System wars suck.

The gaming industry is stupid as hell when it comes to systems.

Well, okay, let's say DVDs worked the same way video games did... The Godfather trilogy would be exclusive to Panasonic players, Warner Bros. would release their best movies on Toshiba, but crap like Summer Catch or whatever the deuce would be multiplatform... hey, A Beautiful Mind is Aiwa-exclusive! Well, you get the idea. You'd have to have multiple DVD players if you wanted a cohesive library... Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

But it's EXACTLY how the game industry operates. I say make one all-inclusive format, let the actual hardware be made by multiple manufacturers, whoever wants to (Panasonic, Toshiba, Aiwa, et al). I mean, video game hardware is usually manufactured nearly at cost, sometimes MORE THAN cost. Why would you want to lose money? Well, obviously product placement... but still. Just making games offers a much higher return on investment, not to mention that a single format would ensure that more (MANY more) people will buy those games.

Now obviously the shelf life of systems is considerably less than that of movie or music formats, that's unavoidable. But think about it, people still buy VHSes (VHSi?), despite the obvious greatness of DVDs, or audio cassettes over CDs. The same would happen under the aforementioned plan, let's say a video game format dubbed CVG has been out for a few years, and now a new format called DVG is hitting the market. You may not see as much market penetration right away on the DVG players due to the sheer number of people that would already own CVG players, obviously. It took more than a year for the general populace to even notice DVDs. DVGs will trickle out at first, then become the common format. Meanwhile, CVGs will have such a huge user base that it would take YEARS for them to die off, so people with those would still be getting quality titles for a good bit after DVGs have launched. The system and games would be quite expensive when they first hit the market, obviously, but as with DVD players, would be down to ludicrously low prices before you knew it. Well, okay, this is a lot like PS and PS2... but on a much grander scale.

Radical thinking, to be certain, but I'm certain it would put video gaming right up there with the music (well, maybe that's a bit optimistic) and video industries. We'd definitely see prices on games drop to AT LEAST the $20-30 range due to the tremendous user base, and manufacturers would make many more copies of each game. I think it'd especially be a godsend for niche genres; For instance, even the crappiest of horror movies sells thousands of copies on DVD. If video games were on that kind of scale, even relative failures would probably show greater numbers than the industry's top sellers are showing now.

Wow, that was quite a diatribe I went off on there, but I firmly believe it would give the game industry the following it so richly deserves... plus you'd be guaranteed that every game would be accessible to a large audience, no more having to buy a system for one or two titles. Well, there may be a few Laserdisc or DivX-esque bumps in the road, but those were success stories compared to the Virtual Boy or the 3DO. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacon McShig
But it's EXACTLY how the game industry operates.

---

You said it all right there. That's how it is. It's it's own industry, granted it functions under the umbrella of "Entertainment."

The reason the movie industry functions that way is because of the way it began. The software came first, then all the hardware manufacturers did was cater to the software specs. And since the software didn't change from player to player, uniformity was achieved. Same with the music industry.

The gaming industry was lead by hardware. The software, though the most profitable, was secondary. That's why it's modeled the way it is. Because the software was made to fit the hardware. Not the other way arround like other entertainment industries. The video game industry prolly could function like the movie/music industries...but not anymore. We're to far along to look back and worry about what coulda/woulda/shoulda been done.

Shidoshi likes to argue this point a lot, and now you are too, but I'm still not down with it. You make some great points (huge userbase can lead to cheaper games, only have to buy one system), but then the games are limited to only one system, and limited to that system's power. I'm glad not every game this generation has to be limited to the PS2s power level. Panzer Dragoon Orta could never be so beautiful on a PS2, for instance.

Its kind of like you are arguing that PCs should only be upgraded every three years. That's all good for making everything standard, but then it would be harder to push the limits of PC architecture and move the industry forward.

- Kabuki

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kabuki
Shidoshi likes to argue this point a lot...

---

Shidoshi is a know-nothing jack-ass. He has perfect hindsight, but no foresight and common sense.

Quote:

---

You said it all right there. That's how it is. It's it's own industry

---

Very true. And I'm not saying that I expect this to happen. I don't, at least not anytime in the forseeable future... and even then, it's a looooong shot. I meant the post as more of a "What-If?".
http://216.150.214.165/istore/images...8701518.44.gif
Yes, who doesn't love a good What If?...

