Support NeoGAF

[PepsimanVsJoe]

If Sony called up Microsoft Monday morning and said "we'll run your OS," the 360 would be yanked off the market by Monday evening. I think that would be great all around, but that's just me.

Ew...Well at least if/when that happens I'll have some time to catch up on my writing.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

Exactly...look how Nintendo was so stagnant as far as progress on the handheld front because they virtually had no competition at all. People were playing 8 bit monochrome screen gameboys for like 10 years before the next iteration came out!

Even in the console arena, they were ready to stick with NES for two years after Genesis came out. They were convinced that their huge library meant that they wouldn't have to invest in or take the risk of creating new hardware.

 

[VALIS]

Haha...funny that you provide no logical argument to defend your point of view.

As an academic and and interaction/interface designer, I can tell you that interface and user accessibility design has been held back about 10 years because of the lack of competition within this area of computing.

Feel free to start talking about the POST anti-trust Microsoft and marketplace situation any day now. Where's your unfair marketplace conditions now?

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Even in the console arena, they were ready to stick with NES for two years after Genesis came out. They were convinced that their huge library meant that they wouldn't have to invest in or take the risk of creating new hardware.

Exactly...so competition is good for everyone. As the Yves points out, MS is pushing Sony into the next-gen, else they would have pulled a Nintendo.

 

[lordfroakie]

Nantom?

Nintendo?

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Feel free to start talking about the POST anti-trust Microsoft and marketplace situation any day now. Where's your unfair marketplace conditions now?

So, you think because they lost a courtcase that changes their viewpoint on anything? That's a pretty naive, narrow-minded assessment of the situation. All it takes to do anything in this world is enough money, and Microsoft's got it. They could potentially buy out anything. It's about timing for them and good lawyering to boot.

The unfair conditions are still there. They are structurally built into the system. They are essentially well masked with lawyer speak and organizational fragmentation.

We know this to be the case because of the ease and seamlessness of which integration can be achieved with their already existing systems/OS (which has dominant market penetration). There sytem is proprietary and therefore, others are at a distinct systematic disadvantage from the get-go. This can be illustrated from the court-case which you bring up. Netscape that went down the tubes (even though MS was forced to bundle it with Windows), and more recently competitors of Window Media Player (Realplayer et al). Prior to both of those it was MS's office suite. Essentially, the nature of their proprietary OS and it's licensing system allows them to have a 95% lock on the market at any given time, even though they are not technically a full monopoly. Not unfair my ass.

 

[Bojangles]

So, you think because they lost a courtcase that changes their viewpoint on anything? That's a pretty naive, narrow-minded assessment of the situation. All it takes to do anything in this world is enough money, and Microsoft's got it. They could potentially buy out anything. It's about timing for them and good lawyering to boot.

The unfair conditions are still there. They are structurally built into the system. They are essentially well masked with lawyer speak and organizational fragmentation.

So you hate capitalism too? But what about all your talk of competition and monopolies? Or do you think the PS3 is better than the 360 because the 360 takes advantage of some perceived "Flaw in the system man"

I will be sure to take my PS2 to the next anti-globalization protest.

 

[kaching]

It's always interesting to watch the severity of the overreaction to the mere suggestion of a one console future. Tells you right up front that the reaction is more conditioned than it is thought out. All the scary things that monopolies are supposed to bring are happening just fine in an environment of robust competition, no monopoly in sight. Monopolies aren't always bad, competition isn't always good and somewhere in between those two is the One Console Future that some of you are too absolutist to see.

BTW, real, unfettered competition is supposed to allow for the possibility that one competitor legitimately just outcompetes another competitor. Competition itself can be the genesis of a monopoly. So it's clear that you guys don't want real competition, you want something that's regulated and held back from going to it's logical conclusion. So if we're in the business of regulating competition anyway, why not just regulate the situation into a controlled monopoly while we're at it?

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

So you hate capitalism too? But what about all your talk of competition and monopolies? Or do you think the PS3 is better than the 360 because the 360 takes advantage of some perceived "Flaw in the system man"

I will be sure to take my PS2 to the next anti-globalization protest.

Wow, way to take an argument out of context just to feel a sense of winning the argument. I said I support MS being in the videogame market, and I feel that the current state of having 3 consoles is good for the industry on the whole.

And yes, captilism is a form of economics which has its flaws but so does a socialist economy. A mixed economy is the answer. The answer to productivity with innovation lies within the balance IMO.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

It's always interesting to watch the severity of the overreaction to the mere suggestion of a one console future. Tells you right up front that the reaction is more conditioned than it is thought out. All the scary things that monopolies are supposed to bring are happening just fine in an environment of robust competition, no monopoly in sight. Monopolies aren't always bad, competition isn't always good and somewhere in between those two is the One Console Future that some of you are too absolutist to see.

Essentially, a one console future is a PC in your living room. Let's just get that out of the way. Does anyone want that? I already have a pcs in other rooms of my house.

 

[Bojangles]

Wow, way to take an argument out of context just to feel a sense of winning the argument. I said I support MS being in the videogame market, and I feel that the current state of having 3 consoles is good for the industry on the whole.

And yes, captilism is a form of economics which has its flaws but so does a socialist economy. A mixed economy is the answer. The answer to productivity with innovation lies within the balance IMO.

My issue is that your argument seems to be this (and please correct me if I misunderstood)

"I support MS being in the market, not because I would ever buy one, but because it forces my company of choice to improve"

That seems really bizarre to me.


Edit:

Essentially, a one console future is a PC in your living room. Let's just get that out of the way. Does anyone want that? I already have a pcs in other rooms of my house.

It's close, but no cigar. A PC has too much baggage from being a universal-computing device.

 

[bishoptl]

My issue is that your argument seems to be this (and please correct me if I misunderstood)

"I support MS being in the market, not because I would ever buy one, but because it forces my company of choice to improve"

That seems really bizarre to me.

How so?

Hypothetically speaking, I may love BMW and hate Mercedes-Benz, but I'll support MB staying in the market because the competition they provide forces BMW to continually improve their vehicles.

You don't have to like something to acknowledge the benefits it can provide.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

My issue is that your argument seems to be this (and please correct me if I misunderstood)

"I support MS being in the market, not because I would ever buy one, but because it forces my company of choice to improve"

That seems really bizarre to me.

Hmmm...you seem to have misunderstood.

Where do I say I support any one console over another. Or is that something you just inferred in your infinite wisdom?

Maybe if you stopped being such a cynical internet afficianado for one second you'd understand that what I was saying was my stance on the industry from a business perspective. I happen to want to own all three new consoles this up-and-coming generation. I'm worried that this fair market might be in jeopardy in the future if MS decides to do things it has done in the past, though. That is all

It's close, but no cigar. A PC has too much baggage from being a universal-computing device.

I wasn't referring to it as a PC in an absolute sense...just the architecture. It would obviously be a closed system (for at least a certain period of time before the next iteration).The business model would be much closer to the PCs though.

 

[hadareud]

Nintendo?

noke?

 

[kaching]

Essentially, a one console future is a PC in your living room. Let's just get that out of the way.

More like a DVD player - the possible configurations are more confined than with a PC and there are no significant changes to the base standard for at least 5-6 yrs.

Does anyone want that?

Yes. 3 different pieces of console hardware are nothing more than separate entry fees for the games I'm interested in playing.

 

[Escape Goat]

he basically said "Competition is good. Whoever wins...I win."

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

More like a DVD player - the possible configurations are more confined than with a PC and there are no significant changes to the base standard for at least 5-6 yrs.

Yes. 3 different pieces of console hardware are nothing more than separate entry fees for the games I'm interested in playing.

Read what I said in the post above regarding your first comment.

As for the second comment, I'd say that is not exactly wise. Different hardware configurations in a closed system afford different types of innovations. I'm looking to Nintendo Wii, for instance. That system of play is not afforded by the physical hardware of the other systems. If there were no competition, you wouldn't have a Wii (haha) to play with. And the monopoly would have no incentive to explore those avenues.

Anyway you slice it here, monopoly is bad for the consumer.

 

[VALIS]

We know this to be the case because of the ease and seamlessness of which integration can be achieved with their already existing systems/OS (which has dominant market penetration). There sytem is proprietary and therefore, others are at a distinct systematic disadvantage from the get-go. This can be illustrated from the court-case which you bring up. Netscape that went down the tubes (even though MS was forced to bundle it with Windows), and more recently competitors of Window Media Player (Realplayer et al). Prior to both of those it was MS's office suite. Essentially, the nature of their proprietary OS and it's licensing system allows them to have a 95% lock on the market at any given time, even though they are not technically a full monopoly. Not unfair my ass.

Well, despite being a slave of this unfair Windows monopoly myself, I manage to have Opera as my web browser, Media Monkey as my mp3 player and VLC Media Player as my video player. I didn't realize I was such a freedom fighter.

Don't you think it's possible that Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are so popular because

a. Most people don't know any better?
b. Some people actually like them?

But no, it's TEH MONOPOLYS!!

 

[davepoobond]

Don't you think it's possible that Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are so popular because

a. Most people don't know any better?
b. Some people actually like them?

But no, it's TEH MONOPOLYS!!

don't you think its possible that people would actually know better if they hadn't included both of those programs on every single computer?

 

[Bojangles]

Hmmm...you seem to have misunderstood.

Where do I say I support any one console over another. Or is that something you just inferred in your infinite wisdom?

Maybe if you stopped being such a cynical internet afficianado for one second you'd understand that what I was saying was my stance on the industry from a business perspective. I happen to want to own all three new consoles this up-and-coming generation. I'm worried that this fair market might be in jeopardy in the future if MS decides to do things it has done in the past, though. That is all



I wasn't referring to it as a PC in an absolute sense...just the architecture. It would obviously be a closed system (for at least a certain period of time before the next iteration).The business model would be much closer to the PCs though.

Ok! I think we're getting closer here then

I also *want* all three systems next gen. Not because I want to buy three systems, but because I know there will be games exclusive to each that I want to play.

Of course I don't *have* to buy all three of them. (and on the flip side, I can of course buy all three), but rather than seeing this competition converging to my "consumer-demand" for a single product that does what I want (plays all the games), we get the overhead of supporting 3 consoles, that do virtually the same thing :-(

I'd like to go back to my TV analogy.. I wouldn't want to buy two tv's to have the oppotunity to watch all the great programming of a split market. Especially when the tv's are doing pretty much the exact same thing.

Edit: kaching says it more consisely than I do I mostly want to apologize for getting a bit flame-y

 

[Odysseus]

Read what I said in the post above regarding your first comment.

As for the second comment, I'd say that is not exactly wise. Different hardware configurations in a closed system afford different types of innovations. I'm looking to Nintendo Wii, for instance. That system of play is not afforded by the physical hardware of the other systems. If there were no competition, you wouldn't have a Wii (haha) to play with. And the monopoly would have no incentive to explore those avenues.

Anyway you slice it here, monopoly is bad for the consumer.

How is no waggle bad for the consumer? :/

 

[VALIS]

don't you think its possible that people would actually know better if they hadn't included both of those programs on every single computer?

Most people don't care. I've tried to get all my female friends to switch from IE to Firefox originally (back when it didn't suck) and now Opera. They don't care. "It's complicated." "What I have works fine." Etc.

 

[SpacLock]

"Increased competition will benefit everyone, argues Guillemot"

Since MS has entered the market...

- Console prices have increased
- Game prices have increased
- More than one SKU has become the norm
- Microtransactions

So...when do we start seeing the benefits?

Actually i think that Sony is raising the console prices... Not only that, but software too in Japan. What's wrong with two SKUs? How does that not benefit? The more choices the better i think.

Microtransactions anger me though!

 

[kaching]

Read what I said in the post above regarding your first comment.

Yeah, I read that after the fact but I don't see how the clarification helps your argument. The architecture of consoles is already PC-like, drawing multiple cues from the PC space. Standardization in the way that's being discussed doesn't really make it more like the PC than it already is.

