A senior exec at Electronic Arts envisions a time where there is a single all-encompassing gaming platform that one analyst predicts will be "basically a boiled-down PC."
It would be a publisher's dream to only have to create games for only one system, while still reaching the entire gaming audience, saving countless hours and dollars.
"We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible," said Gerhard Florin, EA executive VP and general manager of international publishing.
"We're platform agnostic and we definitely don't want to have one platform which is a walled garden," he told the BBC.
But EA's dream is a ways off, with Florin estimating that it'll be another 15 years before the industry moves beyond the dedicated console model.
Florin thinks that the one-platform model would involve server-based software that's streamed to PCs or set-top boxes.
Analyst Nick Parker brought up the point that even though creating games for multiple platforms isn't exactly efficient compared to a one-platform model, it's today's competition between console makers that drives technology forward.
He elaborated on his expectations of a one-platform future. "There could be a Nintendo channel, a PlayStation channel and an Xbox channel on your set-top box.
"...Gaming will just require potentially a £49.99 box from Tesco made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection and a games engine inside.
That sounds like a terrible idea. Gaming is still new, there's still much exploration to be done before we start saying "This is what a games machine has to be".
I got a bit of a rant on in my blog about it, but the bottom line is really this:
No competition means nothing to drive down prices and nothing to inspire product innovation. And nobody benefits from it other than hardware and software developers.
Big surprise that good old Evil Assholes (do I mean Electronic Arts? I prefer mine) want something that means less work and more profit.
No thanks EA. I want choice, just like I have a choice as to what make and model DVD player I want. I think its just EA's dream of being lazy rather than making games for every console released under the sun like they currently do.
what did I say?....tell ya next gen EA and MS hook up make traditional console EA only supporting MS made unit taking all it's developers with it. Gen after all online service.
And we all drive one make of car, watch one tv program wear the same clothes as each other, eat the same food, keep regurgitating the same old crap games year after year all the while just changing the number at the end .....oh wait
This is the future of computing, what could be simpler than this? A cheap set top box that connects you to a far more powerfull computer, no need to upgrade, to decide what works with what, no more expensive distribution of bulky componnents and media (enviromentally friendly), only pay for the services you use.
The downside though is Microsoft will probably make the OS, unless Apple can beat them to it(fingers crossed).
Without wishing to sound like a deranged conspiratist but what with the recent purchase of two "AAA" dev's by EA and job-shuffling by a certain top-management MS exec to EA, and now with EA explaining their vision for the future, sure does sound like Bill's as well to me!
If EA & MS do get together (including all the encompassing devs!) then I'm sure it will be a MAJOR powerhouse but where does that leave the others? Nintendo - will always survive, genuine fun & gaming company (not bottomd about cutting edge tech!), but Sony will have BIG problems!
tony b .... thank god someone is thinking here... i said all this the other day. I think there is a really good chance that EA and MS are going to try and squeeze sony and nintendo out come next gen. Hardware sells on its software. If the hardware manufacturer and the biggest software manufacturer buy major developers and even if the employees jump ship they still have the brands which to the general public is what matters they have an amazingly strong position.When i was at EA the CEO came and spoke to us one day... boasted "we have enough money to buy everyone in the business"...
Agreed juniorB...i really do think that erasing the opposition through buy-outs & exclusives may well be the strategy even though an expensive one but potentially massively profitable!...the front-line money's there in buckets...the only question is can Sony & to a lesser extent Nintendo survive with sales (only) in their homeland exclusively?
If the "industry" can't come to an agreement on an HD format, how will they do so with this? And there will still be multiple versions from different manufacturers, so it won't be any easier for the consumer to decide what one to get.
As long as whichever company comes up with this 'One-Console-To-Rule-Them-All' licenses it's hardware out to other manufacturers, and they all stick to an agreed general set of specifications (In much the same way all of the other media hardware markets work) this would be an amazing solution.
