Slashdot Mirror
The Console War Is Not Good For Gaming
Seleeke Flingai writes "Of all the loose baggage the videogame industry prides itself on, the famed 'console wars' are probably the most divisive. Every four or so years, we hungry gamers gather round and clamor for our favorite side. But you know what? Screw the console wars. They are NOT good for gaming. Why?" From the article: "The console war brings with it great competition, which has created some of the best consoles around. But the console war has also had its share of casualties - some of which were some of the best consoles around. And that is why I think the console war, despite all of its good intentions, is not good for gaming."
"The console wars produced better products, however the Dreamcast was good but it lost anyway".
1. Incorporate advertising into website
2. Use three pages to say one sentence
3. Obtain slashdot link
4. ????
5. Profit!
Competition is bad for business.
BS.
Good consoles (both from technological stand point and a game stand point) survive. Bad ones die.
Sega genesis was good, but Sega Saturn was designed to be the best 2D console ever. It was, but it came out around the time of the N64.
A few images of dead consoles, a few old fanboy memes, "Sony killed my Dreamcast with teh PS2 Hype"...
Yawn.
"The console war brings with it great competition, which has created some of the best consoles around. But the console war has also had its share of casualties - some of which were some of the best consoles around. And that is why I think the console war, despite all of its good intentions, is not good for gaming."
So. It was good in some ways. Bad in others.
Brilliant insight.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
There is a real question here: Why do console gamers still tolerate competition between incompatible systems? Unless the Cell rocks our world, there won't be a significant difference between x86 and any other platform, so why not just sell low-end PCs as consoles? I hate to say it, but the Windows monoculture has its advantages -- if I buy a computer game these days, chances are very good that it will play on a Windows PC. If I buy a console game, I have a one in four shot of it playing on a popular console.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
when there is competition, there are some winners and some losers.
Don't waste your clicks.
In real console news this week:
* One of Microsoft's hardware suppliers is warning that weak demand for the 360 is going to negatively impact their financials.
* A story about people seeing some new PS3 tech demos that are insane
* A new Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer is about to be shown at the German games convention
* Sony is still on track to have 4 million PS3s by year end - correcting the error/misunderstanding from a recent interview
I guess all the latest news doesn't fit Zonk's agenda...so we get crap like this 'article'.
We'd obviously be much better off with only one platform to game on. Nothing bad EVER came of a monopoly. I mean, just look at the PC monoculture. It's not like Microsoft's ever done anything to screw consumers.
The console wars produced better products, however the Dreamcast was good but it lost anyway
Filtering through those three pages is worth it to get the insightful comparison of failed Nintendo consoles to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
1 voice in a sea of voices
I kept waiting for the author to make his point but all the did was prove that poor planning, marketing and spin control lead to failure. The article should have been called how to really screw up gaming in spite of innovation. In the end it was just another ode to the Dreamcast with is has become as common as Browncoaters whining about Firefly...its over get over it.
Sega was a great company (sorry but I dont concider the shell that was left after the Sammy merger Sega) but they screwed the pooch. Sega released the Dreamcast way to early compared to the other companies next generation consoles, they had too few 3rd party games and though good for hardcore gamers too many quirky titles and not enough mainstream ones. Take Shenmue as an example, it was a beautiful game that was fun if you were into that kind of thing, but for the masses that title was destined to go nowhere. Super Magenetic Neo was another that I loved but outside of the "gamers" it was just a quirky title that didnt sell, you simply have to have the shoveled mainstream crap to survive. Add in the fact that the Dreamcast was cracked wide open before the other consoles even hit the shelves and the writing was on the wall.
What happened to "Sega Has What Nintendon't" and agressive marketing that showed off the platform. All they did was had people doing mundane things suddenly screaming Sega!, that doesnt sell product it just encourages the use of the remotes mute button. Don't blame competition, lack of competition is never a good thing. Poor timing, poor execution, poor security and poor spin control = poor SEGA.
Redundant: I challenge the author to finish the sentence "The console wars are bad for gaming because..." without using the word "Dreamcast."
Insightful: I say the console wars are good for gaming because they force companies to make better consoles and better games. But also the console wars are bad for gaming because too much effort is going into doing what everyone else is doing, but doing it slightly better, and not enough effort is going into creating something new and interesting. Nintendo appears to be trying a new direction with Wii, but only time will tell how creative it is, or if it's more of the same with a new gimmick. But at least they're putting their balls on the line and trying some innovation, rather than the Xbox 360 (Same games, better graphics!) or the PS3 (Same games, higher prices!).
Troll: Blah blah bad article blah blah Zonk blah blah idiot.
Funny: In the Soviet Union, wars are not good for game consoles!
BS.
Good consoles [...] survive. Bad ones die.
That's not the point. The problem with bad consoles dying is that good games often die with them. How is that good for gamers?
