-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Advantages of one console future - Discuss!
- Thread starter quetz67
- Start date
terrene said:
I can agree with the limited software, but by now, everbody knows what titles you get when you pick up a Nintendo. First party is their draw and they do it well.
As far as hardware is concerned, the Gamecube is a slick little bastard. You should pop in some RE4 to see it in action. If only the cube version had a laserbeam, it would have been the definitive version.
The fact that any group of talented folk can get together and make a game company. Witness Project Offset. Talent can move around. You can't just start a new football league OTOH. I mean, there was the XFL...and uh....we saw how that turned out.urk said:
EA can't buy up the competition. Someone with a decent enough amount of money will always be able to come along and buy out their creative talent or coders and create a new game company to compete. It's a much larger investment to break into the hardware business or sports arena. PEACE.Sathsquatch
Member
You are exaggerating my argument to make it look ridiculous.Mihail said:
I never said that the console would cost "$800" dollars. I said that no competition would remove incentive to take losses on hardware or to drop prices in a timely manner. The incentive to drop prices that you mentioned (the unwillingness of consumers to pay high prices for luxuries) exists even when there is competition between first parties. When more than one console is viable, the first parties have the additional incentive to lower hardware prices. The first parties have more incentives to drop hardware costs when multiple consoles vie for dominance, and they are thus morely likely to lower prices as soon as possible. It is illogical to believe that a monopoly would drop prices at an equal or greater rate when some of their incentive to drop prices is removed because of their total dominance of the industry.
Sathsquatch
Member
Your analysis in the first example (the DOA example) only shows that weak competition between consoles damages the industry. Your second example is unrelated to the idea of "the one console future" because it would occur regardless of the number of consoles on the market.Pimpwerx said:
Your first example assumes that one or more consoles will have weak software libraries. In a healthy competitive environment, no console only has one game in any given genre and it must compete with other games in that genre. The lack of software competition on a given platform occurs when one of the consoles is too dominant and other competing first parties cannot attract developers to their platform. This situation ends when the competion becomes stronger and gathers support for their platform. For example, DOA: U did not sell particularly well because MS had already assembled a compelling software library for their console by the time that it was released. Now that MS and Sony both have strong third party support, no games are "the only game in town" for either console because both platforms have a steady influx of good games coming to their platform.
Additionally, competition between the consoles increases "software competition". The competition gives incentives for first parties to fund better and more compelling games to draw gamers to their console. The first party have even greater incentive to make incredible games because they must sell a platform as well as units of their game. For example, MS made Forza to compete with Gran Turismo and successfully made a game that improved on GT's basic formula.
The first parties also have to support promising developers by offering them publicity and lower royalty fees in order to make their software library more compelling that the competition. With competing first parties, talented third party developers have more exposure and more profits to fund future games.
Mihail said:
Improving upon concepts that are tried-and-true, that people love... isn't advancement? If it's improved, if it's better... that's advancement.
And thank God for that. Because guess what? The games we play today are awesome. And better versions of a lot of what we have, along with the inevitable new shit we get every generation, is pretty fucking great. AND an advancement. HD era what.
GitarooMan
Member
Amir0x said:
Very well put. I couldn't have put it better myself.
It isn't. I paid for a Gamecube and you know what I bought for it? Zelda and Paper Mario. Well, that's not entirely true -- I bought and immediately sold Sunshine, Prime, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, and all the other crap that everyone pretended was good. I'm so disillusioned at wasting $300 on being able to play 2 fucking games all the way through that I'm waiting for Mario Kart: DD to fall to $20 before I pick it up. You can call it "bashing." But it's also an on-topic commentary for the thread, and it's absolutely true. Nintendo does not provide the dollar-for-dollar value that Sony does with their console -- therefore there is a consumer advantage to having Nintendo get out of the hardware business. Why should we pay such a high premium for the privilege of a few 1st party games? Seriously, if you have a PS2, there's not much use for a damn Gamecube. I learned it the hard way.littlewig said:
Drinky Crow
Banned
terrene has the Drinky Crow Seal of Approval!
Drinky Crow
Banned
It's hilarious that some of you monkeys gripe about how the One Console Future (tm) would prevent rapid price drops when all of you are there WITH FUCKING BELLS ON to pay full price for a Nintendo console on Day One.
If Nintendo can't compete as a third party, then maybe they weren't all that shit hot as developers to begin with.
And, Dragona, I actually *do* mean a One Console Standard -- a single generational format, like DVD.
If Nintendo can't compete as a third party, then maybe they weren't all that shit hot as developers to begin with.
And, Dragona, I actually *do* mean a One Console Standard -- a single generational format, like DVD.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
GAF One Console Future (tm) supporters should thank MS for their efforts then!!
They are doing their best to eventually starve Sony out of the game with 5 year cycles , and once they've bled those guys to death, they'll probably just absorb Nintendo in one go.
So by X1240 comes out, that's the only choice you'll have!
Wouldn't that be fantastic?
Hmmm..
I'd rather stick my cock in the hands of a madman with a pair of extremely sharp scissors.
Same if it was sony, same if it was nintendo.
They are doing their best to eventually starve Sony out of the game with 5 year cycles , and once they've bled those guys to death, they'll probably just absorb Nintendo in one go.
So by X1240 comes out, that's the only choice you'll have!
Wouldn't that be fantastic?
Hmmm..
I'd rather stick my cock in the hands of a madman with a pair of extremely sharp scissors.
Same if it was sony, same if it was nintendo.
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Drinky Crow said:
I don't think that's the point, honestly. Even when Nintendo was the only game in town they still sold the most software. Course it was their machine.
Except you'd prefer to keep Nintendo and Miyamoto's dirty hands out of hardware, wouldn't you? Nintendo might win their bid to have the REVOLUTION CONTROLLER as a standard, after all.
Joking aside, I think this is what the industry needs to grow up and turn mainstream. Sony, Nintendo, Matsushita, NEC, hell even Sega and Toshiba would make up an "ideal" console consortium. Add in a few major Japanese and Western software companies like Square-Enix, Namco, EA, Ubisoft and it'd be set.
We'd still get flareups but we'd probably get all the power of a Sony console, all the weirdness of a Nintendo console and all of the great software currently available across all platforms without having to buy three or four different consoles. Plus all the fanboys would get to say which revision (brand) of the console was the best still.
I'd just like to reiterate that without a consortium and just one company controlling everything (like Nintendo circa the Famicom, or MS in Operating Systems) would be the single worst thing that could happen to the industry.
GitarooMan
Member
Dragona Akehi said:xcept you'd prefer to keep Nintendo and Miyamoto's dirty hands out of hardware, wouldn't you? Nintendo might win their bid to have the REVOLUTION CONTROLLER as a standard, after all.
Joking aside, I think this is what the industry needs to grow up and turn mainstream. Sony, Nintendo, Matsushita, NEC, hell even Sega and Toshiba would make up an "ideal" console consortium. Add in a few major Japanese and Western software companies like Square-Enix, Namco, EA, Ubisoft and it'd be set.
Interesting how MS is not listed here, I'd like to see at least one Western hardware developer if there was a consortium. Not a big deal though...
I still think a "consortium" would serve to limit hardware power and drive profits (through cheaper hardware), though. Either that or we'd see a PC type market where the variation in various players would be so dramatic that devs would have to scale their software to run on several types of systems, optimizing it for none (whether that's good or not...)
Dragona Akehi
Retired
GitarooMan said:
MS isn't a hardware developer in the traditional sense. Their bread and butter is software, as it has always been. If anything you'd want to put in Nvidia, ATi or Intel into that list.
Either DVD-style consortium or bust. Anything else would divide the market into something akin to PC gaming as you said, or merely bring us back to Square One: which is what we're in right now.
This never happens. The closest battle still saw lopsided totals in two regions. Nintendo stomped in Japan. And it was a gangland whiteboy stomp for Sega in Europe. Only in America did it "seem" even. And it did fuck all for games, tbh.Sathsquatch said:
The competition between consoles does nothing for software competition. First parties become third parties, duh. SCE's games compete with all the 3rd parties. Want an example of how that was good? Gameday. Gameday was utter trash beyond 1998, and the consumer showed it with his gaming dollar. I don't see how you can offer multiple platform options and seriously claim that you're increasing software competition. There's just no way. You split demographics and userbases. And you split 3rd parties b/c not all can support multiplatform titles. As a result, you end up with minority platforms where mediocrity can thrive b/c it's all but ignored by the rest of the competition in a certain genre. Could a game like Killzone have been as successful on the Xbox as on the PS2? Could DOA have sold anywhere near what it did on the PS2? Hell, could Zelda still shine put up against decent competition on the PS2?
A single platform FORCES (that's the key) all the fish (big and little) into the same pond. It's survival of the fittest, and it's either down to mega-marketing muscle, or genuine quality that a game stands out from the crowd. IMO, it's pretty obvious why console marketshare is always lopsided. Gamers subconsciously want a single platform. They want the commonality and compatibility with their friends. More importantly, they want to know that they are getting all the good games. For the last two gens, the the PS brand has been the defacto standard in the games business. I don't expect that to change anytime soon, and I'm kinda glad. One platform where you know you'll get anything worth a damn. The fringe players are just extra money and extra hassle b/c you end up dealing with more unknown factors as a result. Don't deny your destiny. PEACE.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
quetz67 said:
No, it's an excellent example of a one console video game market that we're talking about. Look at his remarks on when the Genny (and T-16; Bonk FTW) hit; all that he's talking about happened, and for those reasons: Ninty started respecting 3rd parties more, made sure their next gen machine was a match for the competition, Sonic was the fruition of Sega's hunt for a mascot, there was price wars in 1992-on, etc. All that for one non sequitor. Blech.
The difference now where we have multiple consoles out is having prices rising above what we've grown accustomed to in the CD-based console market. Granted, it's from competition between 2 of the competitors; hopefully it's just not as bad as it's been played up to be, and Fall 07 will see "Price Wars 4: This Time, It's Personal".
Drinky Crow
Banned
Dragona, they are as much a hardware developer as Nintendo is these days.
Eel O'Brian
Member
Does that about sum up the attitude of the OCF Squad?
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Drinky: I guess someone at MS had to design the Xbox/Xbox360 controller, yeah. The only real "inhouse" hardware people are at Sony. Nintendo just does funky controllers and portables these days.
The only real "inhouse" hardware people are at Sony. Nintendo just does funky controllers and portables these days.Sathsquatch
Member
Pimpwerx said:
You only addressed my conclusions and not my analysis, so I am going to have to restate a lot of what I already said and hope that you actually try to show why what I am saying is wrong.
First parties invest considerable sums into new IPs to draw consumers to their platform, not just to sell units of games. This gives them reason to make large investments in games that might otherwise be too risky to merit such an investment. No third party ever made the investment of time and money necessary to compete with the Gran Turismo series because they couldn't guarantee that their large investment would improve their sales because they could not be sure that their investment would make their games sell well. MS had to invest in a game like Forza even though the game may not sell anywhere close to the GT series because they do not necessarily have to recoup their losses on the individual game if they can help broaden the appeal of their platform. The competition between first parties gives them incentive to fund large, ambitious projects that might individually not recoup their losses but may ultimately broaden the appeal of their platform. They can even use their profits from royalties to subsidize riskier and more ambitious game projects. Even if games do not compete within a platform, they obviously can still compete between platforms.
First parties are inherently different than third parties. They have different goals than third parties, and they have different economic models than third parties. The first parties always make some of the best games of the generation because they need to produce outstanding software they don't need to worry about the profits of individual games as much as they care about expanding the platform's audience. Without the first party competition, Nintendo doesn't have the same incentive to polish off Goldeneye for an entire year rather than just rush it out the door to cash in on the license. MS doesn't have the incentive to pour funds into Halo 2, since a third party could have easily just tried to make the series into an annual cash cow without really going the extra mile to make the game stand out. Sony doesn't have to take a chance on reviving Heavenly Sword and make a huge investment in a financially weak company because they don't have to take huge risks in hopes of finding a diamond in the rough. As third parties, none of these companies would have the same incentive to make these moves because they need to worry about each game being profitable rather than worrying about making the software library as a whole appeal to a wider audience.
Talent third parties also win when consoles compete. Ubisoft got additional support for making Splinter Cell in terms of coverage in game magazines and lower royalties because MS lobbied for their support. Konami recieves more profits from MGS because Sony lowers their royalties in exchange for their exclusivity.
You suggest that split demographics encourage mediocrity, yet you only mention two mediocre games thriving because of less competition on their platform. Does that prove that this is such a problem in the gaming industry that it means that only one console should dominate the market? No, not at all. The success of two games based on split demographics does not outweigh the fierce competition between rival first-party developers and all the great games that they make.
You didn't even try to substantiate your argument regarding the lopsided nature of previous console generations. You just magically "read the subconscious" of the gaming public. Certainly, most consumers only want one console because they don't think buying multiple consoles would be worth their money. The don't necessarily know what console features they want before multiple consoles hit the market. Consumers only wanted an N64 or a PSX, but they didn't know that they wanted a CD based system until a console maker offered them one. In a one console future, consumers will never be able to make a similar choice ever again.
monchi-kun
Member
what are the advantages of a one OS future...oh wait, we're already here
Eel O'Brian
Member
ypo said:
The title of the thread is "Advantages of one console future." One console = one system. Not to mention that in the very first post quetz talks about, well, having one system.
Sathsquatch said:
1. Ambitious projects are funded by 3rd parties all the time. FFs are the same in name alone. They are still ginormous RPGs in their own right, each with new battle systems and new worlds/characters/stories. Sega, as a 3rd party, is still looking to create new IPs that are creative and ambitious. That they often suck has no bearing on the intent. Rockstar wasn't guaranteed anything by making the crazy move to 3D for GTA. And the major undertaking that was GTA3 has paid off immensely for them, and created a whole new sub-genre of free-roaming games. And R* wasn't very large to begin with. SCE doesn't seem to spend a huge amount on many titles. Their big projects this gen were GT3/4 and The Getaway. And I don't think the Getaway was very successful financially. The creative stuff was all smaller projects. Look at ICO, which was made on a smaller budget, and encompasses all the creativity and uniqueness that's attributed to Sony's first-party games. The original Gran Turismo itself was a bit of a gamble, but wasn't that large of a game when it first hit the scene. It was the success of the original that allowed them to go balls-out crazy with the sequels after they'd assured themselves a winning franchise. I don't see how first-/third-parties have much of anything to do with funding for creative/ambitious projects. I could go on about stuff like DMC and other new IPs from this gen.
2. First parties have to make profits like third parties, otherwise what's the point of making games? Sony creates/kills franchises just like third parties. Why is Squeenix willing to spend large amounts of time and money on FF and DQ games? Because the return on the investment is assured. Sony won't just dump a chunk of cash into a game if they don't expect it to be something special. It's not a gamble at all. It's a calculated risk, just like any 3rd party introducing a new IP. New IPs come from all corners of the market, not just first-parties, so I don't see where you're coming from with this. Halo was not originally first-party, and it was originally more ambitious than what we got for the final product. The success of the original is what allowed MGS to pump more money into the sequel. Much like the success of GTA3 allowed R* to pump more money into Vice City. The success of DMC let Capcom put more money into DMC2. The success of GT1 let Sony bankroll GT2. The failure of The Getaway is probably the reason the sequel didn't really get as much of the time/money as the original (my assumption based on what I saw). A game like Spore is creative and ambitious and not a hugely expensive title. Innovation and creativity are not tied to first-parties or their budgets. First parties follow the same rules as 3rd parties. Just that first parties tend to have more teams under their umbrella, so it gives the appearance of diversity. But a company like Capcom doesn't have 20-odd different teams to develop a wide variety of games, so they make games to their capacity. SCE's creativity is a result of some of its teams. The individual teams operate much like 3rd parties, in their own right.
3. Manufacturers mostly bankroll sure things for third parties. Squeenix will always get extra funding/deals b/c FF and DQ are sure things. There'll always be a potential contender waiting in the wings, so manufacturers will want to always leave some incentive for top games/devs to stay on their system. Otherwise there might be a deadly exodus like when Square left Nintendo for warmer climes with Sony.
4. You place far too much importance on first-parties, espcially when only Sony ends up getting ranked anywhere of importance on the publisher list. 3rd parties still rule the roost and 3rd parties still account for the vast majority of the competitive/creative energy in the industry. If MGS has to go 3rd party, or SCE splits off its dev teams to develop for an MS system, then we all win the same. The policies that determine the types of titles that get developed should not change just b/c SCE doesn't make hardware anymore. Team ICO will still make their style of games. Polyphony Digital will continue to make GT games, and so on.
The two games I mentioned are only two examples. Having owned a GC and a PS2, I don't see what I have gained from the competition in hardware. The only gain I've gotten from the GC is Nintendo games. The PS2 had far and away the better software library. I don't know how it can be argued that having all the games on one system isn't better for the gamer and for game quality.
5. The idea that the OCF will only ever see one piece of hardware is the strawman that's used. The OCF means everyone, or mostly everyone owns a single system, and devs are forced to support it with their full library. But what's to stop a Phantom or Indrema or Xbox from looming large on the horizon? There will always be competition, and they will just wait for the current market leader to go soft so they can spring into action. There's a reason there's a PSP, and it's b/c Nintendo has gone somewhat soft in the handheld market. The opportunity was there, and Sony pounced. Consumers will always be able to make that decision, b/c someone will always have that carrot dangling in the open. It's not like you can stop people from designing a better mousetrap, right? But having a single system garner the majority of the sales ensures we get the best gaming experience for the best dollar. The market goes in cycles. No company can run rampant forever without staying fresh, innovative and aggressive. Sony hasn't gotten soft at all. They may have been lax with dev tools for the PS2, but they've remained on the cutting edge of technology in order to keep a leg up on the competition that's just waiting to step in and steal the multibillion dollar crown from them. The large cash prize this industry is built on will keep everyone on their toes in the OCF. But it's a future we should all look forward to. PEACE.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Dragona Akehi said:Drinky: I guess someone at MS had to design the Xbox/Xbox360 controller, yeah.
Well considering that MS is a software company and Sony makes TVs, DVD players, and crappy music devices.. it only makes sense that they have the inhouse resources to create hardware on the spot..
Hey, I'm all for a "Standard Console" consortium... however, I think it's only likely to happen if Nintendo (and possibly MS) convince all the 3rd parties to join a royalty-free "open system" standard. Sony would never agree to royalty losses... but if you could convince square Enix, Capcom, Konami, EA, Nintendo, Sega, Ubi, Atari(etc.), Activision, and the other large publishers to exclusively back a standard platform, everyone else would follow suit. Give the 10 major companies a small cut of licensing fees (which would exist, but be smaller) and/or excuse them from the license fees on their own software.
Now, CONVINCING all of them to back a single platform would be hard...
Now, CONVINCING all of them to back a single platform would be hard...
soundwave05
Member
The GameCube was too much like the PS2, just a "Nintendo-ey" version of it (purple casing and wacky Fisher Price buttons and all). They fixed a lot of the mistakes of the N64 and even patched things up with the Japanese 3rd parties, but really they didn't offer anything new except digital click buttons.
I used to think a one console future might be good, but now I disagree.
If could see the PS3 really costing $700-$800 (3DO levels) if there was no alternative.
I mean really, people pay $400 for an i-Pod, so I could definitely see the reasoning that they should pay a lot more for a console ... or at least that's how the greedy suits would put it.
I used to think a one console future might be good, but now I disagree.
If could see the PS3 really costing $700-$800 (3DO levels) if there was no alternative.
I mean really, people pay $400 for an i-Pod, so I could definitely see the reasoning that they should pay a lot more for a console ... or at least that's how the greedy suits would put it.
So what? If it is about $500 to produce I would be perfectly fine with that. It is a blue-ray player too. For one console used for watching movies and playing all available videogames I'd gladly pay that price.soundwave05 said:
If they sell it at a loss I pay the price through the games because they dont give anything away for free (only microsoft did because they have the Windows customers to pay the price)
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
$700-800 would be an absolute disaster, but that's an entirely different thread.
you'd gladly pay $200-300 more than it is to produce? Can we interest you in $100 games too?
yeah... it would be Capcom vs Konami vs Sega vs... etc...
same mindless shit, just everyone picks new sides.
you'd gladly pay $200-300 more than it is to produce? Can we interest you in $100 games too?
yeah... it would be Capcom vs Konami vs Sega vs... etc...
same mindless shit, just everyone picks new sides.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
well, in terms of games consoles , the cost to the customer is usually much lower than the production cost with the money recouped by the console creators from royalty fees.
millions and millions of $s.
and yet you only have to pay $49.99 for your copy.
so in both cases, you pay less than the actual cost (obviously in softwares case)
The whole standard thing has already been tried once. It was called MSX and it was quite succesful in Japan, not so anywhere else. You could get MSX computers from Sony, Philips, tToshiba, Pioneer, even Yamaha (with midi plugs). Konami was one of the major supporter on the software side, with lots and lots of incredibly games like Metal Gear 1&2, F1 Spirit, the Nemesis series and so many others (like Penguin Adventure, one of the first Kojima games)
The funny thing is that Sony was one of the main supporter of the standard, and Microsoft did quite a bit of the work on the OS side of the system (especially the BASIC compiler).
The funny thing is that Sony was one of the main supporter of the standard, and Microsoft did quite a bit of the work on the OS side of the system (especially the BASIC compiler).
For the more distant future I see the games running on servers that run all world/gameplay mechanics with end user machine just being a display and input terminal. The data could be transferred by kind of an VRML standard that scales the graphics depending on powerful the terminal is.
That way you could use your PC to play the game, buy an an highend terminal or something cheap with reduced resolution/detail but all people would play the same game together. Could work quite well with some intelligent LOD algorithms.
That way you could use your PC to play the game, buy an an highend terminal or something cheap with reduced resolution/detail but all people would play the same game together. Could work quite well with some intelligent LOD algorithms.