Capcom: Multiple platforms 'segment' multiplayer market
by Jason Dobson 
{ May 29th 2008 at 1:00AM }
"In an ideal world all the back ends would talk to each other so people could compete together and play together," commented Capcom USA development director Adam Boyes, who added that having multiple gaming platforms "segments the market for multiplayer." While we can see his point, particularly given Capcom's recent interest in taking its console games online, we still can't shake the notion that gamers are better off having multiple platforms competing to help spur innovation -- but don't let us speak for you. Do you like having multiple platforms, or would you rather have a single one for all your gaming wants and needs?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Smoke_Dawg_187 @ May 29th 2008 1:08AM
Multi-consoles FTW!
If you want a unified platform use the PC.
Wasn't there something called the Phantom that was supposed to be like this?
What about if the software companies come together and design their own console. Wasn't EA trying to do this?
äsdf @ May 29th 2008 1:10AM
In a perfect world, only one console would be necessary.
Unfortunately, we all know our gaming world is far from perfect. Why the hell do I need to buy a Xbox 360 and a PS3 to play their games when the damn things are so similar? The Wii has justified the meaning of it's existence, but the X360 and PS3 as separate machines just pisses me right off.
eNrique @ May 29th 2008 1:58PM
i think we are so far away from this, sadly, since most of games, are like, wanted to be exclusive ones, or with special dlc, i think i will stick to my 4 consoles buffet
amazo @ May 29th 2008 1:12AM
i dont think he wants a single platform. I think he wants all the multi-platforms to be able to talk to each other (so your last question in the post is a bit misleading). I dont see how having COD4 on ps3 and 360 playing with each other hinders innovation. In fact, I wish they could. I don't believe that doing this is impossible with todays technology. I just believe that it's impossible due to stubborness and pride (of sony and MS, not just the fanboys).
jaybird1905 @ May 29th 2008 9:59AM
My thoughts exactly.
He wasn't saying one console at all ... he was saying build something behind-the-scenes that translates to all platforms for networking purposes.
As for now it's all proprietary and will probably remain so unless someone creates a service for console companies to easily package their networking functionality for cross-platform interaction.
Matt @ May 29th 2008 1:14AM
The article was about cross-platform, not a unified platform.
So imagine your PC, 360, and PS3 all playing together on the same servers with no distinction between them.
If you have each platform playing only with people on the same platform, you're creating smaller fragmented communities, and without exception, a larger community means bigger sales and more online activity for the game. It's a win-win for both publisher and gamer.
Anticrawl @ May 29th 2008 1:14AM
Yes lets remove capitalism and the free market in exchange for a utopian world. Brilliant, lets remove all thought and copetition from the world so companeis don't have to work so hard!
Oh my god, I can see it all now, 1984 & Maniac Magee here we come!
Anticrawl @ May 29th 2008 1:15AM
I can't respect any company that whines about competition making them have to spend more money, innovate and work at alle.
jaybird1905 @ May 29th 2008 10:29AM
They're not whining about competition. They're whining about writing network code for 3 different platforms (4 including PS2) because Microsoft and Sony will never give up their own network code and chance to boast about anything (including their AWESOME NETWORKING compared to "insert console name here")
Geist @ May 29th 2008 1:31AM
Shadowrun tried this, to an extent. If I remember correctly there was a lot of bitching from both sides, either because controls were hideously gimped (PC users) or because things felt too unbalanced towards the PC users (X360 users).
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 29th 2008 3:35AM
Or maybe it was just because the game cross-platform sucked.
Geist @ May 29th 2008 11:35AM
You make an intriguing point, I have to concur.
Also, 'cross-platform sucked' is a term I must use more often.
thegsaw @ May 29th 2008 1:34AM
Multiple platforms are just fine. Playing GTA IV with my roommate who has a ps3 when I have a 360 would just be hellatite. That would be better than a one-console future, IMO
SonicRift @ May 29th 2008 1:36AM
More of my friends have 360, and I used to say I liked it better, but the PS3 does have fewer kids half my age calling me... well... you know. Hate the extra hoops you've gotta jump through on PS3 to do anything, but at least I don't hear stuff... A UT3 pelvic thrust is good enough for me.
And even when I was their age playing Jedi Knight or Quake II or whatever, I didn't derive pleasure from that sort of behavior... I guess typing was harder. It was for strategizing, period. I don't get it... I guess I have too much class...
Back to what I was... yeah... I have one set of friends telling me I have to get COD4 on 360, and another telling me to get it on PS3. I want to play with all of them, but the day I buy a game twice... So this has been going on since November I guess, at least on the 360 side, and I still don't have it. But I want it. But I refuse to decide.
Abscissa @ May 29th 2008 1:37AM
I want a DVD player that only plays a third of all the movies on the market. That way I would have to buy three different DVD players before I could watch my entire movie collection. Thank goodness the video game industry was forward-thinking enough to make my dreams of incompatibility a reality.
Besides, everyone knows that having a standard platform completely destroys competition and innovation. For example, did you know that not a single feature has ever been added to DVD players since the very first one? Things like progressive-scan, component/HDMI-output, upscaling, MP3/DIVX playback, memory card image viewing, and record-directly-to-DVDR? All of those features have always been in DVD players! Really! Even the very first ones! They all had every single one of those. Yup. Sure did.
Courtney @ May 29th 2008 3:29AM
Unfortunately, you're comparing the apples and...errr...dvd players to gaming consoles. Competition in video players still exists, dozens of companies make DVD players, each competing for the same pool of consumers. Imagine if only a single company produced all DVD players, do you still think there would have been as many price drops or improvements in DVD players over the years?
Unfortunately, the same model would be unfeasible for gaming. If a dozen companies all produced the "same" game console, you would inevitably end up with minor changes in hardware as each company tried to reduce cost or add features to convince consumers to buy their game console. If you mandated that each console be identical, what's the attraction for a manufacturer to make one if it can't differentiate it's product? After a few years, those minor changes would end up adding up to changes that were significant that not all games would run on all consoles, and we would end up back where we are through the power of market forces.
Abscissa @ May 29th 2008 3:11PM
I think the reasoning behind your argument against the feasibility of the current DVD model being applied to videogames is flawed:
As the DVD model already indicates, there's nothing about the idea of a standard that prohibits extra features. DVD Video *IS* a standard. Your argument seems to assume (if not outright state) that "standard" implies "they all must be identical - no extra features". But you can still get a DVD player with or without certain extras. So clearly this isn't the case. A standard *can* prohibit extra features if that's what the creators of the standard want (buy why would they?), but a standard can also be drafted to merely provide a certain minimum plus a common mechanism for expandability.
When you start seeing the same extra feature implemented different ways (even though it's through the standardized expansion interface): First of all, that's a condition that really only affects the media creators (in this case, the game developers). Secondly, when that that scenario occurs, that's when you draft v2 of the spec, ie the next generation.
While the new spec, ie new generation, is being drafted, the hardware manufacturers say "You know what? Console sales have started dropping. As long as we're updating the spec, let's kill two birds with one stone and add these other new features to get people buying consoles again."
Or, it could go the other way around, they decide that declining console sales indicate a need for a new features/new version of the spec, and while they do it, they standardize the existing extras. They do that because by this point, they all have their own version of the same extra anyway - so standardizing it doesn't take away their competitiveness on that particular feature (since they all have their own version of it by that point). Instead, it just makes life easier for the content creators (game developers), which in turn is good for both console manufacturers and gamers.
So you *don't* end up with the little changes adding up and segmenting the standard into separate incompatible platforms. In fact, the PC is proof of this: Johnny A has an ATI card and an Intel CPU, Johnny B has an NVidia card and an AMD CPU, but they can both buy the same version of the same game and run it on their own systems.
Of course, someone might read that above paragraph and say "Yea, but PC gaming is dying!" Maybe, but even if that's the case, it's due primarily to reasons that stem from the PC 1. being a general-purpose computing device rather than a dedicated gaming machine and 2. being totally open to all developers (this is part of where the DRM issue comes in).
True, it can be very difficult for PC game developers to deal with variances in hardware. But the only reason that problem exists in the first place is because the people writing the drivers for companies like ATI, NVidia, Intel, etc, have been shitting all over the DirectX and OpenGL interface standards (ex: making the driver lie about the device's capabilities), and for some bizarre reason, nobody has been enforcing those particular standards.
