This is extending the TV metaphor too far though. With TV there is essentially one major platform these days, and in any case it only takes a business deal to get a given channel/programming onto another station. A program can be "multi-platform" quite easily. This is not so with the platform choice of developers and consoles. Bringing syndication and a variety of other factors into the equation, and the analogy breaks down.
But from your point, basically I would say, yes the consumer has power in choosing amongst many developer's products, but they don't choose it based on the platform *itself* or its virtues, generally speaking. Rather they choose based on what a given platform will offer them in terms of software, which *again* is in the hands of *developers* to decide.
Only in so far as they choose what is already available to them on the platforms available. By the time it gets into the consumer's hands, the platform choice has been made. The developer still chooses, before any interraction with the consumer, what platform a game will go on. And based on that choice, if the product carries a strong brand, they can most definitely affect the brand strength and reputation of a given platform. This is even more true when developers cooperate in platform decisions of this kind, and this is the factor you're missing from my argument.
Not in so far as the platform for a given title is concerned. That decision is made based on *effects* that the consumer creates, but it is far from a conscious decision on the part of consumers, *and* it is an effect which can only take place once a platform is released and many support decisions have already been made. If software weren't available at a product's launch (which already means many companies have made the choice to support it based on predicted success, and this with *no* input on the *current* platform from the consumer), then the platform would fail, at least if support continued to be lacking. No matter how many consumers bought the hardware, with nothing to play and therefore no cuts from software sales going back to the hardware manufacturer, they would be forced to discontinue the product. And that is assuming customers will buy hardware with no software.
Sure, this is in the middle of a platform's lifecycle though, right? I'm not suggesting that it would be trivial to shift the balance of power right now in the industry. I'm suggesting that, when a platform is debuting and the publisher/developer is faced with the choice of whether to support it, their decision should be much more heavily based on the quality of the development environment and support than it is now. These factors can weigh heavily in development time and budget. Currently developers seem to make the decision largely on percieved future market, but my point is they as creators of the content for all platforms have the abilty to at least partially decide the fate of a platform. Like consumers, they can "vote with their wallets", though in this case of course they're "voting" with development support.
That's why I suggest developers *cooperate*, act in concert. Apparently you missed that whole part of my argument. The union example, etc. I would agree, a single developer is somewhat at the mercy of a strong platform, depending at least in part also on their budget and target market (with a small enough budget and a quality enough game, any decent platform will turn you a profit, it's the unrealistic focus on million sellers that makes so many games seem like a failure, because too many are budgeted for that level).
I don't recall a time when developers were ever particularly scarce. I don't think much has actually changed in that regard. Certainly the market has grown, but in terms of known, quality developers with strong brands and franchises, no I don't think it's changed that much.
This entire argument, the key to why I'm even talking about this, is that I feel the focus on the PS2 platform in the last generation was potentially detrimental to some developers and perhaps the industry as a whole (could be argued, but don't get me wrong, I don't hate the PS2 by any means, I'm talking from a more abstract perspective here). So, with a new generation of consoles coming in 2-4 years ("Xbox2" may launch early, Nintendo is talking about stretching GC lifespan out), it would once again be up to developers to choose the platform to succeed. It *begins* with developers having the choice, *not* consumers.
In the middle of a product's lifecycle, after initial support and development decisions have been made and a product has gained some momentum and consumer loyalty, yes I agree it is the consumers choosing products from the developers for their own reasons. The important part, as I have been saying, is the *beginning* of a console's lifecycle, and with a new one coming up, I think considering these issues and how support should be decided is a very important issue.
Additionally, as I mentioned previously, the key to developers succeeding in making these kinds of moves in the industry is *cooperating* with other developers, at least to a limited degree. This is a key point in my argument you didn't address, and while I admit it may be an unrealistic expectation for developers to cooperate, perhaps you'll agree that if they did, they would certainly wield the greatest power for deciding future succesful platforms.
Sorry for the screwed up quotes btw, not sure how to nest quotes.
- JavaJones
