The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Consoles have a solid heritage, as long as that of the personal computer (Woznaks Apple in 1977), already an established piece of hardware by the time IBM got around to releasing their PC business machine. Since Atari launched the first console in the seventies, technology has advanced and advanced, and advanced...
But consoles have never really changed... For example, the N64, which though released in the mid-nineties, looks remarkably similar to Atari's 2600...? Sure the sound has improved, the graphics are superior, and CPU’s have been used which run ever faster... But you still just turn the machine on, stick the game in the slot, and control everything through the joystick/pad...
Now, you may say, that’s all well and good, but what about the Hard Drives, the Internet connectivity, the superior joy pad design, game complexity,
Sure, Id say, but all its really doing is delaying the inevitable, SONY and Microsoft and Nintendo just trying, and succeeding in selling you yesterdays technology with a few bells and whistles stick on, a few tricks nicked from PC's and a choice of coloured case...
And to honest, Id rather have none of it... I don’t want to have to justify buying my console to those who have bought others... sitting through Complaints that Microsoft ripped me off, and don’t care about my purchase, that my Nintendo is a kiddies toy, that Sony is a casual gamers machine whose titles sequels and tired used up ideas...
I don’t want to have to decide what machine to buy depending on whether Capcom think they can make more money creating games solely for the X-Box ... Or because Nintendo have bought a controlling stake in the company who make my favourite titles... whilst the next game in my favourite gaming series is about to be released on the PS2...
I want to play Halo in the Morning, Luigis Mansion in the afternoon and Final Fantasy in the evening...
Why should I be forced to make a choice based on selecting the machine with the least limitations...?
Why should I spend three hundred quid on the latest console today, only to discover that next year the next version is going to be released earlier to keep it in competition with the other consoles...?
It would seem, I want the games, but I don’t want the machines...
Instead, Id much rather pay Nintendo/Microsoft/SONY ISP a tenner a month for access to their titles, or, if I don’t play that much, I'll pay per minute, get free evening and weekend access?...
Not enough incentive for you to develop new titles... okay, how about this... you provide the access portal, I'll pay a small subscription fee, and then a software developer can develop a title which we then pay a separate subscription fee for. Given that most games can be completed within a couple of weeks... say 2.50 a week? 5.00?
All I'd need to own is a basic generic box; it wouldn’t need be updated with the latest technology, since all the hardware will be held at Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony HQ...
Pretending BT didn’t royally screw up their Broadband rollout, why do we need to have consoles at all? Isn’t it time to move on? ... Leave Consoles to the dust of times past, a memory of the seventies enduring toy, I'm a 21st century boy... It’s not my responsibility to fit into the needs and requirements of Nintendo/Sony or Microsoft... I'm the customer; they should be dancing to my tune...
But consoles have never really changed... For example, the N64, which though released in the mid-nineties, looks remarkably similar to Atari's 2600...? Sure the sound has improved, the graphics are superior, and CPU’s have been used which run ever faster... But you still just turn the machine on, stick the game in the slot, and control everything through the joystick/pad...
Now, you may say, that’s all well and good, but what about the Hard Drives, the Internet connectivity, the superior joy pad design, game complexity,
Sure, Id say, but all its really doing is delaying the inevitable, SONY and Microsoft and Nintendo just trying, and succeeding in selling you yesterdays technology with a few bells and whistles stick on, a few tricks nicked from PC's and a choice of coloured case...
And to honest, Id rather have none of it... I don’t want to have to justify buying my console to those who have bought others... sitting through Complaints that Microsoft ripped me off, and don’t care about my purchase, that my Nintendo is a kiddies toy, that Sony is a casual gamers machine whose titles sequels and tired used up ideas...
I don’t want to have to decide what machine to buy depending on whether Capcom think they can make more money creating games solely for the X-Box ... Or because Nintendo have bought a controlling stake in the company who make my favourite titles... whilst the next game in my favourite gaming series is about to be released on the PS2...
I want to play Halo in the Morning, Luigis Mansion in the afternoon and Final Fantasy in the evening...
Why should I be forced to make a choice based on selecting the machine with the least limitations...?
Why should I spend three hundred quid on the latest console today, only to discover that next year the next version is going to be released earlier to keep it in competition with the other consoles...?
It would seem, I want the games, but I don’t want the machines...
Instead, Id much rather pay Nintendo/Microsoft/SONY ISP a tenner a month for access to their titles, or, if I don’t play that much, I'll pay per minute, get free evening and weekend access?...
Not enough incentive for you to develop new titles... okay, how about this... you provide the access portal, I'll pay a small subscription fee, and then a software developer can develop a title which we then pay a separate subscription fee for. Given that most games can be completed within a couple of weeks... say 2.50 a week? 5.00?
All I'd need to own is a basic generic box; it wouldn’t need be updated with the latest technology, since all the hardware will be held at Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony HQ...
Pretending BT didn’t royally screw up their Broadband rollout, why do we need to have consoles at all? Isn’t it time to move on? ... Leave Consoles to the dust of times past, a memory of the seventies enduring toy, I'm a 21st century boy... It’s not my responsibility to fit into the needs and requirements of Nintendo/Sony or Microsoft... I'm the customer; they should be dancing to my tune...
Page:
Can I just take this opportunity to say that I have never dated a console.
Those allegations are false.
I'm a bit of a technophobe though. Changes scare me.
Give me my consoles, and let them stay the way they are for now, okay?
No major changes to how it works, or it will alienate too many people!
Though if introduced over time, it could work.
Those allegations are false.
I'm a bit of a technophobe though. Changes scare me.
Give me my consoles, and let them stay the way they are for now, okay?
No major changes to how it works, or it will alienate too many people!
Though if introduced over time, it could work.
Sibs wrote:
> well, in that case the argument would be who would make the console (and then
> face the losses) for all other rivals to make games on?
Whether a profit is
> made on the console or not, the argument over who would make it will still be
> there, but just the other way round.
It could be made by any/all companies... like satellite recievers...
The box we have is of no value... they could prabably give it away in signup deals...
The core hardware... graphics, processing power, etc.. would all be held at Nintendo, Sony, MS, HQ...
Which would mean we wouldnt need to bother about upgrading consoles every couple of years, it would be done at the company themselves...
> well, in that case the argument would be who would make the console (and then
> face the losses) for all other rivals to make games on?
Whether a profit is
> made on the console or not, the argument over who would make it will still be
> there, but just the other way round.
It could be made by any/all companies... like satellite recievers...
The box we have is of no value... they could prabably give it away in signup deals...
The core hardware... graphics, processing power, etc.. would all be held at Nintendo, Sony, MS, HQ...
Which would mean we wouldnt need to bother about upgrading consoles every couple of years, it would be done at the company themselves...
Or†ega wrote:
> Hmmmm, but dont they sell the consoles below cost...I'm sure x-box is worth more
> than £300 for sure.
Excatly... if they didnt need to make a console for each person, they wouldnt need to lose cash marketing it in the first place...
It would also eradicate piracy, since no one else would be able to provide the games... Wich would allow the price of game to come down signifiactly
> Hmmmm, but dont they sell the consoles below cost...I'm sure x-box is worth more
> than £300 for sure.
Excatly... if they didnt need to make a console for each person, they wouldnt need to lose cash marketing it in the first place...
It would also eradicate piracy, since no one else would be able to provide the games... Wich would allow the price of game to come down signifiactly
Sibs wrote:
> "Cos I'm a 21st Century Digital boy,
I don't know how to live, but I got a
> lot of toys,
My daddies a lazy middle classed intellectual,
My mommies on
> valium, so ineffectual,
And life's a mystery"
lol... After writing about the seventies, I couldnt resist (although I was hoping noone else wounld notice! grrr! :)
ahem...
Sorry, got
> carried away. Anyway... maybe you are right, but do you ever see it happening?
> What about those of us who can't afford a high spec PC (which will cost over a
> grand compared to £200-£300 for a new console) or one of those
> 'generic boxes'? people who didn't have the money for these would be left with
> no games. And do you ever see this happening?
Generic boxes would be around 125 quid...
One medium for all games to be
> played on? None of the companies will wnat that, because no longer can they make
> the money from the console, or the accessories, and their games have more
> competition (although you may argue it balances because there is a bigger
> audience available). But companies aren't going to agree on one model. And who
> would make (and get the profits from) the one 'super console'? There would be
> much argument over this, and I doubt it would work.
Thats the point... you dont buy a console... you buy a box...
Rather like the Sky boxes...
The technology used by each channel, be it Open..., Sci-Fi, MTV, or Sky themselves can be radically different and hold differentl levels of technolology...
As such the technology used by each gaming company could be different...
The box we would buy would be just a jumped up reciever... all the important hardware is held by individual companies...
Companies dont have to agree on one model... it could even get to the point where comanies such as EA could use their own bespoke hardware setups?
> "Cos I'm a 21st Century Digital boy,
I don't know how to live, but I got a
> lot of toys,
My daddies a lazy middle classed intellectual,
My mommies on
> valium, so ineffectual,
And life's a mystery"
lol... After writing about the seventies, I couldnt resist (although I was hoping noone else wounld notice! grrr! :)
ahem...
Sorry, got
> carried away. Anyway... maybe you are right, but do you ever see it happening?
> What about those of us who can't afford a high spec PC (which will cost over a
> grand compared to £200-£300 for a new console) or one of those
> 'generic boxes'? people who didn't have the money for these would be left with
> no games. And do you ever see this happening?
Generic boxes would be around 125 quid...
One medium for all games to be
> played on? None of the companies will wnat that, because no longer can they make
> the money from the console, or the accessories, and their games have more
> competition (although you may argue it balances because there is a bigger
> audience available). But companies aren't going to agree on one model. And who
> would make (and get the profits from) the one 'super console'? There would be
> much argument over this, and I doubt it would work.
Thats the point... you dont buy a console... you buy a box...
Rather like the Sky boxes...
The technology used by each channel, be it Open..., Sci-Fi, MTV, or Sky themselves can be radically different and hold differentl levels of technolology...
As such the technology used by each gaming company could be different...
The box we would buy would be just a jumped up reciever... all the important hardware is held by individual companies...
Companies dont have to agree on one model... it could even get to the point where comanies such as EA could use their own bespoke hardware setups?
well, in that case the argument would be who would make the console (and then face the losses) for all other rivals to make games on?
Whether a profit is made on the console or not, the argument over who would make it will still be there, but just the other way round.
Whether a profit is made on the console or not, the argument over who would make it will still be there, but just the other way round.
Hmmmm, but dont they sell the consoles below cost...I'm sure x-box is worth more than £300 for sure.
"Cos I'm a 21st Century Digital boy,
I don't know how to live, but I got a lot of toys,
My daddies a lazy middle classed intellectual,
My mommies on valium, so ineffectual,
And life's a mystery"
ahem...
Sorry, got carried away. Anyway... maybe you are right, but do you ever see it happening? What about those of us who can't afford a high spec PC (which will cost over a grand compared to £200-£300 for a new console) or one of those 'generic boxes'? people who didn't have the money for these would be left with no games. And do you ever see this happening? One medium for all games to be played on? None of the companies will wnat that, because no longer can they make the money from the console, or the accessories, and their games have more competition (although you may argue it balances because there is a bigger audience available). But companies aren't going to agree on one model. And who would make (and get the profits from) the one 'super console'? There would be much argument over this, and I doubt it would work.
Pretty much nice idea, but I wouldn't hold your breath...
I don't know how to live, but I got a lot of toys,
My daddies a lazy middle classed intellectual,
My mommies on valium, so ineffectual,
And life's a mystery"
ahem...
Sorry, got carried away. Anyway... maybe you are right, but do you ever see it happening? What about those of us who can't afford a high spec PC (which will cost over a grand compared to £200-£300 for a new console) or one of those 'generic boxes'? people who didn't have the money for these would be left with no games. And do you ever see this happening? One medium for all games to be played on? None of the companies will wnat that, because no longer can they make the money from the console, or the accessories, and their games have more competition (although you may argue it balances because there is a bigger audience available). But companies aren't going to agree on one model. And who would make (and get the profits from) the one 'super console'? There would be much argument over this, and I doubt it would work.
Pretty much nice idea, but I wouldn't hold your breath...
Consoles have a solid heritage, as long as that of the personal computer (Woznaks Apple in 1977), already an established piece of hardware by the time IBM got around to releasing their PC business machine. Since Atari launched the first console in the seventies, technology has advanced and advanced, and advanced...
But consoles have never really changed... For example, the N64, which though released in the mid-nineties, looks remarkably similar to Atari's 2600...? Sure the sound has improved, the graphics are superior, and CPU’s have been used which run ever faster... But you still just turn the machine on, stick the game in the slot, and control everything through the joystick/pad...
Now, you may say, that’s all well and good, but what about the Hard Drives, the Internet connectivity, the superior joy pad design, game complexity,
Sure, Id say, but all its really doing is delaying the inevitable, SONY and Microsoft and Nintendo just trying, and succeeding in selling you yesterdays technology with a few bells and whistles stick on, a few tricks nicked from PC's and a choice of coloured case...