SonicRift @ May 29th 2008 1:41AM
Ehhhhh... I'm posting twice in a row, but this one is more relevant...
The day we have a single console is the day innovation stops. Why add more features if there's no other guy doing the same? Why lower the price of hardware after launch? Why make new hardware? Why NOT make new hardware?! Marginal improvements every year, and oh, if you don't have this years model, you can't play new games. Just... Something to think about. A single console would be bad for the consumer, ultimately. I miss the era of there only being 2 relevant consoles, though. Good times!
gamerprophet @ May 29th 2008 3:01AM
What Nintendo and Sega?
ScallionN @ May 29th 2008 1:51AM
In a perfect world, Capcom would make a game that wouldn't spawn 5,000 rehashes and remakes within a year's time. How long did it take you to run Viewtiful Joe into the ground again, CP?
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 29th 2008 2:00AM
Honestly, a big part of the reason I play my multiplayer on PS3 is to get away from the type of player who plays on 360. I am an Xbox Live Gold member, but rarely would I dare play against anyone who isn't on my friends list. I used to, but I got tired of seeing the greater internet fuckwad theory proved out over and over.
So I guess on the whole, I'm against merging all the online play across platforms, at least for now.
Ridgecity @ May 29th 2008 2:03AM
I've yet to see innovation in Online multiplayer in years. If it isn't WoW, it's capture the flag or deathmatches.
And that idea will keep being what it is. a dream... why? not because manufacturers, but software houses... they could easily go beyond what Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo offer create a online engine, similar to what the unreal engine is to FPS...
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 29th 2008 2:07AM
I guess you mean in FPSes. Because Burnout:Paradise just made the biggest advance in the start of the art of online play since Marathon 2 (or Halo 1 for those of you who missed Marathon 2).
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 29th 2008 2:05AM
Oh, I forgot to cover the 1-console future it seems. Forget it. It only exists in Dyack's head.
A 1-console future looks great to software developers because they make more money that way. But to hardware developers, it doesn't offer them any chance to make money, and that's the problem.
The reason we have more than one console right now is because each hardware company entering after the first thought they could make money by entering the market with a new console. As long as that holds true, we'll continue to see hardware companies releasing consoles.
mundox @ May 29th 2008 2:07AM
PCs should be the only gaming platform available.
ScottyGEE @ May 29th 2008 2:10AM
Its an orsm concept, one that would never work out.
That doesn't stop the fact that I'd like to be able to play GTA with all friends...Or send game invites from Halo 3 to a ps3 user =p
ScottyGEE @ May 29th 2008 2:11AM
Haha, re-read the article
[/douche]
Unified console ftl. I thought it meant one online destination =)
Casper32 @ May 29th 2008 2:21AM
A single console future = fail
A single console online experiance can either be along the same lines, or could turn out to be a new form of competition between consoles.
Interesting regardless.
AtomicPlayboy @ May 29th 2008 2:24AM
I actually pray that this segmentation remains. The griefers, hackers, and general misfits are bad enough on the PC; if I also had to play with the XBL 'tards it would ruin multiplayer completely.
chez @ May 29th 2008 3:05AM
I hope this is just some additional feature and not the main attraction. Cross platform gaming is where we should be going but don't tell us about that feature before any gameplay stuff. Else it's going to be shit. And we all know that.
gamerprophet @ May 29th 2008 3:06AM
One console: high prices
One online system: endless rehashes
Having to deal with Sony bugs in cross platform multi player: unbearable
Hiroken @ May 29th 2008 3:07AM
Why is this even a question? I cannot count the amount of precedents history gives us for this.
Ask the general consumer: How many operating systems are there? Most people will say, "What's an operating system". This is because WINDOWS has monopolized the OS market. Only now are they even beginning to attempt to innovate, and only because Apple is playing catch-up.
A monopoly catalyzes laziness which cauterizes innovation, competition, and at the sake of spouting rhetoric, freedom, and WILL eventually begin taking advantage of the people/consumer/ape/whatever. This is why we have (read: attempt) a democracy instead of a monarchy or a theocracy.
