Support NeoGAF

[Mihail]

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.

I don't disagree with the facts that you present. But your analysis of those facts is just speculation.

I could just as easily speculate that Sony didn't enter the field to compete with Nintendo and to take away their marketshare, but to create a whole new market and to expand the number of gaming customers. Certainly, we can show that they did this.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

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.

That's only on the assumption that there would be an open standard - which I don't ever see happening.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I don't disagree with the facts that you present. But your analysis of those facts is just speculation.

I could just as easily speculate that Sony didn't enter the field to compete with Nintendo and to take away their marketshare, but to create a whole new market and to expand the number of gaming customers. Certainly, we can show that they did this.

Watch the Icons episode on the Playstation.

 

[Speevy]

How about this?

Sony can be the market leader but they NEVER get to manufacture consoles?

Sony and MS can collaborate on the hardware and Nintendo makes it. Simple as that.

That way, we have just one console, it has a good controller and a hard drive, AND it doesn't stop reading disks.

 

[GitarooMan]

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.

How have things changed though? Are you saying that graphics won't continue to improve? Just becuase next gen graphics look really good now doesn't mean in 5 years there won't be major technological upgrades.

Yeah, if only one console is released after next gen it won't be less powerful, but will it be as powerful as it could be if people were making competing systems? I doubt it.

 

[urk]

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.

Consoles are already $400 with competition. Manufactures lose money on hardware precisely because of competition. If Sony or Microsoft had carte blanche to set pricing without having to worry about factors outside of their control, they would have a much more conservative pricing structure.

This is true anywhere you see a monopoly.

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.

Lazy developers isn't an excuse. Plenty of games are designed to use the best elements of each system. These are the games that become big sellers. See RE4, SC:CT, etc. Developers that code without harnessing each system's unique strengths are developers that will take shortcuts no matter the platform.

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.

If Microsoft hadn't had success with Xbox Live, there is a fairly good chance that Sony would still be unfocused on online play. Rumor has it that the system that they are structuring for the PS3 is a straight copy of Xbox Live. It is competition that led Microsoft to incorporate Live into console play and their perceived success that prompted Sony to follow the lead. Nintendo was busy working on that remote thingy.

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

So, as new iterations of the single uber console release, the company controlling the hardware isn't going to push devs to release hot games to conincide? Same for Christmas? Don't think so. In fact, without any healthy competition, prices would be higher. Higher prices means that stronger tactics would be needed to promote new system introduction and to push strong software sales.

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

It would just cascade down to the developers and individual franchises. You already see that kind of bizzare behavior with games like MGS4 and Gears of War or DMC4 and God of War.

 

[pixelfish]

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.

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that I assume companies expect people to be multi console owners? My reply was in responce to "people who own multiple consoles are fools and not real gamers because instead of spending money on games, they buy more than one console instead". How does only owning one console and missing out on Nintendo and Xbox games make you more of a gamer than a person who owns multiple consoles and can play exclusive games on all 3 consoles?

It has nothing to do with what companies expect because yes companies want you to buy only their product and support their product by buying games and accessories for that product.

 

[pixelfish]

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".

More and more people are owning more than once console these days. If the Xbox didn't exist and a person wanted to play something other than PS2 style games, where would they turn?

 

[Sathsquatch]

I don't disagree with the facts that you present. But your analysis of those facts is just speculation.

I could just as easily speculate that Sony didn't enter the field to compete with Nintendo and to take away their marketshare, but to create a whole new market and to expand the number of gaming customers. Certainly, we can show that they did this.

The idea that a one console future would beneficial to consumers or software developers is pure speculation. We have not seen any benefits from a one console environment that would not have occurred with competition with the exception of potentially saving money by having a single console, which is counterbalanced by the equally revelant speculation that unchallenged console maker would have no real incentive to lose money on their hardware and less incentive to cut prices in a timely manner. The harms of a one console environment have already materialized in the past and have been proven to be distinct possibilities of a one console environment.

The benefits of a one console environment are too small and too speculative to matter. We already know that one console environments can have negative consequences on developers and consumers, and have seen that consumers had suffered whenever one first party controlled the industry in the past. Of course I can't know the exact impact that a one console environment would have in the future, but I have already seen the negative consequences of a console monopoly before and never want the industry to revert to the way it was in the past.

