#1 Edited by Abram03 (36 posts) -

So many consoles.  Who has the money?  Who has the space?  Why can't there be a really awesome open source console that any manufacturer can make?  Why can't our PCs be so powerful that you don't have to pay 400 bucks for a new graphics card every time a game comes out and then obsessively tweak settings for said game to work?
 
I think that Microsoft and perhaps Sony designed their latest consoles to die on purpose at a certain point beyond warranty so you'd be ready to get their next system, which hopefully would be on the market by then, in order to fill the gaming void.  Anybody else think this?  Of course, it worked a little too well in the Xbox 360's case . . . and no, I'm not a fanboy, 'cause that's just what I had!
 
I'm not buying a new console unless it's some kind of open source thing that miraculously doesn't suck.  PS2 and Gamecube and emulation for me.  I must be in the minority.  Or maybe not?

#2 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Looks like you will never own another console.

#3 Posted by imsh_pl (3298 posts) -

300 bucks for a console is not that much.

#4 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

You know nothing about business, do you?

#5 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -
@Napalm said:
You know nothing about business, do you?
#6 Posted by Abram03 (36 posts) -
@Napalm said:
You know nothing about business, do you?
And I guess you're a friggin' marketing genius huh? 
#7 Posted by Abram03 (36 posts) -

Yes, $300 is way too much for a piece of equipment that's really, really, really fragile and is not supposed to be.

#8 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@Abram03: No, I just know some basic business theories/practices and common sense. I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but it just seems your OP is whining, and it could simply be remedied by knowing some basic business stuff.
#9 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@Abram03:

The thing that blows this whole idea out of the water is the fact that this is the longest console generation we've ever had.

#10 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -

Get a job you dust head, the world doesn't owe you shit.

#11 Posted by Danteveli (1210 posts) -
@Abram03 said:
Yes, $300 is way too much for a piece of equipment that's really, really, really fragile and is not supposed to be.
No one tells you to buy one. Dont like the concept behind console gaming? Just don't do it!
I have money and space for many more consoles.
#12 Posted by Bollard (5751 posts) -
@Abram03 said:
Yes, $300 is way too much for a piece of equipment that's really, really, really fragile and is not supposed to be.
That's nothing when you consider the level of experience these consoles are trying to offer you, and the hardware needed to do that... It's no wonder they are so fragile/faulty when they effectively are budget machines. Also, you clearly didn't take into account that at least Sony launched their console making a loss on every sale. They couldn't be any cheaper.
Online
#13 Edited by Abram03 (36 posts) -

Why did I say "miraculous" when referring to the possibility of an open source console?  Hell, I think it'll happen for sure!  What was DVD, after all, but a standard dreamed up by an international consortium of companies?  It'll happen, maybe not now, maybe not in five years, but it will, and there's no telling what kinds of games we'll see then.
 
As far as business theory goes:  Look at the state the economy is in!  Those geniuses over at the Federal Reserve are supposed to be well-versed in all that BS, right?  But where has it gotten us?  Nowhere.  Furthermore, huge businesses miss opportunities and do stupid things all the time.  In the future, we're going to be seeing just how unpredictable human behavior is.  You can't contain the capriciousness of our race in a flippin' textbook.

#14 Posted by Abram03 (36 posts) -
@blacklabeldomm: Ewwww. . . what a piece of shit!
#15 Posted by TobbRobb (4817 posts) -

I've had one single 360 since launch without issues.
I've been running new games on max on a computer with 3-4 year old hardware. "I bought it for $1500 in swedish costs, for you it woulda been more like 800" 
A lot of people have both money and space, but if you don't, it's your problem.
I could live on ps2/Gc and emulation games for a while, great consoles. :P

#16 Edited by JamesBr (15 posts) -

But consoles have nearly a ten-year life cycle before games aren't made for them anymore. I don't understand the complaint. Their are only three major home consoles and two handhelds on the market, everything else is obsolete. Even if you are into older games, all 6 of my consoles and the dozens of games I own don't take up that much room, everything fits on two or three shelves. And besides, not everything needs to be plugged in and ready to play at all times.  And cost? 300$ is not a lot. Not when yo0u only have to spend it once every 9-10 years. If you can't afford a 300$ purchase every decade, you need to re-evaluate how you save you're money.
 
PC aren't powerful enough to run everything because that's just stupid. You're asking why PC's haven't plateaued in power and ceased to get any better. Um, why do you want them to? For a PC to be able to run everything all the time, the tech would have to have stopped getting better. The only reason you always have to update your hardware is because of progress. If you're tired of always having a to buy a new graphics card, spend more money one you won't have to replace for few years. And if you want a single, open source console that runs all games, for every company, you have no idea how business works. And if you're response to that is "well what do YOU know about business?", you clearly aren't willing to listen.
 
You might want to look into OpenPandora. Not an ideal solution, but it's exactly what you're talking about, assuming you want a handheld that'll play only retro games (which is awesome). Price is a little steep, but that's not a surprise.

#17 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

There are two consoles and one PC. I have both the money and the space.

#18 Posted by ajamafalous (12125 posts) -
@Abram03 said:
Why can't our PCs be so powerful that you don't have to pay 400 bucks for a new graphics card every time a game comes out and then obsessively tweak settings for said game to work?
Sure is misconceptions in here.
#19 Edited by mnzy (2920 posts) -

Android phones are basically what you described and well...its gaming market is lacking.
 
Also, you are starting to sound crazy. Leave that Socialism out of my gaming.

#20 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

@McGhee_the_Insomniac: ps2 was and still is the longest lasting console ever made.. GG sony and their brilliance at certain things.

#21 Posted by JoeyRavn (5005 posts) -

@Abram03 said:

Why can't our PCs be so powerful that you don't have to pay 400 bucks for a new graphics card every time a game comes out and then obsessively tweak settings for said game to work?

Even as an exaggeration, that is far from true. In other words, "ur doing it WRONG".

#22 Edited by Branthog (5595 posts) -

First, game consoles are cheap as fuck. My last video card was more than the cost of my 320gb PS3 and 250gb 360 and two full-priced games combined. I'm a die-hard PC gaming fan, but there is a benefit to console gaming. The comfortable seating. The enormous neighborhood rattling sound system. The enormous television. Sometimes, I don't want to be hunched over my PC for dozens of hours a week on top of being hunched over it for 40-80hrs a week doing actual work. As a result, I play a lot more console games than I used to and I'd prefer that they make consoles more expensive, if that's what it takes to make them more powerful. I mean, sure, my 360 was only $300 - but it has graphics that were barely on-par with PC graphics from six years ago. My video card was well over double that, but it has graphics that are on-par with top of the line PC graphics in 2011.

I say, stop catering to the lowest common denominator. Get back to enjoying power and capacity and being awed by things you see on a screen -- whether it's graphical fidelity or utilizing greater power for a more active, lively, world or better AI. If people are willing to spend $60 for one single videogame that will be over with in a dozen hours, why would they *only* spend $300 on a console that they're going to use for five or more years? It's silly. I'd be willing to pay . . . I don't know . . . I guess I'd pay $900 for each console if they were significantly more powerful instead of aiming for commodity parts that make everything feel old and stale just a couple years later. I mean, if the console generation lasts six years, I've only paid $150/yr per console for the use. That's significantly less than the games for the consoles cost in the same period of time.

And, of course, that's why PC gaming exists. So you can do that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the breadth and depth of PC gaming seems to have declined significantly in the past ten years. There are still great games, but so often they're just a port of one type or another. "Oh, we'll fix the PC version later, becuase right now it's just a shitty consolized interface" or "if you want PC quality graphics on this PC game that you bought and downloaded on the PC to play on the PC, you'll have to go download this additional content and go through login and navigation hoops an and then run the installer just to get the PC experience you are playing on a PC to begin with for".

