Quantcast
Console Wars abhor a tie

Forums - Sales Discussion - Console Wars abhor a tie

I think the console wars is fun and all. But a single console manfucatuer wouldnt be bad. Why? Let's say I bought my PS3 for 500$. Every game I buy for the next 6 years will be on the PS3. Say 5 a year. that's 50$ in royalties to sony. thus giveing them 300$ at least in royalties. You talk about competition? Nvidia and ATi dont even compete anymore. Nvidia is so much faster, and so much cheaper. They dont even get royalties. Basically what i'm saying is. A game designed for 1 console. Is GREAT. A game designed with 8 in mind... usually isnt. The Wii is gonna suffer on 3rd party for at least the next 12 months. (3rd party simply dont have the software there, and they need to make it) That is my turnoff for the Wii. The PS3... Isnt porting PS2 games to the PS3. So the PS3 has a total LACK of software. And the 360 is so based on FPS it's not even funny. Overall their all horrible choices I feel. But when one system stands ahead. The great games will come to it. The other games come to all platforms. I have a Wii, and i"m not getting rid of it. Incase somehow it does winout over the PS3 and 360. (for 3rd party) i'm planning on getting a 360 this fall. I'm hopeing for PS3/360 really. As I'm not very impressed with the's controllers. But if the games come to the Wii. I'm sure there will be aftermarket Wiimotes in a year or two. (I hope) So that would be nice.



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

Around the Network

I totally agree with Kwaad on the aspect of the multiplatforming. Yes, I also do think that one game with multiple systems in mind undoubtedly turns out to be not as good as a game that is developed from the ground up, specifically for the one console (Exclusives). The one tiny thing that I do disagree with is basically just a personal thing; I hate monoplies. I would hate it if one company would own all of the video gaming in the world, because it would mean that they have total control over what they do, and that our opinions and thoughts would matter significantly less than if there was a competitor. Then again, I might be misunderstanding you, Kwaad. I'm thinking you mean that you would like it if Sony (Can be replaced with the other companies as well) was the ONLY game console manufacturer, right?



Yeah, I finally have a sig.

linkthe2nd said: I totally agree with Kwaad on the aspect of the multiplatforming. Yes, I also do think that one game with multiple systems in mind undoubtedly turns out to be not as good as a game that is developed from the ground up, specifically for the one console (Exclusives). The one tiny thing that I do disagree with is basically just a personal thing; I hate monoplies. I would hate it if one company would own all of the video gaming in the world, because it would mean that they have total control over what they do, and that our opinions and thoughts would matter significantly less than if there was a competitor. Then again, I might be misunderstanding you, Kwaad. I'm thinking you mean that you would like it if Sony (Can be replaced with the other companies as well) was the ONLY game console manufacturer, right?
This is why the N64/PSX comparison appeals to me, because in that case the platforms were different enough that they got a lot of 3rd party exclusives each. I think the Wii is different enough to make it worthwhile to have 2 strong consoles: although PS3 vs. 360 looks more like Saturn vs. Playstation.



No one said a monoply, it should be a consortium. Like a standard for the hardware, for example DVD is a standard technology and many companies make dvd players. In fact having the standard and allowing various electronic companies to make these players would allow for 1 gaming console and yet eve MORE competition between the various electronics companies. As far as innovation and desire to create next gen systems you bet there is motivation there would even be more motivation then there is now. Look the whole point of creating a system is to establish a userbase when Sony has 100+ million in the ps2 userbase, it's truly with a heavy heart that they now have to go out and start all over again losing money on all these systems. But with the consortium, and more factories producing parts for the one standard, electronic companies would sell this system at a profit. They are motivated to start the process over again, because they make money off you buying the new system. And with everyone making the same system, the price of this mass market device would reduce quickly. Think about it if the ps3 starts selling like hot cakes what motivation do they have to lower the price? They have a monopoly on ps3 hardware therefore they have no competition within their own hardware. But if many electronic companies were producing ps3s there would be a price war of sorts(like dvd players) and prices would come down quicker. As for innovation, you'd have even more of it. I said earlier with one system there would be no teams just making the same game for another system, everyone would be making different games. And due to the heavy competition more people would stretch into more creative markets. There would be more interersting peripherals because with one dominate system it would be less risky to create one, and there would be more motivation to do so simply to stand out from the sheer volume of publishers producing software from the same consoles. Think about it! Dividing your game content on different consoles is actually eliminating compeititon not creating it.



