That's fine capt, I'm not modding you, I was just a little surprised to see the fury in your eyes normally reserved for criminals and herbivores. Carry on.
*bamf*
Printable View
That's fine capt, I'm not modding you, I was just a little surprised to see the fury in your eyes normally reserved for criminals and herbivores. Carry on.
*bamf*
PCs are only obsolete because the hardware manufacturers and software developers say they are. A superconsole that would support meaningful upgrades would suck because the industry would continuously evolve and software would leave the stock hardware behind. A "fixed" console wouldn't have this problem, but history has shown that some other company will always try to make money by releasing new hardware that can do something their competitors can't on the older console.
I think this is what Yamauchi was getting at last week. Hardware upgrades are needed from time to time, but not as rapidly as they are released now. I wouldn't mind playing my Cube for another nine years, and I wouldn't even mind much if Nintendo went third-party, as long as console makers give them a hand in console design. Then again, I wouldn't mind if the SNES was still viable.
The industry is not backwards. Simply because it doesn't follow the model you think would be better, doesn't make it backwards. The video game industry is it's own industry, and thus has it's own business models and structure. It began this way, it will live this way, and when the time comes it will die this way. We are not the PC industry. We are not the motion picture industry. We are not the music industry. We are our own industry. The video game industry. And this is the way we work. When compared to any other business model, we don't look quite "right." But we're also the largest industry, dollar wise, in the whole of entertainment. Taking that into consideration, now who's backwards? The ones that make more money? Or the ones who are content with sitting on their technology and not advancing?Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
...but I think the notion shows just how backwards the market really is.
You're comparing "what we make" with "what they make."Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
The industry is not backwards. Simply because it doesn't follow the model you think would be better, doesn't make it backwards. The video game industry is it's own industry, and thus has it's own business models and structure. It began this way, it will live this way, and when the time comes it will die this way. We are not the PC industry. We are not the motion picture industry. We are not the music industry. We are our own industry. The video game industry. And this is the way we work. When compared to any other business model, we don't look quite "right." But we're also the largest industry, dollar wise, in the whole of entertainment. Taking that into consideration, now who's backwards? The ones that make more money? Or the ones who are content with sitting on their technology and not advancing?
You should be comparing "what we make" to "what we could be making."
Even if a system's shelf-life is only four years, there's no reason that three consoles need to compete every generation. There are a few differences between the current consoles, but they are much more alike than they are different, and I'm sure a console that combines the absolute best features of each could be sold for a hell of a lot less than the combined price of all three.
Not only do hardware makers absorb hardware losses, but they have to spend marketing money to compete with other console makers. Developers either waste money porting software or lose sales to consumers who don't own the hardware. If you don't want to call it backward, then call it whatever you want. Just don't call it efficient.
Burgundy's saying everything I'm thinking, but more eloquently and persuasively.
You rock, burg. :D
I'm happy with the way things are. Console variety is the spice of videogame life. You know Genny games taste compleatly different than SNES games. Each system has it's individual charms and quirks regardless of what software is being played. I like that variety.
And by "what we could be making" you mean what? The Super-console? Complete with business model from what industry? You're the one making the comparison, not me. I am refuting it. And, as such, am forming my sentences to encompas those ideas, as dictated by you.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
You're comparing "what we make" with "what they make."
You should be comparing "what we make" to "what we could be making."
Again I'd like to point out that this industry is the highest grossing in the feild of entertainment. This industry also has the highest net profits. "Net" factors in all of those money losses you speak of. Some of which aren't even losses. If a company is planning on releasing a game on the PS2, their sales forecasts include only potential sales on that system. XBOX and GC owners aren't a part of the equation. Your reasoning is faulty.Quote:
If you don't want to call it backward, then call it whatever you want. Just don't call it efficient.
I think that it's a bit unfair to compare the vg industry to the film industry because their production values are so drastically different. The film industry in celluloid (sp?) and analogously based. The DVD is just the next step to releasing a film-based medium at a higher quality for home viewing. Films today are still overwhelmingly based on the same technology used for the past 50 years. Therefore, there isn't that much of a need to push limits, only to more accurately reproduce the original medium
The vg industy is based on visual-spatial effects. These effects are solely effected by processing and memory power, which would explain the relience on ever-changing hardware.
You just can't compare the industries.
I never compared industries. All of my comparisons stay within the game industry.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
And by "what we could be making" you mean what? The Super-console? Complete with business model from what industry? You're the one making the comparison, not me. I am refuting it. And, as such, am forming my sentences to encompas those ideas, as dictated by you.
Again I'd like to point out that this industry is the highest grossing in the feild of entertainment. This industry also has the highest net profits. "Net" factors in all of those money losses you speak of. Some of which aren't even losses. If a company is planning on releasing a game on the PS2, their sales forecasts include only potential sales on that system. XBOX and GC owners aren't a part of the equation. Your reasoning is faulty.
Your reasoning is misplaced. Just because the industry is making money with its current model doesn't mean it couldn't be doing better with a better one. Everyone keeps saying the film and game industries are apples and oranges, and I agree - which is why comparisons of their profits are meaningless.
And lost sales to consumers outside of the console base may not count as accounting losses, but they are certainly economic losses in the sense that they are lost opportunties for revenue. Ignoring exclusivity deals (which transfer but do not generate wealth within the industry, and thus do not promote growth) and cross-platform development costs, any developer will most certainly be best off releasing a game for every possible console.
You're assuming that what has been the case will continue to be the case.Quote:
Originally posted by amerlop
I think that it's a bit unfair to compare the vg industry to the film industry because their production values are so drastically different. The film industry in celluloid (sp?) and analogously based. The DVD is just the next step to releasing a film-based medium at a higher quality for home viewing. Films today are still overwhelmingly based on the same technology used for the past 50 years. Therefore, there isn't that much of a need to push limits, only to more accurately reproduce the original medium
The vg industy is based on visual-spatial effects. These effects are solely effected by processing and memory power, which would explain the relience on ever-changing hardware.
You just can't compare the industries.
I don't agree with Yamauchi, in that video game visuals have no more room for improvement. I do however believe that the visual returns on hardware improvements are diminishing. Will PS3 titles look better than, say, Xbox titles? Sure. Will they look $300 + tax better? I doubt it. At some point, consumers aren't going to care that this month's new system depicts things 5% more realistically than last month's new system.
And that's assuming they have ever cared - name me one console generation where the most powerful console was also the market leader.