Market Competition, Winners, Losers, Market Landscape and all that jazz... *spawn*

[Sonic]

Looking back at past generations I can kind of see a few positives when one console is dominant in the market while others have a lower but still decent slice of the pie. The dominant console tends ends up getting the lion's share of game development and more AAA titles than the other system. It also ends up getting more crap. The underdog console has to make up for it by catering to the userbase it does have and releasing AAA games for it that will still sell enough to make a profit. I benefit as the consumer because if one company is trying to compete by upping its quality of software on their specific platform. It means I have more quality titles to choose from if I'm one of the consumers who has more than one system.

It wasn't that bad during the PS2 days. Both Gamecube and Xbox had great games coming out all the time. PS2 had a higher noise:quality ratio but by sheer number of games released had the most AAA games. It was a good time to be a gamer despite the die hard fans of the time, many of us here included. Each system had its gems that made it stand out and define the platform. PS360 has these as well, just not as many. Twas a decent time. I feel similarly with the PS1/SS/N64 gen.

Clearly the main disadvantage of a lopsided market is that if you're one of the gamers that owns a lesser selling systems you may not get as many AAA games.

 

[Cyan]

No platform exclusives that you can't play without shelling out on a whole other box that does exactly the same job. All your friends on the one service without some being on one platform and others being on another. Better utilisation of the hardware because devs can focus on the one machine instead of serving multiple different hardwares. Better economies of scale for components enabling lower prices.

Some of the potential advantages are mitigated by a company operating in a self-serving fashion, which is what people expect, but it doesn't have to be that way. However, that's a whole RSPCA discussion about capitalism and human nature and blah blah. Suffice to say, there are certainly positives to having a single platform even if one 1) doesn't value them personally and 2) would expect the monopoly to misuse its position and shaft consumers.

They are very solid reasons. I don't know how to argue against that.

One of my life philosophies is that if I find something that everyone loves then I end up disliking it, despite the fact having it could be considered a bonus. But since it's not my reason for living... I can get away without it.

Only football (soccer) and my favourite team, the kind of people I love, etc, are a exception to that. I can accept that my favourite team or kind of person are universally liked.

But yes, a single platform would have all of those benefits, with the issue of not learning more than that, as different people can teach you different kinds of things and design new, exciting stuff, and with a single platform that could happen very slowly, after very long generations, when the people behind the design or taking decisions are jubilees.

 

[SlimJim]

1 platform to me, would mean every studio would be competing to have the best games.
I don't think anyone would get Forza 6 over GT7 if they had the choice. So you'd have Turn 10 disabling all the micro transactions, building realtime lighting, adding weather into the game, disabling the constant lens flare: doing everything to make a better game.
So when Forza 7 came around, people would actually want to choose that game.

I see a lot of other platform fans pretty offended by, IMO, better games:
-who would want to race in the night?
-who would want to have weather in a racing game?
-Protype is a better game than inFamous
-stories in videogames are useless
-I hate videogame characters that are nice but have to kill people
-GOW3 is way too violent, *goes to play gears of war*

If the lesser platforms would go away, then those people would gain the ability to play what are in my opinion, superior games.
And the creators of lesser games would need to step their: gameplay, technology, soundtrack, story, etc- game up in order to compete with the great studios.

Microsoft could create an officially licensed PS4 controller for all I care. And people who would watch TV through HDMI-in, could just connect their cable box to an HDMI port on the display itself.
IMO these are really small things compared to what people would gain from 1 platform.

 

[RudeCurve]

Personally I prefer companies that think outside the box even if it means the majority of people don't like change. In that sense MS were on the right path in my opinion until they caved in to the masses that wanted the same crap. Unfortunately as a business you have to make money and the more people your product agrees with the more successful your business will be. The bandwagon mentality is alive and well..it won't be disappearing anytime soon.

 

[function]

1 platform to me, would mean every studio would be competing to have the best games.
I don't think anyone would get Forza 6 over GT7 if they had the choice. So you'd have Turn 10 disabling all the micro transactions, building realtime lighting, adding weather into the game, disabling the constant lens flare: doing everything to make a better game.
So when Forza 7 came around, people would actually want to choose that game.

Forza is more realistic though, and the actual racing is superior. If you care about that kind of thing, of course.

It'd still have a market of some size even directly against GT7.

I see a lot of other platform fans pretty offended by, IMO, better games:

Projecting?

 

[dobwal]

If the lesser platforms would go away, then those people would gain the ability to play what are in my opinion, superior games.

The reason lesser platforms are able to sustain is because people are choosing the platform that in their opinion has the "superior" games.

Are you telling me that people that are multi console owners always choose the titles that fit your opinion as "superior"? Basically a game like Forza has no traction with multi console owners because they all have chosen GT?

 

[SlimJim]

Well, forget the facts and just say the racing in Forza is more realistic or even superior.
If this is the case, then people will choose that title, instead of GT.
So for the next entry, Polyphony needs to build a better racing experience then Forza. Result: GT becomes a better game.
It both games are exclusive to another platform, then that kind of change is less likely to happen.

 

[SlimJim]

The reason lesser platforms are able to sustain is because people are choosing the platform that in their opinion has the "superior" games.

Are you telling me that people that are multi console owners always choose the titles that fit your opinion as "superior"? Basically a game like Forza has no traction with multi console owners because they all have chosen GT?

As an example: a cousin who was quite the 360 fanboy, had been claiming since Forza 3 that "the next version will have realistic lighting, day-night cycles and weather, and logitech steering wheel support. Just you wait!"
So when the real screenshots of Forza5 surfaced, you know, the ones with the cardboard cutout spectators, and it became apparent that the "realtime" footage could never have been running on real hardware, he agreed and said "f*ck it, I am done with Forza".
He didn't get an Xbox One. Actually he's playing GT6 now on one of my PS3s that I borrowed him. He will get a PS4 if DriveClub really is a PGR successor Talk about change I do have to mention, he is a racing fan before a fanboy so I can understand his choice to leave the platform.

Imagine both games being on the same platform from day 1. TBH: I don't think we would have ever gotten to a forza 5. Or one that was in the state that it was in

 

[eastmen]

1 platform to me, would mean every studio would be competing to have the best games.
I don't think anyone would get Forza 6 over GT7 if they had the choice. So you'd have Turn 10 disabling all the micro transactions, building realtime lighting, adding weather into the game, disabling the constant lens flare: doing everything to make a better game.
So when Forza 7 came around, people would actually want to choose that game.

I see a lot of other platform fans pretty offended by, IMO, better games:
-who would want to race in the night?
-who would want to have weather in a racing game?
-Protype is a better game than inFamous
-stories in videogames are useless
-I hate videogame characters that are nice but have to kill people
-GOW3 is way too violent, *goes to play gears of war*

If the lesser platforms would go away, then those people would gain the ability to play what are in my opinion, superior games.
And the creators of lesser games would need to step their: gameplay, technology, soundtrack, story, etc- game up in order to compete with the great studios.

Microsoft could create an officially licensed PS4 controller for all I care. And people who would watch TV through HDMI-in, could just connect their cable box to an HDMI port on the display itself.
IMO these are really small things compared to what people would gain from 1 platform.

I'm not a racing fan but your comparision is odd considering forza has been avalible for a year already and gt7 will most likely be a 2015 title if not 2016. We will have had at least 3 and maybe onto a 4th forza title for this generation so it be silly to compare features. People wont care much about weather in a game they can play vs weather in a game they can't play


Anyway just look at the nes era or gaming back in the 8 bit days. Nintendo the one platform holder ruled with an iron fist

 

[dobwal]

As an example: a cousin who was quite the 360 fanboy, had been claiming since Forza 3 that "the next version will have realistic lighting, day-night cycles and weather, and logitech steering wheel support. Just you wait!"
So when the real screenshots of Forza5 surfaced, you know, the ones with the cardboard cutout spectators, and it became apparent that the "realtime" footage could never have been running on real hardware, he agreed and said "f*ck it, I am done with Forza".
He didn't get an Xbox One. Actually he's playing GT6 now on one of my PS3s that I borrowed him. He will get a PS4 if DriveClub really is a PGR successor Talk about change I do have to mention, he is a racing fan before a fanboy so I can understand his choice to leave the platform.

Imagine both games being on the same platform from day 1. TBH: I don't think we would have ever gotten to a forza 5. Or one that was in the state that it was in

And? You actually think your experience can be mirrored across the userbase? There people who swear by Forza even though they have experienced GT.

Your anecdotal experience does nothing to prove anything.

 

[function]

Well, forget the facts and just say the racing in Forza is more realistic or even superior.
If this is the case, then people will choose that title, instead of GT.
So for the next entry, Polyphony needs to build a better racing experience then Forza. Result: GT becomes a better game.
It both games are exclusive to another platform, then that kind of change is less likely to happen.

This is an over simplified view of multi platform gaming.

In reality, there are a number of potential benefits to interplatform rivalry.

For a start, different hardware might support different types of innovation and exploration. This could be in terms of graphics, or CPU, or audio, or controller, or online service, or V.R. or something else. This can lead to games benefiting from, or attempting something that wouldn't be possible on "fanboy choice platform X".

Examples: Playstation 1's 3D capabilities allowing the original GT, or Forza 1's better physics than GT 2 due to a more powerful CPU, or Forza 1 & 2's entirely superior online and community, or Nintendo's push into waggle allowing for the superb Wii Sports, or cloud processing making Xbone able to deliver experiences that the PS4 is unlikely to due to economic considerations, or Sony being able to push independently into V.R.

These are all things that can benefit unique, platform exclusive games or multi platform titles.

There's also the "flagship title" effect that allows two games of a given type to get larger-than-usual amounts of support combined than two 3rd party titles could get on a universal platform.

Oh, and the competition driven 'razor blade model' has for years given gamers access to subsidised hardware close to launch.

I don't want a single platform to reign supreme. And if it were to, I'd hope it was the PC and not locked down and typically innovation limited platform like a console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Anyway just look at the nes era or gaming back in the 8 bit days. Nintendo the one platform holder ruled with an iron fist

One example doesn't prove the hypothesis. eg. 'Monarchies are bad, democracies are good - Look at King Edward II.' Although we can point to tyrant rulers as bad for a population, we can also point to benevolent ones like King Alfred who did much to progress the nation. Benevolent monarchs are far better for a nation than corrupt democracies, while of course tyrant dictators are worse.

It's certainly possible that a single console platform could be operated in a way that respects and benefits its consumers and development partners. Also, the console wouldn't be operating in a vacuum and the console company would still need to compete against mobile for games and consumers.

 

[eastmen]

One example doesn't prove the hypothesis. eg. 'Monarchies are bad, democracies are good - Look at King Edward II.' Although we can point to tyrant rulers as bad for a population, we can also point to benevolent ones like King Alfred who did much to progress the nation. Benevolent monarchs are far better for a nation than corrupt democracies, while of course tyrant dictators are worse.

It's certainly possible that a single console platform could be operated in a way that respects and benefits its consumers and development partners. Also, the console wouldn't be operating in a vacuum and the console company would still need to compete against mobile for games and consumers.

Look at the ps2 era of gaming . Dreamcast actually made FPS games popular with online modes and its own ips and a modem in each system. Then we get the ps2 which dominated that generation of systems and FPS games and hell online play was forgotten about until the xbox came out 3 years after the dreamcast.

Or look at the handheld market. The Gameboy was a monopoly in the gaming market. It crushed the lynx , game gear , nomad and what have you and so for a decade we were stuck with 1989 tech. Even the Gameboy color when it finaly came out exactly a decade after it was still behind other portables like the nomad . But because of nintendos grip on the market there was nothing we can do.

1 single company would be the end of the console market. We might see it rise for a bit at the start but we will also see it die out quicker as more people go on to other experiances until finally other companys see a chance at making money there and enter their own console

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Look at the ps2 era of gaming . Dreamcast actually made FPS games popular with online modes and its own ips and a modem in each system. Then we get the ps2 which dominated that generation of systems and FPS games and hell online play was forgotten about until the xbox came out 3 years after the dreamcast.

Or look at the handheld market. The Gameboy was a monopoly in the gaming market. It crushed the lynx , game gear , nomad and what have you and so for a decade we were stuck with 1989 tech. Even the Gameboy color when it finaly came out exactly a decade after it was still behind other portables like the nomad . But because of nintendos grip on the market there was nothing we can do.

1 single company would be the end of the console market.

Your examples were in free markets where society chose those outcomes. We weren't stuck with the GB because Nintendo imposed a monopoly on handheld gaming; the reason GameBoy left everyone with 1989 tech for a decade was because people didn't want fancier tech with battery life measured in a few hours. In fact, GB can be cited as a monopoly that worked. Nintendo was the only handheld machine effectively, yet Nintendo continued to progress the product line with GB color in 1998, GBA in 2001 (despite no external competition to release a new machine), and DS in 2004 which at that point had no competition. A company with a monopoly is still going to need to progress to continue to appeal to their audience who'll eventually tire of the old products. Progress with a monopoly can happen more in keeping with consumer interest rather than a relentless competition driving unsustainable development and resulting in instability (companies rising and falling as they struggle to make it).

Similarly, the reason people bought PS2 over DC was because they valued what it had to offer over online. Xbox's online was only of niche interest too as evidenced but it selling to a small portion of gamers. If Xbox had never appeared, PS3 would still have had online as it was a progression to sell media.

Basing an argument on examples isn't good debate as it's tied to historical choices and can overlook potential. The actual analysis of what can be achieved via a monopoly versus not is far more complicated than a list of negative monopolies. In truth, there's actually nothing that can be done outside a monopoly that can't be done within one as long as it's an open, approachable monopoly. There's nothing stopping Sony or Nintendo releasing waggle controllers on the Xbox Mono if it was the only machine in town. There's nothing stopping developers competing with each other for the gamer's dollars and pushing forward game tech on the Mono. There's nothing stopping devs trying new things to attract new custom, or stopping MS developing interesting hardware revisions and new technologies to reach larger audiences. Monopolies themselves aren't intrinsically limited - it befalls what the monopoly holder does with them to turn the monopoly good or bad. There are examples of good monopolies in history as well as bad, utilising their immense size to give consumers better deals without having to cut corners and providing a trustable service or product. The concept and possilibities should be considered with a balanced, unprejudiced mind.

There would be upsides and downsides, the magnitude of which can't be determined without the monopoly existing despite what assumptions people will like to make.

 

[zed]

Personally I prefer companies that think outside the box even if it means the majority of people don't like change. In that sense MS were on the right path in my opinion until they caved in to the masses that wanted the same crap. Unfortunately as a business you have to make money and the more people your product agrees with the more successful your business will be. The bandwagon mentality is alive and well..it won't be disappearing anytime soon.

Um as has been pointed out multiple times over the years, MS is a very conservative company

 

[RudeCurve]

Um as has been pointed out multiple times over the years, MS is a very conservative company

Um...that's a blanket statement that doesn't add up when talking about the new XBO...

Hell even Windows 8 is more adventurous than Apple's desktop OS.

As for Forza vs GT....just you wait...LMAO...

 

[zed]

Um...that's a blanket statement that doesn't add up when talking about the new XBO

Yes it does, at heart MS tried to do a wii and go after the casual consumer, i.e. they copied nintendo, that is conservative.
I read yesterday MS admitted their OS's have 14% of the market, thats 14% of PCs/laptops/tablets/smartphones run a MS OS.
from ~90% -> 14% in a decade! why did this happen? They are too slow to adapt to change == conservative

ps I'ld much rather have 1080p at 48fps than 720p at 55fps
also I'ld prefer 1080p at 30fps than 480p at 40fps

 

[RudeCurve]

Yes it does, at heart MS tried to do a wii and go after the casual consumer, i.e. they copied nintendo, that is conservative.
I read yesterday MS admitted their OS's have 14% of the market, thats 14% of PCs/laptops/tablets/smartphones run a MS OS.
from ~90% -> 14% in a decade! why did this happen? They are too slow to adapt to change == conservative

They didn't copy Nintendo. They tried risky things with the XBO. Many companies try risky things doesn't mean they copied somebody else...nice attempt at logic there...

Pretty sure MS still dominates the desktop OS market even though they took a big risk with Windows 8...

Oh look I'm right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

ps I'ld much rather have 1080p at 48fps than 720p at 55fps
also I'ld prefer 1080p at 30fps than 480p at 40fps

Why? Because you can tell the difference between 48fps vs 55fps but can't tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p?

Another nice failed attempt at logic...

 

[zed]

Pretty sure MS still dominates the desktop OS market even though they took a big risk with Windows 8...

Who said desktop, Here I'll quote the COO of Microsoft

Turner claimed Microsoft has changed the way it measures success in the device space as it now looks at the market as a whole. He conceded the firm has just 14 per cent of global device market share when PCs, smartphones and tablets are tallied.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/strategy/22699/microsoft-confesses-to-14-global-device-market-share

The new reality. Long gone are the days when Microsoft had shares upwards of 90% in the digital world

http://www.eyeonwindows.com/2014/07/14/we-have-just-14-share-of-the-devices-market-confirms-microsoft/

WRT the rest

what I said ------>
               your head

 

[RudeCurve]

Read post 56...

Apparently over your head...you're too easy..