| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3645 Joined: 25 Jan 2008     | |
Muckraker Posts: 286 Joined: 14 Feb 2008     | This is one of the best ideas I have ever encountered *startled* All you console companies out there! Listen to this guy! He's a genius! |
Copy Clerk Posts: 97 Joined: 9 Feb 2008    | Don't think its a particularly good idea with different OS' as I'm sure most of the big publishers would produce their own OS's and there would probably be too many of them on the market. I like the idea of modular expansion as with the N64 expansion paks though. |
Muckraker  Posts: 247 Joined: 9 Jul 2008  | I believe they call this a PC... motherboard, processor, etc with upgradable parts, and an array of OSs |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1325 Joined: 12 Oct 2007   |
It is and it has ended up being good at only two types of games. |
Paperboy  Posts: 38 Joined: 7 Jan 2008  |
Until you buy yourself a decent joypad, that is. Afterwards, it's good on all games. Only thing that consoles have over the PC is unified Architectures and Hardware, which in turn lead to the "put it in and play it"-experience the PC lacks. But with a decent OS and unified hardware, one could be a competitor to consoles... hmmm... I think I just have an idea... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2959 Joined: 10 Mar 2008    |
damnit, beat me to it. If we already have a "one console" type thing already then what's the point of trying to get the 3 consoles that absolutely hate each other to combine? There would be more than just the issue of specs here, what would the controller be like, what peripherals would be made, how easy would it be to make games, and most importantly WHO would create the console? It would be to much of a clusterfuck, I'd much prefer a single console or two whether it be PC or the other consoles. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 113 Joined: 25 Mar 2008 | Hey i started that "exclusives" thread, anyways like i mentioned before a single console is not a good idea. It would create a monopoly and not only is a monopoly illegal in the u.s but quality would drop because of a lack of competition. Completely ignoring the previous paragraph i think your idea is fucking amazing. Sure its like a comp but... not. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3846 Joined: 29 Nov 2007   | Yeah this all just sounds like a computer with the ability to simply isnert a disk and get the game running. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1880 Joined: 13 Feb 2008  | Yep. I agree with everyone above. They already have it, it's called a PC. Now if the would just integrate an analog into a keyboard somehow, for better movement/directional controls... not a gamepad, we all still want the mouse. Basically the nunchuck on the wii, but screw the octagonal aspects. Circles all the way. |
Muckraker  Posts: 344 Joined: 12 Apr 2008 | No BAD IDEA. It would drasticly lower the quality of the games. And it would drive up production cost to astronomical amounts. besides none of the company woudl ever surrender to each other. There out to make money for them selves, so i can say that they wil never ever join up. Besides they wouldnt be able to sell in the united states, remeber no monopoly allowed. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1410 Joined: 11 Jun 2008    |
you forgot about having the Publisher subsidizing part of the purchase for the consumer. that doesn't happen on the PC side. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3645 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 | With regards to my UniCon vs a PC... Compare a PowerWheels truck to a Ford Ranger. The power wheels and the Ford both look similar, and share the same principal idea, but there's a level of difficulty in using the Ford that isn't there in the PowerWheels. The UniCon can swap hardware components by simply lifting out a plastic cartridge, as opposed to screwdrivers, antistatic wrist thingies, and the whole opening of the case. Swapping the OS is no harder than changing games in a NES. The OS is not installed in any part on the internal hard drive, they would be completely separate systems. And as to the possibility of there being too many OS's released, I disagree. The game developers have to learn a new programming language and style with every console out there, some claimed the PS3 to be the single most difficult to work with, but those who know PSX coding were better at PS2 coding, and one would assume better at PS3 coding than a company that made X-Box exclusives... The major developers will pick one and stick with it, because then they don't need to retrain their team, this being a bigger advantage when they no longer have to know dual-languages to multiplatform release titles. If the developers know the players start with three OS's, they'll choose one, and stick with it, becoming better with that ONE OS than they were when they tried to cross-platform. And since the OS only matters as far as who gets royalties, they can choose whatever works best for them. Now controllers, that's why I wanted USB for the ports. Imagine if you had the choice to use a SNES, Genesis, N64, or PSX controller all for the same game. This way you could. If certain restrictions were set for the controllers, such as min/max buttons/axis, and you could use which ever one you liked most, that would ROCK. There will always be the MadCatz and other such discount brand controllers, the major players will also make their own (like Sony's ever going to abandon the PSX controller style). As long as all games allowed keymapping, this wouldn't ever be a problem, and then every player could play how they like. Picture a game of StarFox... Now imagine that you've got a true joystick, the guy on the left has a Wiimote, the guy on the right has a SixAxis, and the dude sitting right up against the TV is playing with a PowerGlove... That would be so sweet. I always wanted to try playing FF7 with a Guncon. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3846 Joined: 29 Nov 2007 | You know, the swapping of hardware robably wouldn't be as easy as you make it sounds. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1829 Joined: 14 Nov 2007 | I like the idea. Possibly a little more complicated than needs be, but I'm sure it would be a cheaper option than the current one. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3645 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 | Well I probably made it all sound more complex than it needs to be, but to me my end goal is simple... I want all my consoles rolled into one machine. I don't want to have to buy three or four consoles each generation. I want the console to be backwards compatible, and its successor to be as well, so that I don't need to repurchase games or peripherals when technology advances. I want built-in four+ player support, no damn multitaps. And I don't want console generations to be as short as 3 or so years. Put that at a reasonable price ($300 or less) and I'll get back into console gaming, but as I doubt that will ever happen, I ended my console collecting with the PS2. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 71 Joined: 23 Jun 2008 | Sorry, but this idea fails to take into account almost any aspect of basic engineering or economics. 1) Competition is our friend. Having one universal console will lead to stagnation and high prices. 2) What on earth is the point of having multiple OS's for the same system? 3) The only reason that consoles, even at their launch, even approach what a PC is capable of is that they are designed as a single, closed, well-integrated cohesive unit. Opening up the system for different types of upgrades, variable specs, etc. will kill that advantage. Designing the upgrades to be plug-and-play would make them even less efficient. What you're proposing is only different from simply having one company make one console in that it makes it unnecessarily complicated and expensive in the process. As big of a joke as I consider the PS3, I'm still glad that it exists, simply because *somebody* needs to give Microsoft something to fight for. |
Beat Writer  Posts: 177 Joined: 14 May 2008  | Firstly, as someone whose very small living room is already overpopulated with white, silver and black boxes, if this idea could be made to work, I would be eternally grateful. But I have several questions: 1: Is the processor modular as well? If not, what processors are included in the system? Either way, wouldn't we also need to replace the whole console from time to time as well, in order to provide either a motherboard that can handle faster data transfer rates, or one that has better processor(s)? 2: Does the Universal Console support older consoles, such as the Nintendo 64, Playstation 2 etc. Because if it does, it will either need modular processors, or a processor powerful enough to emulate all these in real time. Bearing in mind that by the time your idea gets made, it would have to emulate the processors in an XBox 360 and a Playstation 3, which is a pretty demanding task. Bear in mind that it was only a few years ago I could persuade my PC to emulate the 2Mhz 6502 processor in my old BBC Micro, and allow games to run in full screen, full speed. Assuming that it doesn't have the capability to emulate older consoles: 3: You say that companies wouldn't charge much for their OS, because they would be making their money from the games. So what's the incentive for them to spend their money and time on producing new Operating Systems? We need a new OS from time to time, and if companies are making their money from games rather than proprietary OS development, why would they bother? Surely it's better to move all game development to an open source OS, such as Linux, which would develop itself through voluntary means. But if you do that, how do you persuade Sony, Microsoft &c to move to it? 4: If Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are producing their own processor sub-systems and Operating Systems; and NVidia and ATi are producing their own graphics solutions, not to mention controllers, wireless adapters etc., do you really think that will end up cheaper? Because I paid about 200 pounds for my XBox 360 with a couple of games, and it is only slightly out-performed by my PC, which cost around 1000 pounds. Once again, I think the idea is a great one, and if my questions can be satisfied, I'll be evangelising this idea as widely as I can. |
Paperboy  Posts: 40 Joined: 24 Jun 2008 | I think that we're missing another aspect to the argument here. Why would the system be universal? In my mind (if this were ever to happen) the companies would agree to a standard format (DVD, Blu Ray etc.) and then the big 3 would produce their individual consoles with their individual perks. This strategy would allow publishers to write their game only once and have it playable no matter which system the end user owned. I myself own a 360 and a PS3. While they are both good systems, I generally prefer my 360 to my PS3, not because I think that it is 'inferior' or anything like that, but because I prefer the 360's interface and features as well as the controller. The games that come out for both systems are almost identical, so I choose based upon those factors. The hardware can vary, but if a game is produced that can run on the lowest level of system, then they can try to sell you based upon their upgraded RAM of GPU or processors so that the games you do play will play faster. This is my opinion, and it probably wouldn't work in the current market conditions because Nintendo is competing on a very different field than MS and Sony. so I think the universal console would only apply to MS and Sony |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2984 Joined: 20 Dec 2007 |
Haha, what a load of crap. What possessed you to say that? |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1325 Joined: 12 Oct 2007 |
Ok then would you want to play a game like Ninja Gaiden, God of War, or Devil May Cry using a mouse and keyboard? Would you want to play a fighting game like Virtua Fighter using a keyboard and mouse? Pretty much anything that consoles are good at (Which means anything that uses a joypad's strengths.) a PC's main input and therefore default devices are virtually useless for. The same is of course true for consoles but in the end consoles end up being particularly good at more types of games than PC's because of it's default input device. Even some of the best examples of games outside of RTS/RPGS and FPS' that I have had the pleasure of playing on the PC have suffered from clunky ass controls. (Jedi Academy, DMC 3, Blood Rayne 2, Prince of Persia Sands of Time.) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2984 Joined: 20 Dec 2007 | Yes I would play those games with a mouse and keyboard, Devil May Cry is great with kb&m, go download the demo at www.fileshack.com - get past the learning curve and you're fine, seriously controllers are just a preference thing and if you want to use something else, then plug that controller/gamepad in, don't just go spouting off that PC's are only good with two games because you sucked with a KB&M for the brief time you played them. (I assume you didn't try to reconfigure the controls/couldn't reconfigure the controls either, because if the controls are clunky you change them, that would be the logical thing to do.) EDIT: Read this, it's my thoughts on the DMC4 demo, since it says that I play Hack n' Slash on PC better than on console, it pretty much disproves your "theory" and proves that controllers are just a matter of preference, so don't go spouting off false claims, especially since you can reconfigure controls on a KB&M, AND you can plug in a gamepad anyway, and with both the PS3 and the 360 controllers being able to go right into the USB, it shouldn't be too hard. There is no "default" controller for PC, just like there is no "default" hardware, people buy different types of custom computers, technically, don't need a keyboard or a mouse for a PC, you could use a tablet, or get a blutooth adapter and use a wii remote. PC's are good for all games. |
Copy Clerk Posts: 65 Joined: 23 Jan 2008 |
This already exists, until they realise they can make more money by porting to ALL the different consoles/OS's.... |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1325 Joined: 12 Oct 2007 |
Just keep talking out of your ass. No one wants to go buy a gamepad or a cheap adapter for one or two games (unless it's some kind of rhythm game really.) Sure you can play a few shooters with a controller (and there are hacks to alias keys to pad buttons.) but PC shooters really are not meant to be played with a control pad of any kind. For the simple reason that the game is built around the underlying strengths of the mouse and keyboard. Aiming with a stick is complete crap on the PC because these games are made to take advantage of the fact that with a mouse where you move the mouse is where the cursor will be almost instantly; with a gamepad you will be stuck waiting for the stick to get you to where you would have been ages ago with a mouse. The keyboard itself lacks the ability to produce subtlety since it's an interface that is either on or off, you are either pressing a key or you are not, that is why there are so many modifiers to handle things like walking etc. If keyboards were pressure sensitive you could walk or run just by varying the pressure you put on the keys among other things instead of having to have yet another keybinding for a modifier. Then there are things like UI designs that just cater to the features of a keyboard that usually mean you simply run out of keys to assign to your joypad and you end up having to still use the keyboard depending on how the game is structured to do various things etc. (Read ability to accomodate keyboard spam.) There is alot more involved than individual preference. If you have a PS3 or can find a decent program try using a joystick as a mouse to surf a webpage to see the difference. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2984 Joined: 20 Dec 2007 |
Well, shoulda stopped reading there since now you're going to be an asshole - I made the mistake of continuing... ----------------------------------- "Hey ElArab would you play an Analog movement game like DMC with a KB&M?" "Yes...and if I didn't want to I could get a gamepad anyway..." "OH KEEP TALKING OUT YOUR ASS, I WAS TALKING ABOUT SHOOTERS YOU IDIOT, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PLAY SHOOTERS WITH GAMEPADS! PEOPLE DON'T WANNA BUY A GAMEPAD, GAMING COST MONEY, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BUY THE NECCESSARY THINGS FOR THEIR GAMING SYSTEM!!!" Fuck off Shadowskill, if you are going to be an irrational dick because I said the sentence "what a load of crap" to you, then why would you expect me to sit here and feed you troll food? You spouted off a false claim and I said it was a load of crap, I disproved it, and now it is VERY clear that your are just here to bash the PC since you flipped from KB&M for shooter, to KB&M for Analog game for the sake of argument. If you want me to take you seriously, then don't post a text wall saying "but people make their game compatible with Keyboards too therefore the PC sucks! and omg no pressure sensitivity Keyboards suck and therefore PC gaming is ONLY GOOD FOR TWO GAMES!" (I guess using your pinky finger to press shift is too hard isn't it?) - if this really was the case there wouldn't be so many die hard PC gamers, who probably use gamepads too. (p.s. there is a PC version for that gamepad, and you can still download a FREE DRIVER to make the ps3 one compatible anyway, just bind the keys and you are done.) ---------------------------- Looks like you are the one talking out your ass just for the sake of argument, and not actually trying to prove your previous point - and instead ranted about keyboards. Sorry I offended you, ya sensitive prick. /threadjack, I'm done with you shadowskill - it's either using a gamepad or a KB&M for certain games (same goes for the PS3 and the internet browser, you can plug in a KB&M), end of story, lets get back on topic, and you can go wave your dick somewhere else. If you want to reply to this PM me, I'd hate to plague Khells thread with such jackassery. Next time keep bullshit that will start a "console war" in a system war related thread so no one jumps on your nuts, maybe you can bitch at "Whoracle" too, the user seems a little more tolerant. It's not your ignorance that upsets me, it's you spouting it off as truth, and then simply saying that everything I said was "talking out my ass" - why talk, if you won't listen? |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1186 Joined: 26 Mar 2008 | It just sounds like a PC... but for stupids. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 2984 Joined: 20 Dec 2007 |
