Multi-Console Owners: The Most Content Gamers on the Planet (1 Viewer)

[Parker]

plus if you're a game renter, it's nice to go in and always find something to rent between the 3 (or 4 with places still renting dreamcast).

 

[Mark Evans]

I wish I had the cash to own at least a PS2, I really do. But that's a lot of coin to spend essentially so I can play GTA and Vice City . I'd say that Square's RPGs would make it worthwhile, but I haven't enjoyed them of late. Kingdom Hearts does look good though.
What I'd really like is a Dreamcast though. Some Chu Chu Rocket and Power Stone seems like it would go over quite well. I have my GameCube essentially for the four player action plus the side bonus of the first party softs/my uber-loved RE games.
The sad thing is though, the real reason to own all three consoles is that none of them are innovating enough for my liking. Sorry, but 3D action gaming IS starting to get a little old now, we need something fresh. Animal Crossing is a great start. DDRMax (DDR in general actually), genius. Chu Chu Rocket? Conceptually looks solid.
The problem with 3D is that people keep dipping into the same old well every time. And I think if designers don't soon start trying to overcome that, we're gonna see further stagnation of the industry. I mean, it's fine to have these games coming out, and I still gobble them up like a consumer drone, but you can't live on bread and circuses. Part of the reason I think the GTA's do so well is that they take the basic 3D concept and really do innovate with it by having literally an entire city placed at the player's feet to toy with. The ultimate bathtub environment.
I'm sure I had a message about multi-console gaming here somewhere

 

[Chris Bardon]

Well, I'm up to two of the three current generation (Box and Cube), and I'm actually kind of disappointed that I had to buy both. I'm thinking back to the NES and SNES days, when one machine did it all. You had one hardware investment, and that was it. Now if you want the best that's out there, you have to invest in three consoles (plus an up to date PC), which is incredibly expensive before you even get a single game. It's like having to buy a different DVD player for Fox discs, one for Warner discs etc. Personally, I'd much rather spend the money on software, but no one console has the best of everything anymore. I got the Xbox for Munch and Halo (as well as future prospects) but needed the Cube for Mario, Metroid and Zelda. Since I had to invest the extra $250 in cube hardware though, I can't afford all of the software I'd like to be able to own for it.

So next generation, why not just have one standardized platform? That way, everyone wins, don't you think? Get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo together, and design one piece of hardware that will do it all. Cut everyone in on the hardware profits, and let people worry about buying games instead of game systems.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Actually, in the 16-bit days, if you were a sports fan and a platform/rpg/etc fan, you really needed both systems. And if you were really hardcore, you also needed a Turbografx/Duo.

So next generation, why not just have one standardized platform? That way, everyone wins, don't you think? Get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo together, and design one piece of hardware that will do it all. Cut everyone in on the hardware profits, and let people worry about buying games instead of game systems.

And watch hardware prices increase, and the end of hardware innovation.

No thanks. I'll take at least 2 consoles.

 

[BrianB]

Cut everyone in on the hardware profits, and let people worry about buying games instead of game systems.

Generally, they aren't making too much money from teh hardware - it's from the licence kickback on each game sold that they generate their profits. How do you replace that?

 

[JoshF]

More than anything for me it's an issue of space and time.

I don't want three consoles piled up in my living room. I also don't have the time to play that many games. I already have too many games piled up for my one console.

 

[Mark Evans]

Basic economics says that any monopoly held is good for the business, not for the consumer. If you want a great example, look at PCs. All jabs at the corporate monolith aside, can anybody honestly tell me we're better for not being able to choose between different OS's?

Even with Windows owning basically the whole market, we still have compatibility issues, and the only recent release that's been half-way system effective has been XP, and that's loaded with security flaws. And I do not believe it's worth any more than a regular software package, frankly.

One system only = a $500-600+ machine. The X-Box (to give a recent example since we all know MS takes a huge hit on each box it makes) would sure as hell be priced to actually make the company money if it didn't have to worry about people buying PS2's or GameCubes.

 

[Jason Seaver]

look at PCs. All jabs at the corporate monolith aside, can anybody honestly tell me we're better for not being able to choose between different OS's?

Well, I remember the mid-1980s, when my family had an Atari 800XL and a friend's had a C-64 and another had an Apple IIc and another had an IBM beast. Then we upgraded to PCs, Macs, Amigas...

Sure, half the irritation there was incompatible hardware, but I certainly don't miss not being able to work on a simple English paper at my friend's house because his Apple couldn't read a disc formatted with Atari DOS 2.5, let alone that my machine couldn't run AppleWorks and his didn't run SpeedScript, and neither of us were gong to devolve to Bank Street Writer.

 

[Mark Evans]

Darn, that's a really good point, Jason. I've honestly got no counterpoint to that. Feel free to step in somebody .

 

[EdR]

All these system war discussions are funny to me now.

Indeed. I participated in a thread at arstechnica.com about the 3 consoles and was amazed at how adherents to any side become so bitter at the others. PS2 fan boys refuse to acknowledge the graphical inferiority (even if you mention that the games can still be great). The Xbox FBs won't hear that it's missing it's sales projections, and insist that the Japanese market matters not. The GC FBs seem most reasonable, but seem to focus on games that are coming out, rather than the (IMO) disappointing ones out so far.

I own all three, I like them all, although right now the GC is underwhelming. I've tried Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, and a few other 'hits' and have returned all but Super MonkeyBall 1&2, Rogue Squadron, and Beach Spikers (I'm a sucker for a good arcade game).

Despite the PS2s lack of graphics power, it still reigns in terms of games, both quality and quantity.

