Print

Author Topic: One Console to Rule Them All  (Read 6573 times)

« on: October 27, 2007, 10:49:53 AM »
Someone on another forum posted a theory that someday Micro, Ninty, and Sony will all join together to form one huge gaming platform that will end the Console Wars.

I remember having an issue of Tips & Tricks that talked about something like this, and I lost it. I want to show some stuff that is wrong with putting all companies into one console, so I'm asking, is it a good idea to have all companies work on one console?

Chupperson Weird

  • Not interested.
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2007, 11:55:20 AM »
No competition means a stagnant market and terrible games.

In short: No, it is a very very terrible idea.
That was a joke.

ShadowBrain

  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2007, 11:59:51 AM »
Boy, have I heard this one before... I don't think it's a theory, so much as a suggestion. Granted, it would mean you could play ALL the games, but that's like siamese triplets right there; they'd all have to have the same controller, same online setup... see how different the Wi/PS3/360 are now? If they merged, it wouldn't last long.
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2007, 12:06:44 PM »
This is kind of eerie to me, since I was just about to make a topic about console exclusivity when I saw this.
every

« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2007, 02:02:54 PM »
That wouldn't be a good idea, in my opinion, for reasons stated above.
"Be yourself. Everyone else is taken."

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2007, 02:07:24 PM »
No competition means a stagnant market and terrible games.

In short: No, it is a very very terrible idea.
Boy is this ever true.

Miyamoto compared game consoles to dinosaurs once, I believe... You have the big top-of-the-line predators with superb graphics, and then the little cunning ones that survive by other means (the Wii's motion sensing and stuff).

Not to mention it would be far too expensive.
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2007, 04:00:57 PM »
No competition means a stagnant market and terrible games.

In short: No, it is a very very terrible idea.
There still would be competition: between games.

Were PC games horrible before consoles stole the majority of gamers? Heck no! They were totally awesome.

Just imagine how much more effort could be put into making the actual game awesome if a company didn't have to use resources porting between three completely different platforms. Imagine how pr0 all the programmers would get at the one platform.

Imagine how much money the current multi-platform buyers would save.

Imagine how much larger the userbase of online games would be, which for consoles is currently split, even though everyone's playing the same game.

One console: the future. (Or the past, because it's the PC.)

« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2007, 04:07:32 PM »
I can't imagine how anyone could ever think that would be a good idea.
As a game that requires six friends, an HDTV, and skill, I can see why the majority of TMK is going to hate on it hard.

« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2007, 04:17:00 PM »
I just told you.

MaxVance

  • Vance Vance Revolution
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2007, 04:33:30 PM »
I doubt most of the world's governments would allow it.
Remember that your first Goomba boldly you walk? When Mario touched that mushroom being brought up more largely remember that you are surprised? Miscalculate your jump that pit remember that it falls?

Luigison

  • Old Person™
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2007, 07:04:44 PM »
I doubt most of the world's governments would allow it.
Please explain your reasoning.  I don't see why any government wouldn't allow it. 
“Evolution has shaped us with perceptions that allow us to survive. But part of that involves hiding from us the stuff we don’t need to know."

MaxVance

  • Vance Vance Revolution
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2007, 01:05:56 AM »
someday Micro, Ninty, and Sony will all join together
Monopoly, anti-competition, etc.
Remember that your first Goomba boldly you walk? When Mario touched that mushroom being brought up more largely remember that you are surprised? Miscalculate your jump that pit remember that it falls?

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2007, 08:31:20 AM »
Well, there are both good and bad sides to this issue. I mean, it would be the end of developers intentionally doing a crappy job on one system to promote the next-gen version (for example, Splinter Cell: Double Agent and Spider-Man 3). Furthermore, it would mean you would only have to spend money on one system. Plus, there would be no rabid fanboys for one system or another. On other hand, yeah, it would also be pretty bad, what with the monopolies and the lack of competitions and the whatnot.
every

Kimimaru

  • Max Stats
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2007, 03:31:00 PM »
Miyamoto compared game consoles to dinosaurs once, I believe... You have the big top-of-the-line predators with superb graphics, and then the little cunning ones that survive by other means (the Wii's motion sensing and stuff).

Superb graphics doesn't make a console top-of-the-line. Little cunning ones that survive by other means? The Wii is not "little." It is perhaps the most popular gaming console of this generation. It's motion sensitivity isn't the only reason it is surviving. Please correct me if I am wrong about this Bird Person, thanks!

Onward to the topic... I do not believe that having one console will be the best idea, but it isn't the worst either. There might be trouble with the developers, however. Some might believe that they did more work then others. Then there comes games. Since the developers have no competition in consoles, they might not work as hard to create entertaining games for the crowd.

The Mario series is the best! It has every genre in video games but RTS'! It also has a plumber who does different roles, a princess, and a lot of odd creatures who don't seem to poop!

Suffix

  • Steamed
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2007, 03:36:19 PM »
By popular you mean prevalent, yes?

It wasn't that great of analogy, but I think this comparison was referencing the beginnings of mammals just before the dinosaurs were wiped out. Now, similar rodents are extremely prevalent.

Print