Pit-Jr Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 ok random debate time A universal game player (console). It wont happen anytime soon but do you think VGs would benefit by going the route of music and movies with a universal player? I personally do but id like to hear the pros and cons from you guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiemetriX Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Console war gives us cheaper consoles and better games. If there where one console from the start we wouldn't have Wii. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocka Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Console war gives us cheaper consoles and better games. If there where one console from the start we wouldn't have Wii. Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimless Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Cons: Lack of competition. When a single company holds a market they do stupid things, such as Nintendo's European price fixing, or Sony's current arrogance. The current companies simply don't fit together, so we'd have to lose out in the end. Sony and Microsoft are both fighting for the same spot as a 'computer for the living room', for instance. Unlike CD or DVD players, games machines are true slaves to technology and require more advanced iterations to be released at some point¹. The lifecycle might be longer than current consoles, but any update brings with it the problem of backwards compatability, and possibly the 'Minimum Requirements' nonsense that makes PC gaming such a chore and expense. Obscure or potential cult games have even less chance of being recognised. If all games came out on a single platform there would always be something to play, and independant games stand little chance against high-profile games with huge advertising campaigns. Pros: If companies were no longer so fixated on one-upping each other they might focus on improving gaming rather than trying to force needless convergence features that the public don't really want. If a more stable technological foundation was laid we might see an end to the current trend of games being available for a few weeks after their launch and then disappearing from our shelves. We would see developers make the most of the machine, not being forced to jump onto a newer machine just as they're tapping into the real potential of a console. When games become properly mainstream a single platform would save consumer confusion. Gaming setups wouldn't be such a fire hazard, with only one set of cables needed. And there's plenty more to be said, but that selection will do it for me. ¹I'm not saying Nintendo have the wrong idea with the Wii and the plateauing of graphical detail in gaming, but the latest technology can be made for a pittance just a few years later, and developers are also going to like having more power at their disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mario_jr Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 One word: Atari we all know how that went. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pit-Jr Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 nice post Aimless, with some points i hadnt considered. Unlike CD or DVD players, games machines are true slaves to technology and require more advanced iterations to be released at some point¹. The lifecycle might be longer than current consoles, but any update brings with it the problem of backwards compatability, and possibly the 'Minimum Requirements' nonsense that makes PC gaming such a chore and expense. I dont think that would be a huge problem. A universal player could be upgraded in the same way the PS1 became PS2 or GC became Wii. Backwards compatibility standard of course. The first universal player would slowly fade from the market in the same way the VCR slowly made way for the DVD player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimless Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I dont think [backwards compatability] would be a huge problem. A universal player could be upgraded in the same way the PS1 became PS2 or GC became Wii. Backwards compatibility standard of course. The first universal player would slowly fade from the market in the same way the VCR slowly made way for the DVD player. What I meant was that if I had a CD player from the early '90s it would play my music just as well¹ as if I bought one today. I'm not forced to upgrade my player to future-proof, as it uses a standard format. Until gaming technology reaches some kind of saturation point, which would essentially make them household supercomputers but at an affordable price, I don't think any kind of standardised or unified format is viable. The current technological life cycle of videogames is too short for a mainstream media, in my opinion. We need to be looking at 10 years between iterations at the least, not 4 or 5. ¹Assuming the machine was of a similar quality, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pit-Jr Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 Until gaming technology reaches some kind of saturation point, which would essentially make them household supercomputers but at an affordable price The PS3 would actually make sense if it didnt have 2 competitors, and be a good example of the household supercomputer that your referring to. Note: Im not saying the PS3 is suddenly the perfect system, but in 5 years, a system that upgraded the PS3's power and storage with Nintendos efficiency, non-existant load times and broad range of control methods would be the perfect 10 year console and i wouldnt see the need for 2 other competing machines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Competition is good, mmkay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pit-Jr Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 Competition is good, mmkay? I know I know Competition in format isnt that great though. Developers would love the fact that Game A is being sold to 100 percent of the video game playing user base I would rather spend $500-600 on a machine that plays everything, than pay $1200+ for 3 machines to get the same effect. In this case, screw competition The competition should be in the games themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellfire Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I know I knowCompetition in format isnt that great though. Developers would love the fact that Game A is being sold to 100 percent of the video game playing user base I would rather spend $500-600 on a machine that plays everything, than pay $1200+ for 3 machines to get the same effect. In this case, screw competition The competition should be in the games themselves You're right but you got to see things from this angle: hardware competition is needed too in order to create better and more capable hardware. You might say "that's what happens with PCs", but I don't really want new games unplayable on my 3 months old console or having to change 1000 options to get the best performance. Also, most publishers love ports, because they make money with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domstercool Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Saying we wouldn't have a Wii isn't technically true. They would be loads of add ons for the console from various companies. No doubt Nintendo would of just made the add on and then done the games for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triforce_keeper Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 But imagine that console. M$'s great online service + Sonys graphical power + Nintendo's innotive designs and control systems. WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 So Kratos is Sony's bum-boy now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pit-Jr Posted October 21, 2006 Author Share Posted October 21, 2006 Also, most publishers love ports, because they make money with them. Its still an expense, and a means to reach more users But imagine that console. M$'s great online service + Sonys graphical power + Nintendo's innotive designs and control systems. WOW Yes, now who is gonna create this beast? Also Sony and MS' quality control teams must NOT be present during the final hardware prototyping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts