There has been talk in the past about the major game console companies pooling their resources and creating one home console.

Now, before you go off half-cocked...listen to what I am about to say...

The real money is made with the sale of software. With this in mind, and the fact that a unified console would mean substantially reduced hardware costs for each of the game companies, the major game companies could compete through major franchise games rather than through game consoles and make a boat load of money without taking all of the risk that a new console will sell below expectation or even worse - fail.

The gamer still wins, because the competition has been maintained. All this competition would reduce the number of ' junk' games released that waste both developer and gamer time and money.

The game companies still win, because they would only put their better, money-making, games on the market to go against their competition.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

Im all for ne main console. The costs would be benifitial. The only real decisions would be what games you want instead of what console.

But for some reason it seems like theres a big downside to all this...i just cant think of what it is.

Mass X,

Does the word ' proprietary' mean anything to you?

Maybe the phrase " Mine, all mine!" ?

Each company wants their own format to justify their separate existence, but it doesn' t really help the gamer or the console maker.

Haven' t you ever wanted a game that was developed for ' another' system?

I have. I was unable to buy both systems, so I just did without.

This is what I' m talking about...lost sales due to short-sightedness by the console developers.

Maybe the future will bring unification...only time will tell...

NO.

I know a little something about this, DaRoosh, so hear me well.

The process of a video game being made is complex. But simply put, developers create the game, search out a publisher if they don' t already have one, who in turn brings it to whichever console-maker they like. Sometimes, the game is designed well in advance to be multi-platform; other times, it' s designed exclusively for one system.

Now, if you have only one console, the competition for sales dies. Franchises competing against one another don' t mean anything, because the general gaming public all has the same system, and the sales for all those big-name titles will skyrocket. There will be no shortage of buyers at all. Now, on the surface, this seems like a good thing- high sales, every game made can reach every gamer out there, and everything is all rosy in the developing world.

But this is not the way of business. This " unified" console has it all, and when that happens, there is zero reason left to innovate and advance. They' re not striving to top anybody else, and what we' ll get is the same stuff doled out year after year, and gamers buying it over and over, unaware or uncaring that they' re playing lesser quality stuff. If it' s the only thing available, it will be bought and played. New generations of gamers will just assume that this is the way games are, and the " olden days" really WERE the " golden days."

Costs can be cut to almost nothing; those high-priced artists, designers, writers, and programmers really aren' t necessary. Everyone knows what the potential of the system is, and the public is going to buy anything that' s thrown at them. The price of games can drop to $10, easily covering the cost of their lower-quality " slave labor." Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo...they don' t care. The money continues to flow, and at an even faster rate than before, with less expenses to cover. They become more filthy rich than they are...and we suffer.

In the world of big business, the consumer will always, ALWAYS lose to a mega-global conglomerate that has cornered a particular industry.

Today, the three exchange the metaphorical " blows," so-to-speak. They scramble around madly for each holiday season, desperately trying to produce the absolute best software they can provide to the public in the hopes that sales for their games will skyrocket, while the hopes of the console-makers who bought the game from the publishers also go up.

Competition is the key to everything.

It keeps the corporate money train at bay, it ratchets up the requirements for what will sell in an increasingly competitive market, and in the end, the consumer wins BIG. But so do the merchants; they come out smelling like roses as well, so long as this video game craze continues on its torrid pace. Take away competition from console to console and corporation to corporation, stagnation will envelop the industry so fast, it' ll make your head spin.

No, no I do not agree with your idea. This is the world of economics, and within our current system, we game fans would be left out in the cold.

For one, the competition can only go as far as current technology allows. None of the game systems are pushing any envelopes for technological supremecy.

It' s the PC that' s lightyears ahead of the home console, and that is where the technological breakthroughs occur - the true competition, that is.

If the $$ is all that is chased, and innovation is left behind, all you will have is trash games - that I agree with you on, fathoms.

However, innovation appears to come from the individual development houses - not so much from the console makers. With this in mind, the console makers could just let the innovative developers do ' their' thing, while the console makers could work on what will be the ' next-gen' system (console). Hmmm, isn' t that what they are already doing?

Remember, competition doesn' t happen without cooperation. Ironic, isn' t it?

None of the console makers have anything to lose, and they have everything to gain.

In the world of big business, the consumer will always, ALWAYS lose to a mega-global conglomerate that has cornered a particular industry.

What do you think would happen to a major company if they suddenly lost major sales?

I' ll tell you...they would restructure by laying-off personnel, shopping around for better distributor prices and delivery, obtain better marketing plans, and start listening to what their patrons have to say as the reason(s) why they are dis-satisfied with the company.

I guarantee that company will do everything in its power to bring about the necessary changes to bring the company back up that ladder of success!

Now, who' s the boss?

The correct answer: The consumer!!!

Fathoms, It is with respect that I say this to you... your argument has been noted, but is flawed.

For one, the competition can only go as far as current technology allows. None of the game systems are pushing any envelopes for technological supremecy.

It' s the PC that' s lightyears ahead of the home console, and that is where the technological breakthroughs occur - the true competition, that is.

This is not true, and something that people are routinely confused about. The PC in terms of HARDWARE is " light years ahead," but PC SOFTWARE is notorious for always being light years BEHIND. It' s the software that sells games, it' s the software that makes gamers, and it' s the software that makes any machine a viable purchase for entetainment. Up until DOOM 3, there hasn' t been a single game in the past three years that has significantly separated itself from the best-looking console games. In fact, before DOOM 3, The Chronicles of Riddick on Xbox was said by many to be the " best looking game ever made."

DOOM 3' s engine certainly is revolutionary (although the game itself certainly wasn' t), and that' s what will keep developers occupied, but do you really think that this breakthrough doesn' t affect the console world? A world that doesn' t operate off of bits anymore, but complex computer systems just like a PC? Only the kits; i.e., how the programming is implemented, really changes...the three major consoles are PC' s in their own right, even if they' re very different.

Competition is not just for " breakthroughs," it' s for selling what sells. Why do you think big-name franchises sell so many copies? Why do you think they' d STILL sell that many copies, regardless of the reviews? Madden? Final Fantasy? Grand Theft Auto? The games could get a 1 from the critics, and you would barely see any decline in sales. Name-brand recognition, my friend.

What do you think would happen to a major company if they suddenly lost major sales?

I' ll tell you...they would restructure by laying-off personnel, shopping around for better distributor prices and delivery, obtain better marketing plans, and start listening to what their patrons have to say as the reason(s) why they are dis-satisfied with the company.

I guarantee that company will do everything in its power to bring about the necessary changes to bring the company back up that ladder of success!

This is only one possibility of what could happen, and only in an idealistic corporate world. Laying off personnel is a given, and there are other things that go along with that. " Listening to their patrons" may not be tops on their list, saving themselves by producing lower-quality products for lower prices due to less (and less talented) personnel, will most likely be what they have to do. It' s called regressing, and it' s not a positive thing for a company. Chances are, unless this company is a major, major player, it' ll be dead before it even attempts to " climb back up that ladder of success."

On top of all of this, you have a massive merger between Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for this " Uberconsole," and guess who ELSE is going to suffer? Developers. Developers who want to make unique, Japanese-oriented games generally have one platform they can turn to- PS2. What happens if MicroNintenSony decides that they don' t want to make those games any more, because they don' t really sell that well (and they don' t)? Bye bye...you' ll never see one again.

What happens if they decide that FPS' s are simply just better played on PC, and decide not to produce any for their " Uberconsole." We lose again. What about when they recognize that sports games and big-name franchises sell the best by FAR, and all we have in a few years time is Madden 2014, Final Fantasy XXII, Metal Gear Solid 9, Halo 5, Resident Evil 8, and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Revisited? Maybe they' re all great, but the budgets and time are so heavily allocated towards them, in the realization that they will sell incredibly well, that the smaller, lesser-selling games start to disappear. Before long, entire genres go the way of the dodo...no more rhythm/dance, no more puzzle, no more strategy...

The bottom line is this- it' s up to the maker of the console to decide what products to produce for it. If you have three different makers with different views and different kinds of gamers going to each system for different reasons, you get a plethora of deeply diverse games. If you have ONE maker, you either make what they want, or just don' t bother developing a game at all. Major, major issues.

We just lose the whole way ' round.

I don' t want a unified console/platform simply because it would kill off fanboyism!! :D

Instead of a unified platform I' d much rather see 3rd Party developers live up to their title of 3rd party developer and develop for all major platforms on the market. NO Exclusives! Not for 1 year, not 6 months, not even 1 hour exclusivity.

Leave the exclusive games to the 1st and 2nd party companies to make..

A Fantastic example of a true third-party was Namco' s Soul Calibur II release. All three consoles received some love. On the same day.... Another good one was Sega' s Sonic Heroes.

I' ve never considered companies like Squaresoft to be real third-parties, lol.. In my mind they' ve always been 2nd party since they always focussed on one console every generation. Sure they threw the GameCube a Final Fantasy bone but I don' t doubt that they probably did so kicking and screaming.

I think Namco has set a fine example this gen of what a true third party developer is, sure they have some exclusive stuff on the PS2, but a lot of their later games appeared across all three platforms within the same time frame.



OF course, anyone can point out that this idea doesn' t take into account the developers that can' t afford to release stuff on more than one console.

Actually I' m all for exclusives. They make each console worth actually ownng. Would you buy Console A if it had the exact same library of games as Console B?

I think I' ve hated the idea of 3rd party exclusive games since the NES days when Nintendo pretty much screwed the Master System' s chances of survival in the U.S. because of that stoopid 3rd Party contract that developers had to abide to if they wanted aboard the NES train.

Then I began really hating Sony' s practices of acquiring third party exclusives. One minute you' d read a news item of a game coming to one platform or all platforms, then the next minute after clicking refresh on your browser there would be a news update that stated that the game would only be released on Sony' s console and the series would remain exclusive to them for 2000 years.

If all consoles had the same 3rd party games then I could just focus on buying the consoles that I felt had the best first party games.

Let gamers have access to the same library of 3rd party games as their friends with different consoles.

Everyone needs to be able to play Billy Hatcher and his Giant Stupid Friggin Egg, not just us GameCube owners :D

This is not true, and something that people are routinely confused about. The PC in terms of HARDWARE is " light years ahead," but PC SOFTWARE is notorious for always being light years BEHIND. It' s the software that sells games, it' s the software that makes gamers, and it' s the software that makes any machine a viable purchase for entetainment. Up until DOOM 3, there hasn' t been a single game in the past three years that has significantly separated itself from the best-looking console games. In fact, before DOOM 3, The Chronicles of Riddick on Xbox was said by many to be the " best looking game ever made."

fathoms,

Once again, you have just proven my point again...the software sells the PC' s, the software sells the gaming consoles.

As for PC games being lightyears behind...I am not too sure about that, but I will say that any PC game a developer makes has to reach a wide enough audience to make a profit. With this in mind, PC game developers must dumb-down their games to reach the widest possible audience that would have one specific configuration. Otherwise, the PC gaming market is waaaaaay ahead of the home console market.

I said...

What do you think would happen to a major company if they suddenly lost major sales?

I' ll tell you...they would restructure by laying-off personnel, shopping around for better distributor prices and delivery, obtain better marketing plans, and start listening to what their patrons have to say as the reason(s) why they are dis-satisfied with the company.

I guarantee that company will do everything in its power to bring about the necessary changes to bring the company back up that ladder of success!

fathoms responded:

This is only one possibility of what could happen, and only in an idealistic corporate world. Laying off personnel is a given, and there are other things that go along with that. " Listening to their patrons" may not be tops on their list, saving themselves by producing lower-quality products for lower prices due to less (and less talented) personnel, will most likely be what they have to do. It' s called regressing, and it' s not a positive thing for a company. Chances are, unless this company is a major, major player, it' ll be dead before it even attempts to " climb back up that ladder of success."

I do not think that a company with major losses would consider their position as being ideal.

On top of all of this, you have a massive merger between Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for this " Uberconsole," and guess who ELSE is going to suffer? Developers. Developers who want to make unique, Japanese-oriented games generally have one platform they can turn to- PS2. What happens if MicroNintenSony decides that they don' t want to make those games any more, because they don' t really sell that well (and they don' t)? Bye bye...you' ll never see one again.

fathoms, I think you misunderstood me concerning the top three companies. I was talking about cooperating on building a game console, not merging. Each game company could have its development houses make games for the new co-op system. Those games that you worry about disappearing would not go away, but rather become the perfect case for innovation among the game developers. Any game developer could make games for the system, and let the gamers decide which titles they wish to buy (pretty much the way it is now). Game developers can only stay in business if they make money, so they might just be a bit choosier about what games they develop.

What I suggest is more of a consolidation of resources (like the big three need to conserve $$), rather than elimination of options.

Remember, I brought this subject up as a scenario, not reality...

Questions or comments?

Otherwise, the PC gaming market is waaaaaay ahead of the home console market.

I think you' ll have to explain your thought process here. The PC is a perfect case of the " merged console," actually, and look what there is- a machine that features maybe HALF of the genres in the video game world, with a primary focus on about three (FPS, RTS, WRPG). On top of which, where' s the innovation? Ever since Baldurs Gate, Half-Life, and Command and Conquer, just about every last PC game since then has been developed using that EXACT same mold. PC gamers are just used to playing only those types of games, and show no signs of slowing, despite the fact that DOOM 3 really was nothing more than the original DOOM with upgraded graphics. In terms of graphics, it continues to improve (although between 2000 and 2003, not at anywhere NEAR the rate of consoles), but in terms of gameplay? They' re stuck in 1999.

fathoms, I think you misunderstood me concerning the top three companies. I was talking about cooperating on building a game console, not merging. Each game company could have its development houses make games for the new co-op system. Those games that you worry about disappearing would not go away, but rather become the perfect case for innovation among the game developers. Any game developer could make games for the system, and let the gamers decide which titles they wish to buy (pretty much the way it is now). Game developers can only stay in business if they make money, so they might just be a bit choosier about what games they develop.

What I suggest is more of a consolidation of resources (like the big three need to conserve $$), rather than elimination of options.

Cooperating on building a console is just about the same thing as merging. Can you imagine the three major players collaborating on this? A massive committee would form, designed to approve all games for release. And again, my scenario I posted earlier would happen SO fast, it would be ridiculous. These committee members would review what games sell, and what don' t. The small development houses that make unique games (Atlas/Nippon-Icche and Disgaea, just as one example) just don' t sell a fraction as well as Gran Turismo or GTA. So why have them? Why bother? Sony picked up Disgaea to produce because they have such games; the other two don' t even have a single strategy title, and THAT' S competition; it gives Sony a slight edge among certain gamers, and THAT' S why Disgaea was picked up.

With one console run by all three companies, there' s no way Disgaea would ever see the light of day. And the same goes for hundreds of other titles.

Whether it' s a merge or a collaboration, the same thing will happen. " Niche" games and genres will disappear, and variety and diversity along with it. Guaranteed.

fathoms,

I do not deny that there are a lot of RTS/FPS/RPG games for the PC, but there is also every genre available too.

Have you gone to a computer software store any time...say within the last 5 years?

If you have, then you wouldn' t be saying that there are only 3 genres (mentioned above) available. And, for your information, the reason why there are so many of those kinds of games on PC is because that' s what' s popular - it' s what sells!

Obviously, you haven' t looked around enough to notice that the other games like the arcade games, casino/card games, puzzle games, flight sims (and do not even say the PC doesn' t have these!), old school console compilations, action/ adventure, sports, racing, and the list goes on...

The PC has no shortage of genres...it must just be you, fathoms.

If the big three put their money into one system, and support it (along with third-party developers) with the lineups they would have released if the system was exclusively their own, then there would be no loss of revenue, no loss of innovative games, and actually...there may be a significant increase in the number of games sold, because those gamers that purchase more than one game system (and all the accessories and games for each) would now concentrate their earnings toward game purchases (not another console).

And just think...those developers that spend money to tweak each and every version of a multi-platform game, will now only have to produce the one version...saving them money for development of future games and/or franchises.

It' s really a ' win-win' proposition...you' re just not seein' it.

fathoms, this discussion could go on until the sun permanently disappears from our sky, but that will never change the fact that we disagree on this subject.

PC has all the genres covered, do they?

Okay, point out a rhythm/dance game like Amplitude, DDR: Max, Frequency, Mad Maestro, Gitaroo-Man, etc.

Point out a platformer like SMS, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Sly Racoon, Kya, Klonoa, Ty, etc.

Point out a fighter like Virtua Fighter 4, Soul Calibur, MK: Deadly Alliance, Dead or Alive, Guilty Gear, Capcom vs. SNK, etc.

Point out an RPG NOT made by Western developers, like Suikoden, Wild Arms, Legaia, Grandia, Tales of Destiny/Symphonia Star Ocean, etc. (consoles have both; Champions of Norrath, Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance, etc.)

Point out board-based, turn-based strategy game on PC that plays anything even remotely like Vandal Hearts, FFT, Tactics Ogre, Ring of Red, Dynasty Tactics, Disgaea, etc.

Point out ANY action game like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, or the Onimusha series.

It ain' t just me, buddy. I want ANY of the above listed genres, I absolutely CANNOT go to PC. No fighters, no platformers, no rhythm/dance, no JRPG, and no pure action. Now go ahead and count up the number of genres...I said about half. And I was right.

And yes, we disagree. But just as a final note, this was a topic that' s been argued by people other than us... Every last financial analyst at Reuters who discussed this topic several years ago agreed that a lone home entertainment system would result in " stagnation and the ultimate death of the industry as we know it." Like I said before, the entire system would collapse, in much the way I described it to you. You' re only looking at the surface; at the retail and sales part of things. If you look deeper, into the economical and " power-struggling" that would be happening behind the scenes, you' d be horrified.

So there is indeed one of us that' s just not seeing it...

fathoms,

I will respond once my answer has been more-deeply researched and properly formulated...

Oh, fathoms, I' m back...and have I surprise for you!

Your quote was:

Okay, point out a rhythm/dance game like Amplitude, DDR: Max, Frequency, Mad Maestro, Gitaroo-Man, etc.

Point out a platformer like SMS, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Sly Racoon, Kya, Klonoa, Ty, etc.

Point out a fighter like Virtua Fighter 4, Soul Calibur, MK: Deadly Alliance, Dead or Alive, Guilty Gear, Capcom vs. SNK, etc.

Point out an RPG NOT made by Western developers, like Suikoden, Wild Arms, Legaia, Grandia, Tales of Destiny/Symphonia Star Ocean, etc. (consoles have both; Champions of Norrath, Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance, etc.)

Point out board-based, turn-based strategy game on PC that plays anything even remotely like Vandal Hearts, FFT, Tactics Ogre, Ring of Red, Dynasty Tactics, Disgaea, etc.

Point out ANY action game like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, or the Onimusha series.

My search was minor at best...taking little overall time...see, I have a family, house, and job to tend to...so, I do not have much time to devote to researching someone else' s issues...but I found some time to help you out.

My response is in bold following each category you listed (take a serious note here):

Okay, point out a rhythm/dance game like Amplitude, DDR: Max, Frequency, Mad Maestro, Gitaroo-Man, etc.

Britney' s Dance Beat and American Idol.

Point out a platformer like SMS, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Sly Racoon, Kya, Klonoa, Ty, etc.

Croc 2, Croc: Legend of Gobos, and Gex.

Point out a fighter like Virtua Fighter 4, Soul Calibur, MK: Deadly Alliance, Dead or Alive, Guilty Gear, Capcom vs. SNK, etc.

Virtua Fighter, Virtua Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat Trilogy, Mortal Kombat 4.

Point out an RPG NOT made by Western developers, like Suikoden, Wild Arms, Legaia, Grandia, Tales of Destiny/Symphonia Star Ocean, etc. (consoles have both; Champions of Norrath, Baldurs Gate: Dark Alliance, etc.)

Grandia 2, Septerra Core: Legacy of the Creator, and Shining Lore Online (currently under development. Release date to be announced)

Point out board-based, turn-based strategy game on PC that plays anything even remotely like Vandal Hearts, FFT, Tactics Ogre, Ring of Red, Dynasty Tactics, Disgaea, etc.

Shadow Watch, Fallen Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, Heroes of Might and Magic IV.

Point out ANY action game like Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, or the Onimusha series.

Tomb Raider (I, II, III, etc.) and Indiana Jones and the Emporer' s Tomb

I have to thank the following websites for having such information made available to website visitors: Gamespy, Game Rankings, Gamespot and Kikizo for being so gracious as to allow me to post in these forums.

It ain' t just me, buddy. I want ANY of the above listed genres, I absolutely CANNOT go to PC. No fighters, no platformers, no rhythm/dance, no JRPG, and no pure action. Now go ahead and count up the number of genres...I said about half. And I was right.

fathoms, your assumption concerning the lack of the listed genres was wrong. And, yes, you are the only one, because no one else came forward to chime in with you.

If you look deeper than I did, you will find ANY (and more) of those (and other) games within the listed genres. I hope that my research has helped you realize that you do have PC game genre options.

With much love for fellow gamers, I leave you with these words:

Game on, my brother...

fathoms,

I know you have been in the forums since I last posted...

You probably did not have the time to read down to where this post was...that' s OK...I brought it to the top for you.

' The Nintendo difference'

wasn' t that a big selling point for nintendo??

who would design the controllers?

maybe we could go back to the multiple controllers of the atari...

what did that ball twisty thing do? I can' t remember...

I know that this wasn' t part of the argument but the big difference between the games fathom mentioned and the ones you mentioned Daroosh is fathoms games were good and the majority of the ones you mentioned were bad and/or untested.

I know that this wasn' t part of the argument but the big difference between the games fathom mentioned and the ones you mentioned Daroosh is fathoms games were good and the majority of the ones you mentioned were bad and/or untested.

Bingo.

DaRoosh, my point remains. The games you mentioned have a serious, serious flaw. They either are ALSO on consoles (and much better played with a gamepad, especially in the fighting and platform genres), or they are just poor products. Actually, after reading them, almost ALL of them have made an appearance on consoles, and not only that, but they were on consoles FIRST. And the others were simply not any good, and the overall number in each genre pales in comparison to the amount that consoles have to offer. Your research isn' t going to turn up anything to contradict this, because it' s simple fact. I' ve taken a good long look at this subject over the past decade or so.

PC gaming is stale, stagnated, and the only innovations found in the past five years are graphical. Absolutely nothing innovative gameplay-wise...if you want to try to point out a few titles that disproves this statement, be my guest. It' s a major problem, and has been since the turn of the century.

I know that this wasn' t part of the argument but the big difference between the games fathom mentioned and the ones you mentioned Daroosh is fathoms games were good and the majority of the ones you mentioned were bad and/or untested.

Bingo.

DaRoosh, my point remains. The games you mentioned have a serious, serious flaw. They either are ALSO on consoles (and much better played with a gamepad, especially in the fighting and platform genres), or they are just poor products. Every game I listed is console-exclusive. Actually, after reading them, almost ALL of them have made an appearance on consoles, and not only that, but they were on consoles FIRST. And the others were simply not any good, and the overall number in each genre pales in comparison to the amount that consoles have to offer. Your research isn' t going to turn up anything to contradict this, because it' s simple fact. I' ve taken a good long look at this subject over the past decade or so.

PC gaming is stale, stagnated, and the only innovations found in the past five years are graphical. Absolutely nothing innovative gameplay-wise...if you want to try to point out a few titles that disproves this statement, be my guest. It' s a major problem, and has been since the turn of the century.