Former Sony Exec Believes Sony and Microsoft Will Join Forces

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
Former Sony Exec Believes Sony and Microsoft Will Join Forces



The former president of SCEE strongly believes that the rising costs of hardware development will encourage the big three to share resources.

Developing a next-generation videogame console is expensive. So expensive, in fact, that former Sony Computer Entertainment Europe president and current Capcom COO David Reeves thinks that the major players in the console business will be driven together within the next 15 years.

It seems like an impossible scenario for Sony and Microsoft to team up, but Reeves feels pretty strongly about the possibility. He revealed his thoughts on a possible one console future in an interview with CVG.

"When you're on the first-party side, you realize how really, really expensive it is to develop a platform," he said. "Whether it's PS3, or Xbox 360 or even Wii, they cost millions - maybe not billions, but absolutely millions."

Making those millions back has become more challenging than ever with competition in the market coming from digital distribution, and worldwide economies taking a plunge. Reeves feels that someday, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo will get sick of splitting the industry's profits between them.

"Eventually, it may just become so expensive to develop that Microsoft and Sony say, 'Okay, let's get together.' I'd say it's between 10 and 15 years away," he continued. "That's how long I think it will take. I don't think it will be the next console cycle, but probably the next cycle after that, where you might have something platform-agnostic."

Reeves added that there could be another player by then, such as Google, joining the fold to team up with one of the big three. He paints a future where Mario can someday become a secret character in Super Smash Bros. [http://www.amazon.com/God-War-III-Playstation-3/dp/B000ZK9QCS/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1290107001&sr=1-2] 15 years is a long time, but does anyone else actually think this is remotely possible?

Source: CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=276488]

Permalink
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
i wouldn't say its impossible. Sony and Nintendo were actually working on a console, yet Nintendo went paranoid and booted them out, along with the tech that was made during it. That later became the Playstation.

The big issue would be the two staying together, not coming together. IF they do join up, it would be interesting to see.
 

Simalacrum

Resident Juggler
Apr 17, 2008
5,204
0
0
I think that could be fantastic, although I question the possibility of there even being two more generations of consoles - with the rising production costs, on top of the fact that we're coming damned close to life-like graphics, I honestly doubt that the industry can continue this 'generation' idea for much longer.

However, I do think that joining forces would be a very good thing.
 

Crimsane

New member
Apr 11, 2009
914
0
0
As long as it doesn't end up with another terrible Games for Windows Live-style system to play their games, I'm not opposed to the idea. I have a few reservations about it, but... I'm curious.
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
The thing about capitalism is that it's designed around competition. The 360 dropped it's price to try to sell more and be more in line with the wii, which meant sony had to drop it's prices to compete, etc.

If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. It will absolutely have a subscription fee to go online because hey, what are YOU going to do about it?

At least I'll always have my PC <3
 

capacollo

New member
Nov 17, 2009
352
0
0
Tom Goldman said:
Reeves added that there could be another player by then, such as Google, joining the fold to team up with one of the big three. He paints a future where Mario can someday become a secret character in Super Smash Bros. [http://www.amazon.com/God-War-III-Playstation-3/dp/B000ZK9QCS/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1290107001&sr=1-2] 15 years is a long time, but does anyone else actually think this is remotely possible?
I can see the reason for this from a manufacturing point of view. In the semiconductor industry fab-houses (which actually make the chips) incur huge amounts of costs and partner together to help alleviate some of the burden and the intent is to share revenue but keep costs down. Currently, I don't know if the console development is on that path but even if its not I believe that the focus will be more on delivering quality content (whether it be via digital, console, TV, etc.) in the future as that is where the big money is going to be (in my opinion of course).
 

Jack and Calumon

Digimon are cool.
Dec 29, 2008
4,190
0
0
I see Microsoft and Sony teaming up, but Nintendo is STILL printing money through the Wii and the soon obsolete DS after 4 years. Sony meanwhile have been throwing money into a fire until recently when they got enough water to put it out and Microsoft has been relying on having guns fire money at them, and while good, the guns aren't exactly firing full auto.

Don't judges me on that, I needed some kind of analogy or I would have exploded.

Calumon: And I would have had a mess. XS
 

Liudeius

New member
Oct 5, 2010
442
0
0
It would be nice for all games to be on one platform rather than having to choose just one if you are on a tight budget (yes, OnLive will allow just a TV, but it also requires absurdly fast internet)

mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
The problem with the PC is that they are extremely expensive. If you bought a PS3 for $500 (a cheap computer) when they came out, you will be able to play the latest games 10 years and all you need to pay for is the game.
If you use a PC, you have to spend $1,000 or more to begin with, then have to update your hardware periodically if you want to play the latest games (and if you don't constantly upgrade, you have no chance of being able to play new games with full graphics.)
Also the PC doesn't have all games currently, and making it have all game would technically be Microsoft and Sony joining forces since it is made by Microsoft.
 

laryri

New member
May 19, 2008
276
0
0
Liudeius said:
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
The problem with the PC is that they are extremely expensive. If you bought a PS3 for $500 (a cheap computer) when they came out, you will be able to play the latest games 10 years and all you need to pay for is the game.
If you use a PC, you have to spend $1,000 or more to begin with, then have to update your hardware periodically if you want to play the latest games (and if you don't constantly upgrade, you have no chance of being able to play new games with full graphics.)
You can make a PC that is better than the current consoles for the same prices as the current consoles and it will last just as long.
 

manythings

New member
Nov 7, 2009
3,297
0
0
DTWolfwood said:
Government might drop the antitrust hammer down on that idea.
Agreed. It sounds like an idea that is from the "very, very" region and the illegal side of the line.

The problem with this idea is there is one pie and they all want the biggest piece. Does anyone think for a second they will settle for one-third when they could kill the other two and have it all?
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,470
0
0
Simalacrum said:
[...]on top of the fact that we're coming damned close to life-like graphics[...]
True, but there is still a lot of work to do in the physics- and especially the AI-department, both heavily dependend on a console's strength. Apart from that, the new consoles showed us how much level- and enemydesign are improven by stronger machines (e.g. Uncharted 2's moving levels). I think two or even three generations are still possible - but the time spans between them will probably get bigger and bigger, and I suppose there might be more console addons in the future...

And don't forget, there is still virtual reality ahead of us when we've finally got conservative gaming out of our systems. God I'm gonna be the first guy ever who will hook his brains up to a gaming system.

Oh yeah, OT: Sure it's possible. It's probably even likely. Is it a desirable scenario? Not sure. No competition could mean less quality but it could also mean greater quality. Even though "no competition" is very strange to say because there are hardly any exclusives anymore anyway, especially if you count the PC in.
 

Amethyst Wind

New member
Apr 1, 2009
3,189
0
0
Competition fuels consumption. They might enter a merger but only if they had some other company to compete against.

Say......Apple.
 

fgdfgdgd

New member
May 9, 2009
692
0
0
I, for one, welcome our new one console overlord and hope they feel welcomed and loved by fans world round, then we can put our collective mind more onto games and software rather than fighting over who has the biggest virtual wang of a console.
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
I really dont see there being another 2 generations of consoles to be fair. Costs of production are ridiculous for a start. Plus, everything seems to be moving towards motion controls, something that around 95% of gamers are dead set against.
Games are becoming too lifelike as well. I dont know about you lot but I play games to get away from real life. Not to be thrown into some photo-realistic world with a sepia hue to everything.

Its not a case of the "Big 3" maybe joining forces, they HAVE to. Unless there is a merger of some sorts the industry is gonna collapse or 1 company is going to take everything (hardware side Im talking about here). Im pretty sure thats a monopoly there. I mean, if Sony and Nintendo were to suddenly announce they are filing for bankrupcy, that just leaves Microsoft left with the weight of the gaming world on their shoulders. Having competition is the best way for the industry to grow.
I know that sounds contradictary to what I said about them joining forces but thats a different thing. If they join forces and make one console that runs titles of all genres then people are not gonna be confused with what console to buy. No more "I like Halo, I'll buy an Xbox...But...Super Smash Bros I really like as well...ARRRGH!!!".

I bet my life that anyone here would be overjoyed if a merger was announced
Its the only way the industry is going to survive in my opinion
 

super_smash_jesus

New member
Dec 11, 2007
1,072
0
0
and everyone will have their own personal rocketpacks, and the moon would be a destination resort...

this will never happen, I would expect one of the two (MS or Sony) to step out of the console race before they join forces. And Nintendo seems content doing what they do, considering they are the only console that makes money on the console purchases.
 

The Almighty Narf

New member
Feb 13, 2010
18
0
0
I can easily see that happening seeing that's how just about every other market on the planet works. There was like, what? A dozen or so companies behind Bluray? How about MP3? How many corporations did it take to get that off the ground?

Every other sort of technology out there usually has several companies working together for a single universal format. It's pretty inevitable that games will eventually go that way.
 

Delusibeta

Reachin' out...
Mar 7, 2010
2,594
0
0
CTU_Loscombe said:
Plus, everything seems to be moving towards motion controls, something that around 45% and decreasing of gamers are dead set against
Fix'd it for you. If you're a member of said 45%, then may I suggest a gaming PC?
 

Svenparty

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,346
0
0
CTU_Loscombe said:
I really dont see there being another 2 generations of consoles to be fair. Costs of production are ridiculous for a start. Plus, everything seems to be moving towards motion controls, something that around 95% of gamers are dead set against.

Agreed I raised this issue on this forum a while ago and it's certainly looking like Motion Gaming will dominate too much of the gaming market. A year ago a Sony fan or a Microsoft fan (Like Fanboy) was saying that the Wii was rubbish and gimmicky and now these companies are both following it in direction.
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
Liudeius said:
The problem with the PC is that they are extremely expensive. If you bought a PS3 for $500 (a cheap computer) when they came out, you will be able to play the latest games 10 years and all you need to pay for is the game.
If you use a PC, you have to spend $1,000 or more to begin with, then have to update your hardware periodically if you want to play the latest games (and if you don't constantly upgrade, you have no chance of being able to play new games with full graphics.)
Also the PC doesn't have all games currently, and making it have all game would technically be Microsoft and Sony joining forces since it is made by Microsoft.
What you may not know is that most games have engines that scale to differing hardware architecture, it goes up and it goes down, way down. Just because some games can use dual or more sets of GPU's and so on and so forth, doesn't mean they necessarily have to to function. Yes, you can miss out on some of the bells and whistles, but if nobody here is in it purely for graphics that shouldn't matter anyway, right?

Consoles do this all the time, you simply don't see it. Those engines are virtually the same as the ones that run on PC, except they don't scale in your eyes, because console hardware is static, and thusly there's never any change in depth, detail, physics and other effects that can be improved when more resources are made available to the engine.

As with the consoles, a PC purchased at X date/time will run things perfectly fine for an extended period of time. Their hardware doesn't get worse and it takes time for devs to tap into the newer tech, as well as that tech becoming mainstream enough for them to even think about utilizing it as part of the core game mechanic. Even Crysis didn't do this, however, they made the mistake of promoting the game for it's graphical prowess, without really reaffirming that the game could and does play very well on a non-DX10 rig.
 

The Almighty Narf

New member
Feb 13, 2010
18
0
0
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
PCs really aren't designed FOR games, though. They just happen to be able to play them, and not particularity efficiently at that (considering all the background software that's always running). It's like saying Sony and Nintendo should drop their handhelds in favor of supporting smart phones.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
This just seems to scream monopoly. Whihc, at least in America, isnt allowed. Though i have to say... If it did happen... games would either get bitchin'ly good or stupidly average.
 

icyneesan

New member
Feb 28, 2010
1,881
0
0
It would be nice if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all teamed up for some sort of after school special, but man the fan boys will still probably be raging about it.
 

Danzaivar

New member
Jul 13, 2004
1,967
0
0
AC10 said:
The thing about capitalism is that it's designed around competition. The 360 dropped it's price to try to sell more and be more in line with the wii, which meant sony had to drop it's prices to compete, etc.

If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. It will absolutely have a subscription fee to go online because hey, what are YOU going to do about it?

At least I'll always have my PC <3
The thing about capitalism is it's designed around competition.

