What would be the outcome of only having one HD console?

[draconian]

With Activision CEO saying he may consider cutting support for the ps3, I thought I'd start a thread of what a one hardcore gaming console would be like. For the record, I don't think Activision would ever stop supporting the PS3. His statement is really more to put pressure on Sony to cut the price than anything else.

As much as the SDF or Xbots love to bash each other's console, its also important to recognize how much the other guy's console has helped drive the HC gaming platform forward.

Here are some things to consider:

1. PSN wouldn't be anything it is today without the competition of XBox live. Likewise, even Xbox live wouldn't have all its features unless some of its features weren't already on PSN.

2. Sony also would've never cut the prices of their devkits if Xbox didn't charge a smaller fee for theirs. Sony also wouldn't be working so hard to better their SDKs if it weren't for MS. Likewise, I'm sure a big motivation for MS to make better SDKs is to entice developers with making their console the lead platform.

3. Console price reduction come because of competition. If the xbox or gamebcube never came out, the ps2 would've remained $300 much longer. Likewise, in this generation, no xbox would've meant a $599 ps3 for a long time.

With these obvious benefits for the consumers, it may be easy to forget the benefits to 3rd party publishers.

3rd party publishers have the best leverage when there is more than one platform for your games. One HC console means the console maker has leverage on you. They can decided whether or not your games can even be on their platform(you have no alternative). The console maker would also have strict control and make possible abuses in regards to the licensing fees of your games. We all should remember how nintendo acted during the NES days and how MS acts in its other business operations.


It's crazy talk when publishers, developers, and consumers wish for just one console. Its naive and short sighted to want this goal.

 

[obonicus]

Usually when people speak of a one-console-future I believe they're talking about a standard. A Sony-MS-Nintendo-NVidia-ATI-Intel-IBM-Activision-EA-Ubisoft-Capcom-etc-etc-etc consortium, I guess. Not sure how licensing fees would work. I still don't think it'd work.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I thought I'd start a thread of what a one hardcore gaming console would be like.

It woudl be like having a PC, since there's no such thing as "hardcore FPS" on a console.

 

[Grall]

Activision's recent posturing is just Bobby Kotick again showing what a greedy shitbag he is. They'll never drop the PS3, or at least not prematurely. It'll eventually die out naturally of course, like so many other consoles before it have.

One single HD console is a completely hypothetical scenario, it's not really a situation that would be easy to analyse. For starters, are we talking about one HD console TODAY, as the market exists now, or in the future?

As you note yourself, competition is the one factor that's driving console gaming forwards. Whenever one manufacturer has emerged dominant it has invariably stagnated, leaving room for a rival successor to emerge. It happened to Atari, it happened to Nintendo, it even happened to Sony. And it's already happened to Microsoft too, in other areas (browser wars; IE6 getting owned by firefox).

Should Microsoft become the totally dominant (HD) console, stagnation would undoubtedly set in again because it's inherent to the monetary-driven economic systems we've designed for ourselves; you don't spend money when there's no imminent need to. The soviet union largely stagnated because of lack of internal competition, while the russkies had cutting-edge jet fighters and the most powerful thermonuclear warheads on the planet at the end of the soviet era (because of the cold war), the general population drove cars that barely matched those built in the west in the 1960s, if they could even buy a car at all that is.

 

[BoardBonobo]

To add to your list, MS wouldn't even be in the console market if Sony hadn't started to dominate the front room so entirely.

 

[Grall]

True, true. Sony's success "provoked" them into action.

Problem with Microsoft though is that they want to be number one in every computing-related market. They're not just competing with Sony and Nintendo in the console space, they're competing with Sony in the home media center market. They're competing with Apple in the OS market, but Apple doesn't care about trying to be a media center leader; they're content with their macs, ipods and iphones. So of course now MS is competing with Apple there as well with their idiotic zune brand. And meanwhile they're trying to become the dominant browser provider, while attempting to crush Google in the search engine, online advertising, browser email, intarweb chatting and social network markets and so on and so forth.

Microsoft is like a 100-headed hydra, a me-too monster that either buys out or imitates any newcomer's products with successive money-losing iterations powered by the company's miles-deep moneybins until they've perfected their design and the competitor simply can't compete anymore and is forced to exit the market - sometimes completely, going into bankruptcy.

We'll see what happens to McAffee and Norton etc now that MS is going to enter the antivirus market as well... MS seems to argue they're only going to offer a basic product; we can all wonder for how long THAT will last. I predict, two major releases at most. After that, MS will be going for the jugular in this marketspace as well.

It doesn't matter if they have to spend a hundred million or a hundred billion, MS now has its sights set on becoming the dominating console maker and they won't stop until they've reached that goal. They're a very, very dangerous company that frankly ought to be forcibly broken into competing separate entities. Like one OS division, one applications division, one consumer electronics division etc.

Of course it'll never happen, because government figures don't have the balls to actually go through with it. They'd make themselves too unpopular with the big stockmarket players and other industrial/market figures and general rich dirtbags.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Let's not go too far into the economic and political debate in this forum. The current turn of phrase will quickly lead into a debate on free market economics and socialism etc. Just focus on the console scene and what the results would be if one player hadn't turned up.

 

[wco81]

It would be curious to see what percentage of games are multiplatform this generation versus previous generations.

It seems there are fewer exclusives.

So if most of the big games are multiplatform, why bother have more than one platform for the 5% of games which are exclusive?

Sony isn't going to try to launch another optical disc format like Blu-Ray or try to spread the use of their own microprocessor across other CE products.

Maybe they feel they have to use the PS4 as a Trojan Horse for digital video distribution. But it may be more simply that the CE and film groups aren't profitable (or consistently so in the case of the film studio) and they have to try to recapture some of the profitability of the Playstation brand.

Maybe they will strike a deal with MS to jointly develop one console, with Sony designing the hardware and MS providing the OS and SDK/tools.

Which is what MS originally offered Sony years ago, isn't it?

 

[KongRudi]

One console future = miserable console-consumers.

Without competition, there would not be any extended warranties for hardware-failures.

And there would not be price-competition.

- That means that Patcher would have been right when he said that prices on games would increase. :-/

- Live would never become free.

Maybe they'd make insane pricing-schemes:
- XBox-live Ultimate, 150$ a year, allows you to be part of clan, join server-games.
- XBox-live Proffesional, 100$ a year, allows you to join peer-2-peer-network multiplayer-games.
- XBox-live Silver 50$ allows you to download demos.
- Xbox-live lamer 10$ free game-patches, and security updates.
- XBox-live ultra-lamer - FREE, but no services.

If you there is only one candidate, it dosn't help if you are willing to vote with your wallet. :-/

You'd be able to play all the games, but the hardware-manufacturers would have much less incentive to make sure that their games were better than the non-existant competition.

(Just look at the great Microsoft-lineup for the Windows-platform)..

 

[Arwin]

I think to get a glimpse of what a one console future would be like, consider the life and times of the GameBoy and then imagine that Atari and Sega's machines never even existed (not that hard to do). Consider in particular its price/value development, and how the handheld market evolved when Sony entered.

Similarly, consider how Sony evolved when Microsoft entered. Then how Sony and Micrososft evolved when Nintendo stroke back with motion controls. Etc.

This seems such a no-brainer.

 

[wco81]

Well there wouldn't be a consolidation of 3 consoles into one, presumably it would be Sony/Microsoft and Nintendo -- remember a few years back some were suggesting Nintendo get out of the hardware business like Sega did?

 

[Tap In]

- Live would never become free.

Maybe they'd make insane pricing-schemes:
- XBox-live Ultimate, 150$ a year, allows you to be part of clan, join server-games.
- XBox-live Proffesional, 100$ a year, allows you to join peer-2-peer-network multiplayer-games.
- XBox-live Silver 50$ allows you to download demos.
- Xbox-live lamer 10$ free game-patches, and security updates.
- XBox-live ultra-lamer - FREE, but no services.
.

Actually every facet of LIVE is already free EXCEPT for multiplayer online gaming. the FREE Live experience is still more complete than any console solution and growing by leaps and bounds.

the list above is a fear based fantasy IMO

 

[DrJay24]

Actually every facet of LIVE is already free EXCEPT for multiplayer online gaming. the FREE Live experience is still more complete than any console solution and growing by leaps and bounds.

Are you claiming Xbox Live Silver is more complete than PSN? That's ridiculous considering you cannot play games among other things. Playing games online is the main purpose of gaming console network, unless you think IM is?

 

[Nesh]

Actually every facet of LIVE is already free EXCEPT for multiplayer online gaming. the FREE Live experience is still more complete than any console solution and growing by leaps and bounds.

the list above is a fear based fantasy IMO

Can you please elaborate what do you mean by "still more complete than"?

 

[Tap In]

Can you please elaborate what do you mean by "still more complete than"?

Well if MP online gaming (or Netflix) is not important to you -which it really isn't for a lot of people- then Silver allows...

the ability to connect to all demos, patches, online videos, Arcade games, 1 v 100 games (Silvers can join with a Gold player and play as a guest), maintain friends lists and have chat parties etc..

The ability to communicate via voice chat (as a Silver) with up to 8 of your friends while playing SP games (or others may be Gold members playing MP) You can all be moving in and out of different games while doing so. This social aspect is a key free, supreme feature.

 

[DrJay24]

the ability to connect to all demos, online videos, 1 v 100 games (Silvers can join with a Gold player and play as a guest), friends lists, have chat parties, AND communicate via voice with 8 of your friends while playing SP games (or others may be Gold members playing MP) You can all be moving in and out of different games while doing so. To me, this social aspect is a key free, supreme feature.

So if you re-define game networking to the definition of Xbox Live Silver it wins a list war, great.

For me Xbox Live is playing online and Netflix, neither Silver can do.

 

[Tap In]

For me Xbox Live is playing online and Netflix,

yeh! for you

 

[tha_con]

Well if MP online gaming (or Netflix) is not important to you -which it really isn't for a lot of people- then Silver allows...

the ability to connect to all demos, patches, online videos, Arcade games, 1 v 100 games (Silvers can join with a Gold player and play as a guest), maintain friends lists and have chat parties etc..

The ability to communicate via voice chat (as a Silver) with up to 8 of your friends while playing SP games (or others may be Gold members playing MP) You can all be moving in and out of different games while doing so. This social aspect is a key free, supreme feature.

So basically the only feature you're really touting here is the ability to chat with 8 people while in an SP game? So with PSN you get to play games online free, download demos free, download movies, use PS Home, and chat with 16 friends in a chatroom in cross game, but Live Silver is more feature complete?

Edit: To make sure my post actually contributes to the thread!

I think one console is impossible. On standard, however, is possible. It won't happen instantly, however. We'll likely see Sony propose one "standard" while MS proposes another (and Nintendo continues to do their onw thing). Sony and MS will buy out studios to develop exclusively for their "standard" until the "war" ends.

At least that's how I think it would go down

 

[DrJay24]

So basically the only feature you're really touting here is the ability to chat with 8 people while in an SP game?

Don't forget demos a week late and 1vs100 game as a guest of a Gold member, the ultimate online gaming service!

 

[Tap In]

So basically the only feature you're really touting here is the ability to chat with 8 people while in an SP game? So with PSN you get to play games online free, download demos free, download movies, use PS Home, and chat with 16 friends in a chatroom in cross game, but Live Silver is more feature complete?

my argument was that Live does not need to be completely FREE to be as effective as any solution out there, because the FREE version of LIVE already is (- online MP) and IMO has done it better since Nov 2005.