The Upcoming (And Pointless) Console War
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Right on. This is a symptom of a much larger problem, where hardware manufacturers get involved in the content business. Thus you have to look into 3 or 4 streaming services to get all your TV and movies, and 2 competing ebook formats, and 4+ video game formats. So instead of content being able to find an audience on its own merits, it's at the mercy of the hardware gatekeepers.
Actually, Sony and Microsoft are competing for the Nintendo market, hence the Move and Kinect. Hence shifts towards friendlier interfaces and other crap we don't need. Wii set the standard by selling more. So, by this line of thinking....Rogue 09 said:
This really isn't Sony and Microsoft's goal. Not for the same reason, at least. They are looking specifically to reap the licensing, which is where the real money for them comes in. That's the only reason their standards matter to them.Foolproof said:
Valve is looking more at a monopoly on the sales end of things, because they've got a service all lined up for their "console," but it still won't be their standard per se. Not to mention, barring unseen proprietary hardware (seems unlikely), competing clients/platforms could develop out of the same standard as the "Steambox."
I'm not a fan of Valve, but their goal is actually a bit more in line here.
The flip side here is that the likes of Microsoft and Sony ARE behind standards on other media, which means obviously they can work with others and establish such a setup.
Except the systems should be entirely irrelevant. Unless you're an electronics engineer or you work for sony/microsoft why should you care about the system? You should care about the service and the games, neither of which benefit from the competition between the systems, because they're insular. Live is for the Xbox and the PSN is for sony's products, which means that if you own the console, you use that system, which is the very opposite of competition (Which is why companies are rebelling against win 8's marketplace restrictions).Rogue 09 said:
What everyone would benefit from would be an environment where the consoles worked on a standard, like yahtzee suggested, and i will tell you why:
You would get a market where the consoles had to compete on the hardware, customer care and additional service, instead of hoarding licenses and basically using games as marketing tools, contrast with the home movie industry.
Which would make you free to purchase the system on its own merits, rather than the games it comes with, and switch platform whenever you like without losing all you purchased.
It would also mean the manufactors could launch whole lines of consoles with varied prize points and would no longer need to sell at a loss. Also, it would mean less attrition when it comes to upgrading, as it would not be a binary process, but rather a fluid one, where hardware allows more, and games make themselves comfortable with the newer hardware over time.
Developers would not have to go through lenghty approval processes and expensive certifications, the market would dictate who sells, instead of arbitrary bullshit rules.
BUUUT this is basically the PC environment, which is precisely why the console war will never go this way unless this steambox shaped speck on the horizon manages to fuck every other company over so hard that microsoft or sony will jump on it.
You're surprised by this? You probably already know this Yahtzee, but Nintendo fanboys are the worst (with an exception to Bioware Fanboys the Biodrones)
Seriously you cannot criticize Nintendo in anyway shape or form no matter how constructive or mild. Talk about their beloved Nintendo in anyway that's not a glorified praise and they will jump on you like a pack of wolves on an injured deer.
Sorry, but I have to say non-exclusivity sounds like a really stupid idea, as the market would most likely end up with a monopoly with consumers suffering. Think about it, if consoles had no exclusive titles, then you're going to pick the one which has the best quality and features for the best price.
Problem is though, because each console is going to have a different build with different add-ons, controllers etc. you and your friends are most likely going to choose only one to do most of your gaming on. This way you don't have to mess around and get pissed at the different quality or features or whatever each time you play at someone's house; you'll want to have a similar setup of play so you feel comfortable and can get on with enjoying the game. Ditto for playing online; having a mixture of different consoles would make it more likely that something will go wrong in interfacing and playing games.
The problem with non-exclusivity is that one console and developer will most likely emerge as the clear winner and the other two will bomb, and trying to convince shareholders to back another console with effectively 2/3 chances of failing hugely will make those two that fail pull out of the market as they can't afford the risk. So you end up with one company as a monopolist, free to ramp up prices and release more samey own-brand games knowing that consumers don't have any other choice. And the only way a company trying to enter the market would be able to compete against a monopolist would be to offer that very same exclusivity in what the gamer can play (or else spend and risk much more on an industry-changing gimmick that you hope will tempt consumers enough to make up for even more costs. Exclusive games would be a much safer bet.)
The funny thing is, the Big 3 know this, and they know its much better to play safe with exclusivity, where all are likely to make at least some profit, even if certain consoles only do well later on, than take an all-or-nothing gamble with non-exclusivity. Having the competition actually benefits both consumers (with better choice and not being held to ransom by a monopolist) and producers (in being much more likely to turn a profit).
Problem is though, because each console is going to have a different build with different add-ons, controllers etc. you and your friends are most likely going to choose only one to do most of your gaming on. This way you don't have to mess around and get pissed at the different quality or features or whatever each time you play at someone's house; you'll want to have a similar setup of play so you feel comfortable and can get on with enjoying the game. Ditto for playing online; having a mixture of different consoles would make it more likely that something will go wrong in interfacing and playing games.
The problem with non-exclusivity is that one console and developer will most likely emerge as the clear winner and the other two will bomb, and trying to convince shareholders to back another console with effectively 2/3 chances of failing hugely will make those two that fail pull out of the market as they can't afford the risk. So you end up with one company as a monopolist, free to ramp up prices and release more samey own-brand games knowing that consumers don't have any other choice. And the only way a company trying to enter the market would be able to compete against a monopolist would be to offer that very same exclusivity in what the gamer can play (or else spend and risk much more on an industry-changing gimmick that you hope will tempt consumers enough to make up for even more costs. Exclusive games would be a much safer bet.)
The funny thing is, the Big 3 know this, and they know its much better to play safe with exclusivity, where all are likely to make at least some profit, even if certain consoles only do well later on, than take an all-or-nothing gamble with non-exclusivity. Having the competition actually benefits both consumers (with better choice and not being held to ransom by a monopolist) and producers (in being much more likely to turn a profit).
So you're excited about the Ouya, and like Android and PC gaming too? Because the whole open platform thing already exists, and I just listed the handheld, desktop, and couch based versions of what Yahtzee is talking about here. It's true that there are exclusives that don't run on one of those three (really two, since the Ouya is android based) platforms, but they're as close as you'll ever get in the real world, for reasons of hardware level incompatibility if nothing else.
Blind loyalty to an uncaring brand; people really are sheep easily baited into thinking what others tell them, or are these "which games should I buy?" threads somehow deliberate irony? Seen people stubbornly defend a bad series entry because they love the series or the developer, the latter making even less sense? It's the difference between being exploited and defending/excusing/asking to be exploited. I saw one guy actually propose paid DLC with better endings for Mass Effect 3.
The console war is no different, it's a series of manipulated children barking at other manipulated children, all incited to generate fringe advertising. Tell anyone they're being used, they'll stick of for whomever is using them to their last breath.
The console war is no different, it's a series of manipulated children barking at other manipulated children, all incited to generate fringe advertising. Tell anyone they're being used, they'll stick of for whomever is using them to their last breath.
Reads more like an Anti Nintendo Rant than about a Console War.
Personally I like the Hud being scrapped off the screen and put down on the second screen.
Nintendo did the right thing with bundling it. Putting it as a separate "add-on" dooms it to never be used. If a developer cant guarantee that it's there with every system then games are written for it to NEVER be there. Nintendo's learned this lesson over the years. Yes, games that don't need it shouldn't use it for anything other than being able to play the game while someone else watches TV. But some games can use it like ZombiU to improve the experience. I like being able to shuffle the limited inventory without a horrid control driven selector. I like being able to look at the screen without having the menu pop up and down and the occasional hitting of the menu button to mess with me.
Multi-player is really where the tablet works best, and if you're anti-social then yea you're going to have issues. I prefer Nintendos Social network over what everyone else has done on the consoles. It's far easier to type messages on the tablet then it is with a D Pad. It's easier to pull up a web browser in the middle of a game then it is on any other console. Typing in a URL isn't a pain on the Wii U ether. Some games are going to abuse the pad like Fifa 13. Just don't buy those games if you don't like their direction.
If all you want is a mindless box that you can launch a game on in then Learn HTML 5 and Java script. The Wii U's browser is competent at doing at least that, and most next gen consoles will be targeting the minimum HTML 5 spec. That way your game can work on any computer capable of browsing to your site. You're going to be limited and stuck in a restrictive box, but whatever you make should at least function if you do it right.
If you want more power and get a mindless box to run compiled code off of some USB stick then you're delusional. You can't do that for Home computers. You probably think you can, but in reality you're just targeting one particular platform and ignoring the rest. Getting a game to run on Linux, Windows, and on Mac OSX takes work. More work then just writing the code and dumping it onto a USB stick. There are some workarounds, but any workaround is going to have a high cost. Writing your code in Java, like Minecraft, or in HTML 5 will cost you performance at a minimum. Then there is the constant outdating of code. You can't run ANY 16bit applications on 64bit Windows 7 or Windows 8, and yes there are morons still using 16bit compiled code from the early 90's and expect it to work as it has for the last 20 years. This stuff should have been scrapped a decade ago, and doing so would have had a performance gain. But people like you are nieve, or stupid enough to demand that things just "Run Everything" causes things to to advance slowly.
Did you ever consider that the reason why Consoles outperform PCs when you put the same exact hardware in the PC is that all the Junk your delusional demands cause is slowing the PC down. The Console just scraps the old junk since 20 years of compatibility isn't a concern.
Your just plug-and-run delusion is the pipe dream of Sun Microsystem, and just look at what that got them.
Personally I like the Hud being scrapped off the screen and put down on the second screen.
Nintendo did the right thing with bundling it. Putting it as a separate "add-on" dooms it to never be used. If a developer cant guarantee that it's there with every system then games are written for it to NEVER be there. Nintendo's learned this lesson over the years. Yes, games that don't need it shouldn't use it for anything other than being able to play the game while someone else watches TV. But some games can use it like ZombiU to improve the experience. I like being able to shuffle the limited inventory without a horrid control driven selector. I like being able to look at the screen without having the menu pop up and down and the occasional hitting of the menu button to mess with me.
Multi-player is really where the tablet works best, and if you're anti-social then yea you're going to have issues. I prefer Nintendos Social network over what everyone else has done on the consoles. It's far easier to type messages on the tablet then it is with a D Pad. It's easier to pull up a web browser in the middle of a game then it is on any other console. Typing in a URL isn't a pain on the Wii U ether. Some games are going to abuse the pad like Fifa 13. Just don't buy those games if you don't like their direction.
If all you want is a mindless box that you can launch a game on in then Learn HTML 5 and Java script. The Wii U's browser is competent at doing at least that, and most next gen consoles will be targeting the minimum HTML 5 spec. That way your game can work on any computer capable of browsing to your site. You're going to be limited and stuck in a restrictive box, but whatever you make should at least function if you do it right.
If you want more power and get a mindless box to run compiled code off of some USB stick then you're delusional. You can't do that for Home computers. You probably think you can, but in reality you're just targeting one particular platform and ignoring the rest. Getting a game to run on Linux, Windows, and on Mac OSX takes work. More work then just writing the code and dumping it onto a USB stick. There are some workarounds, but any workaround is going to have a high cost. Writing your code in Java, like Minecraft, or in HTML 5 will cost you performance at a minimum. Then there is the constant outdating of code. You can't run ANY 16bit applications on 64bit Windows 7 or Windows 8, and yes there are morons still using 16bit compiled code from the early 90's and expect it to work as it has for the last 20 years. This stuff should have been scrapped a decade ago, and doing so would have had a performance gain. But people like you are nieve, or stupid enough to demand that things just "Run Everything" causes things to to advance slowly.
Did you ever consider that the reason why Consoles outperform PCs when you put the same exact hardware in the PC is that all the Junk your delusional demands cause is slowing the PC down. The Console just scraps the old junk since 20 years of compatibility isn't a concern.
Your just plug-and-run delusion is the pipe dream of Sun Microsystem, and just look at what that got them.
There is still room for one more big innovation when it comes to console controls - a mouse that you can plug into consoles.
There is absolutely no reason why they can't do this with a firmware update, the connectors these days are all USB (especially with XBox, a Microsoft product)...but it seems that one of the rules of console wars is "don't do what PC's do, because PC gamers are elitist fucks who don't know anything about game controls".
A console is nothing more than a standardized, trimmed-down PC, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be able to accept all control schemes. Nobody can tell me with a straight face that they invented ROCK BAND which involves plugging in 5 massively different controllers, and they can't get a MOUSE working for those who enjoy first person shooters? You know, just as an option for the people who like that cup of tea?
Nintendo can go to fucking town with their arbitrary controllers for all I care, Mario/Zelda/Metroid fans will ensure Nintendo stay in business even if their next console was nothing more than a toaster + pocket calculator held together with shoelaces.
But I care deeply for Microsoft/Sony, can we trust them with making some good decisions with consoles now that Kinect/Move bullshit has finally blown over?
There is absolutely no reason why they can't do this with a firmware update, the connectors these days are all USB (especially with XBox, a Microsoft product)...but it seems that one of the rules of console wars is "don't do what PC's do, because PC gamers are elitist fucks who don't know anything about game controls".
A console is nothing more than a standardized, trimmed-down PC, so there is no reason why it shouldn't be able to accept all control schemes. Nobody can tell me with a straight face that they invented ROCK BAND which involves plugging in 5 massively different controllers, and they can't get a MOUSE working for those who enjoy first person shooters? You know, just as an option for the people who like that cup of tea?
Nintendo can go to fucking town with their arbitrary controllers for all I care, Mario/Zelda/Metroid fans will ensure Nintendo stay in business even if their next console was nothing more than a toaster + pocket calculator held together with shoelaces.
But I care deeply for Microsoft/Sony, can we trust them with making some good decisions with consoles now that Kinect/Move bullshit has finally blown over?
You clearly don't have any idea what Yatzee is saying. He isn't saying add another party he's saying create an industry standardized format instead of every game needing authorization to run on certain consoles. In essence any game can run on any console, just like with DVD players or CD players.Foolproof said:
The only problem I see with this is it discourages people from expanding outside whatever the industry standard becomes.
I'll use Microsoft as an example:
If you're Microsoft and you produce the XBox, and only games made for the XBox which you create and/or authorize can run on it, then when you decide to put out the new shiny XBox 360 you can simply stop producing/authorizing XBox games so that people who own XBox's have no choice but to upgrade if they want to play the new titles. Since you control the market you can force people to switch when you upgrade hardware.
However, if there's a standardized format that you don't control, then companies will be able to keep producing games that run on the XBox's format without your consent. Sure, you can put out the superior XBox 360 and hope people adopt it, but people will have little incentive to since XBox games will still be coming out that run on the system they already own. Then in turn rather than make games solely for a new console only a few people have bought, developers would prefer to continue making XBox games which already have a large market base. And with the XBox still getting full support gamers in turn have less reason to buy the new console. Thus it forms a cycle that's hard to break out of.
This is pretty much why Bluray has had so much trouble taking over for DVD.
Sure, the new XBox 360 format might catch on eventually, but it'll be slow and thus Microsoft will be discouraged from making new consoles or anything that requires new hardware like the Kinect if adoption is so sluggish. Thus new hardware will be made less frequently and progress and innovation is stifled.
Bullshit, we "Mario/Zelda/Metroid fans" hold Nintendo to higher standards than anyone else. Nobody reacts more critically to a company when they screw up than their fanbase.Aaron Sylvester said:
When people were complaining about the Mass Effect 3 Endings who do you think made the biggest fuss about it?
Who do you think is the most angry by all the things George Lucas has done to Star Wars? Trekkies?
When Metroid Other M came out and completely fucked up Samus' character who do you think was the most pissed off? Me! I was, nobody was as annoyed as me. Okay, fine, maybe a few people were but not many. Because I'm a Metroid fan. And if the next Metroid game looks like it'll be just as bad, I won't just avoid buying it, I'll tell other people not to buy it as well. I might even protest it.
Say whatever the fuck you want about Nintendo, they've made mistakes, but don't insult their fanbase by making us out to be some sort of brainwashed horde incapable of rational thought or honest judgement. We know what we like and we know why we like it. I can tell you what makes Majora's Mask better than Ocarina of Time and why Skyward Sword is the worst 3D Zeldas, and it's not because Nintendo told me so.
Sorry, just needed to get that off my chest.
(btw, I can count how many combined Metroid AND Zelda games came out for the Wii on one hand. Compare that to a series like Call of Duty, or Halo, or even fucking Sonic. I WISH Nintendo would throw us a bone more often. It's really just Mario that you should be complaining about.)