Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft Console Combined

[Axelotl38]

Hi ZD, just have a quick topic.

A while back me and my friend were talking when he came up with the idea of have the 3 big game companies join together and make a console.
I reckon that is an absolutely stupid idea, and I told him just that. The fan boys wouldn't have it, there would be stocks ?? to consider, and in the end, there would end up being one company favoring the other. He brought it up again today, and i told him the exact same reasons but he wasn't convinced. He didn't reckon they were good enough reasons (and in my opinion, they are very weak excuses). Anyway, do you reckon this is a good idea. Can you give me a good idea as to why it is a bad idea, or could you convince me it it a good idea. You get the idea. Good, or Bad

PS: To propose a statement that has no use to the argument, yes my friend is a graphic whore, and yes, I liek Mudkipz.

 

[Fahxy]

Well, we could do that. We could also abolish all governments, and create one super government where all creativity is controlled by a council that make all of the decisions for the people. Everyone would have the same style and personality, and we would be ruled by a supreme dictatorial counsel. Or we could let everyone have their own game companies, and not hinder the creativity involved by having to make everyone work together. Another reason is that we couldn't have this many good games coming out so near to each other. People wouldn't be able to process that many games under one company, or even be able to afford them. As a result, many great games would be thrown away early in development or be completely undertoned by other major franchises releasing games at the same time as them. The only way to fix this is if there was a much larger gap between games released from the same series. Games that come out fairly often, like Call of Duty, would come out once every 3-4 years. Games like Zelda? Once a decade.

 

[Hanyou]

In general, competition is a good thing. That's just a basic market principle. Conglomerates have an easier time pseudo-monopolizing things (though there's no such thing as a perfect monopoly--there are always people there to challenge the big corporations), and the lack of competition is potentially detrimental because it limits what's available. Rather than coming down to the consumer, decisions about availability could be made higher up. I wouldn't be surprised if this led to a larger amount of shovelware than we currently see on store shelves.

The status quo forces all three companies to seek out their own niche. Just look what happened this generation. Sony went for the technological advantage (a failed experiment, for the most part, unfortunately), Microsoft went for a console that did more than game consoles traditionally have and offered the best online experience of the three, and Nintendo appealed to a wider demographic and their core base, which allowed Japanese games to continue to have an influence in the Western market (this is especially true of the DS, which was as much of a haven for JRPGs this gen as the PS2 was last gen).

I favor Nintendo because of my taste in games (I mostly enjoy single-player experiences with a Japanese approach to aesthetic and gameplay), but someone else might favor Microsoft or Sony for different games. The three consoles, in essence, helped define this generation and keep different aspects of the industry alive. In some ways, they directly competed with each other; in others, they simply exerted influence on each other or seized their predetermined niche in the market. Either way, gamers were benefitted.

A single console might offer diverse gameplay styles, especially since gaming is, naturally, driven by developers. Developers, however, might be inclined to take fewer risks lest they get lost in the much larger base a three-company console would precipitate.

It is worth pointing out that there were positives and negatives when Nintendo monopolized the industry. On the one hand, games were great during the NES era because Nintendo was so skillful, so good at development, promotion, and innovation. On the other hand, the status quo was arguably unsustainable because Nintendo exerted too much force on the market. The 16-bit era--where Sega really gained influence--is the better one, because a wider variety of games expanded the gaming demographic and allowed both sides to carve out their own niche.

I would argue that when the really big, non-gaming focused companies started entering (namely Sony), problems started to crop up with the market, culminating in Sega's expulsion from it entirely. So competition doesn't always yield the result you want, but it's still generally a good thing.

 

[windwaker101]

Sony is pretty much making games for the x-box 360 and the wii so they need a new game system. Their last one was only only 16 bits (correct me if i'm wrong.) and that is why Sony and it's small section of game systems. Sony would need to create a game console that is able to rival the ps3, wii u, and x-box 360. If they made a console together Sony would be in the background making games while Nintenddo and Microsoft would make the console and games. Sony has it easy in my opinion.