• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Advantages of one console future - Discuss!

Q

quetz67

Banned
I díscussed this in the Microsoft topic, but I think the topic is interesting without the bias pointing in one consoles direction.

Advantages of One Console Future:

1. Instead of buying 2 or 3 consoles for $300 each you only buy one, that maybe due to less of competition is $400. Saves money and space.

2. Third party games wouldnt need to use the common lowest dominator but could be developed for one hardware. Games could even be cheaper, because the extra work porting to two or three consoles dont give any extra profit.

3. All gamers could play the same game online together. Even the PC player could join because games dont get delayed for PC only to push console sales.

4. Less games being rushed just to reach certain important hardware marketing dates

5. Less console flaming wars, though most wont see that as an advantage

The only answer to this alway is: Competition is good. Competition forces the companies to push the technological boundaries and release new generations of hardware.

I dont see it. Nintendo improves the Gameboy platform because people are willing to pay money for new versions. And you cant tell me the PS2 hadnt been the same at the same time without the xbox around.

Edit...and yes, competition is good, but it is enough if we have the competition between game developers.
 
If it was possible a consortium of companies could put a spec together... you could then have all sorts of manufacturers selling systems. But royalties would be the thorny issue. The royalty system would have to completely change. Imagine all the components and creative people involved fighting over what they're owed with every hardware iteration. Its the reason Nintendo and Sony never got the SNES PlayStation device out.

It would be absolutely horrible if one company won out over the others. As you say, competition is good. Its better than ever for us in fact.

Plenty of room for improvement though. Software costs too much. It'll never be as popular a past time as movies. And they're showing no signs of variable pricing... by the looks of things its set to go up. Which is sad to hear.
 
Guy LeDouche said:
If Sony/MS had never done anything, we'd be hyped for the soon-to-be-released N64 about now.
Click to expand...

No. Nintendo were looking to upgrade, thats the reason Sony got into this in the first place. Which I'm sure you know anyway...

but if they had never succeeded, maybe 3d0 would have.. or some other dead system. They'd of been forced to upgrade at any rate. By somebody.
 
quetz67 said:
you dont really believe that, do you?
Click to expand...
it was a joke about no competition = stagnation.


do you think Nintendo would have released the DS if Sony didn't release the PSP?
(note: no fanboyism implied, I like both although I only own a PSP)
 
IMO, there are many, many problems with having one console, but just to start one of them is that one group (say Sony) has the power to approve or deny all console games. For example, you wouldn't see things like Metal Slug 3 or other games in the US because of the company's strict approval methods (whether or not they would change the approval process is up for debate).

I also don't think the console pricing or generation length arguments can be dismissed. Would PS3 be launching when it is w/o X360? Up for debate, but I'm of a mind that Sony would have pushed it out as far as possible. I think longer generations than we have now would be bad, although I know some disagree. To me 1000 dollars every 4-5 years for a few new consoles is acceptable for the technological advances.
 
radioheadrule83 said:
If it was possible a consortium of companies could put a spec together... you could then have all sorts of manufacturers selling systems. But royalties would be the thorny issue. The royalty system would have to completely change. Imagine all the components and creative people involved fighting over what they're owed with every hardware iteration. Its the reason Nintendo and Sony never got the SNES PlayStation device out.

It would be absolutely horrible if one company won out over the others. As you say, competition is good. Its better than ever for us in fact.

Plenty of room for improvement though. Software costs too much. It'll never be as popular a past time as movies. And they're showing no signs of variable pricing... by the looks of things its set to go up. Which is sad to hear.
Click to expand...
The royalties are a point, but first party is where the money is. Microsoft could make a good deal for putting their major franchises on Sony hardware with low royalties. Both would be happy, Sony for getting royalties, Microsoft for still earning loads of money without the need to burn it on hardware.
 
Guy LeDouche said:
If Sony/MS had never done anything, we'd be hyped for the soon-to-be-released N64 about now.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation.

I've seen no proof that competition has helped advance the industry. Hell, Microsoft and Sony are in pretty good competition (not in totals, of course, but in momentum) and they're all about who can make a better version of what's already popular. Last time I checked, that's not advancement.

When you're talking about luxury items, which video games certainly are, competition doesn't always help. What does competition produce in the music industry? 1000 Britney Spearses, 1000 50 Cents, 1000 Linkin Parks, etc. Everyone's competing to see who can push the most popular piece of crap. And, unfortunately, the same thing is happening in the video game industry.

I'm not saying a one-console version would be best -- I don't have proof of that either nor have I given it the full thought it deserves -- but competition within the industry is not the holy grail everyone makes it out to be.
 
