System wars suck.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy:

I never compared industries. All of my comparisons stay within the game industry.

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.

---

Have I or have I not been maintaining that this industry is its own, with it's own business models and preformance equations and records? I think I have. Go back and read my posts and you will see. I compared industries because people who want to convert to a "Super-console" model are in favor of a "VCR" type business model. Though you didn't come out and say it using those words, you were, in fact, comparing industries. Also, I never alleged that the industry couldn't be doing better. All I'm saying is that a "Super-console" route would not be the solution to our economic problems, as the multi-platform model has already been root.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This is grossly incorrect. If the company does not target a market, there are no losses incurred from that market. Accountable, economic, or otherwise. The company's economies of scale, and general economies are focused on the target, and do not deviate. Therefore, the only losses to be had are a direct result of performance in the target. Here's a scenario for you: You own a balloon manufacturer. You know that balloons will sell in a specific demographic, children (for the sake of argument, will split everyone into two catagories: adult or child. Also, everyone is responicable for their own purchases, and secure their own disposable incomes). So, you market your balloons accordingly. Now, adults are not buying your balloons. But children buy them like wild fire. What you are alledging is that the adult market is lost revenue. It isn't. You are preforming outside of their market, and thusly they have no impact on your business, economically or otherwise. If children stop buying your balloons, then losses are incurred.

Quote:

---

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

---

Surely...accept your not taking into account the hardware providers. Exclusivity deals help the industry in that they sell systems. It's the way it works. Without those exclusive games, it wouldn't matter what system you bought...which you take up as being your point; however, this industry is forwarded by propriety. Eliminate all competitors, you suggest, and it'll be better for the consumer. I agrue that it won't because whatever company owns the hardware that becomes "standard" will remain the sole producer of the hardware, rail the software publishers with fees, and jack up the price for the consumers. Business is not as benevolent as you'd like for it to be.

I think this 'technology imroving' argument is bullshit. We went from VHS to DVD when it was the right time, we can have a standard game system for every 8 year cycle, with each manufacturer making their own version of it 3D0 style, and still keep moving foward technologically. If the industry doesn't do this, it will continue to be considered a hobby, and not as commonplace as movies/music. I am torn on if games should be so common place that mom n pop supermarkets have games for $10 regularly, but I recognize that to make themarket truely mainstream, hardware needs to be standardized.

The greedy nerdy gamer in me though, likes less mainstream gamers, and new hardware all the time... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EThugg
I think this 'technology imroving' argument is bullshit. We went from VHS to DVD when it was the right time, we can have a standard game system for every 8 year cycle, with each manufacturer making their own version of it 3D0 style, and still keep moving foward technologically. If the industry doesn't do this, it will continue to be considered a hobby, and not as commonplace as movies/music. I am torn on if games should be so common place that mom n pop supermarkets have games for $10 regularly, but I recognize that to make themarket truely mainstream, hardware needs to be standardized.

The greedy nerdy gamer in me though, likes less mainstream gamers, and new hardware all the time... ;)

---

Yea. I got some of that "greedy nerd gamer" in me too. As for the rest, I suppose I could agree...maybe...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable

Have I or have I not been maintaining that this industry is its own, with it's own business models and preformance equations and records?

---

Yes and no. I'm not the one comparing industry profits. I'm simply arguing that the industry as a whole could be doing better.

Quote:

---

If the company does not target a market, there are no losses incurred from that market.

---

And why aren't those markets being targeted? Because the industry segregates console users. Which is what I'm trying to argue against.

EThugg responded to your third point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Yes and no. I'm not the one comparing industry profits. I'm simply arguing that the industry as a whole could be doing better.

---

Surely. I agree. The profits were inconsequential and the industry could be doing better.

Quote:

---

And why aren't those markets being targeted? Because the industry segregates console users. Which is what I'm trying to argue against.

---

It's not the industry that does it. The industry is a bistandard. The software producers do it. So, argue that the software producers go on a strict multi-platform diet. Not that hardware producers give it up to a single device. They both have their own snares and advantages, these two points of view. And I believe it'd be much more difficult for the industry to cope with the hardware developers changing than the software developers.

Quote:

---

EThugg responded to your third point.

---

But he didn't convey the same ideas you did. He was much more "taking all things into account" then you were being. I mean that not as a shot or disrespect. I just found what he said a bit easier to digest.

Quote:

---

It's not the industry that does it. The industry is a bistandard. The software producers do it. So, argue that the software producers go on a strict multi-platform diet. Not that hardware producers give it up to a single device. They both have their own snares and advantages, these two points of view. And I believe it'd be much more difficult for the industry to cope with the hardware developers changing than the software developers.

---

Technically, the "industry" doesn't do anything - its independent actors do. Under the current model that exists because of their aggregate actions, developers may be better off keeping titles on one console. And console makers have an interest in maintaining control over their hardware, as long as their competitors do the same. It's a prisoner's dilemma. I don't have the answers, but I do think everyone in the industry would be better off if consoles weren't competing with each other.

P.S. My third point wasn't a questin of technology and/or innovation. It was a question of propriety and benefit. Way to confuse your issues! :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Technically, the "industry" doesn't do anything - its independent actors do. Under the current model that exists because of their aggregate actions, developers may be better off keeping titles on one console. And console makers have an interest in maintaining control over their hardware, as long as their competitors do the same. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

---

I agree 100%. Finally! ;)
And it is because of these aggregate actions that the industry would be better off the way it is. In my humble, yet vocalized, opinion.

Quote:

---

I don't have the answers, but I do think everyone in the industry would be better off if consoles weren't competing with each other.

---

Eh...OK. I have mine, I suppose you can have yours. Even if it's wrong. :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EThugg
The greedy nerdy gamer in me though, likes less mainstream gamers, and new hardware all the time... ;)

---

And I just happen to be 100% greedy nerdy gamer. :p

Think about it guys. Do you really want the videogame industry to become any more like music and movies than it already is? Are you ready to put up with an "N-Sync" of video games because that is 90% of what you would see. Personally I hate the music and movie industries. They can have all that. I don't want it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable I agree 100%. Finally! ;)
And it is because of these aggregate actions that the industry would be better off the way it is. In my humble, yet vocalized, opinion.

---

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I still don't think you're seeing my point. Each individual actor is better off doing things the way they're doing them now, because of the overarching market in which they operate. My argument is that the market is inefficient, not that any individual actor is doing anything they shouldn't. The whole market structure would have to change, which isn't very likely.