I can understand and support the difference between the Wii and the 360 (or even the DS and the PSP) for example. They are two very different beasts and are more akin to different instruments. Like I can support the difference between Card Games and Board Games.
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
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.
No, you described exactly what the 3DO is. And judging from your response, you don't know very much about it.
I have class in 15 minutes. Go look it up. I posted a link earlier.
To be fair, it was $700 in 1993. The game industry has changed a bit since then. With 3 companies working on it, subsidizing down to $400 and making it back in games may actually be feasible.
To be fair, it was $700 in 1993. The game industry has changed a bit since then. With 3 companies working on it, subsidizing down to $400 and making it back in games may actually be feasible.
The PANASONIC model was $699. The goldstar model was $349.
I can understand and support the difference between the Wii and the 360 (or even the DS and the PSP) for example. They are two very different beasts and are more akin to different instruments. Like I can support the difference between Card Games and Board Games.
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
since when? what was the difference between the genesis and the snes? master system and nes? not a lot, when games were ported (as many were) they were pretty damn similar. and people put up with it, because whichever way you went you still got a lot. the same as it is today
i'd contend that this generation is the first one in which paths of console manufacturers have actually diverged in any meaningful way
I can understand and support the difference between the Wii and the 360 (or even the DS and the PSP) for example. They are two very different beasts and are more akin to different instruments. Like I can support the difference between Card Games and Board Games.
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
since when? what was the difference between the genesis and the snes? master system and nes? not a lot, when games were ported (as many were) they were pretty damn similar. and people put up with it, because whichever way you go you went you still got a lot. the same as it is today
i'd contend that this generation is the first one in which paths of console manufacturers have actually diverged in any meaningful way
...the differences in performance between the SMS and NES, and the Genesis and SNES are far, far, FAR greater than the differences in performance between the PS3 and 360.
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.
No, you described exactly what the 3DO is. And judging from your response, you don't know very much about it.
I have class in 15 minutes. Go look it up. I posted a link earlier.
Yes but the 3DO was standardised shit surrounded my diamonds. I can lay a perfect turd on the carpet, photograph it and break down exactly how to reproduce the turd - but that just means everyone ends up producing turds.
Now if the combined might of Sony and Microsoft co-developed a PlayBox, whether they then opened it up to third party manufacturers or not -- we would be in a much better situation for everyone.
And considering Microsoft are still not-profitable, and have no presence in japan at all - and since Sony have free fall'd there way into third place faster than the N64 tied to a brick - and coupled with the fact that Nintendo are heading off in a radically different direction - I could see them doing just that.
I can understand and support the difference between the Wii and the 360 (or even the DS and the PSP) for example. They are two very different beasts and are more akin to different instruments. Like I can support the difference between Card Games and Board Games.
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
since when? what was the difference between the genesis and the snes? master system and nes? not a lot, when games were ported (as many were) they were pretty damn similar. and people put up with it, because whichever way you go you went you still got a lot. the same as it is today
i'd contend that this generation is the first one in which paths of console manufacturers have actually diverged in any meaningful way
...the differences in performance between the SMS and NES, and the Genesis and SNES are far, far, FAR greater than the differences in performance between the PS3 and 360.
To be fair, it was $700 in 1993. The game industry has changed a bit since then. With 3 companies working on it, subsidizing down to $400 and making it back in games may actually be feasible.
Look, you don't get it. When you have a bunch of different companies making the hardware, you can't subsidise it. You need to sell the hardware at profit, and so it'll be much more expensive. And then each individual hardware manufacturer can't compete on features (since it all has to match the specification) and can't really do much for the price (since they can't lower it below cost as they're not getting royalties from software) then all they can do to try and make their system more competitive is cut corners on quality to lower the cost of production. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO and we already talked about this earlier in the thread; it's like fucking Groundhog Day in here.
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.
No, you described exactly what the 3DO is. And judging from your response, you don't know very much about it.
I have class in 15 minutes. Go look it up. I posted a link earlier.
Yes but the 3DO was standardised shit surrounded my diamonds. I can lay a perfect turd on the carpet, photograph it and break down exactly how to reproduce the turd - but that just means everyone ends up producing turds.
Now if the combined might of Sony and Microsoft co-developed a PlayBox, whether they then opened it up to third party manufacturers or not -- we would be in a much better situation for everyone.
And considering Microsoft are still not-profitable, and have no presence in japan at all - and since Sony have free fall'd there way into third place faster than the N64 tied to a brick - and coupled with the fact that Nintendo are heading off in a radically different direction - I could see them doing just that.
I hope.
What the fuck are you guys talking about? You sound like you have no idea how games are created.
The 3DO standard wasn't "shit." It was pretty fucking radical stuff. Streamlined C++ interface with minimal access to hardware level components. There was so much wiggle room... it was a damn awesome environment to work with. ESPECIALLY in 1993. Why? Because it was designed by big wigs in the console business, headed by trip hawkings.
Shitty games does not mean it the standards it created weren't awesome.
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.
No, you described exactly what the 3DO is. And judging from your response, you don't know very much about it.
I have class in 15 minutes. Go look it up. I posted a link earlier.
So I can quote the link you put up to refute you, yes?
The idea was sound. Unfortunately, the execution of the idea was not.
With the idea that the 3DO was to become a multifunctional part of everyone's home entertainment centers, the unit was released in 1993 with an MSRP of $700 (and sometimes sold for even higher prices). Even though the system was touted as being a do-all set-top box of the future, most people saw it as an extremely expensive videogame system.
However, the 3DO never recovered from its initial reputation as a rich man's videogame system.
Judging from your response, you didn't really understand what I was getting at at all. The 3DO failed because it did not represent a forum of companies coming together to create a game standardization. It was the 3DO Company and Trip Hawkins saying, "Hey guys! We have this spec, why don't you make hardware for it? Oh, we're going to try to replace your entire media experience by the way, and we'll start the market off at $700."
Seriously, just read the history of the DVD. That's what I want to happen.
To be fair, it was $700 in 1993. The game industry has changed a bit since then. With 3 companies working on it, subsidizing down to $400 and making it back in games may actually be feasible.
The PANASONIC model was $699. The goldstar model was $349.
You lambast me for not knowing about the 3DO and then you can't even remember article you linked to explain it? The Goldstar was dead in the water because of the industry precedent set by the Panasonic.
Seriously, I get that the 3DO was technically good and had a sound basis and standards. But it'd die again today. It wouldn't if the major players decided to collaborate on it, instead of one-tenth of the market deciding to throw their lot in together.
I can understand and support the difference between the Wii and the 360 (or even the DS and the PSP) for example. They are two very different beasts and are more akin to different instruments. Like I can support the difference between Card Games and Board Games.
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
since when? what was the difference between the genesis and the snes? master system and nes? not a lot, when games were ported (as many were) they were pretty damn similar. and people put up with it, because whichever way you go you went you still got a lot. the same as it is today
i'd contend that this generation is the first one in which paths of console manufacturers have actually diverged in any meaningful way
...the differences in performance between the SMS and NES, and the Genesis and SNES are far, far, FAR greater than the differences in performance between the PS3 and 360.
TSR gets me. Those were much larger differences in a much more immature market. The PS3 and the 360 are basically the same machine. Hell the majority of their content is multiplatform. I'm not dissing the machines - i think they are both fantastic. But they are to all extents pointless.
Its as though the Betamax/VHS war was never won, and two format exist with ever so slight different content line ups, and ever so slight quality differences. Yes 'hardcore' fans see a difference - but there isn't one.
It's like two formats of microwave ovens that both cook a slightly different collection of ready meals. Even if one does cook certain dishes ever so slightly better than the other, you can't really justify the two models.
To be fair, it was $700 in 1993. The game industry has changed a bit since then. With 3 companies working on it, subsidizing down to $400 and making it back in games may actually be feasible.
Look, you don't get it. When you have a bunch of different companies making the hardware, you can't subsidise it. You need to sell the hardware at profit, and so it'll be much more expensive. And then each individual hardware manufacturer can't compete on features (since it all has to match the specification) and can't really do much for the price (since they can't lower it below cost as they're not getting royalties from software) then all they can do to try and make their system more competitive is cut corners on quality to lower the cost of production. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO and we already talked about this earlier in the thread; it's like fucking Groundhog Day in here.
The impression I get is that the 3DO tried to be what Sony wanted the PS3 to be. I shouldn't have mentioned subsidizing because that's a dumb idea.
Now, it would certainly cost a lot at first, but much like DVD players and VCRs, the price would come down as it moves closer to mainstream. It would sell to the same people that would give serious thought to buying (gamers with money) the PS3 at first, but eventually it would be profitable for all parties involved. We already have the hardware anyway; a derivative of the PS3 could very well serve as the basis for such an alliance.
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.
No, you described exactly what the 3DO is. And judging from your response, you don't know very much about it.
I have class in 15 minutes. Go look it up. I posted a link earlier.
Yes but the 3DO was standardised shit surrounded my diamonds. I can lay a perfect turd on the carpet, photograph it and break down exactly how to reproduce the turd - but that just means everyone ends up producing turds.
Now if the combined might of Sony and Microsoft co-developed a PlayBox, whether they then opened it up to third party manufacturers or not -- we would be in a much better situation for everyone.
And considering Microsoft are still not-profitable, and have no presence in japan at all - and since Sony have free fall'd there way into third place faster than the N64 tied to a brick - and coupled with the fact that Nintendo are heading off in a radically different direction - I could see them doing just that.
I hope.
What the fuck are you guys talking about? You sound like you have no idea how games are created.
The 3DO standard wasn't "shit." It was pretty fucking radical stuff. Streamlined C++ interface with minimal access to hardware level components. There was so much wiggle room... it was a damn awesome environment to work with. ESPECIALLY in 1993. Why? Because it was designed by big wigs in the console business, headed by trip hawkings.
Shitty games does not mean it the standards it created weren't awesome.
I didn't mean that at all! The 3DO was an incredible machine hardware wise (and had tempest!), I was just meaning that it never stood a chance in the already developed market place, and as such the standardisation couldn't help it.
I was jsut trying to show why saying "standardisation wouldn't work as the 3DO proves" is bull, where if Sony and Microsoft did it - they would be able to compete with Nintendo next gen.
The problem is that games work differently from movies. With DVD players, you could continue to release the same movies on VHS until DVD finally dominated. You can't do that with game consoles. Developers aren't going to make games only for a nonmainstream console.
I can understand and support the difference between the Wii and the 360 (or even the DS and the PSP) for example. They are two very different beasts and are more akin to different instruments. Like I can support the difference between Card Games and Board Games.
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
since when? what was the difference between the genesis and the snes? master system and nes? not a lot, when games were ported (as many were) they were pretty damn similar. and people put up with it, because whichever way you go you went you still got a lot. the same as it is today
i'd contend that this generation is the first one in which paths of console manufacturers have actually diverged in any meaningful way
...the differences in performance between the SMS and NES, and the Genesis and SNES are far, far, FAR greater than the differences in performance between the PS3 and 360.
as far as i'm concerned there was never any noticable difference, and if there was it wasn't a difference which could be easily discerned by the average consumer
well with the snes/genesis era at least, i was probably a bit young back in the day of the 8-bit wars
To be fair, it was $700 in 1993. The game industry has changed a bit since then. With 3 companies working on it, subsidizing down to $400 and making it back in games may actually be feasible.
Look, you don't get it. When you have a bunch of different companies making the hardware, you can't subsidise it. You need to sell the hardware at profit, and so it'll be much more expensive. And then each individual hardware manufacturer can't compete on features (since it all has to match the specification) and can't really do much for the price (since they can't lower it below cost as they're not getting royalties from software) then all they can do to try and make their system more competitive is cut corners on quality to lower the cost of production. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO and we already talked about this earlier in the thread; it's like fucking Groundhog Day in here.
The impression I get is that the 3DO tried to be what Sony wanted the PS3 to be. I shouldn't have mentioned subsidizing because that's a dumb idea.
Now, it would certainly cost a lot at first, but much like DVD players and VCRs, the price would come down as it moves closer to mainstream. It would sell to the same people that would give serious thought to buying (gamers with money) the PS3 at first, but eventually it would be profitable for all parties involved. We already have the hardware anyway; a derivative of the PS3 could very well serve as the basis for such an alliance.
The only way the price would go down is if you never had a successor console, and while I'm sure we'll get to that level of tech eventually, we aren't nearly there yet.
Look, you want a standardized, manufacturer-independent gaming platform, you've got the PC.
I think everyone's having a problem with my argument because they think I want it right now. That's impossible. In fifty years, I think a one-box solution will be inevitable. I think it'll take some growing-pains to get there, but I'm not rushing to see it happen right now.
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
Assuming it's still the same 3 companies? No chance in hell. Nintendo will still want the freedom to do its own thing, Microsoft will still want monopoly control, and Sony will still want to be relevant (as the Playstation division is the only part of the company that consistently pulls its own weight, and even that's starting to slide).
Hell, Microsoft hasn't fucking supported an open standard (without being forced to do so) since I can remember; breaking standards to promote their own version is practically their business model.
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
Assuming it's still the same 3 companies? No chance in hell. Nintendo will still want the freedom to do its own thing, Microsoft will still want monopoly control, and Sony will still want to be relevant (as the Playstation division is the only part of the company that consistently pulls its own weight, and even that's starting to slide).
Hell, Microsoft hasn't fucking supported an open standard (without being forced to do so) since I can remember; breaking standards to promote their own version is practically their business model.
I agree with you. "No way in hell" sums up my point of view quite nicely as far as the OPs point goes. I just wish we colud take a vote and shit this dpwn before it degnerates anymore
The problem is that games work differently from movies. With DVD players, you could continue to release the same movies on VHS until DVD finally dominated. You can't do that with game consoles. Developers aren't going to make games only for a nonmainstream console.
Yes you can. Sega did just that. They released the Master System, then upgraded to the Megadrive/Genesis, but the two systems lived in harmony for many years with a steady stream of new releases on both consoles. Sonic 1 and 2 both got SMS versions, but by the time of Sonic 3 the MS had been more or less dropped.
No doubt, as the PS2 is selling so well sony will have to do the same this gen.
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
Assuming it's still the same 3 companies? No chance in hell. Nintendo will still want the freedom to do its own thing, Microsoft will still want monopoly control, and Sony will still want to be relevant (as the Playstation division is the only part of the company that consistently pulls its own weight, and even that's starting to slide).
Hell, Microsoft hasn't fucking supported an open standard (without being forced to do so) since I can remember; breaking standards to promote their own version is practically their business model.
I agree with you. "No way in hell" sums up my point of view quite nicely as far as the OPs point goes. I just wish we colud take a vote and shit this dpwn before it degnerates anymore
Good thing you guys actually can't shut a thread closed once someone else agrees with you. :P
But your point of view definitely hinges on that "same three companies" bit. Twenty years is a long time in the game industry, and just because most people think we've gone two generations with the same companies in play (Dreamcast was techincally the same gen as PS2/GC/Xbox) doesn't mean it's settled into it's rut yet.
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
Assuming it's still the same 3 companies? No chance in hell. Nintendo will still want the freedom to do its own thing, Microsoft will still want monopoly control, and Sony will still want to be relevant (as the Playstation division is the only part of the company that consistently pulls its own weight, and even that's starting to slide).
Hell, Microsoft hasn't fucking supported an open standard (without being forced to do so) since I can remember; breaking standards to promote their own version is practically their business model.
I agree with you. "No way in hell" sums up my point of view quite nicely as far as the OPs point goes. I just wish we colud take a vote and shit this dpwn before it degnerates anymore
Good thing you guys actually can't shut a thread closed once someone else agrees with you. :P
But your point of view definitely hinges on that "same three companies" bit. Twenty years is a long time in the game industry, and just because most people think we've gone two generations with the same companies in play (Dreamcast was techincally the same gen as PS2/GC/Xbox) doesn't mean it's settled into it's rut yet.
Thing is, any newcomer into the business (who, remember, would have to already be big in some other related industry; the days of Sega or SNK or whomever coming out of nowhere with a console are past, as Infinium Labs shows us) would be entering it to carve out their own niche, not to unify with the other competitors.
They wouldn't come out to unify everyone, no, but they also don't have to. No one has to come out at all. Plenty of things could possibly happen regarding technology or market influences or whatever that'd shake things up.
So in your ideal world of one console, what would stop a company looking at the industry, deciding they want a piece of the pie, and making their own gaming thingy? Would competetion be banned, or do you envision a world where it's simply doomed to failure?
The problem is that games work differently from movies. With DVD players, you could continue to release the same movies on VHS until DVD finally dominated. You can't do that with game consoles. Developers aren't going to make games only for a nonmainstream console.
Yes you can. Sega did just that. They released the Master System, then upgraded to the Megadrive/Genesis, but the two systems lived in harmony for many years with a steady stream of new releases on both consoles. Sonic 1 and 2 both got SMS versions, but by the time of Sonic 3 the MS had been more or less dropped.
No doubt, as the PS2 is selling so well sony will have to do the same this gen.
The games weren't the same games on both systems They were changed to the point of being different games. Sonic 1 for the SMS was very different from the Genesis version. They weren't even remotely comparable to companies releasing the exact same movie for an old platform and a new platform.
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
Assuming it's still the same 3 companies? No chance in hell. Nintendo will still want the freedom to do its own thing, Microsoft will still want monopoly control, and Sony will still want to be relevant (as the Playstation division is the only part of the company that consistently pulls its own weight, and even that's starting to slide).
Hell, Microsoft hasn't fucking supported an open standard (without being forced to do so) since I can remember; breaking standards to promote their own version is practically their business model.
I agree with you. "No way in hell" sums up my point of view quite nicely as far as the OPs point goes. I just wish we colud take a vote and shit this dpwn before it degnerates anymore
Good thing you guys actually can't shut a thread closed once someone else agrees with you. :P
But your point of view definitely hinges on that "same three companies" bit. Twenty years is a long time in the game industry, and just because most people think we've gone two generations with the same companies in play (Dreamcast was techincally the same gen as PS2/GC/Xbox) doesn't mean it's settled into it's rut yet.
Thing is, any newcomer into the business (who, remember, would have to already be big in some other related industry; the days of Sega or SNK or whomever coming out of nowhere with a console are past, as Infinium Labs shows us) would be entering it to carve out their own niche, not to unify with the other competitors.
Exactly, microsoft lost billions just by succesfully entering the race. Nintendo have dramatically changed direction because the 'traditional' path would one day bleed them dry. I think there is space for multiple consoles, but I don't see there being space for multiple traditional consoles. One gen soon, either Sony or Microsoft will give up, or pull or a nintendo*.
Far more exciting, and I now think feasible is them joining forces. Bringing it down to a two cart race.
* Unless the PS3 totally claims Japan, and the 360 the USA/Europe.
So in your ideal world of one console, what would stop a company looking at the industry, deciding they want a piece of the pie, and making their own gaming thingy? Would competetion be banned, or do you envision a world where it's simply doomed to failure?
Maybe those guys had some good ideas, you know?
Let's not get started on my ideal world. In my ideal world, games would be held up as legitimate media experiences on par with film and literature, and be about as accessible.
To that end, in my ideal world, I'd just like to see it unreasonable to expect people to pay for another piece of hardware just to play your particular game. Yes, it's ideal, and that's why I didn't think it'd happen now or even in twenty years; that's why I said fifty.
The problem is that games work differently from movies. With DVD players, you could continue to release the same movies on VHS until DVD finally dominated. You can't do that with game consoles. Developers aren't going to make games only for a nonmainstream console.
Yes you can. Sega did just that. They released the Master System, then upgraded to the Megadrive/Genesis, but the two systems lived in harmony for many years with a steady stream of new releases on both consoles. Sonic 1 and 2 both got SMS versions, but by the time of Sonic 3 the MS had been more or less dropped.
No doubt, as the PS2 is selling so well sony will have to do the same this gen.
The games weren't the same games on both systems They were changed to the point of being different games. Sonic 1 for the SMS was very different from the Genesis version. They weren't even remotely comparable to companies releasing the exact same movie for an old platform and a new platform.
OK. I see what your saying but thats not really the point I was trying to make. My mentioning Sonic I conffused the point I was trying to make. The upgrade path still exists, it just means they have to support two consoles for longer, during the transition period.
Why would game developers want to support an expensive console that barely anybody is buying instead of only supporting console that everybody has? With movie formats, it is possible to support two or more formats without spending much money.
The problem is that games work differently from movies. With DVD players, you could continue to release the same movies on VHS until DVD finally dominated. You can't do that with game consoles. Developers aren't going to make games only for a nonmainstream console.
Yes you can. Sega did just that. They released the Master System, then upgraded to the Megadrive/Genesis, but the two systems lived in harmony for many years with a steady stream of new releases on both consoles. Sonic 1 and 2 both got SMS versions, but by the time of Sonic 3 the MS had been more or less dropped.
No doubt, as the PS2 is selling so well sony will have to do the same this gen.
The games weren't the same games on both systems They were changed to the point of being different games. Sonic 1 for the SMS was very different from the Genesis version. They weren't even remotely comparable to companies releasing the exact same movie for an old platform and a new platform.
OK. I see what your saying but thats not really the point I was trying to make. My mentioning Sonic I conffused the point I was trying to make. The upgrade path still exists, it just means they have to support two consoles for longer, during the transition period.
Your point perhaps would've been better served by Sonic 3D Blast on the Genesis/Mega Drive and the Saturn.
The NES was also supported for at least a year or more after the SNES came out due to its popularity. Because of that we got some really good games, like Kirby's Adventure, on the NES.
Why would game developers want to support an expensive console that barely anybody is buying instead of only supporting console that everybody has? With movie formats, it is possible to support two or more formats without spending much money.
Because they are not short sighted. Because launch titles do well thanks to the lack of competition. Why are developers making games for the Wii and 360 with 20million combined sales when the PS2 has sold a bajillion (300m I think)? Why do summer films have better special effects every year. Because there is only so long you can sustain an interest in a platform - and if your audience gets bored they leave. There are many ways to keep an audience - Nintendos method is now to produce a wider varitey of games. The traditional way is to make games with better graphics.
But as long as backwards compatibility is maintained, that would be a great thing. If the PS3 was a 100% backwards compatible then it would be great to see smaller outfits with smaller budgets working on one interation, with bigger games coming out on the latest hardware.
But not in a PC way. In a new standard version every five years kinda way.
Why are developers making games for the Wii and 360 with 20million combined sales when the PS2 has sold a bajillion (300m I think)?
Because those consoles are actually selling? A 700 dollar console wouldn't sell and developers would be afraid to support it.
Because there is only so long you can sustain an interest in a platform - and if your audience gets bored they leave.
I don't remember them getting bored and leaving the Gameboy. New consoles are made because one of the competitors decide that a new console is needed in order to compete well with the competition. The other console manufacturers then make new consoles because they are afraid of being left behind.
There are many ways to keep an audience - Nintendos method is now to produce a wider varitey of games. The traditional way is to make games with better graphics.
Why are developers making games for the Wii and 360 with 20million combined sales when the PS2 has sold a bajillion (300m I think)?
Because those consoles are actually selling? A 700 dollar console wouldn't sell and developers would be afraid to support it.
Because there is only so long you can sustain an interest in a platform - and if your audience gets bored they leave.
I don't remember them getting bored and leaving the Gameboy. New consoles are made because one of the competitors decide that a new console is needed in order to compete well with the competition. The other console manufacturers then make new consoles because they are afraid of being left behind.
There are many ways to keep an audience - Nintendos method is now to produce a wider varitey of games. The traditional way is to make games with better graphics.
Your contradicting yourself, "those consoles are selling so they are supported." vs" why support a new console over an old established one." (paraphrased quotes).
I'm not suggesting a one console future. I'm only arguing that both the 360 and PS3 existing is stupid. And a standardise single console (a playbox) to compete with the Wii2:Wii Harder is a much better approach.
Will that happen? Doubtful.
Would it be better for the consumer? Yes.
Would it be better for the manufacture? Yes.
Would it be better for the developer? Yes
Would it spell an end to the Game Subsidised Console approach to making consoles? Yes. And that would be superb. It's the stupidist approach I've ever seen. The GC shows that you can sell a console, a top of the line console at a profit, and a reasonable price. The GSC approach is killing Sony now. It's stupid and it harms everyone. Would that approach have meant that this gen was slightly less powerful, or released slightly later? Of course. And thats no bad thing.
So in your ideal world of one console, what would stop a company looking at the industry, deciding they want a piece of the pie, and making their own gaming thingy? Would competetion be banned, or do you envision a world where it's simply doomed to failure?
Maybe those guys had some good ideas, you know?
Let's not get started on my ideal world. In my ideal world, games would be held up as legitimate media experiences on par with film and literature, and be about as accessible.
To that end, in my ideal world, I'd just like to see it unreasonable to expect people to pay for another piece of hardware just to play your particular game. Yes, it's ideal, and that's why I didn't think it'd happen now or even in twenty years; that's why I said fifty.
It is unreasonable. But it is not unreasonable to anticipate that a significant number of people will buy another piece of hardware to play your game and a range of other games only available on said hardware.
Competition will, as far as I can see, always be viable (and therefore present) in the gaming industry, because - unlike movies - there is no strict law governing what a game is. New ways to play/interact/experience are being introduced all the time, and there will always be another way in which things could be done. If it were simply a power issue where hardware is concerned, then a single solution might well be feasible, but it simply isn't the case.
If your concern is industry growth, then yes, we need as many systems as we can get.
It doesn't matter if Joe Wii-Owner is missing our on MGS4, what matters is that there is competition within the idustry, otherwise everything would go to shit.
I'm being very optimistic, I know. I'm also thinking very, very far off in the future. Another reason why the 3DO would have failed anyway was because something was going to come out very soon to make it obsolete. If Moore's Law holds up indefinitely, I could see your point. I don't think it will, though, and I do think a simple software/OS standardization will be able to account for all the new ways to play. Hell, look at the people who are able to get their Wiimotes working on their PCs and Macs.
And yeah, this is all on the PC already, but that's got enough grognards set in already that we can't expect them to lead the charge anymore.
Posts
But both the 360 and the PS3 existing is pointless (as were the GC and PS2 last gen). They are effectively 2 identical machines, with absolutely no differences. They are akin to the HD-DVD/Blu-ray market as it stands today. Multiple platforms that publish media. The split in which media is available on each platform is meaningless.
A moron thinks it's acceptable to have to spend £150 on a player to watch Pixar's A Bug's Life and another £150 on a player to watch Dreamworks Antz, when both inprinciple both players could play both content fine. In the same way I shouldn't have to buy 2 machines to play Halo 3 and Killzone 2.
I think a true sign of Computer games maturing is when such ridiculous differences no longer apply.
Consoles need to present massive differences to legitimize their existance - and slightly different lists of exclusives doesn't do that. Yes competition is good, but the competition between Blu-ray and HD-DVD will not lead to better films. An open platform any company can manufacture is a form of competition - and a much better one in this case.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
No, you described exactly what the 3DO is. And judging from your response, you don't know very much about it.
I have class in 15 minutes. Go look it up. I posted a link earlier.
The PANASONIC model was $699. The goldstar model was $349.
since when? what was the difference between the genesis and the snes? master system and nes? not a lot, when games were ported (as many were) they were pretty damn similar. and people put up with it, because whichever way you went you still got a lot. the same as it is today
i'd contend that this generation is the first one in which paths of console manufacturers have actually diverged in any meaningful way
...the differences in performance between the SMS and NES, and the Genesis and SNES are far, far, FAR greater than the differences in performance between the PS3 and 360.
Yes but the 3DO was standardised shit surrounded my diamonds. I can lay a perfect turd on the carpet, photograph it and break down exactly how to reproduce the turd - but that just means everyone ends up producing turds.
Now if the combined might of Sony and Microsoft co-developed a PlayBox, whether they then opened it up to third party manufacturers or not -- we would be in a much better situation for everyone.
And considering Microsoft are still not-profitable, and have no presence in japan at all - and since Sony have free fall'd there way into third place faster than the N64 tied to a brick - and coupled with the fact that Nintendo are heading off in a radically different direction - I could see them doing just that.