Kabuki somewhat said it already. All movies play on DVD players because movie DVDs are not advancing forward technologically. They all use the same format when viewed, so it's not like your DVD player is working harder to play an older movie like Casablanca than it is to play a newer one like Vanilla Sky. Videogames, however, all push different technological limits and are constantly advancing upon themselves. Therefore, a variety of players are necessary for the industry to broaden, and new players are necessary every few years for the industry to move forward. Having one universal system would be ideal for the consumer in theory, but all that would do is make game technology stagnant and bore the fuck out of us.

Following on Kabuki's reply, the PC market has basically achieved what you're suggesting, having a uniform format for games and pretty much letting companies decide how to make that technology pop. (Ok, so there are Mac's and PCs, but that's beside the point). All PC games play on all PC's, as long as system requirements are high enough, and therein lies the problem of PC's: constant upgrades.

Although they've achieved the "all-inclusive format" you talked about, they still have compatability issues because of constant upgrades in performance. If consoles were to have one end-all-be-all platform, then the shelf-life would be even shorter than it is now, as most PCs are obsolete within 3 years. A universal system would mean all games would be compatable, but technology advances so quickly, there'd be a new "universal system" out every year or so. Spec wise, look how fast Dreamcast was one-upped by PS2, and look how PS2 was blown over by Xbox; that universal technology wouldn't last more than a year, much like PCs. Heck, my PIII 900mhz was top of the line 18 months ago, now it's middle of the road...bleah. :mad:

So basically, the scenario you envision for consoles would basically turn into the current PC market; I think both have their strengths, but I think both should stay the way they are in order to preserve the shelf-life/plug&play features of consoles and the universal compatability/technology evolving of PCs.

Dang Jim Justice, you sure have gotten surly since you changed screen names...I take it 'doshi is not on your Christmas card list...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RedTerrier
Dang Jim Justice, you sure have gotten surly since you changed screen names...I take it 'doshi is not on your Christmas card list...

---

:p

I've never really liked what he has to say. I'm just being more vocal about it. If you look really hard through the archive, you'll see where I've told Shidoshi these things to his virtual face. But he's either ignored them or not read them, as the pace of this board is fast. I can't really say I don't like him, as I don't know him. And calling him these names is really in poor form, so I'll be stopping. But, either way, he needs to cool down a bit and lay off the extremist drama...and maybe admit that he needs schooling in a few areas (read: he doesn't know everything, like he would have you believe).

I've been thinking about this phenomenon for a while myself. The only argument for multiple consoles is that competition drives the industry forward. Kabuki makes a good point, but I don't believe increased graphical quality justifies the ridiculously inefficient market structure. I would have been content playing N64 (or equivalent) for a few more years if the games would have kept coming.

Another way of looking at it - to all of you who own all three consoles ($550 worth of technology, and $800 before the drop) - how much power do you think that money would buy if you could buy one superconsole that could play everything? Granted such a console wouldn't be marketable at that price, but I think the notion shows just how backwards the market really is.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
...but I think the notion shows just how backwards the market really is.

---

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 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're comparing "what we make" with "what they make."

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.

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."

---

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:

---

If you don't want to call it backward, then call it whatever you want. Just don't call it efficient.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

You're assuming that what has been the case will continue to be the case.

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.

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.

Holy f*ck! I did a long rant about exactly this on anther forum and everyone totally dismissed me. This was the first post I read on this forum and it has convinced me to sign up right away.

If anyone wants to read my rant:

Quote:

---

First, go read this article regarding a press conference with Iwata regardign the future of Nintendo and the gaming industry at large.

It seems here that there is a concession on the part of Nintendo that they are a better software developer than hardware manufacturer. I think we all already knew this, but this is the first time Nintendo has really said it out loud.

He also points out that we are reaching the limits of where sound and graphics are the real game sellers. Basically all the systems can accomplish anything in terms of gameplay, and the graphics and audio lose some of their novelty. In a generation or two the systems will all be so powerful that the differences between them are a minor concern. In fact, I would even say that we are pretty much there already. Admit it: Bits and polygons were the last thing on your mind when you bought your current system.

So if the hardware is to become a secondary concern, are we to infer that there is a possibility that Nintendo could go 3rd party? I think it's a reasonable scenario. Although Nintendo makes a profit currently, and has not reached any point of desparation (as Sega had) which would force them to go 3rd party, I beleive that if Nintendo were to come to the point where there were able to see that they would clearly make more money as a 3rd party, then by the nature of business they would do that which maximizes profit.

Would Nintendo make more money as a 3rd party in this changing industry? I would think so. Nintendo's first and second parties have always been the major boons to their consoles. The N64 is probably the best example, in which Nintendo consistantly had at least one first party N64 title on the top 10 for pretty much the entire life span of the console, but very few 3rd party titles ever managed the same thing. The theory beind being a first party is that, while you sell the system at below cost, you make your money back on liscensing fees from 3rd parties. With Nintendo, the bulk of it's profit came not from liscensing royalties, but from sales of first party games. If Nintendo could release these same games to a broader market and not have to eat the costs of hardware production, then there is the distinct possibility that Nintendo could make more money, not because they are the weakest (They make more money than Xbox) but because Nintendo is ahead of the game and most prepared to make the switch when the industry changes direction.

So where is the industry going? That's a tough question to answer. We are clearly in a transitional phase. The industry is stronger than ever in terms of revenue, but there are alot of conflicted gamers out there. Most gamecube and Xbox owners also have a PS2 in the house. This is ecause they want to play games on competing standards. This is not good for consumers. Already we have seen a sharp increase in porting since the last generation. This is going to lead to games being developed for the lowest common denominator. First parties are bdding for exclusives, and it gets harder and harder to chose a system. Although I still here kids rant about "My system is better than your system" those of us with some more maturity probably realize that it's just about games. The real winner will be the company who can deliver us the most and highest quality content in one package.

I think there will be a change in model. Sony is trying to push ahead development of the PS3 already in order to stay competitive. I think they're failing to realize how totally unimportant the graphical horsepower is. The current generation cycle is going to change. In two more genarations the primary limitation in a game's graphical quality will be the time, money, and talent the company has to put into the game. It will be an artistic limitation, not a technical one. At this point there is going to be very little way to keep consumers convinced that they need to throw away the old system in favor of a new one every 5 years.

We need a standard. VHS and Beta battled it out for a while, and VHS won. 8track battled with conventional audio tapes. The industry realized that these kinds of competing standards cost the industry money. When it came time to move to a digital audio standard, the industry giants got together and developed the CD standard, which they would all back. The birth of DVDs was similar in nature.

I think the gaming industry will take a similar turn. There needs to be a standard. I hope that the software and hardware developers will work together to create a standard. This would mean that one company would own and operate the liscensing, which would be set to a fixed fee (like DVDs). The technology would be proprietary, but the company that owns it would not neccessarily be in charge of manufacture, so costs would be low and limited to development (keeping liscensing cheap, passing on savings to the consumer). This will mean multiple hardware manufacturers. This will mean that systems will be more expensive at first, as companies will need to sell them at a profit, but with greater competiton comes a greater push to find manufaturing techniques to reduce the costs, and provide their player at the cheapest price. That, coupled with the greatly decreased generation cycle means long term savings.

The gaming industry has become mainstream. The time has come to break away from system wars. Nintendo already might be at the point where they'd do better as a 3rd party. Xbox has yet to show it's commercial viability, and Sony is pretty seless as a software developer. I think it's time for the industry to collect itself and work out the best way to make money. This way isn't going to hold for much longer.

So where do you see the industry in 10 years? Do you see Nintendo as a first party still? Where will Sony and MS be? will there be a standard?

---

Pretty much the same point you made. I think I'm going to like it here. :cool:

I'd like to expand upon a few points though:

First off, this is the exact opposite of what the PC industry has done. What I (and I assume Bacon) am proposing is a regulated industry standard. The PC is a lack of a standard. No set hardware, no liscensing, no nothing. I think we need a regulated proprietary standard backed by the industry with fixed liscensing rates. Teh technology would not be owned by the company that makes the hardware or software. Both systems and games would be made by 3rd parties. This would fuel competition on all sides, and keep liscensing fees even. This is exactly what was done with CDs and DVDs, and it could work just as well with any entertainment media, games included.

Also, whoever said it would make for weaker graphics is failing to appreciate the decreasing role of the actual hardware as a limiting factor for visual quality. It's more about art that polygons now, and that's becoming more true with each passing generation.

Anyway, greetings all. I look forward to spending time here.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
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.

---

I don't see how the industries are any different, and even if I did, I don't see how this would make the situation even worse. All these industries have big production value mega-hits, crap that sells because of a license, and largely unseen niche titles. You probably don't see anything beyond N-Sync and other MTV nonsuch because you're not an enthusiast in those media. Just like most gamers don't sweat Treasure.

