The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There’s no point in doing anything at all unless there’s other people/things involved, is there? There would be no point in having the Premier League if there were only one team in it. There would be no point in marriage if there were only one person. There would be no point in practically anything, actually.
The same goes for the console market.
If there were only Nintendo then they couldn’t fail because there would be no one to beat them. The same goes for Sony and Microtosh... Soft. Without anyone to compete against they have no one to beat and no one to lose to.
They have no drive to keep bringing out better and better games, better and better pieces of hardware and better and better consoles.
People say that games, controllers, media hype... Whatever, is what makes the gaming world what it is. And there they could not be further from the truth.
If Mario had never been invented, Sony would never have needed to create Solid Snake or Crash. They would not need to create a mascot for themselves if their main rivals had no mascot.
Equally, if the PlayStation had never been made, do you think the N64 would have been? Yes but not quite so soon. Nintendo would have had nothing to beat and so would not have needed to bring out a new console while they were doing just fine with the SNES.
Without a motive, no one ever advances, because, without a motive, there is no NEED to advance. If Liverpool and Everton weren’t such huge rivals, would the Merseyside Derby’s be as important to either team? No. If the N64 had no competition, would we ever have progressed to a GameCube? Again, yes, but it would have taken a good deal longer than 4 years to come about.
Think about that for a second, it’s only been 5 years since the N64 was first released. On March 7th 1997 it hit the public. The GameCube was launched in Japan only a few months back. Why did they feel the need to bring out a new console so (relatively) soon after the N64 was out? Because they would have fallen behind in the consoles market. That’s why. Companies make games and consoles to make money. If they don’t have a new cutting edge piece of hardware, whereas, their nearest rival’s do, which one do you think will fall behind?
Why is the GameBoy Advance doing so well? For two reasons: 1) It’s a great piece of machinery and 2) Because it has no competition.
There is nothing handheld that even comes within a light year of the GBA.
Human nature forces us to want to beat someone else at something (Or is it the testosterone? ;-D ) Either way, we always want to be the best, which is why competition and rivalries exist. And it is also why the gaming world is what it is today and why it has such awesome prospects for the future.
RBS
The same goes for the console market.
If there were only Nintendo then they couldn’t fail because there would be no one to beat them. The same goes for Sony and Microtosh... Soft. Without anyone to compete against they have no one to beat and no one to lose to.
They have no drive to keep bringing out better and better games, better and better pieces of hardware and better and better consoles.
People say that games, controllers, media hype... Whatever, is what makes the gaming world what it is. And there they could not be further from the truth.
If Mario had never been invented, Sony would never have needed to create Solid Snake or Crash. They would not need to create a mascot for themselves if their main rivals had no mascot.
Equally, if the PlayStation had never been made, do you think the N64 would have been? Yes but not quite so soon. Nintendo would have had nothing to beat and so would not have needed to bring out a new console while they were doing just fine with the SNES.
Without a motive, no one ever advances, because, without a motive, there is no NEED to advance. If Liverpool and Everton weren’t such huge rivals, would the Merseyside Derby’s be as important to either team? No. If the N64 had no competition, would we ever have progressed to a GameCube? Again, yes, but it would have taken a good deal longer than 4 years to come about.
Think about that for a second, it’s only been 5 years since the N64 was first released. On March 7th 1997 it hit the public. The GameCube was launched in Japan only a few months back. Why did they feel the need to bring out a new console so (relatively) soon after the N64 was out? Because they would have fallen behind in the consoles market. That’s why. Companies make games and consoles to make money. If they don’t have a new cutting edge piece of hardware, whereas, their nearest rival’s do, which one do you think will fall behind?
Why is the GameBoy Advance doing so well? For two reasons: 1) It’s a great piece of machinery and 2) Because it has no competition.
There is nothing handheld that even comes within a light year of the GBA.
