Thank you for putting it much clearer than I ever could.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Multiple platforms hurt gaming and gamers - We need a single console future.
- Thread starter Heyt
- Start date
Thank you for putting it much clearer than I ever could.
DistortionOfReality
Member
Incorrect. Multiple platforms promote competition in both price and innovation. Everything else is a minor argument when a monopoly would simply cause industry stagnation.
Edit for your edit; Sounds an awful lot like you are talking about a PC that also gets console exclusives
Edit for your edit; Sounds an awful lot like you are talking about a PC that also gets console exclusives
Glass Rebel
Member
Ideally, yes. With the long-term goal of completely detaching Valve from the Steam API, basically allowing everyone to have their own Steam-powered store if they have the funds to do so.
Great.
Ever heard about compatibility issues for BluRays + DVDs?
I own one BluRay, that will stop after a few minutes in my standalone Sony BluRay player (which I bought last year or so, latest updated applied), but will work in my PS3.
You would either have a specification that could be fulfilled by multiple companies and multiple hardware suppliers. Which would result in all sorts of nice issues (see PC). Or you would have a specification, that mandates a certain CPU, a certain GPU, certain memory and so on. Which would be a monopoly. Either way it would be bad.
OmegaDL50
Member
A single console future is the worst possible thing that can happen to the market.
No competition or drive, Publishers can decide to set prices at any level they wish due to fact there is no competitiveness to keep pricing down.
When you don't have another company to drive you to exceed and innovate you will take safe moves and thus churn out mediocre and uninspired software that isn't designed with "good gameplay" in mind but rather on the emphasis of just setting the "bare standard to get by"
Edit : I didn't see the edit in the OP when I started making my post.
I wouldn't mind for a more unified system, but the points i bring up would still need to be addressed since if you deal with a whole platform that caters to everyone it's not much different the PC market space that jimi_dini, brings up in the post above mine.
No competition or drive, Publishers can decide to set prices at any level they wish due to fact there is no competitiveness to keep pricing down.
When you don't have another company to drive you to exceed and innovate you will take safe moves and thus churn out mediocre and uninspired software that isn't designed with "good gameplay" in mind but rather on the emphasis of just setting the "bare standard to get by"
Edit : I didn't see the edit in the OP when I started making my post.
I wouldn't mind for a more unified system, but the points i bring up would still need to be addressed since if you deal with a whole platform that caters to everyone it's not much different the PC market space that jimi_dini, brings up in the post above mine.
MutonCommander
Banned
Yes. If it works it will be glorious.
Edit: I should elaborate. A single console future does not mean that just one company will be making and selling consoles and games. Rather, it means that all the different consoles will be compatible with each other and you will be able to freely change platforms without leaving your existing games behind.
nssdigitalchumps
Member
- Competition breeds innovation
- The last time there was a single console was the Magnavox Odyssey (1972) (that's how much it hurts the gamers and games)
Had you started with something like they need to tone down the cost of development, I'm on board with you.
Thank you, good night.
- The last time there was a single console was the Magnavox Odyssey (1972) (that's how much it hurts the gamers and games)
Had you started with something like they need to tone down the cost of development, I'm on board with you.
Thank you, good night.
Brofist
Member
It would never happen but if it was a case where it was a single agreed upon spec between all console manufacturers it would probably be a good thing.
Developers could better optimize their games developing for less systems. The selling point between the different maker's consoles would be peripherals, services, OS, ecosystem, online etc.
There could be some hardware specific features as long as the console stays within specifications.
Obviously this would never happen in a million years, but it would probably benefit the console gamer best.
Developers could better optimize their games developing for less systems. The selling point between the different maker's consoles would be peripherals, services, OS, ecosystem, online etc.
There could be some hardware specific features as long as the console stays within specifications.
Obviously this would never happen in a million years, but it would probably benefit the console gamer best.
plagiarize
Banned
we will only get a single console future if consumers choose one... and that doesn't look like it's going to happen. right now there are multiple ways you can buy films, not just DVD. you have Blu-ray. you have all the services that sell movies. sometimes one of those services gets a film before the others. everyone lives.
you'd like to be able to buy one piece of hardware and then all the games. I understand the desire for that, but that was tried before, and we got the 3D0. A hugely expensive console.
no one is going to take a loss on the hardware for this console, and it only takes one company to make their own closed box for the utopia to potentially end. if the companies making the consoles differentiate theirs by adding in their own specially things... you get fragmentation anyway (say Microsoft make one which is the only one with Kinect).
consumers don't have a history of desiring only one type of anything. the only times we've had a single overriding format is when the competition was far behind in some crucial way (price, library, whatever).
look at last gen. look at the variety of awesome games that came out. no single platform could have sustained all those awesome titles.
Which is worse.
This is the video game industry. It's hardware *changes*. What 'generations' have the CD and DVD players gone through? Build quality may change, but the functions rarely do.
CDs and DVDs remain the same.
Games do not.
Quality would go into the toilet and we'd suffer a crash.
Sounds great.
Probably i was not clear, i understood what you said, it's not the first time someone asked for this.
It's really complex, let's say that wiiu, ps4 and x1 are the prototypes of single console, who and with what criteria he decides what to do?
Companies with no components in the chosen console have no other future than making a component that another company did(paying the rights), destined in the long run to leave the research of new models to chosen company, and there are many other consequences.
Brofist
Member
How do you figure? Can you buy a PS4 with an Nvidia card now? Only difference in the proposed situation is MS and Sony would be using the same GPU for example. That may not have been a bad thing especially in the case of the XB1.
BigBadShamoo
Banned
Not good. It's better to have options. Just look at EA with Madden. EA bought the NFL video game license for a select period of time so they could be the only company to make a NFL game with the actual player names and everything. No other company for that select time was to able to make an OFFICIAL NFL game instead we got wacky arcade like spinoffs like Blitz the League. I'm not saying that's a bad game but a lot of the reason that game was created the way it was was because they couldn't make it like the NFL due to the license that EA bought.
With competition it brings good things like look at baseball and basketball we have NBA Live and NBA 2k. Two different companies striving to make a better product that portrays that specific sport. The buyer has an option to play what they like or what they think is better, they aren't forced into buying "one" thing. This is good atleast I think so for companies and consumers alike.
On the other hand if all companies put their resources into one thing yeah That would be awesome yes especially for gamers lol. I'm pretty positive tho it's already been attempted Nintendo and Sony used to work together on a console. But they both had different ideas in that time it was in format and to this day it still is Nintendo went with catridges, Sony went with Optical.
With competition it brings good things like look at baseball and basketball we have NBA Live and NBA 2k. Two different companies striving to make a better product that portrays that specific sport. The buyer has an option to play what they like or what they think is better, they aren't forced into buying "one" thing. This is good atleast I think so for companies and consumers alike.
On the other hand if all companies put their resources into one thing yeah That would be awesome yes especially for gamers lol. I'm pretty positive tho it's already been attempted Nintendo and Sony used to work together on a console. But they both had different ideas in that time it was in format and to this day it still is Nintendo went with catridges, Sony went with Optical.
Monopolies aren't necessarily bad as long as a new firm can pop up and dethrone the console war winner. A constant threat of losing marketshare can be a more efficient incentive to innovate than a status quo oligopoly like what we've been seeing these past few generations. Plus there's the big advantages of widespread userbase.
I mean, I don't quite get the automatic hate for monopolistic situations. NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 would by many be considered as monopolies or at the very least very dominant firms. Yet those were damn good times when it came to software creation and variety.
That said, with the importance of online connectivity these days, switching costs for users to another console are getting increasingly high and basically pose a barrier to entry to new firms.
So, I don't know. You avoid many of these pitfalls on PC, where competition is purely on a software basis and consequently where it is far easier to compete on the market.
I mean, I don't quite get the automatic hate for monopolistic situations. NES, SNES, PS1 and PS2 would by many be considered as monopolies or at the very least very dominant firms. Yet those were damn good times when it came to software creation and variety.
That said, with the importance of online connectivity these days, switching costs for users to another console are getting increasingly high and basically pose a barrier to entry to new firms.