A One Console Standard might be feasible. If all of the hardware makers (and some of the more prominent Software companies) came together to create a consortium not unlike the DVD or Blu-Ray groups then we'd have a healthy one console option.

But Drinky's brand of "BUY A PS2" and "ONE CONSOLE FUTURE" is just as bad as having three or four independant and completely different console hardware. Sorry Drinky. :P

Absolute power corrupts absolutely... and all that jazz.
 
Everyone talks about Hardware competition pushing game qaulity. I say welcome to 1990, where hardware actaully mattered.

Come next generation, hardware competition won't be pushing the quality of the games.

What needs nice kick in the ass with some new competition are the publishers themeselves, and the software front.

There is practically no competition in the software, publishers just release sequel after sequel without giving a shit about quality.

It's nice to see these non-games selling so well, it might actually make some of these publishers try and find some new ideas for games. I don't want to be playing the 12th sequel to Halo and PD 10 years from now.
 
No competition results in the monopoly not having any incentive in dropping the price.

The idea of having no competition in the gaming industry is ludicrous.
 
How are you so sure that a console will cost 400$ and the games 60$, remember that with not competition the manufacturer of the console could price the games and HW at any price.
 
Dr_Cogent said:
No competition results in the monopoly not having any incentive in dropping the price.

The idea of having no competition in the gaming industry is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Totally. Can you imagine if there was no competition? We could be paying upwards of $400 for a console and $60 for freakin' games. Insane.
 
Mihail said:
Totally. Can you imagine if there was no competition? We could be paying upwards of $400 for a console and $60 for freakin' games. Insane.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about dropping the prices of existing hardware. Sony would have little to no incentive to drop the price of the PS2 if they didn't have any competition. Same goes for MS or Nintendo.

Your example blows as some sort of argument towards having only one console.
 
The competition will be amongst software developers, where it should be you simpletons!

I don't get it.

You people get your jollies off buying three different hardware sets, when you could be spending more money on games.

You're allegedly "gamers". Stop pretending!

The only thing the current model affords are shovelware pimps like Itagaki a safehaven to peddle his wares where Namco, Sega, and Capcom can't shame him with better quality products. That seems to be all it takes though.

One console future, for the gamers!
 
Mihail said:
Totally. Can you imagine if there was no competition? We could be paying upwards of $400 for a console and $60 for freakin' games. Insane.
Click to expand...
wrong, we didnt pay $300 for a GBA, we paid what Nintendo needed to produce it plus a normal profit margin. thats because the money comes from the games not the hardware.

companies develop next gen hardware because they want to sell the same games again, just looking better. they couldnt if they wouldnt 'innovate' or if they ask prices for their hardware nobody is willing to pay
 
MrAngryFace said:
Ill say it for nintendo fans first:




I didnt want that many games anyway.
Click to expand...

bartcase.jpg


=( XBox am cry
 
Hardware cycles will likley last closer to 6 or 7 years, with the hardware costing closer to $500. That would be ok with me :)
 
Dr_Cogent said:
I'm talking about dropping the prices of existing hardware. Sony would have little to no incentive to drop the price of the PS2 if they didn't have any competition. Same goes for MS or Nintendo.

Your example blows as some sort of argument towards having only one console.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for a one-console future. I'm saying that we don't have any proof that competition (between Sony, MS, Nin, not between publishers) has helped the industry.
 
Dr_Cogent said:
I'm talking about dropping the prices of existing hardware. Sony would have little to no incentive to drop the price of the PS2 if they didn't have any competition. Same goes for MS or Nintendo..
Click to expand...

Wrong again, they drop the prices becaase they can and need to. There are lots of people who cant afford to buy a console at $299 (or $199...or $99). All these price drops open new market segments they reach by dropping the price, competition is only a minor factor
 
Mihail said:
I'm not arguing for a one-console future. I'm saying that we don't have any proof that competition (between Sony, MS, Nin, not between publishers) has helped the industry.
Click to expand...

I'm sure compeition between consoles has pushed hardware to get faster/better. But the truth is, we are fast aproaching a point where we can't get much better graphically.. at which point, its up to developers to make games, and not for companies to release hardware.
 
quetz67 said:
Wrong again, they drop the prices becaase they can and need to. There are lots of people who cant afford to buy a console at $299 (or $199...or $99). All these price drops open new market segments they reach by dropping the price, competition is only a minor factor
Click to expand...

Right, just like Intel was really reasonable when they were the only game in town right?

You people that think that this would work any differently than any other industry are completely fooling yourselves.

Monopolies always work out to be the same deal, the consumer gets screwed. The gameboy is not a good example, because it has seen competition over the years. Just because said competition didn't succeed, doesn't mean there wasn't any.
 
Dr_Cogent said:
Right, just like Intel was really reasonable when they were the only game in town right?

You people that think that this would work any differently than any other industry are completely fooling yourselves.
Click to expand...
Luxury items, man, luxury items. Look at Mercedes-Benz -- used to carry unquestionable quality in its very name. Competition caused them to water down their product line. Luxury items.
 
If you didn't own more than one piece of hardware, then how could you play all the games that only appear on Nintendo and MS consoles?

If you don't have the money to buy more than one console, too bad for you but don't piss on everybody else for being able to do the things that you can only dream about poor boy.
 
Dr_Cogent said:
Right, just like Intel was really reasonable when they were the only game in town right?

You people that think that this would work any differently than any other industry are completely fooling yourselves.

Monopolies always work out to be the same deal, the consumer gets screwed. The gameboy is not a good example, because it has seen competition over the years. Just because said competition didn't succeed, doesn't mean there wasn't any.
Click to expand...
what about the gameboy example? I think it works well without competition.

Sure I am happy the PSP entered the market, but thats a different segment. Nintendo wants to create handhelds with a very good battery life, thats why their handhelds are not as powerful as the PSP. And easily beating the Lynx, GameGear and others prove they were right to do so.
 
quetz67 said:
Wrong again, they drop the prices becaase they can and need to. There are lots of people who cant afford to buy a console at $299 (or $199...or $99). All these price drops open new market segments they reach by dropping the price, competition is only a minor factor
Click to expand...


People who can't afford a console at $299 are also the same people who can't afford to buy that many games for their new console. If companies made 100% profit off of hardware then maybe they could just lower hardware prices whenever they felt like it, but they don't.

Nintendo never would have dropped the Cube down below the $100 price point if the Xbox didn't drop in price.
 
The Take Out Bandit said:
The competition will be amongst software developers, where it should be you simpletons!

I don't get it.

You people get your jollies off buying three different hardware sets, when you could be spending more money on games.

You're allegedly "gamers". Stop pretending!

The only thing the current model affords are shovelware pimps like Itagaki a safehaven to peddle his wares where Namco, Sega, and Capcom can't shame him with better quality products. That seems to be all it takes though.

One console future, for the gamers!
Click to expand...



Finally, someone that shares my opinion. Do people really believe having the Genesis around really made Mario, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, or even Batman Returns better? Did having the N64 around make Silent Hill or Resident Evil 2 any better?

Those games would have still came out if there was only one console. Having multiple consoles only increase the price of gaming and might advance technology faster, but it doesn't have an effect on game qaulity, especially considering how powerful consoles are already.

What effects game qaulity are the publishers themselves and competition amoung games. While you fanboys fight over how many systems your console sold, EA is laughing their asses off. You guys bought Madden for the 5th time because they added a new cone system and let awesome games with fresh ideas sit on the shelves and collect dust.

Prespectives people.
 
quetz67 said:
what about the gameboy example? I think it works well without competition.

Sure I am happy the PSP entered the market, but thats a different segment. Nintendo wants to create handhelds with a very good battery life, thats why their handhelds are not as powerful as the PSP. And easily beating the Lynx, GameGear and others prove they were right to do so.
Click to expand...

How can it be a good example when it wasn't ever a monopoly?

Your thread is basically saying that a monopoly would be good for the gaming biz. Then you point to the Gameboy as some sort of proof of it, but it's never been a monopoly.
 
pixelfish said:
People who can't afford a console at $299 are also the same people who can't afford to buy that many games for their new console. If companies made 100% profit off of hardware then maybe they could just lower hardware prices whenever they felt like it, but they don't.

Nintendo never would have dropped the Cube down below the $100 price point if the Xbox didn't drop in price.
Click to expand...
Riiiiight... because if the XBox didn't exist people would just be eating those Cubes up, right? Also, your "poor boy" argument is flawed. You assume that companies expect people to be multi-console owners, but the truth is that their business model is set up as if customers were buying ONLY their console. In other words, they're not worried too much about rich boys like you, but mostly about the "poor boys" who can only afford 1.... MAYBE 2 consoles.
 
We already had a one console environment during the NES era. During that time, Nintendo controlled third parties with an iron fist. They withheld technical information about their console from third parties so that their games would look better than other games. Their dominance was strong enough at the beginning of the 32-bit era that they tried to prevent games from moving to CDs by making a cartridge based system, in large part to protect themselves from piracy. I doubt many developers would be happy if one company was dominant as long as Nintendo was and began to use their influence to protect their own interest at the expense of others.

We also had a one console environment during the Atari period. Videogames like Pacman were a cultural phenomenon, but Atari's poor stewardship of the gaming industry and their dismal quality control nearly annihilated the gaming industry. If Nintendo had not just happened to be entering the market just as Atari collapsed, the games industry would have been doomed. A one console environment assumes that the party in control of the industry will never make any critical mistakes that would ruin the business.

Today, we are reaping the benefits of the competition between the first parties. Sony initially drove down the cost of games, advanced multi-media integration into consoles, made games mainstream by appealling to young adults rather than young children, and empowered third parties. Microsoft was willing to sell an extremely powerful console at a ridiculous loss, continue to try to explore the potential of online gaming, and have made a concerted effort to create better middleware to make game development easier. Nintendo is about to try to change the way that we control games, possibly for the better. I doubt that any one of these companies would have done all of these things had they had monoplistic control of the industry.
 
pixelfish said:
People who can't afford a console at $299 are also the same people who can't afford to buy that many games for their new console. If companies made 100% profit off of hardware then maybe they could just lower hardware prices whenever they felt like it, but they don't.

Nintendo never would have dropped the Cube down below the $100 price point if the Xbox didn't drop in price.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think Nintendo dropped price becuase their system wasn't selling. While that might be indirectly caused by MS or a Sony price drop, there is no direct relationship( ie meaning Nintendo dropped because MS did)

A company will drop the price of any product if they feel sales are too low or that they can open the market to a larger amout of people. It's how it works in any industry.

Only in the world of fanboys do they see this "war".
 
quetz67 said:
what about the gameboy example? I think it works well without competition.

Sure I am happy the PSP entered the market, but thats a different segment. Nintendo wants to create handhelds with a very good battery life, thats why their handhelds are not as powerful as the PSP. And easily beating the Lynx, GameGear and others prove they were right to do so.
Click to expand...

Gameboy is a perfect example of what happens without substantial competition. We get underpowered hardware that sticks around years too long. I don't know about you, but I would have been happy to be playing something a little bit better than a GBC in 2000. The technology was certainly there, but w/o competition Nintendo had little incentive to stop charging ridiculous amounts for incredibly dated hardware.
 
With a one console standard specification, you can forget about having a high powered console sold through the loss-leader model. Consoles would be sold by several manufacturers for a profit, so for instance an Xbox 360 could cost at least $500 at launch for the bare bones edition, maybe more. More likely, to keep prices reasonable at launch the specification would have to be pretty low tech in the first place.

And price cuts... Whats the point? With no competition, price cuts would no longer be aggressive moves to spur sales. Price cuts would only reflect improved manufacturing efficiency (which I think would likely ramp up slower as well, especially considering companies like Sony that rely on in-house production to reduce costs)

Also, we'd never see anything cool or groundbreaking in the controller department, like the Revolution. If you seriously want to play games with the dual shock for the next 10 years, go right ahead. Its a great controller, but someting new is always refreshing.

And for those who use DVD as an example, look at its predecessor as a counterexample-- VHS. How long were we stuck with that inferior technology?
 
It's all the same to me, really.

Of course, I've found that most who espouse this idea think Microsoft have absolutely nothing compelling to offer over Sony in the way of original content, and of course those people are very dumb.

If you'll notice, not many MS/Nintendo fans want to blink Sony out of existence.
 
littlewig said:
Actually, I think Nintendo dropped price becuase their system wasn't selling. While that might be indirectly caused by MS or a Sony price drop, there is no direct relationship( ie meaning Nintendo dropped because MS did)

A company will drop the price of any product if they feel sales are too low or that they can open the market to a larger amout of people. It's how it works in any industry.

Only in the world of fanboys do they see this "war".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but why wasn't it selling? Because of the competition (i.e. MS and Sony). So the price drop is related to the competition.
 
GitarooMan said:
Gameboy is a perfect example of what happens without competition. We get underpowered hardware that sticks around years too long. I don't know about you, but I would have been happy to be playing something a little bit better than a GBC in 2000. The technology was certainly there, but w/o competition Nintendo had little incentive to stop charging ridiculous amounts for incredibly dated hardware.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Graphics of next gen will look really good, if there's a one-console future following that, then they can't release that console with less power than next gen. Also, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony will release their "game players" which will create some form of competition though the specs of all three must follow standards (like DVD players).

You would be right if you were stating that 5 years ago but not in this day and age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Verge] Xbox Cloud Gaming’s new design teases the future of Xbox console UI
2
62
496
Casisalive replied
The future of gaming looks Dire
2 3 4
154
1K
DavidGzz replied
The Amazing Ningtendo PXBOX 5! The one console to rule them all...
28
336
bitbydeath replied
At what point does Xbox (The Console) become in danger of losing 3rd party day one support?
2
88
1K
onQ123 replied
Is there a future for the Legacy of Kain series ?
13
283
Radical_3d replied
Top Bottom