No more consoles!

[Smeghead]

I can't see a single format sustaining a wide choice of publishers, and look what happened to FIFA when EA took their eye off the ball.

It already does, it's PS2 :P

[Halo]

Do you want the price of consoles to rise? No, then I hope you don't mind multiple formats.

Single formats mean that a single company can control Licensing Fees for games, which will rise due to the lack of competition. Hardware prices will rise, again due to the lack of competitors and the fact they won't make a loss on the hardware if they don't have to. They could basically charge what they like.

Because it's not important that the console has a good brand, a flood of extreme poor games would arrive as the company would give a license to anyone.

First party games would be less important, and because of that smaller amounts of money will be spent designing games as companies won't be prepared to take a loss.

If anyone can manufacture machines, a competitor will bring out a slightly improved machine that is incompatable with the old ones. Old consoles will die extremely quickly by the company trying to push their new, better product and with no alternative people will buy it.

If you mean multi-console with many manufacturers, expect plenty of dreadful games and an extremely expensive console. No-one would be prepared to make a loss on it would they?

A multiconsole market is a good thing.[/list]

[Burai]

The huge downside of a single format would be the lack of competition.

Without competition, companies get lazy and their egos get a boost. Sega and Nintendo had gotten lazy and Sony punished them for their mistakes. Without competition, a company won't thrive to innovate or improve itself, that's why I think 3 consoles is fair. Nothing more, nothing less please.

Not at all. Sony took a massive gamble to get where they are. They turned the market completely on it's head and changed the face of gaming completely.

But did Microsoft do that? Did they come in and bring gaming to a new demographic, bring brand new and exciting ideas to the table? Did they ****. They made PS2.5. Same old, same old, but in a new box.

And that's the sticking point here. Hardware upgrades are now showing less and less improvements. Back in the day, even hardware of the same generation was as different as different can be. Take the SNES and Mega Drive. Even cross-platform titles had very different looks and sounds to them. You could easily say "That's running on a SNES, not a Mega Drive". Then we hit the first 3D consoles and you could easily tell the difference between Saturn, PlayStation and Nintendo 64 games. Each platform had its own distinctive look in terms of visuals.

But then the Dreamcast came out and suddenly we got stuck. the first wave PS2 games were expected to destroy everything that had been seen on Dreamcast, but they just didn't. Indeed, even now it takes a large, well funded team to create a PS2 game that couldn't be done on a Dreamcast. And then the amazing Xbox and GameCube came along and desipte an addtional 2 years of technological progression what did they have that was so much better than PS2? Absolutely nothing.

Indeed, it's one of the reasons why Xbox's haven't sold as well as Microsoft would have liked. It's just not different enough from what people have already got to justify a mid-generation trade-in.

2005 is going to be really stupid. You're going to have all three manufacturers coming out, saying how their console will completely revolutuionise, how it'll be so much better than anything else and all you can see are 3 identical machines all doing exactly the same bloody thing.

[Burai]

Do you want the price of consoles to rise? No, then I hope you don't mind multiple formats.

Single formats mean that a single company can control Licensing Fees for games, which will rise due to the lack of competition. Hardware prices will rise, again due to the lack of competitors and the fact they won't make a loss on the hardware if they don't have to. They could basically charge what they like.

Bull****. Who's going to buy a really expensive console? No-one. Just because they could make a ?1000 console doesn't mean they would, simply because no-one would buy it and they'd go bust for being so ****ing stupid to have the front to charge a stupid amount of money in the first place.

If you'd bought all 3 current machines from new, you'd have spent ?750 in total. So even with a ?400 console I'd be all for it. Thanks, you've saved me ?350 right there.

Because it's not important that the console has a good brand, a flood of extreme poor games would arrive as the company would give a license to anyone.

First party games would be less important, and because of that smaller amounts of money will be spent designing games as companies won't be prepared to take a loss.

You're basically describing something that wouldn't happen. Look at the shelves of Blockbuster. Lots of videos and DVDs. 90% of those are rubbish. A further 50% of that figure are completely unwatchable **** for which the producer deserves to die. But does that make the good films on the shelves suddenly any less good? The music, film and TV markets are completely open, but you don't see people making **** because they can get away with it. You see people making better entertainment as there is so much to compete against.

If anyone can manufacture machines, a competitor will bring out a slightly improved machine that is incompatable with the old ones. Old consoles will die extremely quickly by the company trying to push their new, better product and with no alternative people will buy it.

That's why you set a standard. Competition did **** all for the home video market, killing off Beta which was far superior to VHS and leaving people with a big collection of useless tapes. Dreamcast anyone?

If you mean multi-console with many manufacturers, expect plenty of dreadful games and an extremely expensive console. No-one would be prepared to make a loss on it would they?

You mean like how all CD players cost exactly the same and like how all DVD players cost exactly the same?

You set the hardware standard, so it's up to the manufacturer to come up with different boxes to put it in. PS2's prce has been kept artificially high, simply because they can. But if you had loads of people making them... Bush's ?80 PS2 would be your bottom-end deck, with one rubbish controller and only composite/phono out. Yet the ?250 Panasonic version would feature a whole array of output options, a built in DVD player, built in network adapter, RF controllers and a nice brushed aluminium front panel.

[SonicMarmite]

All this stuff is such a load of ****e. Mutha****in spoon lovers. ?_?

Bout time there was a hardware standard. If you think things rock with multi consoles just look how XBOX and GC are totally killing EACH OTHER, and causing havoc for the small to medium publishers who have to decide which projects to put on which machine without losing ****loads of money.

Competition on a single format would be GREATER. Suddenly mario has to outdo jak. Wipeout has to trounce Fzero. Halo has to whup halflife 2. That obviously means all developers are just going to do meh fifa type stuff. NOT! PC market isn`t comparison as its small, and very deeply rooted in specific genres of dominant game that have been established over the years. GB isn`t fair comparison as it isn`t exactly the primary focus of games players worldwide. In fact nothing is fair comparison as the industry in the BIG PICTURE hasn`t reached maturity yet.

Hardware-wise, like Burai says, its likely we`ll have licensed chipsets, which gives no big headache to manufacturer who makes it as they`ll get royalties from all of em anyway without having to pay to manufacture them, especially rocking stuff since we all know how console makers allegedly make little money from the actual hardware. Nintendo licensed PS5 with like miyamoto designed pads, or sega ones that are clear, or MS ones that crash all the time ( <pose> D ), or maybe stuff like generic electronics goods type stuff with budget manufacturers right up to high end loaded-with-lots-of-buttons-O_O-which-rocks. Maybe even cadburys ones that drop out a miniroll everytime u get a high score.

At the moment games industry must break out of the current cycle before it kinda black holes itself and leaves us with the inevitable dominant player but minus the dozens of devs who backed the wrong horse on the way.

PS. If you`re worried about games industry ending up like PC games industry, wtF are you all backing xbox for? O_o;;

[Mr Spew]

This diversity thing. I don't see it. Other than games made by (and greatly financed by) first parties and bought exclusives, there just aren't really any games that set any of the consoles apart.

Can you tell the difference between Xbox Soul Calibur II and PS2 Soul Calibur II?

Yes, pretty easily. The characters have rough edges, the colour is bland, and there's slowdown.

Thing is, you wouldn't get this single-format across the world either, as US and Japanese companies just wouldn't agree.

And...Nintendo and Microsoft would always want to make their own consoles, in their unique way, with Sony wanting to charge extortionate prices for their sub-par machine.

The Xbox is no more like a PC than the PS2. The PS2 has a HDD, but you just have to buy it (which is a joke for ?100, just to play one game: FFXI), and a Network Adapter you also have to buy.

Microsoft has pumped millions into it's LIVE network, they wouldn't give that now. And Sony...with it's wank network, I doubt they'd want to start again (but I don't see why they don't).

It just wouldn't happen now, and I wouldn't want it to. Look at the amount of **** films, and **** music. Games are meant to be enjoyed on unique systems, with their own little idiosyncrasies. Let it just rest at that.

[Mr Spew]

Oh, and GBA NEXT?

Since when did they say they're making that?

I doubt they'd update it for at least another 6 - 10 years. Like the original GameBoy.

[SonicMarmite]

The Xbox is no more like a PC than the PS2.

Umm d00d. Its got like pc bits in it. And its os is based on a pc os. Made by the worlds most widely associated-with-pc`s company. With pc bits. (It even runs pc programs)

[Man in a suitcase]

And that's the sticking point here. Hardware upgrades are now showing less and less improvements. Back in the day, even hardware of the same generation was as different as different can be. Take the SNES and Mega Drive. Even cross-platform titles had very different looks and sounds to them. You could easily say "That's running on a SNES, not a Mega Drive". Then we hit the first 3D consoles and you could easily tell the difference between Saturn, PlayStation and Nintendo 64 games. Each platform had its own distinctive look in terms of visuals.

So what you're saying is you don't mind parting for three different formats as long as they all do something substantially different?.

I agree there's far too much 'oh go on then, me too' but I still wouldn't go for a single format.

[Burai]

Yes, pretty easily. The characters have rough edges, the colour is bland, and there's slowdown.

Thing is, you wouldn't get this single-format across the world either, as US and Japanese companies just wouldn't agree.

And...Nintendo and Microsoft would always want to make their own consoles, in their unique way, with Sony wanting to charge extortionate prices for their sub-par machine.

The Xbox is no more like a PC than the PS2. The PS2 has a HDD, but you just have to buy it (which is a joke for ?100, just to play one game: FFXI), and a Network Adapter you also have to buy.

Microsoft has pumped millions into it's LIVE network, they wouldn't give that now. And Sony...with it's wank network, I doubt they'd want to start again (but I don't see why they don't).

It just wouldn't happen now, and I wouldn't want it to. Look at the amount of **** films, and **** music. Games are meant to be enjoyed on unique systems, with their own little idiosyncrasies. Let it just rest at that.

I would let it rest at that if only what you were saying anything other than what a Microsoft marketing man would believe. Your anti-PS2/Pro-Xbox idiocy completely skews your points beyond the point of sensible debate.

So what you're saying is you don't mind parting for three different formats as long as they all do something substantially different?.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The current consoles are so similar in terms of ability that there is absolutely no benefit for a third party to try something different with say, the Xbox version of a game compared to the PS2 version. Bump-mapping, anti-aliasing, loading off the hard drive and whatever are completely superficial. I'm talking things like Mode 7. Something that really makes a machine stand out and makes its games unique.

I agree there's far too much 'oh go on then, me too' but I still wouldn't go for a single format.

Why would that be? You're gonna have to justify that somehow.

[Man in a suitcase]

The situation we're in right now will see no major advance until they change the way we interact.

What that looks like, who knows?.

[Magnakai]

Oh, and GBA NEXT?

Since when did they say they're making that?

I doubt they'd update it for at least another 6 - 10 years. Like the original GameBoy.

Well, it's merely speculation at the moment...
But I think we'll see a new Gameboy long before then. I'd be ridiculously suprised if we didn't see one before the PSP.

[Manta Ray vs Guitar]

I doubt they'd update it for at least another 6 - 10 years. Like the original GameBoy.

Things have changed, obviously.

[Brats]

Competition on a single format would be GREATER.

Absolutely spot on . I'm all for a single format now that hardware is about to reach maturity. If there were a single format, whoever "won" would be forced to release licences to other manufacturers to release other units, like Philips did with CD.

It's a complete no brainer really.

[tankplanker]

DVD is due for replacement in a couple of years. HDTV requires a much larger capacity for storage than DVD can provide, and there is no way that movie studios are going to keep pushing DVDs when HDTV looks better, who's going to keeping buying DVDs?

Everyone.
It's all very well to say that HDTV looks better, but when so few people have good enough TVs to really see the quality of a properly encoded DVD, let alone a higher bit-rate HDTV specific movie, there's no way it's going to make a proper mark. Remember laserdiscs?
That's not to mention all the general public that has invested in DVD players. Nowadays, almost everyone and their dog have picked up at least an ?89 budget player. And all the video shops have spent a very large chunk converting their stock to DVD. And don't forget that chains would dislike floating a load of money into an unknown format. If you don't have the support of Blockbuster and Wal-Mart, you're screwed.
No, I think it's fair to say that DVD's going to be with us for quite a few years more.

Utter crap I'm afraid, the broadcasters in the States and (more so) in Japan are already moving to HDTV. You don't have a choice in the matter if the broadcaster only puts out HDTV, which will be the case within ten years (not including Europe)

You have also forgotten that the people most interested in picture quality are the people that spend the most money on AV and thus make the most profit for the manufactures. Do you really see someone with a high end HDTV system putting up with inferior DVDs for new releases?

Budget system owners (people who pay less than ?100 for the DVD players for example) won't adopt the new standard until it is again available for less than a ton in the supermarkets. The amount of people I know that have waited for that price point for DVDs is massive, that?s a good five years from when I first saw a DVD player in this country.

I think this continued upgrade path for a single format made by multiple manufactures will be another problem, the majority of people won't upgrade when the new version of the hardware is released, resulting in poor support for the new platform. Obviously this is not a problem if you feel that games hardware improvements are only going to be small in the future.

Multi format games suck and I do not see any logical reason for their existence. What does worry me is Sega's stance that they are going to alter their release schedule and content to fit around the rest of the market. What if other publishers took the same stance? Single format has to result in less games being made, it will result in the big games selling more and the niche games selling less.

You can't compare DVDs against games, for 99% of all DVDs they have already made their profit back from the initial revue stream be it TV or Cinema - the DVD release is just another revue stream, not its primary source of income.

The game revue stream is more similar to music CDs (except games obviously have a shorter lifespan for shop sales), and how many music CDs actually make a profit for the publishers? Publishers rely on a few key artists to make all of their profit, and they screw all new artists whether they are successful or not.