Originally Posted by Kreij
No, it's the consumer market that attracts devs to a platform. If a platform sucks and no one buys games for that platform, no one develops for it.
They do. You only have to pay for a particular platform game if you own that platform and want to play the game on it.
The code on the disk is what makes it possible to play the game on the platform, not just give access to the game.
I'm really confused. If you only want one platform, then just buy games for that platform.
I don't own any consoles, so I just buy PC games.
You base your points on the current market which is quite confusing and not exactly benefits consumers.
I'm throwing out other options that can solve the multi-platform game problems to prove what i think is right or make more sense for us, which is we in no mean need to buy a copy for a specific platform just because we want to play it on a different platform.
The root of the problem was not created by consumers. Everyone (big corps) wants their own platform (profits), and they know really well what they are doing, because the market has matured a lot now. They just don't put out stupid thing like before.
If there were a big enough differences between platform to justify its existences then it's fine, but look at the PS3, Xbox360, and PC games library.
What's exactly the differences? Games can be made on all said platforms. It's ok if they wants their games to be exclusive, but non-exclusive ones should be playable on any platforms for a small fee like i suggested.
Still, put all the problems aside, and think about this from a logical perceptive. Should we be able to play games on any platforms by just buying a game title?
We do able to play music and movie on most devices, aren't we?