By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

As a follower of capitalism, this logic worries me. Competition breeds more unique content because companies are vying for the attention and dollar of the consumer. The consumer should always have the power. If we get too convinient the corporation will take the power from the consumer swiftly and slyly. In a healthy competing market you can always shift choices, have all of the choices or have none of the choices (generally to shift your focus elsewhere). If we had one brand, they would  not do much to seek our approval because their base is set in stone. Imagine a world where Microsoft had no competition. If you wish for no choice...you'll see the real side of a corporation once theyve monopolized the market.

 

You can thank Apple as to why Windows is still so competitive. It was Steve Jobs who was committed to creating synergy to premium, lifestyle-based products. This is why you see Microsoft doing trying to replicate the same concept with everything. 

I just want all of my games universal like my MP3s are universal or by movie discs are universal. I think that being tied to a single device is keeping gaming from being all that it can be. 

 

I'd be cool with a new standard in performance every few years as long as it's capable of running everything that came before. My 2001 DVDs still work on a device I can buy today but my 2001 video games (depending on the console) only run on my 2001 device. That sucks.

you can always go the emulation route on PC



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."