Seriously, Console Wars Are Pointless

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Nintendo "was in a position to force people" to use motion controls? Please. Nintendo was in dead last after the GameCube. They were only making money off the thing because (WiiU and 3DS not withstanding) they always sold their systems at a profit. People proved they wanted motion controls when they made the Wii sell faster than the NES. But, they also wanted something for their shiny new HDTV, and couldn't have it both ways.

That nitpick aside, I agree with the main point of the article. We do need a better way of preserving the classics. Alot of people find classic games through finding ROMs and emulation, and the console makers consider that piracy. You know we have a problem when law breakers are doing a better job preserving our history than anyone else.

So, Yahtzee, if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo become glorified game publishers and controller-makers, then who is going to decide when it's time to update the standardized hardware that runs these games and controllers? Currently, consoles become more powerful each generation because each console manufacturer does not want to be the one with the least powerful console (unless you are Nintendo). Where would that motivation to upgrade hardware come from if not competition with other businesses? Why would the big three undertake massive R&D and tooling facilities to make new hardware when they are making a great profit with old hardware?

If you idea was implemented 8 years ago I bet we'd all be on the Nintendo Wii with no hint of future generations of hardware on the horizon. Wouldn't seem like such a great idea then, huh?

The PS3 is slightly more powerful than the Xbox 360 by way of BluRay. On 360, games come on multiple discs, whereas on PS3, all games come on one disc because the BluRay disc can hold more space than a standard DVD. Pretty much just that, and nothing much else. I hope the new consoles work like a PC does, like you can select your graphics settings and have anti-aliasing and stuff, because I don't care if the textures are shitty, I want to run my games at a solid 60FPS, as I hate the 30FPS framelock that games like Dishonored and the upcoming DMC has.

The Ouya console might be the answer Yahtzee is looking for. An open source gaming console, their team's stated goal is to make console gaming an open process that anyone can develop for without having to worry about heavy licencing costs and the console arms race. They even encourage people to hack the console however they like. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but they do seem to be getting some good traction in the industry before the thing is even released, Square Enix and other game publishers are already onboard.

Umm..doesn't a console that runs anything like a game friendly PC in your living room already exist. A PC you put in your living room. They just don't have as many games anymore because twats play consoles because any retard can plug a cartridge in and you never have to fiddle with anything to make games work. Although it has been eons since I editted my autoexec.bat file so I don't think it is that hard. Smart TVs web based games, Android based tablets as "controllers" may well provide the version of this future you desire. The whole console war thing is a carry over from the Beta VHS, Blu-Ray HD thing we have seen before. You'll notice one of the players is always Sony. It's not like we release cars that run on a special kind of gas you can only buy from the manufacturer...or have we done that too? GM and BP pulled a trick like that a few years ago in the US and they invented anti-trust laws as a result. He's right, this is NOT about competition, it is precisely about stifling it. But the answer is before us, we just don't choose to vote with our dollars wisely.

90sgamer:
So, Yahtzee, if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo become glorified game publishers and controller-makers, then who is going to decide when it's time to update the standardized hardware that runs these games and controllers? Currently, consoles become more powerful each generation because each console manufacturer does not want to be the one with the least powerful console (unless you are Nintendo). Where would that motivation to upgrade hardware come from if not competition with other businesses? Why would the big three undertake massive R&D and tooling facilities to make new hardware when they are making a great profit with old hardware?

If you idea was implemented 8 years ago I bet we'd all be on the Nintendo Wii with no hint of future generations of hardware on the horizon. Wouldn't seem like such a great idea then, huh?

"If Hollywood only makes movies and DVDs, then who is going to decide when DVD players get upgraded?"

Simple, the public does. He's not advocating for a single static console, he's saying consoles should be more like DVD players and be able to run all games universally. And when the time comes for updated hardware, you can have your pick of the new consoles that are being produced, just like when Blu-Ray came out. And the public chooses via the free market if this becomes the new standard. That way nobody is strong-armed by exclusives into buying a particular new console with gimmicky features they really don't want, they can pick a console to suit their needs and style.

AgentLampshade:
Hmmm, can't say I'd particularly enjoy having candy-canes coming out of my palm.

You could suck them into sharp points, and turn your palms into murder weapons!

The console war model is built on the ideal that you eventually sell hardware and software at a huge profit. Thus why we do not have a universal standard for gaming like DVD.

Neonsilver:
The only solution I can see is to have a universal gaming OS that can run the Unreal Engine, Cryengine, Frostbite, Unity, Game Maker, RPG Maker, XNA, Havok, Source and other engines and Frameworks and license it to game developers and manufacture consoles that can efficiently run those engines. Of course this will never happen, as much as I wish it would.

Considering that the first three are all owned (directly or indirectly) through EA, and that those three engines are responsible for a vast number of popular titles and franchises (especially the modern shooters), it'd honestly be in EA's best interest to push for a single standardized console. It'd cut their development costs immensely by removing the need to port the game to whichever console they didn't focus on during development.

mjc0961:

Scow2:
The thing he seems to fail to take into account is that consoles AREN'T merely little computers equal in power and function. There are SIGNIFICANT hardware structure variations between them, and while some ports go seamlessly, others do not.

Try playing Skyrim on PS3. Then play it on Xbox.

That has almost nothing to do with the two consoles being unequal in power and almost everything to do with Bethesda being one of the worst game developers of all time.

Furthermore, the thing you seem to fail to take into account is that in Yahtzee's proposed world, there's no such things as ports in the first place. There will be no "try playing Skyrim on PS3, then play it on 360" because there will just be one standard and the game will either work or not work. Seriously man, you should actually read and understand the article before you reply next time.

Also, side note, play Skyrim on PC, not 360 or PS3. Good grief.

Yep. It's more Bethesda being rather shit indeed.

And yeah, play it on PC. UI is shit on PC though if you ask me, just the console interface with no kind of thought for efficient use...

Casual Shinji:

AgentLampshade:
Hmmm, can't say I'd particularly enjoy having candy-canes coming out of my palm.

You could suck them into sharp points, and turn your palms into murder weapons!

Yeah but what if you need to entertain yourself for a while man? think of the logistics!

ThinDeisel:
Android based tablets as "controllers"

Only if it comes with tactile anologue buttons and not just a touch screen, frankly, a touch screen is fine for simple inputs like swiping but onscreen buttons are awful things because they lack a tactile feedback or physical presence seperate from the rest of the screen.

Basically I would hate to try play MvC with a touch screen only.

Too true. Of course, the industry is flat up against the wall known as financial reality, a wall that they seem to not even notice is there. Tripple A development costs $20-30 million USD for a sequel, and even up to $40 million USD for a new proprietary title (I refuse to use the term "IP"). This is up from a projected cost of $10-17 million in 2005-2006. If the next console generation continues this trend, we will see a sharp decrease in AAA titles, as even at $70 per disk sold, they would have to sell at least 4 million units to make a profit on their game. Microsoft and Sony seem to be all for this idea, though, even though it will basically cause their systems to fail, especially if sold at a loss to manufacturing.

EA, Ubisoft, Activision, and Take-Two stocks are all moribund in performance, and rightly so, as investors see that the AAA industry is running towards the wall of financial ruin at 60 miles per hour.

Captcha: mish-mash. Exactly what will be left of the AAA industry at this rate.

SkarKrow:

Casual Shinji:

AgentLampshade:
Hmmm, can't say I'd particularly enjoy having candy-canes coming out of my palm.

You could suck them into sharp points, and turn your palms into murder weapons!

Yeah but what if you need to entertain yourself for a while man? think of the logistics!

Well, candy canes have the ability to be twisted into circular shapes... If you know what I mean. ;D

I'm surprised by my onw dirty thoughts. Really, I am.

This has to be the most irrelevant Extra Punctuation I've ever read. And Yahtzee knows it, judging by the quote "And while we're dreaming, the sky is also pink, and everyone has candy canes growing out of their palms."

To ask that console makers become simply game publishers is likely never to happen until they run out of cash, because while they're successful, they have no incentive not to continue business as usual. When they fail, they will comply with your wishes. cough SEGA cough

When there's no more money to make off selling console hardware, and subsequently raking in the licensing dough that publishers have to pay, then everyone will be forced to play on PC, and you can live your dream.

At least this one reads like it's about the "console wars" instead of being half off topic rant against Nintendo's latest LSD induced contraption.

However, if you really believe what your saying Yatzee, then go off and develop a game using the very method you're advocating. Don't cop out saying "The Tech Doesn't Exist" because it does. Write a game for a cheap 35$ Android USB dongle and sell it, or write a game using HTML5/Javascript and let people play. Or write your game completely in Java and see how well you do without Native Libraries. If you're able to do any of that then maybe your opinion on that side of things would have some weight. Otherwise it's just fanciful dreams that neglect any grounding in reality.

All of the methods that would put you close to your Utopia come at a huge cost. Most developers, even independents, aren't willing to give up the kind of power you get with a Native system.

The only thing that should be done is that the Libraries should be standardized so that a developer can write their code once and quickly compile their code for any system they want to sell on. For the most part they already are. Then you just have to do what Capcom does and code to the Lowest Common Denominator. However, the newest stuff is never apart of that standard. The "war" you're ranting about is where new things are tested. Graphically the "war" is between different graphics card manufacturers. Did the system use an NVidia chip or an ATI chip. For memory storage it's Did they use an SSD, or HDD. Things that work best are integrated into the libraries and things that aren't are discarded in the next generation. Discarding breaks backwards compatibility, but if you don't do it you end up with junk that's never used to support one idiots desire to run a 386 DX33 game on an 786_64 processor.

Eventually, like Linus to Molnar, you have to draw a line in the sand and say

Molnar:
"Unfortunately there's a nostalgic cost: your old original 386 DX33 system from early 1991 won't be able to boot modern Linux kernels anymore. Sniff."

Linus:
"I'm not sentimental. Good riddance."

But Yahtzee, you all knowing master of logic, if it wasn't for the console wars how can I waste all my money!? If I can't dream of having three major consoles at the same time WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO WANT!!!!??!?!?!?!!??!??

Imagine a word where your movie DVDs only played in a certain brand of DVD player. No one in their right mind gives a shit about what specific brand or company made their DVD player, they just wanna watch their fucking movie. That's how ridiculous the whole console wars thing is.

(don't you even fucking bring up blue ray players I swear to god)

You know, the vibe I seem to be getting from this is "consoles should die and everyone should be PC gamers" or something to that degree. Call me cynical, but I think that Yahtzee is being extremely overly idealistic.

On historical preservation, shoot me, but the only solution is piracy/emulation. One, the games go out of print and are unobtainable, and two, the consoles go out of production and are unobtainable. A free market/capitalist system cannot solve these two problems, period. Standardized hardware is a pipe dream and is not going to happen. The best we can do is a standardized VM, a la Java, but even that won't happen so long as the big console companies are still standing.

While we're at it, remove DRM from the games, it's been done in music already. I love Steam but as a store and game-managing program, Steamworks is still bad.

Also, we've had VHS, DVD and now Blu-Ray, inbetween there was Betamax, Video CD, Super Video CD and Laserdisc for storing what is essentially the same movie. Also, being on unified hardware doesn't immediately solve the problems though, you're still going to need to upgrade and older games might still not work (like most Windows 95 games available).

Another point is that in a competition the competitors generally respect each other and that certainly doesn't happen in this industry.

This ain't a way, and Yahtzee lacks perspective.

NES vs Atari = Competition increased the graphical quality available, and moved consoles away from PC alternatives.

Sega vs SNES = Back to Yahtzee's point.

N64 vs Playstation = Cartridges vs discs (no load times, or more storage)?
One analog stick, vs two?
More PC like console modularity?
2 players vs 4 players.

