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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
But how is it bad for the industry?
No onehas been able to explain thatto meyet.
Because at it's peak the comic industry was massive. Now it's a niche little side to movie making. If it stays like this the industry will shrink.
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you intentionally being stupid? He's not arguing that every shooter wouldn't exist if Halo was on every platform. He's arguing that some very specific games would not exist, because they were made to compete with a game on a different console.
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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
But how is it bad for the industry?
No onehas been able to explain thatto meyet.
Because at it's peak the comic industry was massive. Now it's a niche little side to movie making. If it stays like this the industry will shrink.
And how is this stuff ANYTHING like the comic industry?
The comic industry failed due to losing consumer interest.
Gaming, in its current state, is growing massively.
Evander on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
Really, I don't see the video game industry being any different than the movie or TV industry, or the computer industry. You all have different groups vying for your dollar. The only difference with video games is that they can offer you a different experience with each one.
A computer is still a computer(well there is the whole PC vs. Mac thing but still). The only thing that matters is that the hardware isn't crappy/outdated, and the software is good.
TVs are all meant to do the same thing, so you can make different types of TV, but most of the time people are only going to use one, they aren't going to have TV to "switch" out on the fly.
Movies have competitions between film, but still have a centralized medium to show them on.
The thing about games isn't that their isn't competition between both the medium itself and what the medium is played on(Computers and TV have that too), it's just that sometimes you may see something you like on one system that doesn't come out on the one you have because of competetion/limitations and you're forced to pass over it.
Really in that case you have 2 choices.
1. Just deal with it.
2. Buy the system
3. Wait till the system and game are cheap enough(usually 3-4 years down the road) then get it then.
Really, I don't see the consoles competition coming to an end anytime soon, because the console market is still one that's developing and groups like Sony, MS, and Nintendo are basically trying to extablish their brand for when the whole "video games are the kiddy" phrase passes. Which will be in about another 10 or so years when we become the group with the most disposable income(AKA our parents).
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
Evander my darling, lets not make it personal. I explicitly chose titles that I would never call 2nd tier. They are all AAA titles. DQ a second tier to FF? I dislike both games, but I would never say that!
There would still be that competition between the big hitters. As the big developers battle for dominance. In the same way the blockbusters battle it out each year in the cinema.
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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
But how is it bad for the industry?
No onehas been able to explain thatto meyet.
Because at it's peak the comic industry was massive. Now it's a niche little side to movie making. If it stays like this the industry will shrink.
And how is this stuff ANYTHING like the comic industry?
The comic industry failed due to losing consumer interest.
Gaming, in its current state, is growing massively.
I thought the comic industry tanked because it had a lot of interest, but most of it was the bad kind. Actually that's kind of where games are now with folks like JT.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you intentionally being stupid? He's not arguing that every shooter wouldn't exist if Halo was on every platform. He's arguing that some very specific games would not exist, because they were made to compete with a game on a different console.
Edit: Beat'n
And if your arguing that games specifically made for one platform to replace a single game missing on another platform, then good riddance to them. If the game isn't bringing it's own worth to the table, and is just Halo with a different skin, then it isn't worth existitng. Not that I think Killzone is that.
But I also think that on a playbox you would have both Killzone 3, and inevitable Halo Spin off 1.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
Well...think about the comic book industry was that most of it's popularity came around during WWII and such and as a market it got oversatured with that stuff. Then you have to remember the introduction of TV and video games and the decreasing popularity of written media compared to visual media would stun it even further.
As far as things go, the comic book industry is still doing pretty decently(as bad as his comics were, Todd Mcfarlene really helped it) it's just that they're not as popular as they were when everybody and their mama wrote them.
But that goes for books and novels as a whole, the average "sucessful" book(non-Harry Potter types) sells around 100,000 or so copies and that's about how much popular comic book series sell(usually 60k to 100k a month).
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
Evander my darling, lets not make it personal. I explicitly chose titles that I would never call 2nd tier. They are all AAA titles. DQ a second tier to FF? I dislike both games, but I would never say that!
There would still be that competition between the big hitters. As the big developers battle for dominance. In the same way the blockbusters battle it out each year in the cinema.
Yes, and that is exactly my point.
Those are all first tier titles. But if they were all accessibel to everyone, then the second and third tier titles WOULDN'T make it to market.
As I said before, games aren't analogous to movies. A movie takes about two hours to watch (call it a generous average.) A game, on the other hand, is generally somewhere between 10-20 hours (or much more for RPGs.)
You could watch a movie five times in the time it take to play a game once. And, since games change each playthrough, as opposed to movie which are always the same, people are likely to play their games more times than they watch a movie.
And that isn't even getting started with multiplayer.
If you talk about games as battling blockbusters, then you have to realize that, with all of the blockbusters on the same console, there won't be room for anything else.
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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
But how is it bad for the industry?
No onehas been able to explain thatto meyet.
Because at it's peak the comic industry was massive. Now it's a niche little side to movie making. If it stays like this the industry will shrink.
And how is this stuff ANYTHING like the comic industry?
The comic industry failed due to losing consumer interest.
Gaming, in its current state, is growing massively.
I thought the comic industry tanked because it had a lot of interest, but most of it was the bad kind. Actually that's kind of where games are now with folks like JT.
Uh-oh.
Comics exploded onto the scene as a massive new medium. Mainly attractive to young people, they focused towards them. Just at the market was maturing and exploring new areas. Appealing to adults and so on. The American Government and popular culture which couldn't understand the medium - and just saw it as a 'kids things' got terrified that it was destroying said kids lives and started the Comics Code. That killed all ability for mainstream comics to appeal to an adult audience with adult themes.
This killed the industry and stopped it being a big player.
To contrast this never happened in Japan, where it sucessfuly appealled to the whole community, where it seen as legitmate, and now all ages read it. (I actually have a manga university text book on economics).
If you can't see that Video Games are dangerously close to the same thing happening to them, then I give up.
This is also why I forgive Nintendo for all their sins.
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
Evander my darling, lets not make it personal. I explicitly chose titles that I would never call 2nd tier. They are all AAA titles. DQ a second tier to FF? I dislike both games, but I would never say that!
There would still be that competition between the big hitters. As the big developers battle for dominance. In the same way the blockbusters battle it out each year in the cinema.
Yes, and that is exactly my point.
Those are all first tier titles. But if they were all accessibel to everyone, then the second and third tier titles WOULDN'T make it to market.
As I said before, games aren't analogous to movies. A movie takes about two hours to watch (call it a generous average.) A game, on the other hand, is generally somewhere between 10-20 hours (or much more for RPGs.)
You could watch a movie five times in the time it take to play a game once. And, since games change each playthrough, as opposed to movie which are always the same, people are likely to play their games more times than they watch a movie.
And that isn't even getting started with multiplayer.
If you talk about games as battling blockbusters, then you have to realize that, with all of the blockbusters on the same console, there won't be room for anything else.
Your arguing that the 'not as good games' wouldn't get played if people could play all the best ones easily.
Not only is that not really a bad thing, it's also not going to happen. Whenever a blockbuster occurs (Nintendogs, Brain Training, Mario, Doom, Quake) that creates additional demand for more "of that." Thats why the consoles with the largest user base have the most shovelware.
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
Well...I really, I don't think the same thing really applies to games. I mean thing is we still have Mature games(crap some of the most popular stuff is rated M).
Not to mention you've got companies like MS and Sony who aren't going to let ignorant fucks like JT take money out of their pocket.
Really, I would say that the game industry is more akin to the rap industry in how it had to struggled to be excepted as a form of media. The game industry had to shake it's stereotype of being kiddy in the same way that rap had to overcome it's own stereotypes.
Really, I think the difference between comics and video games...is that video games just chose a way better time to be "mature" since the public(at least American public) is a bit more receptive of it then they used to be.
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.
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
But how is it bad for the industry?
No onehas been able to explain thatto meyet.
Because at it's peak the comic industry was massive. Now it's a niche little side to movie making. If it stays like this the industry will shrink.
And how is this stuff ANYTHING like the comic industry?
The comic industry failed due to losing consumer interest.
Gaming, in its current state, is growing massively.
I thought the comic industry tanked because it had a lot of interest, but most of it was the bad kind. Actually that's kind of where games are now with folks like JT.
Uh-oh.
Are you talking about the time just befor the Comics Code?
You do realize that the Video Game industry has already dealt with thingsthat the comic industry never even had a chance to, back then, because they handled things all wrong. The Comics code, for instance, was mostly made of rules that existed to prevent EC from making more money than everyone else, rather than actually setting up sensible standards (liek the ESRB)
It also didn't help when one of the heads of EC showed up for a (I believe) senate hearing fuckinghigh as a kite.
And Jack Thompson isn't exactly an actual threat.
The music industry went through this same sort of thing, but they survived it, so just because comics didn't doesn't spell doom for anyone (except Nintendo, of course. They are on the rapes.)
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
Evander my darling, lets not make it personal. I explicitly chose titles that I would never call 2nd tier. They are all AAA titles. DQ a second tier to FF? I dislike both games, but I would never say that!
There would still be that competition between the big hitters. As the big developers battle for dominance. In the same way the blockbusters battle it out each year in the cinema.
Yes, and that is exactly my point.
Those are all first tier titles. But if they were all accessibel to everyone, then the second and third tier titles WOULDN'T make it to market.
As I said before, games aren't analogous to movies. A movie takes about two hours to watch (call it a generous average.) A game, on the other hand, is generally somewhere between 10-20 hours (or much more for RPGs.)
You could watch a movie five times in the time it take to play a game once. And, since games change each playthrough, as opposed to movie which are always the same, people are likely to play their games more times than they watch a movie.
And that isn't even getting started with multiplayer.
If you talk about games as battling blockbusters, then you have to realize that, with all of the blockbusters on the same console, there won't be room for anything else.
Your arguing that the 'not as good games' wouldn't get played if people could play all the best ones easily.
Not only is that not really a bad thing, it's also not going to happen. Whenever a blockbuster occurs (Nintendogs, Brain Training, Mario, Doom, Quake) that creates additional demand for more "of that." Thats why the consoles with the largest user base have the most shovelware.
That would really not be an issue.
No, I'm arguing that "not as good games" wouldn't get MADE.
And no, that ISN'T a good thing. If Zelda was the only sword adventure game out there, why would Nintendo have to make it any good?
Well...I really, I don't think the same thing really applies to games. I mean thing is we still have Mature games(crap some of the most popular stuff is rated M).
Not to mention you've got companies like MS and Sony who aren't going to let ignorant fucks like JT take money out of their pocket.
Really, I would say that the game industry is more akin to the rap industry in how it had to struggled to be excepted as a form of media. The game industry had to shake it's stereotype of being kiddy in the same way that rap had to overcome it's own stereotypes.
Really, I think the difference between comics and video games...is that video games just chose a way better time to be "mature" since the public(at least American public) is a bit more receptive of it then they used to be.
We have violent games. We have very few mature ones.
But it won't happen primarily because of Nintendo making gaming attrative to everyone.
I see games to be as thought television was invented but only ever showed star trek episodes. Sure star trek is massively popualr, but It would die pretty quickly if thats the case.
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.
But what is the endgame for that? Either one would have to trounce the other or one of the manufacturers would have to voluntarily leave the market.
As much as it would eliminate the minor inconvenience of exclusive titles for largely identical platforms, I don't think that either Sony or Microsoft is willing to give up their revenue streams (or, as is the case now, potential revenue streams).
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.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
Evander my darling, lets not make it personal. I explicitly chose titles that I would never call 2nd tier. They are all AAA titles. DQ a second tier to FF? I dislike both games, but I would never say that!
There would still be that competition between the big hitters. As the big developers battle for dominance. In the same way the blockbusters battle it out each year in the cinema.
Yes, and that is exactly my point.
Those are all first tier titles. But if they were all accessibel to everyone, then the second and third tier titles WOULDN'T make it to market.
As I said before, games aren't analogous to movies. A movie takes about two hours to watch (call it a generous average.) A game, on the other hand, is generally somewhere between 10-20 hours (or much more for RPGs.)
You could watch a movie five times in the time it take to play a game once. And, since games change each playthrough, as opposed to movie which are always the same, people are likely to play their games more times than they watch a movie.
And that isn't even getting started with multiplayer.
If you talk about games as battling blockbusters, then you have to realize that, with all of the blockbusters on the same console, there won't be room for anything else.
Your arguing that the 'not as good games' wouldn't get played if people could play all the best ones easily.
Not only is that not really a bad thing, it's also not going to happen. Whenever a blockbuster occurs (Nintendogs, Brain Training, Mario, Doom, Quake) that creates additional demand for more "of that." Thats why the consoles with the largest user base have the most shovelware.
That would really not be an issue.
No, I'm arguing that "not as good games" wouldn't get MADE.
And no, that ISN'T a good thing. If Zelda was the only sword adventure game out there, why would Nintendo have to make it any good?
Look at Madden.
Again, that isn't that bad. I can do without a lot of rip off 6/10 halo-a-likes. The fact that Halo exists on the 360 means no one can make any more FPSs? Of course not. Does it mean they have to raise their game, or do something different? Yes.
Your defending that I had to play a load of shit FPSs on the GC because I couldn't afford an Xbox which had all the good ones. That the loss of those inferior ones is a bad thing. It isn't.
I don't know about Madden, (I'm british, pip pip) But take FIFA, it doesn't stop the much better (and unoffical) Pro Evo being released.
And Zelda, IS the only real time sword puzzle adventure. No one really makes those games at all. Bar beyond good and evil. So why do they make it good?
There would be plenty of space for 2nd tier titles, but they couldn't rest on their areses making bad knock offs of good games anymore.
Side A) It would be great to be able to play all games on one box. Companies will//should do that!
Side Companies exist to make money. They would make less doing that. So they won't.
Side A) ....but I'd like to play all games without buying multiple consoles.
Side Tough.
Unless the industry hits a cataclysmic period where they HAVE to consolidate or die, it won't ever happen. If it makes a company less money, why on earth would they do it? 9 pages and no one has been able to answer that, as near as I can tell. And seeing how that is the fundamental point on which any corporation will make its decision, I'd say that has far more relevance than the potential effects on software diversity or the benefits//detriments of inter-brand competition.
Raynaga on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
Really, I don't care to get into the agrument of what's violent and what's mature(since it's all just opinion anyway). If you want to take the word "mature" as "violent" be my guess, doesn't change the context at all.
And really, I don't understand why people act like Nintendo is the only console to have done anything for the market. Nintendo did give us Pokemon, the DS(though the Gameboy has always been a money-maker since Pokemon) and now the Wii.
But that wasn't it, we still get Grand Thefts, Halos, Guitar Heros, DDRs and the list goes of games that help the market. All the consoles companies have given some to the market, and no one group can take claim to everything. Really, the market wouldn't die pretty quickly without Nintendo...crap during the N64 and GCN age it was doing pretty fine as I remember.
The market is still growing, and no company, not even Nintendo, has moved the market to the point where the average "hit" sells 10 million instead of around 1-3 million. So, as far as making games attractive to everyone the market still has a long way to go, but I don't really see it being anywhere close to dying.
Well...I really, I don't think the same thing really applies to games. I mean thing is we still have Mature games(crap some of the most popular stuff is rated M).
Not to mention you've got companies like MS and Sony who aren't going to let ignorant fucks like JT take money out of their pocket.
Really, I would say that the game industry is more akin to the rap industry in how it had to struggled to be excepted as a form of media. The game industry had to shake it's stereotype of being kiddy in the same way that rap had to overcome it's own stereotypes.
Really, I think the difference between comics and video games...is that video games just chose a way better time to be "mature" since the public(at least American public) is a bit more receptive of it then they used to be.
We have violent games. We have very few mature ones.
But it won't happen primarily because of Nintendo making gaming attrative to everyone.
I see games to be as thought television was invented but only ever showed star trek episodes. Sure star trek is massively popualr, but It would die pretty quickly if thats the case.
You know what, let's run with the TV example here.
What is being advocated is the same as saying that there should be only one TV programming line-up, but different channels could do didfferent things to attract viewers.
So, at 8pm, EVERY channel has Scrubs on, but maybe on NBC it's in HD, but ABC offers subtitles, and maybe CBS has a spanich audio option.
Well...I really, I don't think the same thing really applies to games. I mean thing is we still have Mature games(crap some of the most popular stuff is rated M).
Not to mention you've got companies like MS and Sony who aren't going to let ignorant fucks like JT take money out of their pocket.
Really, I would say that the game industry is more akin to the rap industry in how it had to struggled to be excepted as a form of media. The game industry had to shake it's stereotype of being kiddy in the same way that rap had to overcome it's own stereotypes.
Really, I think the difference between comics and video games...is that video games just chose a way better time to be "mature" since the public(at least American public) is a bit more receptive of it then they used to be.
We have violent games. We have very few mature ones.
But it won't happen primarily because of Nintendo making gaming attrative to everyone.
I see games to be as thought television was invented but only ever showed star trek episodes. Sure star trek is massively popualr, but It would die pretty quickly if thats the case.
Iwish you had used Law and Order as your example.
Truth. Then you could have made a "every fucking show on TV is Law and Order" joke.
That being said, Law and Order is the tv equivalent of comfort food. Which shows how fucked up America is, as the show is all about murder.
Side A) It would be great to be able to play all games on one box. Companies will//should do that!
Side Companies exist to make money. They would make less doing that. So they won't.
Side A) ....but I'd like to play all games without buying multiple consoles.
Side Tough.
Unless the industry hits a cataclysmic period where they HAVE to consolidate or die, it won't ever happen. If it makes a company less money, why on earth would they do it? 9 pages and no one has been able to answer that, as near as I can tell. And seeing how that is the fundamental point on which any corporation will make its decision, I'd say that has far more relevance than the potential effects on software diversity or the benefits//detriments of inter-brand competition.
I agree all I'm saying in addition is that it seems likely that by doing so they will be hurting themselves in the long run, and I;ve said plenty on why I think thats the case.
Well...I really, I don't think the same thing really applies to games. I mean thing is we still have Mature games(crap some of the most popular stuff is rated M).
Not to mention you've got companies like MS and Sony who aren't going to let ignorant fucks like JT take money out of their pocket.
Really, I would say that the game industry is more akin to the rap industry in how it had to struggled to be excepted as a form of media. The game industry had to shake it's stereotype of being kiddy in the same way that rap had to overcome it's own stereotypes.
Really, I think the difference between comics and video games...is that video games just chose a way better time to be "mature" since the public(at least American public) is a bit more receptive of it then they used to be.
We have violent games. We have very few mature ones.
But it won't happen primarily because of Nintendo making gaming attrative to everyone.
I see games to be as thought television was invented but only ever showed star trek episodes. Sure star trek is massively popualr, but It would die pretty quickly if thats the case.
Iwish you had used Law and Order as your example.
Truth. Then you could have made a "every fucking show on TV is Law and Order" joke.
That being said, Law and Order is the tv equivalent of comfort food. Which shows how fucked up America is, as the show is all about murder.
You know, not to derail, I remember just seeing this SVU rerun about a gamer(who played a crappy ripoff of GTA) who killed a hooker or something. And though I like Law & Order, I remember the episode being so over the top that I couldn't help but laugh. All I could think is "Is this what the older generation thinks about people who play games like GTA"
Though overall the episode did a good job of not just pointing the finger and saying "VIDJA GAMES ARE BAD!" even though it was still corny.
You know what, let's run with the TV example here.
What is being advocated is the same as saying that there should be only one TV programming line-up, but different channels could do didfferent things to attract viewers.
So, at 8pm, EVERY channel has Scrubs on, but maybe on NBC it's in HD, but ABC offers subtitles, and maybe CBS has a spanich audio option.
What?
Surely what being advocated here is that every channel (aka developer), can make and show any programme (aka game) but that you only need to by 1 cable connection to get them.
You don't need to by ABC Cable to get ABC programmes, and additionally rent NBC cable to get NBC programs.
All your programms come through one box under your tv. Not 3.
(Also I laughed hard at your Law and Order comment! Kudos)
You know what, let's run with the TV example here.
What is being advocated is the same as saying that there should be only one TV programming line-up, but different channels could do didfferent things to attract viewers.
So, at 8pm, EVERY channel has Scrubs on, but maybe on NBC it's in HD, but ABC offers subtitles, and maybe CBS has a spanich audio option.
What?
Surely what being advocated here is that every channel (aka developer), can make and show any programme (aka game) but that you only need to by 1 cable connection to get them.
You don't need to by ABC Cable to get ABC programmes, and additionally rent NBC cable to get NBC programs.
All your programms come through one box under your tv. Not 3.
(Also I laughed hard at your Law and Order comment! Kudos)
the channels don't develop their own shows, though. plenty of different chanels have the same show when it has entered into syndication. That is more about what I was saying that the industries are clearly different.
But even so, if every cable provider has to carry the same exact networks, what should they do to differentiate? It DOES cause an issue for the market. You end up with exclusive channels on particular providers.
And with your single console thing, ultimately it would end up the same way. Toshiba's PlayBox would have a little something extra, so that it would play all of the standardized games, but it would also be the ONLY console that would be able to play one or two special games that Toshiba would comission. Suddenly, we're back to sqaure one, only with out the benefit of a plethora of innovation.
Yes I have. The whole Comic analogy, and why Nintendo is helping to reverse the damage.
The comic analogy doesn't quite work, imho.
Comics being seen as a generally accepted medium went downhill because the CONTENT went south. And so interest dwindled. If you look at the titles after the CC was put into effect they were, quite frankly, terrible. Superman shooting rainbows from his hands (I'm not kidding), that kind of thing. By the time the industry was putting out worthwhile content again the damage to its reputation in the public eye was already too severe. It was "for kids" beause what people saw was a man in tights shooting freaking rainbows at people. They never got to see the work that confirmed it as an art form because the industry gouged its own eyes out with a spoon for years.
The games industry never went through that. The time for it to have occurred would have been after the ESRB came around. So the overal negative trend the comics industry went through, I feel, isn't applicable. The gaming industry already went through that period and succeeded where the comics failed.
Yes I have. The whole Comic analogy, and why Nintendo is helping to reverse the damage.
Explain the comic analogy, please.
Because I do not see it AT ALL.
If I understood correctly, the comic analogy was referring to the massive downturn in that industry and attempted to attribute it to the fact that DC//Marvel had very, very similar offerings with no distinguishing traits. This is incorrect, however, because that indutry experienced its downward spiral for the reasons listed above, not because of the similarity between platforms.
Also, comics HAVE been re-gaining acceptance, albeit slowly.
Maus is the only graphic novel to win a Pulitzer, but it is still a graphic novel that has won a pulitzer. It seems that the general public is willing to admit that it is POSSIBLE for graphic novels to be literature, it is just that they are harsh critics when an actual graphic novel comes along. Given more time, though, they may warm up more.
In short, the story of comics is far from over yet.
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.
I'll ignore your first comment, because the same could be applied to you. (In that you're also ignoring the cultural significance of the medium in favor of the commercial.) And no, I'm not going to agree that Harlequin romance novels can't be art. Are they good art? I don't care. They're still an artificial recreation of the human experience. And for the sake of keeping this short, that's the definition I'm using.
And you're right, the PC is a good example of this. Especially with things like Gametap there to fill in the spots.
My argument isn't like trying to do away with Q. My argument is that, with the natural flow of time and culture, the rules for Q will change, hopefully for the better.
I'll ignore your first comment, because the same could be applied to you. (In that you're also ignoring the cultural significance of the medium in favor of the commercial.)
With all due respect, you don't know what my background is. Working in the field of economics does not preclude familiarity with other subjects, in fact, it often requires it.
You are talking about business decisions of what products to manufacture, and industry standardization. That is NOT a cultural discussion. If ANYTHING, you are actually limiting art, with your suggestions, by forcing it into a particular framwork of standards.
Okey Evander, I've got to leave soon, so I need to wind this down. Re-read my posts, Evander.
If you can't see the parrallels between the way the Comic Industry crippled itself in the long term by it's short sighted profit based decisions in the 60's and how the equally publicly derided computer games industry could make the same mistakes, then I can't really help you anymore.
Time and time again I';ve said that I don't think a single console is a good solution. I just think it's damaging in the long term to have identical machinces like the PS3 & 360. I also think the lack of care about backwards compatibility is really, really damaging the long term as well.
In Britain things are very different, there are uniform standards and most channels produce their content.
The PS4 and the 720 combining into one machine wouldn't damage the industry. It wouldn't stop the production of games.
No one would make the argument that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray facilitate the production of movies better than a single HD platform would. Thats nonsense. No one would say that the standardisation of hardware (Which I'M NOT recommending) in HD players will lead to movies being released only for specific players.
Also, comics HAVE been re-gaining acceptance, albeit slowly.
