Just like everyone said about the xbox not likely but hey it happened, if so who do you think will be the company to come out with a new system no matter how crappy it is?
No one, the market is far too crowded for it to happen. Any big companies that could make a new system eg EA are making far too much money by making games for everyone elses systems.
I mean, I guess theoretically a company like Apple could make one, but they'd get blown out of the water very quickly because they have no background in games. There are no companies in games that would benefit from making their own system, and if EA isn't going to make one then no one is.
If anything there could be one less system next-gen. The failure of PS3 could literally kill Sony, the whole company is riding on it. And the whole point of Xbox was to prevent the domination of Playstation 3. Microsoft haven't made a single dollar on Xbox so with Sony out of the picture next-gen they might not bother. Their shareholders would be pissed if they made ANOTHER multi-billion dollar loss on their next system.
Haha, no. hell, the only way MS is still in this is because they basically have unlimited cash to through at the project. It doesn't have to turn a profit. Not many other companies can do that. Plus, good luck competing with Nintendo.
Microsoft got in this to stop Sony taking over the living room. If Sony fail then what place to Microsoft have? Do you honestly think the bigwigs in MS are going to let this total financial failure continue for 5 more generations?
Microsoft aren't in this to make a bunch of nerds happy, they're in it to make money. They are a business. If the next Xbox continues to lose billions of dollars then the plug could well be pulled.
"Microsoft have tons of money" was always a short-term arguement for how Microsoft could keep going until the end of the generation. No one of any intelligence used it to say Microsoft would keep it up indefinately.
Uh, yeah, no kidding. My point was that you basically need to have an unlimited supply of money at this point to even consider bringing out a fourth console...
Huh... I didn't figure it so bleak for Microsoft. So if Sony pulls, you speculate it's very likely that Microsoft will follow? And that'd lead Nintendo as the sole gaming console? Go figure, I'd never see that coming. That'd probably make it more feasible for EA to make a system though.
No way do I think there won't be an Xbox after this one, I'm just saying Microsoft won't continue making consoles indefinately purely because they have the money. If I had to estimate when it would stop if this trend continues I'd say something like there won't be an Xbox 6, but don't hold me to it.
we already have 7 out there, we don't need any more.
1. gameboy advance/sp
2. nintendo ds
3. sony psp
4. nintendo wii
5. xbox 360
6. ps3
7. PC
[quote=Rddflag;758090]What?! you don't consider the apple II a system? Even though it dominated sales for how long?
What, you mean it dominated during the videogame crash of 1983? The period where ALL GAMES CONSOLES WEREN'T SELLING? And then got it's *** swiftly kicked into oblivion by the NES?
I think it would be interesting if a completely new company came along and tried to take on Nintendo.
I know it probably wont happen, but it would be fairly amusing.
It's never really that amusing. N-Gage didn't manage to make me laugh.
My friends had one, I took the p[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]ss out of it all the time.
The consumer actually loses in the long run when more consoles come into play. 1st and 3rd party games that aren't cross platformed will get spread across all the systems, making the consumer either buy all of the systems or settle with not being able to play certain games.
Yeah but thats what I like: Variety and what not
[quote=Rddflag;758390]At that time the Apple II was sold in the same stores as consoles
DURING THE VIDEOGAME CRASH OF 1983. YOU ARE SHOCKINGLY STUPID.
There's already as much variety as we'll ever see in this generation. Adding another console into the mix isn't going to give birth to new genres and concepts. The DS and Wii already has that covered.
Sure as long as there not too expensive
@ Speedfreak: well woudn't that mean alot of game publishers would make games for it would it not? Alot of people consider the PC to be a gaming system so why not the Apple II?
PCs don't compare to consoles for a lot of reasons. Games produced for consoles have only one system configuration in mind, giving maximum performance quality on everyone's machine (with everyone having the SAME machine,) to call the PC a gaming system implies that all PCs are meant for gaming, which isn't true. PCs require more maintainance for upkeeping than Consoles from updating drivers, firewalls, virus checkers, hardware, exc...
But an important difference is what PCs are used for. Console's main purpose is for gaming, while most PCs are for various other applications. To call the PC a gaming system implies that all PCs are meant for gaming, which isn't true. Not to say there aren't PCs strictly for gaming, just that most household PCs are for surfing the internet and checking E-mail or writing papers for class aswell. A console will always be more of a gaming system since its sole purpose is for gaming, even if it can check e-mail.
As a side note, PC is more like a gaming system than Apple II judging by the vast number of PC games oppose to Apple
[quote=Rddflag;758847]Sure as long as there not too expensive
@ Speedfreak: well woudn't that mean alot of game publishers would make games for it would it not? Alot of people consider the PC to be a gaming system so why not the Apple II?
I never said the Apple II wasn't a gaming machine. You used it as a reason Apple could enter the market, when the only reason the Apple II was in any position of power was because there were no game systems to challenge it. It didn't dominate that very short period because it was a great gaming machine, it was just a good computer that it also happened to play games. One of many kinds of PC that led to the downfall of systems like Atari and ColecoVision. There were other, more successful computers and gaming machines around at the time anyway, like the Commodore 64.
The market is different now. Apple wouldn't stand a chance in hell because they'd be completely incapable of gaining a foothold. They have no experience in modern game development and there's no way they could entice 3rd parties to make games just for their system. So what would their selling point be?
Apple already busted into the cell phone market, having never made a phone before, so I could see them doing a game system. Their start would more than likely have to be on a portable videogame system that is capable of doing the same stuff that the iPod does, but they have more than enough money to get the hype machine running at 200 MPH for a console, and if the PS3 tanks and causes Sony to die, therefore no PS4, there will be more than enough room for Apple in the marketplace in the next generation.
Hey ya I never noticed that one about the phone.
Poor analogy, phones don't live or die based on software other than the OS. Apple don't have to worry about keeping up a good flow of phone applications from themselves and third parties because all phones use applications programmed in Java, which runs on everything (badly). Nevermind that most phone users just stick with the software that comes with the phone in the first place.
Apple already had the pippin, a dismal failure. I'm not sure if that has been brought up yet, or if it even counts, since Steve Job had no hand in making it.