History gives answers, if only we open our ears.
~
whistlepig @ May 29th 2008 5:46AM
yea monopoly companies suck .. around here only high speed cable you can get is comcast ,if you want dsl its verizon . so they can bascially charge what they want because they know there is not another choice
Abscissa @ May 29th 2008 2:23PM
Flawed metaphor. Windows is a platform that's only made by one company.
rip @ May 29th 2008 3:18AM
The blame here lies with the game publishers.
If Capcom is so interested in everyone gaming online together, they should just run their own servers. All 3 consoles, afaik, use standard internet protocols. Along with both Mac and PC. I suppose Microsoft might be partly to blame, if they force everyone to use xbox live. Sony might be guilty of this too, though my understanding is that they are less strict about only Sony hosting.
Microsoft is definitely to blame for pushing activex networking on the PC, and not developing it for other platforms, which completely locks out Mac versions of the same game online.
But again, it is ultimately the laziness of the developer causing a balkanized online experience.
If Capcom wants to see how it is done right, just looks at Blizzard. Mac, PC, doesn't matter, it all works online together. Which is how it should be.
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 29th 2008 3:40AM
It's not just the laziness of the developer. Criterion Games had the 360 and PS3 versions of Burnout:Paradise playing against one another during development, but they had to turn that off before release because M$ doesn't allow it. They said this in their podcast.
In short, M$ won't let you play against any opponents except Live and Live for PC players. Although I think they suspend this for MMOs.
They didn't say whether Sony allows it, it was a moot point at the time since there were only two versions of the game at the time. Now that there is a PC version, maybe we'll find out if Sony allows PS3 players to play against PC players or not.
Wii60Warrior @ May 29th 2008 7:50AM
Please like I want to play with the arrogant assholes on PSN...
Live isn't perfect but MS can't control the type of people who play on Live and if you don't like what you hear or see then just press that lil Mute button.
It works for me. As a minority I haven't doubted that racism is still alive in the US but when you get on Live (and I bet this occurs even on LS2's precious ps3) you realize just how strong it is in some people.
I don't need that in my life. So I play with my friends and I play with random people who I deem to be normal. It doesn't take long for racist/ignorant people to reveal themselves online.
NATO_Duke @ May 29th 2008 10:28AM
I'm sorry - but you are calling people ignorant with your rampant flaming and personal comments made with no basis...you have to be f*cking kidding me.
Example - you just called people on PSN arrogant assholes. How would you know? How can you clump them all together like that? They are arrogant just because they own a console that you don't like? That's just stupid.
Damn dude, I love my 360 and all, but not enough to act like you. You're just a tool.
NATO_Duke @ May 29th 2008 11:33AM
Yeah, I was a little harsh there. Now I feel bad.
MandeBooks @ May 29th 2008 7:56AM
love the use of the istockphoto artwork...
XIII @ May 29th 2008 8:31AM
Though I feel that cross-platform gaming will eventually hit, i also feel that there needs to be a move to have a unified console, in addition to PC's. With the current generation on consoles, eacy system has its pluses and minuses, but when you start to look ahead to what the next generation will hold, there isn't a real logical reason to have separate systems.
With Blu-Ray being the HD format of choice, and the 360's succesor more than likely needing to make the jump into a more exampasive storage medium, even at the baseline a licensing agreement with Sony and Microsoft would need to be made. Of course, with the digital downloads also becoming more prevalent, not having any external media is an option, but then there would have to be only one SKU version of a console that would need to have a massive internal harddrive to support a game library of not only large file sizes, but of multiple games. If games are being made to be 10GB-30GB, just think hhow much storage would be needed to hold more than 5 games, which is an average number one person owns at a time (though I am sure a lot of gamers have upwards of 10 or 20 games).
If Microsoft and Sony were to form a partnership and combine resources and strengths, this wouldn't necessarily be seen as a monopoly, but as a way to reduce costs and actually provide game developers with a single platform instead of having to split their costs to develop a game twice. With EA buying out so many developers at the moment, it pretty much shows that gaming companies cannot sustain themselves and publish games on this current systems.
