Video games shouldn't have a standard but what should be a standard is FREAKING PRINTER INK CARTRIDGES. Why does there have to be so many different kinds. Why can't there just be a single printer cartridge. MAN I SWEAR!

Please god no. The industry is cut and paste enough as it is. Honestly wouldn't surprise me to see Sony/Microsoft doing a combined console for the next generation though, if the Wii ends up winning by a large margin. Sony online is NEVER going to be xbox live and MS could benefit from Blu-Ray/Cell and the sony brand name in Japan. Probably wouldn't happen, but if it does, don't let nintendo anywhere near it. They are destroying the industry enough as it is.

Next lets join all the movie studios into one giant ultra studio so they can not care about quality!

i'm sure i'll just be reiterating another comment, but...

obviously not within the next couple gens, but sooner or later- the difference between console A and console B is going to be so trivial hardware-wise tha t I don't doubt that the best way for market to go is to unify their efforts on one machine. Throwing in their own peripherals on top of the software perhaps to give themselves their edge. ... oh shit, that sounds like a PC is nowadays?

to sum it up- this isn't a new, Great idea... it's a foreseen inevitability that this will happen. Like the consolidated handheld... we'll see consolidated entertainment in the home front. It's just a matter of ten years or thirty years.

3D0
Need i say more?

LOL, these comments are funny. So many of you talk about the 'industry' as if you have worked in it for 10+ Years. 99% of you don't have any idea what the real industry is about, where the real costs come from or anything.

A united format has both advantages and disadvantages. It would slow the evolution process by a year or two, but it would make the Development process much more cost effective.

As to the kid that stated 'Nintendo is destroying the industry as it is'. I would like some explanation on that one. Nintendo is who made the industry as large as it is today.

Keep up the Fanboyism and elitism. It gives people like me a good laugh.

@E.J.,

software is where the true competition is. Did you buy your [insert console here] for it's looks? Because you preferred the specs on it? Probably not, I'll go out on a limb and guess that you, like the rest of us, bought your platform(s) of choice based on games that are already out, or on their way, that are exclusive to the console, or coming to the console. We buy consoles to play games, we don't buy games to own consoles.

Would never happen. There's too much interest by the big 3 now to strengthen their own brand and services.

There's certainly a draw having a single development standard/platform encompassing the whole market. A standard that specifies the minimum and maximum features to support, and a well planned roadmap of future features and specs of the One-Platform would be great. Developers would only have to concentrate on one platform per generation, and with the single standard, the specs should be open, preventing many surprises now associated with the dev. of new consoles.

However, it will never happen. Even if there is adoption of one gaming standard, there will be too many opportunities to fragment the market. The industry rides on technological advances in consumer electronics. And everytime tech advances faster than the Standard allowed, that will be an opportunity for a newer and better console.

"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."

Yeah, and format wars SUCK. You get thousands if not millions of people buying expensive pieces of kit which end up being worthless. The console market is similar (Dreamcast being the best example, Gamecube to a far lesser extent - only Zelda of note in 2006 really).

"without competition, where's the evolution? where's the marketing? I mean, the consumer is already the loser in this console/format war, but if they were banded under one united company, that'd be even worse! While streamlining makes things easier, it also dilutes diversity and survival, much like nature, economies, and governments."

So you're saying a console with a hi-def video player(PS3), amazing online support (360) and innovative motion sensing controls (Wii) all in one would be a bad thing? It would probably be a fairly cheap console too, because the companies would be able to spread the costs across their nebulous organization.

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

Let me give an example of how that is wrong: Safari and IE are competing internet browsers, corporate made. Firefox in open source, improved by co-operation of individuals trying to create the best possible product rather than for profit and gaining market share against competition. It is also widely considered far better than Safari or IE. If all the companies brought all their technologies together MAYBE, just maybe don't you think we might end up with something better than the Wii, 360 and PS3 individually?

"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."