So, I don't know. You avoid many of these pitfalls on PC, where competition is purely on a software basis and consequently where it is far easier to compete on the market.
Brofist
Member
Hardware changes? Like people weren't stuck with the same crappy hardware for the last 10 years? Hardware change would be no different from a format change in movies. From DVD to blu-ray for example.
double jump
you haven't lived until a random little kid ask you "how do you make love".
I'm actually in favor of something like this. In fact in an all digital future I don't see closed platforms working the same as today.
DiscoJer
Member
The 3do was an attempt at doing this (of sorts). It came up with standards, let companies manufacture consoles, and the royalties were very low. (It even had a card for PCs, to let it play 3do games)
The problem was, because the hardware manufacturer couldn't re-coup its costs from the software licensing fee, the hardware was sold at a very high price, rather than at a loss (or at cost in some cases) when it launched. And so not that many people bought one.
And without selling a lot of units, it didn't have much 3rd party support.
Beyond that, Sony & MS want to control not just your games, but your media. They want to sell you movies. They want to sell you music. They are battling for the living room, only they've possibly been outflanked by Apple/Google.
The problem was, because the hardware manufacturer couldn't re-coup its costs from the software licensing fee, the hardware was sold at a very high price, rather than at a loss (or at cost in some cases) when it launched. And so not that many people bought one.
And without selling a lot of units, it didn't have much 3rd party support.
Beyond that, Sony & MS want to control not just your games, but your media. They want to sell you movies. They want to sell you music. They are battling for the living room, only they've possibly been outflanked by Apple/Google.
NinjaCatfish
Member
I've had this thought long ago, it never made sense to me why I can buy a DVD and play it on any player, but I can't buy a game without playing it on a specific console.
But after some thought, I'm not sure I'd love a standard format for games. There'd be no room for improvement or innovation. No Wii U GamePad, no Xbox One Kinect and general OS stuff. I feel like we need all these companies making different hardware so that game consoles are more than just more powerful versions of last year's model.
A film is a film, you watch it from start to end and it looks as nice as the current TV standards support. Games are far less simple.
But after some thought, I'm not sure I'd love a standard format for games. There'd be no room for improvement or innovation. No Wii U GamePad, no Xbox One Kinect and general OS stuff. I feel like we need all these companies making different hardware so that game consoles are more than just more powerful versions of last year's model.
A film is a film, you watch it from start to end and it looks as nice as the current TV standards support. Games are far less simple.
How do you feel about NFL games quality after EA secured exclusive rights?
Forcing a monopoly on specs will lead to less competition, which would lead to less powerful hardware and less inovation for higher price. It's competition that forces the greedy corporations to give us something decent for a reasonable price. Without it, you might as well give up.
Forcing a monopoly on specs will lead to less competition, which would lead to less powerful hardware and less inovation for higher price. It's competition that forces the greedy corporations to give us something decent for a reasonable price. Without it, you might as well give up.
airmangataosenai
Member
That's not the way things work. The high cost of Blu Ray was in part because few were being made. PS3's success is what drove the price down.
D.Lo
Member
Microsoft and Sony throw billions down the toilet for the fringe benefits associated with games (winning a format war, getting their internet services onto your TV).
As such, gamers get massively subsidised hardware, especially early in the generation.
What you want means you'll have to pay 100% plus profit plus retail margin etc for your gaming hardware.
Which means you'll get a cheap Wii U at best, or an expensive 3DO at worst.
As such, gamers get massively subsidised hardware, especially early in the generation.
What you want means you'll have to pay 100% plus profit plus retail margin etc for your gaming hardware.
Which means you'll get a cheap Wii U at best, or an expensive 3DO at worst.
RockmanWhore
Member
I really hope that Valve will shake things up with SteamOS. PC gaming is awesome, but it really sucks to be tied to Windows. But at the same time, being dependant of a single company, even if Valve is awesome, is that great. Now they're awesome, but there's no garanty they'll always stay like this, especially if they have a monopoly on gaming.