Maus is the only graphic novel to win a Pulitzer, but it is still a graphic novel that has won a pulitzer. It seems that the general public is willing to admit that it is POSSIBLE for graphic novels to be literature, it is just that they are harsh critics when an actual graphic novel comes along. Given more time, though, they may warm up more.
In short, the story of comics is far from over yet.
This is the time that Watchmen gets trotted out of the barn for an obligatory wave at the crowd.
If you can't see the parrallels between the way the Comic Industry crippled itself in the long term by it's short sighted profit based decisions in the 60's and how the equally publicly derided computer games industry could make the same mistakes, then I can't really help you anymore.
What caused the comics industry trouble though, as I stated, was how it responded to that public scrutiny. Our industry already passed that particular crucible.
Raynaga on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Posts
But what I am saying is bad for the customer (this idea that games come on a various number of toys that are quickly superseeded, obsolete, replaced and forgotten) is also bad for the industry (and so everyone else) in the long run.
Mark my words, this industry will become the new comics if some kind of standards aren't reached. That doesn't meant the end of multiple platforms. But it does require the end of multiformat games and identical but massively incompatible consoles.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
But how is it bad for the industry?
No onehas been able to explain thatto meyet.
If you could play FFX on the PS2, Dragons Quest would never have existed.
If you could play New Super Mario Bros on the DS, Sonic Rush would never have existed.
If you could play Halo on the 360, Bioshock would never have existed.
Oh wait.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Because at it's peak the comic industry was massive. Now it's a niche little side to movie making. If it stays like this the industry will shrink.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Are you being dense on purpose?
I'm not saying that there would only be one game of each genre.
Iam saying that a lot of the second and third tier games out therewould never make it to production, because X game would clearly cause their sales to be belw the break-even point. Also, games like Killzone, created specifically to competewith the exclusive of another company, wouldn't exist, for the obvious reasons.
Are you intentionally being stupid? He's not arguing that every shooter wouldn't exist if Halo was on every platform. He's arguing that some very specific games would not exist, because they were made to compete with a game on a different console.
Edit: Beat'n
And how is this stuff ANYTHING like the comic industry?
The comic industry failed due to losing consumer interest.
Gaming, in its current state, is growing massively.
A computer is still a computer(well there is the whole PC vs. Mac thing but still). The only thing that matters is that the hardware isn't crappy/outdated, and the software is good.
TVs are all meant to do the same thing, so you can make different types of TV, but most of the time people are only going to use one, they aren't going to have TV to "switch" out on the fly.
Movies have competitions between film, but still have a centralized medium to show them on.
The thing about games isn't that their isn't competition between both the medium itself and what the medium is played on(Computers and TV have that too), it's just that sometimes you may see something you like on one system that doesn't come out on the one you have because of competetion/limitations and you're forced to pass over it.
Really in that case you have 2 choices.
1. Just deal with it.
2. Buy the system
3. Wait till the system and game are cheap enough(usually 3-4 years down the road) then get it then.
Really, I don't see the consoles competition coming to an end anytime soon, because the console market is still one that's developing and groups like Sony, MS, and Nintendo are basically trying to extablish their brand for when the whole "video games are the kiddy" phrase passes. Which will be in about another 10 or so years when we become the group with the most disposable income(AKA our parents).
Evander my darling, lets not make it personal. I explicitly chose titles that I would never call 2nd tier. They are all AAA titles. DQ a second tier to FF? I dislike both games, but I would never say that!
There would still be that competition between the big hitters. As the big developers battle for dominance. In the same way the blockbusters battle it out each year in the cinema.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I thought the comic industry tanked because it had a lot of interest, but most of it was the bad kind. Actually that's kind of where games are now with folks like JT.
Uh-oh.
And if your arguing that games specifically made for one platform to replace a single game missing on another platform, then good riddance to them. If the game isn't bringing it's own worth to the table, and is just Halo with a different skin, then it isn't worth existitng. Not that I think Killzone is that.
But I also think that on a playbox you would have both Killzone 3, and inevitable Halo Spin off 1.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
As far as things go, the comic book industry is still doing pretty decently(as bad as his comics were, Todd Mcfarlene really helped it) it's just that they're not as popular as they were when everybody and their mama wrote them.
But that goes for books and novels as a whole, the average "sucessful" book(non-Harry Potter types) sells around 100,000 or so copies and that's about how much popular comic book series sell(usually 60k to 100k a month).
/end derail
Yes, and that is exactly my point.
Those are all first tier titles. But if they were all accessibel to everyone, then the second and third tier titles WOULDN'T make it to market.
As I said before, games aren't analogous to movies. A movie takes about two hours to watch (call it a generous average.) A game, on the other hand, is generally somewhere between 10-20 hours (or much more for RPGs.)
You could watch a movie five times in the time it take to play a game once. And, since games change each playthrough, as opposed to movie which are always the same, people are likely to play their games more times than they watch a movie.
And that isn't even getting started with multiplayer.
If you talk about games as battling blockbusters, then you have to realize that, with all of the blockbusters on the same console, there won't be room for anything else.
Comics exploded onto the scene as a massive new medium. Mainly attractive to young people, they focused towards them. Just at the market was maturing and exploring new areas. Appealing to adults and so on. The American Government and popular culture which couldn't understand the medium - and just saw it as a 'kids things' got terrified that it was destroying said kids lives and started the Comics Code. That killed all ability for mainstream comics to appeal to an adult audience with adult themes.
This killed the industry and stopped it being a big player.
To contrast this never happened in Japan, where it sucessfuly appealled to the whole community, where it seen as legitmate, and now all ages read it. (I actually have a manga university text book on economics).
If you can't see that Video Games are dangerously close to the same thing happening to them, then I give up.
This is also why I forgive Nintendo for all their sins.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Your arguing that the 'not as good games' wouldn't get played if people could play all the best ones easily.
Not only is that not really a bad thing, it's also not going to happen. Whenever a blockbuster occurs (Nintendogs, Brain Training, Mario, Doom, Quake) that creates additional demand for more "of that." Thats why the consoles with the largest user base have the most shovelware.
That would really not be an issue.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Not to mention you've got companies like MS and Sony who aren't going to let ignorant fucks like JT take money out of their pocket.
Really, I would say that the game industry is more akin to the rap industry in how it had to struggled to be excepted as a form of media. The game industry had to shake it's stereotype of being kiddy in the same way that rap had to overcome it's own stereotypes.
Really, I think the difference between comics and video games...is that video games just chose a way better time to be "mature" since the public(at least American public) is a bit more receptive of it then they used to be.
Are you talking about the time just befor the Comics Code?
You do realize that the Video Game industry has already dealt with thingsthat the comic industry never even had a chance to, back then, because they handled things all wrong. The Comics code, for instance, was mostly made of rules that existed to prevent EC from making more money than everyone else, rather than actually setting up sensible standards (liek the ESRB)
It also didn't help when one of the heads of EC showed up for a (I believe) senate hearing fuckinghigh as a kite.
And Jack Thompson isn't exactly an actual threat.
The music industry went through this same sort of thing, but they survived it, so just because comics didn't doesn't spell doom for anyone (except Nintendo, of course. They are on the rapes.)
No, I'm arguing that "not as good games" wouldn't get MADE.
And no, that ISN'T a good thing. If Zelda was the only sword adventure game out there, why would Nintendo have to make it any good?
Look at Madden.
We have violent games. We have very few mature ones.
But it won't happen primarily because of Nintendo making gaming attrative to everyone.
I see games to be as thought television was invented but only ever showed star trek episodes. Sure star trek is massively popualr, but It would die pretty quickly if thats the case.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
But what is the endgame for that? Either one would have to trounce the other or one of the manufacturers would have to voluntarily leave the market.
As much as it would eliminate the minor inconvenience of exclusive titles for largely identical platforms, I don't think that either Sony or Microsoft is willing to give up their revenue streams (or, as is the case now, potential revenue streams).
Again, that isn't that bad. I can do without a lot of rip off 6/10 halo-a-likes. The fact that Halo exists on the 360 means no one can make any more FPSs? Of course not. Does it mean they have to raise their game, or do something different? Yes.
Your defending that I had to play a load of shit FPSs on the GC because I couldn't afford an Xbox which had all the good ones. That the loss of those inferior ones is a bad thing. It isn't.
I don't know about Madden, (I'm british, pip pip) But take FIFA, it doesn't stop the much better (and unoffical) Pro Evo being released.
And Zelda, IS the only real time sword puzzle adventure. No one really makes those games at all. Bar beyond good and evil. So why do they make it good?
There would be plenty of space for 2nd tier titles, but they couldn't rest on their areses making bad knock offs of good games anymore.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Side A) It would be great to be able to play all games on one box. Companies will//should do that!
Side
Side A) ....but I'd like to play all games without buying multiple consoles.
Side
Unless the industry hits a cataclysmic period where they HAVE to consolidate or die, it won't ever happen. If it makes a company less money, why on earth would they do it? 9 pages and no one has been able to answer that, as near as I can tell. And seeing how that is the fundamental point on which any corporation will make its decision, I'd say that has far more relevance than the potential effects on software diversity or the benefits//detriments of inter-brand competition.
And really, I don't understand why people act like Nintendo is the only console to have done anything for the market. Nintendo did give us Pokemon, the DS(though the Gameboy has always been a money-maker since Pokemon) and now the Wii.
But that wasn't it, we still get Grand Thefts, Halos, Guitar Heros, DDRs and the list goes of games that help the market. All the consoles companies have given some to the market, and no one group can take claim to everything. Really, the market wouldn't die pretty quickly without Nintendo...crap during the N64 and GCN age it was doing pretty fine as I remember.
The market is still growing, and no company, not even Nintendo, has moved the market to the point where the average "hit" sells 10 million instead of around 1-3 million. So, as far as making games attractive to everyone the market still has a long way to go, but I don't really see it being anywhere close to dying.
Iwish you had used Law and Order as your example.
What is being advocated is the same as saying that there should be only one TV programming line-up, but different channels could do didfferent things to attract viewers.
So, at 8pm, EVERY channel has Scrubs on, but maybe on NBC it's in HD, but ABC offers subtitles, and maybe CBS has a spanich audio option.