And to honest, Id rather have none of it... I don’t want to have to justify buying my console to those who have bought others... sitting through Complaints that Microsoft ripped me off, and don’t care about my purchase, that my Nintendo is a kiddies toy, that Sony is a casual gamers machine whose titles sequels and tired used up ideas...
I don’t want to have to decide what machine to buy depending on whether Capcom think they can make more money creating games solely for the X-Box ... Or because Nintendo have bought a controlling stake in the company who make my favourite titles... whilst the next game in my favourite gaming series is about to be released on the PS2...
I want to play Halo in the Morning, Luigis Mansion in the afternoon and Final Fantasy in the evening...
Why should I be forced to make a choice based on selecting the machine with the least limitations...?
Why should I spend three hundred quid on the latest console today, only to discover that next year the next version is going to be released earlier to keep it in competition with the other consoles...?
It would seem, I want the games, but I don’t want the machines...
Instead, Id much rather pay Nintendo/Microsoft/SONY ISP a tenner a month for access to their titles, or, if I don’t play that much, I'll pay per minute, get free evening and weekend access?...
Not enough incentive for you to develop new titles... okay, how about this... you provide the access portal, I'll pay a small subscription fee, and then a software developer can develop a title which we then pay a separate subscription fee for. Given that most games can be completed within a couple of weeks... say 2.50 a week? 5.00?
All I'd need to own is a basic generic box; it wouldn’t need be updated with the latest technology, since all the hardware will be held at Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony HQ...
Pretending BT didn’t royally screw up their Broadband rollout, why do we need to have consoles at all? Isn’t it time to move on? ... Leave Consoles to the dust of times past, a memory of the seventies enduring toy, I'm a 21st century boy... It’s not my responsibility to fit into the needs and requirements of Nintendo/Sony or Microsoft... I'm the customer; they should be dancing to my tune...
But consoles have never really changed... For example, the N64, which though released in the mid-nineties, looks remarkably similar to Atari's 2600...? Sure the sound has improved, the graphics are superior, and CPU’s have been used which run ever faster... But you still just turn the machine on, stick the game in the slot, and control everything through the joystick/pad...
Now, you may say, that’s all well and good, but what about the Hard Drives, the Internet connectivity, the superior joy pad design, game complexity,
Sure, Id say, but all its really doing is delaying the inevitable, SONY and Microsoft and Nintendo just trying, and succeeding in selling you yesterdays technology with a few bells and whistles stick on, a few tricks nicked from PC's and a choice of coloured case...
And to honest, Id rather have none of it... I don’t want to have to justify buying my console to those who have bought others... sitting through Complaints that Microsoft ripped me off, and don’t care about my purchase, that my Nintendo is a kiddies toy, that Sony is a casual gamers machine whose titles sequels and tired used up ideas...
I don’t want to have to decide what machine to buy depending on whether Capcom think they can make more money creating games solely for the X-Box ... Or because Nintendo have bought a controlling stake in the company who make my favourite titles... whilst the next game in my favourite gaming series is about to be released on the PS2...
I want to play Halo in the Morning, Luigis Mansion in the afternoon and Final Fantasy in the evening...
Why should I be forced to make a choice based on selecting the machine with the least limitations...?
Why should I spend three hundred quid on the latest console today, only to discover that next year the next version is going to be released earlier to keep it in competition with the other consoles...?
It would seem, I want the games, but I don’t want the machines...
Instead, Id much rather pay Nintendo/Microsoft/SONY ISP a tenner a month for access to their titles, or, if I don’t play that much, I'll pay per minute, get free evening and weekend access?...
Not enough incentive for you to develop new titles... okay, how about this... you provide the access portal, I'll pay a small subscription fee, and then a software developer can develop a title which we then pay a separate subscription fee for. Given that most games can be completed within a couple of weeks... say 2.50 a week? 5.00?
All I'd need to own is a basic generic box; it wouldn’t need be updated with the latest technology, since all the hardware will be held at Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony HQ...
Pretending BT didn’t royally screw up their Broadband rollout, why do we need to have consoles at all? Isn’t it time to move on? ... Leave Consoles to the dust of times past, a memory of the seventies enduring toy, I'm a 21st century boy... It’s not my responsibility to fit into the needs and requirements of Nintendo/Sony or Microsoft... I'm the customer; they should be dancing to my tune...
Page: