Brother None said:
At least Sega and Nintendo had clearly delineated audiences back in the day (kids for N, more mature for S)
Yeah, Sega used to be my guys when it came to the first early hi-tech consoles, but I've never had a problem with Nintendo mainly for the reason you stated, along with the fact they are one of the forefathers of console gaming. Even to this day they cater to younger players, families and even those who don't normally play games. I think that's great 'cause no one else does that; not to that extent. So, I agree with you when it comes to Microsoft and Sony. They are almost the same console but from 2 different companies. Along with that, if the disparity between available games becomes larger and larger, then people will almost be forced to purchase a console for a couple of games on the system they don't have. I really don't want 2. I almost did that myself when Fable came out, but luckily my computer could handle the PC version. I am not even that hardcore.
If everything was only for one console though, I don't know how that would work. It makes me wonder if you'd still be paying $600 instead of $350-$400 if there was only one console. I suppose it COULD be like a PC though, different systems that could play all games, and both companies could still compete with games. You'd just buy the one system that had the features you liked. Sort of like Nvidia vs. ATI or something.
Yeah, whatever. I guess it's just a "mine is bigger than yours" war.
@PaladinHeart: Yeah, I have no idea myself how XBox's online service works, like how you pay for things or whatever; but I am sure that they could set up some kind of system for where you'd have to like, send Sony $10 and get an expansion. I don't know.
I've played GTA IV online too BTW, and if that's true that you have to pay for Microsoft's services, then that turns me against them even more. These guys may love money, but they need to realize that most gamers aren't rich kids sitting in a mansion in LA while mommy and daddy buy everything for them. (OK, it's not THAT bad, but still) How things are going now, I'm lucky to even have a PS3 and a freakin' $60 game. I've never had to be so pick and choose careful in the past. So now, on top of that, don't charge me for online and a new hat for my character. I still have a few PC games that basically add stuff to your game in a free PATCH. So bite me greedos.
EDIT: Paladin, I see you stole my one console thought before I could get this out. I'm too busy responding!
EDIT: Oh, and when you were talking about limits, etc. One reason I am eager about Killzone 2 is because I think it will raise the bar to where it should be. Those guys are always pushing it.
I think you were right about something else you said too, that it's basically becoming harder for game companies to keep up with the system technology, but PS2 has actually been out for a long time as far as consoles go. I think now, it's as I've stated before, it just requires so much time and money to develop anything, you're really going to see who can hold their own. It's becoming like the movie industry. The one good thing about it is that when you buy one big game now, like GTA IV, it might last you as long as 3 games in the past. That's one reason I actually think that 360 and PS3 will stick around for a while. Not only will it be pointless to make a new system at this stage, (since companies arent even pushing these) but it takes that much longer to develop stuff. I think that's the trend you'll see. It will take longer and longer for things to develop and be obsolete, IMO.
