The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is it about time that we had a single platform?
Some people would argue that the competition helps the market by making the various companies work harder to create better games so that they can win over punters. Well as far as I can tell that is just ****! Sony's machine is the choice of the average developer due to its amassed user base from the Playstation. Microsoft seems to gather loads of developers because to create games for the machine is just like making games for the PC. And Nintendo seems to have it's own dedicated developers which seem to produce all their games.
Well instead of this huge division in the games industry, why don't they all just learn to get along. {arrrr} But seriously. Would it be soooo bad to have a singe platform? Making games universal. You know, like VCR's. There produced by different companies, but they all use the same type of cassette. Why can't console be like this? I'm getting really fed up with the amount of consoles I have out on my shelves! There's always a few games on each one you want to play, so youíre forced to have them all out so that you can use them. Grrr it's so infuriating! Why can't I just have ì1î console which will play all the games I want to play. I mean you want an N64 for Mario 64, Zelda, Goldeneye, PD, a Playstation for Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Time Crisis, Dance Stage Euro Mix, a Dreamcast for MSR, Jet Set Radio, Shemue etc... etc... etc...
I tell you if someone doesn't do something about this I might just go ahead and create my own monster of a console which incorporates all of these consoles into one, so that I don't have to have a whole bookshelf dedicated to them, and there millions of controllers.
Also my final point is that most of the games on all the consoles are the same. Tony Hawks etc. Well it might not seem that way at the moment but itís getting that way. With games like Soul Calibur and Tekken getting announced for the Gamecube etc, the division between the consoles is getting less. Itís just companies like Nintendo which make their own games which forces you to have to buy their machines to play their AMAZING games. What I want is a machine that will play all of Nintendoís games, all the new Final Fantasy games, the next installments of Shenmue, Metal Gear Solid 2 etc.
It MUST happen one day! Why donít Sony just give up on the Playstation 3, Microsoft give up on the X-Box 2, and then go form a great new company with Nintendo and create the perfect console! That would be every gamers dream, and would do soooooo much good for the games industry!
Fingers crossed! {something deep in my gut tells me that there unfortunately gonna be crossed for a loooong time}
Grrr-argh!
Some people would argue that the competition helps the market by making the various companies work harder to create better games so that they can win over punters. Well as far as I can tell that is just ****! Sony's machine is the choice of the average developer due to its amassed user base from the Playstation. Microsoft seems to gather loads of developers because to create games for the machine is just like making games for the PC. And Nintendo seems to have it's own dedicated developers which seem to produce all their games.
Well instead of this huge division in the games industry, why don't they all just learn to get along. {arrrr} But seriously. Would it be soooo bad to have a singe platform? Making games universal. You know, like VCR's. There produced by different companies, but they all use the same type of cassette. Why can't console be like this? I'm getting really fed up with the amount of consoles I have out on my shelves! There's always a few games on each one you want to play, so youíre forced to have them all out so that you can use them. Grrr it's so infuriating! Why can't I just have ì1î console which will play all the games I want to play. I mean you want an N64 for Mario 64, Zelda, Goldeneye, PD, a Playstation for Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Time Crisis, Dance Stage Euro Mix, a Dreamcast for MSR, Jet Set Radio, Shemue etc... etc... etc...
I tell you if someone doesn't do something about this I might just go ahead and create my own monster of a console which incorporates all of these consoles into one, so that I don't have to have a whole bookshelf dedicated to them, and there millions of controllers.
Also my final point is that most of the games on all the consoles are the same. Tony Hawks etc. Well it might not seem that way at the moment but itís getting that way. With games like Soul Calibur and Tekken getting announced for the Gamecube etc, the division between the consoles is getting less. Itís just companies like Nintendo which make their own games which forces you to have to buy their machines to play their AMAZING games. What I want is a machine that will play all of Nintendoís games, all the new Final Fantasy games, the next installments of Shenmue, Metal Gear Solid 2 etc.
It MUST happen one day! Why donít Sony just give up on the Playstation 3, Microsoft give up on the X-Box 2, and then go form a great new company with Nintendo and create the perfect console! That would be every gamers dream, and would do soooooo much good for the games industry!
Fingers crossed! {something deep in my gut tells me that there unfortunately gonna be crossed for a loooong time}
Grrr-argh!
Page:
Ah, the thread stopping post. There's nothing quite like it.
Very well put there.
Very well put there.
In a word, stagnation.
I some other words, it costs a fortune to develop a console. How will anyone decide who pays for that? What will push them to make the best console possible if there's is the only console? What will cause them to drive the costs down if there are no other consoles competing against it?
Money isn't made on consoles, it is made on games. Nintendo will make the millions and millions it cost them to make the Gamecube (remembering that they also make a loss in production terms, not including IP, with each console sold), but make this cash back in licensing fees and revenues from their own games. Do you really think anyone would want to fork up for these costs?
Okay, you say, they all get Sony, MS and Ninty get together and spread out the costs - nope. Each wants individual dominance and there's no way they could agree on how to split the costs of development (and hence the risk) or the profit. Each wants a one-system market - but with their system being that one system as it meansÖ well youíll see as I continue.
Why? Monopoly. Do you know that diamonds aren't that rare or valuable? All the diamond mines are owned by one company, De Beers, who limit supply thus inflating the cost and in turn their profit. In practice, they may as well just print money. What they're doing is also totally legal - the vast majority of the public don't understand either the term monopoly or how/why these companies can end up with charges against them. The current video gaming world is a monopoly with Sony and Nintendo at its head. By definition, a company with over 25% of the market share is a monopoly, so both of them are monopolistic companies. However, they are not using their size to bully competitors (how monopolistic companies end up in court) and there is two of them competing. In reality, only true monopoly really matters ñ one company dominating the market - and for the rest of this post ìmonopolyî is used in that sense.
You are suggesting a market with just one supplier - like the earlier diamond example. If this situation ever occurred hardware prices would rocket - sky high. They've no other consoles to compete against so if you want to be a games player you'd have to fork out what they charge. And specs? Why bother with expensive super-fast chips and pioneering new RAM set-ups when you, by default, will have the best console on the market anyway.
Licensing fees? If someone wants to make a computer game it has to be on your console. They've no choice if they want to remain a games developer. What does the hardware producer do? Charge huge, huge licensing fees and cripple smaller developers. Larger developers have to make their money back, so have to raise games prices to compensate them for this increase in fees. End result, more expensive games on a more expensive console.
And what happens at the end of the "generation"? Simply, it won't come as quick. Why would the monopolistic company bother developing a new console every three/four years? Okay, eventually they will, as it means they get to sell more high priced consoles - but even then, why push for that big an improvement? That costs money and if there is no one else around to make your console look weak, why bother spending it.
Or, you could look at the above problem from a different angle. If they are charging huge amounts of cash for the consoles, they are undoubtedly making money on them. As soon as they've made a healthy profit, quickly pump out another console that everyone will have to buy. You don't have to make it that much better, a small improvement will do and everyone will have to buy it anyway.
People won't fall for that, you say. What if there are no games for the older console? You maybe bought your console only a year ago and now they want you to upgrade? No way! Well, considering Mr. Monopolistic games console developer has to grant licences for people to develop for his consoles, he could simply stop allowing older console games to be made. Games developers have to make games for the slightly improved console, as there is no one else to make games for. As you are a games player and want to play games, you have to fork out all over again for this ever so slightly improved console at its inflated, bank-busting price.
In this situation the developers get screwed again. There's such a quick console turnover they never get to reap their development costs back as inside a few months the games they made are obsolete, as everyone has been forced on to a new console. You canít reuse engines as easily to cut costs as youíre working on a new system. Youíve got to waste time and money playing around with this system to see what it can do and how you can get the best out of it. Normally these costs are fine, as youíll be using that console for four years, but not now. Developers then have to up prices again (remember we had to add a few bob on earlier for the increased licensing fees) as they'll sell less. Oh, and there is also far more competition as everyone is making games for the same console, so bump up games prices a bit more to account for the fact the developers won't sell as many.
And why would games developers risk investing mountains of cash into making fresh and innovative games? Innovating is always a huge risk, and considering they'd be struggling to survive under increased licensing fees, its a risk they're not going to take. It also rules out the idea that having all the developers on one console would result in them competing with each other to make better games. Yeah, they be competing in terms of shelf space and getting noticed, but none would be able to afford to pump millions into games development and pay the inflated licensing fees. Therefore, epics like Shenmue and FF7 simply don't exist and riskier titles, like Black and White or The Sims never get green lighted as they are too different and there's too big a risk that they won't sell.
Now, all these cash hungry games developers need investment. Mr Monopolist Console producer is happy to oblige and slowly starts hovering them all up to become part of his company. He doesn't want other people making competing games, so licensing fees (and hence the cost of buying a game) rise again. Sooner or later he is making not only the only console but also the only games. Prices rise and quality drop. If there's nothing else to buy and you want to continue as a games player, you have to put up with the expense and lack of quality.
So, no, a one console market isn't a good idea. Everyone gets screwed apart from the guy who makes the console. For us gamers, everything would suddenly get very expensive as Mr Monopolistic console developer has us at his mercy - if we want to play games we have to pay his inflated prices.
End result? Expensive games that aren't very good. Oh, but I almost forgot, console makers and games developers don't want money. They do it for the love! RUBBISH. They are listed companies with stakeholders who want a fat bottom line at the end of the year. Sure, guys like Shigsy may still be about, but why invest millions in creating his expansive 3D worlds and lush graphics when consumers will be forced to buy whatever you make? My whole argument is based on very basic Economic theory, and as Sony, MS and Nintendo are just normal business working in a normal market place, it applies to them too.
Getting rather long, isn't it? In short, desiring one console manufacturer is verging on the insane.
I some other words, it costs a fortune to develop a console. How will anyone decide who pays for that? What will push them to make the best console possible if there's is the only console? What will cause them to drive the costs down if there are no other consoles competing against it?
Money isn't made on consoles, it is made on games. Nintendo will make the millions and millions it cost them to make the Gamecube (remembering that they also make a loss in production terms, not including IP, with each console sold), but make this cash back in licensing fees and revenues from their own games. Do you really think anyone would want to fork up for these costs?
Okay, you say, they all get Sony, MS and Ninty get together and spread out the costs - nope. Each wants individual dominance and there's no way they could agree on how to split the costs of development (and hence the risk) or the profit. Each wants a one-system market - but with their system being that one system as it meansÖ well youíll see as I continue.
Why? Monopoly. Do you know that diamonds aren't that rare or valuable? All the diamond mines are owned by one company, De Beers, who limit supply thus inflating the cost and in turn their profit. In practice, they may as well just print money. What they're doing is also totally legal - the vast majority of the public don't understand either the term monopoly or how/why these companies can end up with charges against them. The current video gaming world is a monopoly with Sony and Nintendo at its head. By definition, a company with over 25% of the market share is a monopoly, so both of them are monopolistic companies. However, they are not using their size to bully competitors (how monopolistic companies end up in court) and there is two of them competing. In reality, only true monopoly really matters ñ one company dominating the market - and for the rest of this post ìmonopolyî is used in that sense.
You are suggesting a market with just one supplier - like the earlier diamond example. If this situation ever occurred hardware prices would rocket - sky high. They've no other consoles to compete against so if you want to be a games player you'd have to fork out what they charge. And specs? Why bother with expensive super-fast chips and pioneering new RAM set-ups when you, by default, will have the best console on the market anyway.
Licensing fees? If someone wants to make a computer game it has to be on your console. They've no choice if they want to remain a games developer. What does the hardware producer do? Charge huge, huge licensing fees and cripple smaller developers. Larger developers have to make their money back, so have to raise games prices to compensate them for this increase in fees. End result, more expensive games on a more expensive console.
And what happens at the end of the "generation"? Simply, it won't come as quick. Why would the monopolistic company bother developing a new console every three/four years? Okay, eventually they will, as it means they get to sell more high priced consoles - but even then, why push for that big an improvement? That costs money and if there is no one else around to make your console look weak, why bother spending it.
Or, you could look at the above problem from a different angle. If they are charging huge amounts of cash for the consoles, they are undoubtedly making money on them. As soon as they've made a healthy profit, quickly pump out another console that everyone will have to buy. You don't have to make it that much better, a small improvement will do and everyone will have to buy it anyway.
People won't fall for that, you say. What if there are no games for the older console? You maybe bought your console only a year ago and now they want you to upgrade? No way! Well, considering Mr. Monopolistic games console developer has to grant licences for people to develop for his consoles, he could simply stop allowing older console games to be made. Games developers have to make games for the slightly improved console, as there is no one else to make games for. As you are a games player and want to play games, you have to fork out all over again for this ever so slightly improved console at its inflated, bank-busting price.
In this situation the developers get screwed again. There's such a quick console turnover they never get to reap their development costs back as inside a few months the games they made are obsolete, as everyone has been forced on to a new console. You canít reuse engines as easily to cut costs as youíre working on a new system. Youíve got to waste time and money playing around with this system to see what it can do and how you can get the best out of it. Normally these costs are fine, as youíll be using that console for four years, but not now. Developers then have to up prices again (remember we had to add a few bob on earlier for the increased licensing fees) as they'll sell less. Oh, and there is also far more competition as everyone is making games for the same console, so bump up games prices a bit more to account for the fact the developers won't sell as many.
And why would games developers risk investing mountains of cash into making fresh and innovative games? Innovating is always a huge risk, and considering they'd be struggling to survive under increased licensing fees, its a risk they're not going to take. It also rules out the idea that having all the developers on one console would result in them competing with each other to make better games. Yeah, they be competing in terms of shelf space and getting noticed, but none would be able to afford to pump millions into games development and pay the inflated licensing fees. Therefore, epics like Shenmue and FF7 simply don't exist and riskier titles, like Black and White or The Sims never get green lighted as they are too different and there's too big a risk that they won't sell.
Now, all these cash hungry games developers need investment. Mr Monopolist Console producer is happy to oblige and slowly starts hovering them all up to become part of his company. He doesn't want other people making competing games, so licensing fees (and hence the cost of buying a game) rise again. Sooner or later he is making not only the only console but also the only games. Prices rise and quality drop. If there's nothing else to buy and you want to continue as a games player, you have to put up with the expense and lack of quality.
So, no, a one console market isn't a good idea. Everyone gets screwed apart from the guy who makes the console. For us gamers, everything would suddenly get very expensive as Mr Monopolistic console developer has us at his mercy - if we want to play games we have to pay his inflated prices.
End result? Expensive games that aren't very good. Oh, but I almost forgot, console makers and games developers don't want money. They do it for the love! RUBBISH. They are listed companies with stakeholders who want a fat bottom line at the end of the year. Sure, guys like Shigsy may still be about, but why invest millions in creating his expansive 3D worlds and lush graphics when consumers will be forced to buy whatever you make? My whole argument is based on very basic Economic theory, and as Sony, MS and Nintendo are just normal business working in a normal market place, it applies to them too.
Getting rather long, isn't it? In short, desiring one console manufacturer is verging on the insane.
I think your WRONG there! If you had a single platform where you had to compete with Nintendo, Rare, Sega, Squaresoft etc, you could not afford to produce mediocre **** that no-one wants because people would just go out and by the quality titles made by the developers above. And so developers would be forced to strive to produce decent original games that set themselves from the pack.
But with only one console there would be no competition, meaning that developers can get away with making mediocre pap because there the only games available.
Competition is healthy.
Sony owned the PSOne market and then made the PS2 extremely expensively and slightly dodgy.
Nintendo own the handheld market and are charging £35 for rehashed Nes games.
There has to be atleast 2 major players in the industry to move things forward rather than milk the profits.
I'm sort of glad that the PS2 price has dropped.
The Xbox has been priced less as a result and I've no doubt that it'll force Nintendo to keep their prices to a minimum in order to stay competitive.
Sony owned the PSOne market and then made the PS2 extremely expensively and slightly dodgy.
Nintendo own the handheld market and are charging £35 for rehashed Nes games.
There has to be atleast 2 major players in the industry to move things forward rather than milk the profits.
I'm sort of glad that the PS2 price has dropped.
The Xbox has been priced less as a result and I've no doubt that it'll force Nintendo to keep their prices to a minimum in order to stay competitive.
Is it about time that we had a single platform?
Some people would argue that the competition helps the market by making the various companies work harder to create better games so that they can win over punters. Well as far as I can tell that is just ****! Sony's machine is the choice of the average developer due to its amassed user base from the Playstation. Microsoft seems to gather loads of developers because to create games for the machine is just like making games for the PC. And Nintendo seems to have it's own dedicated developers which seem to produce all their games.
Well instead of this huge division in the games industry, why don't they all just learn to get along. {arrrr} But seriously. Would it be soooo bad to have a singe platform? Making games universal. You know, like VCR's. There produced by different companies, but they all use the same type of cassette. Why can't console be like this? I'm getting really fed up with the amount of consoles I have out on my shelves! There's always a few games on each one you want to play, so youíre forced to have them all out so that you can use them. Grrr it's so infuriating! Why can't I just have ì1î console which will play all the games I want to play. I mean you want an N64 for Mario 64, Zelda, Goldeneye, PD, a Playstation for Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Time Crisis, Dance Stage Euro Mix, a Dreamcast for MSR, Jet Set Radio, Shemue etc... etc... etc...
I tell you if someone doesn't do something about this I might just go ahead and create my own monster of a console which incorporates all of these consoles into one, so that I don't have to have a whole bookshelf dedicated to them, and there millions of controllers.
Also my final point is that most of the games on all the consoles are the same. Tony Hawks etc. Well it might not seem that way at the moment but itís getting that way. With games like Soul Calibur and Tekken getting announced for the Gamecube etc, the division between the consoles is getting less. Itís just companies like Nintendo which make their own games which forces you to have to buy their machines to play their AMAZING games. What I want is a machine that will play all of Nintendoís games, all the new Final Fantasy games, the next installments of Shenmue, Metal Gear Solid 2 etc.
It MUST happen one day! Why donít Sony just give up on the Playstation 3, Microsoft give up on the X-Box 2, and then go form a great new company with Nintendo and create the perfect console! That would be every gamers dream, and would do soooooo much good for the games industry!
Fingers crossed! {something deep in my gut tells me that there unfortunately gonna be crossed for a loooong time}
Grrr-argh!
Some people would argue that the competition helps the market by making the various companies work harder to create better games so that they can win over punters. Well as far as I can tell that is just ****! Sony's machine is the choice of the average developer due to its amassed user base from the Playstation. Microsoft seems to gather loads of developers because to create games for the machine is just like making games for the PC. And Nintendo seems to have it's own dedicated developers which seem to produce all their games.
Well instead of this huge division in the games industry, why don't they all just learn to get along. {arrrr} But seriously. Would it be soooo bad to have a singe platform? Making games universal. You know, like VCR's. There produced by different companies, but they all use the same type of cassette. Why can't console be like this? I'm getting really fed up with the amount of consoles I have out on my shelves! There's always a few games on each one you want to play, so youíre forced to have them all out so that you can use them. Grrr it's so infuriating! Why can't I just have ì1î console which will play all the games I want to play. I mean you want an N64 for Mario 64, Zelda, Goldeneye, PD, a Playstation for Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Time Crisis, Dance Stage Euro Mix, a Dreamcast for MSR, Jet Set Radio, Shemue etc... etc... etc...
I tell you if someone doesn't do something about this I might just go ahead and create my own monster of a console which incorporates all of these consoles into one, so that I don't have to have a whole bookshelf dedicated to them, and there millions of controllers.
Also my final point is that most of the games on all the consoles are the same. Tony Hawks etc. Well it might not seem that way at the moment but itís getting that way. With games like Soul Calibur and Tekken getting announced for the Gamecube etc, the division between the consoles is getting less. Itís just companies like Nintendo which make their own games which forces you to have to buy their machines to play their AMAZING games. What I want is a machine that will play all of Nintendoís games, all the new Final Fantasy games, the next installments of Shenmue, Metal Gear Solid 2 etc.
It MUST happen one day! Why donít Sony just give up on the Playstation 3, Microsoft give up on the X-Box 2, and then go form a great new company with Nintendo and create the perfect console! That would be every gamers dream, and would do soooooo much good for the games industry!
Fingers crossed! {something deep in my gut tells me that there unfortunately gonna be crossed for a loooong time}
Grrr-argh!
Page: