Shifty Geezer said:
Look at say the Amiga and the huge diversity of game types. They didn't originate because of competing hardware, but games developers wanting to be original/differentiate their game from similar games.
you're mistaking the amiga, a personal computer platform, for a console patform. the difference is that everybody could write and release software for the amiga. with consoles it's a bit different: it takes a license and meeting certain console vendor's requrements in order to get a project, and eventually, published. you cannot 'self-publish' a title for a console. which brings us to your original question..
Why should some genres not be supported if there was only one platform? Imagine that there is only one, the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" from "The Console Company Inc." At launch it only has RPGs. A new developer wants to write a new game, a racer, to offer a racing game for all those that don't want like RPGs. Why wouldn't that happen?
given that a console is not a pc, it may not happen for varous reasons. for example, if it was the first racer ever produced, i.e. a completely new genre of game, the developer would have to persuade the Console Company Inc that this game is a viable product. now the Console Company Inc, having a significant part in every title publshed for their paltform, wants blockbusters, they want sure profit. your racer here is a risky new project competing for publishing opportunity against a number of proven franchises. and unless the racer developer play their cards very well, they may never get to a product contract, then they always face the risk of getting axed along the road as 'non-perspective'. you are aware how many original, non-stereotypical new titles get canned withing the lifespan of a console generation, and how many rehashes of old franchised get green light, right?
With only one console every dweveloper would make the most of it. Lets say the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" is good at poly shifting, poor at highres textures. Doesn't stop the games being made, only what they look like.
sure. but then look has some connection to the game experience, no? it contributes to the atmosphere. imagine re4 w/o the lush volumetric fog, fire, rain and overall superb lighting. would it have been the hit it is? i doubt it. imagine ZOE with a typical xbox mech-style look. would it be the same game? again, i find it questionable.
Plus you won't get half-arsed ports that don't make the most of the hardware. With only the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation", every developer can get to learn the one system instead of having to learn several.
you'll always get half-arsed ports, if not from another console then from pc space. and rehashes. lots and lots of them. even more so if the Console Company Inc did not feel the need to differentiate.
i would buy a good 2d platformer or two a year easily, garnished by a 2d rpg or two. and i know many others that are not bored of 2d platformers to the least. damn, look at the GBA - it shouldn't exist today according to your view -- it's >10 year old tech.
GB doesn't exist. It's evolved through colour and advanced iterations, despite there being no real hardware competition to drive that change that I know of.
i deliberately said GBA. game-wise it's '92 tech. how do you explain that people today still play games circa '92 ?
lots of people at that.
it won't be just 'not so quick' - its pace and direction would be entrenched. and its price for the consumer would be steep, so you may not be able to afford all those zelda, gta, halo and zak that you want to play now.
How on EARTH can that be true?! The Console Company Inc. forces the price of all it's "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" games to be $100. How many people will buy the games? No-one! Hence they'll lower the price to something people are willing to pay. There's no alternative to DVDs, so why don't the film companies sell them for $60 a piece? Because the consumers won't pay that much. You don't NEED competing companies to keep prices down, because the consumers won't spend more than they think something is worth.
wrong. i pay daily for overpiced stuff. and so do you.
If the "XPlayCube GameBoxStation" cost $1000, it won't sell. The Console Company Inc. will need to lower the price to something that buyers will actually want. That might well be $400 compared with the current $150, which'll keep out plenty of gamers and reduce software sales, or The Console Company Inc. might wnt better returns from more software sales so drop the price to something lower anyway, not in response to competitors, but to maximise profits through their own software licenses but extending the user base.
'how on earth' can my local mobile provider charge $40/mo for a service which in the rest of the civilized world regurally goes for < $25/mo ? answer: de-facto monopole of the local provider. can people live w/o cellulars - sure, there're a superb ground infastructure here. and still they are getting ripped by this company, and i'm pretty sure most of them are aware of that. just because the price for the service is a tad below the psychological boundary where most people would start canceling it.
Either way it doesn't matter anyway, because gamers will still be happy! Look at it from the other point of view. Imagine you're right, the Famicon is the only console around and gamers like you are happy to still play 2D games. You're still happy playing games! So what if we don't have Halo and 3D Final Fantasy if the gamers are happy with the games they've got. Whereas if I'm right and people do get tired of the same old thing year after year, people'll stop buying games and Nintendo would need to shake up the industry with some new advancements.
why would people stop buying games? have people stopped buying cable tv just because they constantly get crammed more and more commersials spam from the screen? no. people eat the crap they get served, hoping to get some value inbetween. or just due to habits. people are (mostly) irrational beings, you know.
image on the link....I browse net at my office. 