Support NeoGAF

[kavanf1]

Explain how we ended with 2 lead consoles that are factually the same and the most popular genres offer any innovation at all

Market research and the dominance of major corporations who produce products to suit the masses. Since they're competing, they have to charge a price that tempts consumers. Without competition, your console would more than likely be a lot more expensive. That's where the competition is beneficial to you.

 

[Synth]

I want a single platform.

To all the competition apologists, the competition isn't bring in any innovation. Quite the contrary in fact. PS4 and Xbox one being practically the same console is proof.

Xbox tried to change (for worse but even that is debatable) and the costumers force the continuity.

Wii U tried new ideas and those weren't well received. Nintendo ideas could be peripherals in a unified system

And how would the users have forced the continuity had these changes been introduced by the only platform available? Make their own?

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Only if it's an open standard, if it's one/few corporations owning it hell no

Pretty much, this is actually the most important part.

 

[Rathorial]

Well this gen the trouble I find is not much of what is different on these platforms is really compelling me. Yeah, the WiiU has an interesting controller, yet my favorite experiences on it like Bayonetta 2, Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros work better on a traditional pad.

Too few exclusives from Microsoft or Sony are grabbing me as well, and I'm annoyed with the stupid exclusivity windows they pay to get.

I own all 3 of them, but so far am not that satisfied. The only platform giving me enough weird exclusive stuff is because of indies and mid-sized devs on PC, the platform that has multiple hardware vendors and distribution channels.

I'd kinda be ok with games just being made for game portals on a PC, and those companies make exclusives themselves to get me into their ecosystem...without having to buy 4 different boxes. What matters to me more in the short-term is making more co-op games cross-platform. Control advantages don't matter in co-op, no strong excuse not to do it.

 

[Lingitiz]

I would take multiple storefronts/platforms on a single hardware system over multiple storefronts on multiple different hardware systems any day of the week.

Weirdly enough this is a route I see MS going with the next Xbox. While I don't doubt they'll still have an Xbox 4, there's the possibility it could be a Steam Machine-like box that has synergy with it's Xbox storefront on PC.

There was a really good discussion about this on the Bombcast a few weeks ago. I'll try to find a link.

 

[KiraXD]

Been awhile since you've used Steam if you think it is sifting shit for you. It is basically a shit sundae you have to dig through in search of the cherry. Seems like anything can get put up on the store nowadays.

That said, PC is my unified platform. Almost everything worth playing in the console space finds its way to PC.

i dont game on PC much lol.

But heres my take... games developed on PC are often made for all systems that it competes with... sometimes its the main version... sometimes its the port of a console version. but its definitely competing with consoles. No one makes android games with the specific specs of the Galaxy s6... (what was the last game you saw with "Only on Galaxy S6!") aside from a few gems (like i said) most of the games are made to run on every device under the sun that has access to it.

PC isnt unified... you cant get ALL games on it... just like you cant get all games on individual consoles. When has PC EVER been entirely unified? there has ALWAYS been competition.

 

[Mcdohl]

I would love to for practical purposes.

Also, as a rule BC must be supported all the time.

I agree with OP though, it's an utopia. In reality, the lack of competition might affect the quality of games and risks companies are willing to take.

But yeah, I would love it if it were like movies. One player to rule them all.

Spoiler

Blu-ray, not dvd

 

[IronicSonic]

Market research and the dominance of major corporations who produce products to suit the masses. Since they're competing, they have to charge a price that tempts consumers. Without competition, your console would more than likely be a lot more expensive. That's where the competition is beneficial to you.

Steam is a monopoly and is cheaper. Things are not that simple. You always has to compete with someone in software.

And how would the users have forced the continuity had these changes been introduced by the only platform available? Make their own?

Just dont buy it, just like costumers dont bought Xbox One (first year) or Wii U.

 

[Synth]

Just dont buy it, just like costumers dont bought Xbox One (first year) or Wii U.

That worked because there was something else to buy instead. Remember we're talking about there being a single platform, period, not having one console being dominant. "Just don't buy" it would be equivalent to quitting gaming.

 

[Underrated]

Well if they just gave us different controllers/playstyles and let us choose which one we wanted to use, I actually think it could work. And it would save us tons of money.

 

[WaffleTaco]

I would be for it...the way it is looking at the moment if Xbox Next and Nintendo NX are duds...than it is only going to be Playstation from here on out.

 

[Shahed]

It'd be nice to be able to play Zelda and the like, Halo and Sony stuff without.needing to buh and keep 3 seperate pieces of hardware around so I'd be up for it. Having said that though I'm not sure my favourite games like Shadow of the Colossus and other smaller games would even exist if not the need to sell a particular console.

 

[IronicSonic]

That worked because there was something else to buy instead. Remember we're talking about there being a single platform, period, not having one console being dominant. "Just don't buy" it would be equivalent to quitting gaming.

Well PC isn't going to anywhere. But even if we are in a hypothetical case you don't need to buy everything day 1. Just vote with your wallet. Even if the unified platform is very expensive, in any case it will reach a equilibrium price at some point if the demand is low

 

[Shang]

Competition is great, but the notion that competition would die with a unified hardware system is ridiculous. Film studios still compete with each other, and you can use the same Blu-Ray player to watch anyone's movie. Being able to play Uncharted and Halo on the same platform should only do good for both consumers and creators.

 

[Bioshocker]

Explain how we ended with 2 lead consoles that are factually the same and the most popular genres offer any innovation at all

Well, Microsoft tried to "innovate". Turned out the gamers didn't like what they offered (I was among them). So they did their famous 180 and the Xbox One was suddenly not very innovative.

Nintendo tried with Wii U. Turned out the Gamepad didn't impress anyone. We'll see what NX is all about.

We've seen amazing innovation in this industry during the last 10, 15 years. We can't expect the wheel to be invented every five years. Revolution doesn't happen often, what we've seen lately is evolution. Last generation was much about motion controls, and we still don't know what will define this generation. Maybe VR. Maybe something else. Remember that Kinect was launched five years into the last generation.

One unified console would still give us Fallout, Halo, Super Mario and all the other franchises we're used to (and even if games like Tearaway Unfolded are not !the most popular", we're still getting them). But it would be boring and it likely wouldn't offer innovation of the kind we've seen the last decade.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

It would be great for us consumers if every game came out for PC. For game companies, it probably wouldn't work out too well with constantly packed release schedules though. It would be interesting nonetheless.

 

[Synth]

Well PC isn't going to anywhere. But even if we are in a hypothetical case you don't need to buy everything day 1. Just vote with your wallet. Even if the unified platform is very expensive, in any case it will reach a equilibrium price at some point if the demand is low

So, just temporarily quit gaming then, until the thing you don't like is cheaper (but still how you don't like)? Demand being low is pretty hard to judge (or even occur) if there isn't something else to look at showing higher demand.

Also, for the sake of discussion the PC would go somewhere. It would go the same place as everything else, otherwise there would be two gaming platforms.

Competition is great, but the notion that competition would die with a unified hardware system is ridiculous. Film studios still compete with each other, and you can use the same Blu-Ray player to watch anyone's movie. Being able to play Uncharted and Halo on the same platform should only do good for both consumers and creators.

Sure, Halo and Uncharted... but what about Halo and Killzone? Would Sony have created Killzone if Halo was already on their platform? Would MS have created Blue Dragon or Forza Motorsport, without Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo being unavailable?

And film studios compete with each other in the same way multiplatform studios do today... however platform holders (Netflix, Amazon, along with various channels etc) DO still create unique shows of their own to push their platforms... so the idea that nothing is lost by the removal of platform holders isn't true even in that case.

 

[Maztorre]

yeah because theres no bad PC games... /s

Steam, GOG, those are your platforms... they sift through the shit FOR YOU. because if youre using google to find PC games... good fucking luck! imagine PC without those "platforms" it would be as shit filled as mobile.

Are you being wilfully ignorant? I never claimed there were no bad PC games, in fact you're the one who made a shitty blanket statement about mobile.

The PC storefronts are all running on open hardware on an open operating system where they directly compete with each other. That's literally why GOG/Humble Bundle/Amazon are successful, they directly compete with Steam by offering unique features that the other stores do not offer. There is no such competition on consoles, go onto Sony/MS/Nintendo's stores and all of their digital prices are fixed high because a) customers have no other options once they're locked to their hardware anyway, and b) they refuse to undercut retailers on digital prices to keep them happy at the expense of the customer. If all 3 were operating stores for standardised hardware, the prices would come down immediately or they'd go out of business.

The level of denial in here is insane, nobody who cares about film thinks movies would have somehow been better if Betamax or HD-DVD were kept around for the purposes of "competition".

 

[Yarbskoo]

I would be fine if everyone made PC games.

Zelda and God of War on PC wouldn't be the same, they'd be better.

 

[Synth]

I would be fine if everyone made PC games.

Zelda and God of War on PC wouldn't be the same, they'd be better.

It'd be better if everyone made all the same games regardless, yes. The question though is... would they?

 

[Yarbskoo]

It'd be better if everyone made all the same games regardless yes. The question though is... would they?

What makes you think they'd do anything different? And by different, I mean worse.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Did OP just /thread with first post?

 

[Petrae]

Personally, I love the idea of one hardware platform. No more spending four digits on multiple devices every generation in order to have the chance to play every game. More available cash to spend on software, too.

I would've spent $60 on Bayonetta 2, but I won't drop $300 for hardware just for the chance to play that one game. I would've bought RARE Replay, but I already bought a PS4 and don't see the need to an XBO just to play that game. With a one-platform scenario, I buy both of those games... but in the console gaming environment as it stands, I buy neither and spend my cash on other things.

I'm used to how the console exclusive thing works, though. I'm not angry about missing out on certain games. I'd rather that than drop excessive cash on hardware that eats up too much space and resources.

 

[Neo_Geo]

Did OP just /thread with first post?

If it's a discussion of how nostalgia trumps logical decisions, then he nailed it.

 

[CountAntonius]

Only if it's an open platform like PC. Not Steam specifically though. let them compete as publishers and through hardware like Sony and Microsoft's version of a "Steambox". Let everyone have access to everything and be able to play together.

 

[Synth]

What makes you think they'd do anything different? And by different, I mean worse.

Well, many great games are created directly to challenge an competing platform's game, which leaves a hole in their lineup. Nobody was really up for taking on EA in the NFL arena, until of course a platform holder finds themselves without an NFL game... so Sega made what was easily the best of its kind (until EA put the screws to that too). How's Sega's output been since they stopped having their own console to push? They carried basically an entire console's library on their back during the 8-bit days out of necessity to provide enough gaming variation to justify the hardware... do you think Nintendo without the Wii U or 3DS would produce the same output, rather than focus only on the IPs with the highest return?

 

[nekkid]

I don't think you could create a monopoly, though. If Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo clubbed together something else would rise to try and compete (however hard that might be).

 

[RedSwirl]

Steam, GOG, those are your platforms... they sift through the shit FOR YOU. because if youre using google to find PC games... good fucking luck! imagine PC without those "platforms" it would be as shit filled as mobile.

That's what storefronts are supposed to do. That's what they've always done, for every form of media. No one has had to lock down DVD players to make sure the market isn't flooded with bad movies. Retailers did that job, deciding what to promote and what not to promote. PC gaming has been open since long before things went digital, and no one really complained about a seal of shovelware because retail did its job. The only difference today is that digital has allowed a lot more developers to pop up who were too small for retail, but digital stores appeared as a natural reaction. I couldn't imagine a world where digital storefronts like Steam and GOG didn't exist. Even without Steam's influence they would have eventually appeared (Direct2Drive was already a thing earlier). It's useless to draw up a scenario where they didn't exist.

Again, the problem with iOS is that all the software is flooding into ONE storefront. A closed platform like iOS should probably exercise tighter control over what get's release like Sony and Microsoft do. It's like if all Blu-Rays could only be sold at ONE retail chain and most people who went there only looked at the front isle. I don't have a whole lot of experience with Android but it's always kind of confused me how dominant the Google Play store has been, that other prominent stores in the open platform didn't emerge. What's stopping EA from selling its Android games directly through its own website or Origin?

 

[exmachina64]

Only if you could only buy your hard drive, chassis, graphics card, processor etc. from one manufacturer.

You buy them from an OEM.

Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo don't build any of the components in their systems, they license them from other companies that either sell them or manufacture them themselves. The components are assembled into a console or PC (or any other device) by companies that specialize in that industry/market. There's no company so vertically integrated that they perform all of these functions (even Apple!).

Do people not understand how this works?

 

[Markoman]

As a customer? Sure, I want to be able to play every game out there but I'm not willing to buy three machines that work like an "exclusive dongle".

The competion argument gets really old. When it comes to video games, competition should always be directed towards the "content" and not the bullshit around it.
You don't judge a book by its cover, don't you. A shit movie will still be a shit movie even when you watch it in a modern 3D cinema.

Competition is treated like a holy cow here on Gaf, but competition can also turn really ugly.

This industry needs a biiig turnaround to repair this shit.

 

[Synth]

That's what storefronts are supposed to do. That's what they've always done, for every form of media. No one has had to lock down DVD players to make sure the market isn't flooded with bad movies. Retailers did that job, deciding what to promote and what not to promote. PC gaming has been open since long before things went digital, and no one really complained about a seal of shovelware because retail did its job. The only difference today is that digital has allowed a lot more developers to pop up who were too small for retail, but digital stores appeared as a natural reaction. I couldn't imagine a world where digital storefronts like Steam and GOG didn't exist. Even without Steam's influence they would have eventually appeared (Direct2Drive was already a thing earlier). It's useless to draw up a scenario where they didn't exist.

Just want to chime in and state that Steam isn't simply a storefront. It's a platform. Many of the other storefronts are different in that they sell Steam keys, that you activate on the Steam platform. Steam, Origin, App Store, Windows Store. These are platforms (just not hardware platforms), and have much in common with different hardware platforms. Want Star Wars Battlefront? You can't get it on Steam. Want DOTA2? You can't get it on Windows Store. Want Fable Legends? You (probably) won't get it on Origin. The OP lists a single platform where all content is in a single unified place. PC gaming as it stands doesn't fit that description either.

 

[Maztorre]

Just want to chime in and state that Steam isn't simply a storefront. It's a platform. Many of the other storefronts are different in that they sell Steam keys, that you activate on the Steam platform. Steam, Origin, App Store, Windows Store. These are platforms (just not hardware platforms), and have much in common with different hardware platforms. Want Star Wars Battlefront? You can't get it on Steam. Want DOTA2? You can't get it on Windows Store. Want Fable Legends? You (probably) won't get it on Origin. The OP lists a single platform where all content is in a single unified place. PC gaming as it stands doesn't fit that description either.

See below:

So to sum up my opinion I hate the idea of all developers coming together on a single platform or first party companies moving to open platforms.

The OP doesn't want games on either a single or combination of open platforms, apparently.

 

[exmachina64]

As a customer? Sure, I want to be able to play every game out there but I'm not willing to buy three machines that work like an "exclusive dongle".

The competion argument gets really old. When it comes to video games, competition should always be directed towards the "content" and not the bullshit around it.
You don't judge a book by its cover, don't you. A shit movie will still be a shit movie even when you watch it in a modern 3D cinema.

Competition is treated like a holy cow here on Gaf, but competition can also turn really ugly.

This industry needs a biiig turnaround to repair this shit.

Most of GAF is American. American political culture fetishizes competition as the solution to most problems. Ergo, Americans believe increased competition would improve the situation.

 

[whitehawk]

Agree with OP.

Though I'd like some more co-operation. The same way an Android user can call an iPhone user, I'd like to be able to join an XBox party on my PS4 or play cross-platform games like PS4 can with PC.

 

[Yarbskoo]

Well, many great games are created directly to challenge an competing platform's game, which leaves a hole in their lineup. Nobody was really up for taking on EA in the NFL arena, until of course a platform holder finds themselves without an NFL game... so Sega made what was easily the best of its kind (until EA put the screws to that too). How's Sega's output been since they stopped having their own console to push? They carried basically an entire console's library on their back during the 8-bit days out of necessity to provide enough gaming variation to justify the hardware... do you think Nintendo without the Wii U or 3DS would produce the same output, rather than focus only on the IPs with the highest return?

Impossible to tell. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe Nintendo wanted to make certain unique games but couldn't because they needed stuff that would push their hardware sales, or there just wasn't enough of an audience on their platforms to support those kinds of games, and we just don't know about them because they were never made public. Maybe on a single platform with a huge amount of diversity among players, a weird game like The Wonderful 101 would have been a success, paving the way for more games like it.

 

[Goldenroad]

Wouldnt alot of the competition they have just move from hardware to software?

Yes. All of it.

EA, Activision, Ubisoft, 2K, Bethesda, etc, are all in competition and they would be equally as competitive if they were all only producing games on on system.

I'm not saying that I like the idea, but the logic that unifying games on a single platform would "kill competition" is just flat out wrong.

 

[SpokkX]

Yes i do

Hate having to own different hardware platforms

Let Sony make the hardware, MS the software and dev tools. Nintendo just games

 

[FranXico]

Competition is treated like a holy cow here on Gaf, but competition can also turn really ugly.

This industry needs a biiig turnaround to repair this shit.

No, competition is no holy cow and it is not perfect.
But it certainly is the lesser of two evils compared to a monopoly.

 

[VincentMatts]

I think if we looked at it like the DVD and Bluray situation, it could definitely work. I personally dont care who makes the hardware and the competition would still be around since they still need to sell their games. The competition would be the games instead of the consoles and im all for it. Especially now where the libraries are 90% identical, theres really no need for 4-5 console makers anymore.

 

[Neuromancer]

There would be no incentive for console manufacturers to make the best games they can to attract buyers to their system. No thanks.

 

[dickroach]

No OP, as evidenced by the film and music industries, a unified platform destroys competition and creativity.

I don't get it. what destruction did every film company picking VHS over Beta, DVD over whatever, BluRay over HDVD, etc cause?

There would be no incentive for console manufacturers to make the best games they can to attract buyers to their system. No thanks.

that I could maybe buy, but the way tech's moving there could be "gaming tvs" in the pretty near future that have ps4 level power built in and cost about the same as TVs now. it goes all comes back to the software that's what's selling. the studios would have to still create compelling software, because gaming aint dying, and people would buy those game. and nintendo/sony/microsoft wouldn't have to worry about console costs/losses.
I'm all for it honestly.

 

[Kriken]

No, I want to purchase 15 different gaming consoles and swap them out constantly

Real talk, if every company sold just software under a unified platform I would be ecstatic

 

[RedSwirl]

Just want to chime in and state that Steam isn't simply a storefront. It's a platform. Many of the other storefronts are different in that they sell Steam keys, that you activate on the Steam platform. Steam, Origin, App Store, Windows Store. These are platforms (just not hardware platforms), and have much in common with different hardware platforms. Want Star Wars Battlefront? You can't get it on Steam. Want DOTA2? You can't get it on Windows Store. Want Fable Legends? You (probably) won't get it on Origin. The OP lists a single platform where all content is in a single unified place. PC gaming as it stands doesn't fit that description either.

You can definitely make that argument, but Steam and GOG and Origin individually don't cost you any money. You can have all of them one one computer. It's not like having to buy a PlayStatoin and an Xbox and a Nintendo. All those software platforms still rely on Windows. I like to think of them as really fancy DRM solutions. Steam is just a piece of DRM that happens to come bundled with a lot of enticing features that offer more convenience than piracy.

 

[VincentMatts]

I don't get it. what destruction did every film company picking VHS over Beta, DVD over whatever, BluRay over HDVD, etc cause?

None. Have Sony make the hardware, MS makes the OS and online and nintendo bring their games. How is this not 100 times better than what we have now...

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

I don't get it. what destruction did every film company picking VHS over Beta, DVD over whatever, BluRay over HDVD, etc cause?
.

For film is actually the opposite (in the US). More innovative films started to be produced once studios were forced by antitrust laws to abandon complete vertical integration from production to owning the venues where their films would be played.

Unless the previous poster is referring to the same thing, but viewing it from the opposite end, as in: "the studio era is the unified platform". Which it would totally be if some single company owns it, like Yamauchi era politics.

 

[Pokemaniac]

A single unified platform really isn't beneficial. Unlike with other mediums, it's possible to push innovation through hardware, and having a single open platform actively hinders that, since it inherently limits options. Non-standard input devices in particular seem to have issues gaining traction on more open platforms like PC.

Besides, it could never actually exist. It would immediately fall afoul of the "competing standards" problem:

 

[Markoman]

No, competition is no holy cow and it is not perfect.
But it certainly is the lesser of two evils compared to a monopoly.

Yeah, but a unified platform =/= monopoly
And you know what's funny? A unified plattform would mean maximum competition, because Sony, MS and Nintendo as publishers would have to compete directly with Activision, EA, Ubi... on equal footing.

 

[BleedOrange]

I'd rather each company unify its own platforms where it makes sense. For Microsoft that's living room comfy couch + powerful PC gaming. For Sony that's living room comfy couch + VR. For Nintendo thats living room comfy couch + mobile.

I'm tired of splitting my purchases so much.

 

[Jonneh3003]

In my opinion Microsoft and Sony need to differentiate themselves a lot more. While Wii U is the worst selling platform, Xbox One is that middle child who stands in the shadows. It exists and some people acknowledge it but the general consensus is "it's too similar to PS4" and most people favour the PS4. First party games like Halo 5 do help but now more than ever it feels like the competeing consoles are the same box. Wii U is a different product and I love it for that, even if it's maybe too different in terms of hardware. I would love to see Microsoft working with more partners and reviving classic Rareware IP's as unfortunatly as it stands, I wouldn't mind a console market consisting of just Sony and Nintendo.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

I want 3 platforms. Nintendo, SteamOS, and Android. Fuck the rest of it.