Gamecube vs Playstation 2 vs Dreamcast vs X-Box = Reduced load times vs All-in-one entertainment & Backwards compatibility, but only 2-player (Online?) vs Dreamcast vs X-Box (Online gaming?).

Wii vs Playstation 3 vs X-Box 360 = Innovative controls vs Playstation 3 vs X-Box live.

Really, what innovation have you seen like the wii motes from third-party peripherals? If it is not the default controller, nobody uses it. Until the Wii, nobody would have taken a chance on Kinect, not after the laughable Eye Toy cameras for the PS2.

At what point would Nintendo EVER create a system like X-Box live? Furthermore, when would Sony have done so?

ex275w:
The only solution I can see is to have a universal gaming OS that can run the Unreal Engine, Cryengine, Frostbite, Unity, Game Maker, RPG Maker, XNA, Havok, Source and other engines and Frameworks and license it to game developers and manufacture consoles that can efficiently run those engines. Of course this will never happen, as much as I wish it would.

So overpriced, overheating, overconsuming big blocks of metal.

Have you heard of a Geforce 8800GT, 512mb? I consider that card to be top of the line. Better yet, one of its low power replacements, like a GT 240, or a GT 620. Don't talk to me about GTX 280s, 480s, 580s, or 680s.

Gaming engine developers just need to slow down, and stop making such demanding engines. Take a page out of Valve's book, match the requirements for Source. Crysis does not look pretty on my machine, it just looks like a screen full of jaggies, and a 40FPS frame rate.

The comparison to Bluray/HDDVD is flawed. Games are not simple like video files, and a console is not a piece of commodity electronics like a bluray player. A console now is much more than just a piece of hardware anyway. Its a user service (Live, PSN), its a development platform (dev programs, APIs), its an ecommerce service, and its a publisher. A console maker's job is to not only make the best hardware, but to make their environment more attractive to developers and publishers than the other guy's. I think I disagree with the main point of the article: that the best console is the one with the best games...period. Likening a console to an artist's easel is purposefully ignoring the infrastructure behind each console, and i think YC knows it.

Falseprophet:
SNIP

Problem with the Beta/VHS war is the problem we DON'T want here. VHS won because Beta's sales went down and then VHS had a monopoly on that market. The only way for an industry standard here would be for Nintendo or Sony to crash, so that the XBOX would be the standard, or vice versa, or verse visa. One company deciding everything for console gaming would be awful.

WanderingFool:

Neonsilver:

DVS BSTrD:
But as long as there are different console options, they ARE going to be competing with one another. That's what drives them to create better hardware. Without competition, quality stagnates.

And thanks my spell check sucks.

The problem is, there isn't a true competition. I wouldn't even call it a war. It is more like a hostage situation. Most people probably don't even consider the capabilities of the consoles (I assume, most people couldn't distinguish which console is more powerful, even if there were a difference), they consider which games they can play with it. There can only be a real competition if you can buy any game for any console, then only the quality of the hardware would count.

Now thats an interesting way to put the situation with gaming consoles. And it fits quite well. But, I have to wonder, all gaming consoles were to be designed so any game could be played on any console, than what would actually determine which console to buy?

Other options. Microsoft charges for online, Sony has Blu-Ray, Microsoft's online servers are usually better, etc.

Vuliev:

Neonsilver:
The only solution I can see is to have a universal gaming OS that can run the Unreal Engine, Cryengine, Frostbite, Unity, Game Maker, RPG Maker, XNA, Havok, Source and other engines and Frameworks and license it to game developers and manufacture consoles that can efficiently run those engines. Of course this will never happen, as much as I wish it would.

Considering that the first three are all owned (directly or indirectly) through EA, and that those three engines are responsible for a vast number of popular titles and franchises (especially the modern shooters), it'd honestly be in EA's best interest to push for a single standardized console. It'd cut their development costs immensely by removing the need to port the game to whichever console they didn't focus on during development.

The Unreal Engine was made by and is owned by Epic Games who are not owned (directly or indirectly) by EA. The Cryengine was made my Crytek who partnered with EA for a while, but Far Cry was still published by Ubisoft. I guess you could say the Frostbite engine is indirectly owned by EA since all games made with it were published by EA, contrary to the other two engines though.

Monster_user:

Gaming engine developers just need to slow down, and stop making such demanding engines. Take a page out of Valve's book, match the requirements for Source. Crysis does not look pretty on my machine, it just looks like a screen full of jaggies, and a 40FPS frame rate.

First you say that competition is good because it enhanced the graphics of the Atari and the NES, but now you say game developers should stop improving them? I get that obviously the Source engine has better visuals then the NES but if you argue that way, maybe we should have just stuck the the original quake engine then. The Source engine doesn't have directX 11 or PhysX and cant handle huge open worlds like Skyrim or GTA, all of which can look pretty damn awesome if you ask me. Sure you can say we don't "need" that, but we don't need the Source engine either then do we?

Mojo:
The Unreal Engine was made by and is owned by Epic Games who are not owned (directly or indirectly) by EA. The Cryengine was made my Crytek who partnered with EA for a while, but Far Cry was still published by Ubisoft. I guess you could say the Frostbite engine is indirectly owned by EA since all games made with it were published by EA, contrary to the other two engines though.

Ah, my mistake--I was under the impression that EA had bought Epic and Crytek. DICE, the owners of Frostbite, is owned by EA, though.

JSW:
One thing that gives me hope is the recent trend of Android-powered gaming devices like the Archos Gamepad, the Wikipad, the Ouya and Project Shield. None of these are console-killers at the moment, but if any of them manage to get some third-party support they'll represent an important step on the road towards standardized gaming hardware.

Valve's console project also seems promising, if the rumours of it basically being a pre-configured Linux PC running Steam's Big Picture mode are true, but we'll have to wait for more details on that.

They may show the way forward, but what will really take it is Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all sitting around a table and agreeing to a standardised platform, where they are still in the hardware game for peripherals but they are mainly software focused.

I'll tell you, it's closer to that than it's ever been before.

Nintendo is least likely to bite, Microsoft and Sony I can see signing anything to grease the wheels, but Nintendo's got a history, they've got pride. They "saved console gaming" after the collapse of 1983, saved it with the licensing and exclusivity model we have today.

That made console gaming survive, but console gaming is not on the bring of disappearing now, it's a massive industry that directly competes with movies and TV revenue.

Sony have been distancing themselves, they have diverging hardware between PS3, PSV and increasing presence in PC gaming (Planetside 2). Hell, they renamed PlaysStation Network to "Sony Entertainment Network".

One thing about this one singular box is the networks might be separate, Xbox Live would exists as a completley separate login from Sony Online and Nintendo.

The box would be nothing but dead dry hardware. And it might as well be, the way you interact with the Xbox 360 has changed so much sicne it launched in 2005 even if you have the exact same hardware, from software updates.

See Microsoft doesn't exist in the hardware, it exists in the software, and and here is the thing where I think Microsoft will want to sign:

If someone buys this supposed Multi-Console to play a Sony game... then all Microsoft have to do to win them over to buying their games... is just advertise "Hey, download the Xbox Live app". Before, if someone had bought a PS3 it was a tough sell convincing them to get buy Microsoft games as they'd have to fork out for a console, but now that barrier would be down. They could smuggle their games onto what would have been the equivalent of them buying a PS3. And vice versa, the exact same applies to Sony seeing people who bought a console to play a Microsoft game like Halo

It's brilliant, it COULD work, I can see the capitalist liking this and going for it and liking it so much they'll never want to go back.

The question is, how will we get there and how long will it take?!?

mysecondlife:
I say playing Uncharted on Xbox would be terrible, mainly because I love how Uncharted's grenade throwing mechanics work well with dualshock.

Much like on PC, peripherals would be an open market for things like that. You could easily get a different controller that had motion controls for games that support them.

But the incentive would be to get advanced technology widespread and inter-operable. Look at the PC market how much peripheral technology has advanced by competition and no guiding body at all.

Even if Sony owned the patents to motion sensor in Dual-shock, Microsoft games on this uni-console could use that feature.

Microsoft and Sony would exist on like Sega, as publishers. But I think a key part is big guys like those will command their own custom operating system for standardised hardware. So turning it on you chose Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony OS, then you join their network and their store, just like Steam and Origin model on PC.

Because the Xbox branding... it's not on the hardware, it's on the software.

Treblaine:
If someone buys this supposed Multi-Console to play a Sony game... then all Microsoft have to do to win them over to buying their games... is just advertise "Hey, download the Xbox Live app". Before, if someone had bought a PS3 it was a tough sell convincing them to get buy Microsoft games as they'd have to fork out for a console, but now that barrier would be down. They could smuggle their games onto what would have been the equivalent of them buying a PS3. And vice versa, the exact same applies to Sony seeing people who bought a console to play a Microsoft game like Halo

It's brilliant, it COULD work, I can see the capitalist liking this and going for it and liking it so much they'll never want to go back.

The question is, how will we get there and how long will it take?!?

Wouldn't work, and whoever tries it would kill their company.

Lets exclude Nintendo from this part because it doesn't apply to them, and hasn't for them since they entered into the console market.

The hurdle to this Multi Console is cost. Sony and MS "technically" have to jump it, but they have an alternative. They choose to use the Razor and Blade marketing model in order to Sell the Systems at a huge loss. If they didn't the PS3 would have cost upwards of 800$ at launch. So your choice is do you buy a single PS3 20GB for 800 or for 500?

Sony wanted to sell units so they opted for the 300$ loss and planed on selling games to make up for that loss. The "Multi Console" doesn't have the option so they'd have to have that full 800 price at launch. Then to tack on the cross compatibility you're going to have an increase. Some parts are shared but some are not. The Processor is the killer piece. They are "almost" the same, but one has bonded units to create cores and one missing core for backwards compatibility with the XBox. This means ether two very expensive processors or a custom processor. Custom means it wouldn't take advantage of the PS3 or 360 price drops and would have to drop at its own pace. You're looking at a single system that's over 1000$ just to break even. If you want even a modest profit you're going to have to sell them for 1200 or 1500. This is not practical, and is why it's not done. If you included the Wii on this the architecture is radically different and would increase the price to the point where just getting a Wii CPU instead of a custom build would be better.

So lets go by their current costs. Do you buy the single Super Console for 500$ or each of the others for 200 - 250? If you're rich you go for the Super Console if you're getting both anyways. If you're reasonable and understand your budget you buy the one that is best for you for your money. Sometimes that's a PS3, and others it's an 360. You might want both economically but most of us can't afford every system whenever we want.

The only way your Super Console would even be possible is if MS and Sony worked together and sold it at a HUGE loss to make it, and agreed to SHARE profits on the games for their respective system. That's never going to happen.

Yahtzee:
It's not a competitive market so much as it is three separate monopolies, all trying to get exclusive titles and franchises, rigidly controlling what can and cannot be played on their turf.

I've been calling it an oligopoly for years, though I was also referring to the deadlock on the market the publishers had and not just the console companies.

Fortunately, since then, their market has been coming apart. Things are changing.
Some for the better (linux-based platforms are getting more support than before), some for the worse (DRM in general).

None of the Big Three would stand for complete standardization, it'd kill their gaming business.
Of course, with such standardization, you wouldn't really have consoles at that point, because consoles as we know them are just propriety computer systems made to play games.

That Hyena Bloke:

90sgamer:
So, Yahtzee, if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo become glorified game publishers and controller-makers, then who is going to decide when it's time to update the standardized hardware that runs these games and controllers? Currently, consoles become more powerful each generation because each console manufacturer does not want to be the one with the least powerful console (unless you are Nintendo). Where would that motivation to upgrade hardware come from if not competition with other businesses? Why would the big three undertake massive R&D and tooling facilities to make new hardware when they are making a great profit with old hardware?