Surprisingly good stuff, Kwaad. You're right. People benefit from a monopoly, not from competition, because they get to get all the good games on one format. This is true of publishers too; they only want to invest in one console. Going multi-platform is not the ideal for publishers, and in fact increasing multi-platform gaming and increasing multi-console ownership are trends at odds with one another, though they're caused by the same fierce competition. At this point in time, there's no need to be worried about the monopoly either. With the industry having proven itself, there will always be a new company waiting to disrupt the market with an amazing new product if the current monopoly falters (like Sony knocking out arrogant, misguided Nintendo in the mid-90s). With the ever plumeting price of technology, something new will always come along and be implemented by a newcomer which improves and fundamentally changes the experience of gaming. The cycle has become more self-sustaining than it was in 1983.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.

Around the Network

The consortium thing was tried by by 3DO. The hardware ended up being *way* too expensive because everyone was trying to take a cut at every step.



Fooflexible... It just isn't going to happen. Why would a massive company like Sony... Who can manufacture absolutely everything in-house... Who has driven 10 years of growth in the home console arena... Want to become part of a "consortium"?? Reduce their risk, sure, but also reduce their potential returns... Its also probably going to result in a worse product... How does a "consortium" do effective hardware/operating system integration as is now essential for every console? How do the companies even get a basic direction for the system? It just doesn't make much sense.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.

"...or will we find that everybody can succeed this time around[?]" We have to remember that for Sony to "succeed" they have to sell at least 80 million units.



By life end:

  • Wii- 100 million+
  • Xbox360- 35~40 million
  • PS3- 30 million
  • PSP- 30~32 million ------------- FAILURE
  • NDS- 85~90 million (Skeptical)  - FAILURE
  • NDS- 100 million+ (Optimistic) -- Success!

 

 

Well I say sony, but microsoft would be fine. I dont like the Wii so much because it feels like a simplifyed computer interface. (duh, pointer+a few buttons) My joystick has more inputs than the Wiimote. I hope it dosent become the 'standard' console this generation. I'm not saying monopolies are good. Notice. I said 500$. Not even 600$. As long as the hardware is at a decent price range. I would MUCH prefer 1 console. The 360 would be a great winning platform as well. But I am interested in Jgames alot. So that crosses the 360 off for me for now. I think they should all do what Sega did and go to software, and support who is willing to loose money on the hardware. :P I'm not saying sony is the only one that would be good if it became a monopoly. the 360 would be fine too. I am just disappointed in the Wii's ability to play 'standard' games. (a simple new controller for it would be a very easy fix tho)

Shadow)OS said: "...or will we find that everybody can succeed this time around[?]" We have to remember that for Sony to "succeed" they have to sell at least 80 million units.
What does that mean? From that number Nintendo has NEVER succeeded in a home console.



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

Kwaad said: Well I say sony, but microsoft would be fine. I dont like the Wii so much because it feels like a simplifyed computer interface. (duh, pointer+a few buttons) My joystick has more inputs than the Wiimote. I hope it dosent become the 'standard' console this generation. I'm not saying monopolies are good. Notice. I said 500$. Not even 600$. As long as the hardware is at a decent price range. I would MUCH prefer 1 console. The 360 would be a great winning platform as well. But I am interested in Jgames alot. So that crosses the 360 off for me for now. I think they should all do what Sega did and go to software, and support who is willing to loose money on the hardware. :P I'm not saying sony is the only one that would be good if it became a monopoly. the 360 would be fine too. I am just disappointed in the Wii's ability to play 'standard' games. (a simple new controller for it would be a very easy fix tho)
I think the Wii plays games like Zelda just fine... And actually, the direct aiming with the Wiimote is so smooth and accurate that it really adds some to the game... Though the waggle-sword is a little annoying...
Shadow)OS said: "...or will we find that everybody can succeed this time around[?]" We have to remember that for Sony to "succeed" they have to sell at least 80 million units. What does that mean? From that number Nintendo has NEVER succeeded in a home console.
Based on their previous success, and the types of losses they are putting up, Sony would have to do a huge amount... Nintendo built the market up to 60 million systems, before entering a 15 year slide, so just building back up to 60 (and I think they've absolutely got 50 in the bag already) would be incredible for them, especially considering the profits they're putting up already. For MS, I'd say the goal is 50 million.



"[Our former customers] are unable to find software which they WANT to play."
"The way to solve this problem lies in how to communicate what kind of games [they CAN play]."

Satoru Iwata, Nintendo President. Only slightly paraphrased.