XBox 360 launched in Japan

[Bobbler]

firstly we did ,we do and we will have competing "formats" of gasoline(ever heard of diesel?),cable lines and software protocols..etc.As long as there will be innovation and capitalism we will have competing standarts( even if it's not the most efficient way )

Secondly there is a huge difference between a company becoming a monopoly and all the companies in a sector agreeing on a unified format for good&services delivery. Of course it would be the best case senario(and certanly the most efficient option) if multiple companies in an industry agree on a unified format but still continue to compete among each other to deliver the best service to the customer (to maximize their profits). For example,of course it good be the best for the consumers if toshiba and sony could agree on a unified next gen dvd format and still compete with each other to create the one with the most features and the cheapest,we wouldn't have this stupid format wars again and probably we would pay less for our nextgen dvd players.

But when it comes to the issue of monopolies it's a totally different story.Let me give you an actual example, the reason that many local legislative forces in US(pennsylvania being an example) forcing electric companies to broken up into smaller pieces( deregulating ) is that they belive without competition the market can not sustain an healthy state and provide the best for the people. Some people argue that monopolies are natural outcome of markets and they should be allowed to act freely in a capitalist market but i'd say this as a philadelphian my bill did go down after deregulation and i'd love to have an option to change my electric company with just one phone call in case if they screw me over.

Right now the reason that sony,nintendo,ms are working so hard to please gamers,creating the best possible product&services and securing the best content for their platform is that they know that is the only way to maximize their profits.They also know that the moment they stop trying their best, their competiton will gain market share, that's why they spend millions of dollars on R&d,marketing,customer support,that's why it's good that we have options.Do you really think my main man kutaragi would try this hard if he did know we had no choice but buying his machine anyway ?

Ugh, do I really have to go over it again? If you're going to debate then you've got to debate points I've made and not the whole monopoly thing (what what I'm suggesting is no more a monopoly that DVD is) -- in the power company example the console would be more akin to the power lines and not the seperate power companies. What part of consoles as a format (and not like buying a PC vs a Mac, which is the way it is now, rather buying a Dell PC vs a HP PC -- they run the same stuff -- of course they have different hardware but assume that all the consoles would have the same hardware)) is flying over people's heads? This is getting frustrating having to explain to every person that joins the conversation... .

Is it a monopoly when every company related to it (content companies, manufacturers, etc) all agree on it?

And diesel has marginal adoption at best and is for the most part a seperate market -- it's relegated to a select few vehicles (often rather large vehicles), not the normal car consumer's vehicle.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Bobbler you analogy is completely flawed.

The fact that all cars run on gasoline is comparable to the fact that all consoles use a standard 120v AC current.

What you're proposing for consoles would be similar to all the car manufactures coming to together and creating a single car, or chain of cars. There would be no more competition between car manufacturers, and they would simply split profits down the middle. What this would mean for the consumer is cheap quality cars, with little attention to innovation or quality control. No motivation for the car manufacturers to improve their designs, and absolutely no threat of losing their consumers.

Eventually what would happen is the ratio of quality:cost would end up completely skewed, and we'd be getting horribly crappy cars for exorbinant prices, that's what happens when you remove competition. Corporations realize they can take advantage of the situation and they do, EACH AND EVERY time, it's all about profits and bottomline and if there's no threat of losing your position in the market, you spend much less effort improving your product, and instead focus on increasing profits by creating cheaper goods or services.

 

[Bobbler]

Bobbler you analogy is completely flawed.

The fact that all cars run on gasoline is comparable to the fact that all consoles use a standard 120v AC current.

What you're proposing for consoles would be similar to all the car manufactures coming to together and creating a single car, or chain of cars. There would be no more competition between car manufacturers, and they would simply split profits down the middle. What this would mean for the consumer is cheap quality cars, with little attention to innovation or quality control. No motivation for the car manufacturers to improve their designs, and absolutely no threat of losing their consumers.

Eventually what would happen is the ratio of quality:cost would end up completely skewed, and we'd be getting horribly crappy cars for exorbinant prices, that's what happens when you remove competition. Corporations realize they can take advantage of the situation and they do, EACH AND EVERY time, it's all about profits and bottomline and if there's no threat of losing your position in the market, you spend much less effort improving your product, and instead focus on increasing profits by creating cheaper goods or services.

