Multiple Consoles, do we need them?
- Thread starter VZLANemesis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Welcome to the escapist?Hyperion1 said:
What the fuck? What exactly then would be the point of multiple consoles?GoldenRaz said:
PSN vs. Xbox live market? don't get your point...
There won't be a big bastard child. Even if there will be, they won't have any reason to make quality games, in which case there will (in due time) be some developer who's had it and starts it's own console up with it's own games that ARE of high quality. Naturally, there will be competition.
No as several other people have said competition makes consoles better though racing to get your console out first is BAD. I'm talking to you microsoft =.=
But also the consoles appeal to different people, and to me the thought of the 3 companies making a super console equals an expensive disaster involving stupid nun chuck controllers.
But also the consoles appeal to different people, and to me the thought of the 3 companies making a super console equals an expensive disaster involving stupid nun chuck controllers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it the GAME developers, NOT the CONSOLE developers, that decides if games are to be released on several platforms. Right?
So basically some of you might as well be saying that Universal should release both on DVD and Blu-ray as so give more competition. But that's besides the point! If I make a game, perhaps I don't want to release my game on Xbox simply because I don't think it's a wise decision to release it on PS3 for some reason, I don't see why I should do so simply so I don't create a monopoly on my games. It's I that has a monopoly on MY games, because it's I that is making and selling them, not Sony or Microsoft. Sure they probably get some license fee's, but still you get the idea.
So basically some of you might as well be saying that Universal should release both on DVD and Blu-ray as so give more competition. But that's besides the point! If I make a game, perhaps I don't want to release my game on Xbox simply because I don't think it's a wise decision to release it on PS3 for some reason, I don't see why I should do so simply so I don't create a monopoly on my games. It's I that has a monopoly on MY games, because it's I that is making and selling them, not Sony or Microsoft. Sure they probably get some license fee's, but still you get the idea.
Microsoft and Sony pay the game developers to make the games exclusive, and make exclusive extra content, and make time-exclusive games, and etc.Sockerbit said:
So yeah, I correct you... you are wrong
Consoles appeal to different people? PS3 people and Xbox 360 different, really doubt it...ThePocketWeasel said:
We're all gamers, we want access to all games and not just the ones MY console's company can buy to their side...
VZLANemesis said:
Yes, it's not really a realistic thought that exclusives would stop being produced, but then they would compete about other things, like online, hardware, price etc. The same thing with other businesses: McDonalds has toys, Burger King does not (as far as I know), and that's really all the difference between the two. It's not like one has exclusive soda for you to buy or exclusive rights to have tomatoes on their hamburgers. The only difference is what they charge and their other services.-Seraph- said:
And no, I do NOT expect exclusives to ever truly disappear, but I don't think they need to exist just so that consoles have something to fight about. The only ones who gets punished by this are the consumers (i.e. we buyers).
Sorry, I meant to put in what I meant xDVZLANemesis said:
Wii's appeal to younger people or people who want to play party type games. I find xbox and PS3 gamers to be more serious than Wii gamers.
But yeah PS3 and 360 gamers are pretty much they same, the majority of them also moan about how rubbish Wii graphics are and how crap the games are.
winning it is a good thing?oliveira8 said:
Anyways, I don't see the problem with games because games will have more competition against each other (Killzone won't just be competing with PS3 shooters, but every shooter). Console makers would definitely push the envelopes because with each iteration of consoles, they make a lot of money, and each generation of console needs to be significantly better than the previous generation or else the consumers would rather play with the old console until the new console gets dirt cheap with tons of games.
And people who argue for higher prices needs to understand that game prices will not behave differently than in a multi-console world because there are even more competition in a single console industry. But the problem is with consoles, however, that's not a major problem since in a single console industry, that console will have so many games in its generation that gamers can easily just wait till the new console drops in price by playing the old games.
I think which ever company is in its own industry, winning is very satisfactory. That's like monopoly, way more satisfying than in a competition. Business is not a sports event, it's business. The goal is to eliminate competition.oliveira8 said:
Why not? It eliminates the stupid console war, and encourages video game wars, which isn't a bad thing because it means way more competition.oliveira8 said:
No. By having two/three consoles, it makes the makers of the consoles put out better consoles with better games on it.ThisNewGuy said:
Competition makes people work harder in outdoing others. Which means better stuff for the customer.
"Hey! If the PS1 sells why make a new one? Its not like anyone is releasing a better console?"