Seriously, Console Wars Are Pointless

[Oskuro]

THIS ARTICLE A MILLION TIMES.

Sadly enough, PCs were on the path to becoming generic game boxes back when consoles had the pot-16 bit era slump. But then Microsoft and Sony happened, which is all Nintendo's fault actually (They screwed up Sony regarding the CD extension to their new console, which lead to Sony rebranding the thing as the Playstation).


Consoles are, after all, specialized gaming PCs, although it doesn't surprise me people don't realize this, seeing how many still believe that Macs are technologically different from other PCs (hint: they aren't, same hardware, just an overpriced casing).


To further enhance Yatzhee's comment on this being a 1984-style deadlock between monolithic entities, a key factor of the "console wars" (and PC-Console rivalry, or Mac-Common Sense rivalry) is a cultural one: People build their identity around the technology they use, and defense of said tech becomes personal.

Really? Of all the sad things to build a sense of society that are out there... Consumer electronics?

 

[JudgeGame]

THIS ARTICLE A MILLION TIMES.

Sadly enough, PCs were on the path to becoming generic game boxes back when consoles had the pot-16 bit era slump. But then Microsoft and Sony happened, which is all Nintendo's fault actually (They screwed up Sony regarding the CD extension to their new console, which lead to Sony rebranding the thing as the Playstation).


Consoles are, after all, specialized gaming PCs, although it doesn't surprise me people don't realize this, seeing how many still believe that Macs are technologically different from other PCs (hint: they aren't, same hardware, just an overpriced casing).


To further enhance Yatzhee's comment on this being a 1984-style deadlock between monolithic entities, a key factor of the "console wars" (and PC-Console rivalry, or Mac-Common Sense rivalry) is a cultural one: People build their identity around the technology they use, and defense of said tech becomes personal.

Really? Of all the sad things to build a sense of society that are out there... Consumer electronics?

People understand nothing about computers and think consoles are magical artifacts with special powers that you couldn't just replicate with a PC and an emulator. I guess Turing Complete means nothing to these people. This argument is ridiculous. It's like saying the medium of cinema was held back by consumers embracing VHS over Betamax. So much ignorance on this thread.

 

[Pebkio]

Oh wow, it was a bigger post than mine!

I've worked in mobile communications for several years, working with manufacturers of mobile devices. That market also heavily subsidizes devices.

So have I, just on the CS side but enough to know that most of the money for the subsidies are coming from the service providers. Not all, but most, and for the specific reason of getting as many people as possible onto their subscription service.

Given that Acer lost $212M in 2011, those kinds of results are a move in a positive direction, but it may be too little, too late. Q4 results are not out yet.

Right, okay, did not know that Acer lost so much, bad example. However, given that they seem to mostly post profits... I'm going to out on a limb and suggest that something freakish happened. Even profits for 3 months at 2.3 mil? Sure, it's not the 15 billion that Exxon put up one quarter, but I've already said that we worship money way too much. It's 2.3 million dollars for 3 months... on mostly hardware... it can be done.

...which brings me to my next point:
Again, if what you doubt is that a subsidy is necessary, look at the discussion at NeoGAF. Valve and xI3 I think have miscalculated a bit given that they've announced no final specs or pricing, which means that journalists have filled in the gaps by looking at current offerings. PC and console gamers alike are scoffing at the specs and pricing of those offers-- console users because the prices are too high ($500 and $1000) and PC users because the specs are too low.
There's the crux of your arguments: software sales paying for hardware losses is absolutely needed because people don't want to pay the real price for the hardware. Under that assumption, you'd never be able to just sell hardware for a profit, much less to pay for development. You go on to imply that the gaming industry would implode because we, as consumers, would stop paying for stuff if it got more expensive. I have to disagree, because Acer posted profits last quarter. And the Quarter before that. And before 2011...

Companies can turn a profit on hardware without subsidizing costs with software sales. Just not as MUCH PROFIT! ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD! WE MUST HAVE MORE COWBELL! MONEY! 20% GROWTH YEARLY OR WE GO BANKRUPT!

Ahem, sorry, I was slipping into the corporate mindset. Seriously, money shouldn't be everything as long as you're making enough. I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the whole subsidizing hardware sales thing.

...

Oh, except this:
No, that's wrong. Consoles seem more powerful than comparable priced rigs *at launch* because they are subsidized.
I don't view things compared to straight price costs. I live by that cost-to-function ratio I mentioned earlier. At the very least, I compare average consoles to average computers that were for sale during console release. Of course you aren't going to have a very functional (gaming-wise) computer for $200, because they're not subsidized. It's not appropriate to compare something after subsidizing, ie, the information gained from such comparison is erroneous.

 

[Tim Chuma]

There are entire online communities devoted to running old hardware and making sure that older games can still be run in their original form. The Australian Centre for the Moving Image (ACMI) has a dedicated games section and recently had the "Games Masters" exhibition that ran older hardware.

Some of the games hardware can be surprisingly fragile. The Dreamcast had a well known hardware issue where the console would stop working due to some of the contacts inside of it needing to be pushed back and WD40'ed after a certain period. If you are opening consoles and looking at circuit diagrams of previous technology, then it is a whole other level.

SEGA is also a good case of a hardware manufacturer that supposedly "lost" the console war, but is not making games for all the different consoles instead.

The main problem with relying in re-issues and remakes is that only the most popular games tend to get re-issued and a lot of good content will fall by the wayside. Perhaps the model that some of the entertainment companies are doing know with releasing DVD-R's of particular movies instead of doing a wide release could be used.

The lifespan of consoles seems to be getting shorter each generation. I remember playing my Atari 2600 for almost 10 years before I got a Megadrive and then another 10 before I bought a Dreamcast. Not sure how long I will have my Xbox 360 for as I do not really play it enough.

There are emulators that can play older software, but some of these have problems and cannot really match up to playing the original in a lot of cases.

 

[Batou667]

I'm almost 100% behind Yahtzee on this one (no homo). It makes almost perfect sense. However:

1) The DVD player analogy would break down if DVDs came in different technical specifications that required progressively better hardware to run - like games do. The reason DVD players are standardised is because DVD technology isn't getting better any time soon (well, it kind of did with BluRay). Games consoles are still progressing in power and capability - for the time being, although I can see a point where the extra man-hours required to add a seventeenth layer of bump-mapping to Master Chief's instep cease to be profitable, and at this point hopefully devs could just concentrate on making good games.

BUT, while consoles are still improving in power, making a standardised system would create an artificial technical plateau. I can't see how this is a good thing.

2) Yahtzee has often mentioned that a lot of Nintendo's hardware strategy is a solution looking for a problem. Dual screens, then Wiimotes, then 3D screens and now the Wii U tablet. Yes, it's a very "forced" kind of innovation, yes, it completely turns off most 3rd party publishers. But hasn't some good come of it? Both Kinect and Playstation Move took off after the success of the Wiimote, and although the technology still isn't perfect (and it sure as hell shouldn't be shoehorned into games that don't benefit from it), it's an avenue that I think should be explored. Motion controls are our next-gen lightguns and dance-mats, and when voice recognition finally gets half-decent I think we'll see one of the next true revolutions in how we interact with games. Isn't it for the best that we have our eccentrics and innovators alongside the mainstream?

 

[Treblaine]

Ultimately the risk is spread around this way and is much more like how all other consumer electronics are made. And it IS a bullshit model selling your hardware at a loss then the consumer has to shill out an extra $15 per game for every new game they ever buy.

I think Sony and Microsft would much rather focus on the software side than agonise over hardware, just come up with a single good chipset that works with their software plans.

Consortium licences dynamically with more convenient board sizes, big industrial manufacturers like Foxconn use economy of scale to drive down costs, the end buyers tailor the form factor to the user's needs.

The risk is spread equally around? So you think this Super System would be able to be sold at a loss so that consumers could afford it, and that they would be willing to spread that loss equally? Nintendo would easily be in position to demand that the other pay a higher share since they make, and sell more games than Sony or MS. Sony and MS are dependent on 3rd parties to make the bulk of their AAA games.

It's not BS to sell the hardware at a loss, and you don't get an extra 15$ Sony or MS tax for it ether. AAA PC Titles cost 60$ at launch, and your PC isn't subsidized by selling at a loss. Most of the lack of Price cuts on the Console market comes from the Publishers and Game Stop figuring out how to properly meet demand. They don't over print their games by 50% anymore resulting in an early grave in the bargan bin. What does happen is that the developer get access to an Install base that wouldn't have been able to afford the equivilant hardware profile for a PC. Which means more sales, and that extra 15$ goes to the developer of the Hardware for making that possible. It means more sales to more people that you wouldn't have been able to sell to otherwise.

If your system wasn't sold at a loss then some Nobody can come in and steal a significant portion of the market. Just like how Sony and MS tried. Nintendo is the only developer that tries to sell at a Profit from the start, or with a modest loss easily covered by 1 or 2 games. That's why they always end up looking "slower", but end up with the more stable hardware. Sony went with the "Great Leap Forward" approach with a massive 300$ loss and a 500$ price point. Problem was MS did the exact same thing, but went with Cheaper RAM causing the RROD. Heck MS even stole the R&D Sony paid for from IBM by going to IBM and saying "We want the same processor you're making for Sony but a Year Earlier with XBox backwards compatibility". This is what makes it a WAR and not a friendly competition. But that's what is meant by Competition in Capitalism.

Anyone can enter into the Console market and try to become the next best thing, but if all you are is some generic nothing then someone else can come in with your exact hardware, and beat you by doing the simple things. Better Developer support, marketing, some novelty motion control, an exclusive must have game, or any little shinny bobble that gets Developers or Gamers.

There was, and probably still is, a very good reason people believed that the gaming market only could support 2 consoles. The Conservative model that Nintendo follows requiring good 1st party support, and the Razor and Blade model Sega and others have followed to the grave. They both work and they both move the market forward in their own way. The 3rd system was always supposed to be the PC for those too rich who could afford a new 1500$ system every 5 years or less. Great for testing new concepts. Bad for reaching a mass audience. The lines have blurred over the years, but the concepts is still there.

Your method sounds like it would more likely follow the model the lead to the Crash of 83. Dozens of nearly identical console with no reason to buy one over the other. Heck, you've even removed the profit motive to even make the hardware so it would be hard to see any reputable company following you on the death march.

"The risk is spread equally around? So you think this Super System would be able to be sold at a loss"

It doesn't bode well when the VERY FIRST LINE of your post TOTALLY MISREPRESENTS MY ARGUMENT!

Look, home computers aren't sold for a loss, HDTVs are not sold for a loss, speakers are not sold for a loss, mobile phones are not sold for a loss... EQUALLY THIS UNIVERSAL-CONSOLE WOULD NOT BE SOLD FOR A LOSS EITHER!!

PS3 is currently not sold for a loss currently, Xbox 360 has been breaking even for even longer before that.

"AAA PC Titles cost 60$ at launch"

Very few. A lot of PC games are free to play. Steam have higher stock prices than most and yet here is a typical lineup:

Deus Ex: human Revolution = $49.99
Bioshock 2 = $29.99
Assassin's Creed 2 = $39.99

Black ops 2 is not a "AAA PC title" it's a shitty port that is overpriced and ridiculed.

A "triple A" PC game would be something like Team Fortress 2, which is free.

A universal-console means developers only have to develop ONE console version and it sells to everyone who has that version. The current situation of so many games being made identically on PS3 and 360 while arbitrarily separated is just a waste.


"If your system wasn't sold at a loss then some Nobody can come in and steal a significant portion of the market."

Yeah, it's called capitalist competition. You got a problem with that?

The ENTIRE ARGUMENT for capitalism is that if someone comes in doing a better job and/or for a better price then they should be allowed to succeed.

What you are talking about is not capitalism, but what Mussolini defined as Corporatism, where established companies have absolutely protected monopolies that avoid any sort of competition, just domination and forced conformity.

Steal the market?!?!?!? THE MARKET WAS NEVER PRIVATE PROPERTY OF CORPORATIONS!

"Problem was MS did the exact same thing, but went with Cheaper RAM causing the RROD."

So it is confirmed you don't know what you are talking about

Heck MS even stole the R&D Sony paid for from IBM by going to IBM and saying "We want the same processor you're making for Sony but a Year Earlier with XBox backwards compatibility". This is what makes it a WAR and not a friendly competition But that's what is meant by Competition in Capitalism.

but if all you are is some generic nothing then someone else can come in with your exact hardware

The hardware would be protected by intellectual property and licensed out.

And precisely WHO'S hardware would it be?

The Design of the microprocessors and integrated circuits would be by companies like Intel, AMD, ARM, IGM, Nvidia and so on.
The integrated circuits would actually be made by companies like Siemens in Germany
The bare dies would then be assembled into complete chipsets by companies like Foxconn in China
The hard drives would be made in places like Thailand (where flooding there alone caused HDD prices to double from interrupted supply)
They may all be assembled together by another contractor in a plastic case.

All Microsoft or Sony does today is pick and choose the components they want and get someone else to build it to their specifications.

And the only component set that REALLY MATTERS is the main motherboard chipset, which is where any change there will mean software will perform differently. A different hard drive or optical drive will only change loading-speed, the presence of a wi-fi or Ethernet port has no effect on game development. Power supply just has to be in the specified range, any can be used.

"Better Developer support"

Best developer support is by having ONE piece of hardware to work with. What they don't need is multiple different and redundant console designs of near identical performance with a sticking plaster solution of "I'll make a lame attempt at helping guide you through the labyrinthine differences".

The consortium would have it in their very best interest to help every developer who is seriously making games to work on their hardware as that makes their hardware more desirable so it will sell more. And the consortium would not just be Microsoft and Sony, it would also be the chipset designers who may be ARM or IBM or Intel on what software works best with the hardware.

Console game development the operating system is quite irrelevant, games are coded "right down to the metal" but to get officially licensed their games must be responsibly coded, so they can't overclock the CPU to a level that destroys it to get the performance they want.

"There was, and probably still is, a very good reason people believed that the gaming market only could support 2 consoles."

That's because it is a PROBLEM having multiple different consoles of different exclusivity.

Just as 2 platforms is better than 3, a single universal platform is better than 2.

We don't have two different DVD standards. We don't have HD-DVD competing with Blu-ray.

"PC for those too rich who could afford a new 1500$ system every 5 years or less."

Okay, you are free to ignore this guy, he's talking about stuff he knows NOTHING about. It's like getting advice on your love life from a celibate priest.

"likely follow the model the lead to the Crash of 83. Dozens of nearly identical console with no reason to buy one over the other."

That's not true, that was not the cause of the crash of what was a small, immature market. And if it IS a problem to have different platforms of identical performance but contrasting exclusivity, then that SUPPORTS the idea of a single universal platform.

"Heck, you've even removed the profit motive to even make the hardware"

No. They make a profit on the hardware the exact same way they make profits on this long exhaustive list of consumer electronics that are sold without being loss-leaders:
-Smartphones
-Tablets
-MP3 players
-Desktop PCs
-Laptops
-Giant HDTVs
-DVD and blu-ray players
-TV record boxes

Almost EVERY CONSUMER ELECTRONIC DEVICE is NOT sold as a loss leader but for a profit and people buy them at that price, and takes components of standardised compatibility.

Video game consoles are the one exception.

 

[The White Hunter]

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

[sub]I'm surprised by my onw dirty thoughts. Really, I am.[/sub]

I think I do know what you mean, but wouldn't the minty freshness of them cause a touch of painful burning sensation in such a place?

[sub]Don't worry about it, I used to surprise myself too...[/sub]

 

[Trippeh]

for all the reasons mentioned here, I am cautiously optimistic about Valve's SteamBox project. Shield and Ouya -- not so much. time will tell -- on paper it all sounds very promising.

yesterday's Gabe Newell interview that cleared up some of the motivating factors for me, at least a little bit:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852144/gabe-newell-interview-steam-box-future-of-gaming

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Master Race [http://xalaga.com/geeklink/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Glorious_PC_MasterRace1.png] chiming in: "haha"

Yahtzee makes a good point, and I am sick and tired of exclusive titles and bonuses. I got off the end of the Nintendo wagon when they started this crazy controller stuff. Mario and Link are well and good but they aren't in my 'must have' tier of games. Back when the original Xbox came out and I was a PS2 fanboy I recall one of our big zingers being 'it's just a computer in an oversized box'. Irony aside, this is more and more true as the generations rev up. People didn't care that the Gamecube was a cool little lunch-box you could easily bring to a friend's, they wanted to know its processing power, as if that mattered to the stable of games it played. There are numerous side by side image comparisons to see which version of the game you should buy.

 

[KEM10]

I believe the economic word you are looking for is duopoly (and yes, duopolies can effectively run with three, the game theory board is just widened a bit).
Look it up, it is what I have been saying for quite a while.

 

[medv4380]

No. They make a profit on the hardware the exact same way they make profits on this long exhaustive list of consumer electronics that are sold without being loss-leaders:
-Smartphones
-Tablets
-MP3 players
-Desktop PCs
-Laptops
-Giant HDTVs
-DVD and blu-ray players
-TV record boxes

Almost EVERY CONSUMER ELECTRONIC DEVICE is NOT sold as a loss leader but for a profit and people buy them at that price, and takes components of standardised compatibility.

Video game consoles are the one exception.

You have no idea what you're even talking about. Smartphones are mostly sold at a loss. The reason you can pickup the latest IPhone for less than 200 is because the company selling it is subsidizing the cost with your network contract.

DVRs ALL sold at a loss with a few minor exceptions. TiVos are subsidized with your monthly subscription, and that 99$ to free ones you get with Cable and Sat are subsidized with your TV subscriptions because they know that DVR owners are less likely to leave. Even just hucking up a customer to Direct TV with basic service gives them a Minimum 150$ loss. It takes a year and a half before they see any profit from that customer.

Heck even things like DSL are subsidized with your Phone service. Which is why they have to jack up the price if you get Stand Alone DSL.

AMD CPUs are frequently sold at a loss. There has only been a few years they've been able to sell at at profit because their power usage was better than intel, and that's what people wanted in their servers.

A significant portion of Consumer Electronics are sold at a loss.

You sell at a loss to establish your market share.
You're ether going to take advantage of Economies of Scale in hopes that Future production costs drop enough to make it profitable in the long term, you can bundle it so that the sum of all the products is greater than the loss, or you can go with the Razor and Blade Model and bank on selling enough Blades to make up for practically giving away the Razors.

No one wants to Spend 500$ on something like smart phone, DVR, or even a Game System.
No One wants to write software for something with no market share ether.

Your logic for your Utopia is completely devoid of Economic Reality.

 

[SeiichiSin]

From what I can tell, no one really supports the idea that basically what I got sitting in my room is 3 computers that all do basically the exact same thing, except only one ever gets used and it is the one I'm on now. Why is that? Well, simple, because why should I boot up my 360 to play a game that doesn't get me anything better or worse off then something I was already able to play, and chances are for free, on my PC? I paid 2K for my PC, and I don't care. I paid $600 for my PS3, and it currently is only good for random games of rockband and Netflix. My Xbox 360 now is basically only used for Borderlands 2 as I preorded it back before I started playing PC more. But even then, I don't really use it. So why should I bother keeping such a thing where the disks I have for it don't work with what I am using? Especially when the exact same company makes both Operating Systems. If people want to keep the "competition" alive, bring me a new console that can run PS3, 360, Wii, and PC games. It also should be able to use all peripherals, as well as even work with a mouse and keyboard. The last requirement for this magic system is for it to actually exist.

Let me tell you why it wont exist. Sony wants to make money, so does Nintendo and MS. MS is probably making the most with two systems. In order for this magic box to be made, the first thing that would have to happen is for one of them to step forward and say "hey, why not work together this time around?" This will never happen with the current mindset. Why not? For one simple fact. They would have to share. That is right, a 3 way split for the profits. Even if said magic box sold for 2K, it still wouldn't be enough for them to share. Chances are someone out there already owns a magic box, although not a legal one. And chances are, it is way better then anything they will ever release.

 

[YodaUnleashed]

I agree with Yahtzee (for once), I didn't buy a PS3 for the first time last year after being an Xbox 360 player exclusively for 6 years becuase I really wanted the hardware, I bought it because I was missing out on some really great-looking games that I wanted to play and experience but were only available on Sonies system. If consoles were standardised and this whole 'exclusivity' crap shelved, this would most certainly only widen the accessibility of the 'art form' that is video games which is only a good thing in my books.

 

[Treblaine]

The DVD player analogy would break down if DVDs came in different technical specifications that required progressively better hardware to run - like games do.

Xbox 360 is as powerful today in 2013 as it was when it launched in 2005.

The only changes to Xbox 360 have been to make it cheaper to manufacture, lower power consumption and peripheral changes like adding internal Wifi and a new Hard-drive and a fancy new looking box. It still runs software in the EXACT SAME WAY. The vital technical specifications are UNCHANGED!

Console technology moves forwards in big leaps like the leap from DVD to Blu-ray. But console has the equivalent of blu-ray and HD-DVD selling in the same market yet you can play HD-DVD on blu-ray players, nor Blu-ray on HD-DVD players and you can't jsut choose one as so many movies are exclusive to either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

Look at how much Xbox 360 has kept up to spite using tech that wasn't even top-of-the-line in 2005.

 

[Treblaine]

No. They make a profit on the hardware the exact same way they make profits on this long exhaustive list of consumer electronics that are sold without being loss-leaders:
-Smartphones
-Tablets
-MP3 players
-Desktop PCs
-Laptops
-Giant HDTVs
-DVD and blu-ray players
-TV record boxes

Almost EVERY CONSUMER ELECTRONIC DEVICE is NOT sold as a loss leader but for a profit and people buy them at that price, and takes components of standardised compatibility.

Video game consoles are the one exception.

You have no idea what you're even talking about. Smartphones are mostly sold at a loss. The reason you can pickup the latest IPhone for less than 200 is because the company selling it is subsidizing the cost with your network contract.

DVRs ALL sold at a loss with a few minor exceptions. TiVos are subsidized with your monthly subscription, and that 99$ to free ones you get with Cable and Sat are subsidized with your TV subscriptions because they know that DVR owners are less likely to leave. Even just hucking up a customer to Direct TV with basic service gives them a Minimum 150$ loss. It takes a year and a half before they see any profit from that customer.

Heck even things like DSL are subsidized with your Phone service. Which is why they have to jack up the price if you get Stand Alone DSL.

AMD CPUs are frequently sold at a loss. There has only been a few years they've been able to sell at at profit because their power usage was better than intel, and that's what people wanted in their servers.

A significant portion of Consumer Electronics are sold at a loss.

You sell at a loss to establish your market share.
You're ether going to take advantage of Economies of Scale in hopes that Future production costs drop enough to make it profitable in the long term, you can bundle it so that the sum of all the products is greater than the loss, or you can go with the Razor and Blade Model and bank on selling enough Blades to make up for practically giving away the Razors.

No one wants to Spend 500$ on something like smart phone, DVR, or even a Game System.
No One wants to write software for something with no market share ether.

Your logic for your Utopia is completely devoid of Economic Reality.

I'm sorry, but that is NOT sold for a loss.

You are going nothing but paying in instalment, You CANNOT cancel the contract and keep the phone. You must keep paying. The cancellation fees are as high as if you kept paying the monthly costs.

Again, the games and apps are not used to subsidise the cost of the phone.

Again, TiVo subscription was a mandatory, it was no different from buying an SUV and paying instalments for months. Every single thing you bought for the TiVo didn't cost 25-30% more (which is how much console licencing increases the cost of console games) with that money going to TiVo.

Most Digital-recorders for TV as they have no subscription model at all, they sell for a net gain and just record TV when you want them to.

You sell at a loss to establish your market share.

That's a different matter entirely and doesn't mandate games each having a $15 licencing fee that must go to the hardware manufacturer. It's no greater hurdle to leap for a Universal Console than the current contrasting platform exclusivity agreement.

I agree, platform licencing is important. But different platforms with contrasting exclusivity is not the solution. And loss-leading model CANNOT be tolerated if it adds $15 onto a game that would be $45.

Pay in instalments if necessary... at least the payments eventually end. But the games will always be much more expensive than they should be.

"No one wants to Spend 500$ in an iPhone"

But they do. Their non-reversible network contract, the price difference between that same contract sim-only and what they actually have to pay per month after the initial money down cost... that IS WAY MORE THAN $500 just paid via instalments over 24 months. Are you so dense you don't realsie $500 disappearing out of you bank account because only a bit of it was taken each month??!?!?

No One wants to write software for something with no market share ether.

If that were true then we'd never have gotten any console after the NES. Because no new console would come out as it had no games, and no new generation of games would come out as there was no new console.

Don't give me that chicken or the egg bullshit, Publishers and hardware developers can cooperate to have hardware and software come onto the market at the same time as with most console launches there is a launch line-up and very often bundled games.

"Your logic for your Utopia is completely devoid of Economic Reality."

Coming from the guy who doesn't realise that they are simply paying for their smartphone by instalments is somehow a loss-leader that requires high licencing fees that's only possible with competing platforms having petty exclusivity.

 

[bgwelk]

Yahtzee is absolutely right about the console wars. Movies, TV and music have already developed to the point where anyone can pick up a recording device and share their art on any medium, whereas gaming is still behind in the sense that my independent game can't be universally played on a major console. It's the reason iOS games are starting to look like the more innovative ones in the gaming world. Anyone can design an app and market it on the App Store, and many of these games are daring in the way they experiment with new ways to use the iPad's functionality, either in arcade games, puzzlers or more detailed action/adventure games. It's getting to the point where there are only a handful of exclusive console games anyway, and a person who is selecting a new console is deciding based on whether they feel they want a cheap, family friendly device like the Wii, a sophisticated piece of hardware like the PS3 or something well rounded like the 360. The games themselves aren't the issue. If gaming wants to be perceived as an art form, it has to be somewhat democratized and open sourced. We're no longer living in a world where there are only 5 big movie studios, 3 TV stations or record labels, and we should stop acting as if there can only be three options for gaming.

 

[ex275w]

EDIT: Well technically the PC can allow you to 99% of all games ever made but it's kind of illegal to do so. Also the Phone market is kind of heading that way what with the Android, the only problem there is Apple as always.

Wait, what, illegal? To my knowledge, it's perfectly legal to play your games on PC, it's just cumbersome to achieve legality with some titles. You may have to buy/build your own hardware to dump your own system's BIOS and game ROMs, and then "lose" the original copy so that the backup clause with regards to copying digital media kicks in, and you're legally allowed to play with a dumped ROM. In the end there's always a way.

Let's just say that most people who make use of ROMs don't own or even know how to dump the BIOS, and most of the ones who create ROMs also don't lose the original game copy.

 

[Catrixa]

Urgh, as much as I loathe the idea, I think Apple has cemented the lock-customers-to-your-product strategy as the way the world is going to work from now on. Yeah, consoles started this trend first, but Apple did it on such a huge scale that I don't think you could pitch Yahtzee's idea without getting laughed out of the conference room, before being kicked out of the building. Then being shot. Having a customer base that isn't loyal because they like you, but because they have to be loyal (you spend $300 for the device, maybe $500 for games, and unless you're a gaming enthusiast, you're not switching), is literally a money farm that isn't affected by weather. The only time you'd lose money is when no one is buying anything, even from your competitors. The only thing that really keeps the consoles from being truly Apple is the lack of backwards compatibility. At the end of each console cycle you can switch, because your old game collection won't work on ANY other device.

Come to think of it, this is probably another reason for sequel spam. Want to find out what happens next? Better buy our new console!

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Yep, I want games consoles to be more like DVD players. Region-locked monstrosities from a bygone age.

...And as a European player, who needs all those American / Japanese games anyway? I still get my Minecraft!

 

[Batou667]

The DVD player analogy would break down if DVDs came in different technical specifications that required progressively better hardware to run - like games do.

Xbox 360 is as powerful today in 2013 as it was when it launched in 2005.

The only changes to Xbox 360 have been to make it cheaper to manufacture, lower power consumption and peripheral changes like adding internal Wifi and a new Hard-drive and a fancy new looking box. It still runs software in the EXACT SAME WAY. The vital technical specifications are UNCHANGED!

Console technology moves forwards in big leaps like the leap from DVD to Blu-ray. But console has the equivalent of blu-ray and HD-DVD selling in the same market yet you can play HD-DVD on blu-ray players, nor Blu-ray on HD-DVD players and you can't jsut choose one as so many movies are exclusive to either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

Look at how much Xbox 360 has kept up to spite using tech that wasn't even top-of-the-line in 2005.

True, and that's why I don't think unrealistic to say that SOME DAY the jumps between generations won't be worth it any more. The cynical part of me says we may already be there (with the recent news that PS4 and Xbox 360 "may not offer better graphics" - so why release new consoles!?) Xbox 360 and PS3 games are already pretty damn good graphically, who knows what more we could wring from the hardware if developers were encouraged to optimise their code rather than plan for the "next gen".

But then again, what if somebody had decided this at the start of the last generation? Imagine we were still playing new releases on original Xbox and PS2-level hardware up to this day. Think of all the great experiences we'd be missing out on.

Does this mean a new console every 7 years until photorealism is achieved? I sincerely hope not. I think one or two more generations are inevitable and maybe even a good thing. But I welcome the day games become cross-platform and we can focus on the quality of the software rather than this silly hardware arms-race.