Universal gaming devices

[WeepingAngels]

Honestly, I see the OP's idea as the inevitable conclusion. Exclusives have no practical reason to exist anymore due to cross-platform porting being easier than ever before. This is especially true if they are using the same type of disk. Publishers aren't stupid enough to exclude an entire portion of their audience due to brand loyalty anymore. With the next gen of consoles, you're no longer paying for the exclusives, but the services. You are now asking yourself, "What is the PS4 doing that the XB1 isn't?" and vice versa. When the public deemed Sony's service better than Microsoft, they changed policy. We are closer than ever to eliminating exclusives entirely, and it's a future I'm looking forward to.

EDIT: I'm seeing the word Monopoly thrown around a lot. This is an uneducated assumption about universal formats. Many companies make USBs, CDs, DVDs, and VHSs. Even if they didn't there are numerous companies that produce machines to run these formats.

So you think that because Microsoft changed the One to please consumers, that they will now be releasing Halo on the PS4 and/or Wii U?

No, I don't think that they will. Halo hasn't even been released on PC since Halo 2, so that franchise will never port outside of the Xbox.

But I think that they should and that the only thing holding them back is outdated habits. With the upcoming generation of consoles, refusing to go cross-platform would be a terrible business decision and will result in a great loss of sales unless you deliver something that other consoles cannot do. PC and Wii have unique inputs and hardware that other consoles can't mimic, making ports difficult. But the XB1 and PS4 are identical in both hardware and input setup and have no practical reason not to release cross platform games. Like I said, it's a bad habit that will probably get broken within the upcoming years.

What is your evidence that having first party exclusives is a terrible business decision?

Are you one of those people who wants and expect Nintendo to port Super Mario 3D World to the PS4, One and PC?

When you limit your audience, you limit sales. Expanding a game to other platforms in order for more people to experience it will get you more money. Limiting media distribution because of platform competition makes no sense. I'm sorry, I thought that this point was obvious.

Also I don't know what you mean by one of "those people". Is this a movement or something? I don't "expect" anything from anyone and I'm not talking about what I "want". I'm just telling you that a business model based on exclusive titles is outdated due to the homogenized hardware. This is specific to PS4 and XB1 which have similar hardware specs and inputs. On the other hand, the Wii U has a different input device that allows it to perform tasks that the other consoles cannot do. When designing specifically for the Wii U, the exclusive title is more of a design choice than exclusionary marketing, but it can, and usually, does that too. Upon examining where the market is going, Nintendo is alone in their goal to make a radicly different system. Just about every other company has copied the PS1 controller* with minor tweaks (XB, OnLive, OUYA, SteamBox, Wii U, many third party controllers). Homogenization is inevitable in environments void of innovation.

Also, you never introduced to me your side of the argument. What are your thoughts on the topic?

*two ergonomic hand rests, two thumbsticks, a d-pad, four face buttons, and 2-4 shoulder buttons. clickable thumbsticks optional

Putting Mario on only Nintendo consoles and handhelds sells Nintendo consoles and handhelds. Why would Nintendo want to help Sony sell more consoles at the expense of their own? I thought that was obvious.

Yes, there seems to be a movement of people hating exclusives lately, first party and otherwise.

My side of the argument is that I prefer having different consoles and I also prefer having first party exclusives. I don't want all consoles to be the same and then those consoles be the same as a mid range PC. I prefer that consoles be different from each other and different from PC's. I also see the point of first party exclusives, it's to sell consoles.

I disagree with your argument. Games don't sell consoles. Consoles sell consoles. Exclusive content is just a byproduct of exclusive hardware or input. The DS has hardware capabilities that the PSP doesn't and vice versa. These capabilities lead into vastly different libraries, which makes it essential to have both to experience everything that hand held gaming has to offer. Porting a game from the DS to the PSP would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Same goes for PSP games to the DS.

Contrast this to the XB360 and the PS3. The PS3's capabilities greatly surpass the XB360, which lead to impossible ports. What would happen is that developers would design for the XB360 and port to the PC and PS3 so that the most people could play their game, thus leading to the most money from their game. For those who wanted to push the boundries of how much information they could store on a Blu-Ray disk, they designed exclusives for the PS3. The only thing that XB 360 delivered that PS3 didn't was Kinect.

As I said before, I'll say it again: I don't have any emotional bias. I don't "hate" anything involving this discussion, nor do I "love" anything. I don't understand why you prefer exclusives just for being exclusive. If the game is good, then why does it matter whether other or not consoles have it?

Also, expand on your points more so that I can make more educated assumptions about your opinion. For example, I probably have a different interpretation of "like a PC" than you do. If you're talking about hardware, then the industry has been trying to replicate PCs since the PS1. If you're talking about input, there's no comparison. The mouse and keyboard has never been utilized by a console that isn't classified as a PC. So I have no idea what you're talking about with the "like a PC" argument. I could do this for all your points, but I want you to clarify first.

If you don't think that games sell consoles then I don't think we are going to find any common ground.

You honestly disagree with everything I said? Not just my opinions, estimates, and predictions... but everything? You honestly believe that input and hardware have no affect game libraries? This isn't about lack of common ground; this is about your stubbornness. I am fully aware that some gamers buy consoles because of franchise loyalty, but there is a larger picture that you refuse to acknowledge. You obviously have no interest in continuing the conversation, so I will lose interest as well. I'm sorry it had to come to this.

People don't buy consoles to collect dust and the console they choose is based on what games they want to play. Of course input methods have an impact on game libraries but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Consoles can use k/m and PC's can use controllers. Again, what does that have to do with consoles being different from one another and different from PC's?

Consoles are becoming more like PC's with updates, installs and hardware upgrades. They still retain their uniqueness and that is how it should stay. I don't want a Nintendo console running Windows that has a Steam app. That would just be a Nintendo branded PC.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Honestly, I see the OP's idea as the inevitable conclusion. Exclusives have no practical reason to exist anymore due to cross-platform porting being easier than ever before. This is especially true if they are using the same type of disk. Publishers aren't stupid enough to exclude an entire portion of their audience due to brand loyalty anymore. With the next gen of consoles, you're no longer paying for the exclusives, but the services. You are now asking yourself, "What is the PS4 doing that the XB1 isn't?" and vice versa. When the public deemed Sony's service better than Microsoft, they changed policy. We are closer than ever to eliminating exclusives entirely, and it's a future I'm looking forward to.

EDIT: I'm seeing the word Monopoly thrown around a lot. This is an uneducated assumption about universal formats. Many companies make USBs, CDs, DVDs, and VHSs. Even if they didn't there are numerous companies that produce machines to run these formats.

So you think that because Microsoft changed the One to please consumers, that they will now be releasing Halo on the PS4 and/or Wii U?

No, I don't think that they will. Halo hasn't even been released on PC since Halo 2, so that franchise will never port outside of the Xbox.

But I think that they should and that the only thing holding them back is outdated habits. With the upcoming generation of consoles, refusing to go cross-platform would be a terrible business decision and will result in a great loss of sales unless you deliver something that other consoles cannot do. PC and Wii have unique inputs and hardware that other consoles can't mimic, making ports difficult. But the XB1 and PS4 are identical in both hardware and input setup and have no practical reason not to release cross platform games. Like I said, it's a bad habit that will probably get broken within the upcoming years.

What is your evidence that having first party exclusives is a terrible business decision?

Are you one of those people who wants and expect Nintendo to port Super Mario 3D World to the PS4, One and PC?

When you limit your audience, you limit sales. Expanding a game to other platforms in order for more people to experience it will get you more money. Limiting media distribution because of platform competition makes no sense. I'm sorry, I thought that this point was obvious.

Also I don't know what you mean by one of "those people". Is this a movement or something? I don't "expect" anything from anyone and I'm not talking about what I "want". I'm just telling you that a business model based on exclusive titles is outdated due to the homogenized hardware. This is specific to PS4 and XB1 which have similar hardware specs and inputs. On the other hand, the Wii U has a different input device that allows it to perform tasks that the other consoles cannot do. When designing specifically for the Wii U, the exclusive title is more of a design choice than exclusionary marketing, but it can, and usually, does that too. Upon examining where the market is going, Nintendo is alone in their goal to make a radicly different system. Just about every other company has copied the PS1 controller* with minor tweaks (XB, OnLive, OUYA, SteamBox, Wii U, many third party controllers). Homogenization is inevitable in environments void of innovation.

Also, you never introduced to me your side of the argument. What are your thoughts on the topic?

*two ergonomic hand rests, two thumbsticks, a d-pad, four face buttons, and 2-4 shoulder buttons. clickable thumbsticks optional

Putting Mario on only Nintendo consoles and handhelds sells Nintendo consoles and handhelds. Why would Nintendo want to help Sony sell more consoles at the expense of their own? I thought that was obvious.

Yes, there seems to be a movement of people hating exclusives lately, first party and otherwise.

My side of the argument is that I prefer having different consoles and I also prefer having first party exclusives. I don't want all consoles to be the same and then those consoles be the same as a mid range PC. I prefer that consoles be different from each other and different from PC's. I also see the point of first party exclusives, it's to sell consoles.

I disagree with your argument. Games don't sell consoles. Consoles sell consoles. Exclusive content is just a byproduct of exclusive hardware or input. The DS has hardware capabilities that the PSP doesn't and vice versa. These capabilities lead into vastly different libraries, which makes it essential to have both to experience everything that hand held gaming has to offer. Porting a game from the DS to the PSP would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Same goes for PSP games to the DS.

Contrast this to the XB360 and the PS3. The PS3's capabilities greatly surpass the XB360, which lead to impossible ports. What would happen is that developers would design for the XB360 and port to the PC and PS3 so that the most people could play their game, thus leading to the most money from their game. For those who wanted to push the boundries of how much information they could store on a Blu-Ray disk, they designed exclusives for the PS3. The only thing that XB 360 delivered that PS3 didn't was Kinect.

As I said before, I'll say it again: I don't have any emotional bias. I don't "hate" anything involving this discussion, nor do I "love" anything. I don't understand why you prefer exclusives just for being exclusive. If the game is good, then why does it matter whether other or not consoles have it?

Also, expand on your points more so that I can make more educated assumptions about your opinion. For example, I probably have a different interpretation of "like a PC" than you do. If you're talking about hardware, then the industry has been trying to replicate PCs since the PS1. If you're talking about input, there's no comparison. The mouse and keyboard has never been utilized by a console that isn't classified as a PC. So I have no idea what you're talking about with the "like a PC" argument. I could do this for all your points, but I want you to clarify first.

If you don't think that games sell consoles then I don't think we are going to find any common ground.

You honestly disagree with everything I said? Not just my opinions, estimates, and predictions... but everything? You honestly believe that input and hardware have no affect game libraries? This isn't about lack of common ground; this is about your stubbornness. I am fully aware that some gamers buy consoles because of franchise loyalty, but there is a larger picture that you refuse to acknowledge. You obviously have no interest in continuing the conversation, so I will lose interest as well. I'm sorry it had to come to this.

People don't buy consoles to collect dust and the console they choose is based on what games they want to play. Of course input methods have an impact on game libraries but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Consoles can use k/m and PC's can use controllers. Again, what does that have to do with consoles being different from one another and different from PC's?

Consoles are becoming more like PC's with updates, installs and hardware upgrades. They still retain their uniqueness and that is how it should stay. I don't want a Nintendo console running Windows that has a Steam app. That would just be a Nintendo branded PC.

Many people also have a variety of consoles. Many of my friends have XB360, PS3, and Wii because they each function differently. You obviously love Nintendo, so you have brand loyalty. I, on the other hand, don't. Brand loyalty clouds judgement of a product.

Also, your fear of "consoles becoming like PCs" are simply ramifications of a wider use of the internet. It makes no sense to be upset about things like updates. I'd actually call that a strength. Software-wise, gaming consoles are becoming more versatile. Hardware-wise, gaming consoles have been low-mid grade personal computers (PCs) since the PS1.

I don't know what you mean by the "uniqueness" that consoles have; you haven't really explained it yet. What do consoles do that PCs don't?

