scottie said:
Squilliam said:
Since consoles are so closed in and monopolistic and the console manufacturers seem intent on creating consoles cut from the same cloth as each other, there really isn't any need to have more than one console manufacturer or console standard. Its wasteful for people to own more than one console and its wasteful for publishers and developers to create games for more than one standard. Furthermore its becoming more important that a single winning format is found because the competing consoles will probably never network with each other and the competing online standards will contunue to drive a wedge between people, making it more difficult for friends to play and communicate with each other.
For several generations consoles have had pretty much identical controller schemes. This generation is different, fine but once a standard is found which makes everybody happy it will become identical in execution at least again. Sony doesn't make games on competing consoles and neither does Nintendo, but thats the least of the concerns here. I really don't care which one decides they want it badly enough or finally executes a crushing blow on the others I just want simplicity, so people can go into a retail store and buy games from one rack and retailers don't have to offer the same titles on 2-4 competing platforms at once.
The alphabetical order of suckyness goes Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony. I don't care if you love two and hate one or love all three they don't have an ordained place on the market and since consoles are monopolistic in nature there will be only one winning format in the end. Its natural for the other losing manufacturers to be kicked to the curb by the market and the previous generation was the perfect example. Add network play into the mix and you've got the possibility that one of the console manufacturers will aquire enough of a lead to make the others irrelevant and stay irrelevant due to how the network effects of online play would keep other companies from competing.
|
That is completely different to how I see it.
Step 1 - a console maker becomes dominant
Step 2 - The other console makers get kicked to the curb, dust themselves off and produce their best work ever
Step 3 - These console makers then become dominant
It happened to Atari, Nintendo, Sony, and it's sure as hell going to happen to Nintendo again one day (probably not for a couple of generations)
Competition breeds innovation
|
There was absolutely no innovation from the PS1 -> PS2 generations and yet there were 3 strong competitors. There has been competition without innovation so how exactly does that prove there will be innovation with competition? Furthermore, the more the console software market is split the fewer innovative and risky games can be produced.
Also theres no guarentee now as the software and hardware market has started to change that a console manufacturer can get back onto the horse after its fallen off of it. The more people are tied to a particular platform the harder it is for a console manufacturer which has been pushed to the outside to come back in. Multiple phone companies exist because they are interoperatable, but multiple online networked consoles will have a much harder time justifying the existance of multiple networks.