Human nature forces us to want to beat someone else at something (Or is it the testosterone? ;-D ) Either way, we always want to be the best, which is why competition and rivalries exist. And it is also why the gaming world is what it is today and why it has such awesome prospects for the future.
RBS
Page:
I agree, competion is very healthy for all (except the losing company). And I really hope that theory that companies are going to Nintendo to stop PS2 dominating is right, I'd love to see score of great games on GC.
I do partially disagree with the starting post that this could be a one-console battle field or 'game' is more appropriate. We could just have one console out in the market and it would make sense because they would be making money and we would be buying. I do agree that it is far better with more consoles hence competition. Without competition there is less money and of course pleasure for gamers. Some people are against competition, why? What is wrong with competition? Game companies thrive on competition and in some cases (Sega) it's what keeps them going.
In reply to Strafex...
Well, I think one of the main reasons for developers being less Sony orientated is simply that Sony have made the console more expensive to develop for.
This displays an arrogance to the developers support much like Ninty did with the N64 (thinking everyone would just flock to them).
Of course, in the PS2's case it worked! The PS2 has, and will always have a bigger user base than the other 2 console, and thus developers are forced to stick with it.
Developers aren't flocking to Ninty just to make sure there's competition- rather to CASH IN on the fact the GC is actually a viable console that is predicted to have a huge user base.
Sonic
Well, I think one of the main reasons for developers being less Sony orientated is simply that Sony have made the console more expensive to develop for.
This displays an arrogance to the developers support much like Ninty did with the N64 (thinking everyone would just flock to them).
Of course, in the PS2's case it worked! The PS2 has, and will always have a bigger user base than the other 2 console, and thus developers are forced to stick with it.
Developers aren't flocking to Ninty just to make sure there's competition- rather to CASH IN on the fact the GC is actually a viable console that is predicted to have a huge user base.
Sonic
An article at www.tendobox.com (the one about Nintendo wooing devellopers. A recent one.) revealed how Japanese games companies are conspiring to stop Sony from dominating the market and are going to use the influence of their games to encourage buyers to give the Gamecube a strong share of the market - 30% atleast!
So why are they helping Nintendo?
It's because Nintendo was mean to them in the past! :-D
When Nintendo dominated the console market, they were very strict and unfair to third party publishers.
Because the Nintendo machines were THE machine to makes games on, Nintendo could afford to rip companies off with expensive deals.
It reached a peak when Nintendo said that only they could make games for the N64 in the first year...
That was one reason why many companies went to Sony instead.
Now Sony is close to dominating, these companies don't want a similar thing happening with them. I think they'd rather have Sony ahead than Nintendo, but they'd prefer even competition where each company needs their third parties.
As a result, many of these companies (including Capcom and Namco and even Squaresoft!!) may give the Gamecube the cream of the crop to encourage it to grab enough of the market to give the Playstation some competition.
That means that the people who were going to get the Gamecube anyway, will be in for some real treats.
Don't expect too much though. The LAST thing these companies want is everyone ditching the PS2 for a Gamecube and putting Nintendo back into control...
So why are they helping Nintendo?
It's because Nintendo was mean to them in the past! :-D
When Nintendo dominated the console market, they were very strict and unfair to third party publishers.
Because the Nintendo machines were THE machine to makes games on, Nintendo could afford to rip companies off with expensive deals.
It reached a peak when Nintendo said that only they could make games for the N64 in the first year...
That was one reason why many companies went to Sony instead.
Now Sony is close to dominating, these companies don't want a similar thing happening with them. I think they'd rather have Sony ahead than Nintendo, but they'd prefer even competition where each company needs their third parties.
As a result, many of these companies (including Capcom and Namco and even Squaresoft!!) may give the Gamecube the cream of the crop to encourage it to grab enough of the market to give the Playstation some competition.
That means that the people who were going to get the Gamecube anyway, will be in for some real treats.
Don't expect too much though. The LAST thing these companies want is everyone ditching the PS2 for a Gamecube and putting Nintendo back into control...
I don't entirely agree...
Clearly capitalist competition is very important in a market like the games industry for driving development forwards.
However, if you were to apply communism to other areas of society such as agriculture and industry, then the whole ecconomy benefits. Capitalism is great at pushing the top people higher and keeping the bottom people down...
Sonic
Clearly capitalist competition is very important in a market like the games industry for driving development forwards.
However, if you were to apply communism to other areas of society such as agriculture and industry, then the whole ecconomy benefits. Capitalism is great at pushing the top people higher and keeping the bottom people down...
Sonic
pb wrote:
> hm, be careful of your examples. Marriage, is it a competition? Not really (to
> most, anyway), yet both parties survive well in it.
Heheh, sorry I worded that wrong :-D
By that I didn't mean marriage was a competition, I meant that there was no point in doing it if there was only one person.
> hm, be careful of your examples. Marriage, is it a competition? Not really (to
> most, anyway), yet both parties survive well in it.
Heheh, sorry I worded that wrong :-D
By that I didn't mean marriage was a competition, I meant that there was no point in doing it if there was only one person.
hm, be careful of your examples. Marriage, is it a competition? Not really (to most, anyway), yet both parties survive well in it.
Does competition immediately equal one winner, or any winner? To work in competition against someone you are trying to do something better than them, but there is nothing that says there should be one clear winner. I agree that competition is good for forcing technology and also for lowering prices, as without it companies could charge over the odds for their product and get away with it. Much better for the consumer.
There is a point, however, that this all gets out of hand. Imagine having a console out for 1 year, then get replaced by another console from the same company with better technology. Far fetched? Maybe not, Sony have already suggested that the benchmark for a console's life can be shortened, although we still have no idea of the public's reaction to this. This is caused again by that company worrying about their product not measuring up to the competition, but if they bring out something far more advanced, then perhaps their rivals may think of doing the same thing at a far earlier stage. That would be worrying for the consumer and expensive for games companies. Don't say it wouldn't happen either, it may yet.
If you look at the consumer electronics market in general, especially within the entertainment sector, there is a lot of movement in technology and many new products are bought out each month. The problem with comparing this to the games console market is that consoles all have different format media and other technology tends to be either multi-format or set on a standard format such as the CD or DVD. If the trend becomes to launch a new console every 2 years or so, then the industry may well look to a single format/multi platform system, not something I’d like to see.
Does competition immediately equal one winner, or any winner? To work in competition against someone you are trying to do something better than them, but there is nothing that says there should be one clear winner. I agree that competition is good for forcing technology and also for lowering prices, as without it companies could charge over the odds for their product and get away with it. Much better for the consumer.
There is a point, however, that this all gets out of hand. Imagine having a console out for 1 year, then get replaced by another console from the same company with better technology. Far fetched? Maybe not, Sony have already suggested that the benchmark for a console's life can be shortened, although we still have no idea of the public's reaction to this. This is caused again by that company worrying about their product not measuring up to the competition, but if they bring out something far more advanced, then perhaps their rivals may think of doing the same thing at a far earlier stage. That would be worrying for the consumer and expensive for games companies. Don't say it wouldn't happen either, it may yet.
If you look at the consumer electronics market in general, especially within the entertainment sector, there is a lot of movement in technology and many new products are bought out each month. The problem with comparing this to the games console market is that consoles all have different format media and other technology tends to be either multi-format or set on a standard format such as the CD or DVD. If the trend becomes to launch a new console every 2 years or so, then the industry may well look to a single format/multi platform system, not something I’d like to see.
nice post, next time i'll read it...
Stryke wrote:
> May GAD brighten your life and your goat have shiny hooves.
:D Hehe... I agree though. ;-)
> May GAD brighten your life and your goat have shiny hooves.
:D Hehe... I agree though. ;-)
May GAD brighten your life and your goat have shiny hooves.
Page: