Dyack's Crystal Ball - A One-Console Future

[Dr.Finger]

Ah the One-Console. That mythical grail sought by gamers of every stripe. No more bickering over which platform is the best. No more missing out on a game because it's exclusive to a system you don't own. No more wars over which version of a game is the best. In short having one platform to play them all would usher in a gaming Nirvana. While most think the One-Console to be nothing more than a pipe dream, some optimistic souls still hold out hope that this future can become a reality. One of those souls is Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack, who made this concept a core element of his GCDC speech (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15178). Some related technological examples of commodification at work are cell phones, the printing press, cameras and cinemas, VCRs / DVD players -- all have had significant social influence, and all have caused technological and political change.

Dyack says that certain indicators point to the fact that the industry is at the cusp of a paradigm shift, such as the cost of software surpassing the cost of the hardware, and the industry still following trends established by old business models that no longer hold: christmas release rush, marketing of video games, proprietary hardware, consumer shows.Head to the link and read the whole thing, because there's a lot of good stuff there.

While I agree with Denis on some points, particularly about the rising costs of development while the average consumer (i.e. the non-hardcore gamer) just doesn't see that increase in spending showing up on his screen at home. But the fact is we already have a (more or less) unified platform - the PC. And it's never really been all that unified to boot. In the end I just cannot see any of the three current console makers willingly give up that part of their product line, no matter what the short term financial losses are at the moment.

[Heretic Machine]

The only way this would ever happen would be if developers got together and demanded it, or did it their selves. Current console manufacturers are not going to get together, on their own, and create a standard for building game machines (especially Nintendo).

[KingGorilla]

Well, this has been an idea thrown around for a long time, for almost 40 years. But the problem is the miopic thinking of the hardware manufacturers. It is also the dream of software engineers to have a single platform to program on. But while most areas of tech simplify, games and portable electronics have ballooned.

[mkelehan]

Competition is great for consumers. I don't see it going anywhere.

[KingGorilla]

Competition is great for consumers. I don't see it going anywhere.

In order for you to play every good game that comes out in a given year, you need thousands of dollars worth of hardware.

And you are operating under the misconception that one platform, means one piece of hardware. Is there only one DVD player? Neither do you need a different disc for each player, yet/

[Zanch]

Yeah, because of all people, Dennis "Crybaby" Dyack is sooooo knowledgable.

[Micasa]

Is this his way of hinting that he's going to move Too Human development over to that fabled One Console?

[digitalErich]

Yes, I think by platform, he is not saying manufacturer, he is saying one hardware spec. Even then, good luck with all that.

[KingGorilla]

Yeah, because of all people, Dennis "Crybaby" Dyack is sooooo knowledgable.

He is not the only one to think like this. Molyneux, Jaffee, Peter Moore, and many industry writers like Gary Whitta have suggested that it would be helpful for the industry to move more towards a single platform.

[Itchyeyes]

In the end I just cannot see any of the three current console makers willingly give up that part of their product line, no matter what the short term financial losses are at the moment.
The key word there is 'willingly'. The fact of the matter is though, that out of the three current major console makers only Nintendo is actually making any money on hardware. Hell, Microsoft hasn't made any money in the entire 6 years they've been in the business. It's not a system that is sustainable. Sooner or later Sony and Microsoft are going to have to make a decision between cutting their gaming divisions or adopting a more cost competitive strategy. If, and when, that day comes adopting a standard OS and/or architecture could be a very feasible option.

[torrefaction]

Uh. A PC is as far from a unified platform as far as development costs go as you can get.

[CoachCrazyMcScot]

Dyack is whack!

(Thank You Whitney)

No really he is....someone has to tell him to just shut up....he is worse than Molly-New.

[51|RandoM]

RandoM's crystal ball - Too Human is a failure.

One console = no competition = stagnation.

Imagine if there was only one console... and that that console was a Wii. WTF, I'd have to throw myself off a building.

[KingGorilla]

Imagine if there was only one console... and that that console was a Wii. WTF, I'd have to throw myself off a building.

Good for PC gamers, like in the late 80's early 90's.

[Itchyeyes]

One console = no competition = stagnation.

Imagine if there was only one console... and that that console was a Wii. WTF, I'd have to throw myself off a building.
As has already been brought up, standardized hardware does not mean one console. There are hundreds if not thousands of different DVD players on the market and they'll all play any DVD the second you pop in the drive. There's no reason consoles couldn't work the same way.

[KingGorilla]

Look at the plethora of PC hardware, video cards, processors, etc. Yet they all play the same games.

[torrefaction]

Look at the plethora of PC hardware, video cards, processors, etc. Yet they all play the same games.

Do you realize how much work that requires for the developers though. There's a reason that a lot of times, 360 games are less buggy and look better, even when it should be outclassed by hardware.

Because when you focus on specific hardware, you get better results. Consoles are good for gaming. Competition in the console market is good for gaming in most respects, and bad for it in some smaller aspects.

Overall, we wouldn't see significant advances if we had 1 console maker. Remember how reluctant some companies where to move from cartridges? That may have happened YEARS later if not for competition.

[Phhhh]

But... but, then what would the fanboys do?

[jeffool]

I'm absolutely for an open standards

I really hope hardware manufacturers get their shit together and decide to create a standard machine, and include developers. Blahblahblah, if anyone cares what I think, it's here (http://blog.jeffool.com/2005/07/02/gaming-needs-gizmos/), (which, keep in mind, was written before the Wii was announced.)

The point of it all is that standardized tech with the numbers of one-console-world would offer much more niche software than the PS2 ever did. But you bastards are too stuck in "2 Human needz moar polyz!" nonsense or something.

(Though, for the record, I would much rather have one currently underpowered (and regularly upgraded) standard than the mad dash we have with PCs now. Fact is hardware has to be profitable for the manufacturers for this to work.)

[Dirty Harry]

Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart


I Summon Theeeeeeeee!!!111.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The key word there is 'willingly'. The fact of the matter is though, that out of the three current major console makers only Nintendo is actually making any money on hardware. Hell, Microsoft hasn't made any money in the entire 6 years they've been in the business. It's not a system that is sustainable. Sooner or later Sony and Microsoft are going to have to make a decision between cutting their gaming divisions or adopting a more cost competitive strategy. If, and when, that day comes adopting a standard OS and/or architecture could be a very feasible option.

*forehead against wall*
You, and many like you, continue to make the mistake of assuming Microsoft is trying to make money in their gaming division. They are not. They are trying to keep Sony from making computers.

[NationalKato]

I just cannot see any of the three current console makers willingly give up that part of their product line,

Isn't this what Sega did when they decided to focus on software? If the big three can agree upon hardware specs/codecs as far as the SDK is concerned, it shouldn't matter which hardware is being used (e.g. cell phones). Some will have more bells & whistles while others will be barebones for inexpensive tastes - however, all games will be playable on these machines.

I don't think it's too much of a pipedream. It's not close to becoming reality just yet, however.

