Journalist Zaitsev posted this to the comment section and I wanted to share!
Isn't that fantastic? If you missed it, it's suggesting I'm a pinko commie! What would Colonel Flag think (M*A*S*H reference)?
It's amazing that one of the things that used to make America great- the fact that ideas of all kinds, no matter how different or unpopular, could be debated and brought up for discussion- is now the very thing that gets you labeled a commie. Not that this is a new trend, but I think it's been brought to the level of art form by our buddies Bush/Rove/Cheney.
Anyway, great pic Zaitsev! Thank you! And send a link when you get your story up.
Thanks for all the great comments, ya'll. Appreciate the input. A few quick things:
a- as many have pointed out, I am arguing for a single standard not a single console. Thanks for clarifying and helping me express it better. And just because the 'big 3' would never stand for it, as some of you say, I wonder what the big 3 would do if EA, Capcom, Valve, Ubi, Blizzard, Activision,etc. formed a consortium and made a console/standard of their own and agreed to only publish on that standard. It would at least put Sony and Xbox out to pasture unless they did something drastic, pretty damn quick.
b- For the record- to all the semi-sensationalist headlines around the net: Jaffe is not 'arguing for' or 'proposing' anything. I think my blog post made it pretty clear I was simply floating the idea, that I did not think I was 100% right, and that I was open to being educated on the subject. Nice reading skillz, ya'll!
c- Chris Kohler reads good! Thanks for taking me up on it. Read your post at Wired.com and loved it. And you are spot on: to me, 80% of the game innovation I care about comes via design, not tech. Yes, you need your upgrades but I could live with an upgrade every 8 years or so (like 2d to 3d) and then do the rest via software upgrades and perpipheral add ons. But that's just me. Thanks for your article tho. Lots of good info on the subject there....see ya at Dice/GDC!
Ok, I'm done with it. Back to more posts about me and the wife watching fecal paste slither out of young women's brown eyes. I mean, come on, THAT'S the reason you come here isn't it? Well hell, that's the the reason I post here! :)
Can anyone explain to me how having ONE console would be bad for gamers? Or game developers for that matter?
The argument that keeps coming up is, ‘oh, it would stifle competition and competition is good for gamers!’
But I don’t understand this in regards to console hardware.
One game publisher would be bad. One giant game developer would be bad. I get how those things would hurt gamers. But why would one unified hardware platform?
We have it with DVD, we had it with VHS. We have it with televisions (in the sense that- for the most part- every tv is capable of broadcasting the same signal). So what do we lose by having it for game consoles?
Sure you miss out on some features that may otherwise be available if another console was there to compete. But this is always the way when one format wins over another and becomes the standard. And for those few features you lose, don’t you make up for it in so many other ways? Massive content choice, being the main one. And what about better quality products because the makers of the software/television shows/dvds don’t have to spend one instant struggling to make the same content for 2-3 different systems and instead can focus on making grate content right out of the gate? And you get MORE competition on the software side- which is, to me, where it counts- because there is MORE competition to be the best on a single system instead of content creators splintering and never ever worrying about competing with 2 out of the 3 groups.
For me, those are much bigger reasons to want a single console. Sure, you miss out on a cool feature here, a neat feature there. But we’ve gotten used to this in so many other hardware products and- in doing so- reaped the many more benefits of a single system.
Sure, our industry would have to battle it out to determine who gets to make the system. Is it one company or a group of companies? Or is it like television sets where you have multiple consoles that run the same software but with their own unique features?. And before you toss 3DO at me as an example as to why this won’t work, don’t. 3DO failed because- for the most part- it had crap games and was way too expensive and could not compete with the new game hardware coming out that was selling at much cheaper prices. But if the 3DO had been an XBOX 360 or a PLAYSTATION 2….or even a Wii? Well then I think things would have gone differently.
A lot of people will say: well, the game companies would never agree to this or that or the other. And to me, that is part of the problem our business has overall. Competition is great. But I think the leaders of the biggest groups should come together from time to time- like the big Mafia families do in the movies- and make some decisions together for the overall health of the business. Heck, maybe they already do this and I am just not aware. But if they do, they have not made the right decision on the one thing I think that could benefit gamers and game makers in a massive way: a single console.
As always. I’m up for being proven wrong. I don’t think I have the ultimate answer and I know there are some strong feelings on this topic from some folks. But I’ve yet to have a good argument from anyone-including these vocal anti single system folks- as to why a single console is wrong. Please to educate me? Even if the reason is competition, please explain why it works in other industries but would not work in ours? Thanks!