Would gaming be better if...

[NinjaJones]

I'm not a fanboy by any means but before the original XBOX most people had a PS2, so it got me thinking. Back when there was just the PS2, Gamecube to play video games (and PC of course) there was alot of the whole console war thing going on now. PS2 was the biggest and when a game came out it was a given that it would be on PS2, then there was nintendo off doing their own thing like they always do with the game cube and everything was good...then microsoft came along and screwqed the console market by introducing the Xbox! And now with the 360 and the PS3 there is constant fighting with "who gets what game" and which one is better. So my question is do you think things would have been better if microsoft never made a console? Or do you think that next-gen consoles wouldnt be what they are without the constant competition?

 

Once again so I don't get flamed i'm NOT a fanboy i've played the 360 and I thiunk its pretty good, I own a ps3 and I like it aswell, and i've played the Wii and even though it gets boring faster I still like it...

[Trows]

Lack of competition = video game software/hardware prices go up tenfold.

[NinjaJones]

Lack of competition = video game software/hardware prices go up tenfold.

If microsoft had never entered the market and the Wii was sonys only competition then I think the ps3 would actually be cheaper...I mean it was barely brought down to 400$ to match the 360 and if the 200$-something Wii was the only competition the ps3 would have probably been focused less on being powerful and more on cost...because we all know that the Wii can't handle alot that the 360 and PS3 can...overall I think the PS3 would be less spectacular but also less powerful and less expensive.

[Seddo]

Microsoft joining the console market is the best thing that could of happened, now Sony can't just sit back and watch their consoles sell, they now have to improve things in the online market aswell, now they have abit of competition. Like wise with Microsoft, they can't sit back either or Sony will capitalise.

 

If rumours are true that Sega are making another console that will give us a fourth console on the market and yet more competition. The more competition there is the lower prices go and the more the companies improve their product.

 

Win win for the buyer.

[NinjaJones]

Microsoft joining the console market is the best thing that could of happened, now Sony can't just sit back and watch their consoles sell, they now have to improve things in the online market aswell, now they have abit of competition. Like wise with Microsoft, they can't sit back either or Sony will capitalise.

 

If rumours are true that Sega are making another console that will give us a fourth console on the market and yet more competition. The more competition there is the lower prices go and the more the companies improve their product.

 

Win win for the buyer.

Win win? Not quite! Now whichever console you choose you're stuck with the games that come on THAT console, so if you choose one and an awesome game comes out on the other you're screwed...I agree competition is needed for things to improve but that definatly doesn't make it a "win win" situation for the buyer...

[Seddo]

I chose the 360 and it has a better library of games at the moment, the 360 has more exclusive games out at the moment compared to the PS3.

 

So i'm not really missing out on a big amount of games.

 

It's win win for me anyway .

 

/no fanboyism intended.

 

[NinjaJones]

I chose the 360 and it has a better library of games at the moment, the 360 has more exclusive games out at the moment compared to the PS3.

 

So i'm not really missing out on a big amount of games.

 

It's win win for me anyway .

 

/no fanboyism intended.

Thats exactly my point...each console has their exclusive games that at least some people with the other console are bound to want. Like I have a PS3 and I want Dead Rising and my friend has a 360 and wants Uncharted...O well, at least most of the games I like are on PS3. And SR2 is gonna be on PS3 I wonder if that's gonna be any good?

[Seddo]

Well your bound to miss out on a few games what ever console you choose. It's just if there's more competition on the market that means your consoles company will try to get the best games on their console and try to get more exclusives aswell. They should be improving their online network all the time to make sure it's level par or even better with there rivals. As well as reducing prices on things every now again.

 

So even if you miss out on things a little competition is good for the market. Unless you buy both consoles not everyone will be happy.

[NinjaJones]

Well your bound to miss out on a few games what ever console you choose. It's just if there's more competition on the market that means your consoles company will try to get the best games on their console and try to get more exclusives aswell. They should be improving their online network all the time to make sure it's level par or even better with there rivals. As well as reducing prices on things every now again.

 

So even if you miss out on things a little competition is good for the market. Unless you buy both consoles not everyone will be happy.

Yeah...well on the bright side at least GTA IV is on both

[Pat]

I'm not a fanboy by any means...

 

...then microsoft came along and screwed the console market by introducing the Xbox!...

Contradiction is awesome.

 

Seriously though, how, exactly, did Microsoft "screw" the console market by releasing the Xbox? I'd really like to know where you came up with this idea.

[Adam Jensen]

One world - ruled by one console. Or they can make 100 consoles and no exclusives. That would work well too.

[Ronnyboy]

Look back 20 yrs ago and it's the same.

 

There was Atari, Sega, and Nintendo fighitng to be the best. First it was Atari, then came Nintendo and Sega and they killed the Atari.

 

For awhile it was just Nintendo and Sega. But then came Sony and Sega died.

 

Then came Microsoft and then the... wait a minute, uh-oh

[G MONEY $$$]

How many times do we have to go over this? NO. One console will not work. Not only will it not work, it's not POSSIBLE.

 

You can't justify having only one major console and it will never happen so just suck it up, decide on which console you want to purchase and move on with your lives.

[YourNeighborhoodKiller]

I like that theres a bunch of consoles because theres more choices.

 

Such as I can't play Gears on my PS3, so I play it at my cousins with his 360.

 

Plus I think it would be boring with only one console in this world.

[Uno Carb]

I'll put my two cents in before all the fanboyistic riots occur.

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

No, it won't work.

[GTA3Freak-2001]

I'm not a fanboy by any means but before the original XBOX most people had a PS2, so it got me thinking. Back when there was just the PS2, Gamecube to play video games (and PC of course) there was alot of the whole console war thing going on now. PS2 was the biggest and when a game came out it was a given that it would be on PS2, then there was nintendo off doing their own thing like they always do with the game cube and everything was good...[/size]

Everything was "good"? Mate console fanboys and console bashing has existed since the birth of video games its only that now there are more platforms and places for these people to clash on like this very message board for instance. You say the MS came in and wrecked things with the Xbox? Well I am sure with that logic we could say that Sony joining in with the Playstation "wrecked" things when it simply caused a gaming explosion.

 

Its only with this "competition" that we are now at the stage we are. Consoles that can let us experiences things simply unheard of 20 years ago, like has been said competition is the way we advance.

[ryuclan]

Lack of competition = video game software/hardware prices go up tenfold.

Although in a lot of places this would be true. Having just the two (Sony and Nintendo) I think would be cheaper. By no means should there be only one system, then its a monopoly, but in this situation the competition causes the developers to try to get better technology then the competitor, which results in higher prices for the consumer.

 

Also back then fanboys were not as prevalent. Everybody I know either had a PS2, a Gamcube or an old Dreamcast. And if you had one of those you also had a PS2 lol.

[Iminicus]

How about one movie studio? One TV Network? One Newspaper? One Cellphone brand? One internet provider? One beer? One Tobacco product? How about we just reduce everything down to one?

 

We will only have Wal Marts and Motorola Cellphones. Nextel Sprint will be the only provider for cellphones. ATT will do landlines. Comcast will do TV and FOX will provide all the content. WB will make movies and Fosters will be the beer.

 

See how ridiculous your idea can become? Who decides who is the console maker? You? Me? The US President? Who decides all of those? You can't do it. No one can. You say Sony as the console maker, but I want one from Microsoft and Fred wants Nintendo. Yet, Bill thinks Sega should do it since well SEEEEEGA!

 

FYI, it was Sega Dreamcast > Sony Playstation 2 > Microsoft Xbox > Nintendo Gamecube. So if you want, Nintendo f*cked up the last generation, by your logic, since they entered last. Which as said, means Sony f*cked up the one before that. Sony has then gone and f*cked this one since: 360 > Wii > PS3. And since this is the current generation and the generation we are living and gaming in, Sony shouldn't be the console maker. And Nintendo shouldn't because of the last generation. So the scoring so far:

 

Sony: 2

Nintendo : 1

Microsoft: 0

 

Since in this ridiculous idea of a reason to pick our console manufacturer, we have to go with Microsoft since they scored 0.

 

 

[NinjaJones]

How about one movie studio? One TV Network? One Newspaper? One Cellphone brand? One internet provider? One beer? One Tobacco product? How about we just reduce everything down to one?

 

We will only have Wal Marts and Motorola Cellphones. Nextel Sprint will be the only provider for cellphones. ATT will do landlines. Comcast will do TV and FOX will provide all the content. WB will make movies and Fosters will be the beer.

 

See how ridiculous your idea can become? Who decides who is the console maker? You? Me? The US President? Who decides all of those? You can't do it. No one can. You say Sony as the console maker, but I want one from Microsoft and Fred wants Nintendo. Yet, Bill thinks Sega should do it since well SEEEEEGA!

 

FYI, it was Sega Dreamcast > Sony Playstation 2 > Microsoft Xbox > Nintendo Gamecube. So if you want, Nintendo f*cked up the last generation, by your logic, since they entered last. Which as said, means Sony f*cked up the one before that. Sony has then gone and f*cked this one since: 360 > Wii > PS3. And since this is the current generation and the generation we are living and gaming in, Sony shouldn't be the console maker. And Nintendo shouldn't because of the last generation. So the scoring so far:

 

Sony: 2

Nintendo : 1

Microsoft: 0

 

Since in this ridiculous idea of a reason to pick our console manufacturer, we have to go with Microsoft since they scored 0.

I'm not saying Sony should be the only console maker i'm saying what if there was only one console...by ANY company? I only used xbox splitting the games up as an example! And as for nintendo...well...they always did their own thing and thats why people bought their stuff. They have mostly exclusives because the games that are on nintendo wouldn't fit on any other console! Like mario cart of PS3...not right. But anyway you're taking this way out of hand. Did I suggest one television station? One beer? Or one cell phone company? No! But consoles are alot more competitive because games come out faster then new TV shows or new types or beer, or new phones! You guys are taking it that i'm saying there should only be one console because that console is better but all I meant was; do you think having only one console would help or hurt the industry as a whole? No one would be disappointed because every game would be an exclusive but without competition the single company wouldn't be driven to make better quality games so everyone would be content yet games would not advance as fast. I'd have to say out of all the replies you turned out to be the biggest dick of them all. I didn't mean xbox and nintendo should stop making consoles and sony should surpass them I meant "what if there never WERE any other consoles and there was only only one console"

 

The whole question was: Do you think that if only a single console was ever made that we would have as advanced and high quality games as we do today? Or do you think that without competition the market would fail?

 

I NEVER MEANT one CURRENT CONSOLE should surpass them all I only used the current consoles an examples!

[SWEETSAPRIK]

 

Lack of competition = video game software/hardware prices go up tenfold.

I think it would suck for all gamers if there was only one console. IMO one of two things would happen, the first is Trows said, the other is lack of competition equaling sh*tty games.

 

Being able to play all the games on your console would be nice in theory, but not so much if you had to pay double for every game, or if there weren't as many good games because there were no other games on other systems for them to try and outsell.

[Pat]

 

without competition the market would fail

Ding ding ding ding ding. Think about it, with seperate companies creating consoles, they attempt to make theirs better than the others. If there's only one console, why bother improving it?

 

Microsoft attempts to add features to their console to make it better than Sony's console, and vice versa. This includes price drops. With only one console, you're going to get a base model, no upgrades, and a huge price.

 

The only good outcome I can see of this would be no more of those repetitive "Console vs. Console" topics.

Edited February 8, 2008 by EmoPat

[Iminicus]

How about one movie studio? One TV Network? One Newspaper? One Cellphone brand? One internet provider? One beer? One Tobacco product? How about we just reduce everything down to one?

 

We will only have Wal Marts and Motorola Cellphones. Nextel Sprint will be the only provider for cellphones. ATT will do landlines. Comcast will do TV and FOX will provide all the content. WB will make movies and Fosters will be the beer.

 

See how ridiculous your idea can become? Who decides who is the console maker? You? Me? The US President? Who decides all of those? You can't do it. No one can. You say Sony as the console maker, but I want one from Microsoft and Fred wants Nintendo. Yet, Bill thinks Sega should do it since well SEEEEEGA!

 

FYI, it was Sega Dreamcast > Sony Playstation 2 > Microsoft Xbox > Nintendo Gamecube. So if you want, Nintendo f*cked up the last generation, by your logic, since they entered last. Which as said, means  Sony f*cked up the one before that. Sony has then gone and f*cked this one since: 360 > Wii > PS3. And since this is the current generation and the generation we are living and gaming in, Sony shouldn't be the console maker. And Nintendo shouldn't because of the last generation. So the scoring so far:

 

Sony: 2

Nintendo : 1

Microsoft: 0

 

Since in this ridiculous idea of a reason to pick our console manufacturer, we have to go with Microsoft since they scored 0.

