One universal console to rule them all

That would be sweet, but with all the money & royalties Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft make it wouldn't happen anytime soon.

See: 3DO
See: failure

As long as Nintendo doesn't make the standard.

J/K...

Without competition between consoles we'd get stuck with the same hardware for many more years.

I think the PC is the ideal situation already, they just need to get developers to agree to develope for a specific power of machine. Then again that would hurt a lot of hardware manufacturers for the PC.

I think the present situation is more desirable.

The problem with this model is that when the hardware companies don't have a monopoly, they cannot recoup the investment they put in making newer and better hardware. There is a reason it took so long for movie theaters to move to digital projectors. In that industry everyone DID decide to use the same hardware (35mm projectors). That meant that the companies didn't need to innovate the hardware for decades and focused only on making software (films) for that hardware. If we collectively decide we want better graphics, sound and control schemes about as often as the local theater upgrades it's projectors and sound systems, then I guess it can work... I just don't think the public will go for such a slow pace of innovation.

I think Microsoft and sony are going to go PC in 1-3 gens... Nintendo might start going more VR though

The irony here is this is exactly what Trip Hawkins was calling for back in the old 3DO days. One unified format, much like VHS, or DVD. This would enable hardware companies to produce hardware and software to produce software as long as it's in l;ine with the specs as required by the 3do standards of hardware.

In theory it could work, but companies like Sony and Ms both want thier share of the proprietory pie. Royalties go to the main company while the hardware companies barely broke even.

It's called a PC.

Console competition makes the industry grow at a slower rate than OS such as Windows; but console competition also makes the industry more dynamic, as in having more game releases, and therefore driving up adoption rates again. The state of the industry is probably good as it is... maybe two major competitors would be a little better than three.


"See: 3DO
See: failure"

I didn't see Nintendo, Sega or Sony actually agree with that standard. It was also more expensive than PS3 if you count inflation, and the non-gaming benefits of it were too few, if any. Furthermore, it wasn't riding on the back of big gaming/software companies that developed software exclusively for the 3D0 (LG? Panasonic? WTF?); most of the few exclusive games for it sucked. It didn't fail because of it being a "single agreed upon standard", which it was not.

Consoles ARE standards. What we have is a market of competing standards. Sure, its nice when there is one standard, as long as that standard isn't owned by one single company. DVD is like this. Its a standard with licensing fees attached, but it belongs to a consortium, not a single entity.

We have a format war right now because there are 2 competing standards for HD movies. We have a console war now because there are 3 competing standards for software development platform.

It wouldn't work. EA would never stand for not being able to sell multiple copies of the same game.

That would mean no fanboys... where the hell am I supposed to get my laughs if that happens?

Who wrote this article, Vladimir Putin?

What would Sony fanboys have to bitch about if there was only one console? Its a bad idea to have one console. The competition is good for the industry, the games, and the systems generate alot of jobs (in asia) and each company wants the most peanuts.

yeah, they already tried that. as JodyAnthony already pointed out, this is the concept the 3D0 was based on and that system failed (there were plenty of other contributing reasons, but I think having 3 separate manufacturers making the same system breaks up your market even worse than having 'Core' and 'Premium' versions)

Right now Microsoft and Sony are like filthy starving dogs, their eyes big and wide and staring directly at my wallet. They will fight and claw and rip each other apart just to get my money... and thats the way I like it. In such a delicate field as video games, the gamers controls things. WE say what is worth buying and WE say what is crap. If we lose the ability to play massive companies against each other, we lose out on the great things that competition brings us. Also, it more fun this way. Fanboys: do you really want a world where you have nothing to bitch and moan about??? neither do I!!

Right now Microsoft and Sony are like filthy starving dogs, their eyes big and wide and staring directly at my wallet. They will fight and claw and rip each other apart just to get my money... and thats the way I like it. In such a delicate field as video games, the gamers controls things. WE say what is worth buying and WE say what is crap. If we lose the ability to play massive companies against each other, we lose out on the great things that competition brings us. Also, its more fun this way. Fanboys: do you really want a world where you have nothing to bitch and moan about??? neither do I!!

Actually, as console exclusives become rarer and rarer, I can't really see how Microsoft and Sony CAN continue to compete with each other.

There's a reason Sega went out of the console market... it's just too frickin' expensive. The only one making money on their consoles in Nintendo!

So, if your not making money on consoles, and the DVD format war will be over by next gen, then what IS the point of X-Box 720 or PS 4?

Mo-No-Po-Ly

Competition goes down

Quality goes down

Innovation goes down

Prices go up

If this is where the industy is headed then my gaming days are numbered

No.

How much further the industry can go? Last time I looked the industry was at an all time high making more money than movies and TV. I'm pretty sure all making a single machine that plays all console games will do is water down the experience for those amazing games. It'll just make the companies lose money. Personally I don't want the video game industry to go down the crapper just because some d-bag wanted to make money by ripping off the ideas of the individual console makers. That's just me though.

This would put an end to the hardware wars

And it could be feasible, if the big 3, as well as some of the biggest 3rd Parties (EA, SEGA, Ubisoft, THQ, Konami, Capcom) agreed to the DVD "Consortium" Standard

Then you wouldn't have to pay $1250 plus tax to get the whole gaming experience, just about $3-400

The stupidest notion I've seen all week. They can't really believe that eliminating the competition would be good for gamers. This has to be some sort of joke.

"So, if your not making money on consoles, and the DVD format war will be over by next gen, then what IS the point of X-Box 720 or PS 4?"

PS4 I can't answer because the PS3 just came out and is a long way from being profitable. The Microsoft approach seems to have been what just makes sense - have a carefully crafted plan, spend the money to establish your brand and get through the first few bumpy miles. Eventually your brand is popular. Profit follows.

The 360 is very close to profitablity, if not there already.

Mr. Kahn, do you understand how the lack of competition would most likely mean higher prices and lower quality? Use your head.

Mr. Kahn, do you understand how the lack of competition would most likely mean higher prices and lower quality? Use your head.

Sure, because video games did so great back when it was just the Atari.
True there were other consoles then, but hardly bought.

We need the competition, it makes things better by forcing the companies to fight harder.

I like the way it is right now.

I like the way it is right now.

Damn, I was beat to saying "I call it a PC."

Yeah it`s the PC...TO RULE THEM ALL...

I think MSX is a better comparison than 3Do. Instead of all hardware being identical it'd be an open standard that can be modified. Of course this would eventually lead to modified system eventually become a whoel different console, defeating the whole point of having a standard. and thats why it's a stupid idea. It'd work if one company deceided to do it, but there'd still have to be competition.

Oh my god, are you serious? You're seriously talking about inventing the PC. Seriously. Seriously?

Wow. Just wow.

Well, there will come a time when every game is released on all platforms, and the only differences between them is control scheme and exclusives. And that's when Nintendo is going to win.

It would be horrible to make a video game console monopoly. I think it's great to have different tiers of video games, from the less expensive but fun Wii, to the powerful and exciting 360, and the Expensive Blu-Ray based system.

Consumers deserve choice. A single console built on compromises for everyeone is a bad thing.

Kenofthedead,

We had the VG crash in the 80's because everybody's console played everybody else's games, so there was no reason to innovate. And then ET happened, and then it was almost over.

Then Nintendo came and saved the industry.

This would benefit Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, because they could exit the hardware business and not have to incur the initial loss of introducing new hardware every so many years.

Thing is, the customer does not benefit. Imagine having to buy an unsubsidized console. Who wants to pay $700 or more for a new game system? And if there's no competition, or a single standard, there's no incentive to improve or innovate.

People are correct, this is basically the PC model, and it was attempted by 3D0 some years ago, which failed miserably. If this were to come to pass, you're likely looking at a low cost PC solution with some sort of standardized gaming capability.

I think that standardization is killing video games and instead of vying for a unified format, manufacturers should focus on what makes them different. We have to stop thinking of video games as music and movies and start thinking about them as games. What's right for a movie isn't what's right for a video game; first of all, movies are much less dependant on hardware or technology as the end product is always the same format, only the storage medium changes. Standardizing the console format also means standard tech specs and standard controllers, it would be like if every board game used the same board. Or it would mean that to differentiate themselves, video games would have to ship with custom accessories (a la Guitar Hero), which wouldn't necessarily be a better thing.

If you take a hard, long, objective look at it, consoles are toys. I don't mean this statement as derogatory, at the contrary, there is nothing shameful about toys, but it is what it is. It's one of the major differences between a console and the PC, and my opinion is that consoles should strive to offer something unique rather than unite as a standard. Otherwise we're better off dropping consoles in favor of PCs, an open platform that already has the established standards a unified console format would require.

This console generation is the PERFECT exaample why this would be a bad idea. Look at the diversity we have right now. If I want to play high end FPS I play my 360 (not exclusively FPS, just an example). I also have the option of playing a new style of gaming with the Wii and it's variety of games.
It would be suicide to for some "game console standard" on consumers. Games would get stale from being developed on the same hardware. There woulld be no diversity like we have now.
The 3DO didn't fail because it was trying to be the "standard console" among many reasons I believe the main reason it didn't sell was because of its price. Especially for it's time. $300-$400 for a console now is considered pricey, but obviously not all that unresonable. While the $600 PS3 isn't doing so great, which is closer to 3DO's price of $700 (?). Not saying this will cause Sony to fail like the 3DO, just using it as an example.

