Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminous  They'd still lose to Nintendo, that's what would happen![/fanboyism]
But more to the point, if you focus less on the business aspects of it, I think you'd see very little difference in a PS360. After all, much of their libraries overlap, since it is very easy to port games from one to the other. The graphics are identical(Although the 360 runs them at 60 frames per second..[/Sony hate]), and the only big difference in controls is placement of the analog and d-pad.
Really, the only big thing that is exclusive to each system is first/second party games. But since Microsoft doesn't have too many of those, the addition of those games to the PS3 may not even be noticeable.
So I don't think it'd be perfect or horrible, it'd be pretty much the same. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoDeath90 not only that but it would spark less competition. if two of the main consoles merged, then its simply a two man race between MicroSony and Nintendo. And when the two big companies merge (theoretically, mind you) then they practically have nintendo beat anyway, console wise.
and with just two consoles, whats the point of console wars? ther ewould always be one clear winner. a third party would have to step up. Like Sega. if sega became the third console in this hypothetical situation then maybe things would liven up.
to put it simply, its not a bad idea, just perhaps a bit boring. |
So, there is no way from these two originals into being a good console then?
After all the companies wants all the consumer to comment about on how to improve the software, etc. I really thinkg it might be helpful into having more views into how program runs so different about it. Also how would this two different things would turn out different into both of you in a boring place?