[q]This may actually make more sense for the enterprise world, as business will be less scared of something that looks the same.[/q]
I would agree with this; there are high-profile projects which appear to be clones of existing proprietary software. The reason for this would seem to be a regard for their target audience.
[q]Tying products together has nothing to do with a monopoly per say. The fact that you can't play PlayStation 2 games on an Xbox doesn't seem to bother anyone.[/q]
This is an interesting point. Indeed many popular titles are release for all three major systems (PS2, GC, Xbox). On the other hand, Sony and Nintendo have shared periods of monopoly over, say, the Final Fantasy line. Indeed Nintendo owns sole rights (as I understand it) to Zelda and Mario titles. This licensing isn't called a "monopoly", mind you; "exclusive rights" is somehow different.
I agree that the console gaming market would be more competitive were the console manufacturers to agree on a standard platform on which all games could be made. A universal game media just as we have a universal digital audio media. It would be more in the spirit of an open market, allowing consumers to select the console which met their needs rather than the one that has a particular line of games. (I am ignoring the possibility that the customer's needs may be defined by what titles are offered on a particular platform as that scenario is not possible under the proposed "universal media" system.)
I think the difference between digital audio/video and console gaming is that as a Music and Theatre are artistic works which exist outside of their delivery medium, (arguably) produced by a team of artists rather than a company. Many will argue with zeal that the video game is a work of art; an argument which has it's place until you think about "Madden '05". One could persuade much more successfully that "all music is art" rather than "all video games are art".
When I bought "The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap" last week it was because I enjoy Zelda games and I own a GBA. Indeed, one of the deciding factors in the purchase of my GBA was it's backward-compatibility to play GBC and GB games in addition to the lack of a Zelda for the PSP. When I bought "The Masterpiece Collection: Tchaikovsky" on CD last week it was because I enjoy classical music and own a multitude of music players. The fact that Apple manufactured my computer and Honda, Sony, and a handful of other companies manufactured my various CD players didn't influence the purchase of this particular recording on this particular medium. In fact, I made a conscious decision not to buy it via iTunes because I wanted to listen to it in more places than my computer (and the previously-mentioned music player which doesn't read ACC files). Granted, a purchase on iTunes music store licenses me to (iirc) 3 burned copies of the music. My CD doesn't tell me that I can only listen to it on 3 digital music devices. (This time, ignoring Sony's recent head-aches with their "enhanced CDs".)
by Nick — Mar 24
I would agree with this; there are high-profile projects which appear to be clones of existing proprietary software. The reason for this would seem to be a regard for their target audience.
[q]Tying products together has nothing to do with a monopoly per say. The fact that you can't play PlayStation 2 games on an Xbox doesn't seem to bother anyone.[/q]
This is an interesting point. Indeed many popular titles are release for all three major systems (PS2, GC, Xbox). On the other hand, Sony and Nintendo have shared periods of monopoly over, say, the Final Fantasy line. Indeed Nintendo owns sole rights (as I understand it) to Zelda and Mario titles. This licensing isn't called a "monopoly", mind you; "exclusive rights" is somehow different.
I agree that the console gaming market would be more competitive were the console manufacturers to agree on a standard platform on which all games could be made. A universal game media just as we have a universal digital audio media. It would be more in the spirit of an open market, allowing consumers to select the console which met their needs rather than the one that has a particular line of games. (I am ignoring the possibility that the customer's needs may be defined by what titles are offered on a particular platform as that scenario is not possible under the proposed "universal media" system.)
I think the difference between digital audio/video and console gaming is that as a Music and Theatre are artistic works which exist outside of their delivery medium, (arguably) produced by a team of artists rather than a company. Many will argue with zeal that the video game is a work of art; an argument which has it's place until you think about "Madden '05". One could persuade much more successfully that "all music is art" rather than "all video games are art".
When I bought "The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap" last week it was because I enjoy Zelda games and I own a GBA. Indeed, one of the deciding factors in the purchase of my GBA was it's backward-compatibility to play GBC and GB games in addition to the lack of a Zelda for the PSP. When I bought "The Masterpiece Collection: Tchaikovsky" on CD last week it was because I enjoy classical music and own a multitude of music players. The fact that Apple manufactured my computer and Honda, Sony, and a handful of other companies manufactured my various CD players didn't influence the purchase of this particular recording on this particular medium. In fact, I made a conscious decision not to buy it via iTunes because I wanted to listen to it in more places than my computer (and the previously-mentioned music player which doesn't read ACC files). Granted, a purchase on iTunes music store licenses me to (iirc) 3 burned copies of the music. My CD doesn't tell me that I can only listen to it on 3 digital music devices. (This time, ignoring Sony's recent head-aches with their "enhanced CDs".)
Yay capitalism!