If you're a nintendo fanboy, this thread is not for you
 

First of all, I have to say that if you feel that you may turn this into a reply which goes something along the lines of "YEAH WELL MICROSOFT SUCKS! NINTENDO OWNS!" Then I can offer you one piece of advice.

Get the hell out of this thread!

I'm trying to say this as peacefully and above all, rationally as possible. So please, please, please understand my point. I am so mad about all of this garbage I am going to be EXTREMELY fierce on my stance, but once I vent I will have a little more of a rational stance on this.

Ahem.

I read the article at Game-Revolution, and I can only agree with what he said.

Nintendo, I love you, you bring me childhood memories, but please suck up your pride and cut a deal with Microsoft and Sony. I'm so sick of it all; The fanboy ism, the multi-platform incompatability, and above all, this year's E3 "New console" BS.

Why do we need new consoles? Simple. Playstation 2 was out before the other two, therefore it had less powerful technology. With that, they designed the PS3 to counteract the other two. So Nintendo and Microsoft answered RIGHT back.

AND IT'S THE SAME GODDAMN CONSOLE.

Sure, muck through all the techno jumbly, and get rid of their 'uniqueness' (I don't care about the 360's online support, Revolution's backwards compatability, or the PS3's engine), and it's all just fancy ways to slap a logo on a new "computer" with it's own unique operating system, and no "install CDs".

I don't want this to become tradition. I don't want to have to shell out 900$ every two years, only so I don't miss out on games that I want LESS than other games. Call me selfish and all, but I say Nintendo and Sony and Microsoft need to resolve their differences RIGHT, FLIPPING, NOW.

Am I the only one so infuriated at the "Bigger, faster, stronger" war that is waged between these three? Am I the only one who sees all three of these consoles as nearly identical and the only thing that they have going for them is the 'exclusive content'?

I want just ONE console. Please. Just one. I don't want to have to buy the PS3 for GTA, Devil May Cry 4, and Metal Gear Solid. I don't want to get the Revolution for anything Miyamoto makes, and I don't want to get the Xbox for Ninja Gaiden: Black or Halo 3. But I'm stuck with it, and therefore,

GEN RANT!

You're missing the fact that all the "new" consoles, are, in fact, the old ones with a new case around them. Sure, they go faster, they've got 1000000 terabyte of hd memory and don't even need electricity to run. But all you get is the same type of games you have now on your PS2, X-Boxes and 'Cubes.

They compete alright, but it would be much easier for us, the gamers, that there would be only one console, and the companies would compete with their other appliences and their (in-house) games.

'Cause most, not all mind you, but most of the in-house games of Microsoft and Sony suck. Only Nintendo delivers quality, I think.


Disclaimer: Note that I exagerated(sp?) in my rant. Also note that I'm biased as I only own a PS2. So I can't be too sure on my claim.

I don't think this is the sort of thing that would flare up a Nintendo Fanboy. All you mentioned was how the new consoles are just the same consoles with better hardware. And a good thing you did, too, because it might have been considered flaming or trolling otherwise...

But anyway, they need to compete. Competition breeds good sales, and ratings. There's no need for ratings if there's nothing to compare to, and if there's no competition, folks won't find the need to bolster the sales of their favorite gaming console (Or its respective games) for the sake of its continued existance.

And its not so much a matter of pride. There was a falling out between Nintendo and Sony way back (Playstation was originally meant for Nintendo consoles, but then Nintendo wanted a better deal, and went to Phillips behind Sony's back), so there's no way they'd EVER merge, at least not unless some different folks came to head Nintendo and Sony and decided to merge the two for business. And Microsoft is fairly exclusive to America, whereas Sony and Nintendo are based in Japan, which would limit their ability to coincide.

Depends on what you consider In-House. I mean, Naughty Dogg only produces for Sony, as does the makers of the Ratchet & Clank and Sly Cooper games. Plus, Metal Gear always ends up in Sony's hands first. Plus, that horn-boy game was fairly decent (can't remember the name).

SWK

I'll admit there haven't been alot of gems from the first-party developers of sony and microsoft, but there have beens those that outshine the rest. For example, the Microsoft Game development team brought Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge to the Xbox with the help of a Third-Party developer. The problem is that the first-party developers of the systems do not make thier own games by themselves. They work with a Third party to create the game, so really no game is an "in-house" game.

a fusion of the 3 would still churn out quite a profit for the companies.
They make there profits around there games and with all the games coming out from one console they'd have an increase in overall profit.
the second point is that even though this new console would play all three of the game types except for the revolution the discs would all be in general the same all they'd have to do would be remove the code that says dont play on anything but ours.

I don't think you quite understand the world of business, my friend. You see, there's a little something called a monopoly. It's what you're suggesting, and quite frankly, it's illegal. One system means one company, and one company is an illegal monopoly. Monopolies do NOT have any added effect on economy - in fact, they destroy economies. Your idea may look good on paper, but it will NOT function in real life. Like communism.

Without competition there would be no desire to make better stuff either. You could make your one console and that would be that. It would be the only console and so you would not lose any profits because there wouldn't be any reason for you to upgrade. But then eventually everyone would have that console and your sales would degrade, then everyone would get sick of the halfassed games made because there's no bonus money from one console manufacturer who wants an exclusive deal. It would just be churning out games.

Anyways NES came out in what, 1984? Super nintendo in roughly let's say, 1990. Somewhere in there. N64 was in about 97. The cube showed up around 2001 or so. Maybe 2002. So technically this would be nintendo's first time releasing a major console in fewer than 4 years. As for the other companies, they don't have to reply to it, but the fact is if one company has a vastly better system, game companies might want to make games for them, resulting in a loss of revenue for the competition.

It's all simple business models anyways. More technology = newer products = more money.

One system every company can freely develop games for? Why, that sounds suspiciously like the device I'm using to let you all partake in my wisdom.

No, not the megaphone.