I hope.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
BLAST PROCESSING! WHOOO!
Look, you don't get it. When you have a bunch of different companies making the hardware, you can't subsidise it. You need to sell the hardware at profit, and so it'll be much more expensive. And then each individual hardware manufacturer can't compete on features (since it all has to match the specification) and can't really do much for the price (since they can't lower it below cost as they're not getting royalties from software) then all they can do to try and make their system more competitive is cut corners on quality to lower the cost of production. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO and we already talked about this earlier in the thread; it's like fucking Groundhog Day in here.
What the fuck are you guys talking about? You sound like you have no idea how games are created.
The 3DO standard wasn't "shit." It was pretty fucking radical stuff. Streamlined C++ interface with minimal access to hardware level components. There was so much wiggle room... it was a damn awesome environment to work with. ESPECIALLY in 1993. Why? Because it was designed by big wigs in the console business, headed by trip hawkings.
Shitty games does not mean it the standards it created weren't awesome.
So I can quote the link you put up to refute you, yes?
Judging from your response, you didn't really understand what I was getting at at all. The 3DO failed because it did not represent a forum of companies coming together to create a game standardization. It was the 3DO Company and Trip Hawkins saying, "Hey guys! We have this spec, why don't you make hardware for it? Oh, we're going to try to replace your entire media experience by the way, and we'll start the market off at $700."
Seriously, just read the history of the DVD. That's what I want to happen.
You lambast me for not knowing about the 3DO and then you can't even remember article you linked to explain it? The Goldstar was dead in the water because of the industry precedent set by the Panasonic.
Seriously, I get that the 3DO was technically good and had a sound basis and standards. But it'd die again today. It wouldn't if the major players decided to collaborate on it, instead of one-tenth of the market deciding to throw their lot in together.
TSR gets me. Those were much larger differences in a much more immature market. The PS3 and the 360 are basically the same machine. Hell the majority of their content is multiplatform. I'm not dissing the machines - i think they are both fantastic. But they are to all extents pointless.
Its as though the Betamax/VHS war was never won, and two format exist with ever so slight different content line ups, and ever so slight quality differences. Yes 'hardcore' fans see a difference - but there isn't one.
It's like two formats of microwave ovens that both cook a slightly different collection of ready meals. Even if one does cook certain dishes ever so slightly better than the other, you can't really justify the two models.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
The impression I get is that the 3DO tried to be what Sony wanted the PS3 to be. I shouldn't have mentioned subsidizing because that's a dumb idea.
Now, it would certainly cost a lot at first, but much like DVD players and VCRs, the price would come down as it moves closer to mainstream. It would sell to the same people that would give serious thought to buying (gamers with money) the PS3 at first, but eventually it would be profitable for all parties involved. We already have the hardware anyway; a derivative of the PS3 could very well serve as the basis for such an alliance.
I didn't mean that at all! The 3DO was an incredible machine hardware wise (and had tempest!), I was just meaning that it never stood a chance in the already developed market place, and as such the standardisation couldn't help it.
I was jsut trying to show why saying "standardisation wouldn't work as the 3DO proves" is bull, where if Sony and Microsoft did it - they would be able to compete with Nintendo next gen.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
as far as i'm concerned there was never any noticable difference, and if there was it wasn't a difference which could be easily discerned by the average consumer
The only way the price would go down is if you never had a successor console, and while I'm sure we'll get to that level of tech eventually, we aren't nearly there yet.
Look, you want a standardized, manufacturer-independent gaming platform, you've got the PC.
The real question of this thread is- Is it a realistic scenario that in 20 years or so the three current major console hardware manufacturers will standardize the console industry?
Assuming it's still the same 3 companies? No chance in hell. Nintendo will still want the freedom to do its own thing, Microsoft will still want monopoly control, and Sony will still want to be relevant (as the Playstation division is the only part of the company that consistently pulls its own weight, and even that's starting to slide).
Hell, Microsoft hasn't fucking supported an open standard (without being forced to do so) since I can remember; breaking standards to promote their own version is practically their business model.
I agree with you. "No way in hell" sums up my point of view quite nicely as far as the OPs point goes. I just wish we colud take a vote and shit this dpwn before it degnerates anymore
Yes you can. Sega did just that. They released the Master System, then upgraded to the Megadrive/Genesis, but the two systems lived in harmony for many years with a steady stream of new releases on both consoles. Sonic 1 and 2 both got SMS versions, but by the time of Sonic 3 the MS had been more or less dropped.
No doubt, as the PS2 is selling so well sony will have to do the same this gen.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Good thing you guys actually can't shut a thread closed once someone else agrees with you. :P
But your point of view definitely hinges on that "same three companies" bit. Twenty years is a long time in the game industry, and just because most people think we've gone two generations with the same companies in play (Dreamcast was techincally the same gen as PS2/GC/Xbox) doesn't mean it's settled into it's rut yet.
Thing is, any newcomer into the business (who, remember, would have to already be big in some other related industry; the days of Sega or SNK or whomever coming out of nowhere with a console are past, as Infinium Labs shows us) would be entering it to carve out their own niche, not to unify with the other competitors.
Maybe those guys had some good ideas, you know?
The games weren't the same games on both systems They were changed to the point of being different games. Sonic 1 for the SMS was very different from the Genesis version. They weren't even remotely comparable to companies releasing the exact same movie for an old platform and a new platform.
Exactly, microsoft lost billions just by succesfully entering the race. Nintendo have dramatically changed direction because the 'traditional' path would one day bleed them dry. I think there is space for multiple consoles, but I don't see there being space for multiple traditional consoles. One gen soon, either Sony or Microsoft will give up, or pull or a nintendo*.
Far more exciting, and I now think feasible is them joining forces. Bringing it down to a two cart race.
* Unless the PS3 totally claims Japan, and the 360 the USA/Europe.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Let's not get started on my ideal world. In my ideal world, games would be held up as legitimate media experiences on par with film and literature, and be about as accessible.
To that end, in my ideal world, I'd just like to see it unreasonable to expect people to pay for another piece of hardware just to play your particular game. Yes, it's ideal, and that's why I didn't think it'd happen now or even in twenty years; that's why I said fifty.
OK. I see what your saying but thats not really the point I was trying to make. My mentioning Sonic I conffused the point I was trying to make. The upgrade path still exists, it just means they have to support two consoles for longer, during the transition period.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
If you do, I have some kool-aid flavored arsenic for you right over here.
Your point perhaps would've been better served by Sonic 3D Blast on the Genesis/Mega Drive and the Saturn.
The NES was also supported for at least a year or more after the SNES came out due to its popularity. Because of that we got some really good games, like Kirby's Adventure, on the NES.
Because they are not short sighted. Because launch titles do well thanks to the lack of competition. Why are developers making games for the Wii and 360 with 20million combined sales when the PS2 has sold a bajillion (300m I think)? Why do summer films have better special effects every year. Because there is only so long you can sustain an interest in a platform - and if your audience gets bored they leave. There are many ways to keep an audience - Nintendos method is now to produce a wider varitey of games. The traditional way is to make games with better graphics.
But as long as backwards compatibility is maintained, that would be a great thing. If the PS3 was a 100% backwards compatible then it would be great to see smaller outfits with smaller budgets working on one interation, with bigger games coming out on the latest hardware.
But not in a PC way. In a new standard version every five years kinda way.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I don't remember them getting bored and leaving the Gameboy. New consoles are made because one of the competitors decide that a new console is needed in order to compete well with the competition. The other console manufacturers then make new consoles because they are afraid of being left behind.
Your contradicting yourself, "those consoles are selling so they are supported." vs" why support a new console over an old established one." (paraphrased quotes).
I'm not suggesting a one console future. I'm only arguing that both the 360 and PS3 existing is stupid. And a standardise single console (a playbox) to compete with the Wii2:Wii Harder is a much better approach.
Will that happen? Doubtful.
Would it be better for the consumer? Yes.
Would it be better for the manufacture? Yes.
Would it be better for the developer? Yes
Would it spell an end to the Game Subsidised Console approach to making consoles? Yes. And that would be superb. It's the stupidist approach I've ever seen. The GC shows that you can sell a console, a top of the line console at a profit, and a reasonable price. The GSC approach is killing Sony now. It's stupid and it harms everyone. Would that approach have meant that this gen was slightly less powerful, or released slightly later? Of course. And thats no bad thing.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
It is unreasonable. But it is not unreasonable to anticipate that a significant number of people will buy another piece of hardware to play your game and a range of other games only available on said hardware.
Competition will, as far as I can see, always be viable (and therefore present) in the gaming industry, because - unlike movies - there is no strict law governing what a game is. New ways to play/interact/experience are being introduced all the time, and there will always be another way in which things could be done. If it were simply a power issue where hardware is concerned, then a single solution might well be feasible, but it simply isn't the case.
If your concern is industry growth, then yes, we need as many systems as we can get.
It doesn't matter if Joe Wii-Owner is missing our on MGS4, what matters is that there is competition within the idustry, otherwise everything would go to shit.
And yeah, this is all on the PC already, but that's got enough grognards set in already that we can't expect them to lead the charge anymore.
WOuld Sony have ever bothered to add runble back in to their controllers if there were no 360 or Wii?
Would MSoft have ever come out with the Elite, if there were no PS3 to compete with, with its HDMI outputs and larger hard drive.
Competition is what drives innovation and breeds excellence. A one-console future would spell the doom of the industry.