The bloody console wars have raged for over a decade, with the green and the blue vying for dominance over the hearts and minds of gamers worldwide. The ragtag group of fans from each side uses the internet to bash each other with nonsensical arguments and unnecessary brutality. Finally, in 2023, the green raised their white flag and admitted defeat.
The console wars are over!
But were the console wars real or a social construct created by two passionate fan bases? During the Xbox and Federal Trade Commission case, where Xbox is fighting over its right to acquire Activision/Blizzard, Phil Spencer, the head of Xbox, stated that the console wars are a social construct. That’s an odd thing to say when both Xbox and PlayStation are competing console manufacturers. However, when we unravel Spencer’s comment, we realize he may have a point, unmasking a crowd of fans whose passion turned normal business politics into an all-out war.
Ever since Microsoft entered the console game in 2001, it has competed against PlayStation. The two eventually, alongside Nintendo became the dominant manufacturers in the space. As the two platforms become dominant, a sense of tribalism starts to emerge for both. They each take pride in their console of choice, its power, services, and the games available to them. I remember in middle school when kids would get into heated arguments about what console is the best, and now, as I look at the internet, people are still bashing each other with the maturity of a middle schooler. Of course, not every fanboy is an immature person who spouts obscene things and ridiculous comments. No matter the level of discourse, there has always been a battle between fans.
The legal proceedings have, in a way, been a transparent representation of the console wars. Here, Spencer was asked if he lost the war. He said, “As the console wars are a social construct within the community, I would never want to count our community out. They’re big fans. If you look at our market share in the console space over the last 20+ years, we’re in third place…”
The comment seems to be a paradox. He says the console wars are a social construct, then says we’re in third place in the console wars. Could the community and the fans have different definitions of console wars? What even is a social construct, anyway? A social construct is defined by Merriam-Webster as “an idea that has been created and accepted by the people of society. Most often, it refers to highly politicized and, honestly, important topics, but a general conception is that it is a fictional concept that has easily merged with society. In 2020, Spencer had something else to say about the console wars: “… there’s like a core of the core that has, I think, taken it to a destructive level of, ‘I really want that to fail so the thing that I bought succeeds.’… I’ve said before that I find it distasteful, but maybe that’s too light. I just really despise it. I don’t think we have to see others fail in order for us to achieve the goals.”
This comment from the Decoder podcast gives us insight into what Spencer may mean by a social construct. He sees the console wars as the total annihilation of an opposing side. It envisions PlayStation stealing all the games from Xbox until Xbox eventually crumbles and disappears, leaving PlayStation as the sole console. I believe that’s what Spencer means. He is not talking about the normal competition between two companies in the same space. PlayStation, Xbox, or even Nintendo don’t want to see each other fail. They each want to be the best on the market, but no one wants to see the death of the other. The “wars” in console wars imply a winner and a loser, and Spencer doesn’t see it that way.
Everybody who makes games loves games. People who make PlayStation games have an Xbox, and vice versa. When someone makes a successful game, everyone celebrates because it improves the status of the industry overall. So, when it comes down to it, the console wars, in its most extreme meaning, are a social construct. That’s not to say that there is no competition. Of course, there is. Competition is good for the industry because it keeps everyone on their toes, constantly improving and striving for the next best thing. This competition strives for the betterment of the whole industry, not the destruction of the opposition. That’s exactly what Jim Ryan, the head of PlayStation said about the console wars. He likes the competition but he also likes that consumers have a choice of where to play.
“[Console wars] is not a term I ever use or actually like,” he said. “For me, it’s great that there’s competition. I think it makes us work harder. It avoids us getting complacent. It’s great that the consumer has a choice. I think that’s wonderful.”
When some people, probably most, mention the console war, they are referring to the very real competition between the top consoles. Some, however, see the console war as a brutal idea: “My console is better than yours, therefore you are not a human worth anything.” Now, that is very much a social construct, one that we must eliminate. We need to leave the violent console wars behind and stand with the success of games as a whole. For example, be sad when a game fails and don’t celebrate because it’s on the opposing console. The competition is rough and sometimes strategically brutal, and we must be aware of that without tearing each other down. Seeing that we are in the midst of the FTC v Xbox court hearing, it’s tempting to devolve into tribalism. Instead, we must remember not to interpret the fact that Xbox and PlayStation are making moves against each other as evidence for the console war. Rather, it’s evidence of a competition that forces each side to improve for the sake of the industry.
Stay tuned at Gaming Instincts via Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook for more gaming news.
Includes several titles.
Which was showcased at E3 2003.