Most core gamers have a least two consoles, everyone's heard phrases like PSWii and Wii60. I have a Wii and plan on getting a 360, because I want to play games on both systems. I just wish I didn't have to buy a second more pricey console to play Mass Effect and Halo 3. Also Motorstorm and Resistance look pretty good, but I won't get to player them ever, probably, since I'll probably never have the spare cash for a PS3.

"Community..."

THERE! He said the deadly word! Noble capitalists, let us band together to kill the evil socialist! Take up your pitchforks in a medieval-esque riot of pinko-burning! *Hem.*

Standardization of the PC hurt consumers. Years ago we had competing platforms: Commodore/Amiga, Apple, Atari, IBM, etc. Each offered something different: Commodore offered a low cost computer for homes, IBM offered expensive PCs for businesses, etc. But, when Windows PCs because ubiquitous...
1) Low cost options disappeared - originally you could buy a home computer and accessories for under $500, but afterwards the cost of entry rose to almost $2000 and stayed over $1000 for nearly a decade.
2) Features and capabilities were reduced - for example, the Amiga supported true multitasking, a capability Windows PCs couldn't do properly until many years afterwards.
3) Innovation stagnated - for example, Commodore and Atari were trying to outdo and match each other on graphics (eg. Amiga vs ST), but afterwards, PCs stuck to less capable EGA and VGA graphics for many years.

Standardization of consoles would do the same thing.

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

Wow. Just wow.

While I’m not on the doomsaying side of Mr. Khan, I think his point is valid, if not imminent. Since the market is sectioned off into pockets by hardware vendors, the overall audience for a particular title is limited to a fraction of the whole market, with additional returns to be had from investing in a port if such a thing is salient.

The market opens up to everyone with a shared hardware platform. Barriers to development are also brought down not only because there are fewer (presumably the fewest) platforms for which to develop, but the strength of the industry as a whole can be brought to bear upon providing usable and powerful development kits. Rather than letting Sony mash together a usable but unwieldy SDK on its own because they are not a software company after all.

With the horde of people extolling the obvious-ness of the PC as a multi-proficient platform, there is somewhat of an understanding that the PC is not a console. Why aren’t console titles ubiquitous on the PC? I don’t have the answer to that. It is easier to sell games for consoles on consoles. That much is apparent, at least for now.

But the roll and the market perception of the PC is changing. As media PCs are poking their heads out of the niche, as set-tops become more and more PC-like, as console hardware comes up to speed with that of the PC by incorporating increased storage and networking capabilities, devices seem to be straining to become alike. At the very least, they are borrowing from one another’s feature set. As this continues, I think the picture of what a shared hardware platform might be will become clearer.

Emulation is an interesting topic to bring up here. The idea of cross-emulating every console to each other was the first thing that popped into my head when reading this article. Given tractability and performance constraints, this isn’t really a realistic option, but I think the idea of it fits into the subject. If industry caliber weight could be given over to the emulation effort, rather than leaving it chained up in the backyard sandbox, I wonder what might come of it. Alas, it’s an answer we’ll probably never know. Even though VC and MS-marketplace open the door a bit, the likelihood of seeing anything current gen is slim… That is without a largely cooperative effort. Which happens to be the topic at hand.

I don’t think anyone is going to be convinced by words alone. With the point made about developers getting larger and becoming less creative, less forward-thinking, I don’t know if the idea of a shared hardware platform really solves that problem. I don’t know if enabling EA to make more gobs of money will convince them to reach out and nurture less mainstream ideas the way film has.

I want to play it all.

But I do feel ridiculous for contemplating the purchase of no less than three consoles in order to get access to what the industry will provide in the coming years. I assume that most (non-fanboy) gamers feel similarly.

Say, wasn't that Phantom thing suppose to be like this? Play Cube, PS2 and XBox games all in one system? I do seem to remember reading something like that...

Anyhoo, yeah, PC is pretty much a do it all machine (even if mine sucks and doesn't play games). So there you go. Posters of Joystiq seem pretty united in stating "No fuggin way, you're an idiot"

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.

If you removed the subsidization from gaming consoles they would die. The PC is a much better gaming platform than a console. The only reason consoles are doing so well is that they are much cheaper than a gaming PC.

i would probably stop playing games if that happened because i wouldnt be able to afford it. if these companies dont have any competition then they can charge watever they want for their services. i mean right now, Sony is showing exactly how a monopoly works, if there is something similar and cheaper then the customer isnt going to spend the extra for it (hence Xbox 360). if we got a unified console then games would cost like $100 like they want to charge now. choice is good and competition keeps people on there toes. benefiting the consumer by constantly trying to come out with the next best thing.

I don't like having to buy 3 consoles to play the top 10 games of 2007. It's so much money.

The universal console seems like a good idea. Very possible. Think of the scalability of DirectX. You can set your resolution, fog distance, filtering, lighting, shadows, etc.
This is essential the PC. This is what Microsoft is trying to do with Vista. Slap a rating number on every computer that says how good it is. Then selling software based on that rating.
You have a computer with 2.0 GFX and 4.0 CPU. The game requires 3.0GFX and 3.0 CPU.

Well, take it a step forward. Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo can sell consoles, yes, and peripherals. I just wish all the parts were upgradeable to a certain standard. They don't make the chips anyway. Nvidia, IBM, and ATI do.

So for a game like Gear of War, you need a console with 4.0GFX, 3.5CPU and a Type-A controller (gamepad). But, for let's say Wii Sports, 2.0GFX 2.0CPU and a Type-B controller (Wiimote).
If you play Wii Sports on a better console, you'll have the option of better character modeling, lightning, resolution, shadows, etc.
Then developers will only code ONE game, and allow it to be upscaled or downscaled to the console. This is very common for PC games. Maybe some developers will allow support for Type-A and Type-B controllers. The programming APi is what will make things easier for developers, which would cut costs.
Maybe Nintendo can patent Type-B controllers, or different internet communities (like XBOX Live, or PS3's W/E) but based on a compatible protocol. This will also allow more developers to join in the gaming market. Maybe some company will come up with a Type-C VR helmet. Who knows, but the cost would be less for the user.

But the problem is deciding on that standard. It's probably going to happen how it happened with PCs. Windows started gaining more and more popularity and now you can't do many things if it's not on Windows (like gaming). A standard was pushed by popularity. (and PLEASE don't compare WINE to running Windows natively)


So in my opinion, gaming should move to the PC, as Microsoft is pushing with Vista. Because a PC is already that complicated and bluetooth and USB are technologies that run on PC (for the controllers).

I look at Microsoft and I think how backwards they are with the Xbox360 and Games for Windows. They're too confusing. Windows or Console? I don't think Microsoft is going to make a 3rd console. I think their third console WILL be Windows. Why buy a separate piece of hardware when you can play games on your computer? How hard is it for systems to play games at 1280x720@60hz (720p) when the new video cards all brag about 60+ fps on 8xAA at 1600x1200. The more and more they xbox the PC replacement, the more it becomes a PC, until it finally becomes a PC. That's what screwing Sony up, trying to cram so much into a computer (hi-tech drive, fancy CPU) it's already a PC, and comes into PC pricing territory. IT RUNS LINUX! The all-in-one console is the PC. I wish Microsoft would starts pushing it hard with Gaming for Windows. But they won't because they've invested so much money in the xbox360 console. Bah, now i'm upset to see how so much money is wasted on a big catch22.

Hmm, i think this is so long it deserves a new freaking article of discussion. =P

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

Ha!

Play-Tend-Box.

Funny. Most of the people in this thread are taking the enlightened position that diversity and competition benefits everyone. What's the most monopolistic entity around? Your national government! Yet what tends to be the most popular opinion about major life issues and government? That the government must run our medical, education, and retirement systems.

I've got to say it. I think the only reason people are applying logic to this situation is because this situation is one where the celebrity elite hasn't defined a position for us. If Bono, Moby, and the rest decided that a single console format was the way to go, not only would most of you suddenly agree but you'd probably want to make it illegal for someone to create a console outside this format.

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.

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

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...