So the evolution of game consoles does not work in my theory? Why?

I've posted a couple of idea's about where I think the gaming industry will eventually head. I think they make perfect sense and would make the gaming community so large we wouldn't be the minority anymore. Help me shape new idea's for the game designer's and studios to notice. And even if they don't notice them now, 5 years down the line someone important might notice that the idea was posted and neglected in vain.

My main ideal revolves around the fact that although Nintendo, as of current, holds the market of hardware and software convert to a primarily software driven corp. that derives a substantial amount of revenue from the hardware sales of the console they develop for. The interesting part of the idea is that Microsoft, being the largest corp. and having the most access to capital, should develop a P.C. idealized console that includes advantages of;

1. Decreased production cost on such large scales will allow the industry to flood the market with a dominant system of operations.

2. Of the leading industry as of now, N / S / M would agree to start a new company to oversee the production; thus the allocation of costs would be better divided instead of one company spending massive amounts of money on new developments. (A wonderful example is the BR vs HD)

3. The new platform would not seclude the developer either. Stock's and division of the overall company would be easily accessible, thus driving success through accelerated market success.

4. A universal console would also leave room for each independent developer freedom to create software / hardware as long as it complied with the operation system of the console.

5. An inclusion of overly easy application upgrades that even the least computer experienced person could handle.

I seriously think this is what the future of games will look like, It just seems the industry can't sustain an ever cost increasing console war with people taking a lottery ticket on betting the winner.

A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.Nagidar

There would be competition. More competition. The majority of cost's associated with contemporary consoles is the hardware design and development. The profit's of the market and the studio's would not simply rely on how well their individual consoles sell AND their games sell; but would rather rely on software and their studio's profiles and records of success.

The increased competition would be the result of the complete market saturation. Every console on the same specs would allow new and fresh ideas to infiltrate the market at new and amazing rates ( vs. the tried and true clone games released over and over again..)

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.martingm1983

There would be competition. More competition. The majority of cost's associated with contemporary consoles is the hardware design and development. The profit's of the market and the studio's would not simply rely on how well their individual consoles sell AND their games sell; but would rather rely on software and their studio's profiles and records of success.

The increased competition would be the result of the complete market saturation. Every console on the same specs would allow new and fresh ideas to infiltrate the market at new and amazing rates ( vs. the tried and true clone games released over and over again..)

Thats not it, when you have ONE of anything, that company or group of companies can do whatever they want without any reason to change, when you have multiple of something, they are all competing and in turn makes competition, IE, price drops, making better games ect.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.martingm1983

There would be competition. More competition. The majority of cost's associated with contemporary consoles is the hardware design and development. The profit's of the market and the studio's would not simply rely on how well their individual consoles sell AND their games sell; but would rather rely on software and their studio's profiles and records of success.

The increased competition would be the result of the complete market saturation. Every console on the same specs would allow new and fresh ideas to infiltrate the market at new and amazing rates ( vs. the tried and true clone games released over and over again..)

Also, with the ability of the stock division becoming a major integration of the corp.,corp. investments would skyrocket.

When given stock options in a corp, the individual has a natural reasoning to head towards sucess.

I've posted a couple of idea's about where I think the gaming industry will eventually head. I think they make perfect sense and would make the gaming community so large we wouldn't be the minority anymore. Help me shape new idea's for the game designer's and studios to notice. And even if they don't notice them now, 5 years down the line someone important might notice that the idea was posted and neglected in vain.

My main ideal revolves around the fact that although Nintendo, as of current, holds the market of hardware and software convert to a primarily software driven corp. that derives a substantial amount of revenue from the hardware sales of the console they develop for. The interesting part of the idea is that Microsoft, being the largest corp. and having the most access to capital, should develop a P.C. idealized console that includes advantages of;

1. Decreased production cost on such large scales will allow the industry to flood the market with a dominant system of operations.

2. Of the leading industry as of now, N / S / M would agree to start a new company to oversee the production; thus the allocation of costs would be better divided instead of one company spending massive amounts of money on new developments. (A wonderful example is the BR vs HD)

3. The new platform would not seclude the developer either. Stock's and division of the overall company would be easily accessible, thus driving success through accelerated market success.

4. A universal console would also leave room for each independent developer freedom to create software / hardware as long as it complied with the operation system of the console.

5. An inclusion of overly easy application upgrades that even the least computer experienced person could handle.

I seriously think this is what the future of games will look like, It just seems the industry can't sustain an ever cost increasing console war with people taking a lottery ticket on betting the winner.

martingm1983

Wouldn't work. People like choices. Innovation is driven by competition.

Other logical conclusions to your theory are:

All car makers get together and only make a single car.

All candy/sweet manufactures make one over all super sweet.

All film makers in the world get together and only make Rocky sequels until the end of time.

All clothes manufactures get together and release only one type of jumper and jeans.

Also one platform = a price that cannot be changed regardless of external factors.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

I've posted a couple of idea's about where I think the gaming industry will eventually head. I think they make perfect sense and would make the gaming community so large we wouldn't be the minority anymore. Help me shape new idea's for the game designer's and studios to notice. And even if they don't notice them now, 5 years down the line someone important might notice that the idea was posted and neglected in vain.

My main ideal revolves around the fact that although Nintendo, as of current, holds the market of hardware and software convert to a primarily software driven corp. that derives a substantial amount of revenue from the hardware sales of the console they develop for. The interesting part of the idea is that Microsoft, being the largest corp. and having the most access to capital, should develop a P.C. idealized console that includes advantages of;

1. Decreased production cost on such large scales will allow the industry to flood the market with a dominant system of operations.

2. Of the leading industry as of now, N / S / M would agree to start a new company to oversee the production; thus the allocation of costs would be better divided instead of one company spending massive amounts of money on new developments. (A wonderful example is the BR vs HD)

3. The new platform would not seclude the developer either. Stock's and division of the overall company would be easily accessible, thus driving success through accelerated market success.

4. A universal console would also leave room for each independent developer freedom to create software / hardware as long as it complied with the operation system of the console.

5. An inclusion of overly easy application upgrades that even the least computer experienced person could handle.

I seriously think this is what the future of games will look like, It just seems the industry can't sustain an ever cost increasing console war with people taking a lottery ticket on betting the winner.

tenaka2

Wouldn't work. People like choices. Innovation is driven by competition.

Other logical conclusions to your theory are:

All car makers get together and only make a single car.

All candy/sweet manufactures make one over all super sweet.

All film makers in the world get together and only make Rocky sequels until the end of time.

All clothes manufactures get together and release only one type of jumper and jeans.

Also one platform = a price that cannot be changed regardless of external factors.

My point exactly.

A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.Nagidar

Oh please.The only competition this gen is which multiplat has better graphics. Developers arent exactly striving to make epic exclusives games just the same game on every console. With the exception of the Wii which is a gimmick. Competition has been more of a hassle more than it has benefited anything.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.Dahaka-UK

Oh please.The only competition this gen is which multiplat has better graphics. Developers arent exactly striving to make epic exclusives games just the same game on every console. With the exception of the Wii which is a gimmick. Competition has been more of a hassle more than it has benefited anything.

So games like Uncharted wouldn't have benefit from competition? And this is not ONLY about games, each console manufaturer would have no reason to drop prices or update each console without competition.

BTW, SW only cares about which game has better graphics, the average Joe, doesn't.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

I've posted a couple of idea's about where I think the gaming industry will eventually head. I think they make perfect sense and would make the gaming community so large we wouldn't be the minority anymore. Help me shape new idea's for the game designer's and studios to notice. And even if they don't notice them now, 5 years down the line someone important might notice that the idea was posted and neglected in vain.

My main ideal revolves around the fact that although Nintendo, as of current, holds the market of hardware and software convert to a primarily software driven corp. that derives a substantial amount of revenue from the hardware sales of the console they develop for. The interesting part of the idea is that Microsoft, being the largest corp. and having the most access to capital, should develop a P.C. idealized console that includes advantages of;

1. Decreased production cost on such large scales will allow the industry to flood the market with a dominant system of operations.

2. Of the leading industry as of now, N / S / M would agree to start a new company to oversee the production; thus the allocation of costs would be better divided instead of one company spending massive amounts of money on new developments. (A wonderful example is the BR vs HD)

3. The new platform would not seclude the developer either. Stock's and division of the overall company would be easily accessible, thus driving success through accelerated market success.

4. A universal console would also leave room for each independent developer freedom to create software / hardware as long as it complied with the operation system of the console.

5. An inclusion of overly easy application upgrades that even the least computer experienced person could handle.

I seriously think this is what the future of games will look like, It just seems the industry can't sustain an ever cost increasing console war with people taking a lottery ticket on betting the winner.

tenaka2

Wouldn't work. People like choices. Innovation is driven by competition.

Other logical conclusions to your theory are:

All car makers get together and only make a single car.

All candy/sweet manufactures make one over all super sweet.

All film makers in the world get together and only make Rocky sequels until the end of time.

All clothes manufactures get together and release only one type of jumper and jeans.

Also one platform = a price that cannot be changed regardless of external factors.

Except you can't compare gaming consoles to any of that. Because a gaming console only has 1 function and that is to play games. We've essentially got 3 gaming consoles that do the exact same thing.. And thats play games. :| It's not needed. The differences between all 3 consoles are very slight but it isnt enough reason for there to be 3 consoles in the first place.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

I've posted a couple of idea's about where I think the gaming industry will eventually head. I think they make perfect sense and would make the gaming community so large we wouldn't be the minority anymore. Help me shape new idea's for the game designer's and studios to notice. And even if they don't notice them now, 5 years down the line someone important might notice that the idea was posted and neglected in vain.

My main ideal revolves around the fact that although Nintendo, as of current, holds the market of hardware and software convert to a primarily software driven corp. that derives a substantial amount of revenue from the hardware sales of the console they develop for. The interesting part of the idea is that Microsoft, being the largest corp. and having the most access to capital, should develop a P.C. idealized console that includes advantages of;

1. Decreased production cost on such large scales will allow the industry to flood the market with a dominant system of operations.

2. Of the leading industry as of now, N / S / M would agree to start a new company to oversee the production; thus the allocation of costs would be better divided instead of one company spending massive amounts of money on new developments. (A wonderful example is the BR vs HD)

3. The new platform would not seclude the developer either. Stock's and division of the overall company would be easily accessible, thus driving success through accelerated market success.

4. A universal console would also leave room for each independent developer freedom to create software / hardware as long as it complied with the operation system of the console.

5. An inclusion of overly easy application upgrades that even the least computer experienced person could handle.

I seriously think this is what the future of games will look like, It just seems the industry can't sustain an ever cost increasing console war with people taking a lottery ticket on betting the winner.

tenaka2

Wouldn't work. People like choices. Innovation is driven by competition.

Other logical conclusions to your theory are:

All car makers get together and only make a single car.

All candy/sweet manufactures make one over all super sweet.

All film makers in the world get together and only make Rocky sequels until the end of time.

All clothes manufactures get together and release only one type of jumper and jeans.

Also one platform = a price that cannot be changed regardless of external factors.

It wouldn't work, you'd have to get too many third parties to agree to a virtual monopoly. I know you can draw a parallel with PCs and Windows but hardware for PC's hase already consolidated between a few players, and even they are pushing some form of closed standard.

There's been years of talking about a common platform for all entertainment, connected to huge networks dispensing content for varying prices and licences. The problem is the biggest companies in consumer electronics want to own that spot for themselves, you can see the foundations of which in various set top box's, PS3s and Xbox360.

Even when convergence comes I doubt it will be benificial to gamers, the consumer always gets screwed somehow.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.Nagidar

There would be competition. More competition. The majority of cost's associated with contemporary consoles is the hardware design and development. The profit's of the market and the studio's would not simply rely on how well their individual consoles sell AND their games sell; but would rather rely on software and their studio's profiles and records of success.

The increased competition would be the result of the complete market saturation. Every console on the same specs would allow new and fresh ideas to infiltrate the market at new and amazing rates ( vs. the tried and true clone games released over and over again..)

Thats not it, when you have ONE of anything, that company or group of companies can do whatever they want without any reason to change, when you have multiple of something, they are all competing and in turn makes competition, IE, price drops, making better games ect.

I understand Adam Smith's theory of market equilibrium, but I'm not removing competition; I'm suggesting we create a more narrow focused aspect of competition that benefits the industry. With the removal of numerous consoles competing and hoping to grab a new aspect of society previously deprived of gaming (also take note, this does not exclude the current gamer. Hard core or casual.); we're left with one focus; Innovation. Like this equation.

Microsoft [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 HD$'s : Hardware Development costs

Nintendo [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 AD$'s : Advertising cost's* [ And this is of most importance...]

Sony [HD$'s +AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 SD$'s : Software cost's

Each major corp. spends 1B$ on individual hardware development. 3B$ total. Inefficient. Each company has technology that can help create an industry focused on profits through collaboration.

The SD$'s would also decrease by amazing amounts. The determinant of success will revolve around market saturation and the subsequent software sales. No holdings would allow a company a clear advantage over another; thus allowing exploration towards one goal: Profit maximization through innovation; Maximization would occur for the singular company because of complete saturation, the market would be amazingly large.

Wouldn't work. People like choices. Innovation is driven by competition.

Other logical conclusions to your theory are:

All car makers get together and only make a single car.

All candy/sweet manufactures make one over all super sweet.

All film makers in the world get together and only make Rocky sequels until the end of time.

All clothes manufactures get together and release only one type of jumper and jeans.

Also one platform = a price that cannot be changed regardless of external factors.

Dahaka-UK

Except you can't compare gaming consoles to any of that. Because a gaming console only has 1 function and that is to play games. We've essentially got 3 gaming consoles that do the exact same thing.. And thats play games. :| It's not needed. The differences between all 3 consoles are very slight but it isnt enough reason for there to be 3 consoles in the first place.

Your not making any sense. Please explain your other uses of the following:

Cars

Clothes

Movies

Candy

I can only think of the regular uses for these items. Consoles like everything else are just a product.

One world wide console? How can you see the one console ever upgrading to the next level as tech advances? Would you force all users to upgrade at the same time? If not how many tiers of legacy consoles would your daft theory try to support?

I understand Adam Smith's theory of market equilibrium, but I'm not removing competition; I'm suggesting we create a more narrow focused aspect of competition that benefits the industry. With the removal of numerous consoles competing and hoping to grab a new aspect of society previously deprived of gaming (also take note, this does not exclude the current gamer. Hard core or casual.); we're left with one focus; Innovation. Like this equation.

Microsoft [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 HD$'s : Hardware Development costs

Nintendo [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 AD$'s : Advertising cost's* [ And this is of most importance...]

Sony [HD$'s +AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 SD$'s : Software cost's

Each major corp. spends 1B$ on individual hardware development. 3B$ total. Inefficient. Each company has technology that can help create an industry focused on profits through collaboration.

The SD$'s would also decrease by amazing amounts. The determinant of success will revolve around market saturation and the subsequent software sales. No holdings would allow a company a clear advantage over another; thus allowing exploration towards one goal: Profit maximization through innovation; Maximization would occur for the singular company because of complete saturation, the market would be amazingly large.

martingm1983

How would you plan to upgrade or indeed move up a gen with your super console?

You realise your essentially discussing communism and trying to wrap it around the gaming industry.

Why don't all car companies in the world get together and make one car type, imagine the reduction in production costs!!

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

I understand Adam Smith's theory of market equilibrium, but I'm not removing competition; I'm suggesting we create a more narrow focused aspect of competition that benefits the industry. With the removal of numerous consoles competing and hoping to grab a new aspect of society previously deprived of gaming (also take note, this does not exclude the current gamer. Hard core or casual.); we're left with one focus; Innovation. Like this equation.

Microsoft [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 HD$'s : Hardware Development costs

Nintendo [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 AD$'s : Advertising cost's* [ And this is of most importance...]

Sony [HD$'s +AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 SD$'s : Software cost's

Each major corp. spends 1B$ on individual hardware development. 3B$ total. Inefficient. Each company has technology that can help create an industry focused on profits through collaboration.

The SD$'s would also decrease by amazing amounts. The determinant of success will revolve around market saturation and the subsequent software sales. No holdings would allow a company a clear advantage over another; thus allowing exploration towards one goal: Profit maximization through innovation; Maximization would occur for the singular company because of complete saturation, the market would be amazingly large.

tenaka2

How would you plan to upgrade or indeed move up a gen with your super console?

You realise your essentially discussing communism and trying to wrap it around the gaming industry.

Why don't all car companies in the world get together and make one car type, imagine the reduction in production costs!!

the single problem that means this will never happen is that they will refuse to agree on what the "standards" should be, which is exactly y each is so strong in a certain category. and obviously everything would come down to the minimum, thus ruining any quality in any of the systems. if they came to an agreement, what we would have is essentially slightly stronger gamecube with a dvd drive (but no film playback), a wireless ps2 controller, no hdd, and friend codes.

that's not a future i'm looking forward to :|

In response to the AD$'s:

Game companies spend money on adv. for ridiculous reasons. We understand that your game is coming out... some day. We like games. So what's the exact point of adv. on Myspace? To waste money and make more politicians mad? Granted it lets the gamer know the game is out; but rather imagine a universal standard that revolved around the adv. of innovations.

I conclude this simply through the dissection of adv. Advertisements serve to enlighten the community of a product that they we're not aware of or to increase their want for it. Each corp. must spend millions of dollars to promote their individual aspects that give each console a surefire benefit over the other. I highly doubt T2 needed to spend a quarter of their adv. ad's. The game carries it's own hype through it's creation and use of it's innovation's. Thus innovation would create a indirect causation between profits and advertisement costs ( one aspect increasing while the other decreases [ P$+ , AD$'s-]), much rather than an direct causation [ P$'s+ , AD$'s+ ]. Ultimately because of the market size. Greater market size, P[+] AD[+]* SD[+]

Thus slowly, the AD$'s would [-] through the investment and exploration of new and amazing innovations. The better the innovation, the P [+].

* I would conclude that AD$'s will decline tremendously.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

I understand Adam Smith's theory of market equilibrium, but I'm not removing competition; I'm suggesting we create a more narrow focused aspect of competition that benefits the industry. With the removal of numerous consoles competing and hoping to grab a new aspect of society previously deprived of gaming (also take note, this does not exclude the current gamer. Hard core or casual.); we're left with one focus; Innovation. Like this equation.

Microsoft [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 HD$'s : Hardware Development costs

Nintendo [HD$'s + AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 AD$'s : Advertising cost's* [ And this is of most importance...]

Sony [HD$'s +AD$'s + SD$'s] = ~3,000,000.00 SD$'s : Software cost's

Each major corp. spends 1B$ on individual hardware development. 3B$ total. Inefficient. Each company has technology that can help create an industry focused on profits through collaboration.

The SD$'s would also decrease by amazing amounts. The determinant of success will revolve around market saturation and the subsequent software sales. No holdings would allow a company a clear advantage over another; thus allowing exploration towards one goal: Profit maximization through innovation; Maximization would occur for the singular company because of complete saturation, the market would be amazingly large.

tenaka2

How would you plan to upgrade or indeed move up a gen with your super console?

You realise your essentially discussing communism and trying to wrap it around the gaming industry.

Why don't all car companies in the world get together and make one car type, imagine the reduction in production costs!!

How does communism relate to this? Their is competition. More so than ever before.

A better analogy would be this; With the increasing costs of gasoline, the major producers of automobiles use cumulative knowledge to create an engine that allows simple expansion and efficient use of gasoline. The competition would thus result from what is produced around the engine, not simply the engine.

How does communism relate to this? Their is competition. More so than ever before.

A better analogy would be this; With the increasing costs of gasoline, the major producers of automobiles use cumulative knowledge to create an engine that allows simple expansion and efficient use of gasoline. The competition would thus result from what is produced around the engine, not simply the engine.

martingm1983

No, thats not a better analogy, your now dividing up the hardware involved.

So under your system, what if someone doesn't like the mass produced, all the same, priced at whatever you like console and decide to start something new and better than the mass market one.

What would you do to said company?

I know I would go for the new system and not the mass market one.

Would your masterplan involve re-education camps to help people remember which Console is best?

Current demand for technology and it's limits. In 4 years, the PS3 won't be able to access a certain type of technology that allows for amazing applications. The beauty of the project revolves around the ownership of the developers and buyers of stock.

When a new technology arises and computer geeks that love to make ground breaking advancements, they take to the masses and the makers. Once a platform can not perform to a reasonable amount of societies need's, a new platform is introduced. A monopoly would not be possible.

The splitting of corp. ownership and a heavy leaning toward innovation would thus create a need for a better, more efficient platform. Now the beauty of the idea comes into play. With the shear amount of overall capital and money involved in producing a single platform divided between millions, if not billions, of shareholders and users, a new idea would be created and produce HD$'s[-] dramatically through mass production.

With new technology comes new technology to properly harness it. HD television is a perfect example. What good would HDMI and such tech. do anyone unless you have a T.V. that can harness it? With faster, better tech. evolving everyday, why not use it?

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

How does communism relate to this? Their is competition. More so than ever before.

A better analogy would be this; With the increasing costs of gasoline, the major producers of automobiles use cumulative knowledge to create an engine that allows simple expansion and efficient use of gasoline. The competition would thus result from what is produced around the engine, not simply the engine.

tenaka2

No, thats not a better analogy, your now dividing up the hardware involved.

So under your system, what if someone doesn't like the mass produced, all the same, priced at whatever you like console and decide to start something new and better than the mass market one.

What would you do to said company?

I know I would go for the new system and not the mass market one.

Would your masterplan involve re-education camps to help people remember which Console is best?

Nothing would stop them. I'm not asking for complete control of the market, rather a better utilized market. Each corp. is hoping to P[+], why not decrease the cost of every aspect of the industy and simultaneously stimulate the growth of new markets?

Current demand for technology and it's limits. In 4 years, the PS3 won't be able to access a certain type of technology that allows for amazing applications. The beauty of the project revolves around the ownership of the developers and buyers of stock.

When a new technology arises and computer geeks that love to make ground breaking advancements, they take to the masses and the makers. Once a platform can not perform to a reasonable amount of societies need's, a new platform is introduced. A monopoly would not be possible.

The splitting of corp. ownership and a heavy leaning toward innovation would thus create a need for a better, more efficient platform. Now the beauty of the idea comes into play. With the shear amount of overall capital and money involved in producing a single platform divided between millions, if not billions, of shareholders and users, a new idea would be created and produce HD$'s[-] dramatically through mass production.

With new technology comes new technology to properly harness it. HD television is a perfect example. What good would HDMI and such tech. do anyone unless you have a T.V. that can harness it? With faster, better tech. evolving everyday, why not use it?

martingm1983

Current demand for technology and it's limits. In 4 years, the PS3 won't be able to access a certain type of technology that allows for amazing applications. The beauty of the project revolves around the ownership of the developers and buyers of stock.

When a new technology arises and computer geeks that love to make ground breaking advancements, they take to the masses and the makers. Once a platform can not perform to a reasonable amount of societies need's, a new platform is introduced. A monopoly would not be possible.

The splitting of corp. ownership and a heavy leaning toward innovation would thus create a need for a better, more efficient platform. Now the beauty of the idea comes into play. With the shear amount of overall capital and money involved in producing a single platform divided between millions, if not billions, of shareholders and users, a new idea would be created and produce HD$'s[-] dramatically through mass production.

With new technology comes new technology to properly harness it. HD television is a perfect example. What good would HDMI and such tech. do anyone unless you have a T.V. that can harness it? With faster, better tech. evolving everyday, why not use it?

martingm1983

This post is just a collection of buzzwords and has little or no substance.

You keep saying innovation, there would be no innovation in your market plan.

Companies exist to make money. If only one console was for sale why the need to waste money enhancing it, why bother upgrading it?

Please explain where all the 'Drive' and 'Innovation' come from in a completely closed market.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

Current demand for technology and it's limits. In 4 years, the PS3 won't be able to access a certain type of technology that allows for amazing applications. The beauty of the project revolves around the ownership of the developers and buyers of stock.

When a new technology arises and computer geeks that love to make ground breaking advancements, they take to the masses and the makers. Once a platform can not perform to a reasonable amount of societies need's, a new platform is introduced. A monopoly would not be possible.

The splitting of corp. ownership and a heavy leaning toward innovation would thus create a need for a better, more efficient platform. Now the beauty of the idea comes into play. With the shear amount of overall capital and money involved in producing a single platform divided between millions, if not billions, of shareholders and users, a new idea would be created and produce HD$'s[-] dramatically through mass production.

With new technology comes new technology to properly harness it. HD television is a perfect example. What good would HDMI and such tech. do anyone unless you have a T.V. that can harness it? With faster, better tech. evolving everyday, why not use it?

tenaka2

This post is just a collection of buzzwords and has little or no substance.

You keep saying innovation, there would be no innovation in your market plan.

Companies exist to make money. If only one console was for sale why the need to waste money enhancing it, why bother upgrading it?

Please explain where all the 'Drive' and 'Innovation' come from in a completely closed market.

Also try using real words in your posts, things like 'P[+]' are not clever.tenaka2

It make's it easier to type. Why not do it? Duh.

Your theory basicly says that the 3 console developers will co-operate and get a monopoly on the market..

Well just like any other sector of the economy everything is moving towards monopoly.... If it wasn't for one major force, the fact that others will se their chance to make an intrusion on the market, thus stopping the monopoly, usually way before its even established..

Also im not quite sure such an alliance could even be formed, sounds a lot like a cartel too me, but that is for the judges to decide.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

Current demand for technology and it's limits. In 4 years, the PS3 won't be able to access a certain type of technology that allows for amazing applications. The beauty of the project revolves around the ownership of the developers and buyers of stock.

When a new technology arises and computer geeks that love to make ground breaking advancements, they take to the masses and the makers. Once a platform can not perform to a reasonable amount of societies need's, a new platform is introduced. A monopoly would not be possible.

The splitting of corp. ownership and a heavy leaning toward innovation would thus create a need for a better, more efficient platform. Now the beauty of the idea comes into play. With the shear amount of overall capital and money involved in producing a single platform divided between millions, if not billions, of shareholders and users, a new idea would be created and produce HD$'s[-] dramatically through mass production.

With new technology comes new technology to properly harness it. HD television is a perfect example. What good would HDMI and such tech. do anyone unless you have a T.V. that can harness it? With faster, better tech. evolving everyday, why not use it?

tenaka2

This post is just a collection of buzzwords and has little or no substance.

You keep saying innovation, there would be no innovation in your market plan.

Companies exist to make money. If only one console was for sale why the need to waste money enhancing it, why bother upgrading it?

Please explain where all the Drive and Innovation come from in a completely closed market.

I'll address both;

1. Drive: The drive for the market is exactly the same. P[+]; the only difference is the consumer would benefit from the savings derived from the waste of each corp. and their specialconsole. The shear number of units of consoles and their linked O.S. & Hardware would allow the corp's to develop new types of games without having to worry about excluding an audience. Certain expansions to the console would allow different target audiences. A perfect example is the Wii. Take a universal console; now take the introduction of a new interface that allows immersion. Everyone benefits. Nintendo more-so, but no single consumer would be neglected. To combat their market loss, and new company hoping to derive profits would be forced to innovate and grab the market again. Thus the market would never really stagnate and never exclude a corp.

2. Innovation: I refer to inv. through the forms of tech. advancement. The most basic example I can think of is; the console won't support a new tech (cable modem's / connections). Simple fix. Open a port, pop in a reasonably fashioned interface ( with easily read instructions for everyone..) and thus expansion. A new form of tech. that allows the console to expand it's user base and uses is created.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

Current demand for technology and it's limits. In 4 years, the PS3 won't be able to access a certain type of technology that allows for amazing applications. The beauty of the project revolves around the ownership of the developers and buyers of stock.

When a new technology arises and computer geeks that love to make ground breaking advancements, they take to the masses and the makers. Once a platform can not perform to a reasonable amount of societies need's, a new platform is introduced. A monopoly would not be possible.

The splitting of corp. ownership and a heavy leaning toward innovation would thus create a need for a better, more efficient platform. Now the beauty of the idea comes into play. With the shear amount of overall capital and money involved in producing a single platform divided between millions, if not billions, of shareholders and users, a new idea would be created and produce HD$'s[-] dramatically through mass production.

With new technology comes new technology to properly harness it. HD television is a perfect example. What good would HDMI and such tech. do anyone unless you have a T.V. that can harness it? With faster, better tech. evolving everyday, why not use it?

Big_T-Mac

Yes; almost the same. Although everyone hates Microsoft for their dominance of the industry ( and their monopolization of it..) you can not neglect the simple fact MS changed the world. What I'm proposing is similiar. A platform, more closely scrutinized, that when fully realized will open the door to developing countries just as easily as developed.

The world needs something to work towards as a collective. It's almost odvious we can't do it with our religion's getting in the way, why not create an expandable ("mini-pc") console that allows the same type of technological movement.

Your theory basicly says that the 3 console developers will co-operate and get a monopoly on the market..

Well just like any other sector of the economy everything is moving towards monopoly.... If it wasn't for one major force, the fact that others will se their chance to make an intrusion on the market, thus stopping the monopoly, usually way before its even established..

Also im not quite sure such an alliance could even be formed, sounds a lot like a cartel too me, but that is for the judges to decide.

omgimba

I understand your reasoning too. And I've tried to think ways around this... The only way I can possibly see a way around this would be inclussion of the govt. to allow the prosperity of the nation to out weigh the scares of monopolies. Some industries do need monopolies. Some don't.

I just find it ridiculous how the gaming wars are starting to develop.

I'll address both;

1. Drive: The drive for the market is exactly the same. P[+]; the only difference is the consumer would benefit from the savings derived from the waste of each corp. and their specialconsole. The shear number of units of consoles and their linked O.S. & Hardware would allow the corp's to develop new types of games without having to worry about excluding an audience. Certain expansions to the console would allow different target audiences. A perfect example is the Wii. Take a universal console; now take the introduction of a new interface that allows immersion. Everyone benefits. Nintendo more-so, but no single consumer would be neglected. To combat their market loss, and new company hoping to derive profits would be forced to innovate and grab the market again. Thus the market would never really stagnate and never exclude a corp.

2. Innovation: I refer to inv. through the forms of tech. advancement. The most basic example I can think of is; the console won't support a new tech (cable modem's / connections). Simple fix. Open a port, pop in a reasonably fashioned interface ( with easily read instructions for everyone..) and thus expansion. A new form of tech. that allows the console to expand it's user base and uses is created.

martingm1983

1. Drive - Your forgetting a simple fact. If only one source can provide a product, that one source dictates the price of the product. If you have ever read Dune the Navigators Guild is an example of this.

2. Your new tech argument is deeply flawed. Your upgrade path of popping in an expansion in not feasible. Let me explain why.

20% Of the userbase buy and install the expansion for the cable modem enhancement. 6 months later a HD addon is made. 30% of your userbase buys it (5% of which also bought your initial enhnacement). 6 months later a Ram enhancement is introduced, 40% of your userbase buy this enhancement. (3% of which bought your cable modem enhancement and the HD add-on. 10% just have the HD add-on and 1% have just the Modem cable add-on)

This is pretty realistic sales wise.

I'm having difficulty adding this up but lets say that in a year and a half, your unified super console now has at least 10 distinct configurations, some of which are not compatible with the rest.

Can you undertand where this would lead?

[QUOTE="omgimba"]

Your theory basically says that the 3 console developers will co-operate and get a monopoly on the market..

Well just like any other sector of the economy everything is moving towards monopoly.... If it wasn't for one major force, the fact that others will see their chance to make an intrusion on the market, thus stopping the monopoly, usually way before its even established..