If you idea was implemented 8 years ago I bet we'd all be on the Nintendo Wii with no hint of future generations of hardware on the horizon. Wouldn't seem like such a great idea then, huh?

"If Hollywood only makes movies and DVDs, then who is going to decide when DVD players get upgraded?"

Simple, the public does. He's not advocating for a single static console, he's saying consoles should be more like DVD players and be able to run all games universally. And when the time comes for updated hardware, you can have your pick of the new consoles that are being produced, just like when Blu-Ray came out. And the public chooses via the free market if this becomes the new standard. That way nobody is strong-armed by exclusives into buying a particular new console with gimmicky features they really don't want, they can pick a console to suit their needs and style.

His platform is that the companies SHOULDN'T be what they are.

Nintendo is a game-maker that creates hardware specifically designed and tailored to the needs of its games. This is the ONLY company that is actually a game developer and publisher, and them making their own consoles is what sets them above, say, EA or Activision. They will not bow to working within the constraints set upon them by others' hardware creations, and instead make consoles specifically designed to run their games.

Microsoft is a massive Operating System and Software vendor, and is the closest to the "Stripped down Gaming PC" people think ALL consoles are. The Xbox is seen as the "Standard" console because of this - it's designed to be a simple gaming/entertainment platform pretty open to other developers, with hardware and firmware comfortable and familiar to PC game developers, giving them the stablity of a console and familiarity of a computer. In fact, this functionality is in the console's name: "Direct-X Box".

Valve seems like it will be entering the console war as something of a hybrid between Nintendo and Microsoft, being primarily a Games Distributor - to that end, they seem to be making a platform capable of getting STEAM out to everyone, without straddling their service to a box where it has to compete for functionality and processes that a standard computer has to.

Sony is a home-entertainment systems manufacturer. Games are a VERY small part of their business model. Furthermore, it's pretty much their modus operandi to create proprietary innovations similar to what's already on the market (Or bringing something new to the market) that carry either a superior quality or convenience but straddled with proprietary Patent/Copyright protection. All the "Format Wars" of the past usually had Sony on one side of them - Betamax Vs. VHS. BluRay vs. HDDVD. MiniDisk vs. CD and early MP3 players. The only "Format War" not involving them is Mac vs. PC. Thriving on and propagating the "Console War" is entirely characteristic of them.

So, essentially, the reason we don't have a "Video game platform Standard" is because each console is made by a company with a unique vision for how their respective gaming platform fits in with their business model - Nintendo makes the console for its games. Microsoft makes a console for others to make games for, Valve is making a console that plays their games, and Sony's making a console that's different from everyone else's because they're Sony.

why I want to agree with Yahtzee on consoles being similar in power the ps3 does have bluray optical media and major support from Japanese developers for console exclusives. I know that some people do not care if they ever play any jrpgs or Japanese type games, however this is still a big market and helps move game systems.

The second thing I pointed out is blu-ray optical, while the 360 and ps3 have games that virtually look the same one thing does still remain which is multiple number of disc. These however are the only difference in this console generation the previous 128 bit gen that not only had 4 systems, but some of the greatest games ever made.

On a personal note I think that the console wars are just stupid/pointless. Please just play games people regardless of the system you own. Now if you are able to afford all 3 then by all means go ahead since it's smarter then adding flames to a pointless war. Now I leave you all with something I dug up recently out of my closet.
image

image

Yahtzee brought up the idea of emulation, and it brings to mind a question that's been nagging me ever since I first saw a copy of bleem (look it up) at Best Buy.

Why don't console manufacturers ever make their own emulators?

How easy would it be for Sony to write an authorized PS2 emulator and release it on PC? If a bunch of bedroom programmers can make this shit work in their free time, it seems like it'd be easy for Sony to do an official (and superior) version and sell it.

Maybe there are piracy issues or something.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here