Sharks and Consoles

For a long time, the Gameboy (you know, the shades-of-green one) was the most prolific gaming platform. Even though PCs have always been a good hardware platform, the legacy of being designed as a office/business platform rather than a consumer/entertainment platform still haunts it, and will forever, but that's another rant.

The Gameboy was not popular because ti was the best of the handhelds. It was popular because it had the three main characteristics with respect to commercial software (games): fun, accessibility, popularity. "Tetris" embodies this the best, but the huge library of titles which followed its launch mostly capitalized on these trends, thanks to Nintendo's visionary involvement in approving and promoting games for the platform.

Tertis was fun. Anyone could play it (accessibility), anyone who bought an origional SKU got Tetris free (accessibility, popularity), and it was promoted well.

Although Nintnedo released more handheld platforms, such as the GBC (Gameboy Color), their backwards compatibility protected the investment of early adopters, whilst giving benefits to new adopters. This "sliding upgrade model" was something Nintendo wanted from the NES to SNES, but due to limits of their engineering team, couldn't accomplish it at the time-cost available.

So, anyhow, Sony does a similar "sliding upgrade" as far as consoles are concerned. Even the newfangled PS3 can play PS1 games, and PS1 games are being re-released for PSP and so forth.

In a way, the PS3 is an extension of the PS1... the "PlayStation brand" is not just a brand; it is a virtual platfrom with a very wide compatibility window. This stuff matters to peopel who've invensted in dozen, if not hundreds of games.

PCs, on the other hand, continually break compatibility with older version of themselves. This is not strictly for technical reasons, but, rather, because of Microsoft shifiting the "sliding window" and developers not being aware, or not taking advantage of, future roadmaps to "future proof" their software. Hardly any DOS games work unmodified on recent systems, but since hardly any PC-publishing houses from DOS days still publish/support even updated versions of their titles, then who cares, right?

In the console world, Sony has done the best job on protecting the investment of gamers... and even now, you can buy a PS2 or PS3 and play all you PS1 games, and, depending on model of the PS3, your PS2 games as well. Software emulation of PS2 games for the PS3 models without it built in is possible, but I don't know much about it.

The point is that the PS3 represents somewhat of a climax in console technology (the XBOX360 and Wii could be seen in the same light, but more for business than technical reasons). HD is fine for mature gamers with disposable income, but many unvoiced gamers play on SD screens, even if they can afford something better, for various reasons... from here on, esp. with a 10-year lifespan of the PS2 being understated, we can expect a lifecycle which is more aboud increasing penetration, and expanding the software library, than about making a "bigger, stronger" console.

This is not the same as consoles dying. This is, moreso, the market becoming more mature.

Oh, yeah, this rant was inspired by an Edge article [link].