Anyway, I kinda think that the consoles models will die in a few years, leaving only Nintendo. In a way, consoles are already dead, they're basically PCs with a dedicated OS. They don't have weird and unique archicture like they did in the past, today's consoles have PC components in them, AMD/Intel CPUs, Nvidia/ATI graphic processors, etc... Ironically, I can totally see a future with Sony and Microsoft dropping consoles and making tablets or PCs in the future. That's basically what Valve seems to be doing with its Steam Machines, they might be doing it a bit too soon though.
Anyway, I kinda think that the consoles models will die in a few years, leaving only Nintendo. In a way, consoles are already dead, they're basically PCs with a dedicated OS. They don't have weird and unique archicture like they did in the past, today's consoles have PC components in them, AMD/Intel CPUs, Nvidia/ATI graphic processors, etc... Ironically, I can totally see a future with Sony and Microsoft dropping consoles and making tablets or PCs in the future. That's basically what Valve seems to be doing with its Steam Machines, they might be doing it a bit too soon though.
megashock5
Member
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it has been tried once before with 3DO being licensed to multiple manufacturers and it ended up being far too expensive, no matter who made the box.
I think those of us who remember that failed experiment will need to be convinced that the model will work.
This, too. Competition has brought us some interesting hardware innovations.
BigBadShamoo
Banned
Gaming consoles are basically PC's nowadays. Firmware Updates could be related to driver updates. People used to complain about performing driver updates so they went console, but now they're just doing firmware updates lol. I guess it's easier, but it usually always comes down to how the company handles their consumers and also consumer know how. Or until a coder scene develops.
I understand what you are saying, but it would still be a monopoly even with multiple hardware vendors creating multiple boxes. Someone has to create the OS for it. PC is still a very locked-down platform if you use Windows or OSX even with multiple hardware vendors. You will be locked by the OS and whoever creates it.
It can never happen. It would be far too easy for legit devs/pubs to fall into the company line and begin to abuse the consumer. Imagine if MS was the lead on OS development? Without a contender we'd still have 24hr connectivity. And on a day like yesterday when my internet dropped late last night I'd be fucked. You wouldn't be able to create a cohesive system with multiple OSs, either. Competition is needed.
If you want to build a PC so you are not beholden to hardware manufacturers go for it. But you will still be held to Windows and whatever direction MS chooses. Multiple consoles and vendors is better.
It can never happen. It would be far too easy for legit devs/pubs to fall into the company line and begin to abuse the consumer. Imagine if MS was the lead on OS development? Without a contender we'd still have 24hr connectivity. And on a day like yesterday when my internet dropped late last night I'd be fucked. You wouldn't be able to create a cohesive system with multiple OSs, either. Competition is needed.
If you want to build a PC so you are not beholden to hardware manufacturers go for it. But you will still be held to Windows and whatever direction MS chooses. Multiple consoles and vendors is better.
A standard format for games, where the hardware is licensed out to different manufacturers? It sounds great in theory, but the last time what was tried we ended up with the 3DO, so....
I wouldn't be averse to the notion of someone else having a crack at it, but I don't see it happening
No. Drivers can work any number of ways depending on hardware configuration. It can be a plus or a minus based on your rig. With consoles, 1 update applies to the entire hardware line across the spectrum.
Completely agree.
If much rather one console. Then, like a DVD player you buy the brand you want but it plays all games.
So you'd be picking the console based on the OS and it's features as opposed to the games, which everyone gets to enjoy regardless of which console they buy.
Won't reduce fanboy wars that much though.
If much rather one console. Then, like a DVD player you buy the brand you want but it plays all games.
So you'd be picking the console based on the OS and it's features as opposed to the games, which everyone gets to enjoy regardless of which console they buy.
Won't reduce fanboy wars that much though.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Buy a Steambox. There's your one console future.
JayVoDaKing
Banned
They're rolling out "crap" now...
Plus, they're competing. You must missed the last few updates to shitty MPs to everything else?
Any way you look at it, this is a bad idea.
If you think of only 1 type of console (THE CONSOLE) this is a big no-no. As a resident of a former communist country, where we had the car, the fridge, the washing machine etc, I can tell you this thread is almost a blasphemy. I would never go there again, although I was only a child.
This is a communist idea, and it is utopic to think of only one device at a good price and best performance.
If you think from a compatibility point of view, like all the console manufacturers to have the same basic standard with some minor improvements just to differentiate from one another, this is still a bad thing, but not as bad as the first point. Just let a system die if there is no demand for it. Nintendo or Microsoft should take the Sega way if they can't sustain the console business anymore. But the Sega way is bad, REALLY BAD
If you think of only 1 type of console (THE CONSOLE) this is a big no-no. As a resident of a former communist country, where we had the car, the fridge, the washing machine etc, I can tell you this thread is almost a blasphemy. I would never go there again, although I was only a child.
This is a communist idea, and it is utopic to think of only one device at a good price and best performance.
If you think from a compatibility point of view, like all the console manufacturers to have the same basic standard with some minor improvements just to differentiate from one another, this is still a bad thing, but not as bad as the first point. Just let a system die if there is no demand for it. Nintendo or Microsoft should take the Sega way if they can't sustain the console business anymore. But the Sega way is bad, REALLY BAD
JayVoDaKing
Banned
Not Really! Some people still like they Exclusives.
OriginalThinking
Member
Exactly. I love Android, but in no way do I want it to be the only single platform for mobile devices. Windows Phone and iOS push them to keep improving their OS. Without competition you breed complacency, arrogance and a culture where customer feedback isn't crucial to your survival.
Consoles advantage is a simplicity of set hardware targeted at a low cost of entry, both in price and technical know-how. If you have a single spec console by different manufacturers but they all have to use the same chip sets then there's not really competition. If you want to allow different specs then you run into the same issue as the PC space where game performance varies wildly and on certain cards there are major issues.
If you want a single platform future then Steam and steam boxes are the closest thing to what you describe. But a future where Valve control all of gamings future is incredibly risky.
ScepticMatt
Member
i.e. PC? Hmm, so what you're saying is Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo join the PC gamin alliance, and together with Valve push forward with SteamOS and SteamMachines. Maybe run Dalvik on SteamOS to combine it with Android.
Never gonna happen.
I see where the OP is going, I thought about it many times. Wheter you think the idea is sound or not, there's at least one sure benefit: less resources (time/money/people) spent on porting games, more resources for new and original games. Look at EA, Activision and Ubisoft, their resources are stretched thin trying to port their games on as many systems as possible: PS3, WII, 360, WIIU, PS4, XO, PC, VITA, 3DS, even if we take PC and portables out of the equation, we still got 6 platforms right now, 3 when the old gen will be really dead. If there was only one standard (not system or manufacturer mind you), reaching everybody, companies would be able to stay way more focused.
Admitting to not reading the OP and then commenting should be a bannable offense. If you read the OP you'd know he wasn't talking about monopolies or single manufacturers. SMH
Admitting to not reading the OP and then commenting should be a bannable offense. If you read the OP you'd know he wasn't talking about monopolies or single manufacturers. SMH
entremet
Member
Not really.
Can you play TLOU on PC?Super Mario 3DWorld? That's just two GOTY contenders already.
ShockingAlberto
Member
One would assume that, with console makers just making PCs, those games would go there.
In fact, in the context of this thread, I have no idea what your post even means.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
I could see us getting to a point where gaming HTPCs become the norm eventually. Easier to do the all in one set top box with a PC than a proprietary console.
Completion will still be fine just like on pcs now since it's an open format and there are multiple digital store fronts to choose from.
Completion will still be fine just like on pcs now since it's an open format and there are multiple digital store fronts to choose from.
sixteen-bit
Member
nah competition results in a better experience for consumers.
CadetMahoney
Member
We don't need one but we will see PS2 level domination with the PS4, is that close enough?
entremet
Member
I was replying to the poster that we already have in the PC. We really don't. It's close, though.
NemesisPrime
Banned
Get a PC.
A domination console future, is a future where I get out of console gaming. The next gen consoles atm are already weak sauce enough, I definitely do not need a single dominating one.
A domination console future, is a future where I get out of console gaming. The next gen consoles atm are already weak sauce enough, I definitely do not need a single dominating one.
So everyone else being millions behind the PS4? That smells like the closest you will get to a one console future.
Similar threads
- Poll