i hope the nintendo nx is a total failure

[Data]

Ok, not all of them. Cause 4K HDR rocks. And better VR. But still. I've played my Wii U more the last 3 years.

 

Exactly.  Everybody benefits from graphical upgrades.  Whether it's 4K or VR.  You need to step into the 2016 offerings from Intel Nvidia or AMD.  I played Forza Horizon 3 on my PC and it was a rush of adrenaline.  No need to attack me, I have already accepted that Nintendo is only interested in developing for Gameboy level specifications.

[KiwiArcader]

I don't think anyone's attacking you Jake. Everyone's entitled to an opinion no matter how much one may disagree with that opinion. I think yours just comes across as overly strong and when you are prepared to voice opinions you have to be prepared to have counter opinions thrown your way in reply.

 

How I look at all this is that it's actually terrific that Nintendo are once again prepared to go out on a limb in the hardware stakes. If no-one did such a thing there would be no progress in moving gaming forward and we'd still be stuck in 480p or VGA resolution. It's through taking risks such as they did with the Wii controller that Sony got in the Move groove and Xbox got Kinecting. Okay, they got it wrong with Wii-U but it was still interesting from a technical perspective. It will be interesting a couple of years down the line seeing if the Switch is prospering or not. If it is and we see Sony and Microsoft bringing something out to compete we will know that once again Nintendo have forced changes in the gaming market and that can only be a good thing. 

 

What is interesting in all of this is how collectible Nintendo products remain long after they have been discontinued. Where I live N64 and SNES cartridge prices remain high while PlayStation and Xbox games are a dime a dozen. Even on less popular systems their own games like Mario Kart, Mario and Zelda games etc continue to sell for high prices. That's the thing about Nintendo. If you really, really like their games people buy the consoles to play them. I can't think of any other system from another manufacturer with such devotion with the possible exception of Sega's Dreamcast.

 

I'll happily lay it on the line and say the Dreamcast and the N64 are the two best game systems released as far as I am concerned because in Super Mario 64 and Soul Calibur they were both worth purchasing for a single game. They'd be the two console systems and games I would take if I were stuck on a deserted island. However, if I were limited to one system only but with unlimited games it would obviously be a PC as you can run all those console games on that anyway  

[te72]

I don't think anyone's attacking you Jake. Everyone's entitled to an opinion no matter how much one may disagree with that opinion. I think yours just comes across as overly strong and when you are prepared to voice opinions you have to be prepared to have counter opinions thrown your way in reply.

 

How I look at all this is that it's actually terrific that Nintendo are once again prepared to go out on a limb in the hardware stakes. If no-one did such a thing there would be no progress in moving gaming forward and we'd still be stuck in 480p or VGA resolution. It's through taking risks such as they did with the Wii controller that Sony got in the Move groove and Xbox got Kinecting. Okay, they got it wrong with Wii-U but it was still interesting from a technical perspective. It will be interesting a couple of years down the line seeing if the Switch is prospering or not. If it is and we see Sony and Microsoft bringing something out to compete we will know that once again Nintendo have forced changes in the gaming market and that can only be a good thing. 

Made bold for emphasis, this is an important takeaway here. Rational discourse, it is what forums (such as Retromags) are for. I have an opinion, and I can defend it. If you can present a logical counterpoint without resorting to childish behavior, perhaps you can convince me of your counter point. Hard to take anyone seriously if they can't present a logical argument though...

 

Kiwi presents a solid argument in favor of Nintendo, being that they take risks, and without risk taking, we have a stale gaming market. Hardware manufacturers, interesting to some as they may be, I couldn't name even a single accomplishment they've made, no particular risks they've taken. AMD, Nvidia, Tandy, Macintosh, it is literally all a big blur of PC gaming to me. This will make you cringe, but I honestly don't even KNOW what sort of chipset I have in my computer. It's literally ten years old. TEN!! How, oh how can I possibly manage to live another day with such an antiquated slug of a computer?

 

...but wouldn't you know, I could name you when just about every Nintendo system came out, and what it brought to the table. Weird how that works.

[Data]

Made bold for emphasis, this is an important takeaway here. Rational discourse, it is what forums (such as Retromags) are for. I have an opinion, and I can defend it. If you can present a logical counterpoint without resorting to childish behavior, perhaps you can convince me of your counter point. Hard to take anyone seriously if they can't present a logical argument though...

 

Kiwi presents a solid argument in favor of Nintendo, being that they take risks, and without risk taking, we have a stale gaming market. Hardware manufacturers, interesting to some as they may be, I couldn't name even a single accomplishment they've made, no particular risks they've taken. AMD, Nvidia, Tandy, Macintosh, it is literally all a big blur of PC gaming to me. This will make you cringe, but I honestly don't even KNOW what sort of chipset I have in my computer. It's literally ten years old. TEN!! How, oh how can I possibly manage to live another day with such an antiquated slug of a computer?