Truth. Then you could have made a "every fucking show on TV is Law and Order" joke.
That being said, Law and Order is the tv equivalent of comfort food. Which shows how fucked up America is, as the show is all about murder.
I agree all I'm saying in addition is that it seems likely that by doing so they will be hurting themselves in the long run, and I;ve said plenty on why I think thats the case.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
No you haven't
What you said is "the industry looks silly"
You know, not to derail, I remember just seeing this SVU rerun about a gamer(who played a crappy ripoff of GTA) who killed a hooker or something. And though I like Law & Order, I remember the episode being so over the top that I couldn't help but laugh. All I could think is "Is this what the older generation thinks about people who play games like GTA"
Though overall the episode did a good job of not just pointing the finger and saying "VIDJA GAMES ARE BAD!" even though it was still corny.
What?
Surely what being advocated here is that every channel (aka developer), can make and show any programme (aka game) but that you only need to by 1 cable connection to get them.
You don't need to by ABC Cable to get ABC programmes, and additionally rent NBC cable to get NBC programs.
All your programms come through one box under your tv. Not 3.
(Also I laughed hard at your Law and Order comment! Kudos)
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Yes I have. The whole Comic analogy, and why Nintendo is helping to reverse the damage.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
the channels don't develop their own shows, though. plenty of different chanels have the same show when it has entered into syndication. That is more about what I was saying that the industries are clearly different.
But even so, if every cable provider has to carry the same exact networks, what should they do to differentiate? It DOES cause an issue for the market. You end up with exclusive channels on particular providers.
And with your single console thing, ultimately it would end up the same way. Toshiba's PlayBox would have a little something extra, so that it would play all of the standardized games, but it would also be the ONLY console that would be able to play one or two special games that Toshiba would comission. Suddenly, we're back to sqaure one, only with out the benefit of a plethora of innovation.
Explain the comic analogy, please.
Because I do not see it AT ALL.
The comic analogy doesn't quite work, imho.
Comics being seen as a generally accepted medium went downhill because the CONTENT went south. And so interest dwindled. If you look at the titles after the CC was put into effect they were, quite frankly, terrible. Superman shooting rainbows from his hands (I'm not kidding), that kind of thing. By the time the industry was putting out worthwhile content again the damage to its reputation in the public eye was already too severe. It was "for kids" beause what people saw was a man in tights shooting freaking rainbows at people. They never got to see the work that confirmed it as an art form because the industry gouged its own eyes out with a spoon for years.
The games industry never went through that. The time for it to have occurred would have been after the ESRB came around. So the overal negative trend the comics industry went through, I feel, isn't applicable. The gaming industry already went through that period and succeeded where the comics failed.
EDIT:
If I understood correctly, the comic analogy was referring to the massive downturn in that industry and attempted to attribute it to the fact that DC//Marvel had very, very similar offerings with no distinguishing traits. This is incorrect, however, because that indutry experienced its downward spiral for the reasons listed above, not because of the similarity between platforms.
Maus is the only graphic novel to win a Pulitzer, but it is still a graphic novel that has won a pulitzer. It seems that the general public is willing to admit that it is POSSIBLE for graphic novels to be literature, it is just that they are harsh critics when an actual graphic novel comes along. Given more time, though, they may warm up more.
In short, the story of comics is far from over yet.
I'll ignore your first comment, because the same could be applied to you. (In that you're also ignoring the cultural significance of the medium in favor of the commercial.) And no, I'm not going to agree that Harlequin romance novels can't be art. Are they good art? I don't care. They're still an artificial recreation of the human experience. And for the sake of keeping this short, that's the definition I'm using.
And you're right, the PC is a good example of this. Especially with things like Gametap there to fill in the spots.
My argument isn't like trying to do away with Q. My argument is that, with the natural flow of time and culture, the rules for Q will change, hopefully for the better.
With all due respect, you don't know what my background is. Working in the field of economics does not preclude familiarity with other subjects, in fact, it often requires it.
You are talking about business decisions of what products to manufacture, and industry standardization. That is NOT a cultural discussion. If ANYTHING, you are actually limiting art, with your suggestions, by forcing it into a particular framwork of standards.
If you can't see the parrallels between the way the Comic Industry crippled itself in the long term by it's short sighted profit based decisions in the 60's and how the equally publicly derided computer games industry could make the same mistakes, then I can't really help you anymore.
Time and time again I';ve said that I don't think a single console is a good solution. I just think it's damaging in the long term to have identical machinces like the PS3 & 360. I also think the lack of care about backwards compatibility is really, really damaging the long term as well.
In Britain things are very different, there are uniform standards and most channels produce their content.
The PS4 and the 720 combining into one machine wouldn't damage the industry. It wouldn't stop the production of games.
No one would make the argument that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray facilitate the production of movies better than a single HD platform would. Thats nonsense. No one would say that the standardisation of hardware (Which I'M NOT recommending) in HD players will lead to movies being released only for specific players.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
This is the time that Watchmen gets trotted out of the barn for an obligatory wave at the crowd.
What caused the comics industry trouble though, as I stated, was how it responded to that public scrutiny. Our industry already passed that particular crucible.