Console wars.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Because you have idiots that never grew out of elementary/middle/high-school or early college and have no actual talents, skills, or friends. Doing all of this due to having nothing better to do with their lives and spread misery, because they're insecure and can't learn to be better people. Nothing new here and best to let them stew in their own misery.
Maybe because these consoles cost a lot of money and most people can't buy more than one. So they don't like the idea of picking the "wrong" one and will take any attack or criticism against their chosen console as a personal attack.
Anyway, the console wars haven't meant a thing since Nintendo Vs Sega.
Anyway, the console wars haven't meant a thing since Nintendo Vs Sega.
You haven't seen me and the missus argue about these two drinks! Do we really need to buy both? Can't we agree on one and just buy it? Never! Pepsi is flat and too sugary compared to Coke! More below.
Maybe you are just getting relatively prosperous? I'm old. In the 1980s, I could not afford to have both so way back then, it mattered a lot (I was NES. Called it!!!). Now that I can have both, it no longer matters to me at all. To other young ones that have to pick the one that will be best for them? And why care if they like their console even if others do not?
I recently got the Steam Deck. Some worry SD2 is coming out any second now. If it does, development for the current one becomes a far lesser priority. It impacts the property I already own. So, war it is.
Are these actually still genuinely a thing? Admittedly I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of gaming these days and have no idea what the kids are up to, but it's not something I've ever noticed, now or indeed when I was a kid and they were allegedly all the rage.
The only real place the war is still alive is Twitter but Twitter is a cesspool or stupidity that people take far too seriously.
Since the PCs have been dominating gaming for a long time now the whole console war thing has dropped off. Especially since every console is really just low to mid capability PCs now instead of unique in their own right. Even Nintendo is struggling to come up with something that differentiates it's consoles now besides their first party games.
I feel like the only skin in the game that anyone has in terms of fighting any sort of platform war, is exclusives. Exclusives are what bring people to your platform and keep them there versus playing/buying other platforms. Especially since each of the platform holders except PC have subscription services they want people locked in on. In theory each company is fighting a "war" so to speak, though I would argue that PC's are not involved because there isn't really any "games" maker investing in PC's. You might say Valve is but they don't really count because they are essentially just a storefront.
It basically boils down to people defending the "side" they chose to invest on, which is usually younger gamer who can't have all the consoles. Also some stupid adults who've attached themselves to a brand for whatever stupid reason. I might even argue I'm too long term invested into Playstation to really ever favor any other system, but I also don't actively root for the other systems to fall on their faces.
Which should be illegal. People should be getting the platforms and thus the games on them because the console itself provides unique benefits that the others don't, not be functionally the same with the only reason anyone buys any of the consoles because they hold monopolies on particular games.
For my part, starting with the current generation I've stopped buying consoles entirely, because the exclusives aren't anywhere near worth the money, I hate the practice, most games worth playing is already on PC anyway, and all the exclusives will either be ported over or all be playable on emulators on PC eventually.
Motion for an early lunch.
Why should it be illegal. That's like saying any restaurant should be able to copy each other's recipes. Can I go to McDonald's to get a Whopper? Or demand flame broiled garbage?
Exclusives are everywhere, because that's how businesses bring people in to buy their products. It's perfectly fine.
Sure, but let's not pretend all is rosy with the PC crowd either. PC players had a big shit fit because they needed to download a different free storefront in order to buy certain games. Between Epic and Steam and GoG and whatever you have your own version of exclusivity. And people lost their minds because they were OCD about their libraries being all in the same place. Which I don't really see how it matters, where you buy the games from.
No, you can go to Mcdonalds and demand a hamburger, which is what a Whopper is. Both are providing 2 versions of the same product, not only providing one product that no one else is allowed to distribute. Exclusives are what's called a monopoly, which is supposed to be illegal. It's like if Burger King was the one who was the only one allowed to make not only the Whopper but any hamburger of any sort whatsoever. The fact that other fast food joints have other food wouldn't keep Burger King from still having a monopoly.
Just the same, the fact that multiplatform games exist and that there are other exclusives on other platforms doesn't keep the exclusives on the Switch from being a monopoly or any of the other consoles either.
Also, nobody anywhere will provide you with flame broiled garbage, drop the strawman. There's a big difference between only one providing a product and a product that nobody anywhere would provide.
Because said libraries lock off certain games to be exclusive to themselves, which prevents competition, that's why it matters. As a result Epic and Steam and GoG etc. don't have to compete with each other because they all have exclusive content that nobody else does, hence said exclusive content can be charged for much more than if actual competition existed. Anti-Monopoly laws exist because if one distributor has sole control over a product, then they can exploit their customers because said customers have no other choice if they want and especially if they need the product. Said distributor can charge whatever they want while having zero incentive to provide said product in good condition and that said product doesn't fail within weeks of the consumer getting it.
This is why exclusives should be illegal. Anti-Monopoly laws exist to protect the consumer from exploitation, something that exclusives allow to occur. Anti-Monopoly laws exist to ensure competition so that everybody that provides a product has to do their best to provide the best possible product at the lowest possible price, something that exclusives stop from happening. In fact, the entire industry is rife with monopolies due to copyright and IP laws that prevent the possibility of any given game being able to be distributed by any legal means except from one ultimate source, which is why so many games are fill of anti-consumer practices. None of these practices would exist if everybody was providing the same products and they all had to compete with each other because the consumer would be making a beeline for the distributors that didn't do this crap. Hell, a good part of the reason that GoG became popular was because of the DRM free policy the storefront has.
I'd be really interested in when you think this wasn't the case.
I mean youtube is still pretty hot for console wars
In my example the video game is the hamburger. You can get video games anywhere but particular flavors (aka specific titles) are only available at certain places. The Whopper and Big Mac are both burgers, but they don't taste anything alike. Much the same way video games might have different feels to them. Call of Duty and Battlefield for example are basically the same thing, but they feel different.
Monopoly laws exist to " to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up. "
Which exclusives don't apply, because they effectively keep competition between the platforms going. Playstation, Xbox, PC, and Nintendo all have exclusive games, and because of these exclusives the competition keeps each video game outlet competitive with each other which drives both quality and prices.
Why do you think I keep getting upset that Xbox sucks a bag of fartgas? i don't actually give a shit about Xbox, but I NEED Xbox to be competitive with Playstation because I fear that if Playstation overwhelms Xbox in terms of quality and quantity on offer, then Xbox will shutdown and Sony wont have to try as hard anymore.
Any restaurant can serve whatever food they want, but it better be good food or nobody will go there. This is the same reason why there is nothing wrong with Epic Store having exclusives over Steam, Steam let itself become a cumdumpster of bullshit games that any shit nugget can spurt a game onto. The quality of the store has fallen and thus when the higher end store comes into the neighborhood and offers better products for the same price plus a bunch of free shit, you better people are going to go there instead. It's like going to Costco over Walmart or whatever.
No. In this example it would be you can only get hamburgers (aka specific titles) at one specific place and nowhere is allowed to legally produce hamburgers (specific game titles) anywhere else. This creates a monopoly because these is only one possible source of said hamburgers (specific game titles). The monopoly is not "video games" the monopoly is those exclusive titles.
No, exclusives are monopolies because they destroy competition, not help it. Why does anybody get the Xbox? Because of it's exclusive titles. Why does anybody get the Playstation? Because of it's exclusive titles. Why does anybody get the Nintendo? Because of it's exclusive titles.
None of them needs to provide a console that is measurably different from anyone else's because they have a monopoly due to their exclusives. None of them needs to lower their prices in order to compete with the others to get people to buy their games because they have a monopoly due to their exclusives. None of them needs to provide customer service that is better than the others because they have a monopoly due to their exclusives. etc.
For example, I can say hate DLC. However, because of the monopoly created by exclusives, I can't go for say Super Smash Bros Ultimate on the Xbox One to get all what is Paid DLC on the Switch included at base price on the XB1 game which Microsoft would do in order to motivate me to buy the game from them instead of from Nintendo. This is because Microsoft is not allowed to produce or distribute Super Smash Bros Ultimate or it's DLC because of the exclusives. It creates a situation where I am unable to shop around for the same product, in this case the game Super Smash Bros Ultimate and it's DLC content, in order to legally obtain the product while also not buying into the practice of DLC.
This is what a monopoly does, it robs the consumer of choice by removing any competition from the industry. Exclusives prevent the consumer from having any choice in where and how to obtain the product if they want the product at all besides piracy and other illegal methods.
This doesn't hold up because you aren't limited to where you can get these games. You are only limited to what platform they can be played on. But it doesn't apply to monopoly rules as you can buy the game basically anywhere, you just need a specific device to play the game on. It doesn't apply.
Except nintendo's console is marketably different from the other due to the portablity of it.
And believe me you think if Xbox came out and offered their system being dramatically cheaper than the Ps5, they wouldn't bring people over?
Exclusives aren't monopolies because the systems aren't the only place to play video games. There might be a few video games limited to platform but that's not the same as monopoly. In the case of PC it is simply that some games cannot work on consoles due to mandatory keyboard and mouse control (like Starcraft for example).
Except you aren't robbed of choice. You can play video games everywhere and anywhere, you just can't play SPECIFIC games outside of one platform, the exact same way you cannot get a Big Mac anywhere except McDonald's. You can get a burger anywhere, but you cannot get a Big Mac outside of that particular store.
Either way, it's clear we just have to agree to disagree on this.
Last edited:
No, it's like if I can't just not get a Big Mac anywhere except McDonalds, but the fact that McDonald's produces the Big Mac means no other food chain anywhere is allowed to produce and sell hamburgers, just like the fact that Nintendo produces and sells Super Smash Bros Ultimate means nobody else is allowed to produce and sell Super Smash Bros Ultimate. It is a direct robbing of choice in both cases.
Again, the product that is a monopoly is not "video games". The product that is a monopoly is the exclusive games!
How someone can state the point and yet miss it at the same time always confounds me. The fact that you can't play SPECIFIC games outside of one platform is what makes it a monopoly!
The reason is that exclusives have always existed, the biggest difference between when the video game industry began and now is that every platform is now capable of playing every other game if they weren't locked out of being allowed to. This is epidemic. People don't see exclusives as the monopoly that they very obviously are because they are so used the concept that they don't even recognize the harm it has been doing since the very beginning of the industry.
One day all the anti-consumer practices, microtransactions, paywalls, DLC, Pay to Win, treating players as unpaid beta testers, etc. that people like us rage against are going to be the same, some already have. So deeply ingrained that nobody even notices or cares they're being blatantly screwed over because it's normal. Exclusives are incredibly harmful to consumers and the video game industry as a whole, for all the reasons that monopolies are illegal.