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.
Moore said recently that his law has a limited lifespan. :P
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Yes? That's the point of my argument. The playbox wouldn't be bound to exact specifications. It'd be bound by the data format of the games itself. The example I presented was DVD players. DVD players come in a wide variety, but you can take one DVD and play it on all of them. They each just differ on their features. So yeah, a playbox manufacturer would have to compete with other playbox manufacturers for the features. In this case, a one-console future would be a great thing for accessibility for the industry.
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Yes? That's the point of my argument. The playbox wouldn't be bound to exact specifications. It'd be bound by the data format of the games itself. The example I presented was DVD players. DVD players come in a wide variety, but you can take one DVD and play it on all of them. They each just differ on their features. So yeah, a playbox manufacturer would have to compete with other playbox manufacturers for the features. In this case, a one-console future would be a great thing for accessibility for the industry.
Look, if you don't see why a games machine would have to have a much more strict set of standards than a DVD player, then I don't know what to tell you here.
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Yes? That's the point of my argument. The playbox wouldn't be bound to exact specifications. It'd be bound by the data format of the games itself. The example I presented was DVD players. DVD players come in a wide variety, but you can take one DVD and play it on all of them. They each just differ on their features. So yeah, a playbox manufacturer would have to compete with other playbox manufacturers for the features. In this case, a one-console future would be a great thing for accessibility for the industry.
#
So if I bought a cheap(er) PlayBoX to play one game, but then wanted to play a game needing more expensive ones, I'd have to but a whole new piece of hardware just toplay a game?
...how is that better (or even different?) Am I just misreading what you wrote?
Look, if you don't see why a games machine would have to have a much more strict set of standards than a DVD player, then I don't know what to tell you here.
Well of course the standards would be stricter. I... don't see what makes them impossible.
Will I need to append not in the near future, but eventually to all my original posts, people? :P
So if I bought a cheap(er) PlayBoX to play one game, but then wanted to play a game needing more expensive ones, I'd have to but a whole new piece of hardware just toplay a game?
...how is that better (or even different?) Am I just misreading what you wrote?
No, see, my hope is eventually we can reach a base-standard, which honestly, we could if the industry wasn't growing by leaps and bounds every year like it is now. With that standard, all playboxes would require that standard. And all games would require only that standard be reached to be playable. So you'd never need to go buy a more expensive playbox or something. Now, if a particular game wanted a special peripheral or something, they'd have to worry about drivers and selling it separate, but that'd also have standardization--like USB or something.
I dunno, I'm not writing a paper on this or anything so this is still very optimistic, but I just want anyone to walk out, by a Playbox, available in any range of price, and play the same games I do. Accessibility is the key to making gaming an accepted part of everyone's life. Is that really a bad thing?
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Yes? That's the point of my argument. The playbox wouldn't be bound to exact specifications. It'd be bound by the data format of the games itself. The example I presented was DVD players. DVD players come in a wide variety, but you can take one DVD and play it on all of them. They each just differ on their features. So yeah, a playbox manufacturer would have to compete with other playbox manufacturers for the features. In this case, a one-console future would be a great thing for accessibility for the industry.
Not entirely, no.
DVDs work because they are a passive activity. you hook the machine up to a screen, and you watch it.
But with video games, there are far too many active features to be able to just streamline everything without killing off innovation. There would have NEVER been a Wii, for instance.
There is no good reason, for the industry itself, to force some kind of standardization. I can only see it hurting things by cutting off innovation, and thereby decreasin interest, and I can see ABSOLUTELY no way in which it would drive higher profits to the market.
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Of course they would drop price as the life extends, not as much no doubt, but it's an ingrained part of the lifecycle. The PS2 had this same period where it was an over expensive device. But with each price job they open up thier market to demographics. They would need to, to drive sales.
If they didn't allow third parties to produce compatible units then, no they probably wouldn't keep improving the console over it's lifespan. But in my opinion thats the WORST addition to the console world since the Phantom. It's biggest strength is the fact you have a consistent platform for 5 years.
And on top of that they would still be competition with the Wii 2/N6.
Look, if you don't see why a games machine would have to have a much more strict set of standards than a DVD player, then I don't know what to tell you here.
Well of course the standards would be stricter. I... don't see what makes them impossible.
Will I need to append not in the near future, but eventually to all my original posts, people? :P
My point was (as I've said in like the last six pages, dammit) that when the standard is strict enough for gaming to work with it, manufacturers won't have different features to compete on, and will only be able to compete by price, which (since they can't subsidize the hardware) will only decrease when they cut corners on quality. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO.
I don't like to go all "your revolutionary ideas have already occured to (and been discarded by) others", but there's no other way to put it here.
I am personally hoping for a future of convergance. The Sixaxis and the 360 controller are, for all tense and purposes, the same. I am hoping there can be a future format where games are released and playable on all systems, much like a DVD or CD. Then the consumer makes the choice about which console he feels has the best features, value and branding to play the game on.
This allows developers to make games to a standard and allows for comanies to rely on innovation about what they package with their consoles.
No history of siezures? Try the Nintendo Strobe.
Already have a DVR? Don't need the PS8.
Really like Multiplayer? The Xbox 1080 may be for you.
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Of course they would drop price as the life extends, not as much no doubt, but it's an ingrained part of the lifecycle. The PS2 had this same period where it was an over expensive device. But with each price job they open up thier market to demographics. They would need to, to drive sales.
If they didn't allow third parties to produce compatible units then, no they probably wouldn't keep improving the console over it's lifespan. But in my opinion thats the WORST addition to the console world since the Phantom. It's biggest strength is the fact you have a consistent platform for 5 years.
And on top of that they would still be competition with the Wii 2/N6.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
Look, if you don't see why a games machine would have to have a much more strict set of standards than a DVD player, then I don't know what to tell you here.
Well of course the standards would be stricter. I... don't see what makes them impossible.
Will I need to append not in the near future, but eventually to all my original posts, people? :P
As soon as one system becomes limited in its capabilities (as in its standards, or whatever), a door is opened for a competitor to provide whatever it is that system can't. Why should a game be only what any one person/company/conglomerate says it is? This will not change EVER.
I am personally hoping for a future of convergance. The Sixaxis and the 360 controller are, for all tense and purposes, the same. I am hoping there can be a future format where games are released and playable on all systems, much like a DVD or CD. Then the consumer makes the choice about which console he feels has the best features, value and branding to play the game on.
This allows developers to make games to a standard and allows for comanies to rely on innovation about what they package with their consoles.
No history of siezures? Try the Nintendo Strobe.
Already have a DVR? Don't need the PS8.
Really like Multiplayer? The Xbox 1080 may be for you.
What you are missing is the WHY.
That is what SO MANY of you are missing here.
Convergence isn't going to drive higher profits for anyone, in fact, it WILL mean lower profits, becausethe many who would have, before, bought both an Xbox AND a PS3 now only buys one Playbox, so one of those companies is out some ammount of money.
There is ZERO economic reason for the market to want this to happen. COnsumers may like the idea, but they are still content to buy multiple systems, so it is all moot. COnsumers, generally, would love to recieve all manner of product for free, but the market doesn't do that for them either.
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Of course they would drop price as the life extends, not as much no doubt, but it's an ingrained part of the lifecycle. The PS2 had this same period where it was an over expensive device. But with each price job they open up thier market to demographics. They would need to, to drive sales.
If they didn't allow third parties to produce compatible units then, no they probably wouldn't keep improving the console over it's lifespan. But in my opinion thats the WORST addition to the console world since the Phantom. It's biggest strength is the fact you have a consistent platform for 5 years.
And on top of that they would still be competition with the Wii 2/N6.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
Though I said one console in the OP, I've come to realize that there are too many problems with that approach. If I could start the thread over, I would have suggested Sony and MS collaborate, while Nintendo continues to do their own thing.
My point was (as I've said in like the last six pages, dammit) that when the standard is strict enough for gaming to work with it, manufacturers won't have different features to compete on, and will only be able to compete by price, which (since they can't subsidize the hardware) will only decrease when they cut corners on quality. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO.
No, it is not. God, can we drop that argument already? Yeah, obviously standardization was what killed the 3DO. It wasn't any other market factor at work. Nosiree. The 3DO was released in a vacuum and it's failure in a vacuum means it could never ever come out again, ever. Never ever.
Look, let me sketch out a basic standardization for you. Off the top of my head.
- Controllers are wireless and have motion control (the games don't need to use it if it's not necessary).
- A specific number of inputs (buttons, sticks, etc.) on the controls.
- A minimum hard drive space.
- Network access.
- Standard OS.
Okay, now what can companies do to compete? They can make their playbox have wireless instead of wired internet. They can have more than the minimum hard drive space. They can have programmable controllers. They can allow memory cards to swap files. They can have this and that and the other--or they could leave that all out and sell it for much cheaper.
This is just a kernel of an idea, and it's just something I hope that catches on. Because yes, I think it would definitely not in the near future, but eventually be the saving grace of the industry.
If you want to spend all your money on one platform that is (theoretically) able to run anything, there is always the PC for you.
There is one major difference between the console world and the PC world, which can be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage:
Consoles are single platforms with well documented development features. With PC's, dev's usually never know (or never check) what hardware is behind the OS. The advantage here is that devs can streamline their game for the exact power the hardware has and the input system that is available. The disadvantage is that you are 'stuck' with the platforms/hardware power you choose.
It is essential that multiple platforms are available for the devs to choose from. They all have their own significant advantages and disadvantages, we argue about them here every day. Each console also has their own target demographic and pre-packaged PR-machine (in the form of gaming magazines and store promotion deals). PC has always lagged a bit in this respect, until Microsoft started that whole 'Games for Windows' bonanza.
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Of course they would drop price as the life extends, not as much no doubt, but it's an ingrained part of the lifecycle. The PS2 had this same period where it was an over expensive device. But with each price job they open up thier market to demographics. They would need to, to drive sales.
If they didn't allow third parties to produce compatible units then, no they probably wouldn't keep improving the console over it's lifespan. But in my opinion thats the WORST addition to the console world since the Phantom. It's biggest strength is the fact you have a consistent platform for 5 years.
And on top of that they would still be competition with the Wii 2/N6.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
Though I said one console in the OP, I've come to realize that there are too many problems with that approach. If I could start the thread over, I would have suggested Sony and MS collaborate, while Nintendo continues to do their own thing.
It doesn't matter.
Notice that Ninetendo hasn't budged during the last bit of one-upping between MSoft and Sony. The 360 and PS3 are close substitutions for each other, and substitutible goods are what drives innovation. No one is going to try to outdo another company that makes a good that is viewed as complimentary (See also: Wii60)
To whit, if there wereonly the Playbox, what would drive them to include a larger hard drive, or to drop the price?
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.
Yes? That's the point of my argument. The playbox wouldn't be bound to exact specifications. It'd be bound by the data format of the games itself. The example I presented was DVD players. DVD players come in a wide variety, but you can take one DVD and play it on all of them. They each just differ on their features. So yeah, a playbox manufacturer would have to compete with other playbox manufacturers for the features. In this case, a one-console future would be a great thing for accessibility for the industry.
This was done once already in the video games industry. It was called the 3DO and it was a fucking nightmare because even as technology improved they couldn't upgrade the hardware without breaking compatibility. Were they ever to upgrade the hardware and then make games that capitalize on that they'd have to start instituting "minimum requirements" for games. And suddenly the console loses what you wanted in it in the first place: standardization.
So if I bought a cheap(er) PlayBoX to play one game, but then wanted to play a game needing more expensive ones, I'd have to but a whole new piece of hardware just toplay a game?
...how is that better (or even different?) Am I just misreading what you wrote?
No, see, my hope is eventually we can reach a base-standard, which honestly, we could if the industry wasn't growing by leaps and bounds every year like it is now. With that standard, all playboxes would require that standard. And all games would require only that standard be reached to be playable. So you'd never need to go buy a more expensive playbox or something. Now, if a particular game wanted a special peripheral or something, they'd have to worry about drivers and selling it separate, but that'd also have standardization--like USB or something.
I dunno, I'm not writing a paper on this or anything so this is still very optimistic, but I just want anyone to walk out, by a Playbox, available in any range of price, and play the same games I do. Accessibility is the key to making gaming an accepted part of everyone's life. Is that really a bad thing?
But don't you see that you would still be required to buy new hardware for different games anyway in your proposal, only now you have to buy most of the hardware (at prices not driven down by the need to be competetive) to get on the ground floor? The same issues that are around today come into it.
And some company could easily just come in and - for a much lower price - offer to sell a system that let's you play 33% of the games that use one or two particular features (like the Wii today). People would be happy. People would buy it. Others would not, but the company making the product won't care. They make more money this way.
My point was (as I've said in like the last six pages, dammit) that when the standard is strict enough for gaming to work with it, manufacturers won't have different features to compete on, and will only be able to compete by price, which (since they can't subsidize the hardware) will only decrease when they cut corners on quality. This is exactly what happened with the 3DO.
No, it is not. God, can we drop that argument already? Yeah, obviously standardization was what killed the 3DO. It wasn't any other market factor at work. Nosiree. The 3DO was released in a vacuum and it's failure in a vacuum means it could never ever come out again, ever. Never ever.
Look, let me sketch out a basic standardization for you. Off the top of my head.
- Controllers are wireless and have motion control (the games don't need to use it if it's not necessary).
- A specific number of inputs (buttons, sticks, etc.) on the controls.
- A minimum hard drive space.
- Network access.
- Standard OS.
Okay, now what can companies do to compete? They can make their playbox have wireless instead of wired internet. They can have more than the minimum hard drive space. They can have programmable controllers. They can allow memory cards to swap files. They can have this and that and the other--or they could leave that all out and sell it for much cheaper.
This is just a kernel of an idea, and it's just something I hope that catches on. Because yes, I think it would definitely not in the near future, but eventually be the saving grace of the industry.
If you had come up with this three-four years ago, motion controls wouldn't be listed there.
If you came up with this in another three-four years, who knows what new innovations to the industry you might include.
You are limiting the market, and without reason.
Seriously, can ANYONE give any economic explaination fo how this is supposed to be good for the market?
But don't you see that you would still be required to buy new hardware for different games anyway in your proposal, only now you have to buy most of the hardware (at prices not driven down by the need to be competetive) to get on the ground floor? The same issues that are around today come into it.
And some company could easily just come in and - for a much lower price - offer to sell a system that let's you play 33% of the games that use one or two particular features (like the Wii today). People would be happy. People would buy it. Others would not, but the company making the product won't care. They make more money this way.
Why would you necessarily have to buy more hardware? I think we're confused each other. Let me put it this way. Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
And yeah, good point on the second one. The standard would have to be very strong to repel that sort of thing. It could turn out bad, or it could turn out like all those stupid GBA Video things, or UMD. But it is something to keep in mind.
If you had come up with this three-four years ago, motion controls wouldn't be listed there.
If you came up with this in another three-four years, who knows what new innovations to the industry you might include.
You are limiting the market, and without reason.
Seriously, can ANYONE give any economic explaination fo how this is supposed to be good for the market?
Evander, please, read what I said a few pages ago. I said this wouldn't occur in this market. I said it'd occur not in the near future, but eventually--like, a few decades from now, when Moore's Law does not apply anymore. And I've already said this is another reason why the 3DO failed--because it was in a period of rapid growth, like we're in today.
Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
Would Resistance even exist if you could?
Maybe it would, but Killzone, for instance, would never have been made if you could play Halo on the same system. You'd have very few other platformers if everyone got Mario, etc.
When I talk about competition being good for the industry, I DON'T just mean hardware.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
The iPod pricing thing is a big, big worry of mine. Because I see it happening with the 360 and PS3. All the multiple SKUs and upgrades are working to keep prices the same, rather than falling. I'm a big believer in one model for the life of the console.
It can't last though, because a huge quantity of the market (myself included) are waiting for the 360/PS3 to be cheap enough to buy, not waiting till its "worth it" because it now has a 1TB hard drive - so if you stick in that path you cut your audience massively.
I think Standardising consoles like DVD players has a lot of flaws, I also believe that identical consoles with minor software line ups existing harms everyone.
It would be best if next gen all 3 consoles released were as different as the PS3 and Wii are. The second best would be if the PS3 and Xbox combined, and the Wii continued down it's path. The worst possible situation is if all three consoles next gen are all equivalent Wii2's (like how last gen's GC/PS2/Xbox were the same*) if that came to pass them we might as well have a single console released.
Not least because of the vast amount of resources wasted every year getting multiformat games to run on both the 360 and the PS3.
* the Xbox's online service can be argued to stand it apart.
While it's valid to ask what games wouldn't exist with one console, you also have to ask what kinds of games would exist in this hypothetical scenario, or the question is useless because it presumes the scenario is bad.
Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
Would Resistance even exist if you could?
Maybe it would, but Killzone, for instance, would never have been made if you could play Halo on the same system. You'd have very few other platformers if everyone got Mario, etc.
When I talk about competition being good for the industry, I DON'T just mean hardware.
And in the future, when the industry is more settled down and acclimated, we'll have room to make similar games on the same console. Two movies in the same genre can come out in the same year and not necessarily mean the death of each other.
If you had come up with this three-four years ago, motion controls wouldn't be listed there.
If you came up with this in another three-four years, who knows what new innovations to the industry you might include.
You are limiting the market, and without reason.
Seriously, can ANYONE give any economic explaination fo how this is supposed to be good for the market?
Evander, please, read what I said a few pages ago. I said this wouldn't occur in this market. I said it'd occur not in the near future, but eventually--like, a few decades from now, when Moore's Law does not apply anymore. And I've already said this is another reason why the 3DO failed--because it was in a period of rapid growth, like we're in today.
Ummm...
If it's not occuringin the Video Game market, then what the hell market is it occuring in?
Unless...are you trying to tell me that you are trying to make economic arguments without even a rudimentary knowledge of microeconomics?
"Martket" is the term for the theoretical construct where a particular good or type of good is sold. One one side of the market are the suppliers, who set supply. On the other side are the consumers, who set demand. The market itself is controlled by "an invisible hand", in the words of Adam Smith, sort of like an Ouiji board, whereby the price and quantity within the market move to an equilibrium point where consumer demand is willing to pay that particular price, and suppliers are willing to produce that quantity for that particular price.
And that is an EXTREMELY simplified explanation of supply and demand.
Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
Would Resistance even exist if you could?
Maybe it would, but Killzone, for instance, would never have been made if you could play Halo on the same system. You'd have very few other platformers if everyone got Mario, etc.
When I talk about competition being good for the industry, I DON'T just mean hardware.
And in the future, when the industry is more settled down and acclimated, we'll have room to make similar games on the same console. Two movies in the same genre can come out in the same year and not necessarily mean the death of each other.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think you're getting this.
People generally watcha movie once, maybe a couple of times, and then move on. That's only two hours per viewing.
People play games over and over, with each playthrough being much longer.
Movies and Games are NOT analogous products, and you can't stand the two markets up next to each other and assume that what works for one will also work for the other.
Who are people? I'm part of this sub-set of people. So are my friends. Many of them watch the same movie repeatedly because they love it. Many of these same people only play a game once or twice. And I'm not comparing markets, I'm making analogies.
Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
Would Resistance even exist if you could?
Maybe it would, but Killzone, for instance, would never have been made if you could play Halo on the same system. You'd have very few other platformers if everyone got Mario, etc.
When I talk about competition being good for the industry, I DON'T just mean hardware.
I disagree and agree.
Yes, the PS2 got FFX so that stopped in being inundated with other good JRPGs didn't it?
But also, a lot of money has been wasted by companies reinventing the wheel. Sony 90's pursuits of a platforming mascot, when it's not needed for example. But one platform, for all its other flaws, would lead to a greater variety of games (but not interaction methods). A niche game with minor appeal would have access to everyone.
If a single platform caused souless cash ins on other better games, thats great. Developers would be able to focus their strengths not making sure their platform has 1 driving game, 1 FPS, 1 Mascot, 1 RPG - and just do what they do best.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
The iPod pricing thing is a big, big worry of mine. Because I see it happening with the 360 and PS3. All the multiple SKUs and upgrades are working to keep prices the same, rather than falling. I'm a big believer in one model for the life of the console.
It can't last though, because a huge quantity of the market (myself included) are waiting for the 360/PS3 to be cheap enough to buy, not waiting till its "worth it" because it now has a 1TB hard drive - so if you stick in that path you cut your audience massively.
I think Standardising consoles like DVD players has a lot of flaws, I also believe that identical consoles with minor software line ups existing harms everyone.
It would be best if next gen all 3 consoles released were as different as the PS3 and Wii are. The second best would be if the PS3 and Xbox combined, and the Wii continued down it's path. The worst possible situation is if all three consoles next gen are all equivalent Wii2's (like how last gen's GC/PS2/Xbox were the same*) if that came to pass them we might as well have a single console released.
Not least because of the vast amount of resources wasted every year getting multiformat games to run on both the 360 and the PS3.
* the Xbox's online service can be argued to stand it apart.
Don't get me going on the iPod thing. This summer, sitting around at the office, I kept bouncing my ideas about how the iPod is killing the mp3 player market off of the other folks here (who are ACTUAL economists, as opposed to my student ass.)
As for three identical consoles being bad, I have to ask, who exactly is it bad for? You can argue that it's bad for the consumers, and I would concede that to an extent, but it's also clear that the consumers are willing to deal with it, so that negativity towards consumers has no ill effect on the market itself.
As was said earlier, the market has ALWAYS been a competition between multiple companies with consoles that, tot he consumer, were identical (I don't care about the specs, as far as the consumer could tell, the only difference between the SNES and the Genesis was Mario and Sonic). Having similar consoles competing with each other has never seemed to hurt the market, and I don't see how getting rid of them would help the market, so I'm not quite sure WHY it should happen.
I should just come out and say I don't really care about the market. I'm more concerned with video games being readily available to the masses like almost any other art form. (This does speak to Evander being in economics and me with my English degree.) And I just think there will eventually come such a saturation of technology that standardization will just come naturally. I don't think having three major hardware manufacturers will last us past fifty years.
Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
Would Resistance even exist if you could?
Maybe it would, but Killzone, for instance, would never have been made if you could play Halo on the same system. You'd have very few other platformers if everyone got Mario, etc.
When I talk about competition being good for the industry, I DON'T just mean hardware.
I disagree and agree.
Yes, the PS2 got FFX so that stopped in being inundated with other good JRPGs didn't it?
But also, a lot of money has been wasted by companies reinventing the wheel. Sony 90's pursuits of a platforming mascot, when it's not needed for example. But one platform, for all its other flaws, would lead to a greater variety of games (but not interaction methods). A niche game with minor appeal would have access to everyone.
If a single platform caused souless cash ins on other better games, thats great. Developers would be able to focus their strengths not making sure their platform has 1 driving game, 1 FPS, 1 Mascot, 1 RPG - and just do what they do best.
I see no justification there for your argument. How would a single platform encourage more games? Sure, a niche game with minor appeal would be accessible to everyone, but what exactly do you think that would cause to occur?
Here's another one for you: Often, games have special features dependant on which console they are on (an extreme example would be Soul Caliber 2 and it's last playable character.) With a single console market, we would lose these sort of things, and wouldn't get those sorts of neat little extras any more. There'd be no reason to add something extra when porting a game to a new system.
I should just come out and say I don't really care about the market. I'm more concerned with video games being readily available to the masses like almost any other art form. (This does speak to Evander being in economics and me with my English degree.) And I just think there will eventually come such a saturation of technology that standardization will just come naturally. I don't think having three major hardware manufacturers will last us past fifty years.
I hate to sound the way I'm about to, but you are completely out of your element.
You are talking about comercial industry as though it were art. It isn't.
Now, I will be the first to declare that games CAN BE art, but the industry itself is not, just as you would likely agree that mass-produced harlyquinn romance novels are not quite "literature".
The PC already exists as a medium for getting your art out to anyone. Consoles themselves are comercial devices, and the decision to put your "art" on there means that you are choosing NOT to be accessible by everyone.
You can't advocte change of an entire industry, though, and ignore market forces. That would be like me arguing that the rules surrounding the letter Q are annoying and we should just do away with the letter entirely.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
The iPod pricing thing is a big, big worry of mine. Because I see it happening with the 360 and PS3. All the multiple SKUs and upgrades are working to keep prices the same, rather than falling. I'm a big believer in one model for the life of the console.
It can't last though, because a huge quantity of the market (myself included) are waiting for the 360/PS3 to be cheap enough to buy, not waiting till its "worth it" because it now has a 1TB hard drive - so if you stick in that path you cut your audience massively.
I think Standardising consoles like DVD players has a lot of flaws, I also believe that identical consoles with minor software line ups existing harms everyone.
It would be best if next gen all 3 consoles released were as different as the PS3 and Wii are. The second best would be if the PS3 and Xbox combined, and the Wii continued down it's path. The worst possible situation is if all three consoles next gen are all equivalent Wii2's (like how last gen's GC/PS2/Xbox were the same*) if that came to pass them we might as well have a single console released.
Not least because of the vast amount of resources wasted every year getting multiformat games to run on both the 360 and the PS3.
* the Xbox's online service can be argued to stand it apart.
Don't get me going on the iPod thing. This summer, sitting around at the office, I kept bouncing my ideas about how the iPod is killing the mp3 player market off of the other folks here (who are ACTUAL economists, as opposed to my student ass.)
As for three identical consoles being bad, I have to ask, who exactly is it bad for? You can argue that it's bad for the consumers, and I would concede that to an extent, but it's also clear that the consumers are willing to deal with it, so that negativity towards consumers has no ill effect on the market itself.
As was said earlier, the market has ALWAYS been a competition between multiple companies with consoles that, tot he consumer, were identical (I don't care about the specs, as far as the consumer could tell, the only difference between the SNES and the Genesis was Mario and Sonic). Having similar consoles competing with each other has never seemed to hurt the market, and I don't see how getting rid of them would help the market, so I'm not quite sure WHY it should happen.
When I say something is "bad" I am almost always talking about the consumer. I don't care how profitable three identical games machines with different software catalogues are. I don't care how profitable HD-DVD and Blu-Ray may be. If they coexist, and both have exclusives - then it is a huge, huge disaster for the consumer.
But it's also terrible for the medium of computer entertainment because it makes it look ridiculous. Like little Toys that come and go.
Thats why what nintendo is doing is so important, because otherwise gaming will end up like comic books, an incredibly valid, interesting and worthy artform that is given no respect what so ever because it has no cultural respect. And thats why it's shrunk massively compared to it's boom years.
It's why the VC and backwards compatibility is important too. Every game every made should come with every system. We're reaching a point where games like Super Mario Bros are 20+years old. And yet have held mine and my GFs attention longer in the last week than anything.
If you only got to watch movies for 5 years and then they weren't supported anymore, the movie industry would never have the respect it has now.
I see no justification there for your argument. How would a single platform encourage more games? Sure, a niche game with minor appeal would be accessible to everyone, but what exactly do you think that would cause to occur?
Here's another one for you: Often, games have special features dependant on which console they are on (an extreme example would be Soul Caliber 2 and it's last playable character.) With a single console market, we would lose these sort of things, and wouldn't get those sorts of neat little extras any more. There'd be no reason to add something extra when porting a game to a new system.
How would a single platform encourage less games?
I'm not suggesting 1 console. I'm suggesting no identical consoles. The 360 and Wii fine. The 360 and PS3 not fine.
Yes the SC2 thing is very, very telling. I don't think of it as a 'neat extra' at all. Considering the cost of developing one game for three platforms is clearly less than developing 3 games, but clearly much, much more than developing 1 game, then I see that as a huge waste of resources for 3 novelty characters.
When you say something is bad for the consumer, you have to remember that the consumers aren't the ONLY human being in the picture. Suppliers are people as well, from the executives at the top, all the way down to the individuals in the labor force. If VideoGames Inc. is making less of a profit, then they might have to cut pay, or even start a round of lay-offs, and suddenly Joe Laborforce can't afford to feed Joe junior.
It's easy to view corporations as faceless inhuman entities, but they are verymuch just a collection of people.
And, as for what is "bad for consumers", in the scheme of things, having to choose between two different games is meaningless. Video games are pretty much the epitome of luxury goods, so being unable to play a particular title isn't really something that we should consider a tragedy.
I'm not suggesting 1 console. I'm suggesting no identical consoles. The 360 and Wii fine. The 360 and PS3 not fine.
If you could buy Halo on the PS2, Killzone would never have existed.
Multiple consoles means that companies have a chance to compete with the five-star exclusive of other companies. As I said before, if Mario was on every platform, there would be a lot less platformers, because everyone would just buy Mario.
Posts
Moore said recently that his law has a limited lifespan. :P
Yes? That's the point of my argument. The playbox wouldn't be bound to exact specifications. It'd be bound by the data format of the games itself. The example I presented was DVD players. DVD players come in a wide variety, but you can take one DVD and play it on all of them. They each just differ on their features. So yeah, a playbox manufacturer would have to compete with other playbox manufacturers for the features. In this case, a one-console future would be a great thing for accessibility for the industry.
So if I bought a cheap(er) PlayBoX to play one game, but then wanted to play a game needing more expensive ones, I'd have to but a whole new piece of hardware just toplay a game?
...how is that better (or even different?) Am I just misreading what you wrote?
Well of course the standards would be stricter. I... don't see what makes them impossible.
Will I need to append not in the near future, but eventually to all my original posts, people? :P
EDIT:
No, see, my hope is eventually we can reach a base-standard, which honestly, we could if the industry wasn't growing by leaps and bounds every year like it is now. With that standard, all playboxes would require that standard. And all games would require only that standard be reached to be playable. So you'd never need to go buy a more expensive playbox or something. Now, if a particular game wanted a special peripheral or something, they'd have to worry about drivers and selling it separate, but that'd also have standardization--like USB or something.
I dunno, I'm not writing a paper on this or anything so this is still very optimistic, but I just want anyone to walk out, by a Playbox, available in any range of price, and play the same games I do. Accessibility is the key to making gaming an accepted part of everyone's life. Is that really a bad thing?
Not entirely, no.
DVDs work because they are a passive activity. you hook the machine up to a screen, and you watch it.
But with video games, there are far too many active features to be able to just streamline everything without killing off innovation. There would have NEVER been a Wii, for instance.
There is no good reason, for the industry itself, to force some kind of standardization. I can only see it hurting things by cutting off innovation, and thereby decreasin interest, and I can see ABSOLUTELY no way in which it would drive higher profits to the market.
Of course they would drop price as the life extends, not as much no doubt, but it's an ingrained part of the lifecycle. The PS2 had this same period where it was an over expensive device. But with each price job they open up thier market to demographics. They would need to, to drive sales.
If they didn't allow third parties to produce compatible units then, no they probably wouldn't keep improving the console over it's lifespan. But in my opinion thats the WORST addition to the console world since the Phantom. It's biggest strength is the fact you have a consistent platform for 5 years.
And on top of that they would still be competition with the Wii 2/N6.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I don't like to go all "your revolutionary ideas have already occured to (and been discarded by) others", but there's no other way to put it here.
This allows developers to make games to a standard and allows for comanies to rely on innovation about what they package with their consoles.
No history of siezures? Try the Nintendo Strobe.
Already have a DVR? Don't need the PS8.
Really like Multiplayer? The Xbox 1080 may be for you.
Are you so sure about pricedrops? Look at the iPod pricing model. Every new version is released atthe price of the old version. Yes, the old version is dropped in price, but it has also stopped production, so, in price drop terms, it is too little, too late.
And, as for competing withthe Wii, I'm responding to the notion of a single console, not just two instead of three. I DO contend, though, that more competition is better, albeit with diminishing returns.
As soon as one system becomes limited in its capabilities (as in its standards, or whatever), a door is opened for a competitor to provide whatever it is that system can't. Why should a game be only what any one person/company/conglomerate says it is? This will not change EVER.
What you are missing is the WHY.
That is what SO MANY of you are missing here.