 

[Bartman3010]

The only reason we'll never have a one console market, at least in america, is because its bad for companies to have a stranglehold on any market, in other words, a monopoly. It causes less opportunities and jobs to take place, therefore, less jobs which means more poor people and that leads to depression. These days theres certain precautions taken so that things like Microsoft and Disney wont happen again. For example, if companies continue to merge, they usually have to lay off people to keep costs down. Remember you're harnessing two major companies, thats a lot of workers who are potential victims here.

If we already have 'lazy' developers, bankrupty and mergers happening this generation, it only gets worse next generation. Go ahead and look at these upcoming games in awe, the industry might take a serious hit if you cant have any newcomers come in, or if these old ones get burned out.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

The idea that a one console future would beneficial to consumers or software developers is pure speculation. We have not seen any benefits from a one console environment that would not have occurred with competition with the exception of potentially saving money by having a single console, which is counterbalanced by the equally revelant speculation that unchallenged console maker would have no real incentive to lose money on their hardware and less incentive to cut prices in a timely manner. The harms of a one console environment have already materialized in the past and have been proven to be distinct possibilities of a one console environment.

The benefits of a one console environment are too small and too speculative to matter. We already know that one console environments can have negative consequences on developers and consumers, and have seen that consumers had suffered whenever one first party controlled the industry in the past. Of course I can't know the exact impact that a one console environment would have in the future, but I have already seen the negative consequences of a console monopoly before and never want the industry to revert to the way it was in the past.

:claps:

 

[littlewig]

How have things changed though? Are you saying that graphics won't continue to improve? Just becuase next gen graphics look really good now doesn't mean in 5 years there won't be major technological upgrades.

Yeah, if only one console is released after next gen it won't be less powerful, but will it be as powerful as it could be if people were making competing systems? I doubt it.

He's saying the days of graphics pushing games are almost over. I've recently found it is a novelty to buy a game for their graphics. I have so many crappy games on all my systems because I thought their graphics looked nice. With each new generation, I no longer see the beuatiful graphics in those old games and the crappy gameplay really shines through.

I believe pushing new hardware in the past has led us to our current state of software sales. Publishers release sequels to show us how much "better" the games look. People then in turn interrept this better looking game as actually being better and buy them. Most often those games suck.

Next Gen will be the final generation which will be defined by graphics. Come next next gen, gameplay will finally push games, that is unless we get virtual reality and we get a floodgate of sequels again. -_-

 

[Mihail]

The idea that a one console future would beneficial to consumers or software developers is pure speculation. We have not seen any benefits from a one console environment that would not have occurred with competition with the exception of potentially saving money by having a single console, which is counterbalanced by the equally revelant speculation that unchallenged console maker would have no real incentive to lose money on their hardware and less incentive to cut prices in a timely manner. The harms of a one console environment have already materialized in the past and have been proven to be distinct possibilities of a one console environment.

I know I am going to sound repetitive, but this is your point-of-view's biggest fallacy: video games are luxury items. You can't expect people to buy crap at high prices if they don't need it. Consumers are dumb, but they're not that dumb. Can you honestly tell me that, assuming Sony was the only company, they would charge $800 or something ridiculous like that for their console? No way.

 

[GitarooMan]

Next Gen will be the final generation which will be defined by graphics.

Maybe, but I disagree. I don't think devs have even come close to hitting the ceiling in animation and graphics. Look at the complaints about next-gen stuff on this board, there is clearly tons of room for improvement.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

He's saying the days of graphics pushing games are almost over.

No way is graphics pushing games almost over. Far from it. They have plenty of room to grow.

 

[dark10x]

No was is graphics pushing games almost over.

Man, that's one of the most confusing things I've read all day. I've read it several times and it makes absolutely no sense.*





*I assume "was" is intended to be "way"

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Man, that's one of the most confusing things I've read all day. I've read it several times and it makes absolutely no sense.*





*I assume "was" is intended to be "way"

:lol, typo!

I can't believe people actually think that graphics are reaching their ceiling point already.

 

[DarienA]

you dont really believe that, do you?

I do... how long was I playing Killer Instinct and hearing it's attract mode mention coming soon for you NINTENDO ULTRA 64.... but it actually came out?

Feels like forever.

 

[littlewig]

Ceiling point no, but there won't be the large leaps that we have seen in the past. These large leaps is what I'm talking about.

The Genesis/SNES were defined by there great leap in 2D power over the NES, PSX/N64 were defined by their 3D capabilties over the 2D predecessors. PS2/Xbox/GC are defined by having a great leap in 3D graphics from the N64/PSX, we no longer had crappy textures or cartoony looking games.

I think the main complaint about Xbox360 is because it's no showing such a great leap in graphics. PS3 is wowing people, but who knows how much it will cost.

If you want that leap in graphics each time, costs are going to have to raise. And each new generation will make that leap much harder. Things are going to get crazy expensive.

So I do feel next gen will be the last generation defined by the current way we view graphics. If nothing new like virtual reality comes, each new generation will have a much smaller leap.

 

[pixelfish]

I know I am going to sound repetitive, but this is your point-of-view's biggest fallacy: video games are luxury items. You can't expect people to buy crap at high prices if they don't need it. Consumers are dumb, but they're not that dumb. Can you honestly tell me that, assuming Sony was the only company, they would charge $800 or something ridiculous like that for their console? No way.

I don't think you understand the term luxury items. Luxury items are things that you don't need but people spend large amounts of money on them. Fugly rims for a car that cost a thousand dollars, you don't need them but you want them. A designer purse that costs $4 000, you don't need it but you buy it because you want it. Tv's that cost $6000 only to be replaced by a newer model in a couple of years, why do people spend money on that when there are cheaper options?

 

[maximum360]

Having only one console has already proven to be a bad idea (see Nintendo) and will be as bad if not worse in the future. Competition is the lifeblood of innovation. Without it, the gamers as a whole would suffer.

Also, I for one would not want to play a PS2 or an Xbox for 10 years.

 

[quetz67]

If Microsoft hadn't had success with Xbox Live, there is a fairly good chance that Sony would still be unfocused on online play. Rumor has it that the system that they are structuring for the PS3 is a straight copy of Xbox Live. It is competition that led Microsoft to incorporate Live into console play and their perceived success that prompted Sony to follow the lead. Nintendo was busy working on that remote thingy

XBox live isnt successful, not even 10% use it. Would be (and will be) very different when Sony and/or Nintendo offer it for free.

And xbox live isnt anything special, its just old stuff thrown together in a nice package with a price tag put on it.

Lazy developers isn't an excuse. Plenty of games are designed to use the best elements of each system. These are the games that become big sellers. See RE4, SC:CT, etc. Developers that code without harnessing each system's unique strengths are developers that will take shortcuts no matter the platform.

It is not about being lazy. RE4 still only reaches 80% of all gamers and that with a full development cycle on one platform plus an 1-2 years effort only to port it to another. One console future would reach 100% of the users at probably only 70% the price. Could make games cheaper. And would save the hardware companies huge amounts of money for (timed) exlusives (just to sell more hardware they are losing money with)

 

[Beer Monkey]

I'm for the single everything future.

One fast food restaurant. McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys? Screw that. Just one.

One soft drink.

One brand of automobile.

One kind of haircut.

One political party.

 

[quetz67]

Having only one console has already proven to be a bad idea (see Nintendo) and will be as bad if not worse in the future. Competition is the lifeblood of innovation. Without it, the gamers as a whole would suffer.

Also, I for one would not want to play a PS2 or an Xbox for 10 years.

What is so bad about the handheld monopoly Nintendo (still) has?

Did it drive gameboy prices to ridicolous heights? No! The prices are absolutely reasonable!

Did it prevent new improved models to be released? No!

Did it prevent more technically advanced gameboys? No! Nintendo wants good tech but with good battery life too!

Are the games bad? Are companies unhappy to develop for Nintendo handhelds? I dont think so!

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I'm for the single everything future.

One fast food restaurant. McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys? Screw that. Just one.

One soft drink.

One brand of automobile.

One kind of haircut.

One political party.

:lol Hahah! No doubt.

XBox live isnt successful, not even 10% use it.

How the hell do you know that?

 

[quetz67]

:lol Hahah! No doubt.



How the hell do you know that?

Because Microsoft tells us the numbers from time to time. Havent heard any numbers recently, but that only shows they havent increased much.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Because Microsoft tells us the numbers from time to time. Havent heard any numbers recently, but that only shows they havent increased much.

No, actually it just means you are talking out of your ass.

Basically, you just proved to us that you are just making shit up at this point.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Proba...hm.

Besides only having to buy one console, I can't think of a single thing.

Less flame wars between console fanboys on message boards? No, I like those.

Hm. No, I've got nothing.

 

[quetz67]

No, actually it just means you are talking out of your ass.

Basically, you just proved to us that you are just making shit up at this point.

Do I really look up the latest xbox live subscriber numbers?

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=5979

That is obviously about 10%

Unfortunately the quote from Bill Gates that he hopes for 10 million subscribers the time xbox 2 arrives isnt anywhere to be found on the net any more. So they can still say how great 2 million are.

 

[jett]

I'm all for the one console future. :rock

 

[teruterubozu]

A one console future would definitely improve one thing - mainstream awareness of games.

"Does Xbox play Nintendo games?"
"I heard you can rip DVDs with this."
"How come I can't find Halo for the PlayStation?" etc. etc.

 

[Eel O'Brian]

So what you're saying is, we should all be waiting for the release of the Atari 13000 right about now?

 

[TheJesusFactor]

Here is an example of what happens when a videogame company has a monoply. When the NES ruled the market with close to 90% market share. We got the following:

1) Prices of videogames went up. Some NES games cost $90 at Toys R Us. Ouch
2) Nintendo did not feel the need to release a new system until Sega came along with the Genesis. Even with that, they were late by at least 1 year.
3) Many developers reported that Nintendo had extremely hard demands on the developers. Mainly, you make a game for the competition and you cannot publish any games on the NES.
Complete loyalty or nothing.

When the Genesis came, we go these benefits:

1) Nintendo wanted to beat Sega's hardware and came out with the SNES with more colors, Mode 7, and advance midi chip. Of course Sega had the faster processor.
2) When Nintendo got the exclusive to "Final Fight", sega commissioned the creation of Streets of Rage to compete against it. Many games created by Sega was due to competition.
3) Sega had the first drop in system price, forcing Nintendo to follow.
4) Both companies had to attract developer support, and gave more reasonable contracts.
5) Sonic was created to fight off Mario.

Now some of you are looking at Gameboy and I have to tell you that the PSP competition has force Nintendo to give us more in the portable market.

1) Advancement in handheld tech. Notice when the GBA came out and notice when the NDS came out. Very close timing, force by the threat of PSP. Without the PSP, we will not have a DS, or any type of touchscreen innovation.
2) Constant improvement on the Gameboy Advance to appeal to new markets.
3) Force the DS to drop in price to $129.

On the Current generation of system. We get this:

1) All 3 systems have a $20 greatest hit line, did not have this before and was initiated by Sony.
2) Bundle packages by Nintendo
3) Forcing Xbox to be sold at the same price as PS2, yet it cost more to manufacture.
4) All system experience a price drop at relatively the same time one company initiates a price drop.
5) Force Nintendo to release the Gamecube that is cheaper then everyone else.

I think it is very clear that a monopoly controlled by one company alone is very bad for the industry. If you don't believe me, ask your business professor. Unless, it is control by a Board made up of industry leaders, we will not have a safe monopoly.

 

[rs7k]

If Sony/MS had never done anything, we'd be hyped for the soon-to-be-released N64 about now.

If Nintendo had been the only manufacturer, PC gaming would have been king.

 

[urk]

Do I really look up the latest xbox live subscriber numbers?

That is obviously about 10%

More like 15% worldwide. Very successful, especially when compared to their competitors piecemeal attempts at a unified online presence. How much more successful would Sony have been had they countered with something this gen that competed with Live? You may not think that 15% of the installed base adding monthly revenue is important, but Sony does. You can bet they are going to follow Microsoft's lead. If it were a one console environment, Sony would have no reason to do anything about their crappy online platform.

 

[quetz67]

More like 15% worldwide. Very successful, especially when compared to their competitors piecemeal attempts at a unified online presence. How much more successful would Sony have been had they countered with something this gen that competed with Live? You may not think that 15% of the installed base adding monthly revenue is important, but Sony does. You can bet they are going to follow Microsoft's lead. If it were a one console environment, Sony would have no reason to do anything about their crappy online platform.