If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. Then a new business will come along that makes consoles that aren't quite as good, but a lot cheaper. Then they'll make a load of money off of the people who couldn't afford this super expensive hyper console and will start to use the money in R&D to make an awesome console, Sony/MS will react by lowering prices to be competitive and balance will be restored.

The thing about capitalism, you see, is it's designed around competition. :p
 

Rofl-Mayo

New member
Mar 11, 2010
643
0
0
Benefit: If the three came together they would practically have a monopoly over the gaming business, meaning they would be pulling in huge wads of cash.

EDIT: The systems however, would have lifelike graphics that would stun gamers.

Problem: The government would not allow the monopoly, and on another note, what about competition? If they're not up against anything they may not be motivated to make better systems.
 

drbarno

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,273
0
0
Amethyst Wind said:
Competition fuels consumption. They might enter a merger but only if they had some other company to compete against.

Say......Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin

They tried and failed once, so I don't think they are willing to try and create another console any time soon.
I can't really comment on their app gaming because I don't really know much about it but I think it's going pretty good for them and chances are they'd probably stick to that for a while.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
sony and MS? not likly. MS and Nentendo? maybe. the reason i think itll be netendo and MS is nether has pissed the other off(as far as i know) were as sony has bad blood with both.
 

jerrrry

I Miss Doraleous.
Oct 26, 2009
76
0
0
laryri said:
Liudeius said:
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
The problem with the PC is that they are extremely expensive. If you bought a PS3 for $500 (a cheap computer) when they came out, you will be able to play the latest games 10 years and all you need to pay for is the game.
If you use a PC, you have to spend $1,000 or more to begin with, then have to update your hardware periodically if you want to play the latest games (and if you don't constantly upgrade, you have no chance of being able to play new games with full graphics.)
You can make a PC that is better than the current consoles for the same prices as the current consoles and it will last just as long.
Pending your definition of better, I don't really think this is true, but even assuming you are right, Some people can make a PC that is comparable in price and power to a modern console. The PC gaming world is not for everyone, and this has been discussed many times in many places. Most game-playing people do not want the hassle of "hardcore gaming" on the PC. They don't know or want to know anything about computer hardware or troubleshooting. As fr as mass-market gaming is concerned, a console is really the only way to go.
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
This is just an opinion and not newsworthy. I could guess that they would quit making consoles and concentrate on a service like OnLive. Would that get me a headline?
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
Danzaivar said:
AC10 said:
The thing about capitalism is that it's designed around competition. The 360 dropped it's price to try to sell more and be more in line with the wii, which meant sony had to drop it's prices to compete, etc.

If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. It will absolutely have a subscription fee to go online because hey, what are YOU going to do about it?

At least I'll always have my PC <3
The thing about capitalism is it's designed around competition.

If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. Then a new business will come along that makes consoles that aren't quite as good, but a lot cheaper. Then they'll make a load of money off of the people who couldn't afford this super expensive hyper console and will start to use the money in R&D to make an awesome console, Sony/MS will react by lowering prices to be competitive and balance will be restored.

The thing about capitalism, you see, is it's designed around competition. :p
A reasonable point and I can only hope you're right! I'm just thinking, Sony, MS and Nintendo have buckets of publishers whom are loyal to them. Either they own the studios or are partnered with them. If someone comes along with a new console and 50% of the game developers in the entire world aren't willing to publish on it, you have a big problem.
 

FURY_007

New member
Jun 8, 2008
564
0
0
The Almighty Narf said:
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
PCs really aren't designed FOR games, though. They just happen to be able to play them, and not particularity efficiently at that (considering all the background software that's always running). It's like saying Sony and Nintendo should drop their handhelds in favor of supporting smart phones.
.........Idk what to even say to this. Just no.
Please, don't take this as trolling, it's just that PC's have always been part of gaming, its just that before it was pretty even, games like the unreal and quake series were doing good against stuff on the PS2 and the ilk, it's been pretty equal, its just that currently the focus is shifted more for consoles. Inefficient? thats on of the PC's strong points, is that it can do multiple things at once because of the way more advanced hardware you can get, and if your comp cant do that, then you can easily close all background programs.
 

Imp Poster

New member
Sep 16, 2010
618
0
0
I could see that happen. Wouldn't suprise me if it did.

But to take that in another step, I would like PC integrated into TVs. Monitors are getting as big as TVs and TVs are using monitor technology. The problem I see is the PC itself. For decades, the way computers are built has not changed in ways to make it easier to upgrade/build. Which, I would have thought they would for the way computer parts constantly improve at the rate they do. Couldn't there be a better way to plug in a CPU/heatsink or detach a mother board from other components without dismantling whole thing? Can we built/upgrade a computer if the parts of the computer was like an audio system where the dvd, console game, blue ray, cable box, all connected to a receiver? If one part fails or needs an upgrade, you can replace just that part. Then integrate it in the TV. Wireless input devices abound. Living room meets the study room. That kind of thing.
 

Apackof12Ninjas

New member
Oct 12, 2009
180
0
0
On the one hand I support this on the other hand I must quote (paraphrase since I cant find the source material atm) Peter Moore from a Game Informer magazine

"I wish nothing but the best for our competitors. Competition breeds innovation and I wouldn't have it any other way"
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
I think that the best possible scenario (AKA my wet dream) would be Nintendo becoming a software developer, just like Sega and it would be developing it's games for the console that Sony & Microsoft would create together.

An why not?, Apple and Google making their own consoles, battling against Sony/Microsoft's console and Nintendo one of it's first party developers, along side with Rare, Insomniac and Naughty Dog.
 

Sephiwind

Darth Conservative
Aug 12, 2009
180
0
0
Personally I think it would be a horrible thing if they partnered into one console, like a few have said Capatalisim leads to inovation. If there is no competition then they I think the gaming industy would stagnate.

As for the whole anti-trust aspect. A lot of my fellow Americans here forget that Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies, not American ones. If they decided to merge then there isn't a whole hell of a lot the U.S. government could do about it. Only if Microsoft would join in could they step in and stop it from happening.
 

Amethyst Wind

New member
Apr 1, 2009
3,189
0
0
drbarno said:
Amethyst Wind said:
Competition fuels consumption. They might enter a merger but only if they had some other company to compete against.

Say......Apple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin

They tried and failed once, so I don't think they are willing to try and create another console any time soon.
I can't really comment on their app gaming because I don't really know much about it but I think it's going pretty good for them and chances are they'd probably stick to that for a while.
Doesn't need to be just console gaming. Sony works on hardware, Microsoft works on Software, Apple works on both.
 

LavaLampBamboo

King of Okay
Jun 27, 2008
764
0
0
A lot of people are saying we need competition to breed innovation and keep the market fresh, but from a strictly game quality point of view, imagine the quality of games we could see if all of the Big Three joined together. I'd personally love to see the innovations they could come up with if they shared all their tech and experience.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Danzaivar said:
AC10 said:
The thing about capitalism is that it's designed around competition. The 360 dropped it's price to try to sell more and be more in line with the wii, which meant sony had to drop it's prices to compete, etc.

If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. It will absolutely have a subscription fee to go online because hey, what are YOU going to do about it?

At least I'll always have my PC <3
The thing about capitalism is it's designed around competition.


If there is just ONE console they'll be able to charge outlandish amounts and never need to drop the prices. Then a new business will come along that makes consoles that aren't quite as good, but a lot cheaper. Then they'll make a load of money off of the people who couldn't afford this super expensive hyper console and will start to use the money in R&D to make an awesome console, Sony/MS will react by lowering prices to be competitive and balance will be restored.

The thing about capitalism, you see, is it's designed around competition. :p
Not necessarily true. Your scenario assumes that the competitor to a monopolist won't encounter insurmountable barriers to market entry. Those who try to compete against a monopolist often do encounter barriers to entry. Moreover, a monopolist can leverage their market power and temporarily lower their product price below that of the would-be competitor, drive them from the market, and then raise their product price back to original levels once they're rid of them.

Competition alone doesn't guard against the monopolist. The monopolist doesn't compete fairly, they rig the market to their advantage. Standard Oil taught us that lesson a long time ago. If competition was such a good deterrent, there'd be no need for free markets to have antitrust laws.
 

The_Emperor

New member
Mar 18, 2010
347
0
0
I doubt Sony would ally with Microsoft.

More likely Sony and Nintendo.

Either that or someone goes bust and does a Sega. I can well see that happening.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
LavaLampBamboo said:
A lot of people are saying we need competition to breed innovation and keep the market fresh, but from a strictly game quality point of view, imagine the quality of games we could see if all of the Big Three joined together. I'd personally love to see the innovations they could come up with if they shared all their tech and experience.
But imagine the price that they'd gouge, too. Ouch! Not worth the innovation. Besides, once they corner the market, they'll have no need to be innovative. They can sell a piece-of-shit brick with stale technology hand over fist. If you don't like their piece-of-shit brick, too bad. There's no alternative.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
10 years says Apple will be in the market, maybe Google. Maybe Sony will eat up Microsoft's gaming division, but antitrust makes me think that monopolization is not really gonna happen.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Sephiwind said:
Personally I think it would be a horrible thing if they partnered into one console, like a few have said Capatalisim leads to inovation. If there is no competition then they I think the gaming industy would stagnate.

As for the whole anti-trust aspect. A lot of my fellow Americans here forget that Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies, not American ones. If they decided to merge then there isn't a whole hell of a lot the U.S. government could do about it. Only if Microsoft would join in could they step in and stop it from happening.
What makes you think that the Japanese government won't take steps to prevent monopolization of a market? The Japaneses have antitrust laws, too. In fact, they pretty much adopted their antitrust laws wholesale from American antitrust law. Besides, both Sony and Nintendo have American divisions of their Japanese parent companies through which they conduct their business in America. Those division are incorporated and domiciled in America and therefore entirely subject to American antitrust laws.
 

FloodOne

New member
Apr 29, 2009
455
0
0
FURY_007 said:
The Almighty Narf said:
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
PCs really aren't designed FOR games, though. They just happen to be able to play them, and not particularity efficiently at that (considering all the background software that's always running). It's like saying Sony and Nintendo should drop their handhelds in favor of supporting smart phones.
.........Idk what to even say to this. Just no.
Please, don't take this as trolling, it's just that PC's have always been part of gaming, its just that before it was pretty even, games like the unreal and quake series were doing good against stuff on the PS2 and the ilk, it's been pretty equal, its just that currently the focus is shifted more for consoles. Inefficient? thats on of the PC's strong points, is that it can do multiple things at once because of the way more advanced hardware you can get, and if your comp cant do that, then you can easily close all background programs.
But then you run into the problem (on the developer side) of knowing that not everyone is going to have a universal standard to run their game. This is why the PC was notorious for the patch and play epidemic that still hasn't subsided.

As far as patch and play on consoles, that just stems from developer laziness or the publisher rushing a product out to meet a deadline.

OT- This probably won't happen, the word is is that Apple is interested in purchasing Sony. If that happens, there is no possible way that Sony and MS can team up.
 

nipsen

New member
Sep 20, 2008
521
0
0
Reeves never saw the point with developing new tech, or selling it, or creating a better platform than the competition - and he was still the most ambitious of them all over there - so obviously it's going to be natural to suggest something like this. Maybe they should both start to sell milk-carton designs instead of games? That'd make everyone, including Reeves, very happy I think.
 

Jake the Snake

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,141
0
0
With the way Nintendo is carving itself into the casual game market and grossly overshadowing the revenue of Microsoft, and Sony combined, I think it IS only a matter of time before those two combine. Think about it, if Sony and Microsoft came together, not only would they now be encompassing ALL of the hardcore gaming market, but also would allow developers to spend less time worrying about choosing/porting a game for a specific system, and more time just making a good game. I think if Sony and Microsoft want to hope of continuing their success, they need to merge.
 

Korey Von Doom

New member
May 18, 2008
473
0
0
I'd rather they not, microsoft is cruel to its customers and greedy, not to say Sony doesn't pull some shit, but not nearly as bad as M$
 

Sephiwind

Darth Conservative
Aug 12, 2009
180
0
0
JDKJ said:
Sephiwind said:
Personally I think it would be a horrible thing if they partnered into one console, like a few have said Capatalisim leads to inovation. If there is no competition then they I think the gaming industy would stagnate.

As for the whole anti-trust aspect. A lot of my fellow Americans here forget that Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies, not American ones. If they decided to merge then there isn't a whole hell of a lot the U.S. government could do about it. Only if Microsoft would join in could they step in and stop it from happening.
What makes you think that the Japanese government won't take steps to prevent monopolization of a market? The Japaneses have antitrust laws, too. In fact, they pretty much adopted their antitrust laws wholesale from American antitrust law. Besides, both Sony and Nintendo have American divisions of their Japanese parent companies through which they conduct their business in America. Those division are incorporated and domiciled in America and therefore entirely subject to American antitrust laws.
Well honestly I didn't know if Japan had similur, if any, anti-Trust laws.
 

The Almighty Narf

New member
Feb 13, 2010
18
0
0
FURY_007 said:
The Almighty Narf said:
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
PCs really aren't designed FOR games, though. They just happen to be able to play them, and not particularity efficiently at that (considering all the background software that's always running). It's like saying Sony and Nintendo should drop their handhelds in favor of supporting smart phones.
.........Idk what to even say to this. Just no.
Please, don't take this as trolling, it's just that PC's have always been part of gaming, its just that before it was pretty even, games like the unreal and quake series were doing good against stuff on the PS2 and the ilk, it's been pretty equal, its just that currently the focus is shifted more for consoles. Inefficient? thats on of the PC's strong points, is that it can do multiple things at once because of the way more advanced hardware you can get, and if your comp cant do that, then you can easily close all background programs.
I mean, yea sure... PCs work perfectly fine for gaming, on the gamer end at least. I couldn't imagine playing SC2 on anything but a PC. That's not the issue. The issue is that they're just not dedicated gaming platforms which brings a lot of drawbacks. Certainly not the least of which is that developers only have access to a limited amount of a computer's resources. Another would be that developers have no idea what sorts of hardware or software to expect so that don't really know whats sort of resources they even have to work with. It's open nature also lends itself to rampant piracy. That last one alone is probably what turns off most developers from supporting the platform. A closed, dedicated gaming platform, not unlike current consoles, alleviates most of those problems and would be a hella lot more likely to get the big 3 on board with.

Seriously, with there being nothing stopping developers in the way of licensing or development tools from producing PC games whenever they wanted to... if the PC could realistically work as a universal game format, it already would be that.
 

JDKJ

New member
Oct 23, 2010
2,065
0
0
Sephiwind said:
JDKJ said:
Sephiwind said:
Personally I think it would be a horrible thing if they partnered into one console, like a few have said Capatalisim leads to inovation. If there is no competition then they I think the gaming industy would stagnate.

As for the whole anti-trust aspect. A lot of my fellow Americans here forget that Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies, not American ones. If they decided to merge then there isn't a whole hell of a lot the U.S. government could do about it. Only if Microsoft would join in could they step in and stop it from happening.
What makes you think that the Japanese government won't take steps to prevent monopolization of a market? The Japaneses have antitrust laws, too. In fact, they pretty much adopted their antitrust laws wholesale from American antitrust law. Besides, both Sony and Nintendo have American divisions of their Japanese parent companies through which they conduct their business in America. Those division are incorporated and domiciled in America and therefore entirely subject to American antitrust laws.
Well honestly I didn't know if Japan had similur, if any, anti-Trust laws.
I didn't know that tonight's Bears-Dolphins game isn't gonna be available on regular television. And now I'm hella pissed.
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
FURY_007 said:
The Almighty Narf said:
mogamer said:
There is already a universal platform Sony and MS can use. It's called the pc.
PCs really aren't designed FOR games, though. They just happen to be able to play them, and not particularity efficiently at that (considering all the background software that's always running). It's like saying Sony and Nintendo should drop their handhelds in favor of supporting smart phones.
.........Idk what to even say to this. Just no.
Please, don't take this as trolling, it's just that PC's have always been part of gaming, its just that before it was pretty even, games like the unreal and quake series were doing good against stuff on the PS2 and the ilk, it's been pretty equal, its just that currently the focus is shifted more for consoles. Inefficient? thats on of the PC's strong points, is that it can do multiple things at once because of the way more advanced hardware you can get, and if your comp cant do that, then you can easily close all background programs.
I partially agree.

To someone who knows what they're doing and are willing to part with time and effort. A PC is much more rewarding than a console. But they are inefficient. A good PC rig will degrade much faster than a good console. Hardware wise.

What they could do is release something that allows you to boot up into steam or perhaps another piece of software initially. Not running windows. So you would essentially have a dedicated console PC. No necessary background programs running and maybe the choice to access a media centre that can play your music whilst you play.

You'd obviously still have the ability to terminate the game and boot up windows. But it would allow people with slightly less efficient hardware to play brand new games on the highest settings. And for those of us with good rigs already. It would strain the insides much less than if it was running all the shit windows likes to throw at you whilst you're playing.

I once had AVG start a high fucking priority scan whilst I was playing Stalker. I was not a happy boy.

The alternative is making customisable consoles. The problem with the current idea of consoles as I see it is this. You cannot upgrade. So when a console comes out. It might have top of the range hardware and beast most PC's. But give it 2 years and all it's internals are outdated and lagging behind PC's. You remove that hindrance and basically you have yourself a dedicated console. Running none of the shit you find on a PC. But with the ability to upgrade the CPU, or the memory whenever you fancy.

FUCK YEA!
 

V8 Ninja

New member
May 15, 2010
1,903
0
0
I can possibly see Sony and MS join forces (considering that they're basically the same when you come down to it), but Nintendo is still rolling on the money-train to eternal wealth, so I doubt that they'll ever join forces with a far weaker enemy.
 

iblis666

New member
Sep 8, 2008
1,106
0
0
it makes sense but it is doubtful that they would do it since there would be much fighting over size,shape, hardware, software, and many other things
 

iamnotincompliance

New member
Apr 23, 2008
309
0
0
Pfft. I was saying they should do that two years ago. [a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.69256-Playbox-Xstation#654760]On this very site, in fact,[/a] and I stand by what I said then.

Also, huzzah for relatively low post counts making old points easy to find.
 

Vyce

Chaos Dragon
Mar 19, 2009
76
0
0
I could see that bit about another company making consoles. I mean, Sega went down as first-party, and then Microsoft came out of left field.

Google doing consoles? Heh. Google is suspicious enough trying to grab all it can. >..>
 

BigbadaBEEF

New member
Jan 5, 2009
104
0
0
sure it would solve a lot of problems but the idea having mario as a playable character in god of war just made me throw up in my mouth a little
 

Vault Citizen

New member
May 8, 2008
1,703
0
0
I can see under some circumstances Microsoft and Sony might but I'm not sure about Nintendo merging with the others.
 

ComicsAreWeird

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,007
0
0
I hope not. A competitive market means more effort. More Effort means better games. I dont want to see a monopoly in the gaming console industry.

I dont know if they´ll even colaborate in producing games.But who knows? A few years ago, who would´ve guessed that Mario and Sonic would be in the same game?
 

Tom Goldman

Crying on the inside.
Aug 17, 2009
14,499
0
0
Both are businesses and both are in it to make a profit, not for the love of making consoles and games for each others fanboy gamers. If Microsoft and Sony it would benefit both as consoles are sold at a loss for years. Both companies would share 50% of the cost and both companies would have a huge user base with which to sell there games to. Not sure if it would happen, but it is a possiblility. Just depends on if both companies could work out and agree on it. All down to profit.
 

poiuppx

New member
Nov 17, 2009
674
0
0
Hahahahahano.

No.

Really no.

The only way this'd happen is if one company or the other sold off their games side, since neither exists totally in that realm. And as for an alliance, the corporate cultures are so violently different, it's laughable. Any half-way decent exec could smell the failure coming off such an alliance; it would take years to make it work. Years. You can't afford years away from full focus on the market you're targeting to retool behind the scenes, especially in a rapid turn-over industry like gaming.
 

Asuka Soryu

New member
Jun 11, 2010
2,437
0
0
Would be nice to have to only get one console and always be guaranteed that game you want is on your console.

Though, I'm not sure Nintendo will do such.