Dyack sees unified console as 'inevitable'

Also keep in mind that Microsoft is undoubtedly an advocate of this one console approach - as long as it acted as a suitable vehicle for its software.

Microsoft is a software providor, the Xbox 360 is a strategic tool to stop other hardware devices getting into market segements it wants a part in that might not use their software. Why do you think the Xbox 360 is going in an IPTV direction? Because Microsoft have an IPTV platform a lot of telcos are looking at or are using.

If the Xbox went for a standard console, they'd be the first to drop out the market as long as it used their development tools and linked to other elements of their software infrastructure.

After all, they don't build PC's.

It's so wonderful to know I'm not the only one who sees what Microsoft is trying to do. A + for you.

Ok what? I'm reading these comments and I'm trying to understand how having one game console will negatively affect the quality of games. Competition has nothing to do with the hardware, it's all about software. Developers will still be competing which each other to gain the consumers dollars. So no, I don't think a unified console will negatively affect games.

In the eighties there were an incredible number of companies with their own line of home computers: Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, Commodore C16/Plus4, Sinclair Spectrum, BBC, Sinclair QL, etc etc.
A conglomerate of Japanese and European manufacturers tried to create a unified home computer standard: MSX.

Guess what, it failed. MSX was very popular in Japan but it failed in Europe and especially in the US. It will never work because corporation greed will get in the way. Sony hit the bull's eye twice and made enormous profits from the PSX and PS2. Even if the PS3 would completely, utterly fail, they still won't commit to a unified console because although sharing development costs with other companies is a lot cheaper, it doesn't have the potential to bring huge profits. Same goed for Nintendo. They've always made money with their products and currently they're swimming in it like Scrooge McDuck. They have no interest in a unified console as well.

I could see a conglomerate around MS/EA producing a succesor to the Xbox 360 and present it as a unified console, but as long as there are many competing standards/products on the market, there's no guarantee for success and it will be just another console platform.

Also I wanted to add... I think it would suck. I bought a 360 because I know 100% it will play 360 games. If you get many hardware manufactures in the game you can't guarantee 100% compatibility. DVD Players are that way, sometimes a certain DVD or especially a burned DVD just won't work so I'll put it in another player.

I think it would suffer the fate of the PC in being too complex and too varied to actually garner the trust of the consumer. Consumers just wanto to know it works... they don't want to deal with specs of any kind or how this DVD Players differs from that one etc...

A single platform isn't crazy talk. The industry already essentially functions as if there was a single platform, especially last generation, when all three consoles were pretty much identical. Except that developers had to create three distinct editions of the same design, instead of just one, which is much more logical. And on the consumer end, choosing one platform locks you out of games made exclusively for another platform, even though in concept they could run on the other platforms.

I still think, though, that there's no such thing as a standard in video games, and that the problem isn't that there's too many formats, but that the formats are too similar. Video game consoles are more like toys than like DVD players, and third-parties should start exploiting each console unique characteristics instead of looking for common threads. Each platform should have their own unique game designs based on their idiosyncrasies, instead of having, like right now, a one-size-fits-all solution.

In this utopian vision, who invests the billions necessary to develop and market the hardware? And what is the business model that allows for this imaginary company to make money off of it? We aren't talking about the DVD industry, where the market is immense and the cost of content negligible.

And do any of you really think you'd be happy with a lowest common denominator system?

I WISH there was one console. No more console exclusives, no more console fanboys, no more e-peen wars over HDMI outputs. Just plain good games.

There will still be competition.

Of course the non crazy person future instead features many more exclusive titles. No one is holding a gun at your head to develope for all platforms.

I'd rather miss out on some exclusives that were awesome beacuse I dont own the platform than have the watered down crap games would become with a unified console.

Luckly it will never happen.

we've had PCs for decades now.

There is absolutly no way that there will ever be one single console. First of competition is good for all gamers. It keeps game developers from getting to lazy. For some reason EA gets to be lazy because people will go out and buy Madden every year, developing Madden has to be the easiest one day a year job. It forces console makers to do something differnt to get consumers to buy there systems. For example the motion control on the Wii, the great games on the 360 and the potential of Blu-ray on the PS3.
Price doesn't alienate gamers if they are willing to wait. The market will dictate the price of consoles. The PS3 price has droppped from the original $600 and we got an additional 20 gigs of HD space. The price of the 360 dropped and the Wii was cheap to begin with. So eventually prices do drop if you are willing to wait for a while to get the new system.

The thing is that very few companies make tons of money off the actual console hardware. They make money off licensing, peripherals, and software sales.

These 3 things would still be around in a single console environment. And as noted as consoles get more and more PC like, and people find more and more ways for PCs to emulate consoles or downright use their controls, the difference will eventually be minimal enough that consoles are just a "kind" of PC you buy, just like you buy a SUV or sports car "type" of car.

The only way a unified standard console will come to pass is if the individual companies that decide the hardware standard do not make games. That cuts out all the current players.

I say this because the reason DVD came into being a successful hardware platform is that 90% of the consortioum members were hardware companies only. There isn't a movie studio owned by Toshiba. Conversely, we see that when a member of the consortium owns or creates content that will be shown/played on the hardware, they favor themselves and are much less likely to compromise in favor of the unified standard. Thus we have HDDVD/BluRay now, because Sony is a content provider as well as a hardware company, and they wanted their protections their way, and they wouldn't budge on it. So, for spite, they created their own format that their movies would be exclusive to.

The same thing would happen to the Console consortium. Sony would want things their way, Microsoft would want things a different way, and nintendo would want things a 3rd way. And none of them will be willing to budge on at least 1 front each. The consortium would fall apart and everybody would make their own similar, but incompatable, game console.

Now if you got Toshiba, and HP, and Intel, and AMD, and Nvidia together, and they sat down to create a unified console, it would happen, because NONE of those companies have a vested stake in what the console will be USED for, software.

I don't see this happening, at least not in the foreseeable future. Multiple gaming platforms have co-existed in the market for close to 30 years now. What makes him think that this model won't be sustainable for the next 30 years? True, Nintendo has been the only company to stay in the market during the majority of those years, but there is always room for competition.

And looking to the current crop of manufacturers, what makes him think either Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft are going to bow out of the hardware business any time soon given that each has had relatively successful runs during the last two generations?

Because Nintendo's hardware division constantly runs in the black, they have the least incentive to ever get out of the hardware business. Now that Microsoft's Xbox division is finally profitable, they aren't likely to stop with the 360 (like Sega, I think they'd need at least a couple of stillborn hardware launches to consider getting out of the hardware business). And even if the PS3 ultimately proves to be dismal failure, given Sony's ridiculous success with the PS1 & PS2, they aren't likely to give up on the brand after this generation; they'll probably just make a more consumer-friendly (i.e., cheaper) system the next go around (I still think it's not too late to make a decent showing this generation with a few more price cuts).

That's three manufacturers that I am guessing will be in the hardware business for at least the next 10-15 years. Should one or two of them drop out, that will leave a gaping hole for someone else to jump in.

Video games are not one size fits all. And even if they were and at some point in time there was a unified platform, all it would take is for someone to jump into the market with something newer and shinier, just a year before the successor to the "unified platform" is to go on sale to split the market all over again. Bottom line: it ain't happening.

First

its funny that people think that a one system world would make games cheaper. I remember when the nes came out and the games were about $30 if memory serves me. Once the system became popular, the prices went up to $50 dollars because of the demand. In those days, everyone was making a nintendo game because it was the only kid on the block aside from the previous systems. Demand is what is going to make the price, not the cost. And who is going to be the one that says what system we should have. Some like a low cost system like the wii, others like graphic power houses like the 360, ps3. Can you imagine if there was only system, and you did not like it at all? Think about it this way, if there was no competition, would MS have extended the warrenty on the damaged 360's? They were forced to give good customer service becuase they did not want to lose their customers to nintendo or sony. If there was no choice, then these guys could put anything out they wanted and you would have to like it if you like playing games.

I think competition is way to important for this to total do well. Console games have always been about pushing the hardware to its limits. So for this to work you have to really adopt a PC like model for upgradeability or you have a format that doesn't evolve.

Just look at the Console wars Atari didn't even try to evolve until Nintendo came on the scene it was too little to late. Sega competed with the master system but wasn't able to get a upper hand so they upgraded to the 16 bit race and had a little company with NEC around that same time and eventually Nintendo made the SNES to compete. Sega made its batch of add on that were really not super successful but the genisis was. 3DO came out and nobody could afford it. Saturn came out followed a couple of months by the newcomer Sony I have little doubt there would have been more delay on the Saturn if they both were not racing to market. Nintendo took there sweet time with the N64 but made it to compete with the Saturn and PSX. Sega made the Dreamast to compete with Sony. Sony said oh yeah well here is the PS2 instead of the playstation 1.5 they were working on a slightly improved PSX. Nintendo retaliated with the Cube and MS decided to join the game I believe with the sole purpose of pissing Sony off(that whole emotion engine workstation running a none windows OS thing). Sega dropped out the competition was probably too great and they couldn't afford to relaunch a new system. PS2 was so entrenched before the other 2 came out so they really couldn't overtake it so MS made 360 and moved the generation forward much like the Genesis. Sony then made the PS3 to try and outdo the 360 and Nintendo made there fresh start with the Wii. All three consoles we have and thousands of games on each generation are all thanks to friendly competition from 3D gaming, Dual analog control, Disk based media, HD gaming, Motion controls and many many more.

I know I have missed jumps in that little stroll through history and there may be some discrepancies but I think it makes the point.

The first thing I have to say is I do love the state of gameing as it is today, so many choices and options to play each game differently.

But, the reality of situation is that EA and Dyack are right in that the industry (hardware) manufacturers are looking for a standard, whereas most developers who are of any count, are with me on the fact that I am having the most fun as things stand. I personally think this article is hilarious, because I would expect a person who is way into videogames be just a$s heavily inclined to be about everything tech.
^--- Hey doesn't that make not a nerd, but a dork which I believe is worse.

People are saying it won't happen, but I think it will, and that format will be the PC.

PCs are already being developed which function as both computer and set top box. This is apart from the fact that HDTVs are basically oversized computer monitors (pro scan, right number of pixels, most have VGA support).

The technology is there and eventually with the growth of internet streaming technology and digital distribution which will replace all physical media the PCs place as a media entertainment hub is secured, plus a PCs can be programmed to accept any kind of input, whether it be Dualshock or Wii remote.

The hardware war would thus become related to coming up with increasingly inventive controllers and - crucially - software would become the key differentiator between companies and thus originality in games would be encourages rather than the current wasteful 5-year (or even less) generation cycle.

The hardcore can upgrade their kits if they so wish every few years, the mainstream (who as evidenced by the Wii's, DS's popularity and PS2's continued popularity) aren't much bothered by graphics)keep theirs longer. The current system is wasteful of resources and serves only the better hardware, not games or gaming, which I think needs to loose its obsession with technology (only then will it be seen as a truly mainstream medium like television and film, which while technologically complex do not ride on that fact).

And BTW, why are all you guys so scared of communists, for Christ's sake? I swear it's like a club of McCarthyists of something...

Dyack is a moron. Of COURSE devs and publishers only want 1 platform. That makes their job 1000% easier. No market share arguments, no programming to the lowest common denominator, no angry fanboys pissed off they aren't making a game for their favorite console. Dyack and crew are lazy developers. They wanted Epic to do everything for them, contrary to other companies getting out great looking and good performing games on the UE3 engine.

They've been working on their game for 10 years now, and have only recently shown it publicly... and it still ran like ass.

A unified console is simply not going to happen, because gamers like variety and they need someone to yell at on boards like this! I would love to see the term "console war" die out, though.

As an aside, I think that market share and sales numbers are far overused in the tech industry, as no other industry really bases so much of their resources on market share.

Game companies should try to build the best game console out there, not try to appeal to everyone and just base every move on the assumption that they are going to win the console war. Focus on quality first, marketability second, and people will buy your products.

Most of the DVD comparisons here are off base.

DVD is an individual platform for watching video, just like each game console is an individual platform for playing videogames. Many competing platforms exist for watching video: VHS, Blu-Ray, broadcast, direct download, streaming services, HD-DVD, and so on. Right now, there are only really 3 competing videogame platforms, and they are (comparatively) neck-and-neck, while DVD is the (current) overall champion of video platforms, but just because it is the most prominent of the platforms doesn't mean it's the only one.

To say "standardization works for DVDs!" is true, but the true analogy to games would be like this: "standardization works for the PS3!"

I'll just say this. I agree with Dyack that a single platform is inevitable as costs continue to rise for third party developers. However, the consumer loses.

At this point, the sale of powerful consoles is at a financial loss for the producer of said consoles (obviously Sony and Microsoft). This is because the high-end market is highly competitive and they must therefore operate at a loss in order to compete. Which is to say, the consumer wins.

However, if you are looking at the production of a single platform, there is no incentive for a hardware producer to operate at a loss, let alone to break even.

Sorry to say it, but that is an asinine statement. The global economy thrives off of competition. The market competition has never been so even (if you only consider the nex-gen consoles - Wii, 360, and PS3). Ultimately, it boils down to what consumers want, and they don't want one unified console. Consumers want choice. Developers have no choice but to accommodate and make do-- as they have for decades.

we already have that [PC],sorry i'll pass

If EA and Microsoft went together and made a unified system, people could remake that system if they wanted by building there own PC. You may think otherwise, but the 360 is just a PC with a Console operating system on it. You can pick up those parts, or parts that do identical processes from any place that sells PC parts. The PS3 has a special CPU going for it, but it’s GPU is off the shelf stuff. Same thing with the Wii’s GPU, ATI and nVidia standard chips.

Now this PC-Console could use open standard stuff, like USB ports for controllers, and standard Wi-Fi for the internet, MS could even sell there own operating system that you installed on it, with DirectX. You could essentially just “Boot” up to your MS, Sony or Nintendo profile, and use there system from there. Nintendo could even bundle there Software pack with special controllers if they wanted. After all, if you wanted to play that Mario you need to buy the Nintendo software pack, might as well get the controller as well.

The profit would no longer be from selling the console, as anyone could produce that, but selling you the software pack to play there games.

Competition on the hardware side would come from people like AMD, Intel, nVidia and ATI, who would all strive to make the best performing, cheapest produced console. There would be a min-required spec for these consoles to work on, approved by EA, MS, Nintendo and whomever, but once you got that stamp, it would be clear that yes, this generic console could play the standard games. But diversion would come in form of bigger hard drives, quieter CPU fans, less power consuming chips, smaller consoles, much like the DVD marked, and former VHS marked was. You could even have bundles, where you can buy the MS labelled console for 100$ less, since it includes the software pack. But with no restriction from installing the Nintendo pack.

The PC world is doing this today, steam, game-tap, GFW, all systems you have on top of your normal PC to run games you buy from the preferred publisher. I don’t see the reason to buy CPU power 3 times over (PS3, Wii and Xbox360) when you can only use 1 of them at a time. Process power is dormant, have one core, open for all to make, run all games.

A couple of ideas:

1. Competing consoles have already been becoming more and more comparable in terms of capabilities. And PC developers have been paying attention to scalability for quite some time. I wouldn't be surprised to see development tools get to a point where porting is a trivial matter of recompiling (with very fast new build processes) and swapping button icons. The work involved in porting would be so miniscule that there would be no reason for any third party developer to NOT release every single one of their games onto every system available. Since porting would be so cheap, "buying" an exclusive to become prohibitively expensive for console manufacturers. The only differences in game selections would be internal first party titles. Even second party would likely die out. This would give the same effect of multiple consoles, but without any of the hardware manufacturers having to swallow their pride and formally agree on a standard format.

We've already been moving in that direction for decades now, and I think we're nearly there.

2. I can see PCs spawning an offshot that would, quite literally, BE the unified game comsole. Right now, there are people here saying, "Open platform for games? You're talking about the PC! That's true, but the fact is, there are still plenty of other significant differences between PC gaming and console gaming. They can be summed up as: PC's just aren't designed for living room use.

PC's have already been spawning Media PCs. I can see those improving to a point where they would actually be worthwhile. Just add gaming to that, and boom, there's the standard PC Game Console providing the best of both worlds between PCs and game consoles: The living room suitability and ease of use of game consoles, and the openness of a PC.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School)

I would not say the 360 is strong compared to the PC, the multi cores are under utilized, a OS dose take up as much power as the 360 loses,all in all you can get the same performance with a 300$ computer, the same can be said for the PS3.

All in all the PS3 and 360 are equals to the...oh fck it your right....gamings gone console centric ><

LOL

you are so right abotu nin, frankly wants the worst a universal console would do it would halve hardware/software cost/price and make the platform run for about 5-10 years, in comparesion to 3-6, it would also remove the console maker ban hammer for AO games there are good points to a uni setup, we've already hit stagnation as far as I am concerned the mdoeren game industry is all about putting 30$ of effort into a 60$ game and soem of the projects make hollywood flops look good even tho the game sold better 0-o.