The Console War Is Not Good For Gaming

Seleeke Flingai writes "Of all the loose baggage the videogame industry prides itself on, the famed 'console wars' are probably the most divisive. Every four or so years, we hungry gamers gather round and clamor for our favorite side. But you know what? Screw the console wars. They are NOT good for gaming. Why?" From the article: "The console war brings with it great competition, which has created some of the best consoles around. But the console war has also had its share of casualties - some of which were some of the best consoles around. And that is why I think the console war, despite all of its good intentions, is not good for gaming."

I will be the first to say...

[frosty_tsm]

BS.

Good consoles (both from technological stand point and a game stand point) survive. Bad ones die.

Sega genesis was good, but Sega Saturn was designed to be the best 2D console ever. It was, but it came out around the time of the N64.

What he didn't say

[SanityInAnarchy]

There is a real question here: Why do console gamers still tolerate competition between incompatible systems? Unless the Cell rocks our world, there won't be a significant difference between x86 and any other platform, so why not just sell low-end PCs as consoles? I hate to say it, but the Windows monoculture has its advantages -- if I buy a computer game these days, chances are very good that it will play on a Windows PC. If I buy a console game, I have a one in four shot of it playing on a popular console.

Re:What he didn't say

[Anonymous Coward]

it will play on a Windows PC.

Chances are good that it will suck hard on your PC, unless of course you're one of those guys who shelled out for the videocard that, by itself, cost as much as the xbox360.

And then the next generation of games comes out, and you're once again stuck with the question "Do I want to pay $500 for the top of the line video card, or am I ok with turning down the quality sliders, shutting off the dynamic shadows and the reflective surfaces, and ..."

More likely the console wars are good

[WillAffleckUW]

in that new features, like oh I don't know, the Wii's fun motion-sensing controller and wand really change the nature of gaming and make it more fun.

But, hey, it's never great when you're trying to push consoles that don't make a profit, or push ever more FPS and Sports games the vast majority of casual and women/girl gamers don't give a flying h00t about, or just rake in the cash from yet another port of a multi-platform game.

Noone likes losing. But if it never happened, we'd all be playing Tetris and Pong.

.

Hey, anyone else still remember the version of Tetris in Monty Python's game where they go "I'm not dead yet!" - that was sweet!

So what?

[jozeph78]

I can buy a Dreamcast with a bunch of (rare) games for $35 on eBay. That sucks for Sega, but how is that bad for me as a consumer?

Sony would never issue a misleading press release

[L-Train8]

Well, if Sony says they are on track to have 4 million PS3's in stores by year's end, it must be true.

We have absolutely no reason to doubt them [afterdawn.com].

Re:One Console to Rule Them All

[geminidomino]

On the other end of the spectrum, I'd like to see commodity game hardware. I think they did it, after a fashion, in the old atari 2600 days. Let Phillips, Microsoft, Samsung, &c. all make game machines using a unified format rather than the silly overpriced hardware lockin we've got today.

Unfortunately, it'll never happen. It might be technically feasible, but it doesn't fit with the current business plans. The big three have too much to lose in giving up the "My way or no Zelda/Halo/Final Fantasy" approach.

Console wars suck....

[ShyGuy91284]

The main thing they cause is a need to spend a considerable amount of money on multiple consoles. SNES and Genesis were roughly the same in games they offered (roughly, SNES had better hardware and better RPGs, but they were very similar). But to say n64 and PSOne offered the same kinds of games is blasphemy. Even with Gamecube/XBox/PS2, we are seeing major differences for the different kinds of games (Let's see... PS2 for my RPGs... XBox for my online FPS.... Gamecube for my..... family-friendly fun). And console prices are not going down. By the time it's reasonable for your typical gamer to own all three consoles of a generation price-wise, the interest has been lost due to upcoming new console launches. And I'd rather spend $75 for three extra controllers for a single console then $300 for extra controllers for all three. It adds up.

Nintendo

[CodemasterMM]

This is why I stick with Nintendo. Honestly, they aren't going away anytime soon. Sony, I think, will be the first to go if anyone. I was very much saddened when I heard Sega was dropping out of the hardware race (although I hope they return at some point).

Is it just me or does anyone else want the days to be like the old Nintendo/Sega rivalry where most games came out for both systems where the only real differences were the controller shape, button layout, and the small number of proprietary games (ie - Nintendo's Mario and Sega's Sonic)

Re:One Console to Rule Them All

[Anonymous Coward]

3 years ago I agreed with you. The next generation of consoles are just the previous ones with faster chips and extra buttons - something that a commodity manufacturing process could easily do. Consoles should just have been like DVD players - I shouldn't have to care who made it, just put in the disc and play.

However, what changed my mind is the DS and the Wii (-ly awful name). A design-by-comittee commodity manufacturing process simply couldn't come up with stuff as balls-out crazy, and the DS shows that crazy can work very well indeed.

The other thing that changed my mind is the HDDVD-Bluray schism. If we left console design to consortia then we can still sometimes end up with a fractured market, so the main advantage is nullified.