Stupids have wallets with money in them too. |
Muckraker  Posts: 313 Joined: 4 Jun 2008 | The question in my mind is: how would you get companies to begin the unification process? What if the recently announced Microsoft "Avatar" could be interchangable with Mii's? (In other word, cooperation between Nintendo and Microsoft to let consumers mingle) Both companies would benefit from... here I dunno, maybe customer happiness? Whatever, it's stupid |
Beat Writer  Posts: 132 Joined: 15 Jun 2008 | The problem with this, ultimately one most people ignore, is economics. It's economically a horrible idea to make one 'universal' console. The reason being, economies thrive on competition, which pushes technology forward, which creates jobs, which creates money, which creates newer and better consoles and video games, which creates more competition. You take away the competition, you take away the advancement, the jobs, the revenue, the newer and better thingamajigs, and ultimately ruin gaming for eternity. The fact that making a console as depicted here would completely annihilate the gaming industry as we know it kind of puts a halt on the progression of such a console. The gaming industry at large knows this, so it'll never happen. |
As per discussions in the "Console Exclusives" thread, mention of a universal console came up, and I got myself to thinking how one could work...
First things first, let it be known that even if what myself and others come up with here makes so much sense the Dali Lama starts to worship our wisdom, it still will never happen because companies run on greed and idiocy, not wisdom. Case and point, Hybrid SUVs and Aquafina "flavored" water (It's called JUICE retards!).
Okay then. First thing would be the realization that IF companies were to sign on to standardize console systems, they would need something to sell so that they still make money. I was thinking that the system would have to be modular, with components that can be swapped in and out as easily as you would insert/eject a SNES cartridge (sans the blowing).
The console case would house the motherboard, processor(s), RAM, PSU and disc drive. The system would also come with an on-board graphics card, network kit, and a small hard drive. The Hard Drive would be removable/upgradable, and the net kit would accept a wireless upgrade. 4 controller ports on the front, with a universal plug end, let's be crazy and say USB2.0 because it is just so much more accommodating than the other options. Above the USB ports for controllers would be two SD/HCSD card slots, ie "memory cards".
Now the system would have three additional ports for special upgrades and one slot for an OS cartridge. Slot 1 would be for an additional/replacement video card. Not required around launch time, but to extend the lifespan of the system, much like the RAM upgrade for the N64, this extra and/or more powerful videocard upgrade could be used. The second port slot would be a RAM upgrade just like the N64 featured. The third port is a plug-in spot for a sensor bar, so the system can use wireless controllers. The sensor bar isn't built in as a permanent part of the system because different controllers may need different bars, and like the Wiimote sensor, it may need specific positioning to work.
Lastly, the OS slot. A high-speed high-capacity cartridge would be plugged into the top of the system, this cartridge would tell the system what brand of games it can play, and the cartridge would be easy to eject/swap so you could play Dead Rising III on the XBox OS, then swap in the SonyOS cartridge and play some Front Mission 6. The OS cartridges would be the key to getting Sony, MS, etc onboard with this project. The system as a whole is universal, but games would work for one OS or another, every title is an exclusive title (exclusive to one OS), and royalties go to the OS's company. OS cartridges shouldn't cost much (No more than the price of one game) as the company who made the OS is making their money from the game royalties. The system should launch with at least three OS's (Sony, MS, Nintendo), and other companies could release their own OS later on too (Sega, Atari?).
Upside of this, with the OS not being expensive, why NOT have all the different ones? All games being developed for just ONE console would mean the developers pick the OS they want to work with, and only have to focus on scripting it for one system, instead of three or more. The OS providers would have to make THEIR product appealing to the developers because if the devs don't like Microshaft's contract terms or Nintendo's rendering format, they can go with another. The developers don't have to worry about which system will sell better.
When the system gets too old and upgrading the RAM and Vidcard aren't enough, the next system should be designed to incorporate peripherals and the OS cartridges from the first machine, so it's not as much of an expense to upgrade. Even though the new system would be more powerful, the player should still be able to pop in the Sony-OS1 and play all his old games, but now he can use Sony-OS2 for the NEW games.
My thoughts, what are yours? What would you change, or do you have a better idea?