21st February 2014, 8:28 PM
Weltall Wrote:I see no reason why a 3D0 type of model wouldn't work. The reason it didn't work for 3D0 was because 3D0 was garbage and had garbage games and was a tiny competitor going up against established industry giants, two of whom were at their peaks, without any real focus or plan. It wasn't because there were two different companies manufacturing a compatible product.That's a bit unfair... the 3DO (and it is 3DO, not 3D0, I used to get that wrong too) hardware is actually pretty decent for a system released in late 1993. They had several problems, though: since 3DO didn't make hardware themselves, but just licensed it out, the companies making hardware wanted to make a profit -- so the system was really expensive at first. No normal console-style subsidies there. And if you don't have subsidies, you have higher prices, as you see on the PC. 3DO also was slow to get a great game library, but that comes with sales as well as experience... but I mentioned them because that idea, one standard that they'd license out, was what they were trying to achieve -- and it failed in part because the gaming market doesn't really want one standard. Different people want different things in a game system.
And on that note, how would your idea work? Would Sony, MS, and Nintendo all share in the licensing fee? That'd cut how much each makes, probably! They wouldn't want to do that. And certainly none would have any interest in a PC-style licensing-fee-free model!
Also, by having multiple systems, we have competition, and as I said, it's good for consumers when you have choices and companies competing. Without competition you have stagnation. For instance, everything I've heard about the Madden series since EA got a monopoly on football says that they've let that series badly stagnate. The competition between different hardware manufacturers has been overall good for the industry all along. The key to that are the differing visions of what the best hardware should be. Different people, and different companies, have different thoughts of what the next generation should look like, and what the hardware should be. Even the most similar systems have important differences. If we just had one standard, would there ever have been a breakout hit like the Wii was? I doubt it. Because technology always changes, you can't rely on one standard lasting long-term, unlike, say, something like books. There has been constant change, and that will continue for some time to come, and this is natural and for the best.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:That's basically the very idea I'm suggesting Weltall, so I agree, with one exception.You can't have an open standard on consoles because that would make the licensing model impossible to sustain, and the licensing model is one of the most important keys that makes console gaming different from PC gaming. What you're talking about there is the PC, basically.
The problem with Blurays is that Sony owns them, lock stock and barrel. My suggestion isn't for a Bluray style "standard" but a truly OPEN standard, like the Wifi standard or the IP standard or the HTTP standard or the telephony standard or the broadcasting standards or the electrical grid standards or the metric standard or... and I could go on like this...
Anyway, my point is that the standard would need to be open to anyone but defined by a large gathering of companies, competitors namely, with a mutual interest in making the standard work.