I'm not saying Sony should be the only console maker i'm saying what if there was only one console...by ANY company? I only used xbox splitting the games up as an example! And as for nintendo...well...they always did their own thing and thats why people bought their stuff. They have mostly exclusives because the games that are on nintendo wouldn't fit on any other console! Like mario cart of PS3...not right. But anyway you're taking this way out of hand. Did I suggest one television station? One beer? Or one cell phone company? No! But consoles are alot more competitive because games come out faster then new TV shows or new types or beer, or new phones! You guys are taking it that i'm saying there should only be one console because that console is better but all I meant was; do you think having only one console would help or hurt the industry as a whole? No one would be disappointed because every game would be an exclusive but without competition the single company wouldn't be driven to make better quality games so everyone would be content yet games would not advance as fast. I'd have to say out of all the replies you turned out to be the biggest dick of them all. I didn't mean xbox and nintendo should stop making consoles and sony should surpass them I meant "what if there never WERE any other consoles and there was only only one console"

 

The whole question was: Do you think that if only a single console was ever made that we would have as advanced and high quality games as we do today? Or do you think that without competition the market would fail?

 

I NEVER MEANT one CURRENT CONSOLE should surpass them all I only used the current consoles an examples!

You really should have read my post. I was trying to point out the idiocy of what you want.

[Sixdust]

Without the current generation war going on, I doubt that the 360, PS3 or the Wii would be at their current prices. If Nintendo was the only console maker, it would be a little more expensive, just cause. Microsoft and PS3 are constantly adding features and such to make the other console sweat. Remember originally PS3-$600, if there was no xbox at $400 (premium)or a cheaper core model, then Sony would have probably stayed at their price as would have Microsoft. One anything in almost any market is bad. That is not how a free market should work.

[bumster]

the wii doesn't really need to be in competition of the other consoles because the wii revolves around a different way of gaming

[_-playero-_]

Just buy all 3 consoles, that way you wont miss anything.

[G MONEY $$$]

the wii doesn't really need to be in competition of the other consoles because the wii revolves around a different way of gaming

Wrong.

[sainraja]

How about one movie studio? One TV Network? One Newspaper? One Cellphone brand? One internet provider? One beer? One Tobacco product? How about we just reduce everything down to one?

 

We will only have Wal Marts and Motorola Cellphones. Nextel Sprint will be the only provider for cellphones. ATT will do landlines. Comcast will do TV and FOX will provide all the content. WB will make movies and Fosters will be the beer.

 

See how ridiculous your idea can become? Who decides who is the console maker? You? Me? The US President? Who decides all of those? You can't do it. No one can. You say Sony as the console maker, but I want one from Microsoft and Fred wants Nintendo. Yet, Bill thinks Sega should do it since well SEEEEEGA!

 

FYI, it was Sega Dreamcast > Sony Playstation 2 > Microsoft Xbox > Nintendo Gamecube. So if you want, Nintendo f*cked up the last generation, by your logic, since they entered last. Which as said, means Sony f*cked up the one before that. Sony has then gone and f*cked this one since: 360 > Wii > PS3. And since this is the current generation and the generation we are living and gaming in, Sony shouldn't be the console maker. And Nintendo shouldn't because of the last generation. So the scoring so far:

 

Sony: 2

Nintendo : 1

Microsoft: 0

 

Since in this ridiculous idea of a reason to pick our console manufacturer, we have to go with Microsoft since they scored 0.

Nothing wrong with what you said but the PS3 came out two days before the Wii, in the U.S anyway.....wasn't Japan and the U.S the first market Nintendo and PS3 came out in?

[Iminicus]

I don't know but from the reports I read the Wii was released November 22nd and the PS3 November 24th in America. I am sure some parts will have released the PS3 earlier or vice versa.

[sainraja]

 

I don't know but from the reports I read the Wii was released November 22nd and the PS3 November 24th in America. I am sure some parts will have released the PS3 earlier or vice versa.

The PS3 came out in Japan on Nov. 11 and in the U.S on Nov. 17th. Nintendo released the Wii in the U.S first and then Japan but the release date was Nov. 19th for the U.S.....I checked online to make sure but I remember because I was hoping to get a PS3 on launch but that hope was gone as the day arrived. I wasn't gonna wait in line and the lines were crazy so I just waited until I could get it. I put my name on a reserve list....

 

I just thought I should point out since I think the American and Japanese market were the first to get the two consoles and unfortunately for Europe they had to wait for both consoles.....longer for PS3 though.....

Edited February 12, 2008 by sainraja