[Zeal]

"PROJECT UNIFICATION"

2008

:: pumps shotgun::

look for it.

one.

[drakkarim]

yeah, the only way it'll happen is one of the 3 slaughters the others. which won't happen this generation for sure.

[Fartacus]

Yes, I think by platform, he is not saying manufacturer, he is saying one hardware spec. Even then, good luck with all that.

As long as that spec isn't coming from Sony, I'm fine with the concept. But Dyack is just wrong, that won't be happening. Standards aren't good for OEMs, and they control the hardware.

[TheFlyingOrc]

yeah, the only way it'll happen is one of the 3 slaughters the others. which won't happen this generation for sure.

...If it weren't for the new generation coming out, the PS2 was in the process of doing just as suggested. The Wii is doing better than the PS2 did out of the gates.

[EvilBob46]

One of those souls is Crystal Dynamics' Denis Dyack,

Isn't that Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack?

[Itchyeyes]

*forehead against wall*
You, and many like you, continue to make the mistake of assuming Microsoft is trying to make money in their gaming division. They are not. They are trying to keep Sony from making computers.
Even if we go with the assumption that the magical crystal ball you pulled that conspiracy out of is correct, Microsoft is still a public corporation that has to account for where its money goes. They can only siphon money into their gaming division for so long before they are held accountable for it by their shareholders. Sooner or later they either have to show some tangible benefit of their strategy with the Xbox or they have to shift their strategy. And of course, you completely fail to address the possibility of Sony making the move instead. I'd bet good money that Microsoft would be more than happy to license operating systems to console makers rather than run their own, money losing hardware division.

[Dr.Finger]

Isn't that Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack?Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.

[KingGorilla]

Pretty much all of you saying it will not happen, are flat out wrong. Consumer goods eventually settle into one consumable for a particular need. Look at the recording industry, and the variety of audio recording at the turn of the century, then it moved onto the one record player, then the cassette, then the CD, the MP3 player. Video went from half a dozen different movie recording and projector technologies to VHS, then DVD. Automobiles went from gas, electric, steam, to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine.

You are just lacking the ability to see that it is an inevitability that the consumer will eventually settle onto one. Otherwise you are saying that this one thing stands in defiance of a pattern established since the advent of industry.

[SPBTooL]

So all Sony and Nintendo have to do as make DirectX supportive hardware. But wait, isn't that the way it's been on PCs for a long time? Then why do developers have to do so much support work and patches to fix hardware specific issues in their PC games?

A singular programing code to use across all hardware would make it easier to make the games for all systems but would not shorten development time and force more games to cater to the lowest common denominator. The only way a unified platform would be better than what we have would be on singular hardware as well.

[Micasa]

Cellphones use several different networks and technologies. Digital cameras use a variety of storage means - CF cards, SD cards, etc...

Video games would scarcely be the "only" consumer product to continue this way.

In any case, if the PC platform was truly a "unified" one then why would people who bought a graphics card last year feel the "need" to buy another just for Crysis? Why would people who bought their computer two years ago find themselves unable to play it at all?

[Dr.Finger]

Pretty much all of you saying it will not happen, are flat out wrong. Consumer goods eventually settle into one consumable for a particular need. Look at the recording industry, and the variety of audio recording at the turn of the century, then it moved onto the one record player, then the cassette, then the CD, the MP3 player. Video went from half a dozen different movie recording and projector technologies to VHS, then DVD. Automobiles went from gas, electric, steam, to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine.

You are just lacking the ability to see that it is an inevitability that the consumer will eventually settle onto one. Otherwise you are saying that this one thing stands in defiance of a pattern established since the advent of industry.Really? Can you use any cell phone on any network yet? Can you use iTunes songs on a Sony MP3 player? Can you use Windows Mobile apps on a Blackberry?

The difference is computing power. Once you actually have to use real computational power on something the paradigm changes. Everyone compares this to movie, to VHS and DVD, but its a flawed analogy. Although it's changed a bit recently the primary source of money in the movie industry comes from the theaters, the home video market is secondary.

[KingGorilla]

Doc, my example was from things that take decades to even out. I never said any of this would happen tomorrow. But it will happen. We are currently at the peak of the technology, much like music near the turn of the century, and cars in the same period.

I defy any of you to find any product, not made in the last 20-30 years that did not sucomb to the very same.

[SPBTooL]

Pretty much all of you saying it will not happen, are flat out wrong. Consumer goods eventually settle into one consumable for a particular need. Look at the recording industry, and the variety of audio recording at the turn of the century, then it moved onto the one record player, then the cassette, then the CD, the MP3 player. Video went from half a dozen different movie recording and projector technologies to VHS, then DVD. Automobiles went from gas, electric, steam, to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine.

You are just lacking the ability to see that it is an inevitability that the consumer will eventually settle onto one. Otherwise you are saying that this one thing stands in defiance of a pattern established since the advent of industry.This seems like apples to oranges to me. The is a big difference between audio/visuals going into a device, getting converted to a format to be read on another device and output that same way. Compared to people doing everything that is needed(programing) to make multiple pieces of hardware output something that isn't even close to the input.

[KingGorilla]

Last time I checked, programmers do not make hardware, engineers do.

[bean19]

I like the competition. I wouldn't like it if my only choice (the popular one) was a Wii, and likewise, I wouldn't there to NOT be a Wii as I do think it excellent for party games. Likewise, the PS3 vs. the 360 is a huge difference in price and online features. What if the only way we could play Bioshock was to shell out $600 (or $900 if they were selling it for a profit instead of a loss)?

It's possible that Sony, had they chose not to bundle the Blu-Ray player in the PS3, could have continued to dominate consoles until Microsoft gave up and/or Nintendo was bought out. Wouldn't a $900 console spell the end of gaming? Likewise, if Microsoft didn't have to compete then they would price the console as ridiculously as they price Windows. And if Nintendo had the reins, then we might only see the most cost effective advancements in consoles leaving us with systems with new controls but old graphics and processors incapable of new technologies.

The competition is definitely working in our favor.

Now some of the things he mentions should be done away with like the Christmas rush and the way games are marketed (other products that don't sell as quickly do not cost nearly as much for shelf-space in Wal-mart -if anything- but they are able to get these prices from videogame companies due to competition).

[torrefaction]

Doc, my example was from things that take decades to even out. I never said any of this would happen tomorrow. But it will happen. We are currently at the peak of the technology, much like music near the turn of the century, and cars in the same period.

I defy any of you to find any product, not made in the last 20-30 years that did not sucomb to the very same.

Uh. You listed on. Right up there.

Cars.

[Fonz]

There's a reason that a lot of times, 360 games are less buggy and look better, even when it should be outclassed by hardware.
.

I laughed so hard soda came out of my nose when you said look better and are out classed.

But in any case, PC is a sort of unified platform but even there developers don't agree on what should or should not be the standard I mean look at the whole OpenGL vs Direct3d bickering that has been going on within the industry now. It's been what now.. 11 years since that whole fight started

Also... if there were to be a unified standard, we all know Microsoft would probably set president on what that would be... even though I'm a PCGamer I still don't like the fact that they are the ones setting those standards on the PC platform.

Coming soon to a home near you, Xbox Vista and Playstation Windows, the standard you asked for...... in 6 different packages.... Xbox Vista Core Basic, Xbox vista Home Premium, Xbox vista Ultimate etc etc

[51|RandoM]

As has already been brought up, standardized hardware does not mean one console. There are hundreds if not thousands of different DVD players on the market and they'll all play any DVD the second you pop in the drive. There's no reason consoles couldn't work the same way.

...and so what?

Games are not movies. Your comparison is ridiculous in this case.

The point people taking your stance miss is that dvd players basically just play back a recording. They're only really judged on their ability to do that. Consoles do a hell of a lot more. Games are a hell of a lot more.

Let me put it this way: When the DVD player manufacturers innovate due to competition, does it mean that the film companies make better movies? Answer: No.

Is the competition in the gaming market causing the big players to produce great AAA titles with their inhouse studios? Answer: Yes

There, with two very easy to comprehend and answer questions I've thrown your analogy out the window.

Why on earth would I choose to artificially limit the creativity of the artist by making a standardized console? Are you really willing to make that sacrifice? Answer: I'm not.

What on earth would prevent a company from creating their own non-standard console that was better than the standard? Answer: Nothing.

What would prevent developers from making games on it and people buying it? Answer: Nothing.

Basically, sounds like you guys want all of the creativity fueled by competition that we have today, but you don't want to pay for it. Answer: Tough shit, TANSTAAFL. :)

[bean19]

In order for you to play every good game that comes out in a given year, you need thousands of dollars worth of hardware.

However, that isn't what people actually do. Most people don't consider buying a console until it is at or around $200 in price and it has a lot of games out. Then they generally buy only the blockbusters and used games or licensed games for kids.

If you make one console that is aimed at the largest market, then you are making a Wii. Now some might argue that a Wii with every developer making games on it would be a great system, and I tend to agree, but I'm glad to have the option to buy a 360 and be able to play games like Bioshock instead.

[KingGorilla]

Uh. You listed on. Right up there.

Cars.

How is that steam powered car of yours?

[torrefaction]

How is that steam powered car of yours?

Funny, I thought steam was inefficient. I prefer the idea of a hybrid. At least, until a technology that is as energy efficient as gasoline presents itself.

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

Huh...then again, Diesel was originally designed for vegetable oil, was converted, and now people are using vegetable oil again.

http://www.noendpress.com/caleb/biodiesel/index.php

Funny thing about Chevy's plans for the Volt? It is made for a variety of engines.

Now, General Motors intends on making the Volt a true global product, and will produce the ERV and the fuel cell version for certain markets. For instance, Europe would receive the ERV model with a small diesel engine, while South America would receive the ERV model that could run on E85, or perhaps even E100 ethanol fuel. Which market would be the first toreceive the fuel cell version? Though it's hard to say, the answer might be China, as it is currently working on developing a hydrogen refueling infrastructure, although we aren't out of the question either given Governor Schwarzenegger's push for the so-called Hydrogen Highway on the west coast by the end of the decade.

[KingGorilla]

You are really grasping straws. I welcome the discussion however. All of the methods you mentioned are far away from becoming consumer viable, or mass market. Do you really think that in 30 years we will have 4 or 5 different kinds of engines in our cars-electric, diesel, hydrogen, hybrids, gas combustion? Good luck getting it repaired-one of the leading reasons why the automobile market stabilized. Not to mention finding a way to re-fuel or re-charge the power source.

[TheDancinMan]

At this point, the consumer is too used to choice and competition between consoles. People just like to choose. People will buy the things that they think are exactly what they want, at the price they want. If there came a point where there was only one console, sales would drop, fast. Consoles today thrive on not being their competition in one way or another. If there was only one, everyone would wait awhile and just go, "S'this it?"

Unless the companies get together and make the perfect system. Which will never happen.

[digitalErich]

Pretty much all of you saying it will not happen, are flat out wrong. Consumer goods eventually settle into one consumable for a particular need.
I think assuming the same cycles will apply to computer hardware technology are just as wrong as you claim the other camp to be. If there we ever came close to one platform, it would have been the NES as far as market share (not counting hand helds as its own market). It was said that 3 in every 5 houses in the US had a NES.

But what did someone do? They came along and said we can offer something Nintendo can't and they did it by coming up with new hardware, much different from the Nintendo spec.

Also, for all your listing recording tech, what about all the competitors that didn't make it, eight track, DVD-audio, etc. Someone must have forgotten to mention to them that the market had a unified media spec. In reality, there were competing formats and you are singling the line of winners out and claiming that to be a string of standardized formats. It's Monday morning quarterbacking.

[digitalErich]

It's really simple, there is just too much money in licensing for there to every only be one console maker. If you make the console, you control the licensing fees.

It's like saying that eventually there will be only one book publisher. I mean they all just make and sell books, right?;)

[torrefaction]

You are really grasping straws. I welcome the discussion however. All of the methods you mentioned are far away from becoming consumer viable, or mass market. Do you really think that in 30 years we will have 4 or 5 different kinds of engines in our cars-electric, diesel, hydrogen, hybrids, gas combustion? Good luck getting it repaired-one of the leading reasons why the automobile market stabilized. Not to mention finding a way to re-fuel or re-charge the power source.

No, I think that once we shed our oil addiction, you'll see consistent innovations in alternate fuel, up until the point that cars are capable of running for 6 weeks off one days solar energy.

And how am I grasping at straws? You said the car industry had stabilized, and it hasn't. It's been in a constant state of evolution and flux, from everything to suspension, tires, aerodynamics, size, utility, accessories, engine, steering, and everything else.

You are wrong. Get over it.

*Edit*

This is emphasized by the fact that mechanics need special sets of tools and computers for each manufacturer that they work with.

[KingGorilla]

I never said that I could predict which ONE would end out on top, rather that the market will unify. I never said that people would cease trying to create the next standard, either. Just because the production of Muskets was standardized by Springfield and Enfield, did not mean they stopped innovating fire-arms.

And your information on the NES fails to take into account that was only in America, a very small videogame market at the time. There was also the Master System, another failed Atari system, and between the NES there was Turbografix, the PC engine, and the Master System.


And how am I grasping at straws? You said the car industry had stabilized, and it hasn't. It's been in a constant state of evolution and flux, from everything to suspension, tires, aerodynamics, size, utility, accessories, engine, steering, and everything else.


All I said was that the internal combustion engine became standard.

[Zacharai]

What on earth would prevent a company from creating their own non-standard console that was better than the standard? Answer: Nothing.

What would prevent developers from making games on it and people buying it? Answer: Nothing.
I have to agree. This entire argument (the "pipe dream" of a unified architecture) seems a bit naïve. Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong direction, but isn't this akin to arresting the evolution of the computer and getting everyone to agree to program for that spec? I'm sure it's easy to see why that hasn't worked.

[digitalErich]

I defy any of you to find any product, not made in the last 20-30 years that did not sucomb to the very same.
The internal combustion engine, more specifically the Rotary Engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine). I think you are going to find that statement is not as bulletproof as you might have thought :)

[KingGorilla]

Oh man the rotary engine was a sweet idea, I was really hoping that the RX8 took off. It was a sweet piece of engineering. But Rotary engines are still internal combustion engines, it just doesn't use pistons.

[digitalErich]

Oh man the rotary engine was a sweet idea, I was really hoping that the RX8 took off. It was a sweet piece of engineering. But Rotary engines are still internal combustion engines, it just doesn't use pistons.
Ok, aren't we getting a little silly now? I mean the rotary engine is vastly different than previous engines. It uses a totally different design.

Sure, it still turns the dive shaft, but if you want to get that high level, that macro, then we have a console standard today. All consoles take in a controller's input and drive a signal to a display...you can't have it both ways.

Edit: What I mean is that if we are defining a console spec by getting down into the nitty gritty hardware, which one would have to do, then the analogue of rotary vs. piston is perfectly acceptable I think. But this is just turning into too much effort to refute an off the cuff "dare" statement. :) Who's analogies are more powerful doesn't really matter, it's all about the licensing fees...no one is going to give those up :)

[KingGorilla]

Was that a set-up? The only difference between the two engines is rotary drive vs. pistons, still driving a shaft to make wheels go, burning gas, etc. Much akin to my PC analogy. ATI, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, PNY, Corsair, Asus, OCZ, etc. all making different parts that go into the machine, but they all work in conjunction to create one basic piece of machinery-a computer, to run Windows(or OS X), and to play the same games.

And once again, a unified platform does NOT mean that everything is exactly the same, far from it, it means that the minutiae become all the more important. A Vizio and a Pioneer 1080p plasma are worlds apart, but they still play the same movies, and television. The rotary engine and the piston drive, have important distinctions, in particular the superior fuel economy of the former. Still internal combustion, shaft driven locomotion.

[torrefaction]

Was that a set-up? The only difference between the two engines is rotary drive vs. pistons, still driving a shaft to make wheels go, burning gas, etc. Much akin to my PC analogy. ATI, Nvidia, AMD, Intel, PNY, Corsair, Asus, OCZ, etc. all making different parts that go into the machine, but they all work in conjunction to create one basic piece of machinery-a computer, to run Windows(or OS X), and to play the same games.

What you're still failing to get is while it seems that way to CONSUMERS, for developers support for that array of hardware is a bit of a nightmare. That's why it's easier to squeeze high performance out of a console than it is out of a computer.

[BlindSwordsman]

Hi Everyone,

I am glad this talk has stimulated so much conversation. :) In my talk I specifically addressed the PC and why it is not a standard console.

Commidification of the technology is something that will occur whether the industry or first parties want it to happen or not. It will stimulate competition in hardware yielding lower prices for games and hardware.

Check out some Commidification details here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification).

I hope this helps!
Denis

[digitalErich]

Was that a set-up?
It wasn't my intention, but it kinda traveled in that direction, huh?

While I do agree with you that, in general, consumer products tend towards standardizations, there are new considerations and ways of doing business in the tech world such that historical cases might not be as relevant as you think.

All things said, only time will tell I guess.

[digitalErich]

Hi Everyone,

I am glad this talk has stimulated so much conversation. :) In my talk I specifically addressed the PC and why it is not a standard console.

Commidification of the technology is something that will occur whether the industry or first parties want it to happen or not. It will stimulate competition in hardware yielding lower prices for games and hardware.
...
Hi Denis,
I hope you can stick around for the thread as I agree with your opener there.

Couldn't one argue that with consoles and (some) computers that the commodity is not the product itself, but the intangible of "best and fastest" widget? This commodity of speed and power would always be driving competitors to make something faster and more powerful, standards be damned. This is kinda where I'm coming from (aside from the licensing argument).

I hope what I said was clear there.

[KingGorilla]

We are too far steeped in the process to see what will come out on top, if any of the current products will(or some previously unthought of piece of hardware). In the 20's people with their Edisons and phonograph players never could have seen the 45 tech a few decades later would become the standard, for example.

Which is why I was careful to speak in academic terms, never taking sides in the current battle. 20 years from now we all may be on out Apple-Nintendo iGame devices, playing Age of Empires 12, anxiously awaiting Ratchet and Klank collection.

Or, my pet theory, the current market is indeed software based. Our future gaming platform may not be a piece of hardware at all, it will probably be the internet. Quake 0 for example is not hardware based at all, but because of broadband tech, we can run a full 3d competitive shooter in a web browser.

[digitalErich]

But Erich, what about Apple now using Intel processors, wouldn't that be a prime example of what Denis and KingG are talking about?

[digitalErich]

Shut up Erich, oh and I saw what some of those sites you were looking at an hour ago.

[Gorvi]

But Erich, what about Apple now using Intel processors, wouldn't that be a prime example of what Denis and KingG are talking about?
And don't the PS3, 360, and Wii all use IBM CPUs? ;)

[KingGorilla]

Mac Gamers cannot play games, it increases the chance that someone at Starbucks will think they are less douchbaggy than it seems, sipping their no caff, skim, latte, in their horn rim glasses, listening to the latest Paul McArtney offering, and reading up on the latest iPod news.

[digitalErich]

And don't the PS3, 360, and Wii all use IBM CPUs? ;)
They are all different, proprietary chips, they just happen to be made by the same company. Hell, if one company can't even get it together, what hope does an industry have? WIN!!

[BlackPete]

Corporations can't even agree on which HD format to use, so expecting them to agree on a common console is a pipe dream. Someone's making money off the licensing fees, and they don't want to share.

[BlindSwordsman]

Hi Denis,
I hope you can stick around for the thread as I agree with your opener there.

Couldn't one argue that with consoles and (some) computers that the commodity is not the product itself, but the intangible of "best and fastest" widget? This commodity of speed and power would always be driving competitors to make something faster and more powerful, standards be damned. This is kinda where I'm coming from (aside from the licensing argument).

I hope what I said was clear there.

Well ill try but its pretty late over here :). In my presentation I covered that technology continues to accelerate a logarithmic rate (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/38). This will probably not change however, I forwarded that the more the advanced it becomes the more it looses it's value and uniqueness. In a sense, the value is almost inversely proportional to the number of things it does. Thus, with cell phones, the more they do (more widgets) the less they are worth. Cell phones as an example have become so commoditized that they are given away with service plans these days, where once they will held as a status symbol.

Therefore, the best and fastest widget often means commodization inherently. The key point is whether there is a standard in place like DVD players. Each player all have their unique features but they all play the same DVDs.

Hope this helps.
Denis

[jeffool]

Hi Denis,
I hope you can stick around for the thread as I agree with your opener there.

Couldn't one argue that with consoles and (some) computers that the commodity is not the product itself, but the intangible of "best and fastest" widget? This commodity of speed and power would always be driving competitors to make something faster and more powerful, standards be damned. This is kinda where I'm coming from (aside from the licensing argument).

I hope what I said was clear there.That's why you create a 'rolling standard' of benchmarks every few years that hardware manufacturers 'must' meet in revisions. (Five years of a standard sound fair?) This way instead of having generational shifts of Nintendo v Sega v Sony-> N v Sega v Sony v MS->N v Sony v MS again, you have a harware specification that is revamped (through meetings with developers and hardware manufacturers every so often,) starting with Spec A->Spec B->C->D, etc.

Also require that people designing for the standard include which (existing) Spec their game requires on the packaging. (Assuming you enforce backwards compatibility, which I think is obvious.)

[BlindSwordsman]

Corporations can't even agree on which HD format to use, so expecting them to agree on a common console is a pipe dream. Someone's making money off the licensing fees, and they don't want to share.

"Commodification can be the desired outcome of an entity in the market, or it can be an unintentional outcome that no party actively sought to achieve." - Wikipedia

A key point :)

[torrefaction]

Also require that people designing for the standard include which (existing) Spec their game requires on the packaging. (Assuming you enforce backwards compatibility, which I think is obvious.)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Backwards compatibility is basically the reason windows continued to suck for so long. I wish Sony had never started the damn trend. It tends to hold technology back.

I honestly don't care so much about playing old games on my NEW console.

[jeffool]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Backwards compatibility is basically the reason windows continued to suck for so long. I wish Sony had never started the damn trend. It tends to hold technology back.

I honestly don't care so much about playing old games on my NEW console.Totally off-topic, but I just gotta ask (if anyone here knows,) isn't Wii BC done natively because they used the same (or an expanded) development environment as the GC?

Just saying that such an approach makes backwards compatibility a given. Just because Sony used a fucked-up approach to implement an idea doesn't mean it's a bad idea. You just need an appropriate layer of abstraction and to not decrease any hardware requirements of manufacturers that you put into place. Or at least make sure that any new system put into place easily replaces previous systems. I could see that becoming a problem occasionally, but not one that waiting a few years to implement the next spec. (and waiting for advancement in that new tech,) couldn't solve.

[the soUL TRAder]

Definately have to agree here, the homogeneity of the "game-making" components couldn't come quick enough.
Let there be 6 console makers, let every game made play on every console and let them sell at huge profit from day one.

The "game-making" business has been stalled by the law of diminishing returns for a decade, at this point, and it's facing a wall where more "power" won't make games more immersive, but will, unfortunately, keep them less accessible, especially to the casual crowd.

This gen, more than any other, proves it.

[torrefaction]

Definately have to agree here, the homogeneity of the "game-making" components couldn't come quick enough.
Let there be 6 console makers, let every game made play on them and let them sell at huge profit on day one.

The "game-making" business has been stalled by the law of diminishing returns for a decade at this point, and it's facing the wall where anymore "power" won't make games more immersive, but will, unfortunately, keep it less accessible, especially to the casual.

This gen, more than any other, proves it.

Uh?

I've been blown away by more games this gen than any previous generation that I can remember. I feel like everything really came together (Graphics, Sound, AI, and even gameplay in some respects.)

Bioshock comes out tomorrow. Need I say more?

[torrefaction]

Totally off-topic, but I just gotta ask (if anyone here knows,) isn't Wii BC done natively because they used the same (or an expanded) development environment as the GC?

Just saying that such an approach makes backwards compatibility a given. Just because Sony used a fucked-up approach to implement an idea doesn't mean it's a bad idea. You just need an appropriate layer of abstraction and to not decrease any hardware requirements of manufacturers that you put into place. Or at least make sure that any new system put into place easily replaces previous systems. I could see that becoming a problem occasionally, but not one that waiting a few years to implement the next spec. (and waiting for advancement in that new tech,) couldn't solve.

I think mostly you're right.

But I also think the Wii is incredibly underpowered. I think Random said it best when he said he'd leap off a tall building if Nintendo was the only console manufacturer. I'd join him.

You pretty much HAVE to hold shit back to ensure anything other than emulation based BC.

[jeffool]

You pretty much HAVE to hold shit back to ensure anything other than emulation based BC.You mean to do anything other than native gameplay, right? Because it doesn't seem like the Wii was delayed any time at all to play GC games... But the 360 BC sucks becausethey use emulation. And PS3? Aren't they just figuring out emulation (and taking, or have taken, PS2 hardware out of the console?) Seems to me a constant or expanding dev environment is 'teh win'. Not to mention it would be easier to ramp a game up from one generation to the next if all it took was increasing a few numbers, making better art resources, and possibly tooling with a little code (for things like physics, to top it off.) I mean, going from PS2 to PS3 had to really fucking suck, as I imagine going from Xbox to 360. For people making GC games, but decided to go with the Wii? Just add motion controls.

[bean19]

Regarding the much belabored car engine analogy. . . how many types of cars are there? Aren't there cars that excel at different things and that are marketed at different audiences?

[torrefaction]

You mean to do anything other than native gameplay, right? Because it doesn't seem like the Wii was delayed any time at all to play GC games... But the 360 BC sucks becausethey use emulation. And PS3? Aren't they just figuring out emulation (and taking, or have taken, PS2 hardware out of the console?) Seems to me a constant or expanding dev environment is 'teh win'. Not to mention it would be easier to ramp a game up from one generation to the next if all it took was increasing a few numbers, making better art resources, and possibly tooling with a little code (for things like physics, to top it off.) I mean, going from PS2 to PS3 had to really fucking suck, as I imagine going from Xbox to 360. For people making GC games, but decided to go with the Wii? Just add motion controls.

The thing about it is, you have to inherit bad design decisions from previous architectures. At the same time, you have to not affect performance of old calls. The Wii uses very similar hardware, which is the primary reason it doesn't have problems. Both systems are PowerPC. Yes, theoretically you could just always use the same chip architecture, but that really holds you back in terms of really progressing the state of the art. For instance, the PS3 could've never used the Cell.

*Edit*

By holding back, I meant on the tech level, not delaying release.

[the soUL TRAder]

Uh?

I've been blown away by more games this gen than any previous generation that I can remember. I feel like everything really came together (Graphics, Sound, AI, and even gameplay in some respects.)

Bioshock comes out tomorrow. Need I say more?


I agree, a lot of the best games ever, including Bioshock, have come out this gen.

What I was saying, is that this gen we are seeing console games that rival the "Hi-end" PC games, like Bioshock, while, at the same time, the Wii is proving that maybe those "top end visuals" aren't the most important thing to growing the market. So, gaming's technological progress is already losing it's differentiation.

[torrefaction]

I agree, a lot of the best games ever, including Bioshock, have come out this gen.

What I was saying, is that this gen we are seeing console games that rival the "Hi-end" PC games, like Bioshock, while, at the same time, the Wii is proving that maybe those "top end visuals" aren't the most important thing to growing the market. So, gaming's technological progress is already losing it's differentiation.

I was primarily arguing your point about "walls" of immersion. Nintendo strongly lacks in immersion. The graphics are subpar at best, and the gameplay isn't as immersive to the casual crowd as people might thing. There isn't even optical sound. It's a great party device...but here's what was telling to me.

The other day, I had my girlfriend's dad come over to have a few beers. I let him take a strike at Guitar Hero 2 on the 360. He said "This is much better than the Wii. The motions on the Wii aren't very close at all to the real actions. At least this is like your playing an instrument."

The Wii is selling on a gimmick now. What I'm hoping is that we're seeing people struggling with the proper application of a technology. I mean, it's the same idea as first gen games on a system. Supposedly, MP:3 is done really well, so maybe that'll be a turning point.

Now, I do think alternative controls are the way forward, but I don't think THIS generation was the place for it. At least, not at the expense of all the other things that we get with the enhanced power.

[jeffool]

The thing about it is, you have to inherit bad design decisions from previous architectures. At the same time, you have to not affect performance of old calls. The Wii uses very similar hardware, which is the primary reason it doesn't have problems. Both systems are PowerPC. Yes, theoretically you could just always use the same chip architecture, but that really holds you back in terms of really progressing the state of the art. For instance, the PS3 could've never used the Cell.

*Edit*

By holding back, I meant on the tech level, not delaying release.Ahhh, the use of 'hold back' was indeed where I was confused, thanks for clearing that up.

I understand replacing hardware is indeed a tough call, but that's why I mention sometimes having to delay a release until new hardware can actually emulate previous hardware.

And insofar as inheriting bad decisions from previous generations, that's definitely a concern. It can only really be overcome by expanding future revisions to work around problems. Sucks, but that's a problem I'd be willing to live with (not that I'm a developer, but if I were...)

Another plus of an open standard? The resurgence of the bedroom programmer. If you can write your own code to play on the systems, anyone can make their own game and publish them. Hell, with my 'evolving specification' system they could aim several generations below the modern system and people who hadn't bought a system in a long time could still play.

Of course, piracy is a huge issue. How to get around this? Online registration. Of course said system should also allow online purchases/downloads...

Okay, now I'm just rambling. I'm out. Beddy-bye time.

[bean19]

Therefore, the best and fastest widget often means commodization inherently. The key point is whether there is a standard in place like DVD players. Each player all have their unique features but they all play the same DVDs.

Hope this helps.
Denis

So which features do you think consoles will standardize?

They seem to be growing further and further apart to me. . . This generation you have the Wii that has the processing power of a last-gen system and the 360 and PS3 that are relatively equal in power but with a the PS3 using a strange and reportedly difficult to program for processor that sends tasks to 7 different SPUs. The Wii continues to have a proprietary game disc format and has a vastly different control scheme. The PS3 has a bundled Blu-Ray player. Likewise, the online features while all moving in the same direction are vastly different in features.

Last generation the only differences between the consoles were that the Gamecube was only slightly technologically inferior then and had a proprietary game medium and the Xbox was only slightly technologically superior to the PS2 and had a bundled hard-drive.

It's hard for me to see from these trends how universal standards could come about. . . the 360 obviously tried to make their system easy to port games between the PC and the 360, but I think that this is just gravy for Microsoft. Sony and Nintendo aren't going to fall in line just to get a piece of the PC game action especially with how widespread piracy is in the East.

Also, Microsoft benefits from having the best game library out right now. A lot of people don't like Microsoft and they bought and played PS2s and Gamecubes in the past because they offered more games, so Microsoft is having to entice people to their system that have brand loyalty eslewhere. I love Xbox Live, but I don't think that they could convince people to buy their console if they didn't have Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock and Too Human locked up as exclusives. Look at the sales charts. . . even with a great game library and some of the hottest games coming out in the future exclusively for their system, they are getting beaten by the Wii.

While I see the logic behind the economic argument, I've taken an economics course and with every economics "rule", we were taught how there is an exception in market X because of reason Y.

[bean19]

I agree, a lot of the best games ever, including Bioshock, have come out this gen.

What I was saying, is that this gen we are seeing console games that rival the "Hi-end" PC games, like Bioshock, while, at the same time, the Wii is proving that maybe those "top end visuals" aren't the most important thing to growing the market. So, gaming's technological progress is already losing it's differentiation.

I don't think the success of the Wii has much to do with people not being enticed by games like Bioshock. People didn't just stop being impressed by visuals.

The Wii is successful because it is priced low enough to be affordable for mass market buyers, it has an innovative and enticing control scheme that seems accessible to non-gamers, it launched with Nintendo's biggest killer-app (Zelda), and the system has been around long enough that people have owned and enjoyed one (brand loyalty).

Do you really think that if the Xbox 360 launched with the same exact feature set and hardware as the Nintendo Wii that it would have been successful? Microsoft is operating from a deficit of brand loyalty that they need to make up for, and Sony simply shot themselves in the foot by making a console that is far too expensive and that does not have enough titles created for it. Had the PS3 launched without the Blu-Ray player and a better game lineup, I think that we would see it siphoning sales from the other two systems and it would be a 3 horse race now. The Wii would still be successful due to brand loyalty and the perceived accessibility, but a lot of people would choose to buy the PS3 as an update to their beloved PS2 instead.

[the soUL TRAder]

I was primarily arguing your point about "walls" of immersion. Nintendo strongly lacks in immersion. The graphics are subpar at best, and the gameplay isn't as immersive to the casual crowd as people might thing. There isn't even optical sound. It's a great party device...but here's what was telling to me.

The other day, I had my girlfriend's dad come over to have a few beers. I let him take a strike at Guitar Hero 2 on the 360. He said "This is much better than the Wii. The motions on the Wii aren't very close at all to the real actions. At least this is like your playing an instrument."

The Wii is selling on a gimmick now. What I'm hoping is that we're seeing people struggling with the proper application of a technology. I mean, it's the same idea as first gen games on a system. Supposedly, MP:3 is done really well, so maybe that'll be a turning point.

Now, I do think alternative controls are the way forward, but I don't think THIS generation was the place for it. At least, not at the expense of all the other things that we get with the enhanced power.

Let me just say, I was refering more to the Wii's appeal rather than it's execution. So I agree, it's more of a fad, however, it's success shows that a lot of people are inticed by the immersion, maybe moreso than by impressive visuals.

[torrefaction]

Let me just say, I was reffering more to the Wii's appeal rather than the execution. So I agree, it's more of a fad, however, it's success shows that a lot of people are inticed by the immersion, maybe moreso than by impressive visuals.

But you can't have immersion without impressive visuals and audio, which the Wii lacks. Remember, immersion is all the elements. And I can tell you that the Bioshock demo sucked me in farther than any Wii game probably ever can. Same goes for the whole Gears of War experience, and The Darkness is well up there as well. All of this can be handled by great art, but we haven't seen anything that stellar. I mean, Z:TP was okay, but it was a gamecube game with motion controls. The real benchmark will be Metroid Prime 4 and Mario Galaxy.

