Jump to content

Luke

Members
  • Posts

    15,322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Luke

  1. I really hope we do get to realism soon: then everyone will realise how dull these games actually are.
  2. Another thing with a standard that is only upgraded very infrequently: There isn't actually anything stopping different companies adding better GPUs as long as it's done correctly. The conditions that would satisfy it being done correctly would be that it was still 100% compatible with the standard so any game released for the standard would work on it still. Games could then be developed that took advantage of the improvements on the standards, but they would only be granted a license if they still worked on a base-line model (just with less flashy graphics). This would remove the feature-creep problem seen with PCs where anyone can release a game with whatever system requirements they choose, preventing people with older systems from playing the games.
  3. well, how about trying it now? ;-) Many people have suggested why, please pay attention! Some reasons: 1) The combination of Nintendo and MS would have a big fat wallet and would be very attractive prospect. Also, if they offered other incentives. 2) The combined backing of the 2 (or more) companies would mean it was less likely to die off than an MS or Nintendo offering would on it's own. 3) The platform would remain the same for more than 5 years. 4) It would be a move towards a single format (and not one owned and controlled by a single company) which is something I imagine developers would love. 5) There'd no longer be the descision to make as to whether to develop a game for the XBox and/or the Cube. and there are more! You really aren't paying attention are you! Nobody has suggested it would never require updating. Theres a BIG difference between upgrading every 5 years and upgrading after 15 to 20 years (or more).
  4. It wouldn't have needed more powerful software and hardware. Just longer to get the most out of what existed. Anyway, I was being pedantic and objecting to your "impossible" claim, which I think is an exageration; however, if you truly believe it would have been impossible with the software and hardware they had at the time, then I think you're wrong.
  5. Do you suffer from short term memory loss? I don't think all this is about to change, I do however think it could change. Read back through the thread for reasons why. Also, Playstation is the most dominant not the most stable platform. Reasons it's not stable: 1) 5 yearly upgrade cycle != stable 2) PS3 expected to have a greatly different architecture to PS2 (just as PS2 had compared to PS1) 3) Single hardware manufacturer
  6. Sony already have unbridled support from "some of the world's biggest codeshops" and then some. what makes you think they'd all suddenly up sticks and abandon them in exchange for this new platform? $, £, ¥ and € Also, the gaurantee of a stable platform that will be around for more than 5 years and that has the backing of more than one hardware manufacturer.
  7. I don't think that's actually true. It would have taken longer and been more difficult, but I think it would have been possible.
  8. I came to that conclusion too.
  9. I doubt they would be somehow.
  10. Because it would be a defined standard where any manufacturer could license and use the technology. It would be a standard in the way DVD is standard: you go and buy DVDs that will work on any DVD player, you don't buy DVDs that will only work on one. It would be the same with games: you'd buy games that would work on any (standards compliant) games player, not just your XBox, PS2 or GameCube. Also, think how many "exclusives" (exclusive to the stanard) MS and Nintendo would be able to get, combined they'd have a huge power to enable them to wrestle the market out of Sony's hands, that when they're main rivals are each other, they are just lacking. It would also do even better if they could get other companies to license the standard and create their own consoles, or combine the console tech into DVD Players and so on. I know it's been done before in a way, and hasn't worked, but I personally believe that if it was done by Nintendo and Microsoft together (possibly with Sega, Namco, etc thrown in for good luck), then it could be a HUGE success.
  11. But the question is whether if Microsoft and Nintendo teamed up and defined a standard, where multiple manufacturers could create a console, would they be able to establish a standard? and would this standard then be able to stand the test of time against any new bigger faster (but non-standard) technology? I think the answer is 'yes' to both these things. And due to the standard being a co-operative thing, I think once it had won the market off Sony neither they (or anyone else) could wrestle it back.
  12. Well, I also believe that game prices would be driven down by a standard, especially as developers would spend more time on the machine and so would become quiker at developing for it, and because they wouldn't have to spend time porting it to 2 other machines. Hmm, Box Office charts would generally make me disagree with the "people don't want to go and see rubbish" comment.
  13. But it was the natural succesor of the PS1. It wasn't competing against it. A new iteration of the Standard would take over from the standard (especially if it offered backwards compatibility). It would be very difficult for someone else to take over from the standard - especially as the standard would have developers on it's side, cost benefits and a huge back catalogue.
  14. (in reply to Onion) I think the 5 year cycle discourages innovation. Developers just update all their franchises for the new generation; there's no time to innovate and come up with something new. Also, the film industry is huge, the music industry, there a huge number of books released each year - yet people still manage to find the good ones amongst all the crap, and people who're less fussy just enjoy the crap that's easy to access.
  15. Umm, that question just so misses the point that I can't even understand why you're asking it. It's also impossible to answer (in the context of this debate) due to it's complete irrelevance. If you can explain the relevance of your question to this debate I'd be happy to answer it.
  16. And it will sell to hardcore gamers, spoilt rich kids, technophiles and very few other people. It'll be more expensive. It'll have much fewer games. The games will be more expensive. It will have no affect on the Standardised Console's market.
  17. Yeah, these results are annoying slow in coming forward. Have we only had GC, PS2 and PC so far? It'll be next year by the time we get to most anticipated game!
  18. My God!!!!!!! All the excellent suggestions you had along the way - and you choose THAT as your shortlist. All completely cack! All would put me off the show!
  19. A couple of my friends were playing a football games once (must have been PS1). Another friend walked in and sat down to watch thinking it was a real game. After a while he said "eh? what's going on there ... oh, you're playing a game".
  20. Yes, that's probably the one thing (although I'm already building up quite a back catalogue of un-finished/started games). However, new games don't need a new console - that's just a factor that's forced upon us (that this slowly updated standard would help tackle).
  21. Especially if it is fully backwards compatible with their previous console (no matter who had made the old or new console), and if they haven't had to shell out on a new console for a reasonable number of years. As it is, the next gen of consoles are going to have to offer something pretty impressive if I'm going to buy one - and I doubt they will.
  22. I tend to choose females becuase I'm a perv. If you chose men then I suspect you're probably gay. Someone once posted a theory that blokes (including himself) like to play as women kind of as a cross-dressing kind of thing - I suspect he was probably gay too.
  23. No, and you probably won't be with the next console or the one after that. If there is a standard that is updated every 10 or 15 or even 20 years, then when the next generation comes you will really notice the difference, hardware manufacturers will not make as much of a lose on hardware, more buget titles will be available, more people will buy games and consoles as they will be easier to understand (they will be machines that play games, not machine that play some games) and it would be great. I've been against a console standard in the past; however, I'm really quite for it now. The differences between the current consoles are so small that it makes little sense having 3 different ones.
  24. But if a standard is established then anyone who does innovate will lose out. Developers won't be interested in developing games for the console as it'll have a much smaller market than consoles built to the standard. Small hardware teams would be kept on for small improvements, such as faster disk access, faster memory card access, etc; however, anything that made the console break away from the standard would make it lose out. There would also be joint research and development teams that would work on developing the next standard for 10 to 15 years down the road.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.