Marudas said:
Arguing the specifics of the word "Console" and other semantics do not magically make the reality any less there.
Console, in this frame of reference, has always referred to the variously shaped boxes that people smack down in front of their TV's, grab a controller, throw in a game, and play. Yes, you could probably call the other devices such as an Ipad or Ipod a "Console", if you were feeling ridiculous and wanted to make an entirely pointless point (Yes, i know what i just typed.)
I mean, this is up there on some of the most absurd logic I've ever seen. He's saying that because you can call technically call an Ipad or Facebook a gaming "console", that the traditional consoles have succeeded? Thats like saying Beta succeeded because VHS won the video tape war.
Of course there's always going to be an Ipad, a facebook, or a cloud. Its a distribution method and a platform, we can't just absorb games from some infinite ether. Though, with this guys logic, i suppose if we did figure out how to do that, he'd call the infinite ether a console.
You made Blackley's point for him, probably without knowing it.
To begin with, your definition of the term "console" is entirely too limited. For instance, by your definition, the Ninendo DS and Sony PSP don't qualify as "consoles." Then, you contradicted yourself, by giving a seperate comment about gaming, which is actually a much better definition of "console," in regards to gaming. Gaming has always been about the method of distribution, and the console has always been the platform by which that distributed material is enjoyed. Hard box consoles were simply easier at the infancy of gaming, and people have kept that thought in mind.
However, a machine is what you do with it. For instance, if you were to gut your old tv, make it watertight, and keep your goldfish in there, would that still be a television? No, it would be a fishtank. I have an iPod Touch. I haven't had access to iTunes since I bought the thing, so I use it for watching Netflix, Facebook, and Youtube, mainly. Is my iPod Touch, that has no music on it, still a music player? Or, is it, through my usage, a platform for watching movies, and keeping in touch with friends?
A Jeep isn't an all terrain vehicle if it's never driven off of the road. A Pagani Zonda isn't a high performance car if it's never taken above 50 mph. Similarly, if a person owns a computer primarily for gaming, that is a gaming platform, regardless of what other functions it can perform.
But, then, there's Steam. What is Steam? No, seriously, I want you to think about that for a second. Steam is, at its core, a service for computers that acts as a platform upon which video games are played. In every way, except for the grey box sitting on my bookcase, Steam IS a video game console.
I know. I know. "No, it's not. Steam uses downloads. That's not like consoles." Does that mean if a person only buys Wii games from the Virtual Console that his Wii is any less of a gaming platform? Or, if someone only uses PSN to get their PS3 games? How about X-Box Live Arcade?
The point I'm trying to make is that a "gaming console" is simply the software that allows for the game to be played. But, people like you are argueing that gaming must inherantly be confined to a single box, otherwise it's not authentic. And, the problem with your arguement is that evolutions happens, especially in technology. To stagnate is to die. We've reached the tipping point, at which the difference between gaming platforms are nearly non-existant. Case in point: If I were so inclined, I could plug a X-Box 360 controller into my PC, and use that to control my character in Team Fortress 2. Or, using a converter, I can use a keyboard and mouse to play games on my PS3.
Blackley's right. Console gaming has won, because everything that can play a game is a gaming console.