I don't see any of that making sense in the videogame industry. For one, you have consoles becoming obsolete in at most 5-6 years, especially compared to PC's, and over time this has meant that gamers might have had just a tiny little bit of brand loyalty which console manufacturers aren't willing to throw away.
This makes no sense whatsoever. So they shouldn't form some kind of consortium to create standardized specs for a gaming platform because of brand loyalty? First off, as evident by the fact that Sony has struggled with PS3 - that argument is stupid. Software and affordability sell hardware, not matter how hard Internet fanboys (which represent a fraction of the market) say otherwise. The end.
Not to mention, a consortium doesn't negate brand loyalty. Microsoft and Sony would still be able to manufacture individual units, and I'm sure folks will tout their Sony or Microsoft as superior to the other, but at the end of the day, both boxes would play the same exact thing.
Second, you act as if selling hardware is a plus for these guys, which it isn't. They don't make money off hardware, it's not sustainable.
Also, you have huge R&D costs that come from having to constantly design the next generation of consoles. If different manufacturers did agree to a universal platform, then they'd have to constantly be working together on the next generation of consoles.
... Uh, how is this a bad thing again? Standardized specs would lead to reduced R&D costs, and all companies would have a stake in the hardware's success. Not only does it mean more affordable hardware, since multiple manufacturers would be buying the same parts, but the manufacturers would be more likely to make a profit on the hardware with reduced costs.
For gamers, it means less costly hardware, since the market would be more competitive and - more importantly - longer console lifespans. Since all manufacturers would have a stake in the platform's success, it would naturally create longer lifespans, which would be beneficial for every involved - manufacturers, publishers and gamers.
But at the end of the day, all the companies want all of the pie. That's what they always promise their investors.
Again, how would this not expand their "slice of the pie"? They would be able to stop hemorrhaging money on hardware costs, sell more software than ever before, still sell accessories and even get licensing fees.
This belief that the manufacturers are in the industry to sell hardware is
laughable, because that business model is a proven failure. What is occurring right now is a war for the living room - with the power players trying to push their specific Internet-enabled platform as an end all entertainment solution.
This is about creating a set top box, with Sony pushing PSN and Microsoft pushing XBL.
And that - not brand loyalty - is the only thing holding both back. Realistically, one will push the other to the brink, because the current model is not sustainable. Not only would a consortium create a more profitable business model, it would make things easier for developers and publishers. Resources would be less strained and we'd see more polished games, software would cheaper because budgets wouldn't be as expensive and publishers wouldn't have to pay double the licensing fees, and - most importantly - the end user
would buy more stuff.
imgaine sony hardware with ms software
That's not what we're really talking about. Imagine Sony hardware with a Sony interface and Microsoft hardware with a Microsoft interface, but both
played the same exact disc and crossplatform connectivity.