 

[WeepingAngels]

Honestly, I see the OP's idea as the inevitable conclusion. Exclusives have no practical reason to exist anymore due to cross-platform porting being easier than ever before. This is especially true if they are using the same type of disk. Publishers aren't stupid enough to exclude an entire portion of their audience due to brand loyalty anymore. With the next gen of consoles, you're no longer paying for the exclusives, but the services. You are now asking yourself, "What is the PS4 doing that the XB1 isn't?" and vice versa. When the public deemed Sony's service better than Microsoft, they changed policy. We are closer than ever to eliminating exclusives entirely, and it's a future I'm looking forward to.

EDIT: I'm seeing the word Monopoly thrown around a lot. This is an uneducated assumption about universal formats. Many companies make USBs, CDs, DVDs, and VHSs. Even if they didn't there are numerous companies that produce machines to run these formats.

So you think that because Microsoft changed the One to please consumers, that they will now be releasing Halo on the PS4 and/or Wii U?

No, I don't think that they will. Halo hasn't even been released on PC since Halo 2, so that franchise will never port outside of the Xbox.

But I think that they should and that the only thing holding them back is outdated habits. With the upcoming generation of consoles, refusing to go cross-platform would be a terrible business decision and will result in a great loss of sales unless you deliver something that other consoles cannot do. PC and Wii have unique inputs and hardware that other consoles can't mimic, making ports difficult. But the XB1 and PS4 are identical in both hardware and input setup and have no practical reason not to release cross platform games. Like I said, it's a bad habit that will probably get broken within the upcoming years.

What is your evidence that having first party exclusives is a terrible business decision?

Are you one of those people who wants and expect Nintendo to port Super Mario 3D World to the PS4, One and PC?

When you limit your audience, you limit sales. Expanding a game to other platforms in order for more people to experience it will get you more money. Limiting media distribution because of platform competition makes no sense. I'm sorry, I thought that this point was obvious.

Also I don't know what you mean by one of "those people". Is this a movement or something? I don't "expect" anything from anyone and I'm not talking about what I "want". I'm just telling you that a business model based on exclusive titles is outdated due to the homogenized hardware. This is specific to PS4 and XB1 which have similar hardware specs and inputs. On the other hand, the Wii U has a different input device that allows it to perform tasks that the other consoles cannot do. When designing specifically for the Wii U, the exclusive title is more of a design choice than exclusionary marketing, but it can, and usually, does that too. Upon examining where the market is going, Nintendo is alone in their goal to make a radicly different system. Just about every other company has copied the PS1 controller* with minor tweaks (XB, OnLive, OUYA, SteamBox, Wii U, many third party controllers). Homogenization is inevitable in environments void of innovation.

Also, you never introduced to me your side of the argument. What are your thoughts on the topic?

*two ergonomic hand rests, two thumbsticks, a d-pad, four face buttons, and 2-4 shoulder buttons. clickable thumbsticks optional

Putting Mario on only Nintendo consoles and handhelds sells Nintendo consoles and handhelds. Why would Nintendo want to help Sony sell more consoles at the expense of their own? I thought that was obvious.

Yes, there seems to be a movement of people hating exclusives lately, first party and otherwise.

My side of the argument is that I prefer having different consoles and I also prefer having first party exclusives. I don't want all consoles to be the same and then those consoles be the same as a mid range PC. I prefer that consoles be different from each other and different from PC's. I also see the point of first party exclusives, it's to sell consoles.

I disagree with your argument. Games don't sell consoles. Consoles sell consoles. Exclusive content is just a byproduct of exclusive hardware or input. The DS has hardware capabilities that the PSP doesn't and vice versa. These capabilities lead into vastly different libraries, which makes it essential to have both to experience everything that hand held gaming has to offer. Porting a game from the DS to the PSP would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Same goes for PSP games to the DS.

Contrast this to the XB360 and the PS3. The PS3's capabilities greatly surpass the XB360, which lead to impossible ports. What would happen is that developers would design for the XB360 and port to the PC and PS3 so that the most people could play their game, thus leading to the most money from their game. For those who wanted to push the boundries of how much information they could store on a Blu-Ray disk, they designed exclusives for the PS3. The only thing that XB 360 delivered that PS3 didn't was Kinect.

As I said before, I'll say it again: I don't have any emotional bias. I don't "hate" anything involving this discussion, nor do I "love" anything. I don't understand why you prefer exclusives just for being exclusive. If the game is good, then why does it matter whether other or not consoles have it?

Also, expand on your points more so that I can make more educated assumptions about your opinion. For example, I probably have a different interpretation of "like a PC" than you do. If you're talking about hardware, then the industry has been trying to replicate PCs since the PS1. If you're talking about input, there's no comparison. The mouse and keyboard has never been utilized by a console that isn't classified as a PC. So I have no idea what you're talking about with the "like a PC" argument. I could do this for all your points, but I want you to clarify first.

If you don't think that games sell consoles then I don't think we are going to find any common ground.

You honestly disagree with everything I said? Not just my opinions, estimates, and predictions... but everything? You honestly believe that input and hardware have no affect game libraries? This isn't about lack of common ground; this is about your stubbornness. I am fully aware that some gamers buy consoles because of franchise loyalty, but there is a larger picture that you refuse to acknowledge. You obviously have no interest in continuing the conversation, so I will lose interest as well. I'm sorry it had to come to this.

People don't buy consoles to collect dust and the console they choose is based on what games they want to play. Of course input methods have an impact on game libraries but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Consoles can use k/m and PC's can use controllers. Again, what does that have to do with consoles being different from one another and different from PC's?

Consoles are becoming more like PC's with updates, installs and hardware upgrades. They still retain their uniqueness and that is how it should stay. I don't want a Nintendo console running Windows that has a Steam app. That would just be a Nintendo branded PC.

Many people also have a variety of consoles. Many of my friends have XB360, PS3, and Wii because they each function differently. You obviously love Nintendo, so you have brand loyalty. I, on the other hand, don't. Brand loyalty clouds judgement of a product.

Also, your fear of "consoles becoming like PCs" are simply ramifications of a wider use of the internet. It makes no sense to be upset about things like updates. I'd actually call that a strength. Software-wise, gaming consoles are becoming more versatile. Hardware-wise, gaming consoles have been low-mid grade personal computers (PCs) since the PS1.

I don't know what you mean by the "uniqueness" that consoles have; you haven't really explained it yet. What do consoles do that PCs don't?

I am glad you said that I must love Nintendo. I am often so critical of Nintendo that I expect people to say the opposite. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I have no intention of buying a Wii U at this point but I love my 3DS...so go figure.

Put in more than a few new PS3 games and you will understand why updates are tiring. No one likes waiting an hour before they can play their brand new game because of a Day 1 patch and install.

You don't see the uniqueness of the Wii? The Wii U? The One with Kinect 2.0 being a standard feature? Also, first party exclusives make all three consoles unique. You can hook your Wii Mote up to your PC but it would serve no purpose outside of emulating Wii games. The PS4 is apparently employing a touchpad and motion controls too with the use of the camera. You don't see this uniqueness?

 

[Bocaj2000]

Honestly, I see the OP's idea as the inevitable conclusion. Exclusives have no practical reason to exist anymore due to cross-platform porting being easier than ever before. This is especially true if they are using the same type of disk. Publishers aren't stupid enough to exclude an entire portion of their audience due to brand loyalty anymore. With the next gen of consoles, you're no longer paying for the exclusives, but the services. You are now asking yourself, "What is the PS4 doing that the XB1 isn't?" and vice versa. When the public deemed Sony's service better than Microsoft, they changed policy. We are closer than ever to eliminating exclusives entirely, and it's a future I'm looking forward to.

EDIT: I'm seeing the word Monopoly thrown around a lot. This is an uneducated assumption about universal formats. Many companies make USBs, CDs, DVDs, and VHSs. Even if they didn't there are numerous companies that produce machines to run these formats.

So you think that because Microsoft changed the One to please consumers, that they will now be releasing Halo on the PS4 and/or Wii U?

No, I don't think that they will. Halo hasn't even been released on PC since Halo 2, so that franchise will never port outside of the Xbox.

But I think that they should and that the only thing holding them back is outdated habits. With the upcoming generation of consoles, refusing to go cross-platform would be a terrible business decision and will result in a great loss of sales unless you deliver something that other consoles cannot do. PC and Wii have unique inputs and hardware that other consoles can't mimic, making ports difficult. But the XB1 and PS4 are identical in both hardware and input setup and have no practical reason not to release cross platform games. Like I said, it's a bad habit that will probably get broken within the upcoming years.

What is your evidence that having first party exclusives is a terrible business decision?

Are you one of those people who wants and expect Nintendo to port Super Mario 3D World to the PS4, One and PC?

When you limit your audience, you limit sales. Expanding a game to other platforms in order for more people to experience it will get you more money. Limiting media distribution because of platform competition makes no sense. I'm sorry, I thought that this point was obvious.

Also I don't know what you mean by one of "those people". Is this a movement or something? I don't "expect" anything from anyone and I'm not talking about what I "want". I'm just telling you that a business model based on exclusive titles is outdated due to the homogenized hardware. This is specific to PS4 and XB1 which have similar hardware specs and inputs. On the other hand, the Wii U has a different input device that allows it to perform tasks that the other consoles cannot do. When designing specifically for the Wii U, the exclusive title is more of a design choice than exclusionary marketing, but it can, and usually, does that too. Upon examining where the market is going, Nintendo is alone in their goal to make a radicly different system. Just about every other company has copied the PS1 controller* with minor tweaks (XB, OnLive, OUYA, SteamBox, Wii U, many third party controllers). Homogenization is inevitable in environments void of innovation.

Also, you never introduced to me your side of the argument. What are your thoughts on the topic?

*two ergonomic hand rests, two thumbsticks, a d-pad, four face buttons, and 2-4 shoulder buttons. clickable thumbsticks optional

Putting Mario on only Nintendo consoles and handhelds sells Nintendo consoles and handhelds. Why would Nintendo want to help Sony sell more consoles at the expense of their own? I thought that was obvious.

Yes, there seems to be a movement of people hating exclusives lately, first party and otherwise.

My side of the argument is that I prefer having different consoles and I also prefer having first party exclusives. I don't want all consoles to be the same and then those consoles be the same as a mid range PC. I prefer that consoles be different from each other and different from PC's. I also see the point of first party exclusives, it's to sell consoles.

I disagree with your argument. Games don't sell consoles. Consoles sell consoles. Exclusive content is just a byproduct of exclusive hardware or input. The DS has hardware capabilities that the PSP doesn't and vice versa. These capabilities lead into vastly different libraries, which makes it essential to have both to experience everything that hand held gaming has to offer. Porting a game from the DS to the PSP would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Same goes for PSP games to the DS.

Contrast this to the XB360 and the PS3. The PS3's capabilities greatly surpass the XB360, which lead to impossible ports. What would happen is that developers would design for the XB360 and port to the PC and PS3 so that the most people could play their game, thus leading to the most money from their game. For those who wanted to push the boundries of how much information they could store on a Blu-Ray disk, they designed exclusives for the PS3. The only thing that XB 360 delivered that PS3 didn't was Kinect.

As I said before, I'll say it again: I don't have any emotional bias. I don't "hate" anything involving this discussion, nor do I "love" anything. I don't understand why you prefer exclusives just for being exclusive. If the game is good, then why does it matter whether other or not consoles have it?

Also, expand on your points more so that I can make more educated assumptions about your opinion. For example, I probably have a different interpretation of "like a PC" than you do. If you're talking about hardware, then the industry has been trying to replicate PCs since the PS1. If you're talking about input, there's no comparison. The mouse and keyboard has never been utilized by a console that isn't classified as a PC. So I have no idea what you're talking about with the "like a PC" argument. I could do this for all your points, but I want you to clarify first.

If you don't think that games sell consoles then I don't think we are going to find any common ground.

You honestly disagree with everything I said? Not just my opinions, estimates, and predictions... but everything? You honestly believe that input and hardware have no affect game libraries? This isn't about lack of common ground; this is about your stubbornness. I am fully aware that some gamers buy consoles because of franchise loyalty, but there is a larger picture that you refuse to acknowledge. You obviously have no interest in continuing the conversation, so I will lose interest as well. I'm sorry it had to come to this.

People don't buy consoles to collect dust and the console they choose is based on what games they want to play. Of course input methods have an impact on game libraries but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Consoles can use k/m and PC's can use controllers. Again, what does that have to do with consoles being different from one another and different from PC's?

Consoles are becoming more like PC's with updates, installs and hardware upgrades. They still retain their uniqueness and that is how it should stay. I don't want a Nintendo console running Windows that has a Steam app. That would just be a Nintendo branded PC.

Many people also have a variety of consoles. Many of my friends have XB360, PS3, and Wii because they each function differently. You obviously love Nintendo, so you have brand loyalty. I, on the other hand, don't. Brand loyalty clouds judgement of a product.

Also, your fear of "consoles becoming like PCs" are simply ramifications of a wider use of the internet. It makes no sense to be upset about things like updates. I'd actually call that a strength. Software-wise, gaming consoles are becoming more versatile. Hardware-wise, gaming consoles have been low-mid grade personal computers (PCs) since the PS1.

I don't know what you mean by the "uniqueness" that consoles have; you haven't really explained it yet. What do consoles do that PCs don't?

I am glad you said that I must love Nintendo. I am often so critical of Nintendo that I expect people to say the opposite. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I have no intention of buying a Wii U at this point but I love my 3DS...so go figure.

Put in more than a few new PS3 games and you will understand why updates are tiring. No one likes waiting an hour before they can play their brand new game because of a Day 1 patch and install.

You don't see the uniqueness of the Wii? The Wii U? The One with Kinect 2.0 being a standard feature? Also, first party exclusives make all three consoles unique. You can hook your Wii Mote up to your PC but it would serve no purpose outside of emulating Wii games. The PS4 is apparently employing a touchpad and motion controls too with the use of the camera. You don't see this uniqueness?

The way you were talking to me gave the impression that you were a Nintendo fanboy. I applaud you for misleading me.

As for the PS3 updates. It's annoying, but I don't see it as a problem. Even if it was, it's more of the fault of the game creators, not the console itself.

As for the uniqueness of the Wii, WiiU, Kinect, touchpad, and camera... I have used each of these to create interactive art pieces that ran off of my PC. It was actually a joke in the interactive art community that the original Kinect was only useful when hooked up to the PC. Also, PC has Leap Motion:

As for the Wii motion controls... the interactive art community has been using Wiimotes for years:

As for what the PS4 is doing, every windows 8 computer has touchscreen and can have a webcam attached. Anything else?

 

[WeepingAngels]

Honestly, I see the OP's idea as the inevitable conclusion. Exclusives have no practical reason to exist anymore due to cross-platform porting being easier than ever before. This is especially true if they are using the same type of disk. Publishers aren't stupid enough to exclude an entire portion of their audience due to brand loyalty anymore. With the next gen of consoles, you're no longer paying for the exclusives, but the services. You are now asking yourself, "What is the PS4 doing that the XB1 isn't?" and vice versa. When the public deemed Sony's service better than Microsoft, they changed policy. We are closer than ever to eliminating exclusives entirely, and it's a future I'm looking forward to.

EDIT: I'm seeing the word Monopoly thrown around a lot. This is an uneducated assumption about universal formats. Many companies make USBs, CDs, DVDs, and VHSs. Even if they didn't there are numerous companies that produce machines to run these formats.

So you think that because Microsoft changed the One to please consumers, that they will now be releasing Halo on the PS4 and/or Wii U?

No, I don't think that they will. Halo hasn't even been released on PC since Halo 2, so that franchise will never port outside of the Xbox.

But I think that they should and that the only thing holding them back is outdated habits. With the upcoming generation of consoles, refusing to go cross-platform would be a terrible business decision and will result in a great loss of sales unless you deliver something that other consoles cannot do. PC and Wii have unique inputs and hardware that other consoles can't mimic, making ports difficult. But the XB1 and PS4 are identical in both hardware and input setup and have no practical reason not to release cross platform games. Like I said, it's a bad habit that will probably get broken within the upcoming years.

What is your evidence that having first party exclusives is a terrible business decision?

Are you one of those people who wants and expect Nintendo to port Super Mario 3D World to the PS4, One and PC?

When you limit your audience, you limit sales. Expanding a game to other platforms in order for more people to experience it will get you more money. Limiting media distribution because of platform competition makes no sense. I'm sorry, I thought that this point was obvious.

Also I don't know what you mean by one of "those people". Is this a movement or something? I don't "expect" anything from anyone and I'm not talking about what I "want". I'm just telling you that a business model based on exclusive titles is outdated due to the homogenized hardware. This is specific to PS4 and XB1 which have similar hardware specs and inputs. On the other hand, the Wii U has a different input device that allows it to perform tasks that the other consoles cannot do. When designing specifically for the Wii U, the exclusive title is more of a design choice than exclusionary marketing, but it can, and usually, does that too. Upon examining where the market is going, Nintendo is alone in their goal to make a radicly different system. Just about every other company has copied the PS1 controller* with minor tweaks (XB, OnLive, OUYA, SteamBox, Wii U, many third party controllers). Homogenization is inevitable in environments void of innovation.

Also, you never introduced to me your side of the argument. What are your thoughts on the topic?

*two ergonomic hand rests, two thumbsticks, a d-pad, four face buttons, and 2-4 shoulder buttons. clickable thumbsticks optional

Putting Mario on only Nintendo consoles and handhelds sells Nintendo consoles and handhelds. Why would Nintendo want to help Sony sell more consoles at the expense of their own? I thought that was obvious.

Yes, there seems to be a movement of people hating exclusives lately, first party and otherwise.

My side of the argument is that I prefer having different consoles and I also prefer having first party exclusives. I don't want all consoles to be the same and then those consoles be the same as a mid range PC. I prefer that consoles be different from each other and different from PC's. I also see the point of first party exclusives, it's to sell consoles.

I disagree with your argument. Games don't sell consoles. Consoles sell consoles. Exclusive content is just a byproduct of exclusive hardware or input. The DS has hardware capabilities that the PSP doesn't and vice versa. These capabilities lead into vastly different libraries, which makes it essential to have both to experience everything that hand held gaming has to offer. Porting a game from the DS to the PSP would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Same goes for PSP games to the DS.

Contrast this to the XB360 and the PS3. The PS3's capabilities greatly surpass the XB360, which lead to impossible ports. What would happen is that developers would design for the XB360 and port to the PC and PS3 so that the most people could play their game, thus leading to the most money from their game. For those who wanted to push the boundries of how much information they could store on a Blu-Ray disk, they designed exclusives for the PS3. The only thing that XB 360 delivered that PS3 didn't was Kinect.

As I said before, I'll say it again: I don't have any emotional bias. I don't "hate" anything involving this discussion, nor do I "love" anything. I don't understand why you prefer exclusives just for being exclusive. If the game is good, then why does it matter whether other or not consoles have it?

Also, expand on your points more so that I can make more educated assumptions about your opinion. For example, I probably have a different interpretation of "like a PC" than you do. If you're talking about hardware, then the industry has been trying to replicate PCs since the PS1. If you're talking about input, there's no comparison. The mouse and keyboard has never been utilized by a console that isn't classified as a PC. So I have no idea what you're talking about with the "like a PC" argument. I could do this for all your points, but I want you to clarify first.

If you don't think that games sell consoles then I don't think we are going to find any common ground.

You honestly disagree with everything I said? Not just my opinions, estimates, and predictions... but everything? You honestly believe that input and hardware have no affect game libraries? This isn't about lack of common ground; this is about your stubbornness. I am fully aware that some gamers buy consoles because of franchise loyalty, but there is a larger picture that you refuse to acknowledge. You obviously have no interest in continuing the conversation, so I will lose interest as well. I'm sorry it had to come to this.

People don't buy consoles to collect dust and the console they choose is based on what games they want to play. Of course input methods have an impact on game libraries but I really don't see what that has to do with anything. Consoles can use k/m and PC's can use controllers. Again, what does that have to do with consoles being different from one another and different from PC's?

Consoles are becoming more like PC's with updates, installs and hardware upgrades. They still retain their uniqueness and that is how it should stay. I don't want a Nintendo console running Windows that has a Steam app. That would just be a Nintendo branded PC.

Many people also have a variety of consoles. Many of my friends have XB360, PS3, and Wii because they each function differently. You obviously love Nintendo, so you have brand loyalty. I, on the other hand, don't. Brand loyalty clouds judgement of a product.

Also, your fear of "consoles becoming like PCs" are simply ramifications of a wider use of the internet. It makes no sense to be upset about things like updates. I'd actually call that a strength. Software-wise, gaming consoles are becoming more versatile. Hardware-wise, gaming consoles have been low-mid grade personal computers (PCs) since the PS1.

I don't know what you mean by the "uniqueness" that consoles have; you haven't really explained it yet. What do consoles do that PCs don't?

I am glad you said that I must love Nintendo. I am often so critical of Nintendo that I expect people to say the opposite. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I have no intention of buying a Wii U at this point but I love my 3DS...so go figure.

Put in more than a few new PS3 games and you will understand why updates are tiring. No one likes waiting an hour before they can play their brand new game because of a Day 1 patch and install.

You don't see the uniqueness of the Wii? The Wii U? The One with Kinect 2.0 being a standard feature? Also, first party exclusives make all three consoles unique. You can hook your Wii Mote up to your PC but it would serve no purpose outside of emulating Wii games. The PS4 is apparently employing a touchpad and motion controls too with the use of the camera. You don't see this uniqueness?

The way you were talking to me gave the impression that you were a Nintendo fanboy. I applaud you for misleading me.

As for the PS3 updates. It's annoying, but I don't see it as a problem. Even if it was, it's more of the fault of the game creators, not the console itself.

As for the uniqueness of the Wii, WiiU, Kinect, touchpad, and camera... I have used each of these to create interactive art pieces that ran off of my PC. It was actually a joke in the interactive art community that the original Kinect was only useful when hooked up to the PC. Also, PC has Leap Motion:

As for the Wii motion controls... the interactive art community has been using Wiimotes for years:

As for what the PS4 is doing, every windows 8 computer has touchscreen and can have a webcam attached. Anything else?

Nope nothing else, it's like talking to the wall.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Anything else?

Nope nothing else, it's like talking to the wall.

I'm simply supplying counterpoints to your counterpoints.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Anything else?

Nope nothing else, it's like talking to the wall.

I'm simply supplying counterpoints to your counterpoints.

Right well whatever, I don't want every console to be the same. It's my opinion and it's as simple as that.

 

[euro2019]

The games industry has been around for a long time. Why do you think there is nothing like a universal standard for gaming media? An analogy would be blu ray/dvds for the movie industry. You buy a blu ray/dvd from any studio and it will work on any number of blu ray players manufactured by different companies (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony) etc.

Shouldn't the games industry be mature enough for such a model to emerge? Why is there so much market fragmentation?

I have thought of the same thing, but then there are problems with this.

1) Loss of licensing revenues
2) Loss of brand identity (which is a huge deal btw)
3) Loss of sales
4) If you want to basically turn it into a form of "Android" then you're basically going to cause a developers nightmare. This is far more than just "lets make it playable on everything at once", if EVERYONE can make their own console this means that every version of this console with have different specs, not everyone will buy the high end one that can play all games, in fact, in a lot of cases people might just buy the cheapest one, only to find out that it can't play "GAME X" because the graphics card can barely just not support it. This is much how it is on the Android operating system, 95% of Android devices are low-end, and when you check the Play Store for games, a lot of games will say "Cannot be played on X" "Does not support X", it would piss consumers off even more to find out that they could have paid an extra 100$ to have been able to play all their games.

Not only that but developers want to make games that can hit the largest demographic, and if that demographic is split between either really low end and really high end then that causes major problems for development (and I'm not just talking graphics related problems, I'm talking physics engines, and RAM capacity, etc.)

This isn't about "driving prices down", you can't really drive them down anymore than they are right now without eliminating the slightest bit of profit. As much as a lot of people want to act like "PROFITS ARE EVIL" "BUSINESS IS EVIL BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT MONEY!" That's the only way for a business to survive, and profits are the only way to grow. Those parts in the Xbox One and PS4 and much more expensive than the devices, so it is even more likely that these devices are sold at a loss so that console exclusives can be sold and license revenues can be acquired.

People are willing to drop 3-500$ on the Xbox One and PS4 (just as people are willing to buy their children tablets nowadays), eventually over the years prices will go down because the parts to produces these consoles will go down in price as well. The nice thing is, is that the specs won't change, that's the great thing about developing for consoles, is you can rely on a specific set of variables.

Competition is healthy, and it does lead to better things, but prices for new-gen consoles aren't going to drop right now, they're running the latest tech, which costs a lot of money at this moment, the price of these consoles is fair, and will go down eventually.

Finally, just because there is market fragmentation now, doesn't mean that if there were a generic console made by pretty much anyone, it doesn't mean that there would be any less fragmentation, there'd probably much more fragmentation, as my argument above states.

But I do have a question, if such a generic media were to exist, who would make it, and who would sell it, and most importantly, who would adopt it. My assumption is that even if you gave out free licenses, I think developers would much rather choose to put their games on PC.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Anything else?

Nope nothing else, it's like talking to the wall.

I'm simply supplying counterpoints to your counterpoints.

Right well whatever, I don't want every console to be the same. It's my opinion and it's as simple as that.

I assure you that 100% homogenization will never exist. There will always be something new to challenge the status quo

This is especially true with the interactive medium. There are infinite revenues to produce interactivity. We have only scratched the surface.

 

[obsolescence_is_drm]

The games industry has been around for a long time. Why do you think there is nothing like a universal standard for gaming media? An analogy would be blu ray/dvds for the movie industry. You buy a blu ray/dvd from any studio and it will work on any number of blu ray players manufactured by different companies (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony) etc.

Shouldn't the games industry be mature enough for such a model to emerge? Why is there so much market fragmentation?

I have thought of the same thing, but then there are problems with this.

1) Loss of licensing revenues
2) Loss of brand identity (which is a huge deal btw)
3) Loss of sales
4) If you want to basically turn it into a form of "Android" then you're basically going to cause a developers nightmare. This is far more than just "lets make it playable on everything at once", if EVERYONE can make their own console this means that every version of this console with have different specs, not everyone will buy the high end one that can play all games, in fact, in a lot of cases people might just buy the cheapest one, only to find out that it can't play "GAME X" because the graphics card can barely just not support it. This is much how it is on the Android operating system, 95% of Android devices are low-end, and when you check the Play Store for games, a lot of games will say "Cannot be played on X" "Does not support X", it would piss consumers off even more to find out that they could have paid an extra 100$ to have been able to play all their games.

Not only that but developers want to make games that can hit the largest demographic, and if that demographic is split between either really low end and really high end then that causes major problems for development (and I'm not just talking graphics related problems, I'm talking physics engines, and RAM capacity, etc.)

This isn't about "driving prices down", you can't really drive them down anymore than they are right now without eliminating the slightest bit of profit. As much as a lot of people want to act like "PROFITS ARE EVIL" "BUSINESS IS EVIL BECAUSE THEY JUST WANT MONEY!" That's the only way for a business to survive, and profits are the only way to grow. Those parts in the Xbox One and PS4 and much more expensive than the devices, so it is even more likely that these devices are sold at a loss so that console exclusives can be sold and license revenues can be acquired.

People are willing to drop 3-500$ on the Xbox One and PS4 (just as people are willing to buy their children tablets nowadays), eventually over the years prices will go down because the parts to produces these consoles will go down in price as well. The nice thing is, is that the specs won't change, that's the great thing about developing for consoles, is you can rely on a specific set of variables.

Competition is healthy, and it does lead to better things, but prices for new-gen consoles aren't going to drop right now, they're running the latest tech, which costs a lot of money at this moment, the price of these consoles is fair, and will go down eventually.

Finally, just because there is market fragmentation now, doesn't mean that if there were a generic console made by pretty much anyone, it doesn't mean that there would be any less fragmentation, there'd probably much more fragmentation, as my argument above states.

But I do have a question, if such a generic media were to exist, who would make it, and who would sell it, and most importantly, who would adopt it. My assumption is that even if you gave out free licenses, I think developers would much rather choose to put their games on PC.

You made some good points. Although when I was talking about driving prices down, I was thinking more about games, much like how competition in the digital downloads arena has resulted in Steam/Amazon/GMG sales. I do feel that the prices ($400-$500) for next gen (PS4/XBox One) are reasonable, although more competition may mean more choices of hardware for a better value. Just as in Android where there are entry level phones and premium phones, the same can be applied for gaming specs.

Having a multi-tiered universal standardisation (low, mid, high, etc) corresponding to different sets of minimum hardware specification would be beneficial to both industry and consumers. Games can easily be labelled to indicate which tier of hardware they support.

After all, in a world where the hardware of the next gen consoles are becoming increasingly similar, what is the real difference between xbox one and PS4? Controllers? The different Software Development Kits programmers have to adopt to port the games? The ecosystem?

If there is a standardisation, developers can easily programme with a common SDK and reduce cost of development. At the same time, there will be more competition since the barrier to entry has lowered. Ultimately, a set of standardised gaming specs would be as beneficial as standards such as Bluetooth, Wifi, USB, etc.

 

[Joccaren]

Right well whatever, I don't want every console to be the same. It's my opinion and it's as simple as that.

I agree with this sentiment. Its the reason I don't own consoles; They're, ATM, shit PCs. Why would I want one when I have a great PC ATM?
What I don't want is unnecessarily exclusive games. Halo as one example. Its not hard to run Halo on the PC. Why isn't it there? Not because they want consoles to be different, but because MS wants consoles to be the same and be able to sell on exclusives anyway.
Consoles should have their own unique advantages that sell them, not exclusive games. That is the most fair to the consumer and, lets be honest, as consumer's why should we try to support a company's attempt to grab money from us? If we want to support them, donate, if not, don't.
So long as console's try to copy each other and be 'different' only through exclusive games, they're something I can't support.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Right well whatever, I don't want every console to be the same. It's my opinion and it's as simple as that.

I agree with this sentiment. Its the reason I don't own consoles; They're, ATM, shit PCs. Why would I want one when I have a great PC ATM?
What I don't want is unnecessarily exclusive games. Halo as one example. Its not hard to run Halo on the PC. Why isn't it there? Not because they want consoles to be different, but because MS wants consoles to be the same and be able to sell on exclusives anyway.
Consoles should have their own unique advantages that sell them, not exclusive games. That is the most fair to the consumer and, lets be honest, as consumer's why should we try to support a company's attempt to grab money from us? If we want to support them, donate, if not, don't.
So long as console's try to copy each other and be 'different' only through exclusive games, they're something I can't support.

You do realise that even if each console manufacturer went and made their consoles entirely "different" from one another they would all then have the same exact games on every system which would mean there would have to be exclusive choices for the game on each of the platforms that other consoles won't clearly have.

That and all I can see out of that is PC only people still getting their own exclusive games and all the ones from consoles while the consoles themselves not receiving any from the PC which in the end presents the "what's the point?" scenario, why would anyone want to buy a console then if PC has their own games and all the consoles?.

For the past 20 odd years people have shown that they are fine buying a different console along with their attached exclusives and I've yet to see a mass revolt (I mean literally everyone on all sides 100%) against exclusives which would have to include the PC to be fair and just.

I understand how you hate exclusives but I myself don't own any current consoles anymore but I'll happily save up and create a new backlog of this current gen while the new gen arrives, but hating exclusives on consoles and wanting them for yourself while not letting them have any seems like ill wishful thinking.

 

[Joccaren]

You do realise that even if each console manufacturer went and made their consoles entirely "different" from one another they would all then have the same exact games on every system which would mean there would have to be exclusive choices for the game on each of the platforms that other consoles won't clearly have.

That and all I can see out of that is PC only people still getting their own exclusive games and all the ones from consoles while the consoles themselves not receiving any from the PC which in the end presents the "what's the point?" scenario, why would anyone want to buy a console then if PC has their own games and all the consoles?.

For the past 20 odd years people have shown that they are fine buying a different console along with their attached exclusives and I've yet to see a mass revolt (I mean literally everyone on all sides 100%) against exclusives which would have to include the PC to be fair and just.

I understand how you hate exclusives but I myself don't own any current consoles anymore but I'll happily save up and create a new backlog of this current gen while the new gen arrives, but hating exclusives on consoles and wanting them for yourself while not letting them have any seems like ill wishful thinking.

Wording is a bit strange in the first paragraph but I think I get what you're trying to say.

And yeah, I'm completely fine with exclusives if they're limited by the hardware of the system, something unique. I'm not up in arms about 3DS games not coming to other platforms as other platforms don't have the dual screen, 1 touch screen, camera + mic setup for gaming that the DS has. The PC has the potential for that, but too few people have the required hardware and thus its a bit beyond asking that it get ported anyway [Even though the only way to encourage people to get such hardware is to make games that use it...]. What I'm against is ports not being made simply to sell a certain console - I.E: Halo. Fable 2. The various Naughty Dog games. If its simply to sell a system, what is the point? For the consumer, there is none. Its an anti-consumer policy made to try and bludgeon money out of people who don't want to spend it. Its arguably a legitimate tactic, but its hardly advantageous to the consumer who has to buy 4-6 platforms to play all the games they want to.

The PC in this setup also wouldn't necessarily have all the games. As said above, whilst it has the technical capacity to have all the games, too few people would own the hardware to make a port viable. Hence it wouldn't get made, and would fall under the hardware issue in a broader sense.

A lot of people are fine with buying a selected console and its exclusives as they recognise its a way to move consoles, are blinded by fanaticism, don't really care about other console's exclusives, or have enough money that it doesn't matter. Those that don't fit into those categories generally do complain, but know there's nothing they can really do to change it at this point. And naturally all PC games that could be adequately controlled and that there is a market for should be ported to consoles. Games like the Total War series probably not, as outside the WiiU there's not a system that could control it and even the WiiU might struggle a bit, and the same would go for various other RTS games, or 4X games where the console market is virtually non-existent, however FPS and RPGs on the PC that can be ported to consoles should be, and I'd never say otherwise.

The only time I'll get a console and its exclusives will be when the console is $20, and the games $5 each at this point. I have an expensive PC I'd rather spend money improving than buying a crap one for $300-$500, and I'm not up for buying redundant hardware. It'd be like buying a 9600GTX for my PC to run certain games, but that might actually cost $50 if I'm lucky. A WiiU I might consider due to its unique control scheme, and a 3DS. PS4? Nope. Xbone? Nope. The current gen consoles? Nope. And this is my problem. I'm not against exclusives in all their entirety, merely what I perceive to be unfair exclusives; those made with the purpose of gouging money out of consumers by forcing them to by hardware to run their software rather than just the software. The example's been brought up many times, you don't need a Sony DVD player for some DVDs and a Philips one for others. They are virtually the same hardware, and thus you only need one. The same should be true for consoles. If they're virtually the same hardware, as they have been for this generation and next, then there is no need for exclusives - except for the manufacturers to make greater profits at the expense of consumers. If they did different things I'd accept it, but if they're the same? I'm not going to lie down and get ripped off just because a billion dollar company wants to make a few extra million. I'd rather do things from a consumer point of view, and do what is best for me - not the companies.

 

[Mutant1988]

The whole point of the current competitive model is that companies want to become the standard (As in - Deliver the product that consumers purchase).

The reason why there isn't an universal standard set by a third (unbiased) party is because there is no immediate benefit to such a model. This is a profit driven business and as such, to grow, you need to compete. And this benefits the consumers in the long run. Or at least offer them a choice.