Console wars bad for gaming?

[MikeyLSU]

For a long time now I have always felt competition was great for gaming as it causes prices to drop and all is great for the consumer. But looking deeper into the console wars, maybe this is just not true.

1) Developers are not loyal to one company.
Because they are out to make the most money, they develop every game for every system with very few exceptions.

2) This also means that because each developer makes games for each system, they do not get the full power of any one system. The XBOX is widely known for being a better hardware machine than the PS2, yet most games look identical to the PS2 version of the same game. If they were only making games for 1 system, I believe they would get better graphics out of the better system.

3) Price competition seems does not matter from console to console. Because developers make games on different systems, they are not competing with themselves, therefore your game prices are not going to drop because of this competition. Rather, they will drop only because of competing developers on the same system. The only possible price reduction will be for the actual console.

I am really starting to believe this. I think of the PS3 coming out and that it will have beter hardware in it compared to teh XBOX 360, yet I do not expect games to look any different than the XBOX 360 version because of this. So in a way it seems that PS3 really messed up making the best of the best they could do. All that hardware may just go to waste like the original XBOX did IMO.

 

[imported_Ivan244]

Just to play devils advocate. Point 2: "This also means that because each developer makes games for each system, they do not get the full power of any one system." What about the PC? At least with PS2/Xbox/Xbox360/PS3 you have 4 separate configs and that's it.

With PCs you have almost infinite combinations of diff brands of mobos, vid cards, sound cards, Hds etc....

What if game devs only had to build for one PC config only? Then they could really make games look nifty.

K, I'm through being a smart alec🙂

 

[MikeyLSU]

I think you are correct though.

If PC developers only developed for the top of the line system, I believe games would look much better. But they have to go to lowest common denominator, excpecially in online play.

Look at the outcry when CSS puts out an HDR map. IT won't run on older system, but probably runs great on top of the line ones.

 

[Robor]

Personally I hate consoles. I think it sucks that games are coming out for console only or have a long delay between console release and PC release. Can't really blame the game makers though because that's where the money is at. All you have to do is go into your local EB or Gamestop or whatever and look at the selection. There's a huge section for the various consoles and a tiny section for PC games.

As far as games being made for the different consoles, I think that the games will look different in that more powerful hardware will be more smooth/fluid in the same way that a PC game looks better on a X1900XTX than on a 6800GT.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
I think you are correct though.

If PC developers only developed for the top of the line system, I believe games would look much better. But they have to go to lowest common denominator, excpecially in online play.

Look at the outcry when CSS puts out an HDR map. IT won't run on older system, but probably runs great on top of the line ones.

Yep, the problem is the ultra high end PC owners make up a small % of overall game buyers. Game developers make games to sell to the most people possible and that means their product has to run on a wide variety of machines. If they make a game that chokes on all but the top systems they will eliminate a huge % of their possible buyers.

I think that's one of the reasons the consoles have such success. There's only a few configurations to worry about so developing and testing the games takes a lot less effort than worrying about various chipsets, CPU's, graphics, sound, etc, etc.

 

[KB]

I disagree with #3. Competition does exist and keeps prices down. Even though games are more expensive to create, they still sell for about the same price they did in the 80s.

Developers aren't loyal to a system because they can negotiate license fees to develop for a console and will develop for the better system at the cheapest license fee.

When consumers heard that the PS3 was going to sell for $800, they laughed as the XBOX 360 already undercut that price today. Consumers won't spend the kind of money Sony wants them to.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Prices will be kept down due to developers competition between themselves on 1 console.
I'm not saying it doens't exist, I am saying it doesn't exist between systems because the same games come out for each system(at least for PS2/3 and XBOX/360)

 

[Queasy]

Having one console kills innovation and the drive to keep prices down. Two consoles is better but havin three consoles on the market competing with one another is the ideal solution from the consumer's vantage point.

Do you think we'd have online gaming and HDD storage if MS had not come to the market with the Xbox? Probably not as neither the PS2 or Gamecube initially had it and the Dreamcast was viewed as a failed console.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Having one console kills innovation and the drive to keep prices down. Two consoles is better but havin three consoles on the market competing with one another is the ideal solution from the consumer's vantage point.

Do you think we'd have online gaming and HDD storage if MS had not come to the market with the Xbox? Probably not as neither the PS2 or Gamecube initially had it and the Dreamcast was viewed as a failed console.

Yes and No.

I feel that 1 console is bad for competition, but 2 consoles are bad as well. Let me clerify. In the old days with Nintendo and Genisis, there were 2 consoles that were in direct competition, but I think that was a good situation because the consoles were different enough and had VERY different games. This caused each one to strive for market share in games. Today, it doesn't really matter which system you get because you will be able to play the same games on either one(with Nintendo being the big difference maker here).

So I feel that 2 similar systems with the same games are bad for consoles but having 2 different systems with different types of games would be good. I think Nintendo really has the right idea.

 

[gorcorps]

Even with all of the games that are made cross platform, the ones that are made for one console usually turn out great. Resident Evil 4 (eventually moved to PS2 as well), and God of War to name a couple. With the GTA series they make their games for the ps2 first, then touch it up for the xbox. It ends up working well IMO, the xbox users have to wait longer but they end up getting a better looking and finer polished version for their wait.

 

[imported_Ivan244]

I am really excited by what Nintendo is trying to do with the Revolution. I really hope the devs can pull it off. I think devs can really get creative and even for fps games it could really bring a fresh new approach.


The only thing (and it's a biggie) that I'm disappointed by is the lack of HDTV support.

 

[fishbits]

Developers are not loyal to one company.

Some are, or at least some titles are.

This also means that because each developer makes games for each system, they do not get the full power of any one system.

There are multi-console games that look better on one console than another.

Price competition seems does not matter from console to console.

Of course it does. If it didn't, one console maker would charge $1000 for each game. The reality is that cheaper games are selling points for both the games and the consoles. Not being idiots, the console/game companies have gravitated towards the sweet spot in game pricing. No conspiracy, it just works well.

Because developers make games on different systems, they are not competing with themselves

What does this mean? That the guys who make a certain title are supposed to make it for just one console, and allow other companies to make the title they developed for the other consoles? Or that if a game I want can run well on all three consoles, I should be forced to buy all three consoles or take a 66% chance I can't run the title on mine... all for the imaginary benefits of requiring only one console allowed?

Anyhow, the bottom line is there's a lot of money to be made in the console/games industry. All other things being equal, he who provides the most enjoyable product will get the larger share of those dollars. If there's a better way of doing things, some company will do it and reap the rewards. Others will follow suit or fade away. It'll be all right. As KB points out, games have only gotten better while prices for us have been relatively flat.

Don't buy games that suck. If multi-console releases cause games to suck, don't buy them and the game devs will be forced to change how they produce/market. Don't approach this from a PC uber-gamer perspective and you're going to be happier. "Aggh, this game is playable on something other than my liquid nitrogen-cooled $5000 rig! That must mean I'm missing some crumbs of eye-candy somewhere!" If the game is good, it's good. From a user perspective the point of consoles is to not have to think about the hardware.