You know, I was actually thinking about some of the questions I asked you guys, and the overall best answer I could think of was pretty much what you said creepin:
I think it would be better if companies just adopted standards, such as DVD standards, HD resolution standards, etc. That way the only thing that is different is the games and it would be easier to choose between consoles.
While before I was talking in complete hypotheticals, I think this would be a realistic solution to the problem of too much diversity that I was talking about. The videogame industry being relatively new doesn't really have a set guideline for systems, games, etc, which is kind of a double edged sword. On the one hand it leaves enough freedom for people to really get nuts and come up with fresh ideas (the revolution, for example) but at the same time (and especially with newer systems no longer being able to rely solely on higher specs) companies can differ from each other so greatly that the average consumer misses out on a lot when they are forced to choose only one system. Which is why, to me, the revolution is a sort of pandora's box, cuz once one company gets it in their heads to take things in a completely different direction, the industry itself has to expand to encompass a wider variety of possibilities, and it's the average consumer who ends up with the burden of paying out enough cash to support the industry.
In my opinion some kind of regulations, or even some kind of standard, should be agreed upon by the major companies. Before there was never really a need to, as the pace of technology practically dictated what the new generation of games would be. But this is obviously no longer the case, and if we are forced to pay $500 (or $400 American, whatever it is there) a system now, which is an increase of about $100 (once again, Canadian prices) from the last generation of consoles, then I greatly fear what the asking price will be for the next generation of consoles.
That being said...
For example how can someone draw if they can't afford or find some type of drawing pencil.
Well, true artists have to suffer for their work. Are videogames an art form or are they just a marketable commodity? Should their bottom line always be money? Are games that sell the most copies considered the best games? If not, then what should a videogame company aim to do, make a great game, or make a game they think will sell well? For the sake of videogame fans everywhere, I hope the latter is not the case.
Again on paper that sounds great but you give humanity a little too much credit. Greed and corruption are everywhere
So we should simply accept that things are the way they are, and accept the fact that there's nothing we can do about it, and accept the fact that there's no hope things will ever improve? It is a sad day when a person is reluctant to change the world for the better because it is not already better.
Seems like you might be a little lazy and want companies to do the thinking for you.
How very incorrect that assessment of me is.
The consumer wins because instead of paying full price for all the hardware that MS and Sony have in their console, we get it at huge discounts. All this stems from competition itself.
But these companies also spend massive amounts of money competing with each other. With all the time, and energy, and money that goes into events like E3 where each company is trying desperately to gain potential customers and fans of other systems, wouldn't it all be better spent making games? Wouldn't that bring down the cost of hardware and software for the consumer?
and I am curious.... what could Microsoft bring to handheld gaming? besides maybe Xbox Live on a handheld.... I am not trying to limit the company... but they would have to invent a lot to beat what's out there already.
Perhaps they won't bring in anything new. Perhaps they're strategy is to simply do what the other companies are already doing, except they will do it
better. At least, that's what I would like to see happen.
And as a final comment:
Not all people like to be forced and have only one choice.
Even if it is widely regarded (almost indisputable) that it is the best choice? Wouldn't it be for their own good to be forced to make the best choice?
My DS.... gets played quite a bit because of the nice games on the system. I give 1 crap about graphics.... as long as the games keep me interested, that's what keeps me.
