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.
With all due respect, you aren't using enough of your imagination to see how this could be conceivable in many years. Never did I say you didn't know anything about anything else. In fact, that's what you said of me.
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.
What I meant was close to that. Because the main producers of comics focused on the easy profits made with kids, and didn't care about the long term respectiability of comics, adults became confused and worried about this medium they didn;'t understand and censored it heavily and it came into common belief that comics were just for kids.
I was saying that the game industries insular inwards looking focus on competiting with each other could well have the same effect. The multiple consoles with silly names fighting scraps with each other, is leading to people jumping to the same conclusions.
I'm old. People often look at me the same way when I say I like games, as when I say I like comics.
Standardisation - if only between the 360 and the PS3 will make computer games understandable in the same way that DVDs are. Thats A Very Good Thing.
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.
Oh I totally agree that was the comics fault.
I don't agree that the games industry has passed that hurdle. I think Nintendo is starting to get close, but Sony and Microsoft are miles away.
Don't take me wrong, I adore the products of the Comic Industry and the all 3 consoles, but I'm just thinking about the future.
Oh and talking about Watchmen, I've been meaning to pick up Lost Girls. If thats not an example of the Comiccs industry climb back up - I don't know what is.
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.
First off, there IS NO analog in the comic industry. You can pretend tht there is one by pointing out parallels, and ignoring contrasts, but it just isn't there, as many of us have pointed out.
As for getting rid of "identical" systems, just because the PS3 and 360 seem identical to you, that does not mean that they are.
As for HD-DVD and Bluray, people aren't so much "arguing" for one to win as they are simply expecting it to happen, since that is the past performance in the home video market.
The console market, by contrast, has been around for over two decades, and has ALWAYS shown a willingness to support multiple formats.
What you have yet to show is that the console market, in and of itself, will have a positive effect from this. You have simply put the market up against other markets, and ignored their differences. All other markets aside, what is going wrong in the console market that this could prevent?
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.
With all due respect, you aren't using enough of your imagination to see how this could be conceivable in many years. Never did I say you didn't know anything about anything else. In fact, that's what you said of me.
No, YOU were the one who said you don't know economics, being an english major.
I said that you lacked a rudimentary knowledge of economic terms, based on the fact that you misinterpretted the basic economic terms I was using. Rather than trying to throw out your argument based on that, I went ahead and gave a quick primer in what I was talking about so that we could move on with both of us understanding what I was talking about.
I've been trying to be respectful here. Lord knows I hate it when I hang out with my physicist buddies, and they go off on thermodynamics talk.
And, as for whether or not this could be concievable, as I said before, without some extremely large hitherto unforeseen influence on the market, there is no reason that the firms in the market would move in that direction, because with the way that the market is currently constructed, they would take huge losses from the standardization that you are describing.
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.
What I meant was close to that. Because the main producers of comics focused on the easy profits made with kids, and didn't care about the long term respectiability of comics, adults became confused and worried about this medium they didn;'t understand and censored it heavily and it came into common belief that comics were just for kids.
I was saying that the game industries insular inwards looking focus on competiting with each other could well have the same effect. The multiple consoles with silly names fighting scraps with each other, is leading to people jumping to the same conclusions.
I'm old. People often look at me the same way when I say I like games, as when I say I like comics.
Standardisation - if only between the 360 and the PS3 will make computer games understandable in the same way that DVDs are. Thats A Very Good Thing.
Except that lots more adults ARE playing video games now.
Video games started to change from "for kids" to "for men" some time in the past half-dozen years, or so.
Comics would have had the same sort of growth if stupid things like the CCA bullshit hadn't stunted it, but even so, it is finally moving in a better direction.
And, damnit Evander, I have tried to be respectful as well. You're the only one arguing for competition to actually seems to grasp the idea fully. But when you make backhanded comments--I never said I didn't know economics because I was English major, I said that it our arguments reflected our backgrounds--it's really hard. It really is.
So I'll just ask this. Do you believe that, in 100 years, that the current scheme--of hardware manufacturers dictating exclusives or whatever--will be in effect?