No competition = no innovation = old technology = recycled ideas = bad

This immediately made me think of the 3DO. Honestly, it's a great idea, but it needs to be planned very, very carefully.

But if there were a standard console, then it would be the software that would compete

Imagine if EVERYONE had to worry about their game competing with a Nintendo title(one of the deterrents to devving for the Wii), or had to worry about direct sales competition with Halo 3

You wouldn't see multiple titles across platforms that all angle for the same thing, Forza and Gran Turismo would be directly competing, and one would quickly dissappear

Quality of hardware would detract, but quality of software might go up

What the hell? Is Joystiq now ripping off the Onion?

They can't merge into one, I'd have nothing to complain about anymore. No biased fanboy rantings to read through, no wild accusations about exclusive/non-exclusive content, no superiority complex to address, no imaginative analysists to insult -- nothing! We'd all be sheep to the same farmer. No greener grass arguments.

No, that simply will not do. But at least two companies should merge...

They can't merge into one, I'd have nothing to complain about anymore. No biased fanboy rantings to read through, no wild accusations about exclusive/non-exclusive content, no superiority complex to address, no imaginative analysists to insult -- nothing! We'd all be sheep to the same farmer. No greener grass arguments.

No, that simply will not do. But at least two companies should merge...

This would have made more sense 7 years ago, when all the new consoles were practically the same. The hardware differences are only increasing. It's far too late to unify the consoles, with changing controllers, processor structure, and online services.

No thanks. We want the competition that'll push competitors to do their utmost to deliver the must fulfilling experiences to us consumers in order to get us to invest in their products. Only a free market with independent operators and solutions is able to offer this.

I dunno about that Mr Khan, with the same control interface for each game they'd all be the bloody same – who wants that?
You'd have no guitar hero or DDR controllers. And if you could, then developers (like Nintendo) would just make a new controller for their games and there goes your fricken standard.

I'll second all of the "stupidest idea I've ever heard" comments. The problems here are almost too numerous to count.

The author says he isn't necessarily arguing for a standardized format. But if you read his suggested approach, it seems pretty clear that that's exactly what he's advocating - even if it takes a little while to get there. "Rather than focus on a universal format – the effect of which would be to stifle evolution and growth – the focus should be on industry-wide cooperation," the author writes. Then why on earth is the title of this article, "The Road to a Universal Platform"??? Either this "commission" mandates some universal format standards - in which case its existence would at least make sense - or it doesn't, in which case you have at best the status quo and at worst, oligopolistic pricing.

So the author isn't even very clear about what he's advocating. That said, let's assume he is suggesting a standardized video game system approach. What exactly would be the point? The only one I can see is that developers would have to develop for only one standard instead of several. Of course, this is something they can do right now. They get to choose whichever platform they want based on whether they're interested in the Wii hardware, PS3 raw power, or 360 accessibility. Consumers benefit from more variety in playing styles, hardware manufacturers benefit from the extra revenue, and developers can do as they wish.

The downsides, on the other hand - both practical and theoretical - would be enormous. The most obvious is that creativity would be grossly stifled. You'd have very little incentive for innovations like the Wii, and since the criterion for a standard's acceptance is total consensus, you discourage any creative risk-taking. Second, it doesn't seem to be what people really want. If people were really all that concerned about minimizing their console purchase costs, they would standardize the consoles themselves by buying just one of them. They don't - so clearly, not everyone wants to play the same thing anyways.

If that weren't bad enough, there are huge practical hurdles. Getting a bunch of companies with extremely divergent interests, stakeholders, marketing profiles, etc. to agree would be difficult at best. Whatever they came up with would likely be mediocre and middle-of-the-road. And if someone disagreed with the commission, they'd just pull out and we'd be back at square one. There's no way to enforce compliance - rendering the plan useless - and if you did enforce compliance, you'd end up damaging the industry.

The author concludes, "Honestly, at its current rate I don't know how much further the industry can go unless we do all band together and start watching out for our best interests as a community." I don't get this at all. The industry's been growing by leaps and bounds. Gaming is doing great. What exactly is this enormous roadblock preventing people from moving forward?

Nintendo is a muthafukin pimp!

A lot of you are missing the fact that there could still be competition among hardware makers... many different companies could make hardware that adheres to the main gaming standard (i.e., all consoles would play the same games) but could differentiate themselves based on non-essential features (media features, output ports, output image quality, etc.), appearance, form factor, price, etc. like DVD players for example.