As far as appeal, yeah, I agree. But I think it's more pricing and hype than anything else. I've yet to be convinced that it can hold it's own for the long road, but I've got an open mind to it ( I do have one, and it IS fun.)

[the soUL TRAder]

I don't think the success of the Wii has much to do with people not being enticed by games like Bioshock. People didn't just stop being impressed by visuals.

The Wii is successful because it is priced low enough to be affordable for mass market buyers, it has an innovative and enticing control scheme that seems accessible to non-gamers, it launched with Nintendo's biggest killer-app (Zelda), and the system has been around long enough that people have owned and enjoyed one (brand loyalty).

Do you really think that if the Xbox 360 launched with the same exact feature set and hardware as the Nintendo Wii that it would have been successful? Microsoft is operating from a deficit of brand loyalty that they need to make up for, and Sony simply shot themselves in the foot by making a console that is far too expensive and that does not have enough titles created for it. Had the PS3 launched without the Blu-Ray player and a better game lineup, I think that we would see it siphoning sales from the other two systems and it would be a 3 horse race now. The Wii would still be successful due to brand loyalty and the perceived accessibility, but a lot of people would choose to buy the PS3 as an update to their beloved PS2 instead.

While I agree that many PS2 owners are making the cheap call by adding to Wii sales, rather than buying the PS3 while it's overpriced, I still see a level of approachability with the Wii controller that is bringing new gamers onboard, so the industry might spend it's time better creating more immersive controls, than machines that can push more pixels.

[bean19]

While I agree that many PS2 owners are making the cheap call by adding to Wii sales, rather than buying the PS3 while it's overpriced, I still see a level of approachability with the Wii controller that is bringing new gamers onboard, so the industry might spend it's time better creating more immersive controls, than machines that can push more pixels.

I'm not sure about that. . . I think that new controls have the potential of being great (DDR, Guitar Hero, party games with the Wii-mote), but most innovation comes from software. Plus, the Xbox 360 could never have sold the Wii-mote to people the way that Nintendo has. . . especially if they had simply added the new controls to the original Xbox and called it a new console.

Seriously, if the 360 had tried to sell the Wiimote, then they would have failed miserably. Nintendo is in that interesting space that Macintosh shares where their new ideas are treated as innovations whether or not the features are superfluous and in some cases counter-intuitive. The Wii-mote definitely gives the perception of providing greater and more accessible control, but while it works great for party games, I find that it's lack of find control and small number of buttons makes it less than ideal for traditional gaming.

A lot of people say that developers will figure it out, and that Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime will show off how to properly use it, but you better believe that any company other than Nintendo would NEVER have been given a year to figure it out - even if they launched with party games that were excellent and a system-seller like Zelda that was not hurt by the controls.

[digitalErich]

This is dusting off the cobwebs of past classes, but isn't a precursor to commoditization that competitor's products become so similar as to not offer a discernible difference between brands?

I guess at some point in the distant future this might happen, but it seems to me it's just as likely, what with the success of the Wii, that the big brands start to do the opposite of that. That is, they will try more than ever to differentiate themselves, from a hardware/services (i.e. anything non-software) point of view.

However, this might be to the detriment of ease of creating software, so I guess the more I think about it, the more I'm not sure which way it will go.

[Variable Gear]

Pipe Dream/

OK, I don't wan't to get caught up in any of your flame wars, but listen to this (which has likely already been said): how many one-console households are there? And, with the rising cost of game systems, do you think that this number will increase or decrease?

In my opinion, if there was a situation where everyone who bought Madden or Halo 3 could also buy Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Metal Gear Solid 4 and there was one unified online system for multiplayer...and there would be achievements for all of the games...

...why wouldn't the platform holders be into that, everybody wins.

That's exactly the reason why they wouldn't be excited by one unified hardware standard...everyone would win.

/Pipe Dream

[bean19]

...why wouldn't the platform holders be into that, everybody wins.

That's exactly the reason why they wouldn't be excited by one unified hardware standard...everyone would win.

/Pipe Dream

Think about it. Nintendo is leveraging their brand loyalty to popularize a new control scheme and sell an technologically inferior system at a profit! Why would they agree to equal technology when it would hurt their profit margins.

The 360 is fighting against it's competitors positive brand loyalty and is only currently leading (by a hair vs. the Wii) due to releasing a year early and by providing the most exclusives. Why would they even the playing field in games when this is the only thing that is giving them a leg up on competitors that have been around for more generations than them and that have far more legacy IPs and brand loyal customers.

Sony abandoned console market dominance in favor of trying to gain the HD movie format. . . would they have ever chosen to NOT to do that in favor of a standardized system?

[trip1eX]

It would be nice to have one console, but I just don't see it happening unless MS eventually bleeds everyone dry and becomes the only choice.

Right now NIntendo is making too much dough for them to get on board. MS probably wouldn't mind letting others make the hardware if they could make the O/S for it.

I don't see how Sony has any incentive to go wtih this sort of model unless they stick to making premium version of 'one' console.

And you're not going to get one sku. I mean you'll have a choice of hundreds of models because everyone Japanese and Korean and Chinese manufacturer will be making 'em much like DVD players.

[the soUL TRAder]

But you can't have immersion without impressive visuals and audio, which the Wii lacks. Remember, immersion is all the elements. And I can tell you that the Bioshock demo sucked me in farther than any Wii game probably ever can. Same goes for the whole Gears of War experience, and The Darkness is well up there as well. All of this can be handled by great art, but we haven't seen anything that stellar. I mean, Z:TP was okay, but it was a gamecube game with motion controls. The real benchmark will be Metroid Prime 4 and Mario Galaxy.

As far as appeal, yeah, I agree. But I think it's more pricing and hype than anything else. I've yet to be convinced that it can hold it's own for the long road, but I've got an open mind to it ( I do have one, and it IS fun.)




I agree.............. the problem is the industry has spent the last 15 years riding the "more power" train, and have barely scratched the skin of unique peripherals and "Bioshock type" story immersion. That's why I think it's more important to spend time getting these aspects "up to speed".


bean19
Seriously, if the 360 had tried to sell the Wiimote, then they would have failed miserably. Nintendo is in that interesting space that Macintosh shares where their new ideas are treated as innovations whether or not the features are superfluous and in some cases counter-intuitive. The Wii-mote definitely gives the perception of providing greater and more accessible control, but while it works great for party games, I find that it's lack of find control and small number of buttons makes it less than ideal for traditional gaming.

I also agree here.
So, it seems we are not disagreeing or we're not arguing the same point.
Maybe an illustration would help me explain the benefits.
Let's take this gen as an example.

For the sake of arguement, the only aspects that are to be homogenized are the tools and hardware "to make games", all storage/delivery media/controllers/periphs/etc. are done by the console makers.

So the basic backbone would be:

A 2.4 to 3.2 ghz single core PPC with the Cell's SPEs, 512 of UMA for the RAM and a scaled back Xenos, which runs slower and has a few less pipelines but still has the 10mb of eDram.

The top end architecture would be a 3.0 to 3.6 quad core with Cell SPEs, 1Gig of UMA for the RAM and a full Xenos with 20mb of eDram.

The middleware would be provided by MS, and will be completely scalable on all hardware.
Sony and Nintendo manufacture, also scalable.

So, what happens?

All three get better parts with cheaper manufacturing costs.

Developers get a single framework to design around and have ease of porting.

Sony still "trojan-horses" BluRay, MS overcharges for live and Nintendo still sells us on alternate interface gaming, nothing really different than now anyways.

Plus Sega gets back in the hardware biz, Phantom actually would exist and maybe, just possibly, Trip would release the 3D(OYeah)!*


*Warning, most of these WILL NOT happen, so don't bet the farm.

[Variable Gear]

Think about it. Nintendo is leveraging their brand loyalty to popularize a new control scheme and sell an technologically inferior system at a profit! Why would they agree to equal technology when it would hurt their profit margins.

The 360 is fighting against it's competitors positive brand loyalty and is only currently leading (by a hair vs. the Wii) due to releasing a year early and by providing the most exclusives. Why would they even the playing field in games when this is the only thing that is giving them a leg up on competitors that have been around for more generations than them and that have far more legacy IPs and brand loyal customers.

Sony abandoned console market dominance in favor of trying to gain the HD movie format. . . would they have ever chosen to NOT to do that in favor of a standardized system?


I am not saying: Why isn't the foundation of the single console being planned by the big three players right now?

I am saying:

- They would divide the cost of the system three ways.
- Every system could play every game.
- Every game could use the most popular online network.
- Every game could have achievements.
- It would happen much later, if it happens at all.

[Johan]

One console? I'm all for it.

[bean19]

Sony still "trojan-horses" BluRay, MS overcharges for live and Nintendo still sells us on alternate interface gaming, nothing really different than now anyways.

I still don't see it happening for reasons I made in a post just below the one I'm replying to here. It really doesn't benefit anyone. Nintendo is making money off brand loyalty and the perception of accessibility allowing them to sell last gen technology at a profit. Microsoft has a dominant game library that is helping them gain market share despite not performing well in the last generation and having competitors that have been around a lot longer and that have both won console wars previously thus earning them a lot of brand-loyal customers.

You're right that the PS3 could work off this if they could still Trojan horse the Blu-Ray player, but at the increased price point and with the complete lack of exclusives other than first and second party titles, they'd still be in the same boat they are in now. . . okay, they'd be better off because the 360 would have fewer exclusives, but I think that people would still not want to be forced into purchasing an HD movie player that increases the cost of the system so much.

[Tohoya]

he's right that it would be the best for the industry and for consumers, but MS, Nintendo, and Sony make too much off royalties to agree to one standard.

EDIT: I find it funny that the very same gamers that yell at corporate greed for the HD-DVD vs. blu-ray war are extolling the virtues of competition in the gaming sphere. They're the exact same godamn thing.

How hard is it to understand that competition among software and competition among hardware are mutually exclusive? A one-console future wouldn't reduce competition, it would just shift it. Currently, we're maximizing compeition among hardware, with 3 to choose from. But Wii games are only competing with games on the Wii, PS3 games only compete against games on the PS3, etc. But if we had a single console, every game released would be competing with every other game released, leading to more competition in the software sphere.

[Tohoya]

Dennis, how do you think subsidizing of the hardware development will work under a one console future decided by a consortium? The impression that I get is that you believe that all console manufacturers will agree on one standard. But if they do that, they don't get any royalties from the sale of software on their platform, right? Which would lead to cheaper games...but those royalties subsidize hardware development, and are one of the reasons why both microsoft and sony could afford to take 100+$ losses per unit when they first launched their consoles. Will all our systems be 600 dollar behemoths in the future?

[jeffool]

I'm (obviously) not Denis, and I still welcome his posting on it, but hardware should be sold for profit, much like Nintendo's doing. Yes, that would mean setting back hardware some (or making each generation more costly.) But like you said, either we want competition in hardware, or we want competition in games. I'm picking games.

And of course licensing fees would still apply to keep afloat whatever group sets the standard... But it'd assumably be miniscule. Think 3DO.

[the soUL TRAder]

I still don't see it happening for reasons I made in a post just below the one I'm replying to here. It really doesn't benefit anyone. Nintendo is making money off brand loyalty and the perception of accessibility allowing them to sell last gen technology at a profit. Microsoft has a dominant game library that is helping them gain market share despite not performing well in the last generation and having competitors that have been around a lot longer and that have both won console wars previously thus earning them a lot of brand-loyal customers.

You're right that the PS3 could work off this if they could still Trojan horse the Blu-Ray player, but at the increased price point and with the complete lack of exclusives other than first and second party titles, they'd still be in the same boat they are in now. . . okay, they'd be better off because the 360 would have fewer exclusives, but I think that people would still not want to be forced into purchasing an HD movie player that increases the cost of the system so much.

Actually it does benefit the entire industry, some examples:

Because they share the developement/manufacturing costs, and immediatly make more chips, making them cheaper to produce quickly, all three have access to better made, less expensive parts.

Nintendo would have a more visually immersive console that could do HD.

MS would have help with manufacturing, so the 3reds problem wouldn't be systemic.

Sony would have help developing middleware for the Cells, so less delays.

The Wii still sells on brand loyalty and the $250 price tag.

The 360 sells to the hardcore, mostly because of XBL.

And, the PS3 would, at least, have more good games available, and maybe a few "special" exclusives that really make use of BluRay.

And, of course, gamers win the most by being able to focus on games and new gameplay dynamics, and put the "Console Wars" to rest.

[Royal Fool]

I posted this in the comments section at Eurogamer, but I'll just paste it here:

This isn't possible, from a technical standpoint, simply because of the immense complications that a unified game system would create.

With audio and video (DVD/portable music players), there's very little to be concerned about. They're just things that play from one end to the other, requiring minimal input from the viewer/listener except pushing play. That's why you can insert a DVD disc into any DVD player and it'll work. There's so little that can go wrong.

In this day and age, video games are very complicated pieces of software. Having lots of manufacturers come out with their own "variations" on the base hardware specs (introducing new features, although those would be somewhat limited and not supported by many games due to expenses) would introduce completely new problems into the otherwise "user-friendly" console market.

Games would have to be tested on multiple machines from every manufacturer to ensure that no bugs or glitches would occur (if you play games on a PC you'll understand how much a simple hardware or software variable can affect other things) - or, in an even worse scenario, publishers would only test their games on the most popular platforms, not providing support if you play them on others.

And what other features could manufacturers hope to bring to market in order to get people to buy their system and not the competition's? Well, not a whole lot. I can't really imagine very many features that wouldn't require the developers to do add all sorts of things to their games to cater to each manufacturer's custom extras. This wouldn't make it any easier for a studio to release a game - only harder.

In short, a unified system is not plausible at this stage, and certainly not going to happen with the next generation of video game consoles.

tl;dr - not gonna happen lol