Picture this, a system that utilizes the Xbox Live service, the 360 controller with added motion sensing peripherals, the Sony node system for network connectivity and processing sharing as well as the Blu-Ray, and you have a pretty interesting new console that would also give game companies a unified platform to develop for.
Havok @ May 29th 2008 8:56AM
I think that if we cant play cross platform online that atleast the first step would be to post the high scores for shared network games from both platforms for competition. And also there should be an option to rate players online publicly. like giving others a simple thumbs up or down and the more thumbs down a player gets they get marked with a rep that all can see and you could set up a game room that you need a certain gamer rep to enter. also the thumbs up would be like cool points for your avatar. This would deter people like kids and racists and obnoxious people from bad behaviour a little atleast.
Roddie @ May 29th 2008 9:23AM
Wonderful choice of image BTW.
22r @ May 29th 2008 9:38AM
Final Fantasy XI did cross platform over 3 platforms. PC, PS2, and 360. And you can also load up the game on PS3. So I don't see why this isn't possible as long as you have a central server that all the different platforms are connecting to and can understand and relay the information correctly.
But I think Capcom is thinking about player hosted games, not dedicated servers. Then the problem becomes stickier.
Korova @ May 29th 2008 10:29AM
I dont see why the online component of games could not be handled by a third party organization that is some sort of industry group. Like stock markets handle trades for many trading houses.
The game industry can create a backbone with a standard and each platform can plug into it. Publishers will be ecstatic and COMPETITION between platforms WOULD only INCREASE. Each platform would want to have a technical advantage for online.
Or everyone can get an ecsboks for online and be done with it.
NATO_Duke @ May 29th 2008 10:30AM
perfect to me would be multiple consoles that could cross communicate for MP play. That way people are boxed in to one unit, and the market will fight to compete. Its the best way for us to all win I think, and still will allow for some exclusives to certain consoles while making the multiplatform games a lot more fun to play.
Vcize @ May 29th 2008 10:32AM
While Wii60Warrior goes about it all wrong (there are no fewer pricks on PSN than there are on Live), I believe he's on the right track.
Each company needs to be able to control their own userbase, even if they're doing a poor job at it presently. If I'm playing on a 360 and a PSN user is a racist jackass, I can't report them, etc.
Plus, you really have to look at the different features through different companies. Part of the ease of use with Live is that everyone has the same setup. The same friends list, the same ability to receive messages, the same ability to receive cross-game invites. I don't want to be playing with someone only to find out I can't send them a message because they can't read it when they're in this other game, or find out I can't invite them to a game, etc. It would be frustrating to no end sending out messages/invites and not knowing if the person can read them in their present state because they could be on a PS3 or 360.
This will only get more complicated when Home (eventually) releases and the same thing will go back the other way.
Plus there's the fact that each console makes certain types of games easier to play (and this difference could be even greater in future generations). They already discourage kb/mouse use on consoles as it takes away the level playing field. Do I really want to be playing a fighting game on my 360 going up against someone with a DS3 that actually has a worthwhile d-pad? Do I really want to be playing a shooter on my PS3 going up against someone that's using a 360 controller?
It's a neat idea, but not really all that plausible or all that necessary. The communities are plenty big on each console independently, it's not like we're struggling to find people to play with here.
Vcize @ May 29th 2008 10:33AM
Whoops, that should have read "there are no fewer pricks on Live than there are on PSN".
Either way, the point is I haven't noticed fewer dirtbags in either community.
Slayve @ May 29th 2008 12:29PM
You completely misunderstood the Capcom guy's comment. He wasn't talking about a single console, he was talking about enabling cross-platform multiplayer to prevent the mp market from being fragmented. For a game like CoD4, there are enough people playing on all platforms so everyone can find populated servers. With smaller games, though, like Frontlines or Team Fortress 2, having two small communities instead of combining them does a disservice to both the game and the gamers who play it. I can't see why either Sony or Microsoft would actually enable devs to create cross-platform mp, but it would certainly help the longevity of niche games.
Joeshie @ May 29th 2008 1:33PM
The idea is nice in theory, but it does have problems, especially when you try to cross between PC and console.
As someone who played Shadowrun on PC, using LIVE on the PC was a terrible experience that no PC user should ever have to live through.