Tekken Dev Wants One-Console Future

[xPixelatedx]

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

 

[Nazrel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe they'll call it the Ouya alternative.

 

[weirdee]

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

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

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Sony handles the hardware

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

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

 

[Legendsmith]

Honestly, we just need AMD to listen to this guy [http://swixel.net/post/16283500685/dear-amd]. What he's proposing is essentially where consoles are headed anyway, except without crappy restrictions.

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

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

 

[Adon Cabre]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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