The only real losers in the deal would be the rabid console fanboys...
yep think you're right Tony. You say to yourself why didn't EA hook up with Sony... the traditional market leader? well EA do notoriously bad in Japan and so do MS. EA are a typical patriotic US company they think the US is the centre of the universe as i'm sure MS do too.I also think MS lack the software developing expertise of Sony and EA certainly are experts (liked or not). I really think having those two companies together could massively impact Sony and Nintendo in the West. Sony I think could be heading into a more "home hub" area bringing in other products of theirs... games i think will start to become secondary to them especially if Europe and US start to go pear shaped.
It does sound lousy to me but, if it was one machine and any developer could make games for it then maybe it could work. Many in here instantly claim it would be an EA/MS plan but that is just speculation. Granted EA and MS are the only two who could afford to pull it off. They did say that it would support all types of games from all publishers. Sony has shot themselves in the foot this gen and if they could just make games for somebody elses machine they could probably turn a profit pretty quickly. The same could have been said for Nintendo but they don't give their hardware away and are actually cleaning house on the Wii so they would be reluctant to a change. Now if MS was involved in the machine would Sony be allowed to put games on it? If it was just a machine dominated by EA then I wouldn't even consider it. When you look at the console business the way MS and Sony do it you have to wonder why anyone would want to build one of these things. Could you imagine telling your spouse you're going to start a business that will lose money in heaps for the next 5 to 10 years before it "becomes" profitable? I think it is best the way it is right now. You make a machine with good games and a good online service and people will buy it. You make a machine with no games and cram an unproven DVD technology down their throats, tell them to get a second job in order to afford it and people won't buy it. Let the market decide.
As long as whichever company comes up with this 'One-Console-To-Rule-Them-All' licenses it's hardware out to other manufacturers, and they all stick to an agreed general set of specifications (In much the same way all of the other media hardware markets work) this would be an amazing solution.
The only real losers in the deal would be the rabid console fanboys...
But you are ignoring the fact that you are comparing it to passive media. It is a damn site easier to create a single specification system when there is very little interaction. But as someone said before currently consoles and gaming have yet to reach fruition. It is a growing market that has yet to find its feet. I think competition will result in innovation which could eventually lead to a more unified approach. Currently the PC already holds some of these qualities and gives us examples of some of the difficulties that may be involved.
People always like the idea of being able to choose what system they like, each has their own individual attributes etc that people can familiarise themselves with and make their own decisions. Look at your computer's OS, most people on here (myself included) will be using Windows, however a fair proportion will be using a Linux or Apple OS. Despite the fact that every OS essentially does the same thing, generally in a similar manner, having a choice gives consumers the chance to make their own decisions rather than being told "this is what you have to buy if you want a working computer" Its the exact same thing in the videogame market, if there was only one console people who didn't like it, for whatever reason, would have nothing else they could play on and would therefore not actually play games. It'd pretty much kill the market unless it was done so well that only a very tiny percentage of the market would be put off buying it.
Its the exact same thing in the videogame market, if there was only one console people who didn't like it, for whatever reason, would have nothing else they could play on and would therefore not actually play games. It'd pretty much kill the market unless it was done so well that only a very tiny percentage of the market would be put off buying it.
I agree with you about having choice, but who wouldn't like the gaming system that plays every single game made?
The real question in this all is simply cost. If there is a monopoly on gaming, then they can more or less set there own prices. I'm pretty sure this is illegal to do, but people will always find a way.
It will happen, maybe not anytime soon, and maybe not without initial competion, but as with film VHS pounded betamax in to the ground and we had VHS as a single format, then DVD came along trouncing VCD and the like, so there is a definate precident for this fledgling artform.
I have heard other games companies saying that they dream of just one format before.
Their dream is my nightmare. Think about the PS1, the N64 and the Dreamcast. Although some games were multi-format, quite a lot of games were exclusive to each console. Each console had a distinctive 'personality'. The PC has no personality- there is no one unified PC. I suspect there would actually end up being no one unified console- instead there would be bargain basement 'PCs in a box' and high end 'PCs in a box' that would be able to run each game to different specifiactions.
We'd all become PC players essentially. I have no doubt that creativity would suffer because the console wars have driven changes in technology and changes in gaming ideas. Someone like Miyamoto would cease to have a meaningful impact at large- he would be regarded as just a niche part of gaming on one large unified console.
seriously these computers are goner more and more powerful and intelligent.
Advertising. Its going to be everywhere. it started already for EA games. Your going to be told What to eat , drink, other Advertising with EA in partnership with other company's.
It's goner happen EA and Microsoft i mean. Its all part of the bigger plan by the top media company's.
It wouldn't surprise me if the HD/Blue ray is one big plot to fool us thinking we have a choice. Then low and behold the company's that have stakes in all the media formats anyway announce ONE format. And everyone takes it because they think having one choice one media player is the answer.
Too many EA/Microsoft haters here who have no idea what their talking about, this issue has been doing the rounds for the last 20+ years, and we're no closer to a solution. When internet access is as fast as accesing your CPU or graphics card, then what will be the point in having a physical computer at home that you need to upgrade? When you'll remotly access all your software and files using a simple interface box, one with a unified operating system.
I'm surprised Sony and Microsoft aren't all over it, as it seems to offer them the only reliable form of protection for their copywrites.
I have a couple of issues with this, not saying that its a completely bad idea, but there are some concerns I have. A big one is the upgrading, because if upgrading the machines stops then games will become trapped at a certain point limiting development once developers get the best they can out of it. Even if internet acces becomes super fast you still need a decent box at your end to generate the end output, what come's out of the internet is just 1's and 0's, so you still need memory, a cpu and graphics and sound chipsets to make that into something meaningful.
Another is the production cost versus the shelf price, Ł49.99 is a low amount, selling a machine for that price at profit would mean that, for example, in this generation (right now) we'd be getting the PS1 and N64, so we'd be two console generations behind. The Wii is the only current gen console sold at a profit and its still more than three times that price. A more realistic price would probably be around Ł200-300 (maybe less for a really cheap and tatty one).
Then there is the issue that if the boxes are released in cycles like the current consoles it will cause confusion, I know plenty of people who got confused between the PS1 and the PS2, it was all just Playstation to them and they didn't understand why PS2 games didn't work on their older ones. You could end up with people not knowing why games don't work on their Toshiba VG Player 5716 and not knowing that they needed a Toshiba VG Player 5726 to play a game.
So, in conclusion, while a single platform would be great because it would mean that everyone could get every game without haveing the big investment of buying three consoles, but we are quite a long way from that at the moment.
he basically saying look, in a few years time ea will have their own box out for playing games, it will be like a set top box/dvd player and will play anything, sell for cheap and kill off consoles as we know them.
It will finally allow great games to be owned by all, and stop hardware flame wars from errupting ever again, its a bit like dvd players, people dont have different dvd players that only play certain films, a dvd player will play any dvd coded to that region, why not with have the same thing with games.
What with sony cutting r&d back to nothing for future consoles, selling off their chip making factories to toshiba, what with MS not making any real money with xbox brand yet, and nintendo interested in expanding the market with mini game collections, 10 years time would be right for a one box solution to gaming.
Just think instead of spending 20 million on one game to be made across 8 platforms, all of which are different and require different code to be written, one game costing 20 million made for just one platform (the quality would have to better than it is now)
The concept is that the set-top box only displays the picture, you remotely access a super computer somewhere else, and use it to process your game/software. (Think using a PSP to remotly access your PS3, the PS3 process the game and the PSP displays the picture and sound).
Compitition will keep going, companies like EA, Ubisoft, Sony and Microsoft will want you to subscibe to their games.