 

...but wouldn't you know, I could name you when just about every Nintendo system came out, and what it brought to the table. Weird how that works.

 

It made me laugh as I waited throughout 2016 for news on the Switch.  Everybody thought it was going to be roughly Playstation 4 Pro level hardware, even the fanboys.  Then late summer there was a leak from credible sources telling us it is a handheld you can plug into the television with the power level of an Nvidia Tablet.  The Nintendo fanboys began going into damage control mode for Nintendo saying graphics don't matter, gameplay does.  Then more leaks came out about the exact chips used and the engineers proceeded to derive the capabilities.  Well the results were disappointing to say the least. 

 

We expected Nintendo to take a risk and not only build a powerful system, but to gain 3rd party support and evolve their own brand of characters into true 4K. Instead, they achieved none of these.

 

Now I come here and besides the original poster who seems unhelpful at best, I find a bunch of yes men who kow-tow to whatever decision Nintendo makes like they are somehow innovating with a child's gameboy.  Most people here don't even plan on owning a recent Nintendo product, so it's easy to talk about something you know very little about yourself when you have no skin in the game.

[KiwiArcader]

 

Now I come here and besides the original poster who seems unhelpful at best, I find a bunch of yes men who kow-tow to whatever decision Nintendo makes like they are somehow innovating with a child's gameboy.  Most people here don't even plan on owning a recent Nintendo product, so it's easy to talk about something you know very little about yourself when you have no skin in the game.

 

You do know that you are coming across as totally arrogant and somewhat obnoxious when you make comments like that right?

 

Just because YOUR expectations haven't been met in Switch, you are pushing your elitist views on everyone while stating that anyone who doesn't share those views is somehow stricken with Nintendo fever or something to that effect.

 

And just because I didn't buy a Wii-U after owning a SNES, several N64's, an NDS and a Wii means I have no interest in acquiring a Switch thus "no skin in the game"?

 

You need to take a chill-pill. Honestly, you're heading for a stroke if you're not careful at keeping your blood pressure down. Plenty more important things in life to think about than a console chipset right?

[te72]

I'll also take this opportunity to point out a list of highly powerful (for the time) consoles that didn't do as well as their contemporary competition:

 

-Turbographix 16 / CD

-3DO

-Jaguar

-N64

-Dreamcast

-Xbox

-PS3

 

I've owned, and loved games on, four of those systems. At the time, I do believe all of them was the most powerful console on the market, at least for some time. However, despite that, to varying degrees, they failed to live up to their full potential. I personally would be surprised if the PS2 didn't sell more than all of those listed above, combined.

 

Does power matter? Sure, to some more than others even. Does it enable the developer to make a great game? Not necessarily. A great developer can make a great game within the limitations of the hardware. That, to me, is the impressive part of gaming.

[Data]

I'll also take this opportunity to point out a list of highly powerful (for the time) consoles that didn't do as well as their contemporary competition:

 

-Turbographix 16 / CD

-3DO

-Jaguar

-N64

-Dreamcast

-Xbox

-PS3

 

I've owned, and loved games on, four of those systems. At the time, I do believe all of them was the most powerful console on the market, at least for some time. However, despite that, to varying degrees, they failed to live up to their full potential. I personally would be surprised if the PS2 didn't sell more than all of those listed above, combined.

 

Does power matter? Sure, to some more than others even. Does it enable the developer to make a great game? Not necessarily. A great developer can make a great game within the limitations of the hardware. That, to me, is the impressive part of gaming.

 

They sold the same.  Playstation 2 sold tremendously because American zealots had a good experience with PS and felt an attachment between their childhood memories and Sony's first console.  Japanese bought only PS2 and 25 M of them.  China didn't allow sale of foreign videogames,  but counterfeit was widely popular.  The life of PS2 was longer than any other console.

 

People try to explain how good N64 was because everyone had both N64 and PS but by the time PS2 was out people picked the winner and rejected the loser Gamecube.

 

You want to tie the failure of these console with the graphical capabilities, I want to add my opinion to it.

 

-Turbografx 16 / CD  Failed in US, did not bad in Canada and did very good in Japan.  Nintendo had exclusive deals with game developers in US and destroyed any competition for the entire lifespan of NES.  Genesis was the underdog who brought it's widely popular arcade games to the home and were the first to have mature games.

-3DO  3DO was only about $1000 at launch but compared to a similar spec computer it was a third the price.  Too much money for a multimedia game console right now.  Wait for 3D accelerators

-Jaguar  Atari name not popular, price is too high.  Two 32 bit Motorolas combined didn't do well.  CD games were multimedia and not real games.  Wait for 3D accelerators

-N64 I think the early launch of the new kid in town and the preorder of the Playstation exclusive Final Fantasy VII was the signal that N64 was in trouble.  Had some fun party games and of course Goldeneye but everyone bought Playstation

-Dreamcast 

-Xbox   They called it the Xbuck$ because it cost $100 more for a while but Xbox is far from failure.  Microsoft is actually doing well.

-PS3  This was actually less powerful than 360 and the 360 sold about 3M more worldwide.  Also if you subtract all sales in Japan, 360 sold about 28M more.

[te72]

Like I said, hardware power doesn't bring the games to the system. I'm a car guy, so I'll draw a parallel here. Everybody would like horsepower, but not everybody can afford horsepower. There are plenty of reasons that we don't all drive supercars and luxury trucks, but the biggest one is simple: money. Getting back to the gaming side of the analogy, if gaming hardware manufacturers would only build the most powerful machines, the number of people who owned them (the high powered machines) would likely remain roughly where they are now, among the more hardcore than most gamers. Gaming likely wouldn't be so widespread either...

 

Money is coincidentally the entire objective of a successful business. So, while Nintendo's plans for the Switch (and other systems) may not work for everybody, history has proven that their plans work for enough people for them to remain in business and making money.

 

One of my coworkers has a philosophy of the three F's. Feeding, Financing, and Fucking. If someone isn't doing one or more of those three things for you, then what they do with their time on this planet is of little consequence. I think that's relevant here, as no amount of bickering or discussion on here is going to sway the business decisions of a company based in a country that is thousands of miles away.

 

On that note, gaming is supposed to be fun. Isn't that why we all play? I don't play games for a means to kill time, or to educate myself, or to avoid real life (although escapism can be healthy), I play games to have fun. So I ask, what good is it doing anyone on here to argue that a manufacturer of devices meant to bring fun to our lives should do things this way or that way? If anything, it's likely causing undue stress for some, head scratching for most, and possibly a bit of laughter here and there. I'd like to propose that we do something productive with our time instead. I'm learning how to weld and different ways of working with metal. It's oddly therapeutic.

[alexis524]

I'm buying the Switch and plan to pre-order tomorrow morning (hopefully) (assuming that's the announcment later this evening)

I'll rep Nintendo till my hands can't play anymore.

 

P.S. not a fanboy, just a fan of games in general. The Switch will look nice next to my Sony and MS consoles too

[orthicviper]

Sega is a relic of a bygone era.  All the talent left in 2001 when  they went bankrupt.  Since then Sega Sammy Holdings has failed to take any risks or allow any funds to go towards talented designers who may use Sega's short list of game labels and turn it into something original. 

It's been 15 years of Sonic and Mario at the olympics or computer strategy games in an already saturated market.

 

The Yakuza series is great! And Vanquish is one of the best action games ever though it was developed by Platinum Games. Also Binary Domain is a pretty cool sci-fi action game. I don't blame Sega for being cowards if people aren't going to smarten up and buy more of these wonderful games from Sega.

 

Watch Shenmue 3 in  2018.  69,320 backers pledged $6,333,295 when it releases, they will be lucky to sell 200,000 copies.  The mass of people don't want Shenmue.  They never owned a Dreamcast and will therefore not know what a Shenmue is.  To a millennial Shenmue is like a stripped down boring version of Vice City and don't forget that Shenmue 1 and 2 were released 17 years ago on a system that ouputs 480P.  How exactly are people supposed to pick this up at 3?

Shenmue will probably get enough coverage from video game websites and word-of-mouth mention to make it a topic of gamers around the time Shenmue 3 releases. Any decent marketer should be able to build anticipation around a game that at the time was the costliest game ever made and was one of Sega's last (I guess?) creations for it's doomed console.

[te72]

The Yakuza series is great! And Vanquish is one of the best action games ever though it was developed by Platinum Games. Also Binary Domain is a pretty cool sci-fi action game. I don't blame Sega for being cowards if people aren't going to smarten up and buy more of these wonderful games from Sega.

 

Shenmue...

I forgot to mention Yakuza when I brought up Valkyria Chronicles, it's a solid game too. In all honesty, I forgot Vanquish and Binary Domain were made by Sega... I had a lot of fun with the little bits of those I played, Vanquish in particular brought back some of the run and gun style of play from shooters of the 90's.

 

Speaking of Shenmue, is it at all related to the Yakuza series? They feel fairly similar in aesthetic.

 

 

More on the subject of business though, I was worn out when I made my last post. Consoles tend to be loss leaders, at least for a while. What this means is that the console costs more to produce than they are sold for. What makes a gaming company money is software. I mean, ideally you only need to buy one console. That initial buy may cost the manufacturer $50, but for that one console, you're going to buy quite a few games, and disc based media is extremely cheap to manufacture and distribute in comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if a $50 game has $20 of profit in it, if not more. Of course there are plenty of other considerations to take into account, but the games themselves are what makes the money.

 

So this brings me to my next point. If you make money on selling games, would you rather sell games to 10,000 people who could afford a top shelf beast of a console... or would you rather sell games to 100,000 people who could afford your more modestly priced console? Sure, the higher end hardware will likely deliver the better experience for the gamer, but the people financing these things likely only care that you buy them one way or another.

 

Personally, I think that's why Nintendo doesn't make PC games. They want you to have a certain quality of experience, the same experience that they intended when making the game. Now, if your hardware isn't capable of playing their game as intended, you are likely to have a lesser opinion of it, because your experience was sub-optimal. I like that I can pop in one of their games into anybody's compatible Nintendo console, and play the game. No configuring, no optimizing, no hiccups or patches, it just works. I know I'm not alone in that either.

 

However, I would think it pretty cool of them if Nintendo made the occasional epic for more powerful hardware like the current Sony & Microsoft stuff. May not be the financial backing to do so, plus the hurdle of development on an unfamiliar system could cause problems... but it would be interesting either way.

[KiwiArcader]

This whole subject was born out of one person's disappointment in the yet to be released hardware and it's potential specs or lack of them. Somehow it got derailed into some sort of critique of past and present consoles, all of which someone somewhere probably had some beef with their specs at the time of their release too.

 

I guess people thought Nintendo would one-up Sony and Microsoft in the hardware stakes yet when you look at it they actually haven't done that since, well, I'd hazard a guess and say the SNES.

 

The reality is that Nintendo don't have the funds to fight the big fight anymore. Sony have a gaming and appliance division to draw on. Microsoft has the world of PC operating systems and application suites to derive additional funds from, and Surface is finally making them money as well with the Surface 4 releases. Nintendo have their gaming and that's pretty much it. Add to that the increasing costs of development of consoles and games which increases the price of products to the end-user and you can see that they have to sell LOTS of everything to make money. If you sell a console at cost and everyone pirates the games you are in a world of hurt. If you drop the price of games but increase the console cost the buying public start to do the sums to see if they can afford it when if it were lower it might be more of an impulsive purchase. 

 

Someone here said previously that Nintendo probably got offered a cheap price from Nvidia to use their chipsets in the Switch. I'd put money on it that is exactly what happened. AMD is in every lounge console at present and it's generated not only income for AMD to be able to invest in the R&D for new video and CPU designs but I believe it's also had a big impact of their design thinking to the point where they are once again knocking on Intel/ Nvidia's doors in performance terms. That's got to hurt Nvidia even if only from a marketing perspective so offering the same chipsets used in their own Android based console at bargain prices to Nintendo makes sense.

 

As with everything, it's how Nintendo's and 3rd party programmers get to grips with Nintendo's underlying operating system that will determine it's viability over the next couple of years. Interesting times ahead!!!

[Data]

This whole subject was born out of one person's disappointment in the yet to be released hardware and it's potential specs or lack of them. Somehow it got derailed into some sort of critique of past and present consoles, all of which someone somewhere probably had some beef with their specs at the time of their release too.

 

I guess people thought Nintendo would one-up Sony and Microsoft in the hardware stakes yet when you look at it they actually haven't done that since, well, I'd hazard a guess and say the SNES.

 

The reality is that Nintendo don't have the funds to fight the big fight anymore. Sony have a gaming and appliance division to draw on. Microsoft has the world of PC operating systems and application suites to derive additional funds from, and Surface is finally making them money as well with the Surface 4 releases. Nintendo have their gaming and that's pretty much it. Add to that the increasing costs of development of consoles and games which increases the price of products to the end-user and you can see that they have to sell LOTS of everything to make money. If you sell a console at cost and everyone pirates the games you are in a world of hurt. If you drop the price of games but increase the console cost the buying public start to do the sums to see if they can afford it when if it were lower it might be more of an impulsive purchase. 

 

Someone here said previously that Nintendo probably got offered a cheap price from Nvidia to use their chipsets in the Switch. I'd put money on it that is exactly what happened. AMD is in every lounge console at present and it's generated not only income for AMD to be able to invest in the R&D for new video and CPU designs but I believe it's also had a big impact of their design thinking to the point where they are once again knocking on Intel/ Nvidia's doors in performance terms. That's got to hurt Nvidia even if only from a marketing perspective so offering the same chipsets used in their own Android based console at bargain prices to Nintendo makes sense.

 

As with everything, it's how Nintendo's and 3rd party programmers get to grips with Nintendo's underlying operating system that will determine it's viability over the next couple of years. Interesting times ahead!!!

 

I think Miyamoto should be moved to the portable division and Nintendo should do something new in another division where new artists can create games without Miyamoto getting jealous and ruining new and different ideas.

 

There is no way Nvidia gave a better deal than AMD would have.  No way.  Nintendo is reacting out of desperation when they drafted the switch last January.  They probably thought AMD was going to be a day late and a dollar short but the fact is, if Nintendo would have pushed the release date from March 2017 to September 2017 latest, they would have got their graphics chip that used half as much power for the same price and more performance.

[kitsunebi]

All of this wild speculation into thought processes that went into business decisions we have no way of verifying is certainly lots of fun for at least one of us, but I'd like to respond directly to the OP's desire that the NX fail as punishment for not being the most powerful system on paper.  I'm curious, would the OP have preferred an alternate future where the NX dominated over the other systems and Sony/Microsoft was a "total failure" for not matching the NX's specs?  Or does the OP want all systems to be equal, leaving the consumer to choose between 3 identical systems based solely on their exclusive games?

 

It seems to me that wishing any system to fail is antithetic to a love of gaming.  Sure, I remember what it was like as a kid when I could only afford one system and wishing that it could play ALL the games so I wouldn't miss out, but the reality is that a one-system world would see a decrease in innovation, and likewise if all systems were more or less equal in capability.

 

It's true that if there are three systems running ports of the same game, the least powerful system is likely to have the least desirable port.  Nintendo has struggled with 3rd party support because most 3rd party developers are lazy and just want to port their games to all platforms as is to minimize effort and maximize profit.

 

However, so long as a system's hardware can offer something the others can't, game designers have an opportunity to take advantage of that difference and offer something unique.   Nintendo's strength for some time now has been to create hardware that provides the developers with that opportunity, should they be up to making the effort.  Many developers couldn't be bothered to try taking advantage of a single system's unique strengths, and so Nintendo is unlikely to ever lead the pack again, so far as the home console market goes.  But making their system specs comparable to MS and Sony could actually be harmful to everyone in the long run, since the world simply wouldn't need 3 consoles that were more or less identical.

[Data]

 I'm curious, would the OP have preferred an alternate future where the NX dominated over the other systems and Sony/Microsoft was a "total failure" for not matching the NX's specs?  Or does the OP want all systems to be equal, leaving the consumer to choose between 3 identical systems based solely on their exclusive games?

 

It seems to me that wishing any system to fail is antithetic to a love of gaming.  Sure, I remember what it was like as a kid when I could only afford one system and wishing that it could play ALL the games so I wouldn't miss out, but the reality is that a one-system world would see a decrease in innovation, and likewise if all systems were more or less equal in capability.

 

It's true that if there are three systems running ports of the same game, the least powerful system is likely to have the least desirable port.  Nintendo has struggled with 3rd party support because most 3rd party developers are lazy and just want to port their games to all platforms as is to minimize effort and maximize profit.

 

However, so long as a system's hardware can offer something the others can't, game designers have an opportunity to take advantage of that difference and offer something unique.   Nintendo's strength for some time now has been to create hardware that provides the developers with that opportunity, should they be up to making the effort.  Many developers couldn't be bothered to try taking advantage of a single system's unique strengths, and so Nintendo is unlikely to ever lead the pack again, so far as the home console market goes.  But making their system specs comparable to MS and Sony could actually be harmful to everyone in the long run, since the world simply wouldn't need 3 consoles that were more or less identical.

 

- OP starts by saying he wishes they would  fail so they can make games for PC. I assume he also means other consoles.  This is fair.

He then makes the argument that Nintendo should give up the Blue Ocean Strategy.

This strategy argue that companies can succeed not by battling competitors, but rather by creating ″blue oceans″ of uncontested market space. 

It's fine that Nintendo made a handheld, it's a good money maker for them.  I and many others want to see Nintendo move Miyamoto to the handheld division while another division can develop new games for the current generation without the input from Nintendo's old management.  Like Goldeneye 2 if they hadn't been so abusive to Rare. 

 

- Sometimes failure is the springboard to success.

 

- Only the Japanese would make such a weak console and then blame the developers of being lazy.  You need to respect the amount of work that goes into a game.  Millions of hours in some cases of highly skilled workers.  When they tell you to make it fit on a cartridge, this is when we have to refuse.

 

- Developers enjoyed programming the controls to work on Nintendo's Wiimotes but many games are more fun to play with Pro controllers.  So it wasn't the unique input device for Wii but rather that the hardware was too  far behind technically for developers to tweak.  They needed major overhauls at least.

[KiwiArcader]

The latest news on those little controllers is interesting indeed. Sounds like yet another unique take on controllers by Nintendo......

[Data]

The latest news on those little controllers is interesting indeed. Sounds like yet another unique take on controllers by Nintendo......

 

They reused alot of old parts to make this system.  A Wii U gamepad, a couple wii motes + nunchucks and an infrared camera.  I give them credit for actually getting this thing working however I don't think tabletop mode will be very popular however using it as a portable one piece will likely be comfortable.

 

I found a beta that Nintendo was planning earlier.

 

[orthicviper]

...I'd like to respond directly to the OP's desire that the NX fail as punishment for not being the most powerful system on paper.  I'm curious, would the OP have preferred an alternate future where the NX dominated over the other systems and Sony/Microsoft was a "total failure" for not matching the NX's specs?  Or does the OP want all systems to be equal, leaving the consumer to choose between 3 identical systems based solely on their exclusive games?

 

It seems to me that wishing any system to fail is antithetic to a love of gaming.  Sure, I remember what it was like as a kid when I could only afford one system and wishing that it could play ALL the games so I wouldn't miss out, but the reality is that a one-system world would see a decrease in innovation, and likewise if all systems were more or less equal in capability.

 

It's true that if there are three systems running ports of the same game, the least powerful system is likely to have the least desirable port.  Nintendo has struggled with 3rd party support because most 3rd party developers are lazy and just want to port their games to all platforms as is to minimize effort and maximize profit...

 

I want all game systems to fail. Unlike most/all people I think competition between console manufacturers hurts gamers instead of benefits them. We only need competition between game developers! When console manufacturers compete, we end up spending thousands of dollars more if we want to get all the console exclusives and get extra controllers for our friends or family. Console competition doesn't exist in some manner that I see as beneficial to gamers.

 

I don't see Sony and Microsoft competing to lower prices on their pay-to-play-online services but instead Sony recently raised the price of Playstation Now. These services cost a lot more than they're worth IMO. For one Sony doesn't even seem to use dedicated services and gaming online on their PS4 is a slower experience than on Xbox Live. These companies don't even make their systems backwards compatible with the previous generation's controllers which is just a waste of our money and environmental considerations. 

 

So can you or someone give me examples of how this competition is benefiting gamers? Between timed and permanent exclusives I'm seeing no benefit here for anyone who doesn't have a very large disposable income. 

 

I do think Sony made the truest attempt at being competitive when they made the Cell processor for PS3. It didn't work out well but at least they really did try to do something to make their system stand out. That and Nintendo's Wiimote are the finest examples of being competitive or at least trying to be that I can think of off the top of my head. But people didn't like Cells and Wiimotes so it was of little benefit to gamers.

 

The best competition would be if only one console manufacturer was left and they had to justify to the world why we should game on their console instead of a PC. Without having to spend a lot on marketing to beat the other two big names and pay for timed exclusives they'd have more money to invest in innovative new hardware and games. 

[kitsunebi]

The best competition would be if only one console manufacturer was left and they had to justify to the world why we should game on their console instead of a PC. Without having to spend a lot on marketing to beat the other two big names and pay for timed exclusives they'd have more money to invest in innovative new hardware and games. 

 

First of all it's pointless to be talking about consoles being replaced by the PC.  Two of the big three consoles and many of the most prestigious developers are based in a country that has a virtually non-existent PC gaming market, so unless Sony and Nintendo both exit the console market, it will always exist as distinctly separate from the PC market.

 

Your second point is true if you're only talking about a single first party developer (whichever of the three you imagine could emerge as the only console manufacturer).  If Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony was the only company in town making consoles, then of course their profits would be higher.  They might even use those profits to develop "innovative new hardware and games" as you say, although being the only product available on the market, they certainly wouldn't be under any pressure to do so.

 

There's no historical precedent for a one-system market, so it's all speculation, but what is almost definitely true is that 3rd party developers would take a hit financially.  No longer being able to sell their games on multiple platforms or receive financial compensation for exclusivity might not even be the worst of their problems.  They also have to deal with the fact that they would be at the mercy of Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony in all things.  Unlike a PC, a console isn't an open platform, so whichever first party is in exclusive control of the market would be able to dictate terms to third party publishers from a much stronger position of power than they have currently.  This could lead the 3rd party developers to be more innovative to stand out, or it could cause all but the most successful developers to go out of business, leaving those that remain to play it safe by releasing only updates to proven sellers.

[te72]

I think a single console market would bring out the worst habits of business. Without competition, nobody would have any incentive to provide you with a better product. Study business, study economics, you will find that when competition is suppressed, the consumer tends to get the short end of the stick.

 

Also, I pointed out that the best reason to play on consoles is a simple one: They almost always work as intended, and you will have the experience that the developer was creating. Another big reason? Affordability. If I wanted to keep up with modern gaming during the PS3's lifespan, how many times would I have had to upgrade my computer over the years in order to play the same games? Sure, they'd likely play better on PC, assuming I spent the money, but there is big incentive to optimizing a game for a particular system... You're likely to sell more if the game plays well.

[orthicviper]

I still believe a single console manufacturer competing only with PC would be the best situation for gamers. I believe the console maker would still make an effort to win customers from the PC but if they stagnated and became shitty then people would have no choice but to buy a PC which is my utopian dream world that I will fight like a revolutionary for on behalf of the PC Master Race...

 

And I don't think you would need to do much upgrading te72 if any, because one thing many PC gamers complained a lot about during the PS3 era is how the consoles were holding back PC graphics because of the games that were designed for them and then ported to PC. As your frame rates lowered you could keep reducing your settings every couple of years until towards the end of the PS3's life and then your PC graphics would end up being PS3 quality anyway. Just my not-so-informed opinion.

[kitsunebi]

I don't think the PC has a chance of winning console converts or vice versa.  People who like to play on consoles like to do so because they think it's easier/cheaper/more reliable/etc., not because they think it's the best platform.

 

Speaking as someone who has always gamed on both PC and console, I can tell you that my utopian dream is to have consoles and PCs exist as completely separate gaming experiences, the way they used to be.  In recent years, PC games and console games have become more or less one and the same, and I feel the PC gaming scene in particular has suffered for it.  I'm not speaking of hardware or software capabilities, I'm strictly speaking about game design.  Console games have gotten smarter over time, and PC games have gotten dumber, until the two reached a sort of equilibrium in the middle somewhere.  I long for the days when consoles played console games and PCs played PC games, and there was virtually no crossover between the two.

[Data]

I think a single console market would bring out the worst habits of business. Without competition, nobody would have any incentive to provide you with a better product. Study business, study economics, you will find that when competition is suppressed, the consumer tends to get the short end of the stick.

 

Also, I pointed out that the best reason to play on consoles is a simple one: They almost always work as intended, and you will have the experience that the developer was creating. Another big reason? Affordability. If I wanted to keep up with modern gaming during the PS3's lifespan, how many times would I have had to upgrade my computer over the years in order to play the same games? Sure, they'd likely play better on PC, assuming I spent the money, but there is big incentive to optimizing a game for a particular system... You're likely to sell more if the game plays well.

- Agreed on first point

- Working as intended, affordability of consoles.  This is subjective.  It's true if you drop a disk in your Playstation it will work but the same PC user can achieve higher fidelity, sound, free updates, mods and use the consoles controllers. 

I absolutely need a PC to work on at home there are so many things I can do with it including playing almost all the console games.  If money is a concern but you like what I can do with my computer, then save the 4 or 5 hundred dollars you would have spent on the console.  The console will be outdated as soon as it's released.

 

I still believe a single console manufacturer competing only with PC would be the best situation for gamers. I believe the console maker would still make an effort to win customers from the PC but if they stagnated and became shitty then people would have no choice but to buy a PC which is my utopian dream world that I will fight like a revolutionary for on behalf of the PC Master Race...

 

And I don't think you would need to do much upgrading te72 if any, because one thing many PC gamers complained a lot about during the PS3 era is how the consoles were holding back PC graphics because of the games that were designed for them and then ported to PC. As your frame rates lowered you could keep reducing your settings every couple of years until towards the end of the PS3's life and then your PC graphics would end up being PS3 quality anyway. Just my not-so-informed opinion.

 This console couldn't be Xbox then.  Maybe you weren't around  when Microsoft got sued in 1998 for monopolizing the Operating system and Software industry.  They paid a fortune and had their company broken up.  It would be in our's and Microsoft's best interest if at least one other console remains.

 

I don't think the PC has a chance of winning console converts or vice versa.  People who like to play on consoles like to do so because they think it's easier/cheaper/more reliable/etc., not because they think it's the best platform.

 

Speaking as someone who has always gamed on both PC and console, I can tell you that my utopian dream is to have consoles and PCs exist as completely separate gaming experiences, the way they used to be.  In recent years, PC games and console games have become more or less one and the same, and I feel the PC gaming scene in particular has suffered for it.  I'm not speaking of hardware or software capabilities, I'm strictly speaking about game design.  Console games have gotten smarter over time, and PC games have gotten dumber, until the two reached a sort of equilibrium in the middle somewhere.  I long for the days when consoles played console games and PCs played PC games, and there was virtually no crossover between the two.

 

I think more people will move to PC this year because of the latest achievments in processors.  People will get tired of buying a new console every three to four years and realize that only a small investment into a computer they can use anyway will get them playing the most popular online game right now, Blizzard's Overwatch.

[te72]

I don't think the PC has a chance of winning console converts or vice versa.  People who like to play on consoles like to do so because they think it's easier/cheaper/more reliable/etc., not because they think it's the best platform.

 

I long for the days when consoles played console games and PCs played PC games, and there was virtually no crossover between the two.

I play games on consoles and use a computer for computer stuff. Same reason I won't own a smart phone. Convenient though it may be to have one machine able to do lots of things, rarely in my experience does it do anything as well as a dedicated machine. My computer does computer stuff significantly better than my work phone can. My camera takes significantly better pictures than my work phone can. My (literally any system I have) plays games better than my work phone can.

 

It's just a matter of compromise in the name of versatility, and I don't like it. So, I tend to not play games on my computer all that much. Stuff from the 90's, mostly, and that's about it.

 

Sounds like you miss the gaming scene of the late 90's as much as I do...

 

 

- Agreed on first point

- Working as intended, affordability of consoles.  This is subjective.  It's true if you drop a disk in your Playstation it will work but the same PC user can achieve higher fidelity, sound, free updates, mods and use the consoles controllers. 

I absolutely need a PC to work on at home there are so many things I can do with it including playing almost all the console games.  If money is a concern but you like what I can do with my computer, then save the 4 or 5 hundred dollars you would have spent on the console.  The console will be outdated as soon as it's released.

 

 This console couldn't be Xbox then.

 

I think more people will move to PC this year because of the latest achievments in processors.  People will get tired of buying a new console every three to four years and realize that only a small investment into a computer they can use anyway will get them playing the most popular online game right now, Blizzard's Overwatch.

To address your points, I find that in my case, time spent reading up on the many ways to tinker with and set up a game could better be spent playing the game. I have a nasty habit of reading about things far more than actually DOING them, so PC gaming with its myriad of options just isn't a good idea for me. I'd always be thinking, "oh, I would have had a better experience had I used THIS setting," or, "why isn't this working like I was wanting it to?" That would just frustrate me in the end, and I find that just jumping into an experience is far more rewarding.

 

Plus, I saw a t-shirt that said something along the lines of, "999 bugs in the code, 999 bugs, patch one line, reboot the code, 1024 bugs in the codes..." It seems fitting in some cases.

 

The one console versus PC argument is an interesting, if perhaps redundant one. What games are there that AREN'T on PC these days? Heck, two of the three consoles are very much just cheap PC's these days... However, I'll submit that the only way that you could have only one console and it have any chance of being a benefit to gamers (remember, competition is a good thing for everyone), is if Sony and Nintendo merged. Get all the creativity of Nintendo with the muscle and money of the Sony side of things... at least in theory.

 

That said, anyone remember the last time those two tried to cooperate?

 

Another issue I have, which isn't necessarily a PC or console issue, but rather a gaming in general issue, is that I never get the feeling that I'm playing a finished game anymore. This goes back to the, "I could make this better if..." argument that Jake supports with better hardware, mods, etc. While I appreciate having freedom over the reins of using the development tools to design certain bits of the game (the level editor on the Tony Hawk games are a good example), I don't feel like I should have to make the game good to start with. That's the developer's job. Looking at you, Little Big Planet.

 

This is where "free updates and mods" don't sit well with me. This was the birthplace of DLC, which gave console developers an excuse to not finish a game, as they could always "fix" it later, for a convenient fee, of course. As Kitsunebi pointed out, PC and console gaming has largely become one in the same these days, and I feel like developers on both sides are giving us "good enough" instead of "I'm proud of this game we've made," if that makes sense. An example here would be the games that you can play during development. Look how many games you can play that aren't even remotely done. Granted, it's smart business in the sense that hey, free beta testing and QC, but from a marketing standpoint, by the time you're "done" with your game, it's been in the public eye for years, and personally, I've lost interest.

 

Plus, as a consumer, I have no incentive to buy a game when it comes out. I know damned well they're going to be patching it to fix bugs within days of release, and releasing the rest of the game for the next year or two, so why would I pay full price for an unfinished game? By the time the "game of the year" or "finished" edition comes out, I really just don't care anymore. On the plus side, this has saved me a lot of time by not playing the chaff, and only playing the games that stand the test of time and hold up years later. Oh, but wait, they're releasing a remastered version on current hardware? Oh for fuck's sake... here we go again. I never feel like I'm getting the best experience because the developers don't know when to walk away and let a game stand on its own merits, warts and all.

 

I'm done ranting for now, I promise.

[orthicviper]

te72, you're supposed to enjoy games because of their quality, not because of hype or how newly released they are.