1) People are confused because you are attempting to write complex sentences but are using horrible grammar (all of your sentences are runons, and many are sentence fragments - generally lacking an object). Short declarative/interrogative sentences are what you need.

To the point:

Specifically what insight are you looking for? Are you trying to understand the business or technological aspects? What specifically of those aspects are you trying to understand?

What/how big is your target market?

The short is that if you're looking to compete with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo you simply cannot in this reality. Each company takes a loss on their console hardware (at least several hundred million in losses for MS's last-gen XBOX) with the hopes of making the loss back through game license fees. MS, i think, never made back the losses they incurred with the first XBOX. That was the plan; they wanted to establish a brand so the 360 could be profitable.

To make a mainstream competitive console you need:

- at least several _hundred_ million dollars
- people who are experts in all aspects of electronic software
- a network of game developers who are willing to take multi-million dollar development risks to make launch titles for your machine (no one will buy a console that releases with zero games; no random developer will "trust you" that the console will sell well)

Basically, you need to be a huge company with excellent employees and well established business connections. This is not an arena in which a self-motivated individual can just enter and win no matter how good your ideas are.

Around 1993 there were a bunch of "console" companies that just tried to startup and compete. Back then the market was smaller and the risk was far lower than it is now. Every one of them that was not backed by a mega corporation failed. It is an order of magnitude harder now to do what they tried to do >10 years ago.

-me

> does anyone have insight on the financial and
> technology problems that have to do with a console

Here's an interesting article for you:

Gallagher, S., Ho-Park, S., "Innovation and Competition in Standard-Based Industies: A Historical Analysis of the U.S. Home Video Game Market", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol 49, No 1, February 2002.

IEEE magazines and journals are usually stocked at your local university's library. It shouldn't be hard to find, especially it said university has an engineering faculty.

-cb

How do you expect a 2D gaming console to be marketable? If it does get put on the market, the chances of it selling are not good and it would only hurt your chances of being successful with future consoles.

Quote: Original post by kvp
For a small unexperienced startup company, like microsoft was with the xbox1, the best solution is to go the known way, get a pc and sell it as a console. Smaller companies than ms have little chance to do it successfully. (two good examples are phone maker nokia with the ngage and tiger telematics with gizmondo)

I have a few questions.

Why most people don't consider a PC-like console (or console-like PC) a "true" console? It seems that if a console resembles a PC in some way people will automatically say "Ah, it's just a PC...".

The only advantage a console has for big companies like Sony and Nintendo is that it provides a standard hardware configuration and builds a brand that is easily recognizable and marketable, it also provides some ease of development if compared to the standard PC. The proprietary nature of such technology is perfect for such companies.

What characteristics prevent a PC from being turned into a console? The architecture is open, parts are cheap, any kid can build one.

For lower cost stuff wouldn't a PC turned into a console make more sense?

If the PCs differs too much, and it could cause games not to run properly, could something generic be created on top of it? Like a virtual machine or virtual console?

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
The only advantage a console has for big companies like Sony and Nintendo is that it provides a standard hardware configuration and builds a brand that is easily recognizable and marketable, it also provides some ease of development if compared to the standard PC. The proprietary nature of such technology is perfect for such companies.

You missed the most important point. Because games consoles are proprietary the console company is able to control the tech and to charge a license to any publisher for each unit of a game they sell.

Compare that to IBM, who invented the PC using off the shelf components....

Quote: What characteristics prevent a PC from being turned into a console? The architecture is open, parts are cheap, any kid can build one.

Yep that's right. As happened with IBM PCs, any kid could build one and many of them did and they then created companies to sell them and IBM got nothing from any of them because they don't own the tech.

Quote: Original post by Obscure
You missed the most important point. Because games consoles are proprietary the console company is able to control the tech and to charge a license to any publisher for each unit of a game they sell.

Compare that to IBM, who invented the PC using off the shelf components....

Yes, I did and I see that IBM compatible PCs are ubiquitous. Other proprietary architectures are used only in niches, for very specific tasks. I consider that a success.

But developers should care about it? Are you Sony? If not then why do you care?

If my game runs on a cheap PC and sells well wouldn't that be good? How lots of copies of the game sold on PC are less than the same amount of copies on consoles?

Quote: Original post by Obscure
Yep that's right. As happened with IBM PCs, any kid could build one and many of them did and they then created companies to sell them and IBM got nothing from any of them because they don't own the tech.

I think some sort of PC-Console + VM + middleware for shielding developers from differences between platforms would be more interesting than building a console "with your own tech".

With the middleware and the VM the hardware could be replaced following some sort of "profile", similarly to cell phones. The profiles would tell the features obligatorily available.

If such system managed to become as ubiquitous as the IBM PC, I wouldn't be complaining, I would be working on taking advantage of the huge market created. :)

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
I think some sort of PC-Console + VM + middleware for shielding developers from differences between platforms would be more interesting than building a console "with your own tech".

See "The Phantom". Didn't end so well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_%28game_system%29

-me

Quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
But developers should care about it? Are you Sony? If not then why do you care?

A console represents a fixed configuration that remains stable over a "generational" lifespan - typically five to seven years. The import of this is that it gives developers time to really become expert at dealing with that hardware, and it means that the audience for your released games continues to grow over that timespan.

Compare with the PC, where "minimum" and "recommended" specs fragment the audience. A five-year old PC often can't play a two-year old game. A 30-year old Atari 2600 can play a couple-month old game written for that architecture.

It's the Law of Leaky Abstractions. The more tiers and layers are required to simulate a uniform environment, the more work goes into sustaining that perception of uniformity - a disadvantage to the platform vendor. Plus, knowing that there are underlying capability discrepancies which could optionally be taken advantage of to make your game look particularly good, as a developer your instinct will be to circumvent the "virtual machine" and get to the underlying, raw platform whenever possible. A console avoids all this.

And then there's the consumer. For the overwhelming majority of them, a console is a better value proposition. One $400 machine every five to seven years to play all the latest and greatest games? That beats constantly upgrading your PC. To maximize PC audience, developers have to find a "midpoint configuration" that they then target, which lags the consoles for most of their lifespan - again making the console look more attractive to the casual consumer.

Quote: If my game runs on a cheap PC and sells well wouldn't that be good? How lots of copies of the game sold on PC are less than the same amount of copies on consoles?

The cost of testing for PCs is higher than the cost of testing for console, because of the unlimited number of configuration combinations that the PC's open architecture makes possible.


The final factor that makes the console more appealing that the PC to many consumers, however, is ergonomic. The console is designed to be plugged into the television and played from the couch. It's inherently social - the very first consoles came with two joysticks/paddles/trackballs, encouraging you to play with someone else. The PC is fundamentally designed for single usage, and requires a desk-like environment which, for many people, is too reminiscent of work. (Incidentally, the same thing is fueling the explosion of digital music and video: the fact that people can transfer content onto portable devices that they can then enjoy away from the desk and chair.)

Quote: Original post by Palidine
See "The Phantom". Didn't end so well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_%28game_system%29

-me

Something in those terms, or just a piece of software that is installed in common PC.

Oh, you mean like .. Java?

-cb