The market is already built to support one format. The 2600, NES, PSX and PS2 were all supported as the standard, the closest we ever came to a two platform market would've been during the SNES & Genesis era. I have no problem putting 200$ towards a new system every five years if it means the market won't stagnate like the handheld one.

Holy shit, Frog. That was the best first post I've ever seen.

If you can rant like that on a regular basis frog, you'll do just fine here. Welcome!

PS- Where else did you post before?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RedTerrier
If you can rant like that on a regular basis frog, you'll do just fine here. Welcome!

PS- Where else did you post before?

---

Thank ye kindly.

I used to post on the IGN DC boards,and I followed all the outsiders there to CloudChaser, which became XenGen. I've met some cool people there, but there's alot of younger gamers, and not many people relate to my hardcore bias. Real mixed bag. This place seems about right though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
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.

---

I do see your point, but I tallied it in a way that maybe you weren't expecting. You say that it's that market that influences the "individual actors." I say it's the actors that influence the market. So when you say "the market needs to change," I hear "the 'actors' need to change the market."

If the market is inefficient, it's the producers who are at fault, and thus they are doing something wrong, because if they make the market, and the market is inefficient, then they made it that way and are acting wrongly. The only way for the whole market structure to change would be if the producers changed it...and if it were as grossly inefficient as you say, then they'd be forced to change it, as they'd all be knocking on bankruptcy's door. Are they making as much as they could with a more efficient business model? Maybe not. But they're doing pretty good (USD12 billion/yr).

I see the merits of your proposal. I even agree with some points! I agree that it makes more sence for the consumer to pay USD200 (the "sweet spot" for consumer electronics) for one "Super-console" than to pay USD800+ for three. Especially if the producers of said hardware are undercutting. I agree with EThugg, that money lies in making consoles as common as VCRs and the like. But I will not agree that that model is the future of games. A desireable future? Yes. But a real, tangable future? Not at all. Why? Because of this industries history. We are to entrenched in the descisions made in the past to do anything to change it in the future, sad though it may be.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
Holy shit, Frog. That was the best first post I've ever seen.

---

Likewise! Excelence! I look forward to reading more of what you have to offer. :D

*bump*

Can't let burgundy think he got the last word in. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chibi Nappa
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.

---

bullseye!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000



bullseye!!!!!!

---

Not to be overly sarcastic, but don't you think that the reason for that is because developers choose what platform to develop a game based on what system's audience will receive it best has and not really some innate property of the hardware (especially in this genaration)? Should there be a single console that same variety would still exist but it would be on one console. It's not the systems themselves that make the games different.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frogacuda


Not to be overly sarcastic, but don't you think that the reason for that is because developers choose what platform to develop a game based on what system's audience will receive it best has and not really some innate property of the hardware (especially in this genaration)? Should there be a single console that same variety would still exist but it would be on one console. It's not the systems themselves that make the games different.

---

I don't get it. What does all of that have to do with "bullseye?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Frogacuda


Not to be overly sarcastic, but don't you think that the reason for that is because developers choose what platform to develop a game based on what system's audience will receive it best has and not really some innate property of the hardware (especially in this genaration)?

---

I don't think so. I can (usually) beyond a shadow of a doubt tell what hardware a game is being played on just by looking at the screen and listening even if I never saw the game before and even if it is a mulit console title. Genny games use a ton of vertical stripes to "shade" the graphics and the sound goes "splat". SNES games have shiny sound and use less gradation and more color to shade. TG16 games shade with dots usually and sound less "real" than SNES games but still as shiny. The Neo Geo blinds you with colors and animation. In the 32 bit era the Saturn had bigger "chunks" in it's 3D than the PS and sported the characteristic "mesh" shadows. The N64 on the other had had lower poly counts and low res textures, but had a much more solid Z axis and the graphics were filtered to high heaven. I have very limited experiance with current hardware (aside from DC) but from what I can tell the DC has a "cleaner" picture than the PS2, but less effects going on and a slightly less organic look. The XBox appears to throw arround bump mapping just because it can. Let's also not forget things like progressive scan that jump out and smack you (well, at least me) in the face. I admit that it is harder for me to tell a Cube game from an Xbox game than it was in past generations, but at the same time I only have about 3 games for each and I have not put in much playtime on my Cube to get to know its unique look yet. Jaggeriffic PS2 games are easy to spot, and I know the look of my DC like the back of my hand tho'.

Hardware definatly has it's own characteristic look and sound independant of games.