The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I wonder this a lot, and after a few weeks away from the forums, I still don't understand human logic, well gamer logic anyway. There, to me anyway, is one fundamental reason for buying and playing computer games, and that is to be entertained. Sometimes I buy a game to be challenged, or even to look at the pretty pictures on the TV, but I don't buy games to win arguements, or to show off to my friends.
So what do people think fighting over console wars achieves? Market fragmentation, corporate takeovers, mass marketing and stupid arguements. There is more debate about who should be in place to take the games industry forward, rather than the ways in which it is moving. Sure, people will argue that different companies are offering different solutions to different problems, but this is an entertainment industry, and different standards struggle to co-exist, they may last longer in this industry, but how long will it be before big companies start to fall the way Betamax(??) videos and Sega have already?
Now wait a minute, was it a bad thing that Sega fell in the console market? Really, deep down, I don't think so, because as a company they didn't fold. When Commodore went, they didn't have anything left, Amstrad, Sinclair, Atari all went the same way, but Sega have a strong software line-up, with characters and franchises more recognisable than many of Nintendo's. So, in the end it leads to a debate which has raged on for ages, a single console format, much like DVD-Video or VHS, where anyone and everyone can make the systems, but all of the systems are compatible with the games. Now, I know that's unrealistic, financially difficult and technically impossible, but it's a thought, if there was only one console format the industry would evolve much better through competition rather than stutter through arguement.
So what do people think fighting over console wars achieves? Market fragmentation, corporate takeovers, mass marketing and stupid arguements. There is more debate about who should be in place to take the games industry forward, rather than the ways in which it is moving. Sure, people will argue that different companies are offering different solutions to different problems, but this is an entertainment industry, and different standards struggle to co-exist, they may last longer in this industry, but how long will it be before big companies start to fall the way Betamax(??) videos and Sega have already?
Now wait a minute, was it a bad thing that Sega fell in the console market? Really, deep down, I don't think so, because as a company they didn't fold. When Commodore went, they didn't have anything left, Amstrad, Sinclair, Atari all went the same way, but Sega have a strong software line-up, with characters and franchises more recognisable than many of Nintendo's. So, in the end it leads to a debate which has raged on for ages, a single console format, much like DVD-Video or VHS, where anyone and everyone can make the systems, but all of the systems are compatible with the games. Now, I know that's unrealistic, financially difficult and technically impossible, but it's a thought, if there was only one console format the industry would evolve much better through competition rather than stutter through arguement.
Page:
If we all had a single console, things would be crap. Don't believe me?
Think back 8 years. Both Sega and Nintendo (eventually) were just going to release another 2D games console. In fact, Sega did, but that's a different argument. Then, Sony came along with a desire to be the best and basically kicked a**e. Now look! We have really, quite fantastic consoles by quite fantastic companies all COMPETING to be the best. That, my furry friend, is competition, and it's a great thing. Before, Sega and Nintendo didn't really bother with each other and had mutually agreed not to really try very hard. Now there is a third, more competetive contender, everyone is actually trying really hard to be the best, and it's great for use the gamers.
If we had just a single format, it would be poor because thart single format would become lazy, because there's not much point in trying to be good.
Think back 8 years. Both Sega and Nintendo (eventually) were just going to release another 2D games console. In fact, Sega did, but that's a different argument. Then, Sony came along with a desire to be the best and basically kicked a**e. Now look! We have really, quite fantastic consoles by quite fantastic companies all COMPETING to be the best. That, my furry friend, is competition, and it's a great thing. Before, Sega and Nintendo didn't really bother with each other and had mutually agreed not to really try very hard. Now there is a third, more competetive contender, everyone is actually trying really hard to be the best, and it's great for use the gamers.
If we had just a single format, it would be poor because thart single format would become lazy, because there's not much point in trying to be good.
No, PCs are far from standardised..............
Isnt that what has happened with PC's?
Bonus wrote:
> My reign of terror?? Eh?? What the hell was that about??
Please explain, or
> I may just go insane............
Posting in prime.... your reign of terror :-D
> My reign of terror?? Eh?? What the hell was that about??
Please explain, or
> I may just go insane............
Posting in prime.... your reign of terror :-D
My reign of terror?? Eh?? What the hell was that about??
Please explain, or I may just go insane............
Please explain, or I may just go insane............
Nice to see you back around prime Bonus. Nice post there.
Nice final thought there, it would be interesting to see how things would go if there was only one console format. I know a couple of people that buy gamesjust to show off, which i find really irritating. So they've got a game, big wow!
Hope your reign of terror goes on Bonus.
Good post ;)
Nice final thought there, it would be interesting to see how things would go if there was only one console format. I know a couple of people that buy gamesjust to show off, which i find really irritating. So they've got a game, big wow!
Hope your reign of terror goes on Bonus.
Good post ;)
I wonder this a lot, and after a few weeks away from the forums, I still don't understand human logic, well gamer logic anyway. There, to me anyway, is one fundamental reason for buying and playing computer games, and that is to be entertained. Sometimes I buy a game to be challenged, or even to look at the pretty pictures on the TV, but I don't buy games to win arguements, or to show off to my friends.
So what do people think fighting over console wars achieves? Market fragmentation, corporate takeovers, mass marketing and stupid arguements. There is more debate about who should be in place to take the games industry forward, rather than the ways in which it is moving. Sure, people will argue that different companies are offering different solutions to different problems, but this is an entertainment industry, and different standards struggle to co-exist, they may last longer in this industry, but how long will it be before big companies start to fall the way Betamax(??) videos and Sega have already?
Now wait a minute, was it a bad thing that Sega fell in the console market? Really, deep down, I don't think so, because as a company they didn't fold. When Commodore went, they didn't have anything left, Amstrad, Sinclair, Atari all went the same way, but Sega have a strong software line-up, with characters and franchises more recognisable than many of Nintendo's. So, in the end it leads to a debate which has raged on for ages, a single console format, much like DVD-Video or VHS, where anyone and everyone can make the systems, but all of the systems are compatible with the games. Now, I know that's unrealistic, financially difficult and technically impossible, but it's a thought, if there was only one console format the industry would evolve much better through competition rather than stutter through arguement.
So what do people think fighting over console wars achieves? Market fragmentation, corporate takeovers, mass marketing and stupid arguements. There is more debate about who should be in place to take the games industry forward, rather than the ways in which it is moving. Sure, people will argue that different companies are offering different solutions to different problems, but this is an entertainment industry, and different standards struggle to co-exist, they may last longer in this industry, but how long will it be before big companies start to fall the way Betamax(??) videos and Sega have already?
Now wait a minute, was it a bad thing that Sega fell in the console market? Really, deep down, I don't think so, because as a company they didn't fold. When Commodore went, they didn't have anything left, Amstrad, Sinclair, Atari all went the same way, but Sega have a strong software line-up, with characters and franchises more recognisable than many of Nintendo's. So, in the end it leads to a debate which has raged on for ages, a single console format, much like DVD-Video or VHS, where anyone and everyone can make the systems, but all of the systems are compatible with the games. Now, I know that's unrealistic, financially difficult and technically impossible, but it's a thought, if there was only one console format the industry would evolve much better through competition rather than stutter through arguement.
Page: