Tekken Dev Wants One-Console Future

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

sethisjimmy:
Pretty bad idea. One console means less consumer choice, thus less overall satisfaction, and with no competition whatsoever, prices could soar, and consumers would essentially be at the "big three"'s mercy.
Nothing wrong with those companies working together once in a while, but the "one console" idea just spells disaster from my point of view.

^ Ya pretty much what this guy said, with one console it would be a lot easier to simply jack of the prices even more.

Could work out.
Probably won't.
Everyone wants to be the big dog and get all the cash.

Need a one-console future?

Why not PC?

It can theoretically do anything.

It can play console games with the right emulator, it can use console controllers (including motion plus.)

DVS BSTrD:
So... Ouya?

Or the Playbox U 420: cuz he got some high hopes.

Hell yeah the Ouya

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Nintedo, Game certification? Are you trolling? Nintendo besides 1st party games have mostly shovel-ware.

Rednog:

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Damn right, you know when you see Nintendo's seal of quality on a game it has to be great.
image
Wait let me zoom out on that...

I agree all that seal means its Licensed by Nintendo, there no actual grantee of quality.

And if you think the N64 Superman game was bad, try looking at the NES Superman game.

If anything Sony should buy-out Nintendo and let the Nintendo brand fall into obscurity.
Along with the dozen or so series Nintendo keep on remaking.

Foolproof:

worldfest:
Yeah, great idea. In fact, with one console, we can portion out the $ to each developer in order to, well, like Obama said, "share the wealth".

When did he ever, in his life, say that? No, not words you think are synomymous with those words, those exact words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o

I slightly misquoted, but it's just as jarring. Again, this comes from three years back, and it's in a memory bank partitioned off for joker politicians like Mr. One-Term here. Actually, I'm joking, there's no candidate in sight to beat him. He'll win in November easily.

You can listen to all of it, but trust me, he says: "SPREAD THE WEALTH".

Transcript
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp

Yeah... right. To bad the best games are console exclusives. Removing that competition would be bad. People don't try nearly as hard when something isn't on the line. If Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo just became developers their games would almost surly take a HUGE hit in quality. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED TO SEGA.

This is probully where we're going to end up.

After the next generation fails. (Seriously, the software companies are financially killing themselves trying to keep up with current hardware, the next generation is almost guaranteed to kill it.)

Amalgamating and giving perfect backwards compatibility for all of them, is really the only logical step to move things.

This will likely be done by a third party, after traditional console gaming has been deemed comparatively dead.

Might even be the Ouya 2. Assuming that doesn't end up stillborn.

Though that does seem somewhat counter to the direction they want to take that console.

Maybe they'll call it the Ouya alternative.

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Sounds nice, but what we'd probably wind up with is Nintendo handling networking and interface, Microsoft handling hardware, and Sony handling legal and marketing.

worldfest:

Foolproof:

worldfest:
Yeah, great idea. In fact, with one console, we can portion out the $ to each developer in order to, well, like Obama said, "share the wealth".

When did he ever, in his life, say that? No, not words you think are synomymous with those words, those exact words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o

I slightly misquoted, but it's just as jarring. Again, this comes from three years back, and it's in a memory bank partitioned off for joker politicians like Mr. One-Term here. Actually, I'm joking, there's no candidate in sight to beat him. He'll win in November easily.

You can listen to all of it, but trust me, he says: "SPREAD THE WEALTH".

Transcript
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp

Uh, no, he says he wants to decrease taxes on people who are working as hard but not as successful - lowering taxes on 19 people who are actually starting up their businesses, and raising them on people with already established businesses to compensate. That's not "share the wealth" that's "share the burden".

Thats not the same in the slightest - not by any stretch of the imagination.

You didn't "misquote", you willfully misinterpreted what he said.

Considering that the Playstation was a consequence of Nintendo and Sony breaking up from a collaboration, you could see why rebuilding that bridge would be pretty difficult.

You'd pretty much have to force them at gunpoint.

Easton Dark:
Sony handles the hardware

Their hardware tends to be far too expensive to easily profit from lately (isn't the Playstation division in the red right now?) and very difficult to program for. You even heard a lot of developers bitching about how awkward the PS2 was to program for.

Not to mention that the only impressive part of the PS3's hardware at the time was it's processor. The 360's unified RAM makes it a much better fit for the likes of the Elder Scrolls and newer Fallout games and I'm pretty sure the graphics card is better, too.

Res Plus:

Legendsmith:
Honestly, we just need AMD to listen to this guy. What he's proposing is essentially where consoles are headed anyway, except without crappy restrictions.

Why would you want to spend $1000 (er, that's about 640, thanks Google) on a "hardware limited" AMD box? You could build yourself a cracking, unlimited PC for that. Hell, you could buy ready made that was fairly decent. I really don't understand why everyone is so ready to sign over control of the platform they use to a corporation.

Yeah, I know someone could build a great PC for that much, but a lot of people don't want to go to that trouble.
The 'hardware limited' AMD box would be a good thing, because it would be much more powerful than consoles and as he said in his article, it wouldn't be hopelessly outdated the year it's released. Additionally, a ready made PC is kind of 'hardware limited' anyway.
On top of that, because it's hardware restricted has an advantage; certifying a game for it would be easier than for PC because devs would know for sure what the specs were. Games wouldn't be released for the AMD box, they'd be released for the PC, with a sticker on the front saying "Certified for AMD box III+", etc.

Foolproof:

worldfest:

Foolproof:
When did he ever, in his life, say that? No, not words you think are synomymous with those words, those exact words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o

I slightly misquoted, but it's just as jarring. Again, this comes from three years back, and it's in a memory bank partitioned off for joker politicians like Mr. One-Term here. Actually, I'm joking, there's no candidate in sight to beat him. He'll win in November easily.

You can listen to all of it, but trust me, he says: "SPREAD THE WEALTH".

Transcript
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1465/pub_detail.asp

Uh, no, he says he wants to decrease taxes on people who are working as hard but not as successful - lowering taxes on 19 people who are actually starting up their businesses, and raising them on people with already established businesses to compensate. That's not "share the wealth" that's "share the burden".

Thats not the same in the slightest - not by any stretch of the imagination.

You didn't "misquote", you willfully misinterpreted what he said.

It's the same thing. Obama doesn't seem to understand that very few wealthy people were borne into $. The majority worked diligently to the top and now carry the burden of an entire business as they maintain its profit -- and he wants to tax them most, almost as a reward for their ideas. These simple explanations are never as tidy as they sound -- and boy do they sound nice, fuzzy and pleasant.

I live in California. We have a majority liberal legislation who imposes among the highest taxes in the country (48th worst for businesses, according to Tax Foundation), pays our teachers the highest average salary (we're 9th in starting salaries); but we're verging bankruptcy, our schools rank in the bottom five in science and math, and we're losing more people to other states than are coming in. Somehow they're not appreciating all that free medicare that runs clinics and hospitals out of town. And don't even get me started about our collegiate system.

This state is simply a microcosm for that take-from-them-and-share-with-the-rest motif; and it doesn't work.

There's a line between compassion, and just saying something to sweet-heart America.

You're not fooling me President Obama. I've lived in this system.

sethisjimmy:
Pretty bad idea. One console means less consumer choice, thus less overall satisfaction, and with no competition whatsoever, prices could soar, and consumers would essentially be at the "big three"'s mercy.
Nothing wrong with those companies working together once in a while, but the "one console" idea just spells disaster from my point of view.

Sorry, this is slippery slope reasoning.

TV and film lovers managed to get along just fine for over a decade with DVD as the main format. And companies benefited from it too. Instead of having to do their own R&D, companies made players based on a certain template, and tried to include their own features to draw customers to their model.

Having a standard format or model which companies then use provide entertainment in a certain medium is a damn good idea. It means that film-makers and production companies can make films without having to worry about the extra production costs of trying to release their products on five on six different competing products. It means that book publishers can keep costs down by using the same method of paper production and printing across all their books. And if it were to occur in gaming, it would mean that developers would save millions in the cost of developing and porting a game from one system to the next. That shit eats money, and is partly responsible for why games are so conservative now. Give developers a unified platform without the development costs of having to port their games, and you'll see a lot more willingness to try new and interesting things.

This idea of "Competition always equals better" is the same ideology used by conservatives to oppose socialised healthcare and nationalised services, despite the demonstrable benefits and efficiencies of things like that in European countries. Companies already worked together to come up with the DVD format. They already worked together on the CD format. Why would it be such a bad thing for a universal game format? Surely if we want gaming to have the same standing as films, TV shows, music and books, we should be encouraging developers and publishers to embrace the standard format that those mediums use, rather than encouraging them to keep dividing and splintering the market.

Just imagine a future without any kind of console war. Where gamers are united by their love of games, not divided by their choice of console. Wouldn't that be a grand thing? To have a medium where games stand side by side with each other, rather than tearing each other apart over who chose which game box.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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