Why is it ok on consoles?

[Pure Mongrel]

Ok, so this thread is a little out of left field but I thought it had enough merit for some debate. (Or at least some posts on how I should pull my head in )

Why do we accept so many restrictions as console gamers?

I began asking myself this question after reading the last round of XBOX vs PS3 posts and I started to realize that as console gamers we get the rough end of the stick when put up against other forms of digital entertainment.

Imagine if you will that you just brought home your new DVD / Bluray player and because of your choice of player you were only allowed to watch the movies of certain distributors.

Can you conceive the uproar if consumers were forced to buy a SONY player for SONY movies, a Warner Brothers player for their titles, etc. The thought of it seems silly, but we as gamers don't seem to have the same issue when it comes to console games.

Imagine buying a Dell PC to surf the net, face book and play games on, but because you bought a Dell you could not communicate or play with users of ASUS, or HP computers. Hell even Apple and PC users can still interface with each other in some format and even play games with one another.

But ask if XBOX users can play games and chat with PS3 users and you get told "no" ... and we just except it.

Exclusive titles ... The fuel of fan boys, the marketing tool of console manufacturers and the "jackpot" of any publisher who can score the deal for their title to be exclusive .. when you think about it, are just tools for creating monopolies. Any other business or industry that try's to create a monopoly gets condemned or prosecuted ... so why do we except it as console gamers?

Add to this the fact that they further control who can play what and where, by restricting releases to select regions and "region locking" games and movies. Again we have all seemed to accept this form of control with very little dispute. (Although SONY need to be applauded for not region locking their PS3 games ... even though this was done in an attempt to remove the legitimate mod chipping defense vs any desire to give their customers a real choice.)

Should there be a restriction on what we can play, and with who, because we picked one console over another?

Just because a manufacturer makes a product, do they have the right to tell the end user they can only play certain games with certain players?

Do third party games developers have some moral obligation to create titles that cross platform users can play each other with?

As a side note; Have you noticed how all the consoles are becoming more like each other with each new update and peripheral release?

Well my learned gaming colleagues, what are your thoughts?

[Drac]

???

Do we buy EA players to play EA games, or Ubisoft players? Or Activision players?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. A lot of what you're complaining about involves hundreds of different things, it's not really one "issue", or even an issue at all really. Why can't I get all of the US TV channels in Australia? Why is the Indian section in my supermarket smaller than the Asian foods section? Why is the sky blue! DAMN YOU SKY, I WANT YOU TO BE GREEN!

Your problem is that you're seeing this restriction as some "man made" ploy, but it's not, and it never was. The restriction is actually a void that hasn't been built on yet because it's too tricky to lay down foundations there. Simple really.

[Pure Mongrel]

Originally Posted by Drac

???

Do we buy EA players to play EA games, or Ubisoft players? Or Activision players?

No, but we can't hold a TOG Golf Tournament with PS3 and XBOX gamers together in the same competition. Don't you think we should be able too? After all we are all still playing Tiger Woods 09.

Originally Posted by Drac

I'm not sure what you're getting at. A lot of what you're complaining about involves hundreds of different things, it's not really one "issue", or even an issue at all really. Why can't I get all of the US TV channels in Australia? Why is the Indian section in my supermarket smaller than the Asian foods section? Why is the sky blue! DAMN YOU SKY, I WANT YOU TO BE GREEN!

I am not so much complaining as making an observation. The reason we don't have all the channels is that we don't have the population base for that amount of TV. We do though have enough console gamers though world wide to demand that consoles, no matter who made them, be able to communicate with each other.

The Indian section is smaller than the Asian section because the demand is greater for Asian products I am guessing. This is a response to consumer choice.

The only choice we have as console gamers is to to buy the console that come closest to matching our needs (and sacrifice the ability to play with some games and players), or to buy multiple consoles.

Originally Posted by Drac

Your problem is that you're seeing this restriction as some "man made" ploy, but it's not, and it never was.

I have many problems ... but that is not relevant here . M$ only want me to play with their products and games and SONY only want me to play with their products and games. Their ideal is to completely control console gaming alone.

Last time I checked these companies were run by men (and women) so unless you know something I don't ....

Originally Posted by Drac

The restriction is actually a void that hasn't been built on yet because it's too tricky to lay down foundations there. Simple really.

I now have a new problem ... I have no idea what that statement means LOL

I as a consumer want to play Tiger Woods 09 on my XBOX 360 against XBOX, PS3 and PC players at the same time. Is that really to much to ask?

[zero]

Well, I think you answered your own question in your first post. It's all about the benjamins

Exclusive titles sway a user to buy from one company or another. It's just about competing companies trying to keep their business going by offering something the others can't - that's how smart money is made.

But you're right - it would be lovely but until the day money doesn't exist I doubt it will happen

[Ash]

The one instance that always bothered me is the Halo series. I am a PC gammer firstly but Playstaion user second, never owned a Xbox. I hate having to go somewhere else just to play that game that I love. It would be nice if they could find a way to release every game for every console. However their scheme to make money almost worked on me as I almost bought a Xbox just so I could play Halo on my time and not my buddies.

[Ancient_One]

I look at the cross platform online games and think to myself why can't the three consoles play with each other if the game is:

1. Online
2. The same game but programed to run on a specific console

Is it because the servers being played on are owned specificly by Sony or M$ and Wee. ie not provided by the company which created the game.

[Zaxvien]

Oh... well, and ... errr....

Fine tuning the games could be a tricky task, PS3 and XBOX 360 both have advantages, so in some games PS3 players could dominate, and in some games XBOX 360 players, and then there comes the WII player zapping with the light saber so fast none can react.

When a more powerful console arrives to markets, that would mean the other consoles could not run the games, and would mean direct comparison and people could be a little bit pushed to buy the other console, change the camp. Social networking, in gaming too, creates pressure.

I think the console manufacturers would like to see people staying in their camps, they live from the games they sell, and if there would be the same games and the same online experience with the same cross console player base, who could care less what kind of a toaster is wrapped in cheap plastics?

Then MS customers pay for (mostly host managing) servers, and will complain instantly if something is not going smoothly enough. Must be hilarious to work in a call center, when a million teenagers can't get their daily Halo 3 session? So I bet it works, but if the player bases would be merged that would look like injustice, MS players pay, Sony players not. Sony customers could even complain if they had to pay about something, but can't complain a lot if the system is down for a short time. Both systems have advantages.

MS customers must accept some legal junk then Sony might have different words describing the same things, but still a bit different, so how these two cultures could fit together, if a Sony customer is banned and then MS customer not, for the same issue, and vice versa?

It's still possible to merge the camps, but it's bit difficult I think.

ugh.

[Drac]

Originally Posted by Ancient_One

I look at the cross platform online games and think to myself why can't the three consoles play with each other if the game is:

1. Online
2. The same game but programed to run on a specific console

Is it because the servers being played on are owned specificly by Sony or M$ and Wee. ie not provided by the company which created the game.

It's actually more about the service than the servers, in most cases there aren't any servers (except for those that provide user account info). There are however massive specification documents for how each game should work online for each different console (and I mean Holy Bible sized kinda massive, seriously). Trying to bridge those would be 100% impossible. For example, Microsoft won't publish any xbox live game that shows a "live" username without the option to display their xbox live profile. All games using xbox live must do this, it protects the quality of their service, and Sony have similar rules. You couldn't ever display the names of Playstation users to an Xbox live user because they don't have a "live" profile - can't accept Xbox live messages or invites and so on, trying to bridge all of the different functionality would be a total nightmare. Even on the PC developers typically just plug in a networked game matching middleware system from Gamespy/Steam/Games for Windows LIVE and so on.

The ammount of work that goes on behind the scenes just so a single game build qualifies on a single system in order to get get published is probably a lot more involved then you think, extending support for multiple platforms per-build is kinda scarry.

Trying to get Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and other large Networking middleware game makers to sit down and make compatible systems is just a fantasy, there's no money in it for them, and each company has it's own philosophy when it comes to community issues.

Even if you did managed to get something happening you've then got the headache of how you'd manage system updates that add various features. This would also halt innovation and progress because all of the base community level features would have to be standardised. No one would try anything new because they know anything they add has to be added to everyone else's system to make it compatible and so on, so perhaps maintaining this divide is actually in the best interests of the gaming industry as every platform continues to innovate to try and out-do the other.

[Milt]

FYI

I have been following the progress of a new game release for next year "The Agency" from Sony. They are currently working on this as a cross platform for PC and PS3 ....it is technically possible but probably wont make the relaes date. reference

[Zaxvien]

Originally Posted by Milt

FYI

I have been following the progress of a new game release for next year "The Agency" from Sony. They are currently working on this as a cross platform for PC and PS3 ....it is technically possible but probably wont make the relaes date.

One can play World of Warcraft with Mac OS X or with a Windows PC in a same realm.

In Games for Windows Live cross platform gaming with a PC and a XBOX 360 is possible, yet I have no idea how much it is used.