I certainly don't want a "one console world". Competition is the only way things will continue to drive forward. I wouldn't want a one-console world any more than I'd want a one video card world.

And no, the console makers didn't design their consoles to fail so they could make more money. They failed to design their consoles well, in a rush to get their consoles out first and fastest and cheapest, to make more money.

#23 Edited by Kyle (2325 posts) -

This magical "open source" console you describe is called a PC. And good graphics cards don't cost $400 and, and... Oh whatever, that whole post was garbage. I've got better things to do.

#24 Edited by Slaker117 (4843 posts) -

You don't seem to understand micro or marco economics, or the difference between the two.

#25 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

This is some crap trolling here.

#26 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

@Abram03 said:

So many consoles. Who has the money? Who has the space? Why can't there be a really awesome open source console that any manufacturer can make? Why can't our PCs be so powerful that you don't have to pay 400 bucks for a new graphics card every time a game comes out and then obsessively tweak settings for said game to work? I think that Microsoft and perhaps Sony designed their latest consoles to die on purpose at a certain point beyond warranty so you'd be ready to get their next system, which hopefully would be on the market by then, in order to fill the gaming void. Anybody else think this? Of course, it worked a little too well in the Xbox 360's case . . . and no, I'm not a fanboy, 'cause that's just what I had! I'm not buying a new console unless it's some kind of open source thing that miraculously doesn't suck. PS2 and Gamecube and emulation for me. I must be in the minority. Or maybe not?

I know right? Does this mean you will stop gaming or are you going to create your own gaming hardware and network of companies to develop software?

#27 Posted by Gamer_152 (14099 posts) -

Well, there aren't that many consoles and a lot of people do have the money and space for this stuff, not that I'm one of those people. Why can't there be one big super-console? Well, because the console manufacturers make more money being in competition than co-operation and even if there was one console whoever ran that would only stand to lose money by making it open-source. Why do we have to buy £400 graphics cards every time a new PC game comes out? We don't and we never have had too, you may have up to upgrade your machine every few years if you want to keep up with the full capabilities of all the new PC games out there but if that's too much trouble, well, that's why we have consoles which provide all these high-tech expensive components at a reasonable price. Are companies building consoles with components that just cover the warranty? Yeah, probably, but that certainly wasn't Microsoft's plan from the outset so no, it didn't work out well for them, they spent ridiculous amounts of money paying to fix all the consoles that broke inside of warranty.

Moderator
#28 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Three is too much? Really?

#29 Posted by TechHits (1390 posts) -
@Kyle said:

This magical "open source" console you describe is called a PC. And good graphics cards don't cost $400 and, and... Oh whatever, that whole post was garbage. I've got better things to do.

I love it, the truth hurts.
#30 Posted by Three0neFive (2300 posts) -
@ajamafalous said:
@Abram03 said:
Why can't our PCs be so powerful that you don't have to pay 400 bucks for a new graphics card every time a game comes out and then obsessively tweak settings for said game to work?
Sure is misconceptions in here.
Seriously, that's not how PC gaming works.
#31 Posted by RichMeisterMan (70 posts) -

400 on a video card?  I have an ATI  Radeon XFX 5770 and it costs me like 150 dollars and it's a damn fine card. I feel like the expenses of PC gaming is greatly inflated.  The initial build certainly costs more than a console, but at the same time it is also a computer and has more uses than just gaming.

#32 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

no, microsoft didn't plan on having their consoles break and hope that they would buy new console when it released. they knew about the heating problem just they were in a rush to release it. people starting complaining and a lot of consoles were breaking. 
 
you should get a job. working full time and finding time to play video games is easy.

#33 Posted by joshth (508 posts) -

I do somewhat see what your going for here.  What I wish ( and I fully understand the buisness reason of why it is this way but still...) is that if more then one console can handle the game then it should go to all those consoles.  I hate when something is ps3 exclusive because I know I'm not going to get a ps3 cause I dont have the cash and I also really want the game.  Again I fully understand why companies want games exclusive to their system but I wish they didn't.