You're still taking it the wrong way. The software is the equivalent of the cars, not the console -- that's where competition is and thats the differentiator (or reason for people to buy a console -- buy gas) between consoles now... the software. I think, this being a technology forum, the actual console is given a lot more weight than it should and people are completely missing the point.

The console itself really doesn't matter, it's a channel to get/experience the software, nothing more. Software should be the most important thing, as that is what we play and those are the games (at this point it isn't, as evidence by the fact that everyone here seems so hung up on the actual console) -- what console/format the game comes on is really irrelevant.

 

[Phil]

What you're proposing for consoles would be similar to all the car manufactures coming to together and creating a single car, or chain of cars. There would be no more competition between car manufacturers, and they would simply split profits down the middle. What this would mean for the consumer is cheap quality cars, with little attention to innovation or quality control. No motivation for the car manufacturers to improve their designs, and absolutely no threat of losing their consumers.

Jesus, how hard can it be to understand the point Bobbler is trying to make? Now just forget all those examples and re-read what he imagines on what benefits a single console vendor would have over multiple ones:

possible benefits:
- one vendor, one console, one purchase
- all developers would only support that one vendors console thus raising the competition among each other (i.e. Tecmo wouldn't be able to escape onto a competitors console but would be forced to find additional ways to make their product seem the better one over what the competition is offering)
- since there's only one console to support, there would be a larger install base and thus, potentially more money to make
- one console, one hardware - no multiplatform titles, no ports. console's potentially will eventually be maximized until a new hardware updates the older one (a new console generation shift)

possible drawbacks:
- less cutting edge hardware, less risk for the hardware vendor because of no competition*

* Note however that the single console vendor would still have to update the console cycle at a regular pace in fear of a new competitor entering the business with a very superior product and would sway developers onto that new platform. With possibly see less innovation and less risks being taken on the hardware side though.

Point: It's a give / take situation.

 

[Bobbler]

I also added on top of that...

If the console maker wasn't just one vendor, but a consortium that all the companies involved in the console market would be in -- content companies wouldn't get screwed on pricing then, as they would have some control. It would have to be a joint venture from the console industry to agree on the platform. A single entity in control is no doubt bad (and would cause other companies to find their way into the market, just because they could) -- but when the entire industry has a hand in it, there's no reason for another competitor until the generation is at an end. You also have the benefit of many competing manufacturers (like DVD players today) causing prices to go down, and different features added to the more expensive ones and more cut down versions for the less expensive (even though they all play the same DVDs) -- it might be a bit more complicated as a console is more complicated than a DVD player, but the possiblity of major competition is still there, for pricing.

I also don't think it would work well until the ability of developers making games becomes the limit rather than console power (to the point where developers throwing more stuff at the consoles isn't worth it -- it isn't too hard to max out graphical abilities of consoles now... but what happens when consoles are actually able to render multiple several million poly models and able to do all kinds of snazzy effects? Making all those million poly models to max out the console isn't going to be worth the time in most cases... most gamers won't care and this is what I mean by content will be the limiting factor, rather than constantly reaching the limits of the hardware and trying to find ways around them)... that gets around the "if this happened the hardware would be rather weak" arguement, which is probably rather true. Maybe this won't happen for several years if there are massive jumps in development tools and creation environments... but I'm betting there will become a rather large deficit between content creation ability (within reason) and the actual hardware power -- it seems there already is... the development costs are jumping rather rapidly each generation (well past what simple inflation does, meaning there is a content creation gap). Generations would also last longer, most likely (8+ years maybe?).

I'm not saying this is totally going to happen, or should necessarily happen... I just think it's an interesting possibility that might be better for the consumers in the end.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Jesus, how hard can it be to understand the point Bobbler is trying to make?

Jesus, how hard is it to understand I don't agree with his reasoning?

 

[scooby_dooby]

You're still taking it the wrong way. The software is the equivalent of the cars, not the console -- that's where competition is and thats the differentiator (or reason for people to buy a console -- buy gas) between consoles now... the software. I think, this being a technology forum, the actual console is given a lot more weight than it should and people are completely missing the point.

The console itself really doesn't matter, it's a channel to get/experience the software, nothing more. Software should be the most important thing, as that is what we play and those are the games (at this point it isn't, as evidence by the fact that everyone here seems so hung up on the actual console) -- what console/format the game comes on is really irrelevant.

The console itself is important though. The console itself is a combination of both software and hardware, and it's the competition we have today which has resulted in us getting interfaces like the X360 which is completely above and beyond what would be necessary for a normal game console. You would not see this sort of 'extra effort' if there were no competition.

I also believe the strength of the HW is extremely important, and although the manufacturers would need to produce somewhat decent HW, so as to not be soooo bad that another company might take a stab at their monopoly, it would still be nowehere near as powerful as we're seeing today.

Personally, that trumps everything else, I would rather have to buy 2 consoles than 1 if I can be assured that the software, services and hardware will be far superior. Competition, and the nature of a free market ensures this, much moreso if there are STRONG competitors in your industry.

In addition, like I've stated many times, having more than 1 independant company drives new franchises, new IP's and big budget first party titles as they constantly battle for market share.

Add those 2 factors together, and it's a no-brainer for me, 2 strong competitors in the console space is much better than 1 standard platform.

I understand the point you're trying to make. I just don't agree with it.

 

[Bobbler]

Scooby:

But with an assortment of companies working together, the console software itself wouldn't be skimped on. The OS and features like Live would indefinately be added if companies felt it was important -- All your concerns I've addressed, you just seem to be ignoring them. The group of companies would decide what they want the platform/format to accomplish, and what things need to be included in it to accomplish those goals (in this case it would be selling the most software they could).

Software companies will have to compete with each other, so there is no chance the software will go stale and there won't be new IP -- they have to compete with each other more directly with one console (there won't be any subpar fighting games ruling the entire format -- it would force games like Doa to be better... same with Killzone and Halo -- if they had to compete we'd be better off, but they only, at best indirectly compete). I'm really not sure where you're getting the idea that there wouldn't be any competition - EA would have to compete with Sega's sports stuff (they already do, but that won't go away), Kameo would have to compete with the Zeldas (or other psuedo platformer/action adventure games), Killzone and Halo would have to compete directly. You can't say that Killzone and Kameo wouldn't be better games if they had to directly compete with a Halo game, or a Zelda game. I know there is the arguement that, "would Halo or Killzone exist if they were on the same platform?", and my answer would be "if MS or Sony wanted to make money they'll have to produce high calibre games".

Do you keep ignoring the part where I address your hardware concerns? with the way its going today, it would be prohibitive for a developer to take full advantage of the hardware in a couple generations, so over time it's going to matter less and less with each passing generation -- add to that you get increasingly diminishing returns as you get closer to reality (making content and an engine to run on increasingly powerful hardware comes at great costs, the costs are rising at a disproportionally fast rate and soon it just won't be worth it for developers to try to push the hardware limits if they want to make a profit -- you remember hearing all the developers concerned with development costs on PS3/Xbox360? We're going to hit a limit to where concerning yourself with increasing graphics will be pointless to most consumers, until we have a drastically change way of creating the content). There also would be no "other" company that could take a stab -- this would be a "consortium" filled with pretty much all of the companies in the console industry (making it not controlled by a single entity, but agreed upon and the important features that the companies want are included... this includes stuff like an online client, and a shiny/easy to use interface). There wouldn't be an MS, Sony, and Nintendo like we see them today -- they'd be just another software publishing/dev company in all this (Sony would probably be part of making the consoles, along with other CE companies), same as EA, Ubi, etc. There would be no major player, just like there isn't really one behind DVD (I don't know who leads the pack in it, and I don't really care) -- the power is shared, there may be a company that leads it but it isn't completely run by that entity.

No doubt, I'd be very much concerned with hardware power as well (which is why I say this won't work until these previously mentioned things happen), but I think I've properly addressed them. At that point the most powerful hardware of the day wouldn't be needed, reducing the cost of the console, since it would arguably go to waste because of the limit that gets reached on content creation.

I haven't really heard a valid reason why this wouldn't be good, in the future -- it works, and we've seen it happen in many places before because some markets naturally lead that way (it's more efficient and easier for everyone) . Any market where the thing you are paying for comes through another medium works like this or can work like this.

The reason to buy a console is to play games.
The reason to buy gasoline is to make your car run. (I see why this example is a bit weird, but it still works if you see it this way, I think)
The reason to buy a DVD player is to play movies.

We don't buy console A, B and C just to look at them, so why do we have a situation where the console is trying to be just as much a differentiator as the software, when it really doesn't need to be? (and I realize the urge to disagree with this with the way the console industry has been for the last 20 years) It's a pointless extra step/limitation in the chain of buying a game and enjoying a game. It's akin to DVD players only supporting some titles and needing 3 different DVD players to play them all.

We should have a situation where all the companies in the industry get together and put together a list of things that they want to see in it -- this is where MS would go "Hey, I want some online capability, because I think we can reach more people and make more money this way!", then this is where Sony chimes in and say "Hey, lets include a format for watching new movies, because that will give it a wider appeal", and this is where Nintendo says "Hey, let's give it a 'simple' controller in addition to the normal controller because we can reach even wider audiences". The competition would be solely on the software side, but they'd have to plan the platform to handle all the things they'd want the software to do (which means we wouldn't get screwed). It worked well with DVD, and I imagine Blu-ray (hd-dvd) will be the same way -- when you do a format you have to think forward a bit about what kind of things you want to do with that format, just like console manufacturers have to do today with their consoles. What we have today is an oligopoly and I'm suggesting a situation where many companies supply many users -- which is the best for competition. Compete within a spec rather than competing with specs.

This is a give and take type situation, no doubt, but I don't think it would overall be worse than the situation we (the consumer) encounter today, and I think it might be better for the industry as a whole (seems a lot easier on developers/publishers). A forum like this might get a bit boring though

I'm not sure if I've even answered your concerns at this point, but, I tried. God, these posts are getting long...

 

[scooby_dooby]

The reason this won't work is because it's simply not realistic. COmpanies aren't going to come together for some great altruistic goal of creating the best experience possible if they are already reaping in buckets of money.

You seem to be implying the these corporations would work together for the good of the consumer, without any real threat or incentive to do so. This is simply not how corporations work. They only do things when they have to, they are only driven forward out of fear for their own stockholders, they only give consumers a better product when they are worried about their products not selling anymore.

That's why monolpoly's are so bad. Human nature = greed. Capatilisim = greed. Corporations = greed. You need to have that driving competition, or they won't continue to innovate, they won't continue to constantly push new ideas, they won't be constantly upgrading and improving their services. Why? Cause they don't have to. Because they make greater profits if they don't.

Once you remove competition, everything becomes about profits, profit profit profit, no corporation in the world gives a shit about it's consumers, it's all about profit. It's competition that forces them to give a shit, forces them to continue to innovate.

As for the hardware discussion, I agree with you that when the point comes that hardware power is irrelevent, then it becomes a non-factor in this debate. But that has nothing to do with the here and now, here and now it's still a huge factor. I'm talking about now, and the forseeable future, not 15-20 years down the road.

 

[mckmas8808]

I agree with scooby here. If we had one console the new Revolution controller probably wouldn't have been invented. Would Blu-ray be in the next console? Too many questions to be answered. I say everybody for themselves.

 

[expletive]

I think when you focus on the fact the companies exist for shareholders and not consumers, i think it quickly becomes clear why there will never be some sort of unified console consortium.

 

[Bobbler]

The reason this won't work is because it's simply not realistic. COmpanies aren't going to come together for some great altruistic goal of creating the best experience possible if they are already reaping in buckets of money.

You seem to be implying the these corporations would work together for the good of the consumer, without any real threat or incentive to do so. This is simply not how corporations work. They only do things when they have to, they are only driven forward out of fear for their own stockholders, they only give consumers a better product when they are worried about their products not selling anymore.

That's why monolpoly's are so bad. Human nature = greed. Capatilisim = greed. Corporations = greed. You need to have that driving competition, or they won't continue to innovate, they won't continue to constantly push new ideas, they won't be constantly upgrading and improving their services. Why? Cause they don't have to. Because they make greater profits if they don't.

Once you remove competition, everything becomes about profits, profit profit profit, no corporation in the world gives a shit about it's consumers, it's all about profit. It's competition that forces them to give a shit, forces them to continue to innovate.

As for the hardware discussion, I agree with you that when the point comes that hardware power is irrelevent, then it becomes a non-factor in this debate. But that has nothing to do with the here and now, here and now it's still a huge factor. I'm talking about now, and the forseeable future, not 15-20 years down the road.

Except companies do do it all the time... How do you explain the DVD format? It provided consumers with everything they needed at the time and provided companies with what they needed and wasn't stupidly expensive (especially once competition started). Sometimes what benefits the corporations also benefits the consumers, this is one of those cases. The industry would have to shift a bit, this is true, but it _would_ work if it was forced upon them (I never said it's going to happen, just that something like this would work).

Blu-ray/Hd-dvd, too, Cassette Tapes, and the TCPIP protocol for the internet? If every silly company decided to make their own protocol for the internet we'd a few different internets, which would be similar to how the console world is today... it's needlessly complicated to the point where its detrimental to increasing the userbase of the product.

I'm talking about 15 years down the road, and I've repeatedly said this -- we're not even really disagreeing, I don't think... I explicitly said quite a few times this wouldn't work until that point.

The simple fact that consortiums exist for formats means that its quite possible that at one point they could exist for something like a console -- it is really no different. Sure it may be idealistic at this point, and I don't see Sony/MS/Nintendo letting go of full control (every big company wishes they had full control of a format which is widely used -- that's power right there... MS and Windows, anyone?), but it doesn't mean that the console industry would collapse and burn if it changed that way, and I'm betting it'd be much better off for the consumer and a very fair compromise for the industry as a whole.

Compare this...

Mini disc was a proprietary format, much like the consoles of today are, and you know why everyone hated them? Because they were proprietary and only supported on a small number of products.

You know why people love DVD? because its a relatively open format governed by almost the entire industry and it's cheap because of that (the content is what makes people money, the disc format shouldn't be the money maker... and that's what's wrong with the console industry -- this and the proprietary nature of consoles, royalty fees can be ridiculous and they shouldn't be). This is what the console industry _needs_ -- I don't think it's going to happen any time soon, but to argue against it is completely backwards... what we have now is proprietary standards where we can more easily be gouged (because there is no competition inside the format -- only one company makes the PS brand, that means they have relative freedom if someone wants a game on that console... this is bad for consumers). I imagine because the industry has been this way for 20 years and has been great, that it's hard to swallow the fact that the way the industry is is not truely optimal -- but until the big three lose their grip and are in danger, this won't happen.

 

[Deepak]

I would dread a unified situation. A non-unified approach allows different console makers to try out different ideas in the market, user gets so many choises, console for kids, grown-ups etc.

<cough>Windows<cough>

 

[Phil]

I also believe the strength of the HW is extremely important, and although the manufacturers would need to produce somewhat decent HW, so as to not be soooo bad that another company might take a stab at their monopoly, it would still be nowehere near as powerful as we're seeing today.

Personally, that trumps everything else, I would rather have to buy 2 consoles than 1 if I can be assured that the software, services and hardware will be far superior. Competition, and the nature of a free market ensures this, much moreso if there are STRONG competitors in your industry.

So you want competition on the hardware side to give you better hardware (because in your words, it's extremely important), yet at the same time, you fail to see that multiple hardware vendors (= multiple formats) results in more multi-platform titles which use less of the consoles potential to make them portable friendly?


Seriously, you're willing to spend more on better hardware that for the most part by 70% of the developers by your ideal scenario won't even use to its fullest?

At least in the scenario Bobbler's pointing out, you have a unified hardware that each and every developer can use, explore and utilize most of its potential without worrying about different sets of hardware... relatively less risky hardware (possibly cheaper for consumers and the vendor in a competition free-hardware-market) would probably be utilized better than your high potential hardwares in a highly competitive market and 70% multi-paltform targeted titles.

For someone who claims to be a software designer, you don't really seem to be thinking this through to the very end nor do you seem to acknowledge the implication of designing software that targets multiple sets of hardware...

 

[one]

For someone who claims to be a software designer, you don't really seem to be thinking this through to the very end nor do you seem to acknowledge the implication of designing software that targets multiple sets of hardware...

Proprietary Windows API rules everything

 

[Sis]

So you want competition on the hardware side to give you better hardware (because in your words, it's extremely important), yet at the same time, you fail to see that multiple hardware vendors (= multiple formats) results in more multi-platform titles which use less of the consoles potential to make them portable friendly?


Seriously, you're willing to spend more on better hardware that for the most part by 70% of the developers by your ideal scenario won't even use to its fullest?

At least in the scenario Bobbler's pointing out, you have a unified hardware that each and every developer can use, explore and utilize most of its potential without worrying about different sets of hardware... relatively less risky hardware (possibly cheaper for consumers and the vendor in a competition free-hardware-market) would probably be utilized better than your high potential hardwares in a highly competitive market and 70% multi-paltform targeted titles.

For someone who claims to be a software designer, you don't really seem to be thinking this through to the very end nor do you seem to acknowledge the implication of designing software that targets multiple sets of hardware...

I don't think this is fair at all--Scooby has said all along that 1st party titles are very important in this regards. His point is perfectly valid and he's been consistent with it through the thread.

The problem I have with the unified framework approach is two fold. A) Consortiums are slow moving and I can only imagine how long it'd take to get Sony, MS, and Nintendo to agree on a format. And B) there is zero competetition in this structure and very little incentive for innovation. In fact, that whole structure is setup around not being innovative, since innovation from one company would require "donation" to the consortium, which may or may not approve of it.

Now granted, the games may take advantage of the system better, but that doesn't say anything to me.

.Sis

 

[expletive]

I don't think this is fair at all--Scooby has said all along that 1st party titles are very important in this regards. His point is perfectly valid and he's been consistent with it through the thread.

The problem I have with the unified framework approach is two fold. A) Consortiums are slow moving and I can only imagine how long it'd take to get Sony, MS, and Nintendo to agree on a format. And B) there is zero competetition in this structure and very little incentive for innovation. In fact, that whole structure is setup around not being innovative, since innovation from one company would require "donation" to the consortium, which may or may not approve of it.

Now granted, the games may take advantage of the system better, but that doesn't say anything to me.

.Sis

Also take into consideration how the recent HD-optical forums have treated consumers. They couldnt care less (and theres actually a level of competion with these two.)

 

[Phil]

Scooby has said all along that 1st party titles are very important in this regards. His point is perfectly valid and he's been consistent with it through the thread.

And how many 1st party titles are there on the market relative to the amount of 3rd party titles? I can tell you that it's a relatively small portion - in fact, looking at my rather well-informed purchases on the PS2, ~70% of the software are either multiplatform targeted or ports. From my list of 30 games that I own, less than 10% happen to be 1st party developed games.

Now, given that I am hardly what you call the "average joe" outthere, you can bet that the vast majority of casual consumers (you know, the bulk of the market) purchase 3rd party titles since they make up for the most software.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Look at the 1st party titles Sony has created for the PS brand. I don't think I need to name those.

Look at the first party titles MS is creating for the 360 launch. lost odyssey, blue dragon, crackdown & all points bulletin from david jones. A little franchise called halo last generation, fable as well is a new franchise. Lionhead studios is working for MS on another 360 title you can be sure.

Nintendo? I don't need to name those either.

1st party titles account for some of the greatest franchises that have ever been created, an all platforms.

It's my opinion that with 2 or 3 system there will be more games overall so if you just by 2 or 3 systems, you have it made. And really there's nothing you can do to disprove my point, without any evidence, it's just your opinion against mine.

 

[Phil]

1st party titles account for some of the greatest franchises that have ever been created, an all platforms.

It's my opinion that with 2 or 3 system there will be more games overall so if you just by 2 or 3 systems, you have it made. And really there's nothing you can do to disprove my point, without any evidence, it's just your opinion against mine.

No one is arguing that 1st party titles haven't created some of the greatest franchises available - would those games have not been created if there weren't multiple consoles? Answer: No, so I'm not really sure what your point about 1st party titles is.

Fact is; on a single console, all developers would only have to concentrate on one single piece of hardware, reducing multi-platform targeted titles (because there wouldn't be multiple platforms) and increasing competiton among other competing developers. The end result would be better utilized hardware, period. Better utilized hardware == better value for money, and above all, because no one has to spend additional money on other hardware (let alone libraries and additional art assets), it would drive down costs further. In the end when developers have already established their libraries, engines and assets for a platform they're already getting great performance out of, they can use their time to make their software better by concentrating more on gameplay, which again equals higher quality software for all of us. Want an example? Take Jak 2 => Jak 3. Same engine, much better game thanks to them concentrating on gameplay elements.

Also, not forgetting that we are arguing over the impact on the industry as a whole, I'm surprised to see you even state something like "if you just by 2 or 3 systems" - let me remind you that the vast minority of casual consumers outthere buy multiple systems. It is already quite evident that most of them buy their console when it's reduced anyway and not at its original price tag of >= $299. And here you are, dreaming on about how green the world would be if everyone bought 2 or 3 systems...

BTW; I'm still interested on your expertly opinion on the hardware argument... is that one still valid or have you decided to drop it, judging by the complete absence of it in your latest post? Just curious...