Would A Universal Console Help Gaming?

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

mjarantilla

This is actually starting to become amusing. How can I agree or disagree with a statement that I never made?

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

mjarantilla

Isn't a one console market be a proprietary technology system?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Yes, it WOULD be so with a universal console. That's exactly what universal standards are: multiple brands, multiple manufacturers, multiple sources for components, but all adhering to the same basic standard of performance, with extra features to affect marketability and competitiveness.

If you can't get your head around the concept of technical standards, then say so and stop arguing.

Verge_6

Once again, I am going to have to ask just where you got that I was referring to 'standards'? AND again, I was referring to a single (see; one, sole, etc.) being the only console on the market.

No such thing. A "universal console" is a standard. Only people uneducated in the way these industries work would ever say that a "universal console" meant a single console from a single manufacturer taking control of the entire market. The OP even specifically mentioned Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft collaborating to create the so-called "universal console." That collaboration means the creation of a common technical standard.

Once again, if you can't get your head around the concept of standards, say so.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

DragonFlyJ

Isn't a one console market be a proprietary technology system?

Only if there actually was only ONE console from ONE manufacturer. But the OP specifically cited multiple hardware manufacturers collaborating to create a common standard. That, by definition, is NOT proprietary.

You already have one it's called a PC.DireToad

yea anyways. It could happen. never say never. It wouldn't effect gaming at all. There are different brands and types of dvd players, but they all play the same movie. A computer (all types) plays the same game. But alot of people have different opinions so you will have more than one console. Exclusives for a console is just competition with the other consoles. I think a Universal console would help Gaming. You wouldn't get fanboys or fangirls anymore. They wont get a certain game just because its one a console they hate. If they had just one console then people would pay for the game, helping the economy! I hope it does happen. There is really no need for all these different companies making consoles. And if they do decide to make more than one console in the future, then at least get rid of the exclusives. All games should be for all consoles! Its like that with computers, why not consoles. The market can get annoying sometimes!

[QUOTE="DragonFlyJ"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

mjarantilla

Isn't a one console market be a proprietary technology system?

Only if there actually was only ONE console from ONE manufacturer. But the OP specifically cited multiple hardware manufacturers collaborating to create a common standard. That, by definition, is NOT proprietary.

Understood, but Nintendo nor Microsoft is a hardware company. So how would this be possible?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Yes, it WOULD be so with a universal console. That's exactly what universal standards are: multiple brands, multiple manufacturers, multiple sources for components, but all adhering to the same basic standard of performance, with extra features to affect marketability and competitiveness.

If you can't get your head around the concept of technical standards, then say so and stop arguing.

mjarantilla

Once again, I am going to have to ask just where you got that I was referring to 'standards'? AND again, I was referring to a single (see; one, sole, etc.) being the only console on the market.

No such thing. A "universal console" is a standard. Only people uneducated in the way these industries work would ever say that a "universal console" meant a single console from a single manufacturer taking control of the entire market. The OP even specifically mentioned Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft collaborating to create the so-called "universal console." That collaboration means the creation of a common technical standard.

Once again, if you can't get your head around the concept of standards, say so.

If I may take a direct quote from the OP; "I know it's a stretch, but how would gaming differ if there were only one console?"

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

Verge_6

This is actually starting to become amusing. How can I agree or disagree with a statement that I never made?

It's the statement I'VE been making. Am I going to fast for you? Am I taking four steps of logic forward when I should only be taking one?

The OP specifically cited multiple manufacturers collaborating to create a standard. He didn't use the word "standard," but a "standard" is exactly what you get when multiple manufacturers collaborate. I support that idea. You, apparently, hate that idea, because you've been arguing against me this whole time. Either you agree with me and you just didn't realize it, or you don't agree with me that standards rather than proprietary should be used.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Yes, it WOULD be so with a universal console. That's exactly what universal standards are: multiple brands, multiple manufacturers, multiple sources for components, but all adhering to the same basic standard of performance, with extra features to affect marketability and competitiveness.

If you can't get your head around the concept of technical standards, then say so and stop arguing.

Verge_6

Once again, I am going to have to ask just where you got that I was referring to 'standards'? AND again, I was referring to a single (see; one, sole, etc.) being the only console on the market.

No such thing. A "universal console" is a standard. Only people uneducated in the way these industries work would ever say that a "universal console" meant a single console from a single manufacturer taking control of the entire market. The OP even specifically mentioned Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft collaborating to create the so-called "universal console." That collaboration means the creation of a common technical standard.

Once again, if you can't get your head around the concept of standards, say so.

If I may take a direct quote from the OP; "I know it's a stretch, but how would gaming differ if there were only one console?"

Yeah, read the WHOLE POST, genius.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Yes, it WOULD be so with a universal console. That's exactly what universal standards are: multiple brands, multiple manufacturers, multiple sources for components, but all adhering to the same basic standard of performance, with extra features to affect marketability and competitiveness.

If you can't get your head around the concept of technical standards, then say so and stop arguing.

Verge_6

Once again, I am going to have to ask just where you got that I was referring to 'standards'? AND again, I was referring to a single (see; one, sole, etc.) being the only console on the market.

No such thing. A "universal console" is a standard. Only people uneducated in the way these industries work would ever say that a "universal console" meant a single console from a single manufacturer taking control of the entire market. The OP even specifically mentioned Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft collaborating to create the so-called "universal console." That collaboration means the creation of a common technical standard.

Once again, if you can't get your head around the concept of standards, say so.

If I may take a direct quote from the OP; "I know it's a stretch, but how would gaming differ if there were only one console?"

I'm not taking sides, but one console could mean "universal standard."

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

mjarantilla

This is actually starting to become amusing. How can I agree or disagree with a statement that I never made?

It's the statement I'VE been making. Am I going to fast for you? Am I taking four steps of logic forward when I should only be taking one?

The OP specifically cited multiple manufacturers collaborating to create a standard. He didn't use the word "standard," but a "standard" is exactly what you get when multiple manufacturers collaborate. I support that idea. You, apparently, hate that idea, because you've been arguing against me this whole time. Either you agree with me and you just didn't realize it, or you don't agree with me that standards rather than proprietary should be used.

You're right, he used the words "one console". ^^

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="DragonFlyJ"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

DragonFlyJ

Isn't a one console market be a proprietary technology system?

Only if there actually was only ONE console from ONE manufacturer. But the OP specifically cited multiple hardware manufacturers collaborating to create a common standard. That, by definition, is NOT proprietary.

Understood, but Nintendo nor Microsoft is a hardware company. So how would this be possible?

It's been done with DVD players, televisions, MP3 players, etc. They all use the same basic components, and are all capable of the same basic performance. They just differ in the manufacturers. That's what standards allow: choice in manufacturer. What would be different about implementing that in video game consoles, besides disappointing Microsoft's and Sony's attempts at world domination?

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

Verge_6

This is actually starting to become amusing. How can I agree or disagree with a statement that I never made?

It's the statement I'VE been making. Am I going to fast for you? Am I taking four steps of logic forward when I should only be taking one?

The OP specifically cited multiple manufacturers collaborating to create a standard. He didn't use the word "standard," but a "standard" is exactly what you get when multiple manufacturers collaborate. I support that idea. You, apparently, hate that idea, because you've been arguing against me this whole time. Either you agree with me and you just didn't realize it, or you don't agree with me that standards rather than proprietary should be used.

You're right, he used the words "one console". ^^

Stop being cute and read the whole post. Do I need to keep repeating myself? He talks about collaboration. That therefore means that that "one console" refers to a standardized console, i.e. a standardized platform.

Yeah, read the WHOLE POST, genius.

mjarantilla

Resorting to blatant insults now, I see.

He still refers to the costs and construction of a singular console later on.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Yeah, read the WHOLE POST, genius.

Verge_6

Resorting to blatant insults now, I see.

He still refers to the costs and construction of a singular console later on.

What insult?

And yes he does, meaning that he is just as uneducated about how the industry works as you are.

If you want to argue about hypothetical impossibilities, go to a creationist website. If you want to talk actual practical applications, then come back to me.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

I'm not putting anything in your mouth except your foot. If you agree that video game manufacturers should stop pursing proprietary technology, then why the hell are you arguing with me?

mjarantilla

This is actually starting to become amusing. How can I agree or disagree with a statement that I never made?

