|
I have spent more than two thousand dollars on video game systems this generation. It's a number I don't like to think about too often. It isn't so bad I suppose. I mean, going to a two hour movie costs a fortune these days, and my girlfriend and I paid for everything together. But still, two thousand dollars! In the midst of an economic recession and with the real world looming not too far off for me, I can't help but wonder if perhaps I should have found a way to make due with just one or two gaming systems, instead of five.
Which brings me to something I've seen discussed and have pondered in recent days. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a one console/handheld future? Wouldn't it great if after this generation, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo came together in one nerdy group hug and decide to stop the competition and make one super console. Wii Station X they could call it; a giant of a machine that combines all of the current three's best qualities. There would be no more system wars, no more multiple consoles that cost four hundred dollars a piece. Just a gaming paradise where everyone is happy, and harmonious, and stagnant.
As pleasant as not having to shell out extra cash, and not having to deal with the inane stupidity of fan boys, might be, something still has to be said for the benefits of competition. Take the Wii for example. I have my doubts as to the staying power of the Wii. As far as I am concerned, it hasn't done much to prove the value of motion controlled games, but I do think the industry is still better off because of the risk Nintendo took in experimenting. A risk that would likely have never been, if Nintendo hadn't had Sony and Microsoft to compete with. While innovation can come about naturally, much more often it comes out of sheer necessity. Humans didn't develop tools because they were bored. We came up with them so we could survive. Nintendo developed the Wii out of a necessity to distinguish itself from competitors that had been beating them for years. While a world with a single dominant console could never completely extinguish creativity--individual developers would still need to compete--the fact is that in the long run the creativity of the gaming industry as a whole would suffer.
Beyond just creativity there are some practical benefits to competition. Microsoft would never have had as much incentive to address the Red Ring of Death if the Xbox 360 were the only console on the market. Nor would Sony have had any reason to consistently lower the price of the PS3 if there hadn't been more affordable alternatives on the market. The fact of things is that no matter how much companies might profess to work for their customers, their first and foremost concern is generally their profit margin. The very reason the Red Ring of Death is an issue at all is the fact that Microsoft wanted to get their next generation console on the market before anyone else. They knew the advantages of having no competition and being able to monopolize the market. They took an early lead, despite crippling faults in their hardware. Competition is the force that keeps these mistakes from recurring.
Paying for video games sucks. That's just a fact of life for gamers. They're expensive, but they're also worth it. I have had more fun with games than anything else in my life. I have spent more than two thousand dollars this generation on systems alone. I've spent hundreds more when you include the various games I've purchased. As far as I'm concerned, it's all money well spent.
|
RSS feed
iTunes