay at least remotely competitive with the 360.
Competition produces innovation as well. Innovation in terms of improved design of hardware as well as innovative ideas. Nintendo was flailing last gen with the GameCube, and so they went the innovation route in order to compete in this generation, and thereby gives gamers a new way to play games at a very affordable price.
An analogy to your comment, except with regards to the PC, would be:
"Why do we need competition in the video card market?"
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
but back in the day there was still a lot out there, lots of games, consoles, and you could never have it all, it just seemed like you did because you bought Playstation Monthly or Nintendo Zone and just read about what was coming out for your system. Video game news was scarce back in the day, you had to hunt for it, there wasn't this media saturation and giant marketing and promotional budgets.
the industry's changing, dudes. enjoy it!
Checks and balances from competition keeps them all accountable to real-world performance standards rather than theoretical promises. If they're the only point of comparison, whatever expectations they tell you to accept would be untestable. With competition they are forced to make good on their promises to push progress forward.
I went with a PS3/Wii combo, because Sony's exclusives appeal to me more than Microsoft's. But yeah, I would like to play Gears and Ninja Gaiden 2. However, the vast majority of games I want are multi-platform. Why should I buy a $400 system to play 2 or 3 games I can't get on the system I already have?
SEGA EXODUS
1. Buy a Wii
2. Buy a PS3
3. Buy a 360
4. Duct tape them all together.
See how easy that is?
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
What about the Evo?
I've been waiting for that.
SteamID: FronWewq
Battle.net: Orange#1845
3DS Friend Code: 1289-9498-5797
Except work.
Japanese Kamikaze pilots had better survival rates than the 360.
Let me tell you about Demon's Souls....
Thank you.
Also referencing a totally unrelated post, saying that porting a game to PC, especially when dealing with the XP/Vista thing currently going on (yay almost buying a gameI can't run due to the OS I'm running), strikes me as a little.... odd. :P
I want one box. I want standardization over the gaming platforms. We have standardization in DVD players--you buy a DVD player, you have a basic idea of what it does. It plays DVDs. What makes you buy one DVD player over another, though? That's right, all the other features like inputs/outputs, UI construction, etc. What if in the future, you have a choice between a Microsoft game-box, a Sony game-box, and a Nintendo game-box; but when you go to pick up a game, it's all in the same section, not separated into companies? That way, you choose which game-box has the features you desire, we all can do away with exclusives, and manufacturing costs go down because less time is spent porting and tweaking for each OS. And, like DVD players, it presents a variety of entries into the gaming world. Have some money to spend? Drop $400 on a game-box and get a bunch of neat features (like Live). Don't have much? Get a $50 Wal-Mart brand one that'll crap out in a year, but hey, at least you're playing video games.
You still have competition, but it also adds convenience for the buyer.
3DO.
I'm confused. What does that have to do with anything?
and it died in the arse
You just described the 3DO.