fooflexible on 06 March 2007
First off I'm using the consortium concept as a hypotheitcal one. There is no way someone like Sony would just start one out of the blue, at least not in the immediate future. But I just want to address some of the missconceptions about the idea, and get your mind to open to other business models instead of pretending the only way a business works is the only way it's ever been done. first:
stewacide said: 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.
Your right 3DO did work this way but it's hardly a fair comparison. Any system that wasn't backed by major publishers failed, even some made by major publishers failed. About the expense, bringing up the price of the 3DO is an interesting subject, yes it started at an insanely high $700, even today that sounds crazy, but your forget about the consortium model. Remember those $1000 DVD players? What are they now 50 bucks? Yeah these system are expensive at launch but because of competition and all the manufacturing dedicated to it the price will drop incredibly fast, plus you'd have various versions at different price points(wifi, harddrive and the likes as options) Besides I'd rather buy one expensive console that plays everything, then shell out $1,250 to have all three.
Erik Aston said: 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.
Sony is already part of a consortium, what do you think Blu-ray is? They know the benefit a consortium can provide. And it's not just about reducing the risk, it's about reducing their horrendous losses everytime they produce hardware. According to Sony they are going to lose 2 billion dollars on the ps3's first fiscal year. Imagine if they licensed out the technology and charged electronic companies a fee to build it, instead of losing 2 billion, they'd have made a quarter billion perhaps. Either way they'd be in the green at launch, not playing catch up 3 years down the road.
imagine for a moment that dvds and cd players were not designed by consortiums people, it would mean only certain bands would release on certain music players, only sony's movies would be on Sony dvd players, to get MGM's movies you'd have to buy Toshiba or something, and occasionaly you'd have a multiplatform cd or dvd that everyone can get. You notice how people are hesitating on geting a hd-dvd or blu-ray because they don't want a player that isn't going to get every movie? What's the problem why can't they accept like us gamers that you either buy both players or deal with not getting every movie? Or are the gamers the ones that have it wrong? Why is it that we accept this as a normal business practice in the gaming world but not acceptable in any other industry? Imagine for a moment having to own 3 cd players, 3 dvd players, yes 3 of every kind of applience and electronic device in order to benefit from all exclusive content? It's insane, and the only reason we deal with it is because it's the way it's always been. I don't think it will change, I don't think we should stage a protest. I'm just attempting to get people to open their minds. And if you like the way things are then fine, but America suffers greatly from lack of ingenuity, they lack it in products and in business models.
