EA exec wants a single gaming platform

And once this single unified platform is realized, you know what the platform creator is going to do? Charge EA $25 per copy for the rights to publish on a platform.

Don't like it, EA? Cry me a river. Whatchoo gonna do? Go publish on a competing platform instead?

Oh, that's right, you killed off all those competing platforms with your magic fucking wish machine! Now pay up.

@copa

I don't think you understand the concept of an "open" platform. It would like the PC where anyone could make the hardware or software.

@Vidikron:

I don't think you understand the concept of intellectual property.

Whoever invests the huge amounts of money necessary to design the platform is going to own the rights to it.

Examples of such 'open' platforms in the past include 3DO, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD.

Once a platform like this becomes a monopoly, innovation stagnates, and the rights holder can proceed to extort licensees.

Dude, you're so lost. IPs apply to current consoles NOW. Do you think no one owns the hardware inside?

I mean, you can hand pick examples all your want, but there are lots of other around. What about DVD players? Using your logic they should all be outrageous. But they're not. Why? Because you have a lot different people producing the hardware. And yoru example of HD-DVD vs BR is a piss poor one. It's expensive because the tech is fairly new and expensive to manufacture. But we will likely sub-$200 HD-DVD players this Christmas. DVD players went through the same progression

The way I see it, the less time devs worry about porting the more time they can spend making the games better.

Do people in film need to worry about 5 different screen sizes/ratios when their films are shown in theaters? Why should game developers worry about processor speeds, GPU capabilities, or even the number of buttons a controller has?

Hardware competition is an issue though - I think I read somewhere that the 360 was originally going to have 256 MB of video RAM but it was changed to 512MB of video RAM to futureproof against the PS3. That or the game devs wanted it, I forget.

poor lazy EA, yeah I wish they didn't have to work so hard. It must be so difficult buying other companies and then taking credit for their work, and I'm sure that if they didn't have to tell those companies to make ports, they could save a lot of breath.

@ outforprophets

God you are dumb!

Film Directors have to worry about screen ratios with different theater settings! They also have to worry about the type of film, the type of camera they are shooting on, analog VS digital, ect.

Nice to see you have your head up your ass!

What's all this hippie speak goin round? One platform for everyone? That's crazy, in the competition the gamers always win but the corporations can still lose, that sounds like a pretty ideal world to me. We as the consumer have more power with the more choices we have, we can sway, drive and change the industry faster than anyone else can. Besides these guys are just bitching because they don't want to try hard, don't want to take risks, don't want to compete, well I for one enjoy capitalizm. You children can have your utopian world where nothing exciting ever happens, everything is the same for everyone, no one better or worse at something. Bah, I can't believe I'm hearing this. Is there a country I can move to incase these "people's" wishes come true? I'll kill myself before I live in a society run by thoughts like this.

I've consolidated all platforms older than 8 years onto one platform.

Windows XP.

1 box, 1 controller, unlimited games. ARRRRRGGGG!!!!

"I wish that would happen." refering to having 1 system.

Instead of console fanboys, there will just be game company fanboys.

There aren't already?

I would probably have 150 built in games too!

Ha! PC is anything but standard. Assuming standard means that you pop the disk in an everything works with no patches.

Yes, I do believe that's what they intended when they created DirectX all those years ago. A nice and standardized way for game developers to interface with the hardware without having to code it specifically for different hardware.

As far as ending the console wars with a unified console? Uh, no. Then you completely eliminate the one-up-manship that leads to, I dunno, hardware innovation? "What can our console have that nobody else's does?" Instead it becomes who can make the prettier candy colored shell wrapped around the same seven year old hardware. Why old hardware? Because it's compatible with the platform that doesn't really use anything more than that and it's cheap and easy to knock out.

We wouldn't have hardware competition, but we would have software competition. After all, if EVERYONE is on the same console, they've got to work extra hard to ensure that their game gets bought over the hundreds of others coming out that week.

Unfortunately, it would eventually extinguish the developers that don't have the money to keep up with the big guys. *This* is why EA really wants to have a single console: because they have the money to ensure their games are the only ones bought for the OmniBox, or Omnii, or OmniStation (or whatever). So you would still end up with a few big developer/publisher combos dominating the market while the smaller guys make indie games on PC.

I get the feeling that a lot of folks around here are young enough to only know NES games through emulation and GBA ports.

I agree w/Shag.

*slits wrists*

Seriously, I don't give a f*** what EA wants. They have yet to put out ANYTHING of value to me anyway.

fuck i agree to. I hate those idiots at EA and to those of you that think that one platform (presumably under EA) would be great you are mental and the reason places like gamestop and wal mart exist. I want a choice in gaming. Competition leads to creativity, and not these stagnant ideas and brain dead practices we see when this happens. Why wouldnt you want variety? I dont like having such uniformity.

I can't believe what I'm saying but I agree (IT BURNS)

No one is forcing EA to make multi platform games if they can't concentrate all their resources in a single game for a single platform is their own damn problem.

Cry me a River EA.

Well, as part of their contract with the NFL, they have to port their biggest game to every single supported console on the market, so even if they wanted to stop porting everything, they would still have to do so with their bread-and-butter, or risk losing it

That contract is up next season, isn't it?

The problem in implimenting this is simple enough to understand. A unified console would dictate an agreement from amongst the different factions. Like DVD was chosen, developed, and financed by the DVD consortium. Six different companies. The companies that did NOT invest now pay licensing fees to the DVD consortium.

DVD players nowadays are all trying to outmatch or outfunction one another to get primo shelf space and purchases. For example, my DVD player can play DivX files. My friends has MP4 support. Another friend bought his because of region free. Now, apply this same concept to video game consoles except here's the tricky part, what is the point of the extra functions when the software won't use it? Suddenly developers will start favoring certain SKUs over others, likewise RAM in one machine may not be as quick as in another. And testing the software? Talk about a nightmare. Think about ALLLL those hardware configs you gotta have and how many different ways you gotta test it. To put this in perspective, Gears of War shipped without knowing about a HUGE color glitch that occurs in VGA connections on 360...

If they could find a way to make a unified console work AND benefit consumers, I would embrace it. But as it stands, a unified console would hurt publishers, developers, hardware makers, and most of all, consumers.

The differences between the 360, Wii, and PS3 are a lot bigger than the differences between a Phillips or Sony DVD player. The way you enjoy your games is radically different on each system, while the differences in DVD players minimally impacts your viewing experience.

FidliousWong has it right, there are massive technical hurdles that prevent this unified console idea from even being contemplated seriously.

The answer to your concern is extremely simple.

Like the DVD consortium, we will have a gaming consortium that sets base specifications so that ALL software can run properly. That means one standard RAM setting, one standard chipset, yadda yadda... basically a CORE package. All modifications and improvements among different brands cannot change those core settings. You can add extra hard drive space, you can add upscaling for older games that may not run in HD natively, you can add digital audio output, or you can build the thing right INTO the damn TV. It shouldn't be much different than what we have with Sony or Microsoft and their PS3 and 360 and all their revisions: All the games work across all the SKUs.

And then, years down the road, the gaming consortium will develop the next generation of the universal gaming platform not necessarily because they themselves WANT to do so but because software developers are pushing for more power in order to gain a competitive edge.

Oh, one other thing. I highly doubt that DVDs are played on every single brand and model of player out there before being sold to consumers.

"I don't understand why a lot of people are sooooo against one unified console."

Ever wonder why the PS3 has gone through a radical round of price cuts? Competition.

Curious why Microsoft finally fixed RROD and made good to their customers to the tune of $1 billion? Competition.

And why did Nintendo find a way to grow the gaming audience by investing in games that appeal beyond the core market? Competition

If you honestly can't understand that eliminating competition is terrible for gamers, I don't know what to say.

DVD player manufacturers are doing just fine. I win, copa.

The shows and films are not created for dvd. That is its secondary market to make extra cast. Nowhere in hollywood is someone pitching a show with its dvd release a factor in its writting or story. They write em for awards and artistic merrit.

The problem Megastrike is that DVD is just a medium, the tech that goes behind movie creation can be changed and still delivered on DVD. Post production can take place for movies with any level of tech well after the DVD standard has been created.

Game hardware delivers the experience itself so if one console doesn't do what you need it to do to make your game you can try elsewhere...devs would be shoehorned into creating games that worked within the defined hardware without a choice of taking ideas to a different platform if need arose.

The PC is the best choice for open platform, consoles should never attempt this (3DO).

Actually, Megastrike has a point. Not a particularly plausible one, but a point nonetheless.

If done correctly (a consortium of companies collaborating their efforts and agreeing on one standard- in this case Sony, Nintendo and MS), this could benefit the consumer. But the fact is that currently not one of the console manufacturers would even consider this approach.

...Well, after the failure that is the PS3, maybe Sony might be interested in piggybacking on the other two's success ;-)

And, there was once an open platform where anyone could build their own hardware implementation of the machine. It was called 3DO.

But since the hardware manufacturers couldn't subsidize themselves with software revenue, the machine ended up costing $600+ at retail.

I mean, in this day and age, can you imagine someone releasing a games console that cost $600? It would be an abject failure.

i would hate to have to play my games with keyboard and mouse. imo halo is better on a 360 game pad than on a mouse.

We'll see. But your ignoring many other factors. Currently a lot of people do stuff like web browsing and, y'know, real WORK on PCs. So what do you do when daddy needs to bust out some spread sheets for work and the kinds want to play a game? Or how convenient would it be to do your work in the living room in stead of an office? Or in the same place everyone else is wanting to watch TV and play games? There are a lot more factors involved in the separation of PCs and consoles than mere hardware standards.

I'm not saying there aren't solutions to these issues, but it's not at as an obvious conclusion as a lot people seem to think.

You forgot the idea of the home network, Vid. More and more companies are just buying basic shells to put on employee desks and let a main server do all the work. No more buying individual PCs for each employee, just a monitor, keyboard and basic connections to get into that server. Homes can be built on central servers and then have stations around the house that connect into it. With 4 core processors out now and 8 and 16 core in the very near future, this concept is not just obtainable, but will be the same price as buying a standalone PC is today.

This system can allow the gamer in the family to utilize 12 of those 16 cores and let the non-gamers use the other 4 for their work and no one would ever notice any slowdowns.