It's the statement I'VE been making. Am I going to fast for you? Am I taking four steps of logic forward when I should only be taking one?

The OP specifically cited multiple manufacturers collaborating to create a standard. He didn't use the word "standard," but a "standard" is exactly what you get when multiple manufacturers collaborate. I support that idea. You, apparently, hate that idea, because you've been arguing against me this whole time. Either you agree with me and you just didn't realize it, or you don't agree with me that standards rather than proprietary should be used.

You're right, he used the words "one console". ^^

Stop being cute and read the whole post. Do I need to keep repeating myself? He talks about collaboration. That therefore means that that "one console" refers to a standardized console, i.e. a standardized platform.

And that 'standardized' console (what you read it as, anyways) will equate to only one console being on the market.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Yeah, read the WHOLE POST, genius.

mjarantilla

Resorting to blatant insults now, I see.

He still refers to the costs and construction of a singular console later on.

What insult?

And yes he does, meaning that he is just as uneducated about how the industry works as you are.

If you want to argue about hypothetical impossibilities, go to a creationist website. If you want to talk actual practical applications, then come back to me.

Wow, ego much? So, I am to blame for not reading so-called unwritten claims of 'standardization' in a post? This HAS proven to be most amusing indeed.

It's been done with DVD players, televisions, MP3 players, etc. They all use the same basic components, and are all capable of the same basic performance. They just differ in the manufacturers. That's what standards allow: choice in manufacturer. What would be different about implementing that in video game consoles, besides disappointing Microsoft's and Sony's attempts at world domination?

mjarantilla

Most DVD players, TV, and other hardware products don't even have a universal standard. By the way, I'm for a universal console, but it will have to proprietary to be successful.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

It's the statement I'VE been making. Am I going to fast for you? Am I taking four steps of logic forward when I should only be taking one?

The OP specifically cited multiple manufacturers collaborating to create a standard. He didn't use the word "standard," but a "standard" is exactly what you get when multiple manufacturers collaborate. I support that idea. You, apparently, hate that idea, because you've been arguing against me this whole time. Either you agree with me and you just didn't realize it, or you don't agree with me that standards rather than proprietary should be used.

Verge_6

You're right, he used the words "one console". ^^

Stop being cute and read the whole post. Do I need to keep repeating myself? He talks about collaboration. That therefore means that that "one console" refers to a standardized console, i.e. a standardized platform.

And that 'standardized' console (what you read it as, anyways) will equate to only one console being on the market.

*facepalm*

Still not understanding the concept of standards?

I don't know how many times I can keep repeating myself: a standard console is just a specification that OTHER manufacturers will use as a reference for their own products in terms of basic performance, and then embellish/improve upon with extra but otherwise unnecessary features.

Example: A "DVD player standard" is the specification that the DVD Forum developed that manufacturers like Lite-On and Sony and Samsung and such used as a reference to build their DVD players. Each of those manufacturers then added their own features and incidental ideas to improve marketability and competitiveness.

*facepalm*

Still not understanding the concept of standards?

I don't know how many times I can keep repeating myself: a standard console is just a specification that OTHER manufacturers will use as a reference for their own products in terms of basic performance, and then embellish/improve upon with extra but otherwise unnecessary features.

Example: A "DVD player standard" is the specification that the DVD Forum developed that manufacturers like Lite-On and Sony and Samsung and such used as a reference to build their DVD players. Each of those manufacturers then added their own features and incidental ideas to improve marketability and competitiveness.

mjarantilla

Oh, I know of standardization, and what it entails. I just really couldn't give a damn about it in regards to this topic. That's all you, buddy boy.Andwho is to say thisproduct of a joint-venture on Nintendo's, Sony's, and Microsoft's part is to be the 'standard platform' for consoles? You are simply assuming it would be, and inserting it into the OP's post and down our throats.

And that 'standardized' console (what you read it as, anyways) will equate to only one console being on the market.

Verge_6

lol. Think of it this way. The standard for a fork is a handle, and four prongs. Many companies can make forks, but it all one standard.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

It's been done with DVD players, televisions, MP3 players, etc. They all use the same basic components, and are all capable of the same basic performance. They just differ in the manufacturers. That's what standards allow: choice in manufacturer. What would be different about implementing that in video game consoles, besides disappointing Microsoft's and Sony's attempts at world domination?

DragonFlyJ

Most DVD players, TV, and other hardware products don't even have a universal standard. By the way, I'm for a universal console, but it will have to proprietary to be successful.

No, they all do have a universal standards. That's why the DVD Forum exists. Same with TVs. What do you think HD is? It's a broadcast standard.

If you drill down to the actual components, each of those individual components adheres to a standard. The signal processing units of televisions all have to be able to decode, for example, NTSC signals. That is a standard. The displays have to be able to display either fullscreen (4:3) or widescreen (16:9). That's another standard. They have to be able to letterbox. Another standard. They have to be able to read and display close-captions. Another standard. So on and so forth.

With DVD players, it's the same thing. All DVD players have to use a red-LED laser. All DVD players must be able to decode MPEG-2, which is the standard codec on all DVDs. They have to be able to read and display the DVD menus. They have to be able to decode all standards of audio (Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital Surround, DTS, etc.), even if they can't output them. If they can't output a particular audio format, they have to be able to reprocess them into another format that they CAN output. So on and so forth.

The same is true for video games. All consoles already share the same basic architecture. What differs are the numbers, and that's what makes them proprietary.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

*facepalm*

Still not understanding the concept of standards?

I don't know how many times I can keep repeating myself: a standard console is just a specification that OTHER manufacturers will use as a reference for their own products in terms of basic performance, and then embellish/improve upon with extra but otherwise unnecessary features.

Example: A "DVD player standard" is the specification that the DVD Forum developed that manufacturers like Lite-On and Sony and Samsung and such used as a reference to build their DVD players. Each of those manufacturers then added their own features and incidental ideas to improve marketability and competitiveness.

Verge_6

Oh, I know of standardization, and what it entails. I just really couldn't give a damn about it in regards to this topic. That's all you, buddy boy.Andwho is to say thisproduct of a joint-venture on Nintendo's, Sony's, and Microsoft's part is to be the 'standard platform' for consoles? You are simply assuming it would be, and inserting it into the OP's post and down our throats.

Did you assume that HD-DVD would be the standard platform for HD movies? The DVD Forum certainly did. That's why it's called HD-DVD. The BDA simply came up with a new standard that was more widely accepted.

The HD-DVD/BluRay situation is what we have now. If Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all collaborate to create a standard platform, then it would be THE standard, because they're the only manufacturers making consoles at the moment, and it's likely that any future entrants into the console manufacturing market would adhere to that standard since it would already exist. However, if another group of manufacturers (or even a single manufacturer) decided to collaborate and create a competing standard for consoles, then we'd be back to a HD-DVD/BluRay-type situation.

BTW, if you don't give a damn about standards in regards to this topic, then stop arguing, because that's what this topic is all about. Once again, if you're more interested in arguing hypothetical impossibilities, then go somewhere else. I'm assuming that the OP wanted a PRACTICAL assessment of his suggestion, which is what I'm giving him, and not a fantastical one, which is what you're trying to give him.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

*facepalm*

Still not understanding the concept of standards?

I don't know how many times I can keep repeating myself: a standard console is just a specification that OTHER manufacturers will use as a reference for their own products in terms of basic performance, and then embellish/improve upon with extra but otherwise unnecessary features.

Example: A "DVD player standard" is the specification that the DVD Forum developed that manufacturers like Lite-On and Sony and Samsung and such used as a reference to build their DVD players. Each of those manufacturers then added their own features and incidental ideas to improve marketability and competitiveness.

mjarantilla

Oh, I know of standardization, and what it entails. I just really couldn't give a damn about it in regards to this topic. That's all you, buddy boy.Andwho is to say thisproduct of a joint-venture on Nintendo's, Sony's, and Microsoft's part is to be the 'standard platform' for consoles? You are simply assuming it would be, and inserting it into the OP's post and down our throats.

Did you assume that HD-DVD would be the standard platform for HD movies? The DVD Forum certainly did. That's why it's called HD-DVD. The BDA simply came up with a new standard that was more widely accepted.

If Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all collaborate to create a standard platform, then it's a standard, because they're the only manufacturers making consoles at the moment. If another group of companies decided to collaborate and create a competing standard, then I wouldn't make that assumption, but then we'd be back to the BluRay/HD-DVD situation.

How do we know that there wouldn't have been another company that entered the console war by the time this 'standard' console entered? We don't, and the whole thing is ridiculous as we have no idea WHAT the situation will/would be when/if it was made. And why would the standard for other competitors to follow involve joining other companies in a joint-venture to make a competing console? And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

There you go again.

How do we know that there wouldn't have been another company that entered the console war by the time this 'standard' console entered? We don't, and the whole thing is ridiculous as we have no idea WHAT the situation will/would be when/if it was made.Verge_6

If THAT is the case, then why even bother making standards for DVDs? How did the members of the DVD Forum know that there wouldn't have been another company trying to introduce a different standard?

You're just being pedantic because you know you're wrong. If there IS a company (or group of companies) out there that would want to produce a new console standard to compete with Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's hypothetical standard, then that's fine. It would work itself out the way the BluRay/HD-DVD thing worked itself out: the more widely accepted standard will simply become the new standard.

And why would the standard for other competitors to follow involve joining other companies in a joint-venture to make a competing console?Verge_6

WTF are you trying to say here?

A standard is a COLLABORATION between major manufacturers. Are you trying to say that it's not?

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.Verge_6

It's been brought up half a dozen times. Go back to the beginning and re-read the thread, you'll see other people talking about it. It's only you who has adopted such an infantile opposition to it.

No, they all do have a universal standards. That's why the DVD Forum exists. Same with TVs. What do you think HD is? It's a broadcast standard.

If you drill down to the actual components, each of those individual components adheres to a standard. The signal processing units of televisions all have to be able to decode, for example, NTSC signals. That is a standard. The displays have to be able to display either fullscreen (4:3) or widescreen (16:9). That's another standard. They have to be able to letterbox. Another standard. They have to be able to read and display close-captions. Another standard. So on and so forth.

With DVD players, it's the same thing. All DVD players have to use a red-LED laser. All DVD players must be able to decode MPEG-2, which is the standard codec on all DVDs. They have to be able to read and display the DVD menus. They have to be able to decode all standards of audio (Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital Surround, DTS, etc.), even if they can't output them. If they can't output a particular audio format, they have to be able to reprocess them into another format that they CAN output. So on and so forth.

The same is true for video games. All consoles already share the same basic architecture. What differs are the numbers, and that's what makes them proprietary.

mjarantilla

Understood, Nice post. Still the question what benefit is it for Microsoft and Nintendo to enter the hardware side of gaming? Woudln't it be a battle between Sony, Toshiba, IBM, etc... In theory, a universal standard would bring in MORE competition.

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Verge_6

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

No, they all do have a universal standards. That's why the DVD Forum exists. Same with TVs. What do you think HD is? It's a broadcast standard.

If you drill down to the actual components, each of those individual components adheres to a standard. The signal processing units of televisions all have to be able to decode, for example, NTSC signals. That is a standard. The displays have to be able to display either fullscreen (4:3) or widescreen (16:9). That's another standard. They have to be able to letterbox. Another standard. They have to be able to read and display close-captions. Another standard. So on and so forth.

With DVD players, it's the same thing. All DVD players have to use a red-LED laser. All DVD players must be able to decode MPEG-2, which is the standard codec on all DVDs. They have to be able to read and display the DVD menus. They have to be able to decode all standards of audio (Dolby Pro Logic, Dolby Digital Surround, DTS, etc.), even if they can't output them. If they can't output a particular audio format, they have to be able to reprocess them into another format that they CAN output. So on and so forth.

The same is true for video games. All consoles already share the same basic architecture. What differs are the numbers, and that's what makes them proprietary.

DragonFlyJ

Understood, Nice post. Still the question what benefit is it for Microsoft and Nintendo to enter the hardware side of gaming? Woudln't it be a battle between Sony, Toshiba, IBM, etc... In theory, a universal standard would bring in MORE competition.

That's the point. It would vastly expand the number of potential manufacturers, because now manufacturers don't have to conduct their own R&D. Remember that R&D is what made the PS3 and 360 cost so much when they were launched. That means consoles will be less expensive and there will be more choices.

The trade-off is that consoles would not use "cutting edge technology" anymore, but IMO that's just fine, because consoles stop being "cutting edge" six months after they are launched anyway.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Teufelhuhn

Exactly, Verge, you are fighting a losing battle here. Your idea of one the current three companies gaining complete domination of the industry is a fantasy. A standarized console that could be developed my many manufacturers but still had to play every game is the only way a "One Console" future is possible. It wouldn't be one company manufacturing this console, but every console would be compatible with every game.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Teufelhuhn

Verge_6 thought that it LITERALLY meant a one console market. As in, a monopoly by one manufacturer.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Teufelhuhn

A single console that is a product of a joint-venture between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Why it sets the technological standard or not is what is confounding me.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

mjarantilla

Verge_6 thought that it LITERALLY meant a one console market. As in, a monopoly by one manufacturer.

Once again, no, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. That one console would monopolize, in a sense, the console market seeing as all the major companies behind the current consoles would be behind the universal console, effectively eliminating a good deal of the incentive for the competition between them.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Verge_6

A single console that is a product of a joint-venture between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Why it sets the technological standard or not is what is confounding me.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Il_Exile_lI

Exactly, Verge, you are fighting a losing battle here. Your idea of one the current three companies gaining complete domination of the industry is a fantasy. A standarized console that could be developed my many manufacturers but still had to play every game is the only way a "One Console" future is possible. It wouldn't be one company manufacturing this console, but every console would be compatible with every game.

Why would I want a one console future? I had no idea that either Sony, MS, or Sony dominating the industry was a fantasy of mine either...

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Teufelhuhn

A single console that is a product of a joint-venture between Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Why it sets the technological standard or not is what is confounding me.

Yes, I know this, but whether that console would be THE standard for that generation is entirely up in the air, which is what I am arguing. And even then, that was a side argument.

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

Verge_6

Verge_6 thought that it LITERALLY meant a one console market. As in, a monopoly by one manufacturer.

Once again, no, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. That one console would monopolize, in a sense, the console market seeing as all the major companies behind the current consoles would be behind the universal console, effectively eliminating a good deal of the incentive for the competition between them.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. If there's only one console, then there's only one manufacturer, even if that one manufacturer is a joint-venture. And you and the OP are the only ones suggesting that such an outcome is even possible, let alone probable, and the OP probably doesn't know any better.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

mjarantilla

Verge_6 thought that it LITERALLY meant a one console market. As in, a monopoly by one manufacturer.

Once again, no, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. That one console would monopolize, in a sense, the console market seeing as all the major companies behind the current consoles would be behind the universal console, effectively eliminating a good deal of the incentive for the competition between them.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. If there's only one console, then there's only one manufacturer, even if that one manufacturer is a joint-venture. And you and the OP are the only ones suggesting that such an outcome is even possible, let alone probable, and the OP probably doesn't know any better.

Tell me where I said that. Go on, you seem so sure of yourself.

Why can't I say that the one undoubtedly dominant universal console, be it manufactured by one are five thousand companies, would eliminate a good deal of the competitive incentive behind the three companies that made them? That's logic. They do not have nearly as much reason to push for sales and development of the games they publish, IF they publish any at all by the time this occurs, should it ever, if they do not have a console of their own for said games to support

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

And either way, I don't give two bits about the whole standard issue, as neither I nor anyone else but you in this thread even brought it up.

mjarantilla

Verge_6 thought that it LITERALLY meant a one console market. As in, a monopoly by one manufacturer.

Once again, no, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. That one console would monopolize, in a sense, the console market seeing as all the major companies behind the current consoles would be behind the universal console, effectively eliminating a good deal of the incentive for the competition between them.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. If there's only one console, then there's only one manufacturer, even if that one manufacturer is a joint-venture. And you and the OP are the only ones suggesting that such an outcome is even possible, let alone probable, and the OP probably doesn't know any better.

