A Canadian is Actually Right About Something

[Frogacuda]

The PC is kind of a lack of a standard, though, so that's a bit different.

Here's another possibility: The first parties, in order to fend off a third-party standard, as well as adapt to a changing market, may decide to adopt a more third-party-like business model. For instance, blu-Ray is a first party standard, but the license fees are more reasonable, they don't police content, and they allow for different third party hardware manufacturers to license the technology. I could imagine such a change happening instead of a true third party standard.

[Advocate]

Myself and Frog talked about that.

I could see the first parties adopting a third party model.

[NeoZeedeater]

The PC is kind of a lack of a standard, though, so that's a bit different.

In some ways that's true. It's not closed architecture so people have to check specs or add certain hardware to runs things. It is a standard in that any company can make them and people can run software made for "PCs" in general, similar to DVD players running DVDs. The earlier situation I mentioned didn't resemble a standard at all. Things wouldn't parallel exactly with a console standard since it would likely be closed architecture but I was mostly using the computer industry as an example to show that an industry model can shift fairly quickly.

[Rem]

Can someone explain to me why consumers would want a one console future? I really don't know. Granted you wouldn't have to buy multiple expensive toys but four the most part you dont now. If there isn't a race wouldn't that just breed shit? The wii has shown quality is totally optional to make money. Im not saying something wii quality would be the result but what would stop it from becoming the standard though?

[Frogacuda]

Can someone explain to me why consumers would want a one console future?

In all likelyhood they wouldn't think about it all that much, but the benefits to the consumer are numerous, including a more diverse market that's better able to service many niches that are being locked out of the console market rigth now, and more stratified pricing that includes more $20 and $30 games and not just $50 and $60.

[Joust Williams]

I like everything centralized. I like to play one system at a time (right now, PC gets all the play).

[Rem]

including a more diverse market that's better able to service many niches that are being locked out of the console market rigth now, and more stratified pricing that includes more $20 and $30 games and not just $50 and $60.

Why? What incentive would companies have to charge 20 or 30 dollars for a game instead of the already standard fifty or sixty? And why would niches do better just because there is only one console?

(right now, PC gets all the play)

What do you play? Just for my own edification, aside from wow, RTSs and console ports what is there?

[Frogacuda]

Why? What incentive would companies have to charge 20 or 30 dollars for a game instead of the already standard fifty or sixty?

Same reason Steam has opened up the door for a lot of games that are targeted at lower price points. Inexpensive licensing will reduce the overhead per-disc by at least $10. This high base cost is what keeps a lot of budget games from coming out right now. Imagine if you have a $30 game. Take $10 out for the license, and then whatever cut retail gets, plus manfacturing and shipping, and what are you left with? Hard to make money that way. Also, the rigid approval process for the consoles forces out games of a smaller scope that would be deemed by MS or Sony as "not taking advantage of the hardware."

And why would niches do better just because there is only one console?

Because it would be much easier to release a game that is only expected to sell 20,000 copies and have that be profitable.

XBLA and PSN opened these markets up somewhat, but then MS and Sony control pricing and scheduling. This means, assuming MS even decides that your game is worthy (and it's getting harder and harder to get XBLA games approved, especially if they're new IPs), they're going to tell you what you can charge, and they might make you wait 8 months to put it out -- 8 months that a lot of small indie developers don't have.

Without the high overhead and archaic approval process, the console library starts to look more like Steam -- Big, expensive, blockbuster games, coexisting alongside a diverse selection of independent games of all different price points.


What do you play? Just for my own edification, aside from wow, RTSs and console ports what is there?[/QUOTE]

[Rem]

But isn't steam cheaper because it has to be? It's competing directly with brick and mortar stores as well as PSN and XBL in some cases. Obviously the old stuff isn't, it has to contend with out and out piracy. If there was one and only one console and people are used to paying a premium why would companies lower it? Steam has to compete, but if it didn't why ever put things on sale? Aside to temorarily spike sales I guess. I don't know it seems to me that if people are institutionalized into paying a premium they will.

[Frogacuda]

But isn't steam cheaper because it has to be?

Right, and a lot of games that aren't $50 million productions with 200 man teams have to be cheaper in order to be accepted by consumers as well. The problem is, the right price point for those titles isn't viable at retail because of high license fees so those games can't exist.

Indie games aren't going to compete with EA's blockbusters at $60 a pop. They're just not. You need to let these people sell their game for $20 and have most of that be profit if those games are going to exist. There's room for a lot more people in this industry that simply aren't being allowed in.