There Can Be Only One

[MiraiTails]

Personally, I'm for the idea of there being only one game console on the market. There would still be competition among developers to create games that people want to buy.
I suppose, though, that it could result in hardware stagnation. Maybe this could be avoided by having a group of companies work on the hardware.

Sure, I could just use a PC, but many games don't come out for PC, it's more expensive, and it's not as "put the disk in and go" simple as consoles.

I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this issue.

[Radrappy]

Competition is the fire of creativity, at least in my book and that applies to hardware as well. I'm against it.

[Shadow Hog]

Honestly, the 360 and PS3 share so many titles at this point that they might as well be considered one single entity. It's incredibly boring, honestly. What few exclusives each console has barely stand out from the similar me-too multiplatform titles, with even fewer exceptions to the point where buying one console over the other for them really isn't much of a gain.

Honestly, I kind of preferred it when it was Genesis/SNES or N64/PS1/Saturn. See, then all the consoles in question had EXTENSIVE exclusive libraries due to the vastly different hardware capabilities of each console (SNES had better graphics and audio capabilities but a slower CPU and smaller screen size than the Genesis; N64 had better graphics and faster loading times than either of its competitors, but the others had larger, cheaper storage space and CD-audio over it; while between the PS1 and Saturn, the PS1 had the larger third-party support by far and generally better 3D performance, while the Saturn had a comparable third-party selection in Japan and excelled at 2D titles). It made things interesting! Nowadays that only really seems to come through with HD consoles vs. Wii, and even then, barring Nintendo's first-party titles and very few third-party titles, the exclusives for the Wii aren't generally worth writing home about.

It'd be nice if E3 next week changes that up a bit. It won't, but it'd be nice.

[Crisis]

The consoles of this generation are just too expensive for me at the moment. My computer, Wii, and DS (which badly needs replacement at this point) are draining all of my gaming money. This is partly because I live in the UK where everything is more expensive, but I have to say, if Sony or Microsoft want my money then maybe they should stop trying to fleece me.

On a more general note - the big reason that the Wii has completely stolen the market from under Sony's feet was because it cost half of what the other consoles cost. Nintendo - either through good fortune or genuine business sense - has come to realise that video games are extremely accessible when they're presented in an equally accessible way. Motion controls are a lot less intimidating to a non-gamer than a complicated controller, and a low price tag means that more people (like me) can afford to buy it. Valve have managed to reinvigorate the PC gaming market by creating one of the most convenient way to buy games ever, that doesn't require investing in new hardware or even shipping/publishing costs, allowing for the occasional massive price cut/freebie that attracts gamers like me. Blizzard have taken similar steps with the casual gaming classic, World of Warcraft, and are coming up with their own content delivery service/social network in Battle.net. Consoles serve as a triple-figure price barrier for people who want to play games. There really isn't anything a PS3 or 360 can do that a high-range computer couldn't. It's another way of profiting as the middle man on a video game sale, but it's much less efficient than the PC gaming model.

I'm not saying that consoles don't serve other purposes. They have their individual quirks as development platforms and come with their own controllers. They're more advanced than PCs of the same price, at least for the purpose of gaming. There is clearly room in the market for such specialised machines to make a profit. But I'm no longer in that target audience. I am now a "casual gamer", in the sense that I like my games to be affordable and accessible, but not necessarily good. I've reached the point in my life where I am content with 5-10 last generation, budget, or just plain mediocre titles; rather than a single, expensive, console-exclusive blockbuster.

[G.Silver]

Honestly, I kind of preferred it when it was Genesis/SNES or N64/PS1/Saturn. See, then all the consoles in question had EXTENSIVE exclusive libraries due to the vastly different hardware capabilities of each console

I'm not convinced entirely that this was due to the hardware capabilities as much that the hardware was so different that "porting" a game was not the same as it is these days. Developers were smaller and didn't necessarily have the programmer resources to support two consoles, and porting games is simpler these days because a variety of middleware exists to help facilitate ports between current hardware. I also wonder if Nintendo's policies at the time may have had something to do with it as well, especially for Japanese developers, limiting how many games a company could produce for their hardware and even preventing games from being released on other hardware. Off the top of my head Street Fighter 2 is the only Japanese game I can think of to be ported between both the SNES and Genesis, though I can easily think of several from the West: Bubsy, EWJ, Chuck Rock, Mortal Kombat, Aero the Acrobat, and that's not including garbage movie tie-ins. There was also a lot of overlap between the PS1 and Saturn from western developers, and if Nintendo's policies were no longer in effect by then, the cartridge format would have stopped many developers looking for an easy buck right there.

I actually wonder if the current decline in software expertise in Japan stems from lack of support for the various engines and middleware libraries that western developers now rely on. If I'm right in thinking that Japanese developers were, as a general rule, not porting their games to different hardware, then middleware would have been developed primarily with western developers in mind, because the need for it was more obvious there, and if Japanese developers weren't getting the revenue that western ones were from being more platform-agnostic, all else being equal they wouldn't be making as much money.

[Kogen]

I have never had a job in my life and I have every console of this and last generation, so stop being whiny Mexicans.

As for different games, only PS3 and 360 are similar. If you add handhelds and PC, then a lot of stuff is unique.

[Delphine]

I have never had a job in my life

Suddenly everything is clear.

[gr4yJ4Y]

I am now a "casual gamer", in the sense that I like my games to be affordable and accessible, but not necessarily good. I've reached the point in my life where I am content with 5-10 last generation, budget, or just plain mediocre titles; rather than a single, expensive, console-exclusive blockbuster.

A game can be accessible or even... casual while still being good. I've tried to shake the fanboy interest in buying console exclusives for the sake of buying console exclusives, but the temptation is still there leaving me to question what my motives are for liking certain games. Ideally, I want to treat my choice of games based on what the games are like themselves, not on some schoolyard lunacy. This generation has made each console exclusive purchase seem like that much more of a vote for your console of choice since there are so few exclusives. I never feel that way when I'm buying a Wii game though.

I actually wonder if the current decline in software expertise in Japan stems from lack of support for the various engines and middleware libraries that western developers now rely on. If I'm right in thinking that Japanese developers were, as a general rule, not porting their games to different hardware, then middleware would have been developed primarily with western developers in mind, because the need for it was more obvious there, and if Japanese developers weren't getting the revenue that western ones were from being more platform-agnostic, all else being equal they wouldn't be making as much money.

I'm sure the language and cultural barriers as well as the time difference between West and East make getting support for the Unreal Engine or any other middleware a huge pain for most Japanese developers. There aren't too many Japanese games that use the Unreal Engine are there?

[Arcade]

So far the Wii is still winning, while the DS rules the portable market, but in the long run, it seems the ps3 will win, since the slim model is cheaper and is a more powerful console, only time will tell.

[Kogen]

So far the Wii is still winning, while the DS rules the portable market, but in the long run, it seems the ps3 will win, since the slim model is cheaper and is a more powerful console, only time will tell.

Well it depends on what you consider winning to be.

Wii is winning on the anti-environmentalist front by dumping pure sulfur into the ocean every time a console is made. PS3 is winning by putting a large electronics company in dept in a poor effort to pretend the PS3 is not a huge financial failure. 360 is winning by being a console everyone purchases several times because it is just that fun, as well as tapping into the home heating market.

[(No Imagination)]

I think I'll buy a 360 as my current generation console, because I haven't bought a thing since Dreamcast. Or maybe wait for a possible 720, then wait some more before not getting anything in the end.

...and once I am a repulsive old man with loads of cash and zero appeal I'll buy myself a powerful PC and emulate the shit out of all this.

[MiraiTails]

My plan is similar. I recently filled out my PS2 collection for the purpose of eventual emulation on PC. I guess holding onto your games then emulating is the most practical way to play all the games you want.

[Tsuyoshi-kun]

I typically wait a while to buy video game consoles. The only exceptions in the last decade or so are Nintendo consoles, which I typically got a year to a year and a half after they came out in America (Nintendo for Christmas '97, Gamecube March 2002, and Wii March 2007). I didn't get a PlayStation 2 until nearly a year and half after it was out, and the X-BOX 360 over three years.

Ironically, despite owning more video game systems than ever before, I also buy less games than ever. I haven't bought any since I purchased Sonic and Sega All-Stars Racing on my 360 last April.

[CM August]

Ironically, despite owning more video game systems than ever before, I also buy less games than ever.

Sadly, this applies to me as well. Several games in fact were bought in anticipation of eventually wanting to play them (rather than grabbing it used years later) and remain unopened. Not the peak of my gaming enthusiasm.

[Malchik]

The last game I bought was Quake 4.

I still play games, just old ones.

[Crowbar]

Today I received the first game I have bought in months, that being Starcraft 2. I've been waiting almost 10 years for this game, nostalgia goggles on, full power!

[Delphine]

I've been waiting for SC2 so long that I don't think I can play it because my expectations are so high.

[Zeta]

Expect the same game as SC1 but with a slightly more polished interface and three times to price.

[Crowbar]

three times to price.

Nonsense, the campaign of each part will be as big as the entire campaign of SC1 at least. I'm getting through WoL now, it seems like there's just loads and loads to do, as well as the actual story campaign there are Challenge missions which help develop skills for multiplayer and are decently fun in their own right from what I've tried. Almost every campaign mission also has at least a couple of secondary objectives and specific achievements, as well as varying difficult levels, so they're reasonably replayable.

Of course, you may not give a shit about the campaign. But I do remember Blizzard saying that, while they can't nail down prices yet, the expansions will probably actually be priced as expansions, so it won't actually be "three times the price". Bear in mind that even SC1 had Brood War. Two expansions is only one more than one.

[Arcade]

Sony luck ran out, by the time their ps3 slim is popular enough there will be probably already be a new generation of consoles on the market ...

[Segaholic2]

Proving your idiocy once again. The PS3 Slim was ridiculously popular immediately following its release and was consistently selling out for over half a year until Sony could finally keep production up with demand around the middle of this year.

[G.Silver]

Are we sure he's not a bot?

[James McGeachie]

Sony luck ran out, by the time their ps3 slim is popular enough there will be probably already be a new generation of consoles on the market ...

I admire your ability to be continually more retarded with every post.

Even ignoring the fact the Slimline is already popular, there also likely wont be another console generation until like 2013 at earliest.

Nintendo could potentially be first to market with an earlier entry before then, say 2012, but that'd likely be around 360 level anyway. I certainly wont expect anything close to a true "next gen" step up from the current HD systems until 2013 earliest and possible 2014/2015. It isn't going to be financially viable for a long time either.

[Crisis]

What's the deal with StarCraft? I know it's one of those all-time classics, but I've hated every single RTS game I've ever played that wasn't Pikmin, the only one that convinced me it had any more soul than a middle management course. Warcraft III I could just about get into until it dropped a handful of totally bullshit missions in a row. A good friend of mine urged me to play further and assured me it got better, but I was passed caring.

So should I try StarCraft II? I never played the first. I will say I was unimpressed by the little I've seen of this new entry. The plot may be fantastic, but if it is, then the trailer didn't show it off, with some eye-rolling dialogue delivered by characters I am assumed to already have an interest in. The entire trailer could have been interchangeable with any bog-standard Halo derivative and I wouldn't have noticed. The gameplay could also be great (the trailer helpfully omitted any game footage), but I'm unconvinced that any RTS can make me interested in it. Warcraft III had a nice idea by introducing "hero units" that had actual personalities, which was great. Maybe if it just had hero units versus other hero units and cut out the micromanagement tedium I would have really enjoyed it - oh but that wouldn't really be an RTS, wouldn't it?

I'm trying to be fair. If I had had some way of trialling the game I would definitely have given it a go, as my lack of interest makes me feel like I'm being left out of the cool kids' club. If I wasn't strapped for cash I would already be eagerly playing it now. But I'm hesitant to sink £45 ($70) into something I might really hate.

[Alexrd]

So should I try StarCraft II? I never played the first.

You should play the first.