Convergence isn't going to drive higher profits for anyone, in fact, it WILL mean lower profits, becausethe many who would have, before, bought both an Xbox AND a PS3 now only buys one Playbox, so one of those companies is out some ammount of money.
There is ZERO economic reason for the market to want this to happen. COnsumers may like the idea, but they are still content to buy multiple systems, so it is all moot. COnsumers, generally, would love to recieve all manner of product for free, but the market doesn't do that for them either.
Though I said one console in the OP, I've come to realize that there are too many problems with that approach. If I could start the thread over, I would have suggested Sony and MS collaborate, while Nintendo continues to do their own thing.
No, it is not. God, can we drop that argument already? Yeah, obviously standardization was what killed the 3DO. It wasn't any other market factor at work. Nosiree. The 3DO was released in a vacuum and it's failure in a vacuum means it could never ever come out again, ever. Never ever.
Look, let me sketch out a basic standardization for you. Off the top of my head.
- Controllers are wireless and have motion control (the games don't need to use it if it's not necessary).
- A specific number of inputs (buttons, sticks, etc.) on the controls.
- A minimum hard drive space.
- Network access.
- Standard OS.
Okay, now what can companies do to compete? They can make their playbox have wireless instead of wired internet. They can have more than the minimum hard drive space. They can have programmable controllers. They can allow memory cards to swap files. They can have this and that and the other--or they could leave that all out and sell it for much cheaper.
This is just a kernel of an idea, and it's just something I hope that catches on. Because yes, I think it would definitely not in the near future, but eventually be the saving grace of the industry.
There is one major difference between the console world and the PC world, which can be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage:
Consoles are single platforms with well documented development features. With PC's, dev's usually never know (or never check) what hardware is behind the OS. The advantage here is that devs can streamline their game for the exact power the hardware has and the input system that is available. The disadvantage is that you are 'stuck' with the platforms/hardware power you choose.
It is essential that multiple platforms are available for the devs to choose from. They all have their own significant advantages and disadvantages, we argue about them here every day. Each console also has their own target demographic and pre-packaged PR-machine (in the form of gaming magazines and store promotion deals). PC has always lagged a bit in this respect, until Microsoft started that whole 'Games for Windows' bonanza.
It doesn't matter.
Notice that Ninetendo hasn't budged during the last bit of one-upping between MSoft and Sony. The 360 and PS3 are close substitutions for each other, and substitutible goods are what drives innovation. No one is going to try to outdo another company that makes a good that is viewed as complimentary (See also: Wii60)
This was done once already in the video games industry. It was called the 3DO and it was a fucking nightmare because even as technology improved they couldn't upgrade the hardware without breaking compatibility. Were they ever to upgrade the hardware and then make games that capitalize on that they'd have to start instituting "minimum requirements" for games. And suddenly the console loses what you wanted in it in the first place: standardization.
But don't you see that you would still be required to buy new hardware for different games anyway in your proposal, only now you have to buy most of the hardware (at prices not driven down by the need to be competetive) to get on the ground floor? The same issues that are around today come into it.
And some company could easily just come in and - for a much lower price - offer to sell a system that let's you play 33% of the games that use one or two particular features (like the Wii today). People would be happy. People would buy it. Others would not, but the company making the product won't care. They make more money this way.
If you had come up with this three-four years ago, motion controls wouldn't be listed there.
If you came up with this in another three-four years, who knows what new innovations to the industry you might include.
You are limiting the market, and without reason.
Seriously, can ANYONE give any economic explaination fo how this is supposed to be good for the market?
Why would you necessarily have to buy more hardware? I think we're confused each other. Let me put it this way. Is there a really good reason why I can't play Resistance: Fall of Man and Bioshock on the same console?
And yeah, good point on the second one. The standard would have to be very strong to repel that sort of thing. It could turn out bad, or it could turn out like all those stupid GBA Video things, or UMD. But it is something to keep in mind.
Evander, please, read what I said a few pages ago. I said this wouldn't occur in this market. I said it'd occur not in the near future, but eventually--like, a few decades from now, when Moore's Law does not apply anymore. And I've already said this is another reason why the 3DO failed--because it was in a period of rapid growth, like we're in today.
Would Resistance even exist if you could?
Maybe it would, but Killzone, for instance, would never have been made if you could play Halo on the same system. You'd have very few other platformers if everyone got Mario, etc.
When I talk about competition being good for the industry, I DON'T just mean hardware.
The iPod pricing thing is a big, big worry of mine. Because I see it happening with the 360 and PS3. All the multiple SKUs and upgrades are working to keep prices the same, rather than falling. I'm a big believer in one model for the life of the console.
It can't last though, because a huge quantity of the market (myself included) are waiting for the 360/PS3 to be cheap enough to buy, not waiting till its "worth it" because it now has a 1TB hard drive - so if you stick in that path you cut your audience massively.
I think Standardising consoles like DVD players has a lot of flaws, I also believe that identical consoles with minor software line ups existing harms everyone.
It would be best if next gen all 3 consoles released were as different as the PS3 and Wii are. The second best would be if the PS3 and Xbox combined, and the Wii continued down it's path. The worst possible situation is if all three consoles next gen are all equivalent Wii2's (like how last gen's GC/PS2/Xbox were the same*) if that came to pass them we might as well have a single console released.
Not least because of the vast amount of resources wasted every year getting multiformat games to run on both the 360 and the PS3.
* the Xbox's online service can be argued to stand it apart.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
And in the future, when the industry is more settled down and acclimated, we'll have room to make similar games on the same console. Two movies in the same genre can come out in the same year and not necessarily mean the death of each other.
Ummm...
If it's not occuringin the Video Game market, then what the hell market is it occuring in?
Unless...are you trying to tell me that you are trying to make economic arguments without even a rudimentary knowledge of microeconomics?
"Martket" is the term for the theoretical construct where a particular good or type of good is sold. One one side of the market are the suppliers, who set supply. On the other side are the consumers, who set demand. The market itself is controlled by "an invisible hand", in the words of Adam Smith, sort of like an Ouiji board, whereby the price and quantity within the market move to an equilibrium point where consumer demand is willing to pay that particular price, and suppliers are willing to produce that quantity for that particular price.
And that is an EXTREMELY simplified explanation of supply and demand.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think you're getting this.
People generally watcha movie once, maybe a couple of times, and then move on. That's only two hours per viewing.
People play games over and over, with each playthrough being much longer.
Movies and Games are NOT analogous products, and you can't stand the two markets up next to each other and assume that what works for one will also work for the other.
By this market, I meant today's market.
I don't. I agree with your point, but...
Sorry.
I disagree and agree.
Yes, the PS2 got FFX so that stopped in being inundated with other good JRPGs didn't it?
But also, a lot of money has been wasted by companies reinventing the wheel. Sony 90's pursuits of a platforming mascot, when it's not needed for example. But one platform, for all its other flaws, would lead to a greater variety of games (but not interaction methods). A niche game with minor appeal would have access to everyone.
If a single platform caused souless cash ins on other better games, thats great. Developers would be able to focus their strengths not making sure their platform has 1 driving game, 1 FPS, 1 Mascot, 1 RPG - and just do what they do best.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Don't get me going on the iPod thing. This summer, sitting around at the office, I kept bouncing my ideas about how the iPod is killing the mp3 player market off of the other folks here (who are ACTUAL economists, as opposed to my student ass.)
As for three identical consoles being bad, I have to ask, who exactly is it bad for? You can argue that it's bad for the consumers, and I would concede that to an extent, but it's also clear that the consumers are willing to deal with it, so that negativity towards consumers has no ill effect on the market itself.
As was said earlier, the market has ALWAYS been a competition between multiple companies with consoles that, tot he consumer, were identical (I don't care about the specs, as far as the consumer could tell, the only difference between the SNES and the Genesis was Mario and Sonic). Having similar consoles competing with each other has never seemed to hurt the market, and I don't see how getting rid of them would help the market, so I'm not quite sure WHY it should happen.
I see no justification there for your argument. How would a single platform encourage more games? Sure, a niche game with minor appeal would be accessible to everyone, but what exactly do you think that would cause to occur?
Here's another one for you: Often, games have special features dependant on which console they are on (an extreme example would be Soul Caliber 2 and it's last playable character.) With a single console market, we would lose these sort of things, and wouldn't get those sorts of neat little extras any more. There'd be no reason to add something extra when porting a game to a new system.
I hate to sound the way I'm about to, but you are completely out of your element.
You are talking about comercial industry as though it were art. It isn't.
Now, I will be the first to declare that games CAN BE art, but the industry itself is not, just as you would likely agree that mass-produced harlyquinn romance novels are not quite "literature".
The PC already exists as a medium for getting your art out to anyone. Consoles themselves are comercial devices, and the decision to put your "art" on there means that you are choosing NOT to be accessible by everyone.
You can't advocte change of an entire industry, though, and ignore market forces. That would be like me arguing that the rules surrounding the letter Q are annoying and we should just do away with the letter entirely.
When I say something is "bad" I am almost always talking about the consumer. I don't care how profitable three identical games machines with different software catalogues are. I don't care how profitable HD-DVD and Blu-Ray may be. If they coexist, and both have exclusives - then it is a huge, huge disaster for the consumer.
But it's also terrible for the medium of computer entertainment because it makes it look ridiculous. Like little Toys that come and go.
Thats why what nintendo is doing is so important, because otherwise gaming will end up like comic books, an incredibly valid, interesting and worthy artform that is given no respect what so ever because it has no cultural respect. And thats why it's shrunk massively compared to it's boom years.
It's why the VC and backwards compatibility is important too. Every game every made should come with every system. We're reaching a point where games like Super Mario Bros are 20+years old. And yet have held mine and my GFs attention longer in the last week than anything.
If you only got to watch movies for 5 years and then they weren't supported anymore, the movie industry would never have the respect it has now.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
How would a single platform encourage less games?
I'm not suggesting 1 console. I'm suggesting no identical consoles. The 360 and Wii fine. The 360 and PS3 not fine.
Yes the SC2 thing is very, very telling. I don't think of it as a 'neat extra' at all. Considering the cost of developing one game for three platforms is clearly less than developing 3 games, but clearly much, much more than developing 1 game, then I see that as a huge waste of resources for 3 novelty characters.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
no.
There is NO NEED for the PS3 whatsoever.
It's easy to view corporations as faceless inhuman entities, but they are verymuch just a collection of people.
And, as for what is "bad for consumers", in the scheme of things, having to choose between two different games is meaningless. Video games are pretty much the epitome of luxury goods, so being unable to play a particular title isn't really something that we should consider a tragedy.
If you could buy Halo on the PS2, Killzone would never have existed.
Multiple consoles means that companies have a chance to compete with the five-star exclusive of other companies. As I said before, if Mario was on every platform, there would be a lot less platformers, because everyone would just buy Mario.