Seriously, Console Wars Are Pointless

[AdamRhodes]

snip

The problem with exclusives is that they are incredibly powerful tools, I mean, they work as killer apps and especially in the tech world, a killer app can make or break a company.

So if the consoles have different online services like you said the first thing companies would do is to put a ton of exclusive things so eventually you buy the hardware for the online exclusives.

I'm fine with that. I just don't want to have to buy a PS3 because I kinda want to try out Uncharted and Infamous.

 

[Neonsilver]

You don't want an end to the consol war, you want an end to consol exclusives.

Wrong. That was him trying to make a point about how it would be if Publishers were only that: Publishers. And competed by making good games and good controls. not With exclusives and all the other bullshit they FORCE on us.

And it's *Console.

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.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

The one week Yahtzee actually reads the forum thread responses and he doesn't make so much as a token mention of the technical issues that would prevent a future system from "playing any game made in the last 20 years". There's a reason the only console games people play on PCs are the ones old enough to have hardware emulators.

 

[ex275w]

snip

The problem with exclusives is that they are incredibly powerful tools, I mean, they work as killer apps and especially in the tech world, a killer app can make or break a company.

So if the consoles have different online services like you said the first thing companies would do is to put a ton of exclusive things so eventually you buy the hardware for the online exclusives.

I'm fine with that. I just don't want to have to buy a PS3 because I kinda want to try out Uncharted and Infamous.

The problem is that the Sony box would have Uncharted and Infamous in their online store and Nintendo would have Zelda on their online store. In the end only games like Barbie's Horse Adventures would be playable on the Nintendo and Sony DVD Player.

 

[mjc0961]

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.

 

[WanderingFool]

You don't want an end to the consol war, you want an end to consol exclusives.

Wrong. That was him trying to make a point about how it would be if Publishers were only that: Publishers. And competed by making good games and good controls. not With exclusives and all the other bullshit they FORCE on us.

And it's *Console.

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?

 

[ex275w]

You don't want an end to the consol war, you want an end to consol exclusives.

Wrong. That was him trying to make a point about how it would be if Publishers were only that: Publishers. And competed by making good games and good controls. not With exclusives and all the other bullshit they FORCE on us.

And it's *Console.

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.

Here really is the problem, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are holding the new Zelda, God of War and Halo hostage and the ransom is to buy a specific system. The worst part is that with the advancement of technology it's getting worse. Apple and their products have shown that people do put up with Draconian hardware restrictions and DRM if you can convince them that they need your product.

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.

 

[Neonsilver]

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?

I wouldn't design the hardware to allow any game to be played, but the software, the OS of the system. If Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo could agree what functions the OS has to provide for the games and if they would stick to it they could sell consoles which are compatible to each other. It would still be possible to get "exclusives" but only by providing the most powerful hardware and getting a game developed that needs the power.
Even special hardware like the wiimote could be included with a patch.

 

[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.

But Yahtzee's world is an unrealistic one, where Gaming Platforms are nebulous magic boxes, all of the same capability and identical structure. Maybe he wants that, but standardization of hardware and architecture leads to stagnation as well.

I brought up the Skyrim PS3/Xbox thing as a demonstration of how hardware architecture changes how a game can be ported or not. Bethesda's a company that can't figure out what the hell is with the split memory. However, other companies can use the PS3's exotic architecture to exceed what the console's specifications would seem to indicate possible.

Some people like the standardization of format - but that standardization also comes with losses in innovation, as everything's forced to conform to the same system with its own inherent strengths and weaknesses. But, gamers have become completely divorced from and ignorant of the underlying electronic architecture (Hardware and firmware) that operates the software they take for granted.

 

[Voltano]

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.

When I buy a console/handheld, I buy them for the potential games I can get from them - but these games are now being hoarded up in exclusives to consoles that it might as well act like a monopoly.

The debacle with "Bayonetta 2" is a good example. Some people still have mixed opinion on whether the Wii U is a good console, yet some people still have a love for the technically nude witch kicking demon/angel/whatever butt. If they want to play the sequel, they would have to get a console that might not be appealing to them, and it may not have any games they might not like.

 

[mysecondlife]

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

 

[MowDownJoe]

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.

 

[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?

 

[charliesbass]

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.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

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.

 

[ThinDeisel]

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.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

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.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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!

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

 

[Vuliev]

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.