Support NeoGAF

[Bob Saget]

While all those are bad Sony themselves started the dual SKU thing with the PSP.

Not to mention the fact that PSP is expensive as hell for a handheld system and has game prices on par with console game prices, so it's not like Sony isn't out there pushing the envelope on price. I mean I certainly don't believe that the PS3 would be any cheaper if the Xbox hadn't come along.

 

[Kittonwy]

Well that's no less than Mark Rein saying PS3 is awesome either, right?

That's only because it's true. PS3 is awesome.

 

[Speevy]

That's only because it's true. PS3 is awesome.

0_o

 

[bud]

That's only because it's true. PS3 is awesome.

I don't 'get' you.

 

[Kittonwy]

0_o

You know it's true that PS3 is awesome, Speevy.

 

[Proelite]

Since Ubisoft is so in bed with M$, they might as well just become second party. That'll bring them a lot of spotlight.

 

[jjasper]

Damn I would be willing to take one for the team and take a weekend ban if it would get rid of those stupid smilies forever.

 

[RaijinFY]

Since Ubisoft is so in bed with M$, they might as well just become second party. That'll bring them a lot of spotlight.

That's what I'm thinking too lol...

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Damn I would be willing to take one for the team and take a weekend ban if it would get rid of those stupid smilies forever.

You'd take a weekend ban? I'd take a month long ban. Those smilies are awful.

 

[psycho_snake]

MS will take some of sony's market share, but it wont be enough to make sony worry or feel that they are under pressure. MS has been making some good moves such as getting Splinter Cell exclusivity, but at the same time they've made some mistakes such as losing Ninja gaiden, which was one of their few million sellers, to sony.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Moneyhats are putting market leader Sony under pressure to react... with bigger moneyhats?

 

[damisa]

It really isn't, it's just that console gamers have been conditioned to accept it, by and large.

(card-carrying member of the One Console Future Organization - OCFO)

I don't understand why people want a one console future. Let's say sony becomes the only console maker.

What would stop them from selling their consoles for a large profit? NOTHING

What would stop them from increasing 3rd party licensing fees? NOTHING

What would stop them from following EA's route and gaining exclusivity in a certain genre by not allowing 3rd party titles in the same genre? NOTHING

Why would they try so hard to make things like online good? They WOULDN'T because they wouldn't have to

What would stop them from increasing prices of accessories even more? NOTHING

Why would they have as many price drops? They WON'T

 

[RaijinFY]

I don't understand why people want a one console future. Let's say sony becomes the only console maker.

What would stop them from selling their consoles for a large profit? NOTHING

What would stop them from increasing 3rd party licensing fees? NOTHING

What would stop them from following EA's route and gaining exclusivity in a certain genre by not allowing 3rd party titles in the same genre? NOTHING

Why would they try so hard to make things like online good? They WOULDN'T because they wouldn't have to

What would stop them from increasing prices of accessories even more? NOTHING

Why would they have as many price drops? They WON'T

One console for the future is certainly the most retarded thing ever...
Competition is good.

 

[Speevy]

The thing about Sony's long console cycles is that it's actually more attractive for a multiconsole owner.

You get to play more games and buy a second console over a long period of time.

I'm just now trying PS2 games that were released 5 years ago.

 

[psycho_snake]

A one console future is not a good thing because of the reasons damisa pointed out. The gaming market is just like any other market in the world, which means that a monopoly is not a good thing. Its always better to have competition because its gives customers different options and it also means that the companies will have to keep working hard to satisfy customers.

 

[hyp]

too much moneyhat bullshit in this thread. the fact is, 360 is going to take more marketshare, especially in europe with the absence of sony until spring '07. business wise, it would have been a disaster to invest so much money in development and then not have that vital european market. dependence on sony in EU at this point is dangerous for these companies. in many ways, the 360 is saving his ass from investors. so no shit he's going to have a stiffy for MS.

 

[bill0527]

"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?

For the last time people... oh wait, I'm sure it won't be the last time...

Microsoft did not bring about higher game prices this generation. EA, Activision and the other big publishers are the ones that brought you higher game prices. All of Microsoft's first party titles were brought in at $49.99. And while Gears of War and select other Microsoft published titles are going to be $59.99, they aren't the ones that started the price increase for games, but now they're reacting to it since games are selling hand over fist at $59.99.

 

[Zonar]

I don't understand why people want a one console future. Let's say sony becomes the only console maker.

What would stop them from selling their consoles for a large profit? NOTHING

What would stop them from increasing 3rd party licensing fees? NOTHING

What would stop them from following EA's route and gaining exclusivity in a certain genre by not allowing 3rd party titles in the same genre? NOTHING

Why would they try so hard to make things like online good? They WOULDN'T because they wouldn't have to

What would stop them from increasing prices of accessories even more? NOTHING

Why would they have as many price drops? They WON'T

QFT.
You want proof?

 

[kaching]

I don't understand why people want a one console future. Let's say sony becomes the only console maker.

What would stop them from selling their consoles for a large profit? NOTHING

What would stop them from increasing 3rd party licensing fees? NOTHING

What would stop them from following EA's route and gaining exclusivity in a certain genre by not allowing 3rd party titles in the same genre? NOTHING

Why would they try so hard to make things like online good? They WOULDN'T because they wouldn't have to

What would stop them from increasing prices of accessories even more? NOTHING

Why would they have as many price drops? They WON'T

This is silly - regardless of competition, no company can simply raise prices on a purely luxury product and its components with impunity because there's a price beyond which consumers will simply lose interest, causing the product to be unprofitable for the company. Further, the product manufacturer can't just mess with business partners with the same callous disregard because, again, there's a point beyond which the hassle isn't worth the effort for the business partners. You don't need competition to have checks and balances.

And, in any case, why assume that a One Console Future means only one company producing the One Console?

QFT.
You want proof?
http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/31/318957.jpg

How is that proof when it occurred in a competitive environment?

 

[Here Be Dragons]

This is silly - regardless of competition, no company can simply raise prices on a purely luxury product and its components with impunity because there's a price beyond which consumers will simply lose interest, causing the product to be unprofitable for the company. Further, the product manufacturer can't just mess with business partners with the same callous disregard because, again, there's a point beyond which the hassle isn't worth the effort for the business partners. You don't need competition to have checks and balances.

And, in any case, why assume that a One Console Future means only one company producing the One Console?

Zero interest in this OCF nonsense. They would have total pricing freedom, no matter what you claim. They could keep it right at the breaking point.

Never going to happen so it's a moot point.

 

[Speevy]

And, in any case, why assume that a One Console Future means only one company producing the One Console?

Because we've read a little about Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo.

 

[Maleficent]

I don't understand why people want a one console future. Let's say sony becomes the only console maker.

What would stop them from selling their consoles for a large profit? NOTHING

What would stop them from increasing 3rd party licensing fees? NOTHING

What would stop them from following EA's route and gaining exclusivity in a certain genre by not allowing 3rd party titles in the same genre? NOTHING

Why would they try so hard to make things like online good? They WOULDN'T because they wouldn't have to

What would stop them from increasing prices of accessories even more? NOTHING

Why would they have as many price drops? They WON'T

The consumer would stop them. Thats what I think will happen to some extent with Sony this time. I have plenty of $$ for a PS3 but it just does not look to be worth that kind of $$ at the moment.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

A one console future is not a good thing because of the reasons damisa pointed out. The gaming market is just like any other market in the world, which means that a monopoly is not a good thing. Its always better to have competition because its gives customers different options and it also means that the companies will have to keep working hard to satisfy customers.

Listen to this man...he has said the wisest thing I've ever seen posted here on GAF.

 

[kaching]

Zero interest in this OCF nonsense. They would have total pricing freedom, no matter what you claim. They could keep it right at the breaking point.

Never going to happen so it's a moot point.

Talk to damisa then because he seems to more interested in this OCF nonsense. I made the comment in passing responding to somebody else - it was self-contained and I figured it'd get ignored like OCF dreams usually do around here.

And Speevy joins the fray!

 

[nelsonroyale]

uh who cares...pr speak

peace

 

[Speevy]

A Speevy approaches!

*screen spirals*

 

[Bojangles]

A one console future is not a good thing because of the reasons damisa pointed out. The gaming market is just like any other market in the world, which means that a monopoly is not a good thing. Its always better to have competition because its gives customers different options and it also means that the companies will have to keep working hard to satisfy customers.

Bullshit.

What would you think if I told you you had to buy two different televisions, because NBC will only broadcast in TV-a format, and Fox would only broadcast in TV-b format?

Wouldn't that be shitty? I sure think so.

 

[psycho_snake]

This is silly - regardless of competition, no company can simply raise prices on a purely luxury product and its components with impunity because there's a price beyond which consumers will simply lose interest, causing the product to be unprofitable for the company. Further, the product manufacturer can't just mess with business partners with the same callous disregard because, again, there's a point beyond which the hassle isn't worth the effort for the business partners. You don't need competition to have checks and balances.

And, in any case, why assume that a One Console Future means only one company producing the One Console?

How is that proof when it occurred in a competitive environment?

When you have a monopoly on a market, you can do what the hell you want. You can raise the price of your product and people will still buy it because there isnt anything else available for the customers to buy. Iff sony never had to deal with competition from MS and Nintendo, they would have made the PS3 even more expensive because they know people will buy their product because there isnt anything else on the market.

Also how can you have a one console future when more than one company is producing the console?

 

[Speevy]

The one console future, in 99% of cases is a thinly veiled argument for Sony just absorbing the best aspects of the other console manufacturers.

There have always been alternatives. Alternatives to Atari. Alternatives to Sega. Alternatives to Nintendo.

 

[Here Be Dragons]

Bullshit.

What would you think if I told you you had to buy two different televisions, because NBC will only broadcast in TV-a format, and Fox would only broadcast in TV-b format?

Wouldn't that be shitty? I sure think so.

See but you don't ever HAVE to buy anything. It's your choice.

There's that word again.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Bullshit.

What would you think if I told you you had to buy two different televisions, because NBC will only broadcast in TV-a format, and Fox would only broadcast in TV-b format?

Wouldn't that be shitty? I sure think so.

You are obviously not educated whatsoever on what would constitute a natural monopoly and what constitutes an artificial monopoly. Only shared infrastructure and standards (like the broadcast you mention or utilities) constitute the need for a natural monopoly. In almost every other market, monopolies are terrible...this is especially true in creative markets, like the videogame entertainment industry.

 

[Odysseus]

Also how can you have a one console future when more than one company is producing the console?

Because the one console doesn't exist, it's just one standard. Any number of manufacturers can make the system and add whatever bells and whistles to it that they wish that increase the non-gaming functionality, but the standard remains the same. Sort of like DVD players. All different types of manufacturers spinning the exact same discs.

Edit: And this isn't farfetched. It's exactly what Microsoft wants, if you remember back to an interview that I believe J. Allard did around E3 2005. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find that interview again.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

The one console future, in 99% of cases is a thinly veiled argument for Sony just absorbing the best aspects of the other console manufacturers.

Who said this had anything to do with Sony?
...

 

[StingerNLG]

I'm not sure what all the surprise or huh-bub is over Yves's comments. UbiSoft has been backing the Xbox for such a long time that I'm sure they have a very tight relationship with Microsoft, much like other developers have tight relationships with Sony. And remember, Yves was *****ing about the PS3's price earlier this year. So it's not suprising he hasn't changed his stance on that.

Assassin's Creed with no PS3 exclusivity. Splinter Cell 5 with next-gen Xbox 360 exclusivity. None of this should shock anyone at this point.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Who said this had anything to do with Sony?
...

You really want a one console future with Microsoft. :rolleyes

Yeah, that's all we need...they already monopolize everything else and make it shitty because they virtually have no competition. What makes you think that wouldn't carry over into the console space if that was the case.

 

[Speevy]

Who said this had anything to do with Sony?
...

Well, MS doesn't have the confidence of Japan (at least its consumers) so that would be terrible.

And Nintendo's ambitions are either too different or not lofty enough (or both) to lead.

 

[Tobor]

And, in any case, why assume that a One Console Future means only one company producing the One Console?

Hmmm, so you want what, a standardized development platform with multiple manufacturers? Sounds like PC gaming to me.

Monopolies are always bad. Period.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

You really want a one console future with Microsoft. :rolleyes

I'm actually against a one console future with anyone. My sarcasm machine is broken however so I had trouble saying "What? There are people that actually want a OCF under Sony? No way!"

 

[Bojangles]

Because the one console doesn't exist, it's just one standard. Any number of manufacturers can make the system and add whatever bells and whistles to it that they wish that increase the non-gaming functionality, but the standard remains the same. Sort of like DVD players. All different types of manufacturers spinning the exact same discs.

Edit: And this isn't farfetched. It's exactly what Microsoft wants, if you remember back to an interview that I believe J. Allard did around E3 2005. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find that interview again.

*ding* *ding* *ding*

This man speaks the truth.

Edit: This is what 3DO tried to do as well. (of course, mentioning this will just result in "And you see how that turned out")

 

[Bob Saget]

For the last time people... oh wait, I'm sure it won't be the last time...

Microsoft did not bring about higher game prices this generation. EA, Activision and the other big publishers are the ones that brought you higher game prices. All of Microsoft's first party titles were brought in at $49.99. And while Gears of War and select other Microsoft published titles are going to be $59.99, they aren't the ones that started the price increase for games, but now they're reacting to it since games are selling hand over fist at $59.99.

I also seem to remember N64 games going for around 70 bucks.

 

[VALIS]

Yeah, that's all we need...they already monopolize everything else and make it shitty because they virtually have no competition. What makes you think that wouldn't carry over into the console space if that was the case.

1995 called, wants its argument back.

 

[damisa]

This is silly - regardless of competition, no company can simply raise prices on a purely luxury product and its components with impunity because there's a price beyond which consumers will simply lose interest, causing the product to be unprofitable for the company.

They could do more than just raise prices. They can reduce the specs/features of the machine and sell it at the same price. It'll be like what nintendo is doing now but even worse because with no competition people wouldn't even complain about it. Since there's no competition what would people compare it to? People wouldn't complain about PS2's online if xbox live never existed. They would never have known what they were missing out on, and so there would have been no motivation to change it.

Further, the product manufacturer can't just mess with business partners with the same callous disregard because, again, there's a point beyond which the hassle isn't worth the effort for the business partners. You don't need competition to have checks and balances.

Back when Nintendo was a near monopoly, they treated 3rd parties like crap. If sega and sony weren't around this would have continued. I'm willing to bet that if any console maker were to ever get a total monopoly, then within 2-3 generations, 90+% of games on that system would be first party. They would just buy out or block out everyone else.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

Because the one console doesn't exist, it's just one standard. Any number of manufacturers can make the system and add whatever bells and whistles to it that they wish that increase the non-gaming functionality, but the standard remains the same. Sort of like DVD players. All different types of manufacturers spinning the exact same discs.

Edit: And this isn't farfetched. It's exactly what Microsoft wants, if you remember back to an interview that I believe J. Allard did around E3 2005. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find that interview again.

Yeah of course Microsoft want another standard....another monopoly to stow away under their belt.

Originally they just wanted to license their OS to every console manufacturer in the videogame market. They did NOT want to enter with hardware, as this was deemed an unworthy investment at the time if other means to accessing a royalty/services scheme could be secured.

Because only Sega agreed to this idea (and they ultimately failed in the hardware market), MS was forced to take the next step and introduce their own platform.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

1995 called, wants its argument back.

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.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

OMG :lol :lol

:lol :lol :lol

 

[Bojangles]

Yeah of course Microsoft want another standard....another monopoly to stow away under their belt.

Originally they just wanted to license their OS to every console manufacturer in the videogame market. They did NOT want to enter with hardware, as this was deemed an unworthy investment at the time if other means to accessing a royalty/services scheme could be secured.

Because only Sega agreed to this idea (and they ultimately failed in the hardware market), MS was forced to take the next step and introduce their own platform.

So you don't really care about videogames, you just hate Microsoft?

 

[AdmiralViscen]

If we had a one console future in the late 80s, we would have still been playing NES in 1995.

Hey, we kind of did have a one handheld future in the late 80s and early 90s, and we were using pretty much the same hardware from 1989 through 2001.

 

[Odysseus]

Yeah of course Microsoft want another standard....another monopoly to stow away under their belt.

Originally they just wanted to license their OS to every console manufacturer in the videogame market. They did NOT want to enter with hardware, as this was deemed an unworthy investment at the time if other means to accessing a royalty/services scheme could be secured.

Because only Sega agreed to this idea (and they ultimately failed in the hardware market), MS was forced to take the next step and introduce their own platform.

And it still proves to be an unworthy investment! They just want to make sure no one else becomes the de facto controller of your living room. There must be a lot of money to be made in my living room because everyone seemingly wants to control it...

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.

If we had a one console future in the late 80s, we would have still been playing NES in 1995.

Hey, we kind of did have a one handheld future in the late 80s and early 90s, and we were using pretty much the same hardware from 1989 through 2001.

I would settle for this new generation to last a decade or more, but again, that's just me.

It's interesting how this OCF stuff has completely taken over the thread about Ubisoft, though.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

So you don't really care about videogames, you just hate Microsoft?

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.

 

[Moderation Unlimited]

If we had a one console future in the late 80s, we would have still been playing NES in 1995.

Hey, we kind of did have a one handheld future in the late 80s and early 90s, and we were using pretty much the same hardware from 1989 through 2001.

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!