Instead of say the three companies pooling together and making one console together, let say instead they come up with a set of hardware standards and criteria that would allow any company to build a standardized gaming console that could play all games for that standard regardless of the manufacturer. And then offer any company with a little money to pony up access to those standards so they can build this universal console as well. That's the actual proposal.

Now, that said, it won't happen because the big companies are competing not just on software but on hardware, too. The ultimate goal is using hardware to control the software in the living room--a potential cash cow for any company who gets enough control of that market. Sony's bid to do this (which would eventually eat into Microsoft's key money maker--software) is cited as one reason Microsoft entered the console market in the first place. If Sony gained control of the living room multimedia market, they could potentially angle this into an alternative PC-living room integration market that could shoehorn various software against Microsoft (sorta like how the iPod and iTunes are making more people think of Macs).

[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]

Verge_6 thought that it LITERALLY meant a one console market. As in, a monopoly by one manufacturer.

Verge_6

Once again, no, and please refrain from putting words in my mouth. That one console would monopolize, in a sense, the console market seeing as all the major companies behind the current consoles would be behind the universal console, effectively eliminating a good deal of the incentive for the competition between them.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. If there's only one console, then there's only one manufacturer, even if that one manufacturer is a joint-venture. And you and the OP are the only ones suggesting that such an outcome is even possible, let alone probable, and the OP probably doesn't know any better.

Tell me where I said that. Go on, you seem so sure of yourself.

Why can't I say that the one undoubtedly dominant universal console, be it manufactured by one are five thousand companies, would eliminate a good deal of the competitive incentive behind the three companies that made them? That's logic. They do not have nearly as much reason to push for sales and development of the games they publish, IF they publish any at all by the time this occurs, should it ever, if they do not have a console of their own for said games to support

By arguing for or against any kind of monopoly, you're implying that it's a probable or at least a possible outcome.

No one is arguing that such a situation would eliminate competition. And the reason no one is arguing for or against it (except you) is because it's not a possibility worth even considering as a possible outcome.

And, like I said, if there's only one console, then there's only one manufacturer, regardless of whether that manufacturer is a joint-venture between multiple companies or not.

By arguing for or against any kind of monopoly, you're implying that it's a probable or at least a possible outcome.

No one is arguing that such a situation would eliminate competition. And the reason no one is arguing for or against it (except you) is because it's not a possibility worth even considering as a possible outcome.

And, like I said, if there's only one console, then there's only one manufacturer, regardless of whether that manufacturer is a joint-venture between multiple companies or not.

mjarantilla

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to do more than the whole "Well, you stated A, so you MUST also be implying B" spiel. Nor do I give a damn about whether one company manufactures the hypothetical universal console or ten billion. My opinion is that a console backed by all three of the current gaming companies would obliterate any and all competition that tried to enter the field for at least that generation, and such a position, along with the fact that none of the big three have a console of their very own to support, would effectively obliterate mos, if not all, incentive to produce the kind of software that would have been made had the big three been directly competing against one another. I'm sorry if my oh-so-'uneducated' mind is violating some sort of unspoken parameter you set up.

I would LOVE a universal Superconsole! However, I know that it's impossible, because a monopoly drives up price and **** on the quality.

Look at Windows for example, up until Mac became a serious competitor Windows was overpriced and garbage. But now that Mac IS a serious competitor we see that they put a lot more work into making it better and cheaper.

TenP

I wouldn't say Vista is good or cheap...

I'm sorry, but you are going to have to do more than the whole "Well, you stated A, so you MUST also be implying B" spiel.Verge_6

Why? It's a logical implication. If B cannot exist without A, then B's existence must automatically imply A's existence. No further evidence is necessary.

My opinion is that a console backed by all three of the current gaming companies would obliterate any and all competition that tried to enter the field for at least that generationVerge_6

That opinion is valueless and your position moot because such an outcome is a practical impossibility.

and such a position, along with the fact that none of the big three have a console of their very own to support, would effectively obliterate mos, if not all, incentive to produce the kind of software that would have been made had the big three been directly competing against one anotherVerge_6

Samsung and Panasonic don't (directly) produce movies for their DVD players, yet I don't see people complaining for a lack of selection.

Another beneficial side-effect of a universal standard is that it encourages the healthy growth of a varied third party industry, which is right now dominated by mega-corporations or by affiliates of the major manufacturers. Sony, MS, and Nintendo would be encouraged to produce software for this universally standardized console simply for the profitability of software sales.

I'm sorry if my oh-so-'uneducated' mind is violating some sort of unspoken parameter you set up.Verge_6

The only parameter you are violating is that of practicality by continuing to imply via your arguments that a practical impossibility is a probable/possible outcome.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]I'm sorry, but you are going to have to do more than the whole "Well, you stated A, so you MUST also be implying B" spiel.mjarantilla

Why? It's a logical implication. If B cannot exist without A, then B's existence must automatically imply A's existence. No further evidence is necessary.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]My opinion is that a console backed by all three of the current gaming companies would obliterate any and all competition that tried to enter the field for at least that generationmjarantilla

That opinion is valueless and your position moot because such an outcome is a practical impossibility.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]and such a position, along with the fact that none of the big three have a console of their very own to support, would effectively obliterate mos, if not all, incentive to produce the kind of software that would have been made had the big three been directly competing against one anothermjarantilla

Samsung and Panasonic don't (directly) produce movies for their DVD players, yet I don't see people complaining for a lack of selection.

Another beneficial side-effect of a universal standard is that it encourages the healthy growth of a varied third party industry, which is right now dominated by mega-corporations or by affiliates of the major manufacturers. Sony, MS, and Nintendo would be encouraged to produce software for this universally standardized console simply for the profitability of software sales.

I guess what some are trying to say is that an open-standard console will never come from within--they are best-positioned in the status quo where they can take advantage of strong hardware controls (audience locking) and the income from licensing fees. Any open-standard console would have to come from without--from an invader.

A single console wouldn't be so good because monopoly=bad. As i see it, this is the outcome i would like most out of those that are likely: Nintendo wins this gen with microsoft close behind and sony WAY behind. Sony tries to come back next gen but fails, and decides to start making their systems built in with theirtelevisions. Meanwhile,Microsoft'sconsole sales are dropping but theircomputergaming sales are rising. As a result, they stop making consoles but do make computersspecificallyfor gaming. Now both competitors begin to outsell Nintendo, which promptly makes an unexpected and brilliant move such as making an awesome and realistic virtual reality console and a handheld withsimilarfunctions to an Iphone but better. In the end, we have advanced gaming computers vs gaming TVs vs virtual reality gaming consoles and iphone handhelds. This outcome would provide a much better variety and would make it much more sensible to own alldifferentsystems. Thoughts?Head_of_games

Okay, let's see if I understand this. This universal console would be a standard that members of this business union would follow. They would all produce a console with the exact same processor, exact same amount of memory, and the exact same GPU, with identical pipelines and pixel shaders and all that mumbo jumbo?

Would this mean that optimization for games, using the hardware as efficiently as possible, would be easier?

How would this affect generations? Everyone would have to start producing Universal Console 2.0s at the same time?

Okay, let's see if I understand this. This universal console would be a standard that members of this business union would follow. They would all produce a console with the exact same processor, exact same amount of memory, and the exact same GPU, with identical pipelines and pixel shaders and all that mumbo jumbo?

Would this mean that optimization for games, using the hardware as efficiently as possible, would be easier?

How would this affect generations? Everyone would have to start producing Universal Console 2.0s at the same time?

Mordred19

In terms of optimization, yes, games would naturally be able to run better due to more commitment to the single version as opposed to splitting up dev members and time due to different console architecture. The whole thing of all the companies being able to synchronize the production of a second console is what would be difficult in my view.

[QUOTE="Mordred19"]

Okay, let's see if I understand this. This universal console would be a standard that members of this business union would follow. They would all produce a console with the exact same processor, exact same amount of memory, and the exact same GPU, with identical pipelines and pixel shaders and all that mumbo jumbo?

Would this mean that optimization for games, using the hardware as efficiently as possible, would be easier?

How would this affect generations? Everyone would have to start producing Universal Console 2.0s at the same time?

Verge_6

In terms of optimization, yes, games would naturally be able to run better due to more commitment to the single version as opposed to splitting up dev members and time due to different console architecture. The whole thing of all the companies being able to synchronize the production of a second console is what would be difficult in my view.