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

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][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.martingm1983

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.

there are such as the handhelds and PCs but they take a different route, a real disaster would bring all gaming platforms (handhelds, PCs AND consoles) to one, but if you are talking about strictly console then i seriously think it would only benefit the industry

the more i think about it the more i'm convinced really.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][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.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.

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.

I doubt that alot they tried once and failed so so so very hard.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][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.

there are such as the handhelds and PCs but they take a different route, a real disaster would bring all gaming platforms (handhelds, PCs AND consoles) to one, but if you are talking about strictly console then i seriously think it would only benefit the industry

the more i think about it the more i'm convinced really.

Convinced of what exactly?

[QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][QUOTE="martingm1983"][QUOTE="nintendo-4life"][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.martingm1983

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.

there are such as the handhelds and PCs but they take a different route, a real disaster would bring all gaming platforms (handhelds, PCs AND consoles) to one, but if you are talking about strictly console then i seriously think it would only benefit the industry

the more i think about it the more i'm convinced really.

Convinced of what exactly?

that a universal console is a better choice.

And that's a great start -_-martingm1983

i know ^_^ .... shouldn't you be going to your class now? :|

Ahhh.......good old communism....and I used to think they were the enemies.

I guess not since the terrorist took over

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

no no no. look at dvd players. there's clearly competition in the market place even though they can all play the same dvd's.

The way I see it...

The OP may have taken a beginner's course in economics/marketing and is now trying to sound clever on a forum titled "System Wars".

The way I see it...

The OP may have taken a beginner's course in economics/marketing and is now trying to sound clever on a forum titled "System Wars".

Zam

Sadly, I don't see meaningful input from you. I want input, not personal opinions about who the OP is.

[QUOTE="Zam"]

The way I see it...

The OP may have taken a beginner's course in economics/marketing and is now trying to sound clever on a forum titled "System Wars".

martingm1983

Sadly, I don't see meaningful input from you. I want input, not personal opinions about who the OP is.

I have to agree with Zam on this one, the concept itself if flawed and shows little knowledge of real world economics.

I really don't understand how our government was so riled up about communism. It amazes me the types of propoganda they put out during the era... but then again, I'm sure they'll say the same about now.martingm1983

[QUOTE="tenaka2"][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.

nintendo-4life

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.

The analogies also neglect creativity - some people might just fancy doing something different.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"][QUOTE="Zam"]

The way I see it...

The OP may have taken a beginner's course in economics/marketing and is now trying to sound clever on a forum titled "System Wars".

tenaka2

Sadly, I don't see meaningful input from you. I want input, not personal opinions about who the OP is.

I have to agree with Zam on this one, the concept itself if flawed and shows little knowledge of real world economics.

I would love for you both to enlighten me please. How does "real world" economics work? Shall we just invest all our Nintendo stocks in Haliburton or Schlumberger?

Please, both of you.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"]I really don't understand how our government was so riled up about communism. It amazes me the types of propoganda they put out during the era... but then again, I'm sure they'll say the same about now.Nintendo_Ownes7

If you're refering to Communism, THE COMMUNISM OF MARX, the government is a mistake. The power all relies in the people.

so how would this universal console be named? The Playwii 360 perhaps? :P

Nah, it'll never happen

If you're refering to Communism, THE COMMUNISM OF MARX, the government is a mistake. The power all relies in the people.

martingm1983

All you have said sound good on paper, but in real life it's not possible. People are NOT perfect and thanks to conflicting self interest to sway them. When power becomes abused, expect corruption, just look at China.

By the way I hate Leninism, its so totalitarian. Communism suck, ONE mind set just can't fit the human conidition.

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

so your saying that the HD-DVD VS blu-ray war was good for the consumer?

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

no no no. look at dvd players. there's clearly competition in the market place even though they can all play the same dvd's.

that is exactly what i think, if the design for the console is sold to several manufacturers then owning a console is no different then owning a DVD player, the price, design and maybe even features vary depending on the manufacturer but it would still play all the games

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

no no no. look at dvd players. there's clearly competition in the market place even though they can all play the same dvd's.

Let's look at it this way. Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss because they try to one-up each other in hardware. If they got together and standardized the hardware, there's no way they would take a loss on the platform. We would all be playing the equivalent of a Wii but probably without the new controller.

Standardization causes stagnation. No competition = no desire/push to move forward.

[QUOTE="Ontain"]

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

no no no. look at dvd players. there's clearly competition in the market place even though they can all play the same dvd's.

Let's look at it this way. Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss because they try to one-up each other in hardware. If they got together and standardized the hardware, there's no way they would take a loss on the platform. We would all be playing the equivalent of a Wii but probably without the new controller.

Standardization causes stagnation. No competition = no desire/push to move forward.

not really, maybe the 360 instead of costing 350 at launch it would cost 500, but after a year or two of competition between the different manufacturers that price would surely drop

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.st1ka

no no no. look at dvd players. there's clearly competition in the market place even though they can all play the same dvd's.

Let's look at it this way. Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss because they try to one-up each other in hardware. If they got together and standardized the hardware, there's no way they would take a loss on the platform. We would all be playing the equivalent of a Wii but probably without the new controller.

Standardization causes stagnation. No competition = no desire/push to move forward.

not really, maybe the 360 instead of costing 350 at launch it would cost 500, but after a year or two of competition between the different manufacturers that price would surely drop

That's not taking into account the big picture though.

A) Profits on the platforms for the console manufacturers are largely made on software licensing rights and peripheral sales. With a standard platform both of those are gone.

B) There would be no motivation to upgrade hardware every five years. We could very well slip into a hardware cycle of a smilar length to media players (VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc).

C) Consoles have to compete with the PC too. Under these conditions, what chance would this unified platform have?

D) If the companies made a standard piece of hardware, someone would come in and release a different platform that outperforms the standard in some way (graphics, controller, whatever) and then there would be multiple platforms again.

Consoles can't easily fit into the DVD standard type of format very easily for many reasons. They are just too able to be differentiated in terms of power and features for any platform to sit uncontested for long.

[QUOTE="st1ka"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Ontain"]

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

no no no. look at dvd players. there's clearly competition in the market place even though they can all play the same dvd's.

Let's look at it this way. Sony and MS sell their consoles at a loss because they try to one-up each other in hardware. If they got together and standardized the hardware, there's no way they would take a loss on the platform. We would all be playing the equivalent of a Wii but probably without the new controller.

Standardization causes stagnation. No competition = no desire/push to move forward.

not really, maybe the 360 instead of costing 350 at launch it would cost 500, but after a year or two of competition between the different manufacturers that price would surely drop

That's not taking into account the big picture though.

A) Profits on the platforms for the console manufacturers are largely made on software licensing rights and peripheral sales. With a standard platform both of those are gone.

B) There would be no motivation to upgrade hardware every five years. We could very well slip into a hardware cycle of a smilar length to media players (VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc).

C) Consoles have to compete with the PC too. Under these conditions, what chance would this unified platform have?

D) If the companies made a standard piece of hardware, someone would come in and release a different platform that outperforms the standard in some way (graphics, controller, whatever) and then there would be multiple platforms again.

Consoles can't easily fit into the DVD standard type of format very easily for many reasons. They are just too able to be differentiated in terms of power and features for any platform to sit uncontested for long.

i see, you make a good point, however if we do hit a point of photo realism graphics and such points B, C and D may become moot.

[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.

And how does Standard Oil have anything to do with what I'm proposing?

If we are to consider any type of monopoly, it should be thus a natural monopoly. Microsoft being a perfect candidate. The companies growth has allowed an amazing amassment of resources. Why not use them to the full advantage?

Produce a product that allows a more efficient means of communication throughout the world. With this enabled, regardless of the console's name, so many people hold claim to it's development, no one company in the world would be able to manipulate it. I personally loved the idea of the idle PS3 that helped cancer computers calculate stats. Imagine $100 consoles on par with 360's performance, much ,much more expandability, and no wasteful research into a new gaming structure creating "the most beautiful game ever!!!!!"

With such a widespread realization of the market, common tasks could be easily overtaken. (of the personal computer... not a high end model.. I'll leave that to the GOVT.) Surfing the web, talking with friends on a webcam, paying your bills, and even the overall promotion of online education.

A cheaper medium that allows access to prospective students across the nation would create an intellectual and cultural explosion. Promotion of knowledge through advancements in tech. and it's efficient usage.

As for Standard Oil, they used unethical business practices to withhold competition. I'm not asking this. I'm asking for a convergence among the Information Era to develop a sound plan to connect the entire world through feasible economic means. And a console developed with the helping hands of the leaders of the industry can allow such.

And how does Standard Oil have anything to do with what I'm proposing?

If we are to consider any type of monopoly, it should be thus a natural monopoly. Microsoft being a perfect candidate. The companies growth has allowed an amazing amassment of resources. Why not use them to the full advantage?

Produce a product that allows a more efficient means of communication throughout the world. With this enabled, regardless of the console's name, so many people hold claim to it's development, no one company in the world would be able to manipulate it. I personally loved the idea of the idle PS3 that helped cancer computers calculate stats. Imagine $100 consoles on par with 360's performance, much ,much more expandability, and no wasteful research into a new gaming structure creating "the most beautiful game ever!!!!!"

With such a widespread realization of the market, common tasks could be easily overtaken. (of the personal computer... not a high end model.. I'll leave that to the GOVT.) Surfing the web, talking with friends on a webcam, paying your bills, and even the overall promotion of online education.

A cheaper medium that allows access to prospective students across the nation would create an intellectual and cultural explosion. Promotion of knowledge through advancements in tech. and it's efficient usage.

As for Standard Oil, they used unethical business practices to withhold competition. I'm not asking this. I'm asking for a convergence among the Information Era to develop a sound plan to connect the entire world through feasible economic means. And a console developed with the helping hands of the leaders of the industry can allow such.

martingm1983

What you ask for is a pipe dream with many impossibilities. How do you propose a $100 system that rival's the 360's performance when the platform can't make up for hardware losses with peripheral sales and software licensing? How will this technology resist obsolescence as the years wear on? What's to prevent companies from outside of this standard from producing their own competing platform?

The closest thing to what you are proposing, and the closest we will get to the this proposal in the future is the PC.

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]A universal console = no competition, no competition usualy = bad.Saturos3091

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 you figure that gaming technology will advance and advance, failing to reach an end? At what point do you see the fact that MS / Sony / Nintendo are wasting their time, money, and our patience with their "new" ideas?

The only new technologies that have even remotely changed gaming in the past decade are the disc based medium, the analog controller, and now the Wiimote. Granted, they did a wonderful job, but how many more "wars" do you really want to watch? It's simply the same idea's, just jumbled up and restated with a new found sense of exuberance.

We now have the ability to change the entire infrastructure of our country through one idea; an affordable standardized medium. We should jump on this.

If we are to consider any type of monopoly, it should be thus a natural monopoly. Microsoft being a perfect candidate. The companies growth has allowed an amazing amassment of resources. Why not use them to the full advantage?

martingm1983

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"][QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]

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

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 you figure that gaming technology will advance and advance, failing to reach an end? At what point do you see the fact that MS / Sony / Nintendo are wasting their time, money, and our patience with their "new" ideas?

The only new technologies that have even remotely changed gaming in the past decade are the disc based medium, the analog controller, and now the Wiimote. Granted, they did a wonderful job, but how many more "wars" do you really want to watch? It's simply the same idea's, just jumbled up and restated with a new found sense of exuberance.

We now have the ability to change the entire infrastructure of our country through one idea; an affordable standardized medium. We should jump on this.

While I'm not sure I'm a big fan of the specifics, the general idea of a unified console platform has been kicked around for a while on these boards, and it makes sense.

Why do we need three companies offering incompatable standards for what is essentially the same service? Sure, they can market themselves into different niches, but those niches have almost nothing to do with the hardware, and more to do with software and additional features. None of this would be compromised on a unified platform.

If a coalition of hardware and software manufacturers created an agreed-upon hardware specification for a console, it would open up more competition, as each company would be competing on something starting with an undifferentiated platform. Every game would be compatible with every machine, eliminating the confusion of exclusives, and opening up more competition among game publishers. Anyone could enter as long as they used the required standards. This means that companies have to compete to offer the same good to consumers, by either lowering the price or adding features. Either way, this would mean lower prices. If one company refused to lower prices, others would do so, and with the games and computing power being identical, that company would be left out. The existence of a standard would also prevent any hardware company from leapfrogging the competition, as most games wouldn't work on their machine.

Such a system would lower prices for consumers, force creativity from hardware manufacturers, and encourage competition from developers. While the creation of an agreed-upon standard would be difficult, the benefits are obvious, at least on the consumer side.

One universal console = no competition. Industry standard hardware = more competition. I'd rather see the companies actually try to compete rather than try to undercut one another. There is nothing stopping the big 3 from releasing hardware next gen that is only a small leap over this gen's hardware and to be honest I wouldn't want that.

I think there needs to be a a third party that sets a standard for each gen. The companies can still develop proprietary hardware but not to the point where their console costs $100 to make and they're selling ot for $400. Also, there really needs to be a standards for ease of development and programming.
Tiefster

There is something stopping that - the fear that one of the competing console manufacturers wouldn't follow suit. Ninty got by with it this gen by upgrading the controller instead, but they still upgraded. If the PS3 has the Wii's power do you think it would still be competitive?

While I'm not sure I'm a big fan of the specifics, the general idea of a unified console platform has been kicked around for a while on these boards, and it makes sense.

Why do we need three companies offering incompatable standards for what is essentially the same service? Sure, they can market themselves into different niches, but those niches have almost nothing to do with the hardware, and more to do with software and additional features. None of this would be compromised on a unified platform.

If a coalition of hardware and software manufacturers created an agreed-upon hardware specification for a console, it would open up more competition, as each company would be competing on something starting with an undifferentiated platform. Every game would be compatible with every machine, eliminating the confusion of exclusives, and opening up more competition among game publishers. Anyone could enter as long as they used the required standards. This means that companies have to compete to offer the same good to consumers, by either lowering the price or adding features. Either way, this would mean lower prices. If one company refused to lower prices, others would do so, and with the games and computing power being identical, that company would be left out. The existence of a standard would also prevent any hardware company from leapfrogging the competition, as most games wouldn't work on their machine.

Such a system would lower prices for consumers, force creativity from hardware manufacturers, and encourage competition from developers. While the creation of an agreed-upon standard would be difficult, the benefits are obvious, at least on the consumer side.

sonicmj1

Yes they are. Let alone the aspects of society that would be improved through communications, medical research would take leaps and bounds, education would be so easily accessible (a developing nation would have little reason to neglect such an idea...) I can not derive any negative side effects of my proposal, yet each rebuttal is simply "monopoly".

The only monopoly that would arise would be the prevalent O.S., which in-turn, through access of MS, Sony, Nintendo, Mozilla :):):) translates into nothing more than a simple tool. The O.S. would derive no profits. Simply include it with the initial purchase; aka The Bill Gates Borg Empire. An O.S. that can be developed from the ground up with ease of mass communications, data transmission, and expandability would create millions of new jobs, new frontiers, new objectives in our search for a much more wonderful meaning; besides worrying about getting to work because of gasoline.

[QUOTE="martingm1983"][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.

I'm sorry, what?!

What does the majority of the world encompass? There are probably more PC's than poeple now. Where in the world does this cost barrier bar poeple from using computers?

Plenty of sound arguements shoot this idea down. The fact this platform cannot really be upgradable, otherwise it would suffer from the same problems as PC's not being unified. Even then, who would put the R&D and manufacturing in for they upgrades? Is there any incentive to make the platform better past it's standard configuration? afterall the project is mainly about profiting from reduced R&D.

The PC is the most widespread platform, it's has the most games developed for it because of that fact. I doubt many poeple in the developed world don't have a semi powerful PC, But we still have consoles persisting in the face of that.

The industry is pretty much polarised between Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, any potential entries into the market like Samsung do not care, they already sell components to all 3 without any associated risk. All 3 companies can co-exist in the market but there is still a desire to dominate the space which drives these companies further. Nobody want to share the market, especially Nintendo, they make a huge proportion of their revenue selling hardware, why give that up?

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]One universal console = no competition. Industry standard hardware = more competition. I'd rather see the companies actually try to compete rather than try to undercut one another. There is nothing stopping the big 3 from releasing hardware next gen that is only a small leap over this gen's hardware and to be honest I wouldn't want that.

I think there needs to be a a third party that sets a standard for each gen. The companies can still develop proprietary hardware but not to the point where their console costs $100 to make and they're selling ot for $400. Also, there really needs to be a standards for ease of development and programming.
mattbbpl

There is something stopping that - the fear that one of the competing console manufacturers wouldn't follow suit. Ninty got by with it this gen by upgrading the controller instead, but they still upgraded. If the PS3 has the Wii's power do you think it would still be competitive?

[QUOTE="martingm1983"][QUOTE="martingm1983"][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.

ChinoJamesKeene

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.

I'm sorry, what?!

What does the majority of the world encompass? There are probably more PC's than poeple now. Where in the world does this cost barrier bar poeple from using computers?

Plenty of sound arguements shoot this idea down. The fact this platform cannot really be upgradable, otherwise it would suffer from the same problems as PC's not being unified. Even then, who would put the R&D and manufacturing in for they upgrades? Is there any incentive to make the platform better past it's standard configuration? afterall the project is mainly about profiting from reduced R&D.

The PC is the most widespread platform, it's has the most games developed for it because of that fact. I doubt many poeple in the developed world don't have a semi powerful PC, But we still have consoles persisting in the face of that.

The industry is pretty much polarised between Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, any potential entries into the market like Samsung do not care, they already sell components to all 3 without any associated risk. All 3 companies can co-exist in the market but there is still a desire to dominate the space which drives these companies further. Nobody want to share the market, especially Nintendo, they make a huge proportion of their revenue selling hardware, why give that up?

Where are people being barred from freedom of speech and using a computer? EVERYWHERE. I understand very well your justification of the the expandability aspect, but that is nothing more than an engineering hindrance. Did you know that the majority of Internet user's are located in CHINA? ...and that their Internet structure is so closely monitored, it's obscene.

My ideal's are based on the fact that we hold the knowledge now. Reduction of cost's is one goal; massive global scale communication is my dream. Gaming consoles allow the portal into this realm perfectly. They have the neccisities in place; we simply need the proper guidance. Get the majority to stop worrying about oil; invest in new technologies. Create something great.

Because if you follow the trail, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft have spent millions (if not billions) in research to make a game console that does one simple thing. To play games. Now ask yourself; if you spent thousands of dollars to make a shirt simply to wear, how can you justify the expenses? You can not. I understand they hope to drive innovation, but my proposal implements the exact same outcomes, with less adverse effects and a much more wonderful realization.

Let alone the aspects of society that would be improved through communications, medical research would take leaps and bounds, education would be so easily accessible (a developing nation would have little reason to neglect such an idea...) I can not derive any negative side effects of my proposal, yet each rebuttal is simply "monopoly".

The only monopoly that would arise would be the prevalent O.S., which in-turn, through access of MS, Sony, Nintendo, Mozilla :):):) translates into nothing more than a simple tool. The O.S. would derive no profits. Simply include it with the initial purchase; aka The Bill Gates Borg Empire. An O.S. that can be developed from the ground up with ease of mass communications, data transmission, and expandability would create millions of new jobs, new frontiers, new objectives in our search for a much more wonderful meaning; besides worrying about getting to work because of gasoline.

martingm1983

Here's where I start losing you.

What would a unified platform do in terms of advancing those causes that cannot be done by a diverse platform, or by a PC?

Sure, costs would come down. But low enough that the majority of the developing world could reasonably afford them? I doubt it. Consider the infrastructure of those nations. Consider people's income, the types of things they need to spend that income on. A game console, even an advanced, fairly cheap one, couldn't be adopted very widely, especially if most of these nations don't have a broadband infrastructure to make use of the sorts of mass communications that you love.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. Even ignoring those obstacles, a unified platform would face the exact same obstacles that PCs face. Why would China crack down on PC internet access, yet ignore these widespread consoles you espouse? I don't think this is the way to a utopian future for the whole world, necessarily, but it'd certainly help the game industry.