And do you honestly see no benefit in affecting a standardization to allow cheap, no-frills access to all games for the general public?
Why are developers making games for the Wii and 360 with 20million combined sales when the PS2 has sold a bajillion (300m I think)?
Because those consoles are actually selling? A 700 dollar console wouldn't sell and developers would be afraid to support it.
Because there is only so long you can sustain an interest in a platform - and if your audience gets bored they leave.
I don't remember them getting bored and leaving the Gameboy. New consoles are made because one of the competitors decide that a new console is needed in order to compete well with the competition. The other console manufacturers then make new consoles because they are afraid of being left behind.
There are many ways to keep an audience - Nintendos method is now to produce a wider varitey of games. The traditional way is to make games with better graphics.
Your contradicting yourself, "those consoles are selling so they are supported." vs" why support a new console over an old established one." (paraphrased quotes).
I don't see how those statements contradict each other. Companies generally go to the newest consoles because they know that consumers will soon stop buying games for the old consoles as they move on to the latest stuff. Look at the PS2. It is selling decently but the sales are already starting to drop. If the older generation of consoles were to have a transition period to the newer generation that is as long as six years, most companies would prefer to produce games for the older generation for as long as possible.
The key to making a successful console is to ensure that it is popular enough early on that third party publishers/developers deem it worthwhile to invest in producing content for it. But early in the life of any console its manufacturing cost is at its highest and the available content is at its lowest.
Console manufactures have relied a number of tactics to push the hardware sales of their consoles:
- Use first party content to put the hardware.
- Subsidize the cost of the hardware early on in the console's lifespan.
- Subsidize the third party development (moneyhats :P).
In a consortium situation (like the 3D0) it is very difficult to get the various parties to agree to providing whatever is necessary to execute the tactics listed above. This likely the reason why we haven't seems a successful console backed by a consortium.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
Yumcake on
Cake is yum, is yum cake? I think, therefore I am. I am... Yumcake.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
Like most MS frameworks, DirectX is free to use as long as you use it on windows.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
Like most MS frameworks, DirectX is free to use as long as you use it on windows.
While it's not what I initially meant, I still stipulate that Windows's costs are non-zero as well.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
BZZT -- wrong.
I can go download, install, write a program for, and distribute for profit any game in Direct X I want. And I don't have to give MS a dime for it.
If I wanna make it easy on myself I'll buy a copy of Visual Studio, but you don't actually have to do that to program for Windows or to use Direct X. It's just easier (and comes with MSDN support, which is invaluable).
The reason you don't see millions of games on the PC every day from no-name people is that (a) making games is really freaking hard and (b) there's no such thing as a PC gaming "DevKit" with examples and code libraries. For that you'd need to buy an engine.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
BZZT -- wrong.
I can go download, install, write a program for, and distribute for profit any game in Direct X I want. And I don't have to give MS a dime for it.
If I wanna make it easy on myself I'll buy a copy of Visual Studio, but you don't actually have to do that to program for Windows or to use Direct X. It's just easier (and comes with MSDN support, which is invaluable).
The reason you don't see millions of games on the PC every day from no-name people is that (a) making games is really freaking hard and (b) there's no such thing as a PC gaming "DevKit" with examples and code libraries. For that you'd need to buy an engine.
Well, you need Windows to download the DirectX SDK, as it's "Genuine Advantage Software" or whatever the fuck. I'm really reaching here.
But the point I'm making is that Microsoft sets the standards for PC gaming, too; maybe not with cost, but in terms of what features they're going to include (and have hardware manufacturers implement).
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.
Hello, I don't think you've met my friends before. They're called 3D0 and CD-I, and they thought along the same lines you do at first...
Do I really need to say more?
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
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.
Hello, I don't think you've met my friends before. They're called 3D0 and CD-I, and they thought along the same lines you do at first...
Do I really need to say more?
No, because he'll just ignore you anyway. The people in this thread arguing for system convergence have this strange dissonence with reality. The system they propose, that's exactly like the 3D0 won't turn out like the 3D0 because it would be different (different how is never established) and competition between hardware doesn't breed innovation in all cases, even though we've proven (and given examples) of how competition between hardware does and has lead to innovation.
There are exceptions, but most people that argue for system convergence are just upset that they can't afford all the consoles. In this thread, and the many that have come before it.
There are exceptions, but most people that argue for system convergence are just upset that they can't afford all the consoles. In this thread, and the many that have come before it.
Wow, way to accuse insanity.
I've just been arguing for the possibility.
Anyway, the point is it isn't about you and I who will buy the consoles eventually, it's about the average consumer who are given this unnecessary barrier to entry, which must certainly be hurting uptake. Although, it seems that Nintendo might well solidify itself as the standard console for the casual market.
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
BZZT -- wrong.
I can go download, install, write a program for, and distribute for profit any game in Direct X I want. And I don't have to give MS a dime for it.
If I wanna make it easy on myself I'll buy a copy of Visual Studio, but you don't actually have to do that to program for Windows or to use Direct X. It's just easier (and comes with MSDN support, which is invaluable).
The reason you don't see millions of games on the PC every day from no-name people is that (a) making games is really freaking hard and (b) there's no such thing as a PC gaming "DevKit" with examples and code libraries. For that you'd need to buy an engine.
And coding for consoles is easier? Sure it has explicit documentation on how to do 3D games, but general programming is a pain because you have to account for that console's specific weirdness. (360's three-cores, Wii's slow CPU, PS3's super-wierd 7 core setup.)
Huh. And for PCs you have to account for PC gaming's nonspecific randomness of possible hardware configs. (this may have less to do with programming 'difficulty' rather than trying to figure out where the fuck to draw your line with optimization)
Hardware manufacturers dictacting exclusivity is the basis of the entire console gaming market. Otherwise it'd just be called the gaming market and include PCs.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
BZZT -- wrong.
I can go download, install, write a program for, and distribute for profit any game in Direct X I want. And I don't have to give MS a dime for it.
If I wanna make it easy on myself I'll buy a copy of Visual Studio, but you don't actually have to do that to program for Windows or to use Direct X. It's just easier (and comes with MSDN support, which is invaluable).
The reason you don't see millions of games on the PC every day from no-name people is that (a) making games is really freaking hard and (b) there's no such thing as a PC gaming "DevKit" with examples and code libraries. For that you'd need to buy an engine.
And coding for consoles is easier? Sure it has explicit documentation on how to do 3D games, but general programming is a pain because you have to account for that console's specific weirdness. (360's three-cores, Wii's slow CPU, PS3's super-wierd 7 core setup.)
If you're programming a PC game, now, in 2007, and that PC game is more advanced than Peggle, you'd damn well better be programming for a possible n cores.
Has anyone pointed out yet that the fact you're all comparing videogames to any other "single format" entertainment media is flawed?
The reason it is fundamentally different is TV and music are passive, and the base medium in which they are presented to us has gone unchanged in a long time because technology does not make better music, or better TV shows.
Your shitty old 1984 Philips K9 TV set doesn't make Shawshank Redemption any worse or deep a movie, nor your old Stereo make the Beatles a shittier band. You buy better stuff to make it look or sound better, but that's it. TV and Music technology is always the same base product - created on a stage, in a studio - delivered to you in varying qualities, be in vinyl or Blu Ray. They are performances recorded for you to view at your leisure
Videogames are the opposite. The very nature on how it is delivered or created can change the product. Nintendo states this, Kojima uses this when he talks of PlayStation. They are creating whole worlds from scratch which then require you to have the hardware to re-create it.
Let me ask you this:
Lord of the Rings. To some a fantastic film with a rich, deep world. You can watch it in someone's house that has no technology less than a decade old (or even older if you count the VHS release.
Can you describe a scenario that would make that feasible for a gaming format? Replace LotR with Oblivion.
That's why I believe people are making a mistake when comparing a linear medium like film or music with a dynamic one such as videogames.
Posts
With all due respect, you aren't using enough of your imagination to see how this could be conceivable in many years. Never did I say you didn't know anything about anything else. In fact, that's what you said of me.
What I meant was close to that. Because the main producers of comics focused on the easy profits made with kids, and didn't care about the long term respectiability of comics, adults became confused and worried about this medium they didn;'t understand and censored it heavily and it came into common belief that comics were just for kids.
I was saying that the game industries insular inwards looking focus on competiting with each other could well have the same effect. The multiple consoles with silly names fighting scraps with each other, is leading to people jumping to the same conclusions.
I'm old. People often look at me the same way when I say I like games, as when I say I like comics.
Standardisation - if only between the 360 and the PS3 will make computer games understandable in the same way that DVDs are. Thats A Very Good Thing.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Oh I totally agree that was the comics fault.
I don't agree that the games industry has passed that hurdle. I think Nintendo is starting to get close, but Sony and Microsoft are miles away.
Don't take me wrong, I adore the products of the Comic Industry and the all 3 consoles, but I'm just thinking about the future.
Oh and talking about Watchmen, I've been meaning to pick up Lost Girls. If thats not an example of the Comiccs industry climb back up - I don't know what is.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
First off, there IS NO analog in the comic industry. You can pretend tht there is one by pointing out parallels, and ignoring contrasts, but it just isn't there, as many of us have pointed out.
As for getting rid of "identical" systems, just because the PS3 and 360 seem identical to you, that does not mean that they are.
As for HD-DVD and Bluray, people aren't so much "arguing" for one to win as they are simply expecting it to happen, since that is the past performance in the home video market.
The console market, by contrast, has been around for over two decades, and has ALWAYS shown a willingness to support multiple formats.
What you have yet to show is that the console market, in and of itself, will have a positive effect from this. You have simply put the market up against other markets, and ignored their differences. All other markets aside, what is going wrong in the console market that this could prevent?
No, YOU were the one who said you don't know economics, being an english major.
I said that you lacked a rudimentary knowledge of economic terms, based on the fact that you misinterpretted the basic economic terms I was using. Rather than trying to throw out your argument based on that, I went ahead and gave a quick primer in what I was talking about so that we could move on with both of us understanding what I was talking about.
I've been trying to be respectful here. Lord knows I hate it when I hang out with my physicist buddies, and they go off on thermodynamics talk.
And, as for whether or not this could be concievable, as I said before, without some extremely large hitherto unforeseen influence on the market, there is no reason that the firms in the market would move in that direction, because with the way that the market is currently constructed, they would take huge losses from the standardization that you are describing.
Except that lots more adults ARE playing video games now.
Video games started to change from "for kids" to "for men" some time in the past half-dozen years, or so.
Comics would have had the same sort of growth if stupid things like the CCA bullshit hadn't stunted it, but even so, it is finally moving in a better direction.
So I'll just ask this. Do you believe that, in 100 years, that the current scheme--of hardware manufacturers dictating exclusives or whatever--will be in effect?
And do you honestly see no benefit in affecting a standardization to allow cheap, no-frills access to all games for the general public?
I don't see how those statements contradict each other. Companies generally go to the newest consoles because they know that consumers will soon stop buying games for the old consoles as they move on to the latest stuff. Look at the PS2. It is selling decently but the sales are already starting to drop. If the older generation of consoles were to have a transition period to the newer generation that is as long as six years, most companies would prefer to produce games for the older generation for as long as possible.
Console manufactures have relied a number of tactics to push the hardware sales of their consoles:
- Use first party content to put the hardware.
- Subsidize the cost of the hardware early on in the console's lifespan.
- Subsidize the third party development (moneyhats :P).
In a consortium situation (like the 3D0) it is very difficult to get the various parties to agree to providing whatever is necessary to execute the tactics listed above. This likely the reason why we haven't seems a successful console backed by a consortium.
The difference between PC and console is not hardware, or software, it's control.
PC is an open platform.
Console is a closed platform.
This is not a perjorative statement. Both approaches have their benefits. Both are electronics fundamentally, but on a closed platform there's subsidization, and standardization. The PC platform does not have licensing fees on developers, freedom from standardization (For example: Xbox360 can use keyboards already, MS just doesn't allow games to use it).
The hardware can be changed, the software can be changed. It's the control that differentiates PC from console.
So there is already a software-based competition platform, it's the PC. Why eliminate choice by removing consoles? Obviously people will go to the solution they prefer, and this problem solves itself. And it's through competition that this happens.
PC's an open platform, huh?
Maybe in theory, but in reality, in order for a game to actually sell copies, it needs to be written for some subset of the versions of Microsoft Windows, and at that, it probably needs to be written in Microsoft DirectX, as OpenGL really doesn't have a shitload of support from hardware and software developers at present.
I guarantee you that DirectX licensing costs are non-zero. Microsoft certainly doesn't have as much control over PC games, but to say they have no control is to ignore the realities of the situation.
Like most MS frameworks, DirectX is free to use as long as you use it on windows.
While it's not what I initially meant, I still stipulate that Windows's costs are non-zero as well.
BZZT -- wrong.
I can go download, install, write a program for, and distribute for profit any game in Direct X I want. And I don't have to give MS a dime for it.
If I wanna make it easy on myself I'll buy a copy of Visual Studio, but you don't actually have to do that to program for Windows or to use Direct X. It's just easier (and comes with MSDN support, which is invaluable).
The reason you don't see millions of games on the PC every day from no-name people is that (a) making games is really freaking hard and (b) there's no such thing as a PC gaming "DevKit" with examples and code libraries. For that you'd need to buy an engine.
Well, you need Windows to download the DirectX SDK, as it's "Genuine Advantage Software" or whatever the fuck.
I'm really reaching here.
But the point I'm making is that Microsoft sets the standards for PC gaming, too; maybe not with cost, but in terms of what features they're going to include (and have hardware manufacturers implement).
Hello, I don't think you've met my friends before. They're called 3D0 and CD-I, and they thought along the same lines you do at first...
Do I really need to say more?
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
No, because he'll just ignore you anyway. The people in this thread arguing for system convergence have this strange dissonence with reality. The system they propose, that's exactly like the 3D0 won't turn out like the 3D0 because it would be different (different how is never established) and competition between hardware doesn't breed innovation in all cases, even though we've proven (and given examples) of how competition between hardware does and has lead to innovation.
There are exceptions, but most people that argue for system convergence are just upset that they can't afford all the consoles. In this thread, and the many that have come before it.
Wow, way to accuse insanity.
I've just been arguing for the possibility.
Anyway, the point is it isn't about you and I who will buy the consoles eventually, it's about the average consumer who are given this unnecessary barrier to entry, which must certainly be hurting uptake. Although, it seems that Nintendo might well solidify itself as the standard console for the casual market.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
If you're programming a PC game, now, in 2007, and that PC game is more advanced than Peggle, you'd damn well better be programming for a possible n cores.
The reason it is fundamentally different is TV and music are passive, and the base medium in which they are presented to us has gone unchanged in a long time because technology does not make better music, or better TV shows.
Your shitty old 1984 Philips K9 TV set doesn't make Shawshank Redemption any worse or deep a movie, nor your old Stereo make the Beatles a shittier band. You buy better stuff to make it look or sound better, but that's it. TV and Music technology is always the same base product - created on a stage, in a studio - delivered to you in varying qualities, be in vinyl or Blu Ray. They are performances recorded for you to view at your leisure
Videogames are the opposite. The very nature on how it is delivered or created can change the product. Nintendo states this, Kojima uses this when he talks of PlayStation. They are creating whole worlds from scratch which then require you to have the hardware to re-create it.
Let me ask you this:
Lord of the Rings. To some a fantastic film with a rich, deep world. You can watch it in someone's house that has no technology less than a decade old (or even older if you count the VHS release.
Can you describe a scenario that would make that feasible for a gaming format? Replace LotR with Oblivion.
That's why I believe people are making a mistake when comparing a linear medium like film or music with a dynamic one such as videogames.