So 2 million subscribers worldwide and a good 20 million xboxes worldwide is more like 15% than 10%...eehhh...OK...what can I say?

 

[quetz67]

Here is an example of what happens when a videogame company has a monoply. When the NES ruled the market with close to 90% market share. We got the following:

1) Prices of videogames went up. Some NES games cost $90 at Toys R Us. Ouch
2) Nintendo did not feel the need to release a new system until Sega came along with the Genesis. Even with that, they were late by at least 1 year.
3) Many developers reported that Nintendo had extremely hard demands on the developers. Mainly, you make a game for the competition and you cannot publish any games on the NES.
Complete loyalty or nothing.

When the Genesis came, we go these benefits:

1) Nintendo wanted to beat Sega's hardware and came out with the SNES with more colors, Mode 7, and advance midi chip. Of course Sega had the faster processor.
2) When Nintendo got the exclusive to "Final Fight", sega commissioned the creation of Streets of Rage to compete against it. Many games created by Sega was due to competition.
3) Sega had the first drop in system price, forcing Nintendo to follow.
4) Both companies had to attract developer support, and gave more reasonable contracts.
5) Sonic was created to fight off Mario.

Now some of you are looking at Gameboy and I have to tell you that the PSP competition has force Nintendo to give us more in the portable market.

1) Advancement in handheld tech. Notice when the GBA came out and notice when the NDS came out. Very close timing, force by the threat of PSP. Without the PSP, we will not have a DS, or any type of touchscreen innovation.
2) Constant improvement on the Gameboy Advance to appeal to new markets.
3) Force the DS to drop in price to $129.

On the Current generation of system. We get this:

1) All 3 systems have a $20 greatest hit line, did not have this before and was initiated by Sony.
2) Bundle packages by Nintendo
3) Forcing Xbox to be sold at the same price as PS2, yet it cost more to manufacture.
4) All system experience a price drop at relatively the same time one company initiates a price drop.
5) Force Nintendo to release the Gamecube that is cheaper then everyone else.

I think it is very clear that a monopoly controlled by one company alone is very bad for the industry. If you don't believe me, ask your business professor. Unless, it is control by a Board made up of industry leaders, we will not have a safe monopoly.

1. OK, the first example is from the stoneage of videogames. Nintendo didnt know then that with releasing new hardware they could sell their games all over again, just looking better.

2. I dont see the NDS competing with PSP or intended to do so. It was about introducing something new, not about improving tech specs.

3. When will you learn that the customer pays the price. In case of xbox its those who bought Windows who paid for the extra power xbox gamers get. But on the long run there is no differnence if you pay Microsoft throught the hardware or through the games. You will pay he price for overpowered hardware

 

[Piepz]

There are NONE.
Monopolly total.

 

[urk]

So 2 million subscribers worldwide and a good 20 million xboxes worldwide is more like 15% than 10%...eehhh...OK...what can I say?

Both worldwide sales figures and total Xbox Live subscription stats published online are outdated. No matter. The fact is that even at 10%, it's still very cost effective and still generates a good amount of revenue, costumer satisfaction, and enhanced gameplay.

And you still fail to address the fact that Sony intends to copy, or at least challenge, Microsoft in the online space. If it is insignificant, then why would they jump in? The reason is that they see money there. They see Microsoft making a go of it and they realize that if they don't respond, they will be at a disadvantage in this particular area.

Competition has driven Sony to respond, creating what will undoubtedly be a better system for online games (and therefor online gamers).

 

[Mihail]

Both worldwide sales figures and total Xbox Live subscription stats published online are outdated. No matter. The fact is that even at 10%, it's still very cost effective and still generates a good amount of revenue, costumer satisfaction, and enhanced gameplay.

And you still fail to address the fact that Sony intends to copy, or at least challenge, Microsoft in the online space. If it is isignificant, then why would they jump in? The reason is that they see money there. They see Microsoft making a go of it and they realize that if they don't respond, they will be at a disadvantage in this particular area.

Competition has driven Sony to respond, creating what will undoubtedly be a better system for online games (and therefor online gamers) as a direct result of competition.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you can't drop "facts" without showing any sort of proof. How can you say it's cost effective? We have no idea whether it is or not. In fact, I'm willing to bet it's not, seeing as Gates had said he hoped to have close to 10 million by now.

And about Sony: maybe their PR says they intend to follow Microsoft and challenge them in the online space, but MS is still more determined in their actions, e.g. requiring Live recognition in all games.

 

[urk]

I don't know if MS releases Xbox Live profit figures or total expenditures to date. I only assume that taking on a monthly or annual fee for a couple of million people, especially over the long term is designed to be very profitable. Couple that with the fact that their top selling titles rely on Xbox Live to drive not only continued play but also after the sale purchases (maptacular) and that the infrastructure is a one time hefty expense followed by maintenance and upgrade that tapers off as time goes on and I think they must have very high hopes at least to make it profitable if it isn't already.

Taking into account that there are no solid numbers that I can drum up regarding the profitablity of the current model, I think it is more than clear that all three major console makers see the online space as a way to not only generate profit, but also to enhance gameplay and satisfaction of their installed base. If that wasn't the case, and Sony and Nintendo didn't believe that there was money to be made, either directly or as a side effect of adding online play and enhancements to their library of titles, then they wouldn't even be looking at it at all.

 

[Pimpwerx]

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!

WTF? You beat me to this post by like 4 hours. I posted almost the same fucking thing in another thread a little while ago. Itagaki is the prime example. DOA sells b/c there is no competition, not b/c it's any fucking good. Team Ninja can pass off shovelware b/c they're the only game in town. Now when we have shit like EA buying exclusive licenses, now we cut out the software competition, and gamers suffer. Single console future FTW. PEACE.

 

[urk]

WTF? You beat me to this post by like 4 hours. I posted almost the same fucking thing in another thread a little while ago. Itagaki is the prime example. DOA sells b/c there is no competition, not b/c it's any fucking good. Team Ninja can pass off shovelware b/c they're the only game in town. Now when we have shit like EA buying exclusive licenses, now we cut out the software competition, and gamers suffer. Single console future FTW. PEACE.

So what would stop the large developers like EA from gobbling up devs like Unicron gobbles up planets and spitting out that same rehashed sludge in a one console future?

 

[quetz67]

And you still fail to address the fact that Sony intends to copy, or at least challenge, Microsoft in the online space. If it is insignificant, then why would they jump in? The reason is that they see money there. They see Microsoft making a go of it and they realize that if they don't respond, they will be at a disadvantage in this particular area.

Thats stupid, it is not like Microsoft own the patent on online gaming. Why is it copying Microsoft when you decide to go online with your console?

Nintendo and Sony are already online to a certain degree (with Nintendo being online before Microsoft) and they just see it will be important in the future with a good amount of people having broadband now. And if we are lucky they dont cut their possible online userbase by having them pay for it.

 

[terrene]

I know an advantage: I won't spend $200 on a piece of shit console to play the two Nintendo games that are worth buying.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I know an advantage: I won't spend $200 on a piece of shit console to play the two Nintendo games that are worth buying.

Lack of software support doesn't make the hardware a POS.

 

[terrene]

Lack of software support doesn't make the hardware a POS.

No. The fact that the hardware sucks is what makes it a POS. The fact that there's no software for it is an extra cockslap to my wallet.

 

[gofreak]

I don't think I'd mind at all if there was one single standard that all hardware had to adhere to, with variations manufactured by different companies. From that perspective a one console future would not be bad IMO. I guess in a way you could say we have 3 different standards right now competing, if you don't already consider one of them to be the de facto standard.

An agreed standard aside, I think one "console" is very possible and desireable in a future where we were able to replicate all human senses perfectly in a virtual world. Once we reach that kind of level, the advantages of competition to the evolution of hardware become slim to none, and it'd be purely a matter of competition between the software anyway.

 

[urk]

Thats stupid, it is not like Microsoft own the patent on online gaming. Why is it copying Microsoft when you decide to go online with your console?

They won't copy Microsoft in the sense of brick by brick coding. They want to create a similar, cohesive online presence. They certainly plan to do things differently from comments that Sony has already made, but I don't think that we can doubt the fact the Live has pushed them towards creating something unified instead of the current model.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

No. The fact that the hardware sucks is what makes it a POS. The fact that there's no software for it is an extra cockslap to my wallet.

OK, now backup your statement with some facts please.

Because as a technical person myself, calling the cube a POS would pretty much make the PS2 a POS. Now you really don't want to say that here on GAF do you?