As for the second comment, I'd say that is not exactly wise. Different hardware configurations in a closed system afford different types of innovations. I'm looking to Nintendo Wii, for instance. That system of play is not afforded by the physical hardware of the other systems. If there were no competition, you wouldn't have a Wii (haha) to play with.

The point of standardization is to take the best features that might have otherwise popped up in distinct hardware configurations and meld them into one configuration. There's no reason that Wii-like control capabilities can't be combined with the more advanced AV capabilities of the PS3 and 360. The rest is offered through software anyway.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Well, despite being a slave of this unfair Windows monopoly myself, I manage to have Opera as my web browser, Media Monkey as my mp3 player and VLC Media Player as my video player. I didn't realize I was such a freedom fighter.

Don't you think it's possible that Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player are so popular because

a. Most people don't know any better?
b. Some people actually like them?

But no, it's TEH MONOPOLYS!!

Again, another cynic. How surprising...especially an ardent MS supporter.

They are popular because their integration makes them highly usable and highly visable. The barrier to other companies achieving the same such goals is a technological, as well as an information barrier (kind of like what the Intel/AMD law suit was all about). If people don't know about other products or don't have access to them, it puts those other products at a disadvantage. And because MS is the gatekeeper, information flow is restricted. This is a monopolistic practice and not good for the consumer. If you stopped looking at it from a consumers pov for a moment, you would see that this is not the best possible scenario that could be. That is the point I am making.

 

[tjhooker]

Problem with monopolies is that everyone immediately thinks of MS in the OS market and that thought scares the shit out of them.

A duopoly like that of Intel and AMD is preferable with the latter keeping the clear market leader on its toes.

We are seeing somewhat of a duopoly now with MS and Sony especially now that Nintendo is going after a completely different kind of gamer/demographic.

It also helps that the pretender has good revenue from other sources to stay in the game even in the face of massive losses.

Whether it be MS or Sony, a clear leader very much helps single console owners enjoy the vast majority of games without having to invest in multiple hardware.

We saw it last gen with PS2 and let's hope it happens next gen with either X360 or PS3.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Yeah, I read that after the fact but I don't see how the clarification helps your argument. The architecture of consoles is already PC-like, drawing multiple cues from the PC space. Standardization in the way that's being discussed doesn't really make it more like the PC than it already is.

The point of standardization is to take the best features that might have otherwise popped up in distinct hardware configurations and meld them into one configuration. There's no reason that Wii-like control capabilities can't be combined with the more advanced AV capabilities of the PS3 and 360. The rest is offered through software anyway.

Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I said, "The business model would be much closer to the PCs", though, as far as architecture and standards are concerned, even though I may not have clarified enough. The mirrored business model would be that standardized, software-based operating platform.

But you are missing my second point. If there is no competition, there is no incentive from a business perspective to differentiate your current offering...aside from having a physically standard architecture (both software and hardware-wise). There are financial conflicts of interest with regards to standardization in a monopolistic environment that stifle innovation, mostly due to economic inefficiencies and the potential splitting of user-bases.

Monopoly is still bad here, Kaching...anyway you slice it.

 

[VALIS]

Again, another cynic. How surprising...especially an ardent MS supporter.

They are popular because their integration makes them highly usable and highly visable. The barrier to other companies achieving the same such goals is a technological, as well as an information barrier (kind of like what the Intel/AMD law suit was all about). If people don't know about other products or don't have access to them, it puts those other products at a disadvantage. And because MS is the gatekeeper, information flow is restricted. This is a monopolistic practice and not good for the consumer. If you stopped looking at it from a consumers pov for a moment, you would see that this is not the best possible scenario that could be. That is the point I am making.

Can I assume you have the same gripes about Apple?

I understand what you're saying, but it's hard to get worked up about browser or media player monopolies when there are many choices out there for the consumer, and nearly all of them are free. That sounds like an ideal scenario, actually. Yes, ideal from the consumer's point of view, but who's POV should I be worried about?

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Can I assume you have the same gripes about Apple?

I understand what you're saying, but it's hard to get worked up about browser or media player monopolies when there are many choices out there for the consumer, and nearly all of them are free. That sounds like an ideal scenario, actually.

I was only referring to those instances to make a point: that I hope that doesn't translate into the same scenario in the videogame space.

As far as apple is concerned, I hate their business model in the Ipod arena. It provides no choices whatsover and is draconean. There pc space is a little different because they do their own thing and carved their own niche, much like Nintendo. The artsy crowd eats that shiznit up, which is cool.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

As usual you guys are blowing up his comments to support one system or another....


Let's take a look and what he's saying as a whole for the gaming industry, not just the 360/PS3/Wii:

- Gamers get more choice. It's true, since the Xbox, gamers have had more choice on games that they wanted either on the PS2 or Xbox. What he commented on was that the fact that gamers get to retain choice in this Next-Gen market is a great thing for us. He's not saying "Go buy a PS3!!" Or "Go buy a 360!!" He's saying ' It's up to the gamers to decide which is the better system and they will show that by which system they purchase and what games they play. THEY make that choice, not the developers. '

- The premium to play next gen comes with a price tag. I don't know about you guys but I've only bought 4-5 games since the 360 was released last november @ the $59.99 price tag. Others have been bought used or on sale. Comments in this thread about ' We have only got higher priced games since MS entered the areana Vs. Sony ' is quite literally BS. Companies like EA would've pushed Sony (eventually) to market games at the higher price, abit probably $54.99 instead of $59.99 but what the hell is the difference between $5 bucks? A dinner date at Taco Bell? The UBI president is obviously excited to have signed an exclusive Splinter Cell with MS but hey, I bet that cost MS some dough of which needs to be made up somewhere.... hence the game prices.

I would expect as well to have Sony sign some exclusive content deals with big name companies to secure the popular IP's on their system. Hell, I'm sure there's more stuff that will get annouced after the PS3 launch that will trigger more sales of the system.

That withstanding though, I find it funny that people overreact to the statements made by people who are merely expressing their opinions on the views of the gaming industry as whole, not giving a dissertation on why Sony or MS is doing a better job as a game company.

/thread.

 

[Bojangles]

Monopoly is still bad here, Kaching...anyway you slice it.

Standardization does not equal Monopoly. If there was a standard gaming console platform, they would have been considering what would go into the next-gen version of the platform, and because all the stakeholders wwant to sell more consoles, a Nintendo suggestion to put in this waggle-tech to make it waggle-wand-worthy, might have been a no-brainer for them if the market research data shows the potential market growth afforded by said technology.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Standardization does not equal Monopoly. If there was a standard gaming console platform, they would have been considering what would go into the next-gen version of the platform, and because all the stakeholders wwant to sell more consoles, a Nintendo suggestion to put in this waggle-tech to make it waggle-wand-worthy, might have been a no-brainer for them if the market research data shows the potential market growth afforded by said technology.

That's a nice idealization...but that's not how it plays out in reality as history has taught us.

And standardization is a form of monopoly when only one corporate entity controls said standard.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

As usual you guys are blowing up his comments to support one system or another....


Let's take a look and what he's saying as a whole for the gaming industry, not just the 360/PS3/Wii:

- Gamers get more choice. It's true, since the Xbox, gamers have had more choice on games that they wanted either on the PS2 or Xbox. What he commented on was that the fact that gamers get to retain choice in this Next-Gen market is a great thing for us. He's not saying "Go buy a PS3!!" Or "Go buy a 360!!" He's saying ' It's up to the gamers to decide which is the better system and they will show that by which system they purchase and what games they play. THEY make that choice, not the developers. '

- The premium to play next gen comes with a price tag. I don't know about you guys but I've only bought 4-5 games since the 360 was released last november @ the $59.99 price tag. Others have been bought used or on sale. Comments in this thread about ' We have only got higher priced games since MS entered the areana Vs. Sony ' is quite literally BS. Companies like EA would've pushed Sony (eventually) to market games at the higher price, abit probably $54.99 instead of $59.99 but what the hell is the difference between $5 bucks? A dinner date at Taco Bell? The UBI president is obviously excited to have signed an exclusive Splinter Cell with MS but hey, I bet that cost MS some dough of which needs to be made up somewhere.... hence the game prices.

I would expect as well to have Sony sign some exclusive content deals with big name companies to secure the popular IP's on their system. Hell, I'm sure there's more stuff that will get annouced after the PS3 launch that will trigger more sales of the system.

That withstanding though, I find it funny that people overreact to the statements made by people who are merely expressing their opinions on the views of the gaming industry as whole, not giving a dissertation on why Sony or MS is doing a better job as a game company.

/thread.

This man wins. /thread

 

[fse]

"Increased competition will benefit everyone, argues Guillemot"

Since MS has entered the market...

- Console prices have increased
- Game prices have increased
- More than one SKU has become the norm
- Microtransactions

So...when do we start seeing the benefits?

- Console price? MSFT has not increased price, Saturn launched at $399 only. Sony is launching higher, not 3do levels but really close.

- Game prices have not gone higher, Phantasy Star on genesis went for like $90 in the day.

- Nothing wrong with that if it does not hinder gameplay. If anything it lowers the price of the console slightly.

- What is bad about Microtransactions. It works nice for XBLA games and XBLM content, nintendo and sony are following the lead as well.

 

[qcf x2]

How much was the 3DO? How much did N64 cartridges cost at launch?

How completely wrong can one poster be?

OCF will never happen, and thank goodness.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

- Console price? MSFT has not increased price, Saturn launched at $399 only. Sony is launching higher, not 3do levels but really close.

- Game prices have not gone higher, Phantasy Star on genesis went for like $90 in the day.

- Nothing wrong with that if it does not hinder gameplay. If anything it lowers the price of the console slightly.

- What is bad about Microtransactions. It works nice for XBLA games and XBLM content, nintendo and sony are following the lead as well.

The increase in console price as of recently is more of a function of the willingness of these companies to include cutting-edge/early-adopter technology with their console offerings, boosting the cost of production on their end. They subsidize the price, as always, but ultimately some of the cost must be shared by the consumer. The intention of having a longer console life-cycle is pushing them to include better tech in the first place (to make it viable in the future...or as pr likes to say "future-proof").

 

[kaching]

Monopoly is still bad here, Kaching...anyway you slice it.

The competitive environment we have ain't working out much better, MU. And I'm not advocating for a monopoly here in any case.

 

[fse]

How much was the 3DO? How much did N64 cartridges cost at launch?

How completely wrong can one poster be?

OCF will never happen, and thank goodness.

- $699
- about $80 for me, SM64!

 

[Odysseus]

I think a lot of you are looking at this the wrong way. You somehow value technological improvement and think there is some merit in controller innovation. Such backwards thinking! The only logical end to this generation is for the one console future to begin. Otherwise, this generation should perpetuate eternally.

Seriously though, if the next round of hardware starts in 5 years or so costing about $500-$700 per console with $60-70 games and minimal graphical improvement (DMR!) and with two or three different consoles to pick from and they all have some form of waggle, you can rest assured I'm not going to be on board.

 

[bill0527]

Har, har, har....that's really funny. Actually, I love videogames. And I have no problem with Microsoft being in the videogames market. They just need to be kept in check. They are dangerous when it comes to these things because they tend to wipe out competition rather than exist with it.

Sony's got 70-80% marketshare, yet Microsoft is the one that needs to be held in check?

It didn't take me very long to see where you're coming from. Nice PR window-dressing bullshit about wanting competition, but deep down, you loathe Microsoft and its evident in every single post you've made in this thread.

 

[K_S]

ubi's been sleeping in ms bed since day 1

i was actually surprised to see ac announced for ps3 at all

 

[Bojangles]

It's up to the gamers to decide which is the better system and they will show that by which system they purchase and what games they play. THEY make that choice, not the developers. '
/thread.

/thread when you tell me which single system I can buy that will let me play all the next-gen games.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

- What is bad about Microtransactions. It works nice for XBLA games and XBLM content, nintendo and sony are following the lead as well.

There just are to many examples that prove the system is right and wrong. XBLA works but this is only one business model. The GTHD model for instance is quite different from the XBLA model. Besides that, even the XBLA model has it's faults, especially towards the consumer. It doesn't really alow us to get value for money with the relative high prices we have to pay for add-ons.