Also im not quite sure such an alliance could even be formed, sounds a lot like a cartel too me, but that is for the judges to decide.

martingm1983

I understand your reasoning too. And I've tried to think ways around this... The only way I can possibly see a way around this would be inclusion of the govt. to allow the prosperity of the nation to out weigh the scares of monopolies. Some industries do need monopolies. Some don't.

I just find it ridiculous how the gaming wars are starting to develop.

What I fully feel is that through a efficiently used system of production (through current market manipulation), we can develop an infrastructure that will allow communication all around the U.S. and to the farthest reaches of Japan. The P.C. is a great example, yet it's cost has kept it out of the hands of the majority of the world.

The faster and more powerful the gaming consoles become, the more they mock moderately spec-ed computers. And these moderate computers, if produced with expansion and cost efficiency in mind, allow for amazing applications. A standardized system of consoles will allow amazing explosions in communications and productivity.

What I fully feel is that through a efficiently used system of production (through current market manipulation), we can develop an infrastructure that will allow communication all around the U.S. and to the farthest reaches of Japan. The P.C. is a great example, yet it's cost has kept it out of the hands of the majority of the world.

The faster and more powerful the gaming consoles become, the more they mock moderately spec-ed computers. And these moderate computers, if produced with expansion and cost efficiency in mind, allow for amazing applications. A standardized system of consoles will allow amazing explosions in communications and productivity.

martingm1983

So the world domination plan comes down to......

cheap PC's?

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

I'll address both;

1. Drive: The drive for the market is exactly the same. P[+]; the only difference is the consumer would benefit from the savings derived from the waste of each corp. and their specialconsole. The shear number of units of consoles and their linked O.S. & Hardware would allow the corp's to develop new types of games without having to worry about excluding an audience. Certain expansions to the console would allow different target audiences. A perfect example is the Wii. Take a universal console; now take the introduction of a new interface that allows immersion. Everyone benefits. Nintendo more-so, but no single consumer would be neglected. To combat their market loss, and new company hoping to derive profits would be forced to innovate and grab the market again. Thus the market would never really stagnate and never exclude a corp.

2. Innovation: I refer to inv. through the forms of tech. advancement. The most basic example I can think of is; the console won't support a new tech (cable modem's / connections). Simple fix. Open a port, pop in a reasonably fashioned interface ( with easily read instructions for everyone..) and thus expansion. A new form of tech. that allows the console to expand it's user base and uses is created.

tenaka2

1. Drive - Your forgetting a simple fact. If only one source can provide a product, that one source dictates the price of the product. If you have ever read Dune the Navigators Guild is an example of this.

2. Your new tech argument is deeply flawed. Your upgrade path of popping in an expansion in not feasible. Let me explain why.

20% Of the userbase buy and install the expansion for the cable modem enhancement. 6 months later a HD addon is made. 30% of your userbase buys it (5% of which also bought your initial enhnacement). 6 months later a Ram enhancement is introduced, 40% of your userbase buy this enhancement. (3% of which bought your cable modem enhancement and the HD add-on. 10% just have the HD add-on and 1% have just the Modem cable add-on)

his is pretty realistic sales wise.

I'm having difficulty adding this up but lets say that in a year and a half, your unified super console now has at least 10 distinct configurations, some of which are not compatible with the rest.

Can you undertand where this would lead?

1.One source doesn't determine the product. Numerous would. I simply used MS as an example because I'm sure they have the means to produce the most. The company would be a division of numerous companies, working together to conform to one standard of an O.S. [ I like your reference to Dune; Ever read the basis of our economic system? Adam Smith; An Inquiry into the wealth of Nations]

2. Why would compatibility be hindered? You can still access the net with dial up.. I have cable. Some people even have fiber optic connections. They simply have the means and the tech. to allow the use. The config's. might change the speed and efficiency of an individual console, but they would do no harm to the market.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

What I fully feel is that through a efficiently used system of production (through current market manipulation), we can develop an infrastructure that will allow communication all around the U.S. and to the farthest reaches of Japan. The P.C. is a great example, yet it's cost has kept it out of the hands of the majority of the world.

The faster and more powerful the gaming consoles become, the more they mock moderately spec-ed computers. And these moderate computers, if produced with expansion and cost efficiency in mind, allow for amazing applications. A standardized system of consoles will allow amazing explosions in communications and productivity.

tenaka2

So the world domination plan comes down to......

cheap PC's?

In a nutshell. But console's are headed in a faster direction simply because of the medium they use. Television has created a worldwide communications structure. Much like the types of data transmitted ( Analog, digital...) they have changed and created new opportunites.

I see now as a perfect point within the world market to pool resources and knowledge and create an affordable, profitable, universal means of communication and entertainment. Instead of taking 15 years for it to happen, it would be possible in 3.

One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.SpruceCaboose

The diversity did help. Alot. But at what point do you see too many options? There are at current 3 main consoles that hold the market. The cost of each isn't extremely ridiculous; but to it's target audience, it can be.

I disagree with this "The diversity of the systems is what brought gaming to where it is..." The real measure of diversity is not in the actual system, but rather the combination of the software and the hardware towards infecting new audiences with the immersion of gaming; Nintendo has capitalized on new technologies for numerous systems and shows that through innovation (what I always end back at....) new and better focuses in the markets are making way.

One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.nintendo-4life

What do you mean? The unique tech. that each console exploited?

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.martingm1983

The diversity did help. Alot. But at what point do you see too many options? There are at current 3 main consoles that hold the market. The cost of each isn't extremely ridiculous; but to it's target audience, it can be.

I disagree with this "The diversity of the systems is what brought gaming to where it is..." The real measure of diversity is not in the actual system, but rather the combination of the software and the hardware towards infecting new audiences with the immersion of gaming; Nintendo has capitalized on new technologies for numerous systems and shows that through innovation (what I always end back at....) new and better focuses in the markets are making way.

Had Sony not disagreed with the way that Nintendo was leading the industry and crafted the Playstation, gaming might never have "matured". Had MS not gotten involved in gaming, would online play as major a role now as it does?

Also, you are assuming that MS, Sony, and Nintendo all share the same, or at least similar, view of what gaming is and what it should be, which the clearly don't. To MS and Sony, gaming is a way to get their other products and services into your living room through game systems. To Nintendo, gaming is simply about easy fun. Nothing wrong with either approach, but it makes the idea of one universal box from them almost laughable.

Your best bet, and I think it will happen, for one console would be for EA to make a box and only supply its games exclusively to that. If EA can make a buy on Take Two, I see that being a very real possibility, and it could force MS and Sony, if not including Nintendo, to the ropes. And that, would damage gaming far greater than most people have thought it through.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.martingm1983

What do you mean? The unique tech. that each console exploited?

i mean only one console had effect on the industry per generation, the industry would have not changed much if there really was only one console per gen.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.nintendo-4life

Because that one company differed from what other companies offered, unless you are making the absurd claim that Nintendo brought gaming to where it is today, which is a slap to the contributions that every console since Pong has made to gaming.

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.SpruceCaboose

Because that one company differed from what other companies offered, unless you are making the absurd claim that Nintendo brought gaming to where it is today, which is a slap to the contributions that every console since Pong has made to gaming.

LOL no! i never said that :P

what i mean is, atari 2600 shaped gaming, NES shaped gaming, SNES shaped gaming, PS1 shaped gaming, PS2 shaped gaming all of them did, but only one at a time, yes Xbox and N64 were great consoles but they did not change an overview of gaming like the PS2 and PS1 did (N64 might have with the analogue but PS1 stole that right away so my point stands).

this generation might be different, but the root of gaming is still the same thus far.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.SpruceCaboose

The diversity did help. Alot. But at what point do you see too many options? There are at current 3 main consoles that hold the market. The cost of each isn't extremely ridiculous; but to it's target audience, it can be.

I disagree with this "The diversity of the systems is what brought gaming to where it is..." The real measure of diversity is not in the actual system, but rather the combination of the software and the hardware towards infecting new audiences with the immersion of gaming; Nintendo has capitalized on new technologies for numerous systems and shows that through innovation (what I always end back at....) new and better focuses in the markets are making way.

Had Sony not disagreed with the way that Nintendo was leading the industry and crafted the Playstation, gaming might never have "matured". Had MS not gotten involved in gaming, would online play as major a role now as it does?

Also, you are assuming that MS, Sony, and Nintendo all share the same, or at least similar, view of what gaming is and what it should be, which the clearly don't. To MS and Sony, gaming is a way to get their other products and services into your living room through game systems. To Nintendo, gaming is simply about easy fun. Nothing wrong with either approach, but it makes the idea of one universal box from them almost laughable.

Your best bet, and I think it will happen, for one console would be for EA to make a box and only supply its games exclusively to that. If EA can make a buy on Take Two, I see that being a very real possibility, and it could force MS and Sony, if not including Nintendo, to the ropes. And that, would damage gaming far greater than most people have thought it through.

I don't think Sony disagreed with Nintendo; they simply saw better profits. Their origianl deal was for a sound chip (Sony's) to compliment the Nintendo. Mature gaming would have eventually arose, regardless of the market leader.

As for online play; very much so. You can't play games on the P.C. and not understand the impacts of communication. Online gaming is inevitable.

Each of the corp.'s hopes to maximize their profits. And this is a simple, extraordinary chance in the age of communications to allow it. The only hurdle we have to clear is the exploitation of the corp.'s spending on ridiculous adv. and lack luster response to the actual gamers themselves. I can not even begin to emphasize the fact that the people that are creating games today are either; talented or not. The only measure of their talent is in their software sales. And my plan would create and even greater showcase of ingenuity.

Your EA idea is interesting, but if they can't get T2, I doubt that will happen. If anyone would enter the market, I see Apple.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]One console would be the death of console gaming, IMO. The diversity of the systems is what has brought gaming to where it is, and the homogenization of the systems would only stifle creativity and innovation for the sake of quick and easy money from the companies that produce it.nintendo-4life

Because that one company differed from what other companies offered, unless you are making the absurd claim that Nintendo brought gaming to where it is today, which is a slap to the contributions that every console since Pong has made to gaming.

LOL no! i never said that :P

what i mean is, atari 2600 shaped gaming, NES shaped gaming, SNES shaped gaming, PS1 shaped gaming, PS2 shaped gaming all of them did, but only one at a time, yes Xbox and N64 were great consoles but they did not change an overview of gaming like the PS2 and PS1 did (N64 might have with the analogue but PS1 stole that right away so my point stands).

this generation might be different, but the root of gaming is still the same thus far.

A wonderful point. I feel that unless we find a new medium to entertain the gamer (besides the god like television), we must endure wave after wave of useless tech. that is simply created to be.