By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - If every console in the same gen got every game ...........................

sc94597 on 28 February 2008
ChichiriMuyo said:
There wouldn't be much of a console war in that situation, no. But then there'd also be less innovation and fewer attempts to create better and/or cheaper products. Really, the industry would stagnate, and if Nintendo delaying the SNES and continuing to get games on the NES until the mid-90's isn't proof of the industry hitting a standstill when there's no competition, nothing is.

 I believe they would try harder because they would want to make their version better. The only thing they could do is advance their console so its better than the others. 



Around the Network
Stever89 on 28 February 2008
Sky Render said:
Even in your scenario, the least expensive system still wins. What constitutes utility varies from person to person, but the overall experience tends to be the largest source of utility for most. In other words, the more fun is had, the more utility is gained. To that end, superior gameplay and immersive controls would result in more utility than more content or better visuals. So, let's come up with some arbitrary numbers weighted according to an "average" consumer's interests...

PS3 Overall Utility = 500 (200 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 100 content)
360 Overall Utility = 450 (150 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 200 content)
Wii Overall Utility = 600 (100 graphics, 200 gameplay, 200 controls, 100 content)

PS3 price = $500 Utility = 1 per $1
360 price = $300 Utility = 1.5 per $1
Wii price = $250 Utility = 2.4 per $1

Of course, the breakdown would be different for a self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamer, but they don't make up the market majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Good post. At least someone's taken economics or something along that lines.

Bold part: What if we really really stretched it?

Yeah, if every console got every game... then the games probably wouldn't be as good. And the consoles wouldn't try as hard to differentiate, because they'd get every game anyway. That's why it's the way it is. 360 gets DLC for GTA4 because they want to be different, and have something different to sell. If the PS3 (and Wii for that matter) got GTA4 and the DLC, then not only would Microsoft probably not pay 50 million to get it (why would they pay for something everyone else will get?), but we probably wouldn't see the DLC on any of them. It wouldn't destroy the industry... but it wouldn't be as healthy and it wouldn't move forward as fast as it is now.



thekitchensink on 28 February 2008
Stever89 said:
Sky Render said:
Even in your scenario, the least expensive system still wins. What constitutes utility varies from person to person, but the overall experience tends to be the largest source of utility for most. In other words, the more fun is had, the more utility is gained. To that end, superior gameplay and immersive controls would result in more utility than more content or better visuals. So, let's come up with some arbitrary numbers weighted according to an "average" consumer's interests...

PS3 Overall Utility = 500 (200 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 100 content)
360 Overall Utility = 450 (150 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 200 content)
Wii Overall Utility = 600 (100 graphics, 200 gameplay, 200 controls, 100 content)

PS3 price = $500 Utility = 1 per $1
360 price = $300 Utility = 1.5 per $1
Wii price = $250 Utility = 2.4 per $1

Of course, the breakdown would be different for a self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamer, but they don't make up the market majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Good post. At least someone's taken economics or something along that lines.

Bold part: What if we really really stretched it?

Yeah, if every console got every game... then the games probably wouldn't be as good. And the consoles wouldn't try as hard to differentiate, because they'd get every game anyway. That's why it's the way it is. 360 gets DLC for GTA4 because they want to be different, and have something different to sell. If the PS3 (and Wii for that matter) got GTA4 and the DLC, then not only would Microsoft probably not pay 50 million to get it (why would they pay for something everyone else will get?), but we probably wouldn't see the DLC on any of them. It wouldn't destroy the industry... but it wouldn't be as healthy and it wouldn't move forward as fast as it is now.


I understand what you're saying here, and it's a perfectly reasonable argument, but I can just never bring myself to agree when someone says this.  Before HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, did we see any rapid decline in movie quality when there was just one format?  No, we still got or lotr's, I Robots, Star Wars', Terminators, action movies, horror movies, great comedies, buddy-cop flicks, and all that great stuff.  My point is, no one was getting bored of the movie industry a few years ago.



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."
Sky Render on 28 February 2008

Format of home video release hardly determines much when it comes to what movies are made, as movies tend to be made for theatrical display first. And for the most part, there's not much in the way of competition for theater equipment. By and large, film quality is more influenced by box office ticket sales than home video sales. This is apparent in the fact that you don't see analysts praising a movie for being the top-selling DVD release nearly as much as they praise a movie for breaking box office records or getting #1 on the charts for more than 4 weeks straight.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

thekitchensink on 28 February 2008

^^I was talking about the actual quality of the films themselves. Better DVD players are usually able to display them somewhat better (faster read speeds, etc), just like certain consoles would be able to display better graphics in this hypothetical situation.



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."
Around the Network
Sky Render on 28 February 2008

And how many people would honestly care, do you suppose? Oh certainly, visual quality buffs would never settle for DVD when they could have Blu-Ray, but again, that's not the norm. The norm is a desire to have an optimal experience for the price, and visual quality factors in far less than the quality of the subject being portrayed (in this case, the movie itself).  In this market model, though the user would be willing to pay more for Blu-Ray than DVD, they would not be willing to pay as much more for it as a visual quality buff would. 



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

ChichiriMuyo on 29 February 2008
sc94597 said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
There wouldn't be much of a console war in that situation, no. But then there'd also be less innovation and fewer attempts to create better and/or cheaper products. Really, the industry would stagnate, and if Nintendo delaying the SNES and continuing to get games on the NES until the mid-90's isn't proof of the industry hitting a standstill when there's no competition, nothing is.

 I believe they would try harder because they would want to make their version better. The only thing they could do is advance their console so its better than the others. 


Sure, each company would make improved hardware.  No doubt about it.  But they wouldn't be upgrading the technology so much as adding small features.  You'd essentially have another VHS or DVD, and it'd take billions of dollars being exchanged behind closed doors to make any genuine advancements in console videogaming for as long as the companies can maintain that one format.

Sky Renderer said: "By and large, film quality is more influenced by box office ticket sales than home video sales"

LOL.  Sure, tell yourself that.  Most movies don't even make a profit in the theaters anymore and wouldn't get made if not for DVD sales, but keep telling yourself otherwise.  It doesn't harm anyone.  I agree with you otherwise, but on this matter I just can't.  It's not really relevant to the discussion, though, I suppose.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

thekitchensink on 29 February 2008
Sky Render said:

And how many people would honestly care, do you suppose? Oh certainly, visual quality buffs would never settle for DVD when they could have Blu-Ray, but again, that's not the norm. The norm is a desire to have an optimal experience for the price, and visual quality factors in far less than the quality of the subject being portrayed (in this case, the movie itself).  In this market model, though the user would be willing to pay more for Blu-Ray than DVD, they would not be willing to pay as much more for it as a visual quality buff would. 


True, but if you use that argument, you have to do the same for gaming.  The Wii offers a great experience for its' price right now, as does the 360, and, for better or worse, the PS3.  It would be the same in this situation, if they had all the same features they have now but they all had the same games.



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."
Sky Render on 29 February 2008

Video games are not a primarily visual medium. Like the real-world games they were first derived from, they are a primarily interactive medium. Their primary means of entertainment comes through how you interact with them, and how those interactions play out. In that regard, the Wii has an undeniable advantage over the 360 and PS3 even in a perfect market.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.