The Xbox needs more great games, but after finally seeing a game in 720p, I can only hope that it catches on...more 720p games would make me very happy.

 

[Ricky Hustle]

I only own the Xbox. I got rid of the PS2 when the Xbox came along, not really because I could not afford both, but that I just don't have the time to play my Xbox and PC games, let alone a 3rd platform to play games on. I can see if I were single and without a child where this might be easier to accomplish, but I just dont know how you all find the time. I work, come home and eat, and until my 8 month old goes to bed, I am by his side, playing, reading to him and spending quality time with my son and wife. By the time he goes down, its between 8 and 9 oclock, then I either watch a movie or some TV with the wife or just chat.

I may get some playing time between 10PM and midnight, sometimes later, but that leaves me time for just a few games a month at most. I'm already spread too thin! If I had another console, I would finish nothing.

Also, I still believe that the best gaming platform is the PC. That and my Xbox will keep me happy for years to come. Bless all you guys that can juggle all the systems, I wish I had the time, but I do not and will not for the forseeable future. Now if here in Vegas I can hit the fucking Megabucks machine (yeah right), I'd buy all the consoles, plus reacquire an old Vectrex machine!

Happy gaming all.

 

[EdR]

plus reacquire an old Vectrex machine

Vectrex! I never had one, but I've always had a fondness for vector games. I was in heaven when I got my projector recently and played Tempest (via the MAME emulator) on a 68" screen!! It was my favorite game when I was younger and because it's vector and scales up perfectly, it holds up better than almost any game from that era.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

To those of you who are content with one console, all I can say is, "Good for you!" My comments did not have you people in mind. I'm talking about those who refuse to invest in more than one system, even though they know they can't get everything they want with the one the already own. Then, they blame the system for not producing everything they want to play, when they realize that the answer is to simply run out and get a second (or third) console.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that anyone who could have considered themselves hardcore gamers "back in the day" didn't see the need to own every system that came out.

 

[JasonK]

Owning all 3 consoles is great but damn expensive. I purchased a DC on launch day, a PS2 on launch day, and a Cube and XBOX shortly after they came out. As other people have said, it's nice being able to look forward to all the games coming out, and not just the 'A' titles for one system.

I've been a multi-console guy since the 16-bit era. I had an SNES and a Genesis, then a PSX and the N64. And when the next generation systems come out, I'm sure I'll skip a few meals to be able to afford them all.

 

[Joseph Young]

Then, they blame the system for not producing everything they want to play

This is precisely what I find funny about the consoles debates. I own a Dreamcast, a Gamecube, and a PS2. Quite honestly the physical size of the Xbox has impaired me from purchasing one. My television stand is a tangled web of front loading drives, blinking lights and buttons.

If you don't have a problem owning just one system, if you are content with the games and technology available to you with that system, then awesome. However, if you find yourself irritated at Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft for whatever reason, for not giving you what you want on 'your' console, well... you have a choice to make. Research your other options, take a good look at your finanace, take a deep breath, and change your situation. Not too difficult.

Jeffrey F., another great thread. What ever happened to your 'screaming JFo' sig from a year ago?

~j

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Jeffrey F., another great thread. What ever happened to your 'screaming JFo' sig from a year ago?

Thanks for the kind words.
I dumped the screaming J.Fo pic once I got out of college and lost my free server at school. I've thought about putting it back online again, but I decided I like the more subdued "J.Fo" text as my sig instead. Besides, who wants to look at my ugly mug every time they read one of my posts?

 

[Marshall W. Carter]

Aside from my first entries into gaming, the Atari 2600 and the NES, I have yet to buy a system for any other reason other than because of the games that I wanted to play that were exclusive to it. That doesn't mean that I've never bought a system at launch, I have (SNES & Dreamcast), but that's because the games were already there (Super Mario World, Final Fantasy II on the SNES & Soul Calibur on the DC). Games are the reasons for buying a system... Alien vs. Predator & Tempest 2000 were my reasons to buy a Jaguar. Final Fantasy VII & Castlevania: Symphony of the Night were the reasons for my Playstation purchase. HELL & Rebel Assault were my reasons for buying a 3DO (I didn't ever say that all the reasons were good did I )...and the list goes on.

 

[Josh Lowe]

Get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo together, and design one piece of hardware that will do it all.

The PC pretty much encapsulates this. PC and console gaming have always been vastly different from each other despite more and more crossover between the two. I like competing consoles because it pushes for more innovation.

 

[Ian C]

We also can't have one console for fear of rising software prices. Rising hardware cost would be bad, but that's just a one-time deal. However, you could be sure the software would be more expensive if there was no need to compete between systems.

Ian

 

[Chris Bardon]

I like competing consoles because it pushes for more innovation.

How so? Software is where the real innovation comes, and innovative software is still being made for all of the consoles as well as the PC. In a single console world, innovative games can still be made, but the exposure for such games would be that much higher since the hardware penetration wouldn't be an issue. There would also be the relief of not having to develop for multiple platforms in parallel, thus speeding up development schedules on some innovative games.

I suppose that the argument could be made that having a standardized hardware platform would drop the hardware innovations completely, but I really don't see why this would take place. Software has always driven the hardware innovations, and once software reaches the point of maxing out the current generation of hardware, then a new generation will have to be developed to compensate. Again, this has been happening on the PC for years. I guess what I'm proposing is something that goes way back to the Commodore 64 days of computer gaming-standard system requirements. The problem with PC gaming is that there's no standard system configuration to develop for. Back on the C64 though, everyone had the same box, so the games would all work. If the box said it played on a 64, then it would play on your 64 exactly the same as it would on your friend's machine etc.