Would A Universal Console Help Gaming?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]Part of the creativity in videogames is "tweaking"--finding those little quirks of the hardware that let you get a little more performance out of it. Thing is, tweaking can only go on for so long before things eventually get long in the tooth. And the computing technology behind the consoles is still evolving at near-breakneck speeds. Any console that gets released is virtually obsolete the day it comes out. In five years time, cheap PCs can run rings around them. In that kind of environment, standardization works against you because everyone will just note, "it's just a gimped PC" and start migrating towards PCs. The only way to draw people away from that argument is to do something unique--something unique in hardware--to draw attention to yourself. And unique hardware breaks the standardization. It's like the car argument. Like with cars, consoles thrive on identification and brand names.Competition between game consoles hasn't at all brung any positive aspects to the gaming industry, all it's caused is the negatives. Their should only be 1 console. It's pointless having 3. You shouldn't need competition to push developers to do better things in games. That should come from creativity.
1 console would be a total miracle. We'd all be happy. There'd be loads more variety in genres. Creativity wouldn't sink because of it. It would only get a million times better.
mjarantilla
You're assuming that the big reason people play video games is because of the technology. It should be evident by now that no one really cares about how technologically advanced the hardware is as long as the games are fun. Technology is reaching a plateau in terms of how much it is contributing to gameplay, but console devs still act as though every new technological development is a massive revolution, when in fact it's only an incremental step (e.g. TUF's Euphoria engine).
Standardization works towards this goal, because it removes the emphasis on technology.
So that's why games like Crysis, which do push the envelope, keep emerging--and selling?
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 think that example even if it is an example is a horrible one at that.
[QUOTE="sakura_Ex"]The day this happens, is the day that I stop playing video games.Espada12
Ughh why?
The same reason Microsoft Office costs 500 dollars even though you only care about Word.
[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="sakura_Ex"]The day this happens, is the day that I stop playing video games.organic_machine
Ughh why?
The same reason Microsoft Office costs 500 dollars even though you only care about Word.
You don't work in an office, do you?
MS Word is probably the LEAST used program in MS Office. Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, and Access are all more widely used. Hell, half the price of MS Office is probably for Outlook and Access, since those are the most business-oriented programs.
If you only care about Word, buy the Home and Student version for $100.
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]Part of the creativity in videogames is "tweaking"--finding those little quirks of the hardware that let you get a little more performance out of it. Thing is, tweaking can only go on for so long before things eventually get long in the tooth. And the computing technology behind the consoles is still evolving at near-breakneck speeds. Any console that gets released is virtually obsolete the day it comes out. In five years time, cheap PCs can run rings around them. In that kind of environment, standardization works against you because everyone will just note, "it's just a gimped PC" and start migrating towards PCs. The only way to draw people away from that argument is to do something unique--something unique in hardware--to draw attention to yourself. And unique hardware breaks the standardization. It's like the car argument. Like with cars, consoles thrive on identification and brand names.Competition between game consoles hasn't at all brung any positive aspects to the gaming industry, all it's caused is the negatives. Their should only be 1 console. It's pointless having 3. You shouldn't need competition to push developers to do better things in games. That should come from creativity.
1 console would be a total miracle. We'd all be happy. There'd be loads more variety in genres. Creativity wouldn't sink because of it. It would only get a million times better.
HuusAsking
You're assuming that the big reason people play video games is because of the technology. It should be evident by now that no one really cares about how technologically advanced the hardware is as long as the games are fun. Technology is reaching a plateau in terms of how much it is contributing to gameplay, but console devs still act as though every new technological development is a massive revolution, when in fact it's only an incremental step (e.g. TUF's Euphoria engine).
Standardization works towards this goal, because it removes the emphasis on technology.
So that's why games like Crysis, which do push the envelope, keep emerging--and selling?What, two million copies of Crysis? That barely qualifies it as a high-seller, let alone a blockbuster.
What about The Orange Box, which sold millions with THREE YEAR OLD technology? What about World of WarCraft's ELEVEN MILLION copies? The Sims' FIFTY MILLION copies?
What about the Nintendo DS, the fastest selling system EVER despite being, technologically, the WEAKEST system of this generation?
Even among consoles, look at GTA. Prior to GTA4, NONE of the GTAs were particularly technologically advanced, even for the standards of their time.
High-tech games like Crysis come out once every year or two. Product scarcity is the reason they sell well, not because they appeal to the mainstream.
You don't work in an office, do you?
MS Word is probably the LEAST used program in MS Office. Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, and Access are all more widely used. Hell, half the price of MS Office is probably for Outlook and Access, since those are the most business-oriented programs.
If you only care about Word, buy the Home and Student version for $100.
mjarantilla
But that wasn't my point.
[QUOTE="mjarantilla"]You don't work in an office, do you?
MS Word is probably the LEAST used program in MS Office. Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint, and Access are all more widely used. Hell, half the price of MS Office is probably for Outlook and Access, since those are the most business-oriented programs.
If you only care about Word, buy the Home and Student version for $100.
organic_machine
But that wasn't my point.
I know, I know, you're against monopolies and in particular price gouging by monopolies. So am I. But MS Office is a bad example of either a monopoly or a price gouge. Try something else.
Crysis had less time. As for Orange Box, you do know that TF2, HL2E2, and Portal all use newer versions of Source that really call for high-end single cores if not dual cores to play properly (I know, I've tried them). WoW and Sims have had more time to sell as well. Also, PC games have more gradual sales curves, meaning they'll continue to sell over time unlike console smashes, which tend to flash for a time and then drop off the radar (unless you can show me people still buying thousands of copies of Halo 3 as of this time). Also, you forget the downloadable sales angle, which no one is able to accurate gague, but according to Gabe Newell made up a significant percentage of OB sales. You do the math.What, two million copies of Crysis? That barely qualifies it as a high-seller, let alone a blockbuster.
What about The Orange Box, which sold millions with THREE YEAR OLD technology? What about World of WarCraft's ELEVEN MILLION copies? The Sims' FIFTY MILLION copies?
What about the Nintendo DS, the fastest selling system EVER despite being, technologically, the WEAKEST system of this generation?
Even among consoles, look at GTA. Prior to GTA4, NONE of the GTAs were particularly technologically advanced, even for the standards of their time.
High-tech games like Crysis come out once every year or two. Product scarcity is the reason they sell well, not because they appeal to the mainstream.
mjarantilla
Handhelds don't count. Their selling point is portability. And compared to the PSP, the DS is much more friendly in stop-and-go gaming.
And as for product scarcity, I'd hardly call Crysis scarce since you could download it. Plus there are other games that push the envelope like Sins and STALKER.
Crysis had less time. As for Orange Box, you do know that TF2, HL2E2, and Portal all use newer versions of Source that really call for high-end single cores if not dual cores to play properly (I know, I've tried them). WoW and Sims have had more time to sell as well.HuusAsking
Crysis has barely reached 2 million in one year. It probably won't even sell one million next year unless you count Warhead.
However you turn it, the Sims sold 50 million copies in eight years. That's, what, six million per year on average? Probably eight to ten million in its first year if you account for diminishing sales over time? WoW's sold eleven million in only four years, probably twelve by now, meaning it AVERAGES 3 million a year, not counting the effect of diminishing sales. On its first day on the market, WoW probably sold as many copies as Crysis did during Crysis' first six months.
Furthermore, some of the the Orange Box may use "newer versions of Source," but do you really think people bought Orange Box BECAUSE of those "newer versions of Source"? Doubt it. Source is a four year old engine, and it looks like it, despite the updates. The new games in TOB were marketed for their gameplay, not their technology.
Also, PC games have more gradual sales curves, meaning they'll continue to sell over time unlike console smashes, which tend to flash for a time and then drop off the radar (unless you can show me people still buying thousands of copies of Halo 3 as of this time).HuusAsking
Who do you think you're talking to? I AM a hermit, y'know. I know exactly what kind of sales curves PC games get.
Also, you forget the downloadable sales angle, which no one is able to accurate gague, but according to Gabe Newell made up a significant percentage of OB sales. You do the math.HuusAsking
I don't forget anything. The Orange Box sold more on the PC than on the 360 or the PS3 even without Steam sales factored in. That's part of my point. TOB was a blockbuster that was at least as big on the PC as Crysis was, and it became a blockbuster because of its own merits as a game, not because of fancy new technology.
And as for product scarcity, I'd hardly call Crysis scarce since you could download it.HuusAsking
I don't mean scarcity as in the number of copies available. I mean scarcity as in the number of products available. How many uber-high-tech games are released in a year? Crysis is the only one from 2007 that really pushes the bar technologically, and certainly the only one that was marketed almost solely for its technology (although it does deserve a lot of praise across the board and not just technologically).
Plus there are other games that push the envelope like Sins and STALKER. HuusAsking
Neither of which were marketed for their technology. They both banked on their gameplay concepts to attract customers.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment