The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Convergence is a word being bandied about more and more often in today's modern society.
It is particularly relevant to the technology sector, including the video game market.
I noticed (and who could miss it) that Nintendo seem to be veering towards software development only, taking much the same approach as Sega have done with Dreamcast. This is not necessarily a bad thing, after all if this turns out to be true then Nintendo can devote all of its time and resources towards game and entertainment development.
Is it possible then that in a few years other developers will follow the same approach ? Will the console giants finally decide that convergence is a good way to go ? And if so will this be to our detriment or benefit ?
There are many arguments for and against convergence in the gaming world. Please allow me to point out a few in the hope of generating some good discussions.....
Multiple hardware - multiple software
----------------------------------------------------
This is the situation that we have today. There are multiple games consoles and many companies writing software for each. The result is that often we see titles that only appear on single formats. Obviously that's fine for people who are in the lucky position to own all the current consoles. But if you are an average Joe Soap like me you'll probably only have one next gen. console sitting under your TV and so you are limited to the games written for it. And so we suffer because of the current divergent nature of the games business. Also we cannot develop a truly united online console games community as we cannot all play the same games together.
Multiple hardware - single software
--------------------------------------------------
This is the most unlikely scenario of all, but I'll include it for completeness. In this case we have multiple console formats, but the same set of games for each. Obviously this is a case that will never arise and would make absolutely no sense. The only argument I can see for it is that it would finally eliminate the obvious 'console envy' that prevails in our gaming society today. (and come to think of it... 'console envy' probably wouldn't be cured since there'll always be the element of "mine's bigger than yours" or "mines a better colour" etc.)
Single hardware - single software
-----------------------------------------------
Silly scenario - one console one game.... Hey isn't this how it all started ?!!
Single hardware - multiple software
--------------------------------------------------
My favourite scenario. True convergence.
Only one console on the market. That means one hardware supplier/developer. That means one company that can devote all its efforts to building the add-ons to this one uber-console in efforts to constantly refine the genre without worrying about trying to sell games at the same time.
One console used by developers. That means only one development kit to worry about... that mean only one format to worry about and so developers can devote more time to producing new games instead of trying to make one or two games fit multiple consoles. This would bring developers back into direct competition for domination of the games market for our one console.
Surely convergence is the best way to go ?
Comments ? Opinions ?
It is particularly relevant to the technology sector, including the video game market.
I noticed (and who could miss it) that Nintendo seem to be veering towards software development only, taking much the same approach as Sega have done with Dreamcast. This is not necessarily a bad thing, after all if this turns out to be true then Nintendo can devote all of its time and resources towards game and entertainment development.
Is it possible then that in a few years other developers will follow the same approach ? Will the console giants finally decide that convergence is a good way to go ? And if so will this be to our detriment or benefit ?
There are many arguments for and against convergence in the gaming world. Please allow me to point out a few in the hope of generating some good discussions.....
Multiple hardware - multiple software
----------------------------------------------------
This is the situation that we have today. There are multiple games consoles and many companies writing software for each. The result is that often we see titles that only appear on single formats. Obviously that's fine for people who are in the lucky position to own all the current consoles. But if you are an average Joe Soap like me you'll probably only have one next gen. console sitting under your TV and so you are limited to the games written for it. And so we suffer because of the current divergent nature of the games business. Also we cannot develop a truly united online console games community as we cannot all play the same games together.
Multiple hardware - single software
--------------------------------------------------
This is the most unlikely scenario of all, but I'll include it for completeness. In this case we have multiple console formats, but the same set of games for each. Obviously this is a case that will never arise and would make absolutely no sense. The only argument I can see for it is that it would finally eliminate the obvious 'console envy' that prevails in our gaming society today. (and come to think of it... 'console envy' probably wouldn't be cured since there'll always be the element of "mine's bigger than yours" or "mines a better colour" etc.)
Single hardware - single software
-----------------------------------------------
Silly scenario - one console one game.... Hey isn't this how it all started ?!!
Single hardware - multiple software
--------------------------------------------------
My favourite scenario. True convergence.
Only one console on the market. That means one hardware supplier/developer. That means one company that can devote all its efforts to building the add-ons to this one uber-console in efforts to constantly refine the genre without worrying about trying to sell games at the same time.
One console used by developers. That means only one development kit to worry about... that mean only one format to worry about and so developers can devote more time to producing new games instead of trying to make one or two games fit multiple consoles. This would bring developers back into direct competition for domination of the games market for our one console.
Surely convergence is the best way to go ?
Comments ? Opinions ?
Convergence is the best way to go. As Mr Happy pointed out 2 days ago, it will reduce the price of consoles! As well as that, developers would become MORE competitive because they have more commpetition, and games quality would rise.
However, with multiple consoles, small developers get more funding from manufacturers... so we would see a lot of small developers die out.
In reality, it won't happen. Ninty aren't going single platform- the president of Ninty's comment were misinterpereted (apparantly) and that's not what he meant at all.
Sonic
However, with multiple consoles, small developers get more funding from manufacturers... so we would see a lot of small developers die out.
In reality, it won't happen. Ninty aren't going single platform- the president of Ninty's comment were misinterpereted (apparantly) and that's not what he meant at all.
Sonic
Convergence is a word being bandied about more and more often in today's modern society.
It is particularly relevant to the technology sector, including the video game market.
I noticed (and who could miss it) that Nintendo seem to be veering towards software development only, taking much the same approach as Sega have done with Dreamcast. This is not necessarily a bad thing, after all if this turns out to be true then Nintendo can devote all of its time and resources towards game and entertainment development.
Is it possible then that in a few years other developers will follow the same approach ? Will the console giants finally decide that convergence is a good way to go ? And if so will this be to our detriment or benefit ?
There are many arguments for and against convergence in the gaming world. Please allow me to point out a few in the hope of generating some good discussions.....
Multiple hardware - multiple software
----------------------------------------------------
This is the situation that we have today. There are multiple games consoles and many companies writing software for each. The result is that often we see titles that only appear on single formats. Obviously that's fine for people who are in the lucky position to own all the current consoles. But if you are an average Joe Soap like me you'll probably only have one next gen. console sitting under your TV and so you are limited to the games written for it. And so we suffer because of the current divergent nature of the games business. Also we cannot develop a truly united online console games community as we cannot all play the same games together.
Multiple hardware - single software
--------------------------------------------------
This is the most unlikely scenario of all, but I'll include it for completeness. In this case we have multiple console formats, but the same set of games for each. Obviously this is a case that will never arise and would make absolutely no sense. The only argument I can see for it is that it would finally eliminate the obvious 'console envy' that prevails in our gaming society today. (and come to think of it... 'console envy' probably wouldn't be cured since there'll always be the element of "mine's bigger than yours" or "mines a better colour" etc.)
Single hardware - single software
-----------------------------------------------
Silly scenario - one console one game.... Hey isn't this how it all started ?!!
Single hardware - multiple software
--------------------------------------------------
My favourite scenario. True convergence.
Only one console on the market. That means one hardware supplier/developer. That means one company that can devote all its efforts to building the add-ons to this one uber-console in efforts to constantly refine the genre without worrying about trying to sell games at the same time.
One console used by developers. That means only one development kit to worry about... that mean only one format to worry about and so developers can devote more time to producing new games instead of trying to make one or two games fit multiple consoles. This would bring developers back into direct competition for domination of the games market for our one console.
Surely convergence is the best way to go ?
Comments ? Opinions ?
It is particularly relevant to the technology sector, including the video game market.
I noticed (and who could miss it) that Nintendo seem to be veering towards software development only, taking much the same approach as Sega have done with Dreamcast. This is not necessarily a bad thing, after all if this turns out to be true then Nintendo can devote all of its time and resources towards game and entertainment development.
Is it possible then that in a few years other developers will follow the same approach ? Will the console giants finally decide that convergence is a good way to go ? And if so will this be to our detriment or benefit ?
There are many arguments for and against convergence in the gaming world. Please allow me to point out a few in the hope of generating some good discussions.....
Multiple hardware - multiple software
----------------------------------------------------
This is the situation that we have today. There are multiple games consoles and many companies writing software for each. The result is that often we see titles that only appear on single formats. Obviously that's fine for people who are in the lucky position to own all the current consoles. But if you are an average Joe Soap like me you'll probably only have one next gen. console sitting under your TV and so you are limited to the games written for it. And so we suffer because of the current divergent nature of the games business. Also we cannot develop a truly united online console games community as we cannot all play the same games together.
Multiple hardware - single software
--------------------------------------------------
This is the most unlikely scenario of all, but I'll include it for completeness. In this case we have multiple console formats, but the same set of games for each. Obviously this is a case that will never arise and would make absolutely no sense. The only argument I can see for it is that it would finally eliminate the obvious 'console envy' that prevails in our gaming society today. (and come to think of it... 'console envy' probably wouldn't be cured since there'll always be the element of "mine's bigger than yours" or "mines a better colour" etc.)
Single hardware - single software
-----------------------------------------------
Silly scenario - one console one game.... Hey isn't this how it all started ?!!
Single hardware - multiple software
--------------------------------------------------
My favourite scenario. True convergence.
Only one console on the market. That means one hardware supplier/developer. That means one company that can devote all its efforts to building the add-ons to this one uber-console in efforts to constantly refine the genre without worrying about trying to sell games at the same time.
One console used by developers. That means only one development kit to worry about... that mean only one format to worry about and so developers can devote more time to producing new games instead of trying to make one or two games fit multiple consoles. This would bring developers back into direct competition for domination of the games market for our one console.
Surely convergence is the best way to go ?
Comments ? Opinions ?