I wholeheartedly agree that we should have just one console. I think Microsoft should make it. In fact, Microsoft shouldn't sell the console. They should license it for $800 and have $200/year subscription fees for their online service. This would certainly be far better for gaming than the current situation where there's so much confusing competition going on. Everyone knows that competition is bad for innovation.
What a bunch of crap.
Misa no botha with yousa.
(ok i haven't read any of the article on the link but i want to say what i want to say anyhow :P )
I think console wars are bad simply because it cost too much for everyone:
-the game maker needs to remake a big part of the game for it to work on many consoles because he wants it to go to a wider audience
-the gamers who can't afford to buy another console just because they want to play that very good game that isn't out on the system of their choice
-the console makers who can't do anything much except hope that good games will be made and lots of sales will come from that... then make the next one and hope for the same thing...
i heard that Resident Evil 4 was really great... but it took forever to get on the PS2.. then when it got out, i was too broke to buy it... now i heard that it was gona get out on pc.. been waiting for that for many months...
What did i win? nothing, i didn't get the game i wanted to play on the console i wanted to play it....
Who won? nobody, i didn't spend my money...
Did console superiority do anything? PS2 is market leader, but i prefer to play on the pc, so i'm still waiting with my money in my hands....
Like every war, Console wars only leaves victims and scars, nothing else...
The winner is the one that still have the strengh to get back home....
"War is good for business."
Console makers never get as much free advertising and marketing as they do when they're in conflict. It's not about survival, it's about generating interest.
Seriously, I see console wars as a way to slowly destroy PC gaming. the fact of the matter is that PC gaming doesnt really have fan boys. 360 killing the PC this article sort of agrees with me
in that new features, like oh I don't know, the Wii's fun motion-sensing controller and wand really change the nature of gaming and make it more fun.
But, hey, it's never great when you're trying to push consoles that don't make a profit, or push ever more FPS and Sports games the vast majority of casual and women/girl gamers don't give a flying h00t about, or just rake in the cash from yet another port of a multi-platform game.
Noone likes losing. But if it never happened, we'd all be playing Tetris and Pong.
.
Hey, anyone else still remember the version of Tetris in Monty Python's game where they go "I'm not dead yet!" - that was sweet!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
when there is competition, there are some winners and some losers.
I think you meant to say:
"When there is competition, there are some winners and some whiners."
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I can buy a Dreamcast with a bunch of (rare) games for $35 on eBay. That sucks for Sega, but how is that bad for me as a consumer?
Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
But if you want to construct a set-top gaming PC, you also need to buy a case, motherboard, CPU, RAM, and drives. Can you get all those PC parts for $100?
Assume that I have a set-top gaming PC and four USB gamepads. What free four-player party games do you recommend that match the fun of Super Smash Bros. Melee or the Bomberman series?
Well, if Sony says they are on track to have 4 million PS3's in stores by year's end, it must be true.
We have absolutely no reason to doubt them.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
This sounds like red propaganda to me.
All right, competition can, and often is, a good thing for the consumer. But usually, it's only good if the market/consumer drives the competition. The current next-generation console competition is not a response to consumers; it's being rammed down the consumers' throats.
I read the article and never really bought his analogy. I think the Dreamcast died for much the same reason as the Atari Jaguar died and that I think the PS3 will die; we game consumers don't really want or need that much power, at least not at that price. One of the reasons that I picked up my PS2 (after not owning a console since my Genesis) was because PC games were starting to focus on pretty (and expensive, in terms of video cards) graphics at the expense of story, playability, and entertainment value. Specifically, when I found that the latest entry in a franchise that I'd been playing for years required a video card that cost, at a minimum, half again as much as a PS2, I bailed on PC games for a while.
If we really want competition to serve the consumer (rather than settle a "bet" over which unnecessary new DVD format will be forced down our throats), we need another player. Nintendo might play that role, but I realy think what we need is a good console (not a spectacularly extravegant one) that plays cheap games. In my dreams, this system an open source, both hardware and software, but it doesn't have to be. Keep the graphics around the same level as the current gen to force the developers to think in terms of gameplay instead of flashy crap. Avoid the licensing fees and marketing BS that drives prices up. Is an offical NFL lisence necessary for a good football game? Does a movie tie-in improve a platformer?
I'm looking forward to the unfortunately named Wii far more than the PS3 (both for its lower price tag and all the potential wrapped up in that weird controller), and so far I have not seen anything on the X-Box 360 that justifies its price. Either way, it feels like this iteration of "competition" is not doing anything for the consumer except digging deeper into our pockets for the gaming equivalent of bloatware.
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
That article was terrible. The only quasi-point that the author made in all 3 pages was that the dreamcast was an unfortunate casualty. That was the worst article I read all week, and I subscribe to totalfark. /zing
Nintendo has lost the edge, Sony blinked, and newcomer Microsoft is extending the evil empire. The only reason Sony can survive is that so, so many people want so, so, so badly for Microsoft to fail.
Wow. This guy was trying WAY too hard to make his cold war analogy fit the console market. National defense is JUST LIKE a couple of video game companies competing to dominate their collective market. My god, that just makes SO MUCH sense!
Meanwhile, in the Cold Cookie War, Oreo and Hydrox keep each other locked in a constant state of fear that the strongest cookie will annihilate the other.
Not only is the article stupid, it's offensive.
Having lost two straight console generations (think: N64 as Hiroshima, GameCube as Nagasaki), the company branched off into a new direction, looking to lose its previous isolationist mentality.
Yeah, that's a TOTALLY valid analogy.
So you plan to convert your existing PC into a gaming PC. Then what will you use to read Slashdot or do your taxes? If you're planning to use your gaming PC to do those, then how do you plan on entertaining your other family members or house guests until you finish?
In your analogy, I see the network as like a house and each machine as like a bedroom. Only a given number of people can comfortably sleep in a room at once, so don't get a 1 bedroom apartment if you have a spouse and four kids.
That's another problem: you have to put together those cheap computers, which is often not cheap for a family with kids. And four PCs require four times the electricity, four times the monitors, four times the furniture, four times the Windows tax, and four times the game software licenses. And once you're having fun in games with sub-GameCube-caliber graphics such as Quake III, you might as well just whip out a Wii and four controllers. And what multiplayer PC games do you recommend that are not rated 17+?
Actually, that's quite the opposite with console gaming. The first generation of titles generally don't look that much better than the previous one, because the developers haven't had much experience with the hardware. Compare some early PS2 titles with late PS1, or early 360 titles with later Xbox games. Certainly you'll see the same thing with the first PS3 games, compared to some of the final PS2 games coming out this year (like FFXII perhaps).
Console gamers get that improvement in visual quality essentially for free, no need to buy new expensive hardware or anything. But obviously it takes time. That's probably one of the downsides to being a console gamer. Being an early adopter doesn't make sense since you're buying into a system that's at its most expensive, yet the games are at their lowest potential. The only gain you get is being "the only kid on the block with system X".
That trick is the same with console gaming. Don't buy the console when it first comes out for $400, or in the PS3 case, $600. Wait a year for the price to come down, or at the very least, an attractive bundle comes out. By then, the 2nd generation of games will be out, and many of them will be better than the few launch titles you would have been stuck with as an early adopter. And if there was a launch game that was genuinely great, chances are it'll be heavily discounted, or even better, available as a combo pack with the console. Why do you think PS2s are still outselling every other console there is?
The mod potential is a great point. Oblivion on the PC is far better than on the 360 for that point. That said, I think you put too much emphasis on money and consoles. EVERYTHING is driven by money, PC or console. You seem to gloss over the fact that many downloadable games on the PC (at least the decent ones) cost money as well. The only exceptions are mods, which I agree with are often fantastic and don't cost a dime. (Although sometimes the popular ones, like Counter-Strike, often tend to be bought up and made commercial
One thing I do like about the console space is that it's finally starting to adopt some of the things that worked so well for PCs. The concept of try-before-you-buy? The only reason I bought Dead Rising for the 360 because I randomly decided to try out the free demo, and got hooked on it. Gee whiz, who woulda thought the whole "shareware" model still works! *sarcasm* And it's not limited to the 360, as I imagine Sony and Nintendo are now working on similar abilities for their respective platforms (PlayStation Network and Virtual Console)
Anyway, I still do a lot of gaming on both consoles and PCs. There are definately pros and cons to each, and I don't think they're mutually exclusive. So no need to bash one totally in favor of the other.
-- jchenx
The dude seems to be bent on old times that are now irrelevant. A Nintendo fanboy who hated SEGA as a competitor and yet loved the ally in them in the gaming world. Becuase lets face it, two are better than one. And choice is alwyas good. What drives it apart is the fact that after two consoles and almost a decade later he is finally embracing SONY and now that it has grown on him, he is bashing the competion as he once did SONY upon putting the DC (dreamcast) to an early grave. I cleary can see his disappointment in the DC. But I still own one and have a collection of games to enjoy. He needs to get over this and look to the future, becuase that is now. And now is about games. And games alone are will and for what I belive always have been, what sold the system.
The main thing they cause is a need to spend a considerable amount of money on multiple consoles. SNES and Genesis were roughly the same in games they offered (roughly, SNES had better hardware and better RPGs, but they were very similar). But to say n64 and PSOne offered the same kinds of games is blasphemy. Even with Gamecube/XBox/PS2, we are seeing major differences for the different kinds of games (Let's see... PS2 for my RPGs... XBox for my online FPS.... Gamecube for my..... family-friendly fun). And console prices are not going down. By the time it's reasonable for your typical gamer to own all three consoles of a generation price-wise, the interest has been lost due to upcoming new console launches. And I'd rather spend $75 for three extra controllers for a single console then $300 for extra controllers for all three. It adds up.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
This is why I stick with Nintendo. Honestly, they aren't going away anytime soon. Sony, I think, will be the first to go if anyone. I was very much saddened when I heard Sega was dropping out of the hardware race (although I hope they return at some point).
Is it just me or does anyone else want the days to be like the old Nintendo/Sega rivalry where most games came out for both systems where the only real differences were the controller shape, button layout, and the small number of proprietary games (ie - Nintendo's Mario and Sega's Sonic)
GameCube and PlayStation 2 are not single-player consoles. They are single-display consoles, and there are all sorts of ways to put four players in front of one screen that don't involve splitting the screen into four viewports. I find it unlikely that you've never played Bomberman or Smash Bros. or Amplitude, which place all players within the same playfield.
I was using a dated first-person shooter as a (possibly bad) example. The point is that if all players are looking at the same thing, as is the case in the shared-view games, then $300 for a console plus $300 for a budget EDTV plus $40 for one copy of a game is much better than $450 each for four PCs plus $150 each for bargain basement monitors plus $30 each for four copies of a game.
Game SDk packages suited for FPs or CarGames are common, ie , look at RenderWare.com, for 250k+ you get a full kit and licence for ONE game.
You virtualy have a min-OS for games, everything is done for you. Tools/ Apis/ etc...
RenderWare Studio 2.0 is a unique collaborative game development framework that encapsulates best of breed tools and processes to help developers rapidly create games concurrently on multiple target platforms. It also leverages RenderWare Platform 3.7 to provide unbeatable graphics, physics, audio and AI performance through its features.
RenderWare Studio 2.0 now empowers designers and other non-programmers to produce game content 'out of the box', complete with core design tools and optional First Person Shooter genre pack.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
... the most retarded article i read today. I am stupider for it. Why is this both on slashdot and joystiq? You guys just want hits don't you.
The main problem with the console war is the cost of games; specifically, costly game development that translates into more expensive games. I had hoped that the author would have mentioned the financial risk that development studios face when proposing a game to be made. I think a lot of good ideas aren't ever fully fleshed-out because they may be seen, internally, as a loser. When the cost of making a game is measured in 'millions of dollars' to complete, I can see many studios turning down new and revolutionary gaming paradigms. I'm, also, not talking about innovative hardware, like the Wii, but that can inspire people to create new gaming concepts. How many iterations of Madden Football can people really enjoy?
No sig for you! Come back one year!
I wonder how much this guy gets paid. If it is more than I currently make...they should get rid of him and hire me because I could write a more interesting article in an hour that would actually use some form of logic. I am sure he is praised by Dreamcast lovers...but really, isn't it time to move on. If the product they made was so fantastic, it would have been able to keep going. Competition is never a bad thing. Assume that competition is bad. Two consoles come to market, the Dreamcast and some other console. The Dreamcast is superior, and so the other company bows out. There is still going to be a ton of whiny people who mourn the loss of their other console. This way, any console maker can me awarded for making a better product, supporting games people want to play, pricing it better, or having superior marketing. In reality, a world without competition still would have seen the Dreamcast die. If the company really believed in their product, they wouldn't have given up.
Unlike the article, I can't put mine on 3 pages with a bunch of pretty pictures of old consoles. On the other hand, I don't have to worry about a bunch of jerks commenting on how they could do my job better than me.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
That was truly uninformative and poor writing. He ran his tasteless and inapt analogy into the ground. My favorite part, though, had to be when he trivialized the genocide of almost a quarter of a million people in Japan. A barrel of laughs, this guy.
This why we are working to create an open standard for game console compatability: http://ogcs.forumer.com/
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
No, there is no real question here. The answer to your question is so basic that only this slashdot thread would fail to identify it because you nerds (ok, US nerds) are so out of touch with what it means to be computer illiterate. NOT EVERYBODY HAS THE PATIENCE, TALENT, OR MONEY TO SHELL OUT FOR A RELIABLE PC THAT CAN PLAY GAMES DECENTLY. Thats why people everywhere tolerate the crappy poop we have to deal with in the console market. Stupidest debate ever. I'm so sick of these non-stories.
On my PC, I have a 4-port USB hub into which I can plug 4 controllers. Why don't PC games support it to the fullest extent?
So which brand of "specialized purpose computer ... to serve as a secondary game-playing machine" allows people to develop video games in a home office? If I want to develop shared-view multiplayer games and sell them over the Internet, which platform should I choose?
Console wars just hurt the console community, let's fight about something worth while!!!1
:(
PC vs Console!
Doh, once again you guys beat me to it