At the moment the current business model benefits the hardware manufacturer, but this model would benefit the software companies.
apart from the fact that each new console is so expensive i like the choice of different consoles and different game companies can get better results out of there respective choice of platform i dont have any particular favorite console but i will give nintendo there props for what they can come up with long may the console wars continue
If software companies didn't have to split up their resources to make five different versions of the same game, they could make more games, of a better quallity, and do so faster. And if they were involved from the start in deciding what goes into the console they would have less trouble getting to grips with all the new tech.
I think this is the future too. It will probably take longer to reach but at some point, the hardware will become irrelevant. At the moment, the hardware is a barrier for the game industry. Imagine, if you needed a different TV to watch different channel. Yes, it is the same (interaction or not). Obviously, you might still need to buy different peripheral to play different games.
Fanboys will cry out loud that this is BS and it will stop creativity but they just don't know what they are talking about. The creativity is coming from dev and not from hardware manufacturer. Games are everything.
What about the wiimote? You might ask. Well, just a peripheral.
I believe the developers have a choice to make their games for every platform, if EA thinks its inefficient to develop for every platform then they don't have to duh. They need to stop bitching like they aren't make any money developing for all platforms.
I'm sure Madden made them enough money this year. A unified platform would be a silly idea. I think he's referring to it in the way Panasonic did it with the 3DO. With the 3DO you could get a Panasonic or Goldstar model.
If we had one model of console made by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo I really don't think that would work out. Prices would pretty much be the same and most would go for whatever one was cheapest or had a feature above the other.
I have a feeling if this happened though fanboys would still bicker.
I'm sure Madden made them enough money this year. A unified platform would be a silly idea. I think he's referring to it in the way Panasonic did it with the 3DO. With the 3DO you could get a Panasonic or Goldstar model.
If we had one model of console made by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo I really don't think that would work out. Prices would pretty much be the same and most would go for whatever one was cheapest or had a feature above the other.
I have a feeling if this happened though fanboys would still bicker.
Yea, EA's trip hawkins and the 3D0 company - as my memory serves me from an article in a retro edition of Edge, they created the hardware, then allowed a bunch of electrical manufacturers to make their own versions of the console but with the same chipset/engine under the hood, then Goldstar, Panasonic and I think a couple of others released various slightly different looking consoles that all played the same thing.
I think the only differences were that there were higher end models - with more connections out, i.e. component out etc...
But I think it was too expensive and the hardware wasn't impressive enough, by the time it was out, everyone was waiting for the 'next gen' consoles in the shape of the Saturn, the 'Ultra 64' and the 'PSX' - then they released mock up shots of the 3DO 2 but interest had wained, by that time.
Interesting fact I remember from the feature: it is called 3DO because he wanted it to be associated with the other 2 forms of entertainment, audio and video, so it would sit alongside them, audio, video, 3do.
How can having one standardised plaform create a monopoly? All it does is provide a common infrastructure for the Dev Teams to work on - which is surely a good idea.
All this "it creates a monopoly" ranting is b******s. As is the comment about driving the same type of car; or wearing the same pants as everyone else.
I drive a Honda CR-V; there's a good chance you don't. But if you drive a car its the same concept of automation behind it. They work in the same way. My petrol cap might be on the left; your's might be on the right. But they both still take petrol.
Same with TVs or whatever. The basic shape and method of conveying the image to the screen is largely the same (I know Plasma and LCD are different, so don't go off on a tangent.)
It's about having the same starting blocks to begin with. If you want to spend Ł1k on a Sony LCD with all the bells and whistles the go ahead (I know I would) but by the same token if you want to spend Ł150 on a Supermarket Special, then you can.
I dont know what future consoles will look like, or how many companies will be competing for gamers money. But i do know this... MY future console wont have any EA games played on it thats for sure.
I dont know what future consoles will look like, or how many companies will be competing for gamers money. But i do know this... MY future console wont have any EA games played on it thats for sure.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
apart from the fact that each new console is so expensive i like the choice of different consoles and different game companies can get better results out of there respective choice of platform i dont have any particular favorite console but i will give nintendo there props for what they can come up with long may the console wars continue
