GC: Next generation could see unified console - Dyack

By Tom Bramwell Published 21 August, 2007

It will "change everything".

Outspoken developer Denis Dyack outlined his vision of a one-console future in a speech at GCDC yesterday, arguing that the history of commoditization in other industries meant the standardisation of gaming hardware was an inevitability - and something we might see as soon as the next cycle of console hardware.

Dyack, president of Too Human developer Silicon Knights, believes that a "unified gaming standard" is on the horizon - and that "just like a DVD, just like a camera, everyone would know what those specs are". It's an argument Dyack has made in public before now, and with an hour of GCDC to fill he seized the opportunity to expand on what he admitted was a contentious point of view. "If you talk about commodification to a hardware manufacturer, they usually turn white," he joked.

In the future, companies like Sony, Microsoft, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp and Dell would line up to deliver gaming systems of comparable power that supported all gaming software, Dyack predicted. In the rare case of a game that didn't work, "it would be the hardware manufacturer's fault", he said, removing a number of burdens from software developers' shoulders.

This standardisation, as he put it, would mean better hardware at lower prices, the abolition of a first-party product approval service, cheaper development due to the loss of multiple SKUs, resultant lower game prices, and a 100 percent market share for developers to target rather than a range of big fractions marked Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, which is the current model.

Remarking that he wished he'd "gone back to back" with Stormfront's Don Daglow - because he firmly rejected the idea that the predictable console cycle Daglow identified would recur ad infinitum - Dyack said that the increased difficulty of working within the current business model was symptomatic of "performance over supply" - a strong indicator that commodification is in the offing.

"We've got a bunch of pressures that are now starting to push us to a certain direction," he said of games development. He argued that things like the rising costs of development and staffing needs, a more even split of market share between three platform holders, and the reality that a successful game needs to sell a "frightening" number of units to make back investments, meant that it was "increasingly difficult to be successful".

Equally important, he said, was how little distinction there was between PS3 and Xbox 360 graphics. "We're starting to reach a perceptual threshold where the average consumer can not tell the difference between the next-generation consoles," he argued. "I think this trend's going to continue."

Citing renowned polymath Ray Kurzweil's belief that technological growth will not slow down according to Moore's Law - the belief that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every 24 months, and that this cannot go on forever - he said other divergent technologies would take over to compensate and that gaming consoles would grow closer still in technical capacity.

But perhaps most importantly, he said, there are simply too many games. "A couple of years ago in November there were 250 games released. There's not enough consumers to play all those games," he told the room, remarking almost exasperatedly that a "normal market" would never produce a situation where Resistance: Fall of Man - Insomniac's PS3 launch shooter - and Epic Games' Gears of War for 360 were not actually competing for the same buyer.

He also challenged the belief that Nintendo Wii will continue its meteoric rise. "With the Wii adoption rate, Nintendo's come out of the gate much faster than anyone expected," he admitted. "Short term, I think everyone agrees Nintendo's doing great - long term, they might not take that bet."

Nor is he convinced that PC gaming has much life left in it. "I think the PC is the ultimate 'no standard', which is the opposite of where I think we're going," he said. "That whole market's going in circles and it's going to go nowhere...Unless there's some kind of standardisation there it's going to get worse and worse."

In a Q&A session following his talk, Dyack said that services like Xbox Live would be able to endure in this one-console future - perhaps akin to the way Blockbuster serves film and television.

Admitting that the interface for a unified console would be a sticking point, he nonetheless said he felt we were "there" with current efforts, and that changes would still be possible.

He also admitted his concern that the commoditization of film pointed to a future where developers were brought together for projects contractually, rather than given full-time positions - something he said that Silicon Knights "would fight" because it was "dehumanising".

Concluding that a one-console future - the title of his talk - was inevitable, he said that the current model would endure for as long as people could afford it, but that once developers and publishers started to find it too difficult to compete, change would occur naturally. "Next generation, you could see people agreeing on one platform," he said. "I think this model, if it occurs, will change everything."

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (233) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Dreddnaught #1 5 years ago

    This isn't the first time someone's gone on about a single unified console, and it won't be the last.

    Don't want one.

    "We've got a bunch of pressures that are now starting to push us to a certain direction," he said of games development. He argued that things like the rising costs of development and staffing needs, a more even split of market share between three platform holders, and the reality that a successful game needs to sell a "frightening" number of units to make back investments, meant that it was "increasingly difficult to be successful"

    That means he's shitting spending 80 mil on the first installment on Too Human and might not make a return.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 08:21

  • JonFE #2 5 years ago

    It's easy to see the logic behind all this and from the consumer's view it could be a blessing (fanboys excluded), however I don't think that Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony (in alphabetical order) would agree with him.

  • afghan_jones #3 5 years ago

    Sounds bloody awful. Really hope this doesnt happen.

    A single unified console would stagnate the market for ages. He uses DVD as an example but look how difficult it is proving for the industry to push HD-DVD or Blu-ray into the mass market.

    A standard format means there is little incentive for a hardware manufacturer to take risks and push newer tech.

    At present however much the fanboyism of the Console Warz grates on people, it is the high level of competition in the market that forces the big 3 to keep pushing aggressively to take their consoles to new places.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 08:26

  • Talha #4 5 years ago

    Have we seen a unified television? A unified radio? A unified digital camera? A unified handheld gaming console?

    I fail to see where is he coming from on this.

  • presbyterrorion #5 5 years ago

    A open standard console with a linux-based OS would be awesome.

  • afghan_jones #6 5 years ago

    @Talha

    I think he means if you go out and buy a DVD you know it will work on any DVD player and he wants to be able to buy a game and have it work on any console in effect.

  • crazyhorse174 #7 5 years ago

    Have we seen a unified television? A unified radio? A unified digital camera? A unified handheld gaming console?

    I fail to see where is he coming from on this.

    I agree.

    His logic is balls here. On this logic, all games companies will get together to form one company and only release one game for the machine.

    Piss off Dyack and concentrate on making games...although I hear your pretty piss at that as well - how long has Too Human been in development? It was originally being developed for the Enigma machine back in 1944 you say...?

  • Talha #8 5 years ago

    In a competitive market, nothing 'unified' can come into being since someone somewhere is always coming up with something new.

    Edit: @Afghan: OK, he might mean that - but I don't think that is within the realms of possibility. Because DVD players do not sell on the basis of movies but on features. In their case output is the same. However, in case of consoles, output is inextricably tied to the hardware. You could say a PC fulfils that vision somewhat but that is its own spectacular mess.

    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 08:34

  • Dreddnaught #9 5 years ago

    "A standard format means there is little incentive for a hardware manufacturer to take risks and push newer tech."

    Imagine how boring it would be. How long a lifespan would a single unified console have ? Without the competition of another format, there would be very little drive to develop and expand the tech further.

    As much as I loath splashing the cash to fund my obsession, I'd prefer that to a stale single format.

    And as for Dyak comparing a single unified console to a camera or dvd, thats ridiculous. yea, everyone knows the specs for a camera, but look how quickly cameras are developing, is that what would happen with a single console ? A new one every six months ?


  • Eoin #10 5 years ago

    Have we seen a unified television? A unified radio? A unified digital camera? A unified handheld gaming console?

    Television: we've had two major TV standards for years, but they're not competing, with each enjoying complete dominance in their own territories. Buy any TV, from any manufacturer, and you will be able to watch any TV show that goes over the air in the country that you bought it. This is the model that Dyack is talking about.

    Radio: pretty much yes. We have a defined way that radio signals can be sent and a defined range of frequencies that they should be sent over. Buy any radio and you can listen to any (analogue) radio station.

    Digital cameras: Not really a relevant example since digital cameras are meant for recording content, not receiving it, and digital cameras are mostly meant to be interoperable with PCs rather than each other, but even then we have DCF and PictBridge.

    Handheld games consoles: Dyack's point is sort of that the games market is different, so saying that the games market is different, with all due respect, isn't adding anything to the debate.

  • HiredMan #11 5 years ago

    I reckon ol' Denis had 1 too many La Phroag's before that interview/press release

  • peasoup #12 5 years ago

    How would this work? All dvd players are not created equal....would we have the same scenario with a console?

  • jack_klugman #13 5 years ago

    The console manufacturers could compete on price and additional platform-specific add-ons (Live for example). It'd just be so much easier for developers if they could essentially produce a single SKU which would "just work" across the board.

  • [maven] #14 5 years ago

    How about you leave Too Human out of this, and discuss what he actually said?
    I think his argument of commodization is that if performance stops being a differentiating factor (and he assumes we're almost there now with current consoles), then commodization will naturally occur. Obviously, the publishers and developers would be all for this, with the platform holders fighting it all the way because they (and I) can't see much of a way to provide added value that distinguishes theirs from their competitors' offerings.

    In general, I find these reports from GCDC quite interesting — I don't necessarily agree, but they provide interesting perspective.

  • DB2k #15 5 years ago

    I think this is the Phantom :)

  • Talha #16 5 years ago

    OK now I sort of see the point - thanks to everyone for clarifying it. But still, I see it more possible in terms of platform/middleware, rather than the actual hardware. Just like flash movies/games do not care which PC they're on.

    So yes, he shouldn't have said unified console, rather, a unified gaming standard. I still maintain that innovation will take a noticeable downturn if games are commoditized in such a way.

  • jack_klugman #17 5 years ago

    You already get multiple companies producing DVD players and televisions, all which have to adhere to basic standards, but which are all competing for the same market. In fact one wonders why Microsoft don't simply license out the Xbox name, take a cut of all hardware sales and save themselves costly manufacture.

  • Sebo #18 5 years ago

    This is never going to happen.

    But there is an interesting point in there. Developers are finding that there investments are now too big not to get a guaranteed return, he claims.

    Maybe the arguments I've heard of a future of Wii-style party titles isn't that far off the mark.

  • Les #19 5 years ago

    This will never work. What’s the incentive for a hardware maker to create such a platform?

  • DanMW #20 5 years ago

    I can't see it happening any time soon (if ever) maybe I'm too narrow minded

  • Dizzy #21 5 years ago

    At least the forums would be peaceful with a unified consoles.

  • Eoin #22 5 years ago

    Obviously, the publishers and developers would be all for this, with the platform holders fighting it all the way because they (and I) can't see much of a way to provide added value that distinguishes theirs from their competitors' offerings.

    Well, there's a couple of advantages for the current platform holders too.

    Firstly, assuming a DVD-like model, which is the only one that makes sense, we also assume a licensing body and we clearly have to assume that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony will be key members of that. They'd all get license money from every game released on the single standard.

    It might not be as much as they get now, but it would be a much larger market with much less risk. Over the past 10 years or so, we've seen the home console market share of Nintendo take a real beating (possibly recovering now), Sega's completely vanish, and Sony's under real threat.

    Secondly, a single standard would reduce (and distribute) the cost of research and development of a console, and mean greater economies of scale for hardware manufacturers.

    Thirdly, as far as added value goes, look what DVD player manufacturers have done. We have DVD players that just do basic playback, portable players, DVD drives in PCs, high-end players, and superconvergent devices that do everything. There's no reason why a single games hardware standard couldn't produce the same kind of thing.

    Imagine a Nintendo model that just played the games and nothing else, a Sony model that played the games but also music, movies, photos, etc, a HP model where the player was built into a PC, a portable Creative model that was was also an MP3 player....lots of differentiation there.

  • peasoup #23 5 years ago

    No way Dizzy, no doubt we'd have "well my panasonic Unified console has HDMI 2.2 your Sanyo only has 1.9..pffff"

  • Sebo #24 5 years ago

    Actually, that's a fair point about the basic standard.

    If developers were given a basic standard to develop to, and Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo incorporated it into their machines it would save the developers a hell of a lot of time and money on making ports, thus making them more profitable and hopefully in turn meaning better games and quicker turn arounds.

    But then this is potential suicide for any of the three console manufacturers because they are then competing on a totally level playing field. I can't see them handing over the keys to the kingdom.


  • Eoin #25 5 years ago

    In fact one wonders why Microsoft don't simply license out the Xbox name, take a cut of all hardware sales and save themselves costly manufacture.

    Right now I suspect it's because it would be difficult for other companies to pay the licensing costs, sell the Xbox 360 for the same price as it is now, and still make a profit. There's also the consideration that Microsoft, competing as they are in a difficult market, do for the moment need a unified brand.

    It's still an interesting question though, and if this ever does happen, I can see Microsoft being the initiators of it.

    What’s the incentive for a hardware maker to create such a platform?

    I'm not sure how much the PS3 cost Sony, but certainly hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds/Euro. Under the current model, they're probably going to spend that again next generation. And the one after that, and the one after that....

    For what? How many more generations of 50-times-more-powerful consoles do we need?

  • Dreddnaught #26 5 years ago

    @ Eoin

    So what happens if the big 3 of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo put their heads together and create a next gen unified console that will play any game.

    What happens in 3 years time when Sony and Microsoft decide, "hey, we want to upgrade, make the machine better, capable of better grafix !"

    Nintendo goes, "actually no, there's plenty of life left in the system, and we're JUST reaching the point where we're getting the best out of it "(which we all know is true for any console)

    Because, out of the 3, theres a majority, would a new console have to be created ? or would Sony or Microsoft sneak away with a lot of internal R&D and create a new own branded console that wipes the floor with the unified one ?

    Greed is good.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #27 5 years ago

    3DO?

  • sickpuppysoftware #28 5 years ago

    3 letters - 3DO

    edit - SNAP!
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:05

  • Xiaokiraa #29 5 years ago

    So long as I can still play games on my PC I don't really care.

  • mazzl #30 5 years ago

    i think one console could be great,
    just agree on some kind of minimal spec, and brands can do there own things from there on.
    and if it evolves to slow, you will see sony or nintendo or ms doing there own thing again. i'm all for.

  • PlugMonkey #31 5 years ago

    "In the rare case of a game that didn't work, "it would be the hardware manufacturer's fault", he said, removing a number of burdens from software developers' shoulders."

    So as a developer, the hardware manufacturers would be responsible for the config testing of my game, and if it didn't work then it would be up to them to modify the hardware? Doesn't sound likely. Trying to make a game for multiple versions of a unified hardware would be like the config testing nightmare of PC development multiplied by the config testing nightmare of mobile phone development.

    "Have we seen a unified television?"

    Erm, yes. Last time I checked, I pick up the same programs regardless of what brand of telly I own. That's pretty much exactly what he means. Lots of different console manufacturers making consoles that all play the same content.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #32 5 years ago

    If this generation had seen a single standard platform agreed between a consortium of the industry's current top players, then Wii would not exist. I could rest my case there, but I won't. The sort of reasoning Dyack is using there is exactly the same as Trip Hawkins used before trying to sell the world the 3DO. And they ended up with their format dead, trying to push ever-shittier Army Men games upon the world until they ran out of money.

    In any case, it seems like open standards are a thing of the past. Whereas in the past we had CD and DVD, the next generation of music comes as MP3, WMA, AAC, Sony's format (I forget its name) with maybe one of several types of DRM built into them. And even disc-based HD video has two competing standards, let alone various download services or on-demand rentals from TV services.

    and finally, he suggests:

    the abolition of a first-party product approval service

    The system pioneered by Nintendo to make sure console owners didn't have to put up with quite the level of buggy and otherwise problematic mess that PC gamers have to deal with? The thing that restored confidence in videogames as a whole in the largest market in the world after the early 80s slump? The thing that ensures the likes of Xbox Live (or even just the function of the start button in menus) are integrated consistently across all titles so users can benefit from familiar experiences, and not be subject to obtuse and ill-thought through basic functionality?

    Dennis Dyack has comprehensively proved himself to be an idiot in this statement. Any shred of respect I may have had for him (bearing in mind that i already thought of him as a whining little bitch, who couldn't take lukewarm previews) has evaporated.

    I hope Epic fuck his ass raw in court now.


    Edit: typo
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:05

  • chicknstu #33 5 years ago

    It would be great for developers and all... but not so great for consumers / gamers. Because there'd be no competition between console brands, because there'd be no motive them to 'up their game plan', improve their hardware, or fund independant new IP.

  • ZeroAX #34 5 years ago

    pc gaming is unifed and you call it dead. wii is bringing new customers (my girlfriend started with wii sports played rayman then excite truck(a REAL game as you would call it) and now is playing all the kirby games she can find) and you say it's going to fail. man this guy only accepts his own ideas and brinds up things that come from the top of his head to support them. idiot imo.



    unified would not work cause it'll just be a pc in a box.

  • Steroyd #35 5 years ago

    I think he means if you go out and buy a DVD you know it will work on any DVD player and he wants to be able to buy a game and have it work on any console in effect.

    Good look getting the three to agree on the same specs to run said games.

    Nevermind sharing the R&D to make such a console.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:07

  • jiveguy #36 5 years ago

    Won't this just lead to the situation we see in PC gaming where some games require certain versions of an OS or graphics library to work? Won;t some manufacturers be constantly adding new features to differentiate themselves? And while they might not be part of some standard, games producers might come along and try to use them in some way and consumers just end up with a PC like arms race, trying to keep up or get fed up and give up on the thing.

    Edit: In the time it's taken me to write this it looks like some of these questions have been addressed :)
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:10

  • Steroyd #37 5 years ago

    i dunno, teh demise of fanboyz sounds good to meh :-D

    no-one can argue with them apples!

    Are you shitting me this wouldn't eliminate fanbois, instead of Console warz we'd just have Game warz neverthless.

    Ma Killzone betta than ur Halo, no Fifa iz betta dan Pro Evo (which we already frikken get), LocoRoco pwns katamary etc etc. Hell it could escalate to Publisher fanboyz, Nintedo Games are the shit while Microsoft games are shit lolilollol.

    There will always be fanboyz.

  • Sebo #38 5 years ago

    Would Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo sell more of their machines if there was a basic standard. I'm 100 percent certain the answer is no.

    In fact, all three of them would lose out because if there was a basic standard other manufacturers, the likes of Samsung, Nokia etc would jump in on the market and grab their slice, thus reducing the traditional threes share of the pie.

    So although I appreciate it's a dream scenario for developers, because they get the widest audience they can with a reduced amount of outlay, it's never going to happen for them.



  • haowan #39 5 years ago

    The PC is already like this, in a way. And now we have various CG languages for drawing graphics by using Shaders, which is the kind of standard this man is talking about. I think it's a good idea personally.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #40 5 years ago

    Christ, gamers are stupid.

    - Isn't it great to have to spend nearly £1,000 if you want to play all this generation's best software instead of just a fraction of it?

    - Isn't it great that developers have to spend half their time rewriting the same game for multiple formats instead of developing brilliant new games?

    - Isn't it great that fantastic games only make half as much money as they might do, slashing the rewards that their creators get?

    - Isn't it great that we all have to go through this cycle of expensive purchasing every five years in order to get a fractional increase in graphical performance, because we ALL know that graphics are more important than gameplay?

    - Wouldn't it be awful to still have to endure the eye-watering hideousness of games like Shenmue, Soul Calibur and Halo?

    - Where would we be without this constant "aggressive innovation" from the hardware manufacturers? We'd still be living in some awful caveman world where, for example, the DS was more popular than the vastly technically superior PSP.

    A unified format wouldn't affect the introduction of the Wii, because the Wii isn't in competition with the 360 or the PS3 in any sane person's mind, any more than your TV is in competition with your hi-fi. A single format is great news for gamers, great news for developers, great for innovative gameplay and great for jobs. The only people it's bad for are the hardware manufacturers, who can't steal 25% of the price of every game sold and would have to come up with a more sensible business model, like the manufacturers of every other kind of hardware do, and still seem to make a profit out of.

    Unfortunately, as long as the gaming market chiefly comprises idiot fanboys and tech-whores such as those infesting this thread, quoting polygon counts and teraflops at each other in an embarrassing playground dick-waving contest, we'll keep getting screwed. Let's hope the Wii finally smashes through to the mainstream audience - as it's doing fairly spectacularly so far - and consigns these nerds to the dustbin of history.

  • Dreddnaught #41 5 years ago

    PC gaming ISN'T unified.

    Are you saying my 3 year old PC will be able to play Crysis ?

    PC's are constantly evolving because the games require more and more to run them.

  • moggsy #42 5 years ago

    It's been tried before by Microsoft of all companies - anyone heard of the MSX? It didn't work out too well unfortunately.

    Maybe it's time has come again, and this time it will be successful?
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:25

  • woodnotes #43 5 years ago

    The Wii's success so far this generation goes to prove that we're still a million miles away from a 'standard'. All three console manufacturers have their own direction, 1st party studios and interests, and that isn't going to change in the forseeable future. Not unless two out of the three manufacturers dramatically pull out of the market, anyway. And that won't happen. One, maybe, but not two - if one drops out it automatically gives both the others more marketshare.

  • moggsy #44 5 years ago

    Would Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo sell more of their machines if there was a basic standard. I'm 100 percent certain the answer is no.

    They generally make a loss on hardware so this is no big deal. In fact I'm sure they'd love the fact that they didn't have to manufacture the hardware - especially MS.

  • woodnotes #45 5 years ago

    @ Moggsy - yes, the MSX, although x86-based computers are no different - they all run Windows. Even the Sony Vaio and Apple Mac.

    "They generally make a loss on hardware so this is no big deal. In fact I'm sure they'd love the fact that they didn't have to manufacture the hardware - especially MS. "

    Then they might aswell be a third party publisher. But they want to own the hardware so they get the license fees for every third party game sold on their platform. So they can make revenue from Xbox Live. So they can make huge profits on accessories like play & charge, 120gb HD. So they can make profits on delivering multimedia content like films, XBLA games, etc. There's so much profit to be made if you can just get the hardware right, and that's something they're learning.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:30

  • All_the_girly_men #46 5 years ago

    "Let's hope the Wii finally smashes through to the mainstream audience - as it's doing fairly spectacularly so far - and consigns these nerds to the dustbin of history."

    Amen, brother!

  • Dreddnaught #47 5 years ago

    @ Rev.

    Of course the Wii is in competition with the 360 and the PS3, it's a video games system after all, it's the same market.

    But then you go and say you hope the Wii crushes both of them to get to the mainstream audience, which the other 2 have failed to do.

    Make your mind up man.

  • NegativeZero #48 5 years ago

    Have we seen a unified television?

    Yes. PAL and NTSC are both examples. Multiple manufacturers make a device that handles one or two standards.

    A unified radio?

    Yes. The signal is encoded in the same way. Multiple manufactuers make a device that handles one or two standards.

    A unified digital camera?

    Yes. They all take photos in standardised formats - RAW and JPEG mainly. Multiple manufactuers make a device that handles one or two standards.

    A unified handheld gaming console?

    Again, yes. Java games on cellphones.

    On a more pertinent level, most portable devices use ARM processors and almost every desktop PC uses a processor which interprets x86 instruction codes.

    It seems to me that what Dyack is really saying is that he sees a future where there are a few console 'standards' or baselines, and multiple companies may make products that conform to that standard. Games made to that standard are expected to play the same on any hardware that meets it. It's the same approach that's used in manufacture of TVs, CD players, DVD players and everything else.

  • Scimarad #49 5 years ago

    That all very well, Rev, but the Wii DOES look crap on a big LCD. It's not being a tech whore to want something that looks good in HD.

  • IAmBatman #50 5 years ago

    > The only people it's bad for are the hardware manufacturers

    No, it's bad for consumers in some ways too.

    Since there's no platform approval process developers odn't have pesky things like TRCs making sure that their games all behave in the same way where things like saving and loading are concerned, and don't do anything destructive to the user's data. Or loading times with blank screens. Or what happens when you unplug the controller mid-game. Or how multiplayer interfaces work.

  • moggsy #51 5 years ago

    Because, out of the 3, theres a majority, would a new console have to be created ? or would Sony or Microsoft sneak away with a lot of internal R&D and create a new own branded console that wipes the floor with the unified one ?

    Good luck getting third parties to write software for it when 20 million people own the unified standards console...

  • Steroyd #52 5 years ago

    The only people it's bad for are the hardware manufacturers, who can't steal 25% of the price of every game sold and would have to come up with a more sensible business model.

    What do you mean it would be the opposite, they could charge double what the PS3 costs and because it's the only console on the market i.e no cheaper alternative they'd have to pay for it if they want to play on the games.

    On paper yeah it sounds like a sweet deal for developers, although we get a thing called a monopoly which isn't good in any market period.

  • Dreddnaught #53 5 years ago

    Totally agree with Scimarad.

    Twilight Princess on my HD tv was an absolute crime compared to some of the more lacklustre game on my 360.

    Sometimes I wish Nintendo didn't have its head stuck so far up its ass.

  • Dreddnaught #54 5 years ago

    "Because, out of the 3, theres a majority, would a new console have to be created ? or would Sony or Microsoft sneak away with a lot of internal R&D and create a new own branded console that wipes the floor with the unified one ?

    Good luck getting third parties to write software for it when 20 million people own the unified standards console..."

    If the new format could do everything better and some things new than the unified one couldn't , of course people would buy it. Agreed, the user base wouldn't be huge at the start, but it would build up.

    Then you'd see third parties develop, I'm looking at you EA

  • moggsy #55 5 years ago

    @ Moggsy - yes, the MSX, although x86-based computers are no different - they all run Windows. Even the Sony Vaio and Apple Mac.

    The MSX used far more standard hardware than any PC or even Apple Mac.


    "They generally make a loss on hardware so this is no big deal. In fact I'm sure they'd love the fact that they didn't have to manufacture the hardware - especially MS. "

    Then they might aswell be a third party publisher. But they want to own the hardware so they get the license fees for every third party game sold on their platform. So they can make revenue from Xbox Live. So they can make huge profits on accessories like play & charge, 120gb HD. So they can make profits on delivering multimedia content like films, XBLA games, etc. There's so much profit to be made if you can just get the hardware right, and that's something they're learning.

    But, as has been mentioned, they'd still get licensing money as Sony, MS and Ninty would own the hardware standard. MS could still write their own 'operating system' for the console which could incorporate Xbox Live etc, it'd just be the hardware which was standard.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:35

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #56 5 years ago

    I have a 52" HD telly and my Wii looks fantastic on it. Perhaps you're connecting them with a piece of old chicken wire instead of a nice component cable?

  • Dreddnaught #57 5 years ago

    Perhaps we are rev, tell me, where can I get your cable that makes Wii game display in HD ?

  • Dreddnaught #58 5 years ago

    @ as702ecs

    Absolutely brilliant lol

  • teabagger #59 5 years ago

    The arguments about the cost of development and the issue of staff employment going the way of the film/tv industry are extremely valid. But, I think he's arrived at the wrong solution to these problems.

    The fact of the matter is that the games industry is extremely immature. Projects are 'managed' pretty poorly almost across the board, time & money is wasted in ways that simply wouldn't be tolerated in more mature industries.

    Time and time again I see short sighted studios refuse to devote the necessary time to proper tools development, instead chasing after short term goals 'getting something up and running' using old tech only to have it bite them in the ass and cost them later.

    I see a complete lack of urgency to get products out of the door on time, tolerance of arbitrary reworking of games because the initial idea was so wooly, pissing money away on expensive MoCap only to cut loads of cutscenes because of bad planning & time management. Projects duplicating work because key staff are too damn precious to share tech development across studios. Months wasted allowing people to pursue 'pet projects' that either duplicate tech that exists or has no relevance to the project.

    The list is endless...

    I suspect we're going to have a pretty big shakedown over the coming years, we have a lot of growing up to do in a short period but the industry will be the better for it. It's a necessary change that is now being forced upon us because the rise in dev costs.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #60 5 years ago

    SD != "looks crap".

    Shenmue, Soul Calibur 2 and Halo all ran in SD. Are they ugly now?

  • Schiraman #61 5 years ago

    I think he's got a very good point. I don't know if we'll see it next generation, but it does make sense that we'll see a more standardised console platform eventually.

    Standards for PC components (such as DDR or DDR2 for memory, or PCI Express for expansion cards) don't prevent innovation, so I don't see any reason you couldn't have similar standards for consoles (though hopefully covering the whole machine rather than one per component), with new standards being rolled out now and again to support a 'next gen' of consoles.

    The most likely scenario for a more open console standard is for one of the big three to be struggling (I'm lookin' at you Sony) and to decide to bring in more partners. If that 'standard' console them begins to out-compete the offerings from the other two established corporations then you could easily imagine they might jump on the band wagon next time around.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #62 5 years ago

    Re: Stuart Campbell

    Christ, gamers are stupid.

    I'm a developer, rather than simply a gamer, but I suppose that's no guard against stupidity, since I just called a prominent developer stupid.

    You've been banging the drum of a unified console format since your Panel 4 days (probably before, i suspect). I accept some of your arguments, but I'm personally dubious of the benefits a single format would bring.

    However, that's not all that's at issue here. Dyack clearly believes that this will happen, and in that sense I am sure that he is wrong. Perhaps there is room for some sort of reduced-spec virtual machine, like Flash, Java or Microsoft's XNA Studio to work across multiple platforms to serve smaller developers, the casual games market and even titles like PES that used Renderware in the last generation to port PS2-quality games to differnt formats with comparative ease. But the concept of a standard platform built to spec by licensing hardware maufacturers, has been proved to fail at least twice already with 3DO and Apple's Pippin.

    Any cross-platform initiative isn't going to benefit 'triple-A' high-performance games like Too Human is meant to be. The nearest Denis Dyack will get to that sort of thing is to use some sort of high-profile off-the shelf game engine...

    Edit: bold tag got away from me
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 09:44

  • Sebo #63 5 years ago

    The Wii does not look "crap" per say on a big screen,

    Undoubtedly not as good as a PS3 or 360, but crap is an overstatement. I though Zelda looked great on my 40 inch.

  • Dreddnaught #64 5 years ago

    No, they don't look ugly, they were developed at a time when the tech available was as good as it could get.

    I'm just saying that after a year of playing my 360 on my HD tv, connecting my wii up and playing twilight princess was a massive disappointment.

    Sure, the game was ace, but honestly ? It looked horrible.

  • indotoonster #65 5 years ago

    Errrr, the PC *IS* the unified console, at least in the sense that Dyack sketches it: commodified hardware. The hardware makers are always going to want to compete with each other in terms of hardware performance (see Nvidia vs. ATI, Intel vs. AMD).

    Sure, Crysis may run butter smooth on a pimped out rig, and chug along jerkily on my 3 year old setup, but that's arguably an analog to watching the telly on your gran's TV and your 42" LCD TV. It's still commodified hardware.

    The fact that the PC doesn't work as an ideal unified console is also the reason why Dyack's proposal simpy won't work.

  • KnickKnack #66 5 years ago

    I imagine Microsoft would love to standardise the platform. especially as they would almost certainly try and control the software side of things while leaving the hardware up to other distributors.

    Sony would be more reticent, given that they're a hardware company and their previous record with proprietary media formats and would probably produce their own version of a "standard console" in tandem with other partners.

    If Microsoft dominate the games industry this time round, maybe they can instigate a change but if Sony's brand manages to remain strong I can imagine it will be very hard to persuade them that one console is the way to go.

  • haowan #67 5 years ago

    The PC is the precedent here.

  • neil_pub5 #68 5 years ago

    Trip Hawkins and his 3DO was way ahead of their times. The problem is that how far ahead is that as a mainstream gaming platform? Probably 15 years at least!

  • Sebo #69 5 years ago

    Indotoonstar hit the nail on the head with his post

    @dreddnaught

    It's dissappointing that you thought Zelda looked horrible. I give Nintendo a little sympathy in this generation because there is no way they could have gone in and slugged it out on raw power. I feel the Wii was the perfect business model for them and I feel the graphics are adequate enough in the bigger titles.

  • Arwin #70 5 years ago

    I don't think it's very likely, really. There will always be competition, and this generation has more viable platforms than ever before. Even in the handheld space we now have two vastly different machines, and the Wii proves that there will always be a market for different stuff.

    On the contrary, I think the trend is towards the opposite spectrum. As gaming becomes bigger and bigger, there is simply more room for specialisation. Soon you'll have the first viable true-3D machine, and that will coexist happily with portables, games built in TVs or HD media, flash games, Windows games, PS3 games, Wii stuff, and so on and so forth.

    It will grow and diverge. At best, development will become easier and more automatically scaleable, akin to Id's new engine technology and such. But that will take a long while yet. Gaming is very innovation driven and that won't go away soon. It is in direct conflict with a unified platform, which would kill that innovative power and competition.

  • KnickKnack #71 5 years ago

    @Indotoonster

    No, you can't look at the PC and use it as a model for comparison.

    AMD and NVidia don't have 5 - 7 year cycles for new hardware like consoles; they have 2 year cycles with steps in between. Intel and AMD still follows Moores Law, even if it's kind of gone off the beaten track with mutli-cores.

    Your argument falls down on that one reason alone, never mind the fact that you effectively have 4 companies battling it out for market share with different products and specs.

    Of course, console hardware doesn't make any money for Microsoft and Sony, only the games that sell on the systems. The biggest problem with Dyacks argument is how you can make cutting edge hardware cheap enough to sell at a pricepoint that is affordable to the masses and profitable to a company.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 10:00

  • moggsy #72 5 years ago

    The PC is the precedent here.

    It's really not. How many different combinations of different devices can you plug into a PC including video cards, memory, CPU, etc? Millions. We're talking about a completely standard hardware device built to a defined standard here which the PC most certainly is not.

  • TonyCocaCola #73 5 years ago

    Variety is always better.

  • Dreddnaught #74 5 years ago

    @ Sebo

    I know where you're coming from, and I never once though I was that kind of gamer who was so dismissive of a less than stellar looking game.

    I had been playing Dead Rising since it came out last september, and seeing that in HD every day was amazing, then I get Zelda and it was just, flat. I knew what to expect of it visually, but it still didn't prepare me for that shock.

    Anyhoo, this is an argument for another forum, back to Dyacks idiot premise.

  • silver-jon #75 5 years ago

    It will never happen. The same argument could be applied to virtually anything (cars, televisions, etc) and yet each manufacturer (all along the supply and construction process) has a vested interest in promoting their own product and therefore in making it different/better than the competition.

    Besides, even if hardware became unified, it would allow space for another player to join the market, thus maintaining competition and (as unlikely as it may sometimes feel) keep, or drive, prices down.

    Unified hardware would have pros and cons for consumers (EG: how much investment has gone into Internet Explorer since Microsoft dominated the landscape by including it with Windows ?)


    Edit: 250 games released in November last year ? How many books ? How many magazines ? How many television programmes ? Different products for different tastes (casual gamer, child, Eurogamer obsessive, etc). And not all of those games will have met with critical acclaim. Many of those books, magazines, TV progs, games will have been absolute pap. I think there's a greater argument for developers and publishers to establish a minimum standard of quality, and produce/waste less product. If anything there would be a consolidation of developers, balanced with home-brews some of whom will get noticed (like the young film makers that break the big time (Blair Witch, THX1138, etc)
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 10:16

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #76 5 years ago

    @neil_pub5
    "Trip Hawkins and his 3DO was way ahead of their times."

    @as702ecs
    "agreed. the market conditions were very different back then to what they are now. "

    If the 3D0 business model was currently in effect, and PS3 and Xbox 360 (and the Dell XPS console etc) were exactly the same, then they'd probably both cost 500 or 600 quid. And you can see how well the PS3 is selling at 450.

    The standard spec would have been set too high (like it always has been), initial sales would be terrible, the early smaller manufacturers would give up, just like Panasonic and Goldstar did and the whole project would fall flat on its arse.

  • dredd97 #77 5 years ago

    @Rev. Stuart Campbell

    wow, by having a pop at fanboys, yur post didn't half read like a fanboy rant in favour of the wii...

    @sebo
    'Maybe the arguments I've heard of a future of Wii-style party titles isn't that far off the mark. '

    and what a horrible day for gaming that would be....

  • Dreddnaught #78 5 years ago

    @ Mentalist

    Think higher

    From Wiki - "Unfortunately the 3DO console itself was priced at $700, and the promised "early adopters" never showed up to purchase mass quantities of games."

  • Sebo #79 5 years ago

    I think the PC is the precedent here, people are wrong to say its not.

    It is essentially has a basic standard, even though AMD etc keeping adding on and adding on, there is a basic there.

    Even if the big three console makers agreed to a basic standard for the third party developers, they would still include more power in their machine so that they could get better stuff out of it themselves.

    I think the answer to this is in "how much power do the third party developers have", they could get together and push the three manufacturers to come up with a basic standard for them. Do they have enough pull to get it, that I don't know.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 10:12

  • GitSomE_UK #80 5 years ago

    /The speach should have been

    I have a dream where one day all Consoles will be made the same.
    I have a dream where developers from different houses will work side by side.
    I have a dream that corporations will no longer compete with one another and form an alliance for all mankind.
    I have a dream that standards will reign over mankind and create peace and love.
    I have a dream that the PC will be cured of it's mutant status and join the collective standard or be forever consigned to the bin.

    I have a dream today.

    And when this happens, When we allow standardisation to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's developers, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old oligarchical, "Control at last! Control at last! thank God Almighty, we have control at last!"

    /Sound of one man clapping

  • Sebo #81 5 years ago

    One unified console is a very different thing to a basic standard being introduced for manufacturers.

  • GrandpaUlrira #82 5 years ago

    There is a huge flaw in Dyack's argument, in that he forgot to mention Nintendo. Not only that, but I imagine MS and Sony are already planning their next consoles, so unless discussions are happening now or very soon, which I very much doubt, this won't happen next generation.

  • Dreddnaught #83 5 years ago

    Oh don't worry,it's not happening, not in the next generation or the one after

  • TonyCocaCola #84 5 years ago

    I still think competition is what pushes the industry forward. Do you think they would subsidize the price of a console if it was the only one on the market? I think the 'one unified console' would look something like a wii.

  • banjo21 #85 5 years ago

    About bloomin time someone took this seriously.

    What other home appliance would you buy that you needed multiple occurances of based on your mood at that point? Would you stomach a different CD player for Rock rather than Dance, a different DVD player for Action rather than Romance, a different TV for soaps than for films - absolutely ludricous that we have 3 consoles doing the same thing and taking up space, and connections and leads and remotes (and money on hw which could be put into the SW which is afterall where the money is made).

    Everyone wins - the hw guys, the sw guys and the punters. Its a complete no-brainer.

  • dredd97 #86 5 years ago

    I had a 3DO... it was a nice console, looked good, had a motorised cd drive, but the games were simply not there... sony were on the verge of launching the ps1, and the major developers like ea supported the 3DO, but were pinning their hopes on the cheaper, and far superior playstation..

    I traded mine in for a ps1, my brother-in-law had a 3DO too, but when he saw doom running on the ps1, in full screen compared to the 3DO version which was only playable if the screen size was shrunk to half, he knew the 3DO was lost, and promptly traded his in too...

    a unified standard is good, but only for developers, a unified console to the customer means a re-run of the never ending cycle of upgrading the components to play the latest games, but paying more for them... we don't need it, and the pc games market proves this...

  • moggsy #87 5 years ago

    If the 3D0 business model was currently in effect, and PS3 and Xbox 360 (and the Dell XPS console etc) were exactly the same, then they'd probably both cost 500 or 600 quid. And you can see how well the PS3 is selling at 450.

    Yep, but if you could buy one machine for £500 which would play ALL released games then it'd be mighty tempting wouldn't it (the PS3 doesn't have much of a line up atm and so is not a fair comparison)?

  • moggsy #88 5 years ago

    Even if the big three console makers agreed to a basic standard for the third party developers, they would still include more power in their machine so that they could get better stuff out of it themselves.

    If they included 'more power' then they would be deviating from the standard.

  • Monkey-Wizard-Ken #89 5 years ago

    one mans dream

  • crozon #90 5 years ago

    ok so on the PC side you have 2 processor makers and 2 graphic card makers trying to sell you the products. however, no matter what combination of these four you get any game will run on them within reason. that is if you buy a good processor and gaming graphics card today it will run every game.
    This is not the same for a console, where if you make a game for the 360 you need to spend a shit ton of money to then port it to the PS3.

    Personally i like the PC as it is. Even though its a pain, the fact that it constantly evolves, is an open space environement mean developers and hardware makers can constantly push what games should be.
    Fuck, if we only had consoles and they had their 6 to 7 year cycles i doubt we would have seen games like bioshock, crysis, world in conflict gears of war etc etc come out.
    The PC keeps uping the game, and in turn means that console makers keep uping their game..........

  • TonyCocaCola #91 5 years ago

    At least there would be no more fanboys

  • Fitzmogwai #92 5 years ago

    The basic rule is that competition drives innovation. If there's no competition, we're stuck in a rut where nothing changes and nothing improves.

    Regarding gaming, you have to ask yourself "is what you're playing on good enough?" Is there the power to display a photorealistic gameworld populated by believable, lifelike characters that behave and react convincingly within their environment? Because that's what some (not all) games aspire to portray, and that's therefore what the hardware and OS has to be able to provide. At that point, you could argue for a "unified console", but we're nowhere near to being there yet.

    Despite the naysayers, the closest we do have currently to a unified games system as Dyack describes it is the PC in microcosm: an OS that, with DirectX offers developers a standardised way of coding for a platform built upon commoditised hardware. But because of the competitive advantage that hardware companies strive to maintain, the differences across the range of components stretches the definition of "unified platform" almost to breaking point.

    Until we can't improve technology any more, or our capitalist system is overthrown (Viva!) a "unified console" is a pipedream.

  • MaxiSleep #93 5 years ago

    This guy clearly is doing an mba or some similar piece of crap. Gee lets have industry agreed stagnation.

    The problem is - who owns the underlying patents/licences. Sony will never allow microsoft to have control of the platform ip and vice versa. To think otherwise is nonsense.

    Competion good.


    Rev. Stuart Campbell
    "SD != "looks crap".

    Shenmue, Soul Calibur 2 and Halo all ran in SD. Are they ugly now? "

    On the Wii on a 50" TV (using prog scan etc)- yes it looks pants compared to Ps3/360. And yes SC2 and Halo do not look great when used on a large format tv. They were designed for an age when VHS was still barely aceptable and 32" CRT was the max size with 20" being more common. On their intended medium they look ok but on the latest tv's they dont.

    Just like DVD vs VHS I find a lot of older games hard to take these days from a visual point of view.

  • CatWeazle #94 5 years ago

    Hmmph, I'm getting sick of these so-called experts shouting their mouths off about what direction they reckon gaming is going to take. 99% of them are just attention-seeking twats trying to bolster the public profile of their companies. If you're so good at predicting the future Mr Dyack, why didn't you 'predict' your ongoing little spat with Epic over the Unreal Engine?
    Get off your soap-box, get back to your studio, and write a decent game - then maybe somebody will listen.

  • moggsy #95 5 years ago

    Neither Sony or MS are having an easy time of it this generation. Sony is historically a hardware company whereas MS is historically a software company. Can the doubters really not see a bit of synergy (to coin a marketing phrase!) here between the two companies?

    Both could breath a sigh of relief if the burden of creating a state of the art gaming platform was shared in the next gen. Nintendo would not need to be involved - they can carry on doing there own thing as they currently do very successfully. It's the bleeding edge of hardware where the real pain is.

  • Dreddnaught #96 5 years ago

    Moggsy, can you honestly see MS and Sony doing that ?

    Now Kutaragi's buggered off it might be more feasible granted, but no way.

  • Fitzmogwai #97 5 years ago

    @ MaxiSleep

    "Just like DVD vs VHS I find a lot of older games hard to take these days from a visual point of view. "

    funnily enough, I dug out my old Dreamcast over the weekend for a shot of nostalgia (Skies of Arcadia, anyone?) Sure, the visuals weren't HD and the audio wasn't 5.1 surround, but the games still looked perfectly fine and played damned well. Graphics =/= gameplay.

  • moggsy #98 5 years ago

    Stranger things have happened in big business. It's all about making money at the end of the day...

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #99 5 years ago

    "The basic rule is that competition drives innovation."

    What a gigantic pile of idiot shite. Competition actually drives *hundreds and hundreds of iterations of exactly the same game with incrementally better graphics*, because the more "innovation" there is in hardware, the more stupefyingly expensive development is, and the less and less risk developers can afford to take with inventive and novel gameplay. There's no "innovation" in incremental improvements in technical quality. The only one of the current gen that's even slightly innovative is the Wii, and that came about precisely because Nintendo opted OUT of the pointless "competition" of the hardware-spec arms race.

    Oh wait, I'm wrong. Look at the PS3 and 360 release catalogues, jam-packed with whole new kinds of games, and certainly NOT just endless parades of thousands of the same old racing/sports/FPS genre crap, except in slightly sharper resolution. Man, I feel a proper chump now.

  • moggsy #100 5 years ago

    funnily enough, I dug out my old Dreamcast over the weekend for a shot of nostalgia (Skies of Arcadia, anyone?) Sure, the visuals weren't HD and the audio wasn't 5.1 surround, but the games still looked perfectly fine and played damned well. Graphics =/= gameplay.

    Did you try it with the VGA adaptor? I've been thinking of having a go on mine with my HDTV via the VGA adaptor and wondered what it would look like.

  • Dreddnaught #101 5 years ago

    It IS all about making money yea, which is why you make your product better than the next guys.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #102 5 years ago

    Gotta agree with the Rev here, I am playing through Fire Emblem and trying to finish Paper Mario:TYD on my Gamecube and through component on my rather large Sansumg panel, they both look nice.

    Of course they are SD and therefore will lack the definition, clarity and sharpness of a true HD signal from say a 360 or PS3, but the panel does a great job of upscaling the SD image to the point where you dont really notice it too much.

    It helps to have a good panel with good software as well as sitting a good distance from your screen. But I have not complaints with Gamecube or Wii ( played through RGB scart ) on my panel.

    On the subject of a unified standard, I feel that it would be a Very Bad Thing indeed. I happen to like the fact that we have multiple games machines on the market, it fosters competition between the companies involved. Can you imaging the commitee that would be involved in a unified standard for games console hardware? It would be absolutley massive with one or two representatives from each interested party who, lets faces it, would be arguing the toss over every little proposed change to the specification to ensure that their employers got their own way.

    The whole thing would become a political battleground for the companies involved. Panasonic would try to play off of Sony who in turn would not listen to Samsung while Microsoft spent their time trying to buy the lot of them. In essence you would end up with a Eurovision style management process where friendly companies voted in changes to the spec from their friends and vote against those companies who had a grudge against them.

    Bloody awful !

  • moggsy #103 5 years ago

    @mogsy

    "Stranger things have happened in big business. It's all about making money at the end of the day..."

    but i don't want to buy a Wii... :(

    Did you not read my post - you would still be getting a state of the art console but it would be from the combined resources of MS & Sony. Sony alone would never release anything which didn't stretch the boundaries.

  • Dreddnaught #104 5 years ago

    Rev, so one video games system isn't in competition with 2 other video games system because you said so ?

    It all becomes clear........

  • moggsy #105 5 years ago

    Microsoft have thought about working with Sony before if you read this article.

  • Dreddnaught #106 5 years ago

    I think it more likely that Dyak is sitting there shitting himself going, "ooh, some people look like they don't like my game I've been developing forever and now more people might not like my idea of a unified console.....Mum, I don't want to go to school today....I'm ...sick"

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #107 5 years ago

    What a gigantic pile of idiot shite. Competition actually drives *hundreds and hundreds of iterations of exactly the same game with incrementally better graphics

    Why do you even still care, then?

    By your reasoning, then surely if there were a standard platform, it adopted a less-than-cutting-edge technology level, and lasted more than the standard 5 years then we'd have exactly the same thing, only the graphics wouldn't actually get any better. We'd probably end up in a sitution like the arcades where the only innovation and differentiators are increasingly novelty controllers.

    And, frankly, I'm spending more time this generation playing games that don't use novelty control methods than ones that do.

  • afghan_jones #108 5 years ago

    Well personally I reckon the guy is dead wrong. If this comes to pass it will be a disaster.

    Competition is a good thing. hardware advancement is a good thing. Getting better graphics is, like it or not, a good thing.

    If there was a single industry standard yes it would be easier to port things, lower costs etc but there would be much less innovation or improvement.

    And just to jump in on the ongoing graphics debate, yes the wii delivers worse visuals than the other two consoles, we all know this to be a fact. If it doesnt bother you, thats fine, if it does, then its probably not for you.

  • Fitzmogwai #109 5 years ago

    @ Rev. Stuart Campbell

    It's an interesting point about the games that you make, but I was actually talking about the hardware. Whether development houses can make interesting and novel games depends only on the hardware to the extent that it must be able to support the developers' ambition.

    If developers are unable to come up with something new, that's hardly the fault of the hardware manufacturers. If the budgets are expensive, dev teams can license engines or middleware. If those engines aren't up to scratch, the dev teams can sue. Equally, games built on new ideas don't have to push hardware to its limits.

    There is innovative development work being done, and not just on the Wii. "Inventive and novel gameplay" doesn't just have to mean new control systems.

  • haowan #110 5 years ago

    @moggsy:

    "It's really not. How many different combinations of different devices can you plug into a PC including video cards, memory, CPU, etc? Millions. We're talking about a completely standard hardware device built to a defined standard here which the PC most certainly is not."

    I think Dyack is talking about specifications yes? So what you have, take any component of a PC and there are specifications there, standards that tell you how to manufacture your product so that it will work with everyone's machine. So yes, you can have millions of combinations of hardware, but the result is that they all run Windows XP.

    Dyack makes software, and he wants to make one version of his software that should be readable by any games hardware of a specific standard out there. So let's call our 360 and PS2 "generation X", any games made for this should run in both a 360 and a PS2. That's the way I've interpreted it, seems to me that the Rev. is right and this could only be a good thing for everyone.

  • Hughes. #111 5 years ago

    They should take the best qualities of the 3 current machines, unreliable hardware, expensive purchase price, gimmicky controls, subscription fees to play online, and no games.

    The future is bright!

  • Fitzmogwai #112 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    No, I was just using the good old-fashioned composite cable.

  • afghan_jones #113 5 years ago

    "Dyack makes software, and he wants to make one version of his software that should be readable by any games hardware of a specific standard out there. So let's call our 360 and PS2 "generation X", any games made for this should run in both a 360 and a PS2. That's the way I've interpreted it, seems to me that the Rev. is right and this could only be a good thing for everyone. "

    Sort of. Except that without the element of competition there is little incentive for one company to invest the cash needed to move things forward. If MS decide they want to take things to generation X.1 then they are stranded while devs pump out games across generation X.

    I just think this would make things stagnate so much.

    Also, the PC analogy is terrible as it isnt easier or simpler for the consumer at all. If i pick up a PS2 game I know itll work in a PS2. If i pick up a PC game I have to check the min specs, I also have to either know or check my PC specs, and even then theres a lot of tweaking and configuring once I get it home.

  • Schiraman #114 5 years ago

    I'm not really sure why this idea seems to make so many of you angry.

    Try to keep in mind that consoles which are compatible with one another would be a good thing for consumers - instead of having to buy multiple consoles, you could just buy whichever one you preferred and still play all of the games you liked the look of. Not only that, but it would be a better market for developers and would help to reduce development costs - and hence the price of games themselves.

    The closest we have to a unified gaming platform currently is the PC. Please note that PC games are frequently both better looking *and* cheaper than console games. Sure, PC hardware is more expensive - but it's not specialised for gaming, a standard platform designed from the ground up for gaming would very likely be cheaper and/or better than a gaming PC.

    And as for this 'competition breeds innovation' argument: consider the fact that an open standard would encourage lots of new hardware companies to compete to produce the best version of the standard, rather than having just three monolithic (and extremely conservative) companies control the entire market.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #115 5 years ago

    "Rev, so one video games system isn't in competition with 2 other video games system because you said so ?"

    What I said was that the Wii opted out of the hardware-specs arms race. Which is staggeringly self-evident if you look at its hardware specs, which are hugely inferior to the PS3 and 360.

    Oddly, for some reason, despite this it's outselling the other two put together by roughly 3 to 1.


    (I own all three, incidentally, and have spent more time with the 360 than the other two, mostly by virtue of playing XBLA stuff. Casual is the new hardcore, and it's funny watching all the tech-spackers panic as they become less and less relevant.)

  • Schiraman #116 5 years ago

    Also, for those who are saying "this will never happen!", please look at the current trends in gaming - multi-platform releases are becoming more and more common, and increasingly cross-platform middleware (the Unreal 3 Engine, for example) is the basis for most games.

    Doesn't this suggest that what developers and consumers both really want is to have games that are available to everyone regardless of what console they buy?

    And it should be pretty obvious that developing for a single console standard would be cheaper and more efficient than targeting multiple different consoles. So that would mean better, cheaper games. How is that bad?

  • TonyCocaCola #117 5 years ago

    Well i guess if game developers didnt have to compete graphics wise then maybe they would compete gameplay wise...

  • Sebo #118 5 years ago

    Microsoft and Sony currently lose money on hardware, where would they make that back from if they weren't getting software licensing fees?

  • TonyCocaCola #119 5 years ago

    Even with a standard spec for a console, the hardware companies would find ways to make their console better. Whats to stop them saying Here is our standard spec console but if you buy this thing to go with it will make loading times quicker. Companies will find ways round it. Who would govern all the manufacturers? Who would get the job at deciding what the standard spec is?
    It would be a legal nightmare.

  • moggsy #120 5 years ago

    @haowan

    You did read the article right? Specifically this bit

    "I think the PC is the ultimate 'no standard', which is the opposite of where I think we're going," he said. "That whole market's going in circles and it's going to go nowhere...Unless there's some kind of standardisation there it's going to get worse and worse."

  • Fitzmogwai #121 5 years ago

    "And as for this 'competition breeds innovation' argument: consider the fact that an open standard would encourage lots of new hardware companies to compete to produce the best version of the standard, rather than having just three monolithic (and extremely conservative) companies control the entire market."

    You have to have one of two things: either a closed standard that brooks no deviation, in which case each item of hardware has to exactly perform to a set of standards. If so, the only realistic method of competition is by price, which the big companies will win because they have the benefit of volume manufacturing. No route in for the little guy.

    Alternatively, the standards are looser, in which case the competition can open up, and - for example - components can be differentiated by performance.

    The problem with this approach is that then you get a game that will play "better" on some machines than it does on others, and your unified console is dead.

  • moggsy #122 5 years ago

    Microsoft and Sony currently lose money on hardware, where would they make that back from if they weren't getting software licensing fees?

    1. They wouldn't lose money on hardware any longer.

    2. They'd still get software license fees (because they would jointly own the platform) but would now also get hardware license fees thus making more money for less hassle.

  • moggsy #123 5 years ago

    You have to have one of two things: either a closed standard that brooks no deviation, in which case each item of hardware has to exactly perform to a set of standards. If so, the only realistic method of competition is by price, which the big companies will win because they have the benefit of volume manufacturing. No route in for the little guy.

    You could innovate on both the look of the machine and also the extra peripheral features (e.g. a Freeview decoder built in).

  • TonyCocaCola #124 5 years ago

    In that case your just redirecting the competition from the spec to the features.

  • Fitzmogwai #125 5 years ago

    @ moggsy -

    sure, but the point I was trying to make there was that with a closed spec, there would be no room for a "little guy" in that market because it would be too expensive to play against the huge manufacturers who could release a similar product, cheaper, every time.

  • moggsy #126 5 years ago

    @ moggsy -

    sure, but the point I was trying to make there was that with a closed spec, there would be no room for a "little guy" in that market because it would be too expensive to play against the huge manufacturers who could release a similar product, cheaper, every time.

    This is no different to today though - there's never been any room for the "little guy" in the games console world.

  • moggsy #127 5 years ago

    In that case your just redirecting the competition from the spec to the features.

    Yep, but with the added bonus that your game developers only have to produce one version of their console game.

  • Sebo #128 5 years ago

    This is sooooo never going to happen so it really doesn't matter

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #129 5 years ago

    The differences between console generations since PSOne may be 75% superficial (although we're overlooking the integrated internet service features on the latest gen which are new to all but the Xbox), but there are still improvements to be made. Gamers' tastes are production budgets can still be stretched to larger worlds, more detail, better graphics, more detailed levels of simulation. We are not yet at the point where we need to stop the progression of hardware.

    Bearing that in mind, there are two pitfalls that lie in wait for a potential standard console. One is, as people have been saying, the situation stagnates. The standard arrives, and noone dares improve upon it because the vast majority of the market adheres to the standard. Just look at the colossal efforts involved in moving people to digital and high-definition TV.

    Secondly, there's the case of companies not respecting the limits of the standard. Revisions and tweaks abound, with manufacturer-specific extensions buggering up the level playing field, just like the graphics card manufacturers did with OpenGL. In this case, you'd probably end up with a second version of the PC marketplace. In fact, back in the early 90s MS and some other folk tried to implement the MPC1 and MPC2 Multimedia PC standards, but the specs just ran riot and the whole thing was abandoned.

    There may be a place for standard hardware, but not until hardware advances have nowhere to go. And the DX10 super-fast PCs of today show us that there's at least some distance beyond the current line of consoles. In the meantime, perhaps Stuart can take comfort in the new wave of downloadable games and retro updates that are making it more acceptable for developers to not have to take full advantage of all the power and complexity that modern gaming devices offer.

  • Schiraman #130 5 years ago

    @Fitzmogwai

    Existing standard devices (such as TVs, stereos, DVD players, etc.) offer considerable variation in price, feature and performance whilst still being completely interoperable. In these markets there is room for expensive, premium models that offer better picture or sound quality, more features or whatever and also budget models that go for the cheapest possible price.

    I don't see any reason why this shouldn't also work for consoles.

    @Sebo

    Just saying that it isn't going to happen really isn't much of an argument. Care to back up your point or view with some actual reasoning? ;)

  • moggsy #131 5 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    It would be in all parties interests to bring out a new hardware revision every 5 or so years. This is because software developers will always want to push boundaries and the hardware manufacturers always want to sell hardware.

    Also console gaming would not stagnate as the PC would always be there to embarrass the console market if it got too far behind.

  • Sebo #132 5 years ago

    @schiraman

    Yeah, I did back it up earlier on. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have everything to lose and nothing to gain from this. The power in gaming lies with those three at the moment. Unless a consortium of developers is created which has enough might to push for a basic standard, it won't happen.

  • Schiraman #133 5 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    There are, of course, huge potential pitfalls that could make a standard console a disaster - but that's not to say that any of the possibilities that you outline are in any way inevitable.

    Sure, the standard might end in stagnation or it might go too far the other way and splinter into something like the current PC model - but there's a pretty broad middle ground in between those two extremes where it could comfortably thrive.

    Some standards work well, some work less well. So of course whether a standard console would work or not would depend on exactly what the agreed standard was, which companies were backing it, how it was marketed, etc. etc.

    But the point really is that if it was done right it could be an incredibly good thing for the games market, and it seems to me that there may well be increasing financial incentive to move towards a more standard model.

  • Tiny_Tim #134 5 years ago

    Hmm, well if you're not bothered about pushing the envelope you can always get middleware to do just this and cut down your costs. But if you want to ring every bit of power out of some hardware that's been created to be the very best possible you're going to have to get your hands dirty. Maybe this is why he's so upset with epic, he wanted to have his cake and eat it, but it just doesn't work that way. AAA games are always going to require extra effort to make! crazy commy bastard :)

  • moggsy #135 5 years ago

    @ sebo

    You're missing the point that this is potentially something that the hardware manufacturers DO want as it's in their interests as well (see my previous posts). Sony and MS more so then Ninty.

  • Sebo #136 5 years ago

    @schiraman

    Monopoly only occurs when all of your competitors are completely defeated. Nintendo, Sony nor Microsoft are anywhere near that position right now.

    If when monopoly does agree, as in wrestling when WWF bought over ECW and WCW, a year down the line an alternative arrived in TNA,

    There will always be a place in the market for an alternative games console, even if it trails the market leader.

    Say Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo came together and decided there was just one games console that played all the games, whose to stop an Apple or a Samsung coming in and sayin "wait, we can offer this console which does things differently and only plays these games". That's the market

  • Schiraman #137 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    It only takes one of the Big Three to lose out big in the existing marketplace, and suddenly a more open standard that shares the costs with other tech companies might seem like a very good idea indeed.

    So for example Sony: imagine if the PS3 ends up completely tanking and just costing them a crapload of money for no real return. It's not hard to imagine they might then take their experience and reputation and use it to build a consortium of tech companies backing a new standard console to compete with the Xbox 720 (or whatever). Because even a small share of that standard would be better than having no hold on the market at all, and being in a position to shape that standard would put them in a great position to then build leading consoles based on it.

    Alternatively you could also have a consortium forming around an outsider like Apple, or simply a bunch of companies like Toshiba and IBM banding together to try and break into the market.

    Remember, it wasn't so long ago that Microsoft had no stake at all in the console market and Sega was a big name in hardware. These things change.

  • Sebo #138 5 years ago

    @schirman

    I completely agree with everything you say - hence why there will never be a unified games console.

    15 years ago there were only really Sega and Nintendo. Six years ago Sega dissappeared from the console war. Microsoft took there place.

    There will always be competition to produce better hardware in this industry and I don't think the third party developers have a strong enough hand to get a basic standard introduced.

  • Fitzmogwai #139 5 years ago

    @ Schiraman


    "Existing standard devices (such as TVs, stereos, DVD players, etc.) offer considerable variation in price, feature and performance whilst still being completely interoperable. In these markets there is room for expensive, premium models that offer better picture or sound quality, more features or whatever and also budget models that go for the cheapest possible price.

    I don't see any reason why this shouldn't also work for consoles. "


    That's already happening in the console market, but to a limited and ultimately meaningless way: 60 or 80 GB PS3? Xbox 360 Core or Elite? The basic spec is the same across the product range, because that's the appeal of a console - plug it into a TV, whack the DVD in and it "just plays".

    Offer a significant choice of hardware and you'll quickly get a fragmented market. "This game will only play on the Super Gamebox. not suitable for Gamebox or Gamebox Lite."

    Then everyone is back to square one.



    Edited to include the quote
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 12:28

  • Schiraman #140 5 years ago

    @sebo (again)

    Huh? When did I say anything about monopolies? Nobody is suggesting One Console to Rule Them All; the idea under discussion is that of a single standard for consoles in the same way as standards exist for other media devices like TVs, stereos and DVD players.

    It wouldn't be a single monolithic console, but exactly the opposite - dozens of different consoles produced by all the same sorts of companies that currently produce TVs or computers or whatever. So you'd have your Sony Playstation 4 and your Toshiba GameDriver and your Apple iGame and whatever - but all of them would be based around the same basic architecture so that a game that worked on one of them would work on all of them.

    The existing situation is actually much closer to a monopoly than a single standard would be - because each of the Big Three has complete control over their own closed console and can decide exactly what games, services and peripherals can and can't be released for it, etc. This is bad for consumers and developers and good for the Big Three, so it's not unreasonable to hope that ordinary commercial pressure may eventually lead to a move away from that system.

  • Schiraman #141 5 years ago

    @Fitzmogwai

    I agree that a console standard might not work, and might lead to a fractured marketplace - but I certainly don't think that's inevitable.

    You're right that consoles are based heavily around the appeal of a given game 'just working' - but if consoles all operated to a single standard then you'd actually be extending that appeal, not limiting it.

    Currently if you own a PS3 and you want to play a 360 game you can't, unless you go out an buy a 360 as well. If they both followed a unified standard then you have a situation where any console game you bought would work on whatever console you owned - massively simplifying things for the average consumer.

    Sure, it might look a bit nicer on some consoles than others, or some consoles might have better controllers or a larger hard drive or whatever - but that's exactly the same kind of diversity that drives things like the TV or DVD player markets.

  • Sebo #142 5 years ago

    @schirman (AGAIN)

    No, the title of this article is "Next generation could see unified console - Dyack", not should there be a basic standard. A unified one standard console will never happen.

    It won't because manufacturers will always want to get the edge over their competitiors.

  • Calgon #143 5 years ago

    I dont know if someone has already said it but... couldnt we end up paying more for less? Would console hardware slip further behind PC hardware? The way it is now Hardware Vendors/platform holders are able to put in newer expensive hardware to last out the 5-6 year generation at an affordable price for mass market(less so with the PS3 which only strengthens my point) this is because in part they can take a loss on the hardware and make that back on Software sales. With a Unified console all hardware vendors would want money from hardware sales from the off so either early adoptors will be paying through the nose to begin with or, the specs will be forced to be more conservative... in the end they could end up much cheaper as all the components can be mass produced like never before and each manufacturer will learn from the next on how to cut costs down. So maybe costs will fall faster but will the entry point either slow down hardware innovation in consoles or will sales start very slow at the prices they would have to charge?

    For the developers though it would work out better and software could be cheaper... but who really beleives any publishers would drop the prices even if they could?
    Edited by 3 at 21/08/07 @ 12:52

  • Schiraman #144 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    I suggest you go back and re-read the article, because I beginning to think that you've read the headline and leapt to incorrect conclusions. The following is a quote from the article:

    "In the future, companies like Sony, Microsoft, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp and Dell would line up to deliver gaming systems of comparable power that supported all gaming software, Dyack predicted."

    He's talking about a set of standards that define a games console, not about creating a single Uber-Console that would stamp out all competition.

    I don't see how a console standard would stop competitors getting an edge, TVs and DVD players manage to be compatible with a general standard whilst still competing on both features and price.

  • afghan_jones #145 5 years ago

    "I don't see how a console standard would stop competitors getting an edge, TVs and DVD players manage to be compatible with a general standard whilst still competing on both features and price. "

    Its not so much about competitors gettign an edge its that without the competition there is no incentive for a hardware manufacturer to push into new areas.

    If PS2, XBox and GC had all played a single format and there were no exclusive games to each console then there would have been no incentive to make the 360, PS3, Wii etc as from a business point of view it would have made more sense to just refine and improve the existing standard than to push forward into a new area.

  • Schiraman #146 5 years ago

    @Calgon

    Good point.

    But if you think about it, the current model drives up the cost of games - because developers have to pay the platform holders. So games aimed at a single standard would not only be cheaper to develop, they'd also not have to pay that fee - so they might well be a lot cheaper to buy.

    Also a standards-driven console might well let producers share R&D costs across the whole consortium, rather than each company having to fund development of their next console all on their own - so it's possible that might help to offset hardware costs in a similar way to platform licensing fees currently.

  • Fitzmogwai #147 5 years ago

    But there's the problem - studios are going to want their titles to be as attention-grabbing as possible, and the most effective way of doing that is by the games being amazing experiences.

    The heavily hyped, AAA games that everyone will want to either play or buy for christmas presents will only work on the high-end systems because they are the ones that will have the processor power to manage the physics / graphics etc that these titles will have.

    Yes, you'll be able to build game engines that scale to a degree, but there's every chance that these games will be verging on the unplayable on the bottom end of the range. Just look at the PC market and their "minimum spec" requirements.

    The difference is that PC gamers know that on a minimum spec machine their game is probably going to look poor and play badly, but console games are sold on the fact that what you see in the magazine screenshots and ads is what you see on your TV. To buy a top-end title expecting a high-spec experience and then to actually get a very different low-spec experience would piss the audience off and be a media firestorm / PR disaster.

  • Sebo #148 5 years ago

    @schirman

    And just why are Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo going to agree to these basic standards which open the doors to an arm-long list of new competitors??

    It's a nice idea. But it reduces the market share for the three key players and as such, will never happen!!!

    Honestly mate, feel free to come back and collect £1,000 from me if it ever does. I'm that confident.

  • Vin #149 5 years ago

    Bring on the consortium.

  • Sebo #150 5 years ago

    Despite the success of the Wii, there will never be a time when all games are made to the lowest common denominator, because every developer sets out with the intention of their product being the absolute best it can. The hardware they are working with is a huge factor in determing how good their final product is.

    That's why we will never see a basic standard!!!

  • SEVQA #151 5 years ago

    Unified console idea seems to be the ‘convergence’ that all corporations dream off, Where our mobiles, TV’s, Internet access and maybe even our toasters are controlled by one console hub.

    This is indeed the functional attitude towards design in order to design something so perfectly theirs no need for other models of the same chair for example, just conspicuous consumption remains where individuals can alter the object to their own needs. Mac preyed upon this desire and it worked quite well for them, though I don’t want Microsoft or Nintendo for that matter controlling my living room and I would go to war over it!

  • Schiraman #152 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    Even if you're right and a set of console standards did discourage generational leaps, would a slower upgrade cycle really be a bad thing? Every generation takes a long time to find it's footing and costs developers a lot of time and effort - it's only late in every console's lifetime that games start to really take full advantage of the hardware, at which point you have excellent, cheap games and a cheap, reliable (possibly smaller and cooler) console. Which is a pretty sweet situation really.

    Eventually tech would move forward to the point where a 'next generation' standard would be really tempting for developers and consumers, at which point that would become a more profitable platform and would take over. Like the move from VHS to DVD, or whatever.

    Alternatively it's possible that a console standard would be faster-moving than things like video or music - and would be more like PC components, which tend to advance through different standards every few years. I guess it would depend on what consumers really want.

  • Schiraman #153 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    All of the Big Three agreeing on a standard isn't necessary, all that's required to make it work is a large enough consortium of tech companies (Dell, IBM, Apple, whoever) and/or big developers (EA, Ubisoft, etc.) - that might or might not include one or more members of the Big Three.

    As for why they might agree to such a thing: if they're losing out in the current console war, it might be a very tempting proposition. Sony, for example, seems to be struggling somewhat right now - if things get even worse for them, then being part of a consortium might seem like a better risk next generation than going it alone.

  • Turambar #154 5 years ago

    Such things have been tried before. It didn't work.

    *waves to MSX and 3DO*

  • Arcadiian #155 5 years ago

    No thanks.

  • Schiraman #156 5 years ago

    @Fitzmogwai

    Rather than being completely splintered like the PC market, a console standard could be relatively rigid on what exactly constitutes a standards-acceptable console. Sure, you could produce a 'standard' console that is twice as fast, but if all the developers are still targeting their games at the basic standard (since that's what most people will still be producing and buying) then it limits the advantage you can gain by trumping your competitors like that.

    Instead it might make more sense to push for a Standard Console 2 specification, that allowed for new graphical features, faster parts, etc. - sort of like the move between DirectX 9 and 10.

    Games could be marked prominently with what version of the gaming standard they required to run, so even when a generation change-over was taking place, it would be obvious what you needed to run a given game. I.e. 'Console Version 4 Required' on the cover and a 'C4' sign on the spine and back of the game. If new standards came out about as often as the existing console generations then it would be pretty simple for everyone to keep track of.

  • gorf #157 5 years ago

    I cant imagine a unified format existing just yet. For games the innovation comes from higher graphical fidelity (effects) better AI, good game design and storyline. Most if not all these features are highly dependable on the capability of the technology being used. Perhaps in a few generations time when all when all these features have reached there evolutionary peak (by having the appropriate horsepower available) then there might be convergence. Any further gains in horsepower will have a diminishing effect on innovation. Eventually a unified format would have a positive effect since developers will have reduced risk in supplying one market. We would then see more risk taking and more diverse software as a result.

  • Fitzmogwai #158 5 years ago

    @ Schiraman


    So an Xbox / Xbox 360 situation basically. Why run two consoles at the same time and double your costs? Even though there are millions of xboxes out there, how many games are still being made for them?

  • Nova5lag #159 5 years ago

    Depends if MS buys all the developers in the world. Or EA consumes all publishers in the world. Either way... I think he has got a point there will be convergance at some point. Even the new markets HDDVD and BD are spawning hybrid machine capable of playing both... so one super console that can play any game I dont think is as far fetched as some of you guys think. I dont think it means that there wont the singlular systems that play only one type of game just there will be that extra level of a hybrid that does it all. maybe....

  • Sebo #160 5 years ago

    @schirman

    Sorry man, we are on about a one console standard, not a merger of two companies or more.

    This article in its very intro carries the line "a one console future".

    I am telling you, at no point in the future will every game play on every console. That's what Dyack wants, and you can dilute it however, you like, but the fact remains that it won't happen.

    Let's be honest, the vast majority of games in the last generation played on Playstation 2. What sense would it have made for Sony to have handed over its technology for that machine so that other manufacturers like Toshiba etc could benefit from it.

    I very much doubt that a consortium of every other electronics company on the planet could convince Nintendo right now to stop developing its own games and machines, which it is making record profits from.

    There is huge R&D costs involved in consoles, and Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have staked too much to let others in and claim a slice of the pie
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 13:56

  • dolphan #161 5 years ago

    People are still predicting the death of PC gaming? You'd have thought they would get tired by now.

  • Moz #162 5 years ago

    my question would be who develops the next gen after it's unified? surely advancement would slow dramaticaly

  • Xerx3s #163 5 years ago

    Not happening. Consoles specifically moved away from those constructs in the first place. The concept he describes is also just one step away from being an ordinary pc. And how would the manufactures get their software licence fees?

  • moggsy #164 5 years ago

    I am telling you, at no point in the future will every game play on every console. That's what Dyack wants, and you can dilute it however, you like, but the fact remains that it won't happen.

    Fair enough, but what about Sony & Microsoft clubbing together to make a next gen console? Is that really not feasible?

  • Steroyd #165 5 years ago

    TV's and DVD's are shit comparisons.

    DVD's are a distribution method Hollywood isn't going to change how they make their movies, because of DVD's or HD-DVD's or Blu-ray, same goes for TV broadcasts.

    However what DOES change is the technology to make movies, if it wasn't for CGI farms, the likes of Spiderman as we know it wouldn't exist, this is the part of what applies to how games are made if it wasn't for PS3 and Xbox 360 technology we wouldn't be seeing more detailed facial expressions larger environments and junk compared to the PS1 and the snes before it, it boils down to the technology that's being used to create games in the first place something that TV's and DVD's everywhere don't have to worry about at all.

  • moggsy #166 5 years ago

    And how would the manufactures get their software licence fees?

    In the same way that Toshiba gets it's licensing fee from DVD sales.

  • Steroyd #167 5 years ago

    my question would be who develops the next gen after it's unified? surely advancement would slow dramaticaly

    It sure as hell be a conflict of interest (as the Nintendo-Sony collaboration years ago proved), Nintendo would be adamant to not spend shed loads of money, Sony would want to push the envelope in technology, and I reckon Microsoft would be happy to just have a Windows OS on the console.

  • miiiguel #168 5 years ago

    As long as it's an Xbox and runs Halo we're ok.

    Steroyd: Sony would be happy ro push some (any) new media format - Rainbow-Ray or some shit...
    Edited by 2 at 21/08/07 @ 14:40

  • Sebo #169 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    Totally feasible that Microsoft and Sony get together at some point in the future, but a unified one console future that does not create.

  • Sebo #170 5 years ago

    Too many cooks spoil the broth, the broth being the unified console

  • moggsy #171 5 years ago

    It sure as hell be a conflict of interest (as the Nintendo-Sony collaboration years ago proved), Nintendo would be adamant to not spend shed loads of money, Sony would want to push the envelope in technology, and I reckon Microsoft would be happy to just have a Windows OS on the console.

    Ninty really aren't part of this equation though are they? They're happy creating 'safe' hardware with innovative, easy to manufacture, features and it's working really well for them.

    The hardware manufacturers taking the big risks are Sony and MS - these are the two companies who having a unified console would benefit. This unified hardware could easily still be updated every 5 years, there would be nothing to stop this.

    Basically you'd lose one console as it stands at the moment - you'd have a Ninty console and a bleeding edge console - what would be so wrong with that?

  • moggsy #172 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    Totally feasible that Microsoft and Sony get together at some point in the future, but a unified one console future that does not create.

    Right, so Sony and MS cook up this uber console. What would be wrong with them licensing the production of this hardware out to the likes of Samsung, Toshiba and Apple?

  • LittleVoice #173 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 18:03:32 01-02-2012

  • TonyCocaCola #174 5 years ago

    @ Sebo! - Unified SPEC! Different consoles, same spec. Each sporting their own unique shade of beige

  • Sebo #175 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    As a consumer, nothing.

    As a worldwide multi-billion dollar company - why?

    If this was such a sound business idea, why aren't the pair of them teamed up already.

    I can totally see where it makes sense for the developers to not have to put their resources into doing multiple versions of the same game.

    But that is their problem, not the console manufacturers.

    And to suggest the Wii isn't part of the equation is just downright ridiculous. How can you have a one-unified- platform industry when there are two consoles. Mergers will happen, there may very well be less console choice in the future. At one point there was only really the Mega Drive and SNES. But there will never be just ONE spec of machine, or even a basic spec, most developers would shun those low end specs because it simply isn't in their nature to not aim for the best they can get out of a machine.
    Edited by 2 at 21/08/07 @ 14:53

  • Sebo #176 5 years ago

    @TonyCocaCola

    And your point is???

  • moggsy #177 5 years ago

    I can totally see where it makes sense for the developers to not have to put their resources into doing multiple versions of the same game.

    But that is there problem, not the console manufacturers.

    That's the rub - it IS the console manufacturers problem. Less software sales means less profit. This is a problem which is currently hurting both Sony and MS - that's why I can see them working together on their next console.

    And to suggest the Wii isn't part of the equation is just downright ridiculous. HOw can you have a one-unified- platform industry when there are two consoles

    I'm not totally agreeing with Dyack. I believe that a one console market is unlikely. That's why I'm suggesting that Ninty will carry on as they are while Sony and MS partner up. It makes a lot of business sense and would be better for the consumer.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 15:00

  • Steroyd #178 5 years ago

    Totally feasible that Microsoft and Sony get together at some point in the future, but a unified one console future that does not create.

    I can't see a collaboration between Sony or Microsoft happening hardware-wise you could easily see a convergence, but their software ethics are almost completely different, MS is of a more closed platform, Sony's more open. Look at the differences in XBL and PSN.

  • TonyCocaCola #179 5 years ago

    @sebo
    "Too many cooks spoil the broth. The broth being the unified console.

    The artical isnt about having one singular console.
    Edited by 2 at 21/08/07 @ 15:11

  • Schiraman #180 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    I'm not talking about a merger. What I'm talking about, and what the article itself is talking about, is a consortium of companies agreeing on a standard specification for games console interoperability - in much the same way as the DVD Forum (which has members such as Toshiba, Hitachi and Time Warner) originally settled on the DVD format.

    This isn't really all that far-fetched, the current situation in the console market (where only three companies make consoles and those consoles are subsidised by fees paid by software developers) is pretty unusual, and not really like anything else in the electronics industry. It would make a lot more sense in many ways for more companies to compete to build hardware, and for all that hardware to be compatible with the same list of games.

    That's not to say that you might not get competing standards, as is currently happening with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, but hopefully one standard would win through in the end. Consumers don't buy Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movies in large numbers because they don't want to have to buy two separate players - or buy one player and then have it fold. There is a lesson here for the games industry IMO.

  • Sebo #181 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    But where are these "less software sales", as far as I can tell the software is selling better than ever before.

    The problem for the developers is they are at a point where so much money is going into their titles that they need to be selling more than ever before. They know they are close to saturation in the investment - customer demand ratio.

    Dyack's perception is that a single spec machine manufactured by numerous electronics giants opens up a much bigger market to him as a developer.

    But that view is skewed if you ask me. Is a title like The Darkness, Fight Night, FIFA, any cross platform title you choose, going to sell anymore in a single spec industry? Like I said, the Playstation 2 was as close to a gaming standard as we may ever see.

    Say Sony had opened the doors for anyone to manufacturer a PS2? Would any more have been sold and if so would that have benefitted Sony?

    The market for these titles I mentioned doesn't expand overnight because of the single spec. All that happens is the developer saves some money from porting.

    Licence fees to manufacturers will be reduced because its being split between a more crowed market.

    The problems are endless.........

  • TonyCocaCola #182 5 years ago

    Yeah, i just think it would just make the whole industry more complicated. I mean, what happens if one company makes a console that has a better spec than the others? Would the other companies then be aloud to sue them? Where do you draw the line?
    Also if you have say 3 different companies making the same spec console, will they have to sell it for a unified price?

  • moggsy #183 5 years ago

    But that view is skewed if you ask me. Is a title like The Darkness, Fight Night, FIFA, any cross platform title you choose, going to sell anymore in a single spec industry? Like I said, the Playstation 2 was as close to a gaming standard as we may ever see.

    No, as you go on to say, it'll sell the same number of copies. But this would be at a far lower cost.

    I don't think porting The Darkness to the PS3 from the 360 is a trivial low cost exercise. I think it probably costs millions of pounds. Wouldn't it be better for that time and money to be invested in the next game?

  • Sebo #184 5 years ago

    @TonyCocaCola

    This article, in headline and opening par, is about having one unified console. Dyack may dilute later on, but in essence he wants an industry standard.

    @moggsy

    The games industry is a totally different beast from DVD, TV, any other entertainment medium.

    Creative in TV and DVD is done in the studios. Creative in games is very much down to the technology you are working with, it is the canvas of the piece.

    Having one games platform/basic standard is a severe restriction of what the developer can create. Many people on here complain that the Wii isn't powerful enough to create things like Bioshock.

    Game consoles are more like the instruments of a band. It would be a crying shame if all bands had to play the same instruments......

  • moggsy #185 5 years ago

    Yeah, i just think it would just make the whole industry more complicated. I mean, what happens if one company makes a console that has a better spec than the others? Would the other companies then be aloud to sue them? Where do you draw the line?

    Then nobody will write games for it. It'd be like the Gamecube ;-)

    Also if you have say 3 different companies making the same spec console, will they have to sell it for a unified price?

    Nah - they can sell it for what they want - that's the great thing as it should drive hardware prices down even quicker.

  • Sebo #186 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    For a developer yes. Like I said, I see the sense in this for developers. It would benefit them. But it does not benefit the industry's key players to the extent that we will see a basic standard set that plays all video games released.

    By the way, thanks for keeping this a good reasoned debate.

  • moggsy #187 5 years ago

    Game consoles are more like the instruments of a band. It would be a crying shame if all bands had to play the same instruments......

    It'd also be a crying shame if the band had no instruments to play, which is the way the games industry is currently heading. Remember, MS are yet to make a profit out of their games division - the 360 could be their last console unless things look up. Sony are also struggling with the PS3 sales but can't really afford to cut the price of it.

    Some sort of partnering up is inevitable whether you approve of it or not.

  • moggsy #188 5 years ago

    By the way, thanks for keeping this a good reasoned debate.

    No problem ;-)

    Likewise I've enjoyed this debate too!

  • Schiraman #189 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    The fact that cross-platform games are increasingly a necessity for developers is certainly one reason why a console standard would benefit both developers and consumers. Currently developers either have to spend time and money porting a game across - ending with at least one sub-standard version in the process - or they have to buy into expensive cross-platform middleware such as the Unreal 3 Engine.

    All this leads to more expensive games that are not as good. This is clearly bad for consumers. Therefore, in the long term at least, there is money to be made by fixing this problem.

    Of course a console standard is only likely to take off if it gets a lot of support from big name tech companies and more importantly from big third-party devs like EA, Activision and Ubisoft or from Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. But as I said earlier, it's not hard to imagine a situation where Sony or Microsoft might support such a standard if their current business model begins to falter.

    Companies sell TVs, DVD players and PC components without relying on fat licensing fees from all the content displayed on them - so there's no reason that the current model is essential to console gaming.

  • TonyCocaCola #190 5 years ago

    @Moggsy

    "Then nobody will write games for it. It'd be like the Gamecube ;-) "

    But all games will run on all consoles, thats the point of the unified spec idea. What im saying is whats stopping the console companies from slipping a bit of extra memory in here and there. Who's gonna govern all this?


    "Nah - they can sell it for what they want - that's the great thing as it should drive hardware prices down even quicker."

    So how would the console companies make money? Using crap parts? Paying 3 year old chinese kids 1p a day to build them?

  • Schiraman #191 5 years ago

    @TonyCocaCola

    Nothing would stop a company making their console better than the baseline spec, but games that targeted the baseline wouldn't get all that much advantage from it, so it might not be worth the extra cost.

    Instead you'd eventually just move on to a new, higher-tech spec and all start making games for that. Essentially the 'next gen' of the standard console spec.

    "So how would the console companies make money? Using crap parts?"

    Well, that seems to be Microsoft's current strategy, so probably... ;)

  • Sebo #192 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    Which was going to my next point. Sony are losing money on each PS3 they sell. If this industry was so attractive Toshiba and Samsung would most likely already be in here.

    The cost of developing what is now expected of a game is certainly a big issue that the industry has to contend with.

    Make no mistake, if Nintendo could have afforded, and thought it would make money, from a hi-definition, blu-ray playing console in this generation it would have done it. Instead it took a step back and took a different approach.

    So I hazard that the Apples and Samsungs may very well have been aiming to make Wii-spec consoles as well if they had entered in on a basic spec this time round. All the other electronic companies will want is low investment, high return. That's what Wii is giving. I love Wii. But it would be sad if that was all the industry had.

    An earlier post said Sony and Microsoft would struggle to get on the same page, and if you look at their approaches to this generation, that is certainly true. But I agree moggsy, that, they may reach a point where they have no option but to work together.

  • moggsy #193 5 years ago

    @ TonyCocaCola

    But if you put in extra memory for example, you'd still have to get the developers to use it to have any advantage. Most won't as it'll mean extra testing etc.

    Also most of these problems would be sorted out by the licensing. You'd have to be licensed to manufacture the console and the license will restrict the specs.

    As for hardware price - this always sorts itself out as it does for TV's and DVD players etc. You may have a cheaper end of the market that uses poorer quality components but as always you get what you pay for.

  • chrisjm #194 5 years ago

    this has been said before, yawn. if it was right then we would currently be stuck with just the PS3.
    oh :( but it doesnt appeal to all.

    or just the Wii.
    oh wait, it doesnt appeal to all.

    and if you merge them together you loose many of the appeals which are driving sales of the individual consoles. making one is not a gaurantee that all can suddenly do everything or appeal just as well.

  • Fitzmogwai #195 5 years ago

    I disagree with you there, Moggsy.

    There are many good reasons why Sony are struggling with PS3 sales that have all been fought over elsewhere. Basically they seriously misjudged the market.

    MS have suffered because of the design and manufacturing problems with the 360, but they are committed to the games market, the games division has taken on more staff, and MS have very deep pockets indeed.

    Both Sony and MS are able to spend billions on the games business because other parts of their companies are profitable. They see the amount of money spent on games and they want to take of much of it for themselves as possible. Why share at all when by competing you might get far more than just your own half?

    The PS4 and Xbox720 (?) might not be as ambitious as the 3 and the 360. Sony might not need to use its next console as a trojan to smuggle a new storage format into peoples' homes, and therefore have the leeway to price it sensibly. Whatever the details, barring anything spectacularly disastrous, there will be a PS4 and xbox 3.

  • moggsy #196 5 years ago

    Which was going to my next point. Sony are losing money on each PS3 they sell. If this industry was so attractive Toshiba and Samsung would most likely already be in here.

    It would be a very high risk strategy for the likes of Toshiba and Samsung to create a brand new console from scratch and then expect to be able to compete with the existing players.

    Alternatively just licensing the hardware design in order to manufacture it yourself is very low risk and would bring them a profit.

  • Sebo #197 5 years ago

    Fantastic post chrisjm,

    Why weren't you here earlier on and save my 2,000 words or so.

  • moggsy #198 5 years ago

    this has been said before, yawn. if it was right then we would currently be stuck with just the PS3.
    oh :( but it doesnt appeal to all.

    or just the Wii.
    oh wait, it doesnt appeal to all.

    You're comparing two very different consoles there though. If you compare the PS3 and the 360 instead you should see that they are in the same area of the market and it really wouldn't matter if you combined the best bits of both into one console. You wouldn't lose anything but you'd gain a hell of a lot.

  • TonyCocaCola #199 5 years ago

    @Schiraman
    Lol

  • Sebo #200 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    As a consumer you don't lose anything. As Sony or Microsoft you stand to lose a hell of a lot by simply offering up a half share of your console.

    The games market is a finite thing remember. Everyone wants as big a chunk of it as they can get. The market doesn't get bigger by more people being in it.

    By the by, Nintendo licensed the Gamecube to Panasonic, and the Sega Saturn was licensed out too. Didn't make a jot of difference to either of them

  • moggsy #201 5 years ago

    @Fitzmogwai

    Yeh, it's all ifs buts and maybes I agree. It's only a 'what if' scenario at the moment. You may be right about there being a PS4 and an Xbox 720. But it's certainly not a foregone conclusion though and we'll know more on this in a years time.

    I believe that Sony and MS combining forces is certainly a possible outcome of this generation though which could lead to a more unified console market than we have now.
    Edited by 1 at 21/08/07 @ 15:57

  • TonyCocaCola #202 5 years ago

    Whatever happens. There will still be fanboys

  • Schiraman #203 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    Sony or Microsoft only stand to lose out with a standard console spec so long as they're winning under the current model. If the price of continued competition becomes too high, which seems to be a possibility based on how this generation is panning out, then it's not impossible they might see cooperation with one another, or with third parties, to be a better option.

    And maybe a standard console spec would help to grow the games industry - the Wii has proved that there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't buy a PS3 or 360 but who are interested in gaming when it's sold to them in the right way. Who knows how large the gaming market might be if it wasn't so stuck in its ways?

  • Sebo #204 5 years ago

    @moggsy

    More I think about it, more I can't see it. Let's say PS3 does do terrible, why would Microsoft give Sony a hand back up, it makes more sense for them to keep kicking their competition till they are out of the game. And vice versa.

    Nah, I'm actually totally unconvinced. It just doesn't benefit either party to work with the other. Making life easier for a developer to work with your competition is not good business practice.


  • Sebo #205 5 years ago

    @schirman

    I think it's clear that the price of competition became too high for Nintendo in this generation - but they didn't go climbing into bed with one of the rivals.

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #206 5 years ago

    "and if you merge them together you loose many of the appeals which are driving sales of the individual consoles."

    The PS3 is selling?

  • afghan_jones #207 5 years ago

    I agree with Sebo.

    If this happened it would make things easier for Developers.

    But, it wouldn't make sense for MS, Sony & Nintendo.

    And most importantly, it would be shit for gamers. That sort of environment would just make it too hard for technical innovation to flourish, and as soon as it does, you start heading back to the current diversified state.

    I mean, say we do get to a single unified state, what stops MS say from slipping EA some wonga and getting exclusive rights to something?

  • Schiraman #208 5 years ago

    @Sebo

    Agreed, Nintendo chose an alternative route - make a cheaper console rather than finding partners. But that doesn't mean that's the only option.

    And TBH the fact that Nintendo have already bowed out of the tech-race lends strength to the idea that it's increasingly hard for any console manufacturer to go it alone. How much longer can Sony and MS afford to do so, and what will they do if they start to really feel the pinch?

    Perhaps we'll see three cheap, low-tech consoles next generation - but somehow I doubt that... ;)

  • Vin #209 5 years ago

    Christ, this thread is full of shit.

    Right, If you own all of the consoles, you obviously buy hardware for the games, not the name, since the lowest common denominator is acceptable enough that you'll shell out the purchase price for it, along with any accessories.

    If you only buy one console, you have hardware loyalty, and a consortium is going to be anathema to your bias. The "better tech" argument doesn't fly, since many folks here only own a Wii, and the 360 has superior hardware. If it's the games, then some folks shouldn't have a problem seeing Nintendo games on other hardware. At best, one can claim a wishy-washy middle-ground - that the Wii has better hardware than the lowest common denominator (the PS2), and has Nintendo games. Even so, that's purely circumstantial (the Wii's marginal superiority to the PS2), and I doubt almost NONE of the avowed Nintendo sheep here would pass up Nintendo games if they were on, say, Sony or MS's hardware, unless all their claims of Nintendo's software design superiority are completely rhetorical?


  • Sebo #210 5 years ago

    @vin

    "Right, If you own all of the consoles, you obviously buy hardware for the games, not the name, since the lowest common denominator is acceptable enough that you'll shell out the purchase price for it, along with any accessories."

    At the risk of being rude, what? What does this have to do with unified consoles?

    I own all three machines, I'd play any game on any machine, but that surely makes me want everything, not the lowest common denominator, which in fairness, would be the Wii-spec wise, PS3 games wise.



  • afghan_jones #211 5 years ago

    @Vin

    Yeah, I dont get it.

    I dont have hardware loyalty. I had a PS2 for most of last gen cause thats where the games were, then bought a gamecube on the cheap cause donkey konga looked good. I got a PSP cause I got a bonus at work and liked the look of Locoroco. Now ive got a 360 because it has IMO the best lineup of games.

    I dont give a shit what company makes what. I buy consoles based on whether I think the games they offer make it worthwhile buying them.

  • Tiny_Tim #212 5 years ago

    In other news America, Russia and the Terrorists join together to form a super army to fight nobody.

  • missy016 #213 5 years ago

    Quote"afghanjones
    "If this happened it would make things easier for Developers.

    But, it wouldn't make sense for MS, Sony & Nintendo.

    And most importantly, it would be shit for gamers. That sort of environment would just make it too hard for technical innovation to flourish, and as soon as it does, you start heading back to the current diversified state.

    I mean, say we do get to a single unified state, what stops MS say from slipping EA some wonga and getting exclusive rights to something"

    ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------

    What the fk you going on about if their was just one console how could ms get exclusive content??? the console would be able to play games from all companies!!


    quote"That sort of environment would just make it too hard for technical innovation to flourish, and as soon as it does, you start heading back to the current diversified state. ""
    ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ -----------

    er?? you not making any sense here either,you say its too hard for technical innovation to flourish then go on to say,as soon as it does??? lol-yeah it makes sense to someone.
    Edited by 2 at 21/08/07 @ 17:47

  • Fwing #214 5 years ago

    The only thing I want to see unified is Gamerpoints so I can freely play on other consoles without feeling it's a "waste of time" :)

  • afghan_jones #215 5 years ago

    @missy016

    If theres just one console, MS just have to put a tiny tweak in their hardware to allow exclusive content, or force online registration that detects an MS console, theres lots of ways to do it. Something as simple as the way DVDs can be region coded even.

    In a single console environment it is hard for technical innovation to flourish because there is less incentive for companies to do so. However, as soon as they begin to innovate in their own products, you start to move away from a single platform, and get closer to the current diverse state.

    I thought I was making sense?

  • Sebo #216 5 years ago

    @afghan

    You are making sense

    @TinyTim

    Brilliant post

  • deaner #217 5 years ago

    What a load of rubbish!

  • Schiraman #218 5 years ago

    @afghan_jones

    Honestly even if a console standard did slow the console generation cycle down, which I'm not sure is true, I don't see that being a bad thing for gamers. As long as an existing platform thrives games continue to be developed for it and get better and better - and the hardware also improves, becoming smaller, cheaper, etc.

    You don't have to have a generational leap to see real improvement, and sometimes generation shifts actually make things a fair bit worse for consumers - at least for a few years until the new platform gets going.

    Also a console standard would be very good for gamers in other ways; making games cheaper and easier to develop - meaning potential for better, cheaper games and meaning you could play all console games regardless of which exact console you choose to buy.

    Finally, I do think it would make exclusives much harder for any one company to buy: currently MS controls a majority of the 'next gen' (in terms of graphics, etc.) market so any company aiming for that market isn't really taking too big a hit if MS pays them to only release on their console - plus they save money not needing to port the game to PS3.

    If MS was only one of dozens of manufacturers making consoles to the general standard then chances are they have a much smaller market share and would be trying to pay the devs not to release a game that already works on all the other consoles (i.e. most of the market). A much less appealing prospect.

  • Carrybagma #219 5 years ago

    I can barely type this, as my PC keeps going around in circles.

    More wishful thinking from someone who wants an easier life. He must have been paid to say all that tosh, as it's not very cohesive.

  • yagisencho #220 5 years ago

    We're already halfway there through emulation. The Wii plays games originally released for the NES, SNES, PC-Engine, Megadrive, and GameCube. And there's no technical reason the 360 and PS3 couldn't play all games released for all platforms before them. A modern PC of course is already capable of playing anything at all, but there's no single, unified system spec.

    I think it would probably serve consumers best to have a unified platform. Given the current business models though, I don't see that happening for consoles.

    Just buy a PC. Load up whichever operating systems you favor and game on. Publishers will flock back to the PC once the console market crashes and burns. =D

  • Sebo #221 5 years ago

    So you playing Nintendo games on your PC?

    Piracy destroys the games industry, stop it

  • soundtrack #222 5 years ago

    Reminds me of the days when I'd be gutted because my mate would have such-and-such a game for his Amiga that I couldn't get for my ST. Wouldn't change it for the world now though...
    And at least they both had keyboards built in so I wouldn't have to "type" this with my PS3 controller!
    :o/

  • Royal Fool #223 5 years ago

    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.

  • Carrybagma #224 5 years ago

    IN the future
    we'll drive around in spaceships
    holiday on mars
    live in virtual worlds
    and
    play on unified consoles

  • cyber_nicco #225 5 years ago

    Jesus, I only made it through about the first 8 comments... Most of you are making idiot arguments.

    Yes, there is unified radio - they all get radio signals. Same for f'ing television. He's not saying one f'ing manufacturer - quite the opposite. Just one standard programming API or something. Some standard (or minimal) specs. Is this so damn odd?

    The only reason Sony/Nintendo/MS would be against this is because the make money on licensing. If there was a standard, hardware manufacturers would profit from hardware and software developers would profit from software. The only problem could be higher console prices, but hopefully lower software prices. Furthermore, hardware prices would start to come way down as many of the components would become commodity items.

    And the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray argument is just asinine. I mean, it's an argument FOR standards!

    Okay, I feel better now... :p

  • Xerx3s #226 5 years ago

    Which was going to my next point. Sony are losing money on each PS3 they sell. If this industry was so attractive Toshiba and Samsung would most likely already be in here.

    Toshiba HAS already been there. They didn't like it and moved on. Slim chance of the ever looking back.

  • Sebo #227 5 years ago

    @cyber_nicco

    Yes, yes this is so odd.

  • The_Inquisitor #228 5 years ago

    One choice of D-pad then, less chance of pulling off great combos' on Street Fighter, if it's still around that is.

  • L0cky #229 5 years ago

    I think it's possible that someone will attempt another unified platform but I don't think it will help with the problems Dyack described in the slightest.

    It has been tried before (3DO) but just because that was shit doesn't mean it can't or won't be done.

    If it was going to happen I think it'd come from left field (ie not Sony, MS or Nintendo) by a hardware company, backed by many other hardware companies who aren't in bed with the big 3.

    To be fair, everything required to do it is in place, from graphics tech to api's. All you need is a consortium body (made up of peers/lobbyists from different companies) to agree on the primary hardware standard, and then when and how to upgrade it.

    A similar process already happens in many other technologies, such as the w3 for the internet (that even MS 'follows', albeit years behind).

    I disagree that MS would be the first on board simply because the API would have to be OpenGL without them, and once that has been agreed upon then MS would never join unless DirectX was at least added. Besides, MS are historically contemptious to other people's standards.

    This would probably lead to MS making their own licensed standard in competition; and it would be down to their tenacity on how it would play out.

    Then of course, Nintendo will likely do their own thing anyway.

    So, you would have a 'unified' console in competition with other consoles, thus making it 'ununified', and therefore not solving anything. But (and it's a big but), if the console was actually any good it may have a higher chance of survival because of safety in numbers; the entire platform won't take the hit if certain models fail to sell.

  • TheDudesRug #230 5 years ago

    First!

  • Sebo #231 5 years ago

    Didn't the Playstation 2 have safety in numbers? And look how the PS3 is fairing.

  • Hawkins #232 5 years ago

    I don't think so.

  • captain-future #233 5 years ago

    Blah. I read a lot of Dyack's rumblings, some aren't half-assed (as Itagaki likes to say) but this article I simply won't finish and it's just boring what he says.