In an article penned for Official Xbox Magazine, Dyack said, "Imagine a unified platform -- one console for all gamers -- that would bring a massive paradigm shift to the games industry, where games would become better in quality, cheaper, and more widely available. Sound good? It can happen. Better yet, it's inevitable. It will happen".
Dyack explains his thoughts are completely agnostic of the console wars by nature, but rather that the concept is based on the history of technology and economics theory.
He argues that consoles have now hit what he terms "performance oversupply", in that they've moved well beyond providing purely a platform to play games on, and that sales of videogames struggle under split market conditions - "most gamers don't even own both a PS3 and an Xbox 360".
Dyack continued, "The market is also split in an unhealthy way between the major manufacturers. Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all may have equal marketshare this generation, making it extremely difficult for third-party publishers to choose what platform to focus on.
"Not that it's easy for first-party manufacturers, either. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have put tremendous resources into trying to make the best hardware, including spending significant amounts of money trying to get exclusive mega-titles like Grand Theft Auto on their system first.
"Despite all this, it's still not enough. The economics of the proprietary models seem to point toward spending more money and receving fewer returns with each generation, with no clear winner."
Dyack says that a one console future will emerge not because anyone wants one, but because the market cannot sustain itself under these conditions.
He goes on to opine that the unified format will "likely be decided by a consortium of game makers", but likens it to TV in that any company in theory could build a console system for that format. This would lead to a drop in price for the consumer and also an increase in quality "as the model of perfect competition emerges in the hardware marketplace."
A unified format would also lead to cheaper and more creative games for consumers, he added, because publishers would be assured 100-percent market penetration.
"A one-console future is a future I think we can't avoid - and thankfully, it's a future where everyone would win", Dyack said.
No, no, no, no. Terrible idea. A monopoly in games console results in no price wars & no fighting for consumers. Will destroy the industry. Who the hell thinks Nintendo, Sony & MS will make a console together anyway? Idiot
the question is, firstly Nintendo are too independent to be part of this, Sony have had too much success in the past to throw it all away and Microsoft have too much cash to participate in such a venture - too many egos in the mix for this to ever work, unless the industry crashed or one firm managed a dominant market share to make the others pull out through unprofitability. I'd assume that Nintendo are possibly the most fragile of the firms considering they rely on the video games industry, but also are probably the ones who can support themselves the most through their own in house software development. It's an ideal future for most publishers, reducing the risk greatly but I just can't see it happening.
They dont mean just one system as in just a nintendo or playstation, but a universal standard like a companies employ in dvd players or freeview boxes. So any company could make there own, but the would all have to conform to a set spec. Kinda like what 3DO tried (As panasonic, sanyo and goldstar all released there own models) and what nokia is doing with the new n-gage, many models but the same standard on each allowing for games to be on all the models. Nobody would lose out as where the tech has really pushed innovations, this way it'd be software, so developers would have to be constantly challenging each other by besting each other.
I think hidden within these stories, Nintendo are silently laughing to themselves.
Here we have people saying that the market is not big enough to sustain multiple formats and that not everyone owns both a 360 and a PS3 (no mention of the Wii). As they say, they need to spend more and more money in order to secure exclusive titles which result in less money back for them.
On the other hand, Nintendo have made a much cheaper console and opened it up for a much larger target audience. Increasing the market, and therefore the market share they get.
Nintendo have it spot on in my opinion. They got out of the race to have the best looking games and instead have created something thats affordable, accessible, fun, pick up and play and for everyone. Like them or not, hate the Wii or love it, Nintendo know their stuff and full credit to them for acting upon it.
I for one, dont think one platform is any good. As mentioned previously, its better for competition, gives you more choice over the type of gaming you want to experience, encourages a healthy rivalry. You create a single system and the industry would stagnate. It just wouldnt move forward.
They dont mean just one system as in just a nintendo or playstation, but a universal standard like a companies employ in dvd players or freeview boxes. So any company could make there own, but the would all have to conform to a set spec. Kinda like what 3DO tried (As panasonic, sanyo and goldstar all released there own models) and what nokia is doing with the new n-gage, many models but the same standard on each allowing for games to be on all the models. Nobody would lose out as where the tech has really pushed innovations, this way it'd be software, so developers would have to be constantly challenging each other by besting each other.
I see, but surely the fact that the architecture of the console can differ so greatly that agreeing on one setup would just be inplausible (without even considering input devices), along with a consortium being formed that could wield enough power to force such changes. Traditionally, Nintendo have built their consoles around their future plans - and being able to control this through their hardware is where lies their strength. Furthermore, both Microsoft and Sony have their own visions as well which rely on being able to focus their hardware in the desired direction. Sure, this all may have benefits for publishers but I believe they will have to figure out other ways to adapt to the current environment.
I think hidden within these stories, Nintendo are silently laughing to themselves.
Here we have people saying that the market is not big enough to sustain multiple formats and that not everyone owns both a 360 and a PS3 (no mention of the Wii). As they say, they need to spend more and more money in order to secure exclusive titles which result in less money back for them.
On the other hand, Nintendo have made a much cheaper console and opened it up for a much larger target audience. Increasing the market, and therefore the market share they get.
Nintendo have it spot on in my opinion. They got out of the race to have the best looking games and instead have created something thats affordable, accessible, fun, pick up and play and for everyone. Like them or not, hate the Wii or love it, Nintendo know their stuff and full credit to them for acting upon it.
I for one, dont think one platform is any good. As mentioned previously, its better for competition, gives you more choice over the type of gaming you want to experience, encourages a healthy rivalry. You create a single system and the industry would stagnate. It just wouldnt move forward.
This is exactly why we need choice in consoles. You feel Nintendo have it spot on this gen whereas I feel they have lost the plot & would be very unhappy if I just owned a Wii.
360 is my fave & some of the games on there would not be able to happen without the extra power Same with PS3 - Motorstorm wouldnt be anywhere near as good on Wii.
Surely a one console future would ensure that seperate innovations like the wii would never happen? And thats a good thing? I think all these calls for a unified console format will never really happen. Why would Nintendo go for it? They make their own consoles, all the best games on those consoles are made by them and they make a tonne of money. Why would they stop doing this?
Also all these guys seem to be completely forgetting about the handheld market. How is a universal entertainment media hub in the living room going to affect sales of the DS? Of course there may be universal hand held hubs I suppose but again, Nintendo will continue to make the ds 2 or whatever they decide to do next and pokemon will still be on that so all the kids still buy it.
Of course it is inveitable that somekind of mass market universal media hub makes it into most peoples homes. After all this is just a small step up from the sky boxes alot of people have already. But what about the cycle of generations? Presumably year upon year there would be repeated iterations and small improvements of the universal hubs. Presumably these changes and advancements will be different from company to company so on the xtreme scale toshiba come out with a super HD media centre, someone makes a game for it but you can only take advantage of the massive resolution if you buy toshiba's product. Thats hadly a unified format is it.
These calls for a unified format have not been at all thought through. What about controllers? Who decides how many buttons it has? How many analogue sticks? I keep reading comments from these execs saying they wish the games industry was like the DVD business. You buy a DVD and smack it into any player and it works. But the two are not directly comparable. A much better comparison is the MP3 player market. Apple are dominant but you have Zune, Creative Zen and many others. All get their music in different ways, itunes, Napster etc. Can you see a universal format for this? That would require many rival companies agreeing on a distribution and pricing model. This would surely arouse the attention of the monopolies and mergers commission as it would completely eliminate competition from the market. As far as i understand thing this is illegal in Europe.
This is what I think is likely to happen. Universal games playing media hubs will start to become available. nintendo will continue to do what they do. If Nintendo is making a load of money can you really see Sony and Microsoft just settling with this universal hub idea? Presumably they will both make one of these universal media centres but will they both stop making games? So conceivably you could have a situation where for whatever reason people like the microsoft hub more than the sony one but the games sony is making are more popular and are being played on the microsoft hub. Because that would go down well.
Whatever happens, I think it will be alot more compicted than anyone has pointed out so far. The potential size of the gaming market is much larger than most people thought. The wii has proved that. In the future what is most likely to happen is that there will be multiple consoles AND a universal hub that anyone can make games for.
and how exactly would license fees be distributed? A single format wouldn't be as profitable for the big three, but just the publishers - but they don't hold the power. Even EA couldn't make this happen.
You really have to look bound what we have now, to see this and look 10-20 years into the future. And for everyone saying it doesn't make sense, you are all using one right now.
The problem, I think stems from that developers are sick of having to make several versions of the same game. Where it would be far more cost effective to make one version of the game that everyone could play regardless of who's box they are using. Nintendo, sony and microsoft could all still make their own boxes and have them have different features to try and entice consumers to there box, design style of pads etc.
Theres going to be a point where what can be with graphics, animation etc where the tech hits a wall and whats possible to do and cost effectively is going to come into play. So why not converge and create a standard all games have to conform too. This would make every developers life alot easier and would raise profits for all companies involved in making games.
regarding input devices, this can be easily solved as all controllers are wireless now, so they would all once again conform to the same wireless protocol. Each system could be packing with a standard controller and a wii-mote style one, with which all game boxes would state on the back which style of controller its designed to work with.
We can be thankful that there's no way you could get Sony, MS and Nintendo to agree to combine their hardware anyway.
Yeah - in the same way we'll never see Mario and Sonic in the same game..
I'll throw a few logs on the fire;
If all 3 companies got together as some kind of joint effort, I would expect the new machine to have a Nintendo channel / Sony channel / XBox channel so as to maintain the individuality. Same machine, different "Channels" - hardware profit split 3 ways, software purely to the relevant "channel" - it would vastly expand the market for each company and split hardware dev costs 3 ways. We could even see a Sega or EA channel as they wouldn't need to develop more than one version.
2 years ago I would have said Nintendo would never have done that, but even they seem to be all about the profit these days. So, if it makes financial sense..
If anyone else thinks what I'm describing above is a PC, good on you - that was the point.
The actual hardware wouldnt have to be made by nintendo sony and ms, they would just have to agree on a standard, perhaps form an alliance like the ones you get for blu-ray/hd-dvd and dvd.
Then other companies could licence the hardware rights (for a price) and build their own, so companies such as toshiba, jvc, dell etc can build and sell their own box, much in the way freeview boxes and dvd players are done.
On the online side of things there could be universal market place, where companies could set up there own shops, so nintendo could continue to sell VC games and the like.
I dont get this discussion about who would make the hardware and whether the 3 companies should get together to make 1 console etc etc. What he and EA are talking about is exactly the PC business model, lots of companies making compatible hardware, thats the platform , but the performance of gaming is dictated by the consumer, if they want super flashy then you pay the extra, if youre not too interested in gfx and more interested in the gameplay you can buy a cheap PC for that. Software is mostly compatible and most of the cost is test with different configurations. Its 1 platform and the games work across the different varieties
I've been saying that there's gonna one day be a single format for years, but apparently there are still very few people out there with the vision to see the massive benefits...
Let's clear a few things up. The Wii is not an innovative console, it's actually a throwback. The only good thing about it is that it's cheap to manufacture. The PS3 and X360 for all intents and purposes are the same, except the X360 is easier and cheaper to get better results out of, and the PS3 contains the Blu-Ray drive. (The benefits of which are dubious at best, but do technically exist.)
If we had a single format for this generation, you know what would be happening? Yep, we'd have a single console, running a Microsoft O.S., with a (bloody expensive) Sony drive, an Intel multicore processor, an nVidia graphics processor, and god-only-knows what else.
These consoles would probably be licensed for manufacture by several of the big companies, and would appear at varying build qualities, various prices, and with various options, such as hard-drives, an option on HDMI ports, and Wi-Fi, etc. This would help drive the costs down, and hopefully keep reliability high.
Nintendo would be producing their first-party games for it, but they would only work if you bought the "Nintendo Wii-Mote - Compatible with the PlayBox Blu-Ray360."
Everybody would have a much bigger choice of games to play. I doubt they'd be cheaper, but hey. There would be a guarranteed bigger market for all of the games, so the publishers would be able to take more risks with innovative titles.
There would be no High-Def movie format war, as whichever drive was in the beast would have been adopted by now.
Most importantly, the consoles would have longer shelf-lives, the developers would have more time to get the most out of the hardware, and we would see a bigger improvement between "generational leaps". (And let's face it, we're going to see less and less of a difference between each coming generation otherwise.)
Sadly, there would be losers in this dream future. Yep, the fanboys would have to find some other trivial non-conflict to have p**sing competitions over.
However, these people are obviously more interested in their petty arguments than the actual games themselves, so it wouldn't be too much of a loss.
Buahaha... EA and 3DO comes in my mind... a console for the whole market, yes, it's a good idea like the MSX-computers in the 80s... yes a good idea... I for myself will rethink of buying any EA-games this year...
C'mon, think how good it will be!! Instead of getting all confused over blu-ray this and wi-fi that, you would just pick a brand of console like panasonic or toshiba. (kinda like the current DVD players I guess)
Developer would no longer have to worry about architecture or system constraints when developing games. Consumers wouldn't have to decide between formats anymore. It's about time that something like the videogames industry was standardised a bit. It wouldn't hurt if the PC market was done the same, you can't buy a new release most days without wondering if your graphics card can hack the challenge any more.
Whats the point in having a one format box but made by loads of different companies all with different specs, that is just the same as having three different consoles to choose from. In other words you still have to make a choice.
In fact it's just like the PC setup and one of the main reasons console gaming appeals is because everyone is on a more or less even footing (online or off). Games are designed for a particular console and everyone has the same experience, not like the PC where upgrading is always required if you want the best experience.
They dont mean just one system as in just a nintendo or playstation, but a universal standard like a companies employ in dvd players or freeview boxes. So any company could make there own, but the would all have to conform to a set spec. Kinda like what 3DO tried (As panasonic, sanyo and goldstar all released there own models) and what nokia is doing with the new n-gage, many models but the same standard on each allowing for games to be on all the models. Nobody would lose out as where the tech has really pushed innovations, this way it'd be software, so developers would have to be constantly challenging each other by besting each other.
Wow somebody who actually READ the article and didn't go off with a kneejerk reaction...THANK YOU! Like the article said the console would become like TVs. Anybody could make it but it would conform to unified specs. It might not be the greatest idea but how long are companies going to keep making hardware they lose money on in hopes of making it up in game sales especially when games cost SO much to make now.
He makes an interesting point about how everyone, both player and developer, would win if there was only one console on the market.
However this isn't inevitable as he claims, in fact it will likely never happen. After all why are there so many frigging TV channels? Because each one caters to a different audience.
If anything they might actually be even more consoles in the future, each one aimed at a different market. (and our wallets)
2 years ago I would have said Nintendo would never have done that, but even they seem to be all about the profit these days. So, if it makes financial sense..
erm, hate to be cynical but Nintendo has always been about profit, the fact that they haven't posted a loss since the 60's is, I think, fairly strong evidence of this, along with former president Hiroshi Yamauchi's tactics in the 80's of bullying third party developers and controlling them with an iron fist to eek every bit of profit out of their games that he possibly could. They've just produced some amazing stuff along the way.
On subject, I think that a single console will happen at some point, not for years to come though but someday it will, once the machines power gets to a point where it can't really be improved and they can be mass produced and sold, at profit, for under $100/£100 (and the UK continues to get ripped off). At that time there'll be something similar to DVD players where there's a single set standard of cpu, gfx and main firmware that companies like Toshiba and Sony (probably) will mass manufacture for, maybe/probably as a part of a media hub for the home, and games companies will only need to make games to one standard.
It will also have the advantage of taking the production of games out of MS, Sony and Nintendo's hands which is where they make most of their money (in case you didn't know all games are manufactured by them for their respective consoles and they take the biggest cut of the game sales price) and this will lead to console game prices coming into line with PC game prices and publishers will be able to get a bigger slice of the sale. This in turn, hopefully, will mean publishers will be more willing to take a risk on different games and push them more into the limelight alongside the inevitable yearly updates of Fifa and Madden.
The big problem will be the perpherals, unless a controller standard is agreed upon, and this is where I can see Nintendo having a problem with the others, there may be some huge differences there. I guess in 15-20 years time we'll see.
a lot of the posts above are laughable, you obviously don't understand the concept.
Nintendo,Sony,9icrosof wouldn't unite and make a console together cuz what would stop someone else making a second console. what would happen is a standard, like DVD/WiFi/Bluetooth etc. all companies would be free to make their own versions that confirm to these standards.
Nintendo could still make a cheaper machine by excluding multimedia playback and HiDef etc. and they would stll be free to innovate by releasing any controler they like with drivers for the machine.
we'd also get every other company like Panasonic releasing their own machines. so we could choose the set top box we like the look of.
how long are companies going to keep making hardware they lose money on in hopes of making it up in game sales especially when games cost SO much to make now.
Nintendo arent selling their console at a loss...
Just a point here, but Microsoft and Nintendo are not hardware companies. Sony is, but the Playstation console is not where they make their money. Their business is selling the liceses to make games on their console, and of course selling the games they create.
If you make it so that they all stick to one format, you lose the ability to sell the license to make a game for that console. Therfore the company actually loses what its currently selling.
They dont mean just one system as in just a nintendo or playstation, but a universal standard like a companies employ in dvd players or freeview boxes. So any company could make there own, but the would all have to conform to a set spec. Kinda like what 3DO tried (As panasonic, sanyo and goldstar all released there own models) and what nokia is doing with the new n-gage, many models but the same standard on each allowing for games to be on all the models. Nobody would lose out as where the tech has really pushed innovations, this way it'd be software, so developers would have to be constantly challenging each other by besting each other.
Wow somebody who actually READ the article and didn't go off with a kneejerk reaction...THANK YOU! Like the article said the console would become like TVs. Anybody could make it but it would conform to unified specs. It might not be the greatest idea but how long are companies going to keep making hardware they lose money on in hopes of making it up in game sales especially when games cost SO much to make now.
but its as stupid as standardizing tv's or camcorders or digital cameras or whatever. How can the companies involved make money from it when the competitor has the exact same. Its the communism approach and just doesnt work. Open standards dont work every piece of open standard compliant software out there has proprietary parts to try and give it a competitive advantage, but that hurts the bottom line
Its a complete pipedream of benefit only to those writing software. I could say the same thing about software languages, it would be so handy if there was only 1 and thats all i had to use, but that stunts evolution in the industry
C'mon, think how good it will be!! Instead of getting all confused over blu-ray this and wi-fi that, you would just pick a brand of console like panasonic or toshiba. (kinda like the current DVD players I guess)
Except the MS variant would come with a HD-DVD drive, the Sony with BluRay, the Bush console would have neither and would be without wireless pads etc.
We already have this. It's called a PC. It has a fairly standard platform. We call it Windows (or Linux, or Mac OS to a lesser extent). While the specifications of the machine are open ended, the thing you play is the same - it just might look a bit different. There's nothing stopping innovation, it just takes someone to be inivitive. Who says we can't have Wii-like remotes for PCs? Formats are totally out-dated too. Who cares about HDDVD, or BluRay - Valve hit it on the nail with Steam, Microsoft and Sony to a lesser extent with XBOX Live Arcade / PlayStation Store.
There's nothing stopping competition if the basic platform is the same. PC's have been doing it for years. Microsoft has already started making the move to a unified platform with the XNA Studio - same basic code to run on PC or XBOX. Get some industry leaders to come up with something like that which runs on all Operating Systems. Hmm... I feel a 'Java for Gamers' reference come on..
C'mon, think how good it will be!! Instead of getting all confused over blu-ray this and wi-fi that, you would just pick a brand of console like panasonic or toshiba. (kinda like the current DVD players I guess)
Except the MS variant would come with a HD-DVD drive, the Sony with BluRay, the Bush console would have neither and would be without wireless pads etc.
Now I'm left wondering what the Matsui one would be like.
Can people stop going on about PC being it. I bought mine 3 years ago & already the minimum spec on todays games are well above it. Youve still got various different companies on that - Intel & AMD - essentialy Sony & MS, Theres Dell, different types of Graphic card manufatcturers etc.
I cant be bottomd with the hassle a PC is to operate & maintain for games. Consoles give everyone the same experience. The people with less money dont get a cut down experience just because they cant afford the upgrades.
Also with consoles as mentioned before there is a difference already that is created because of competition. The Wii.
If I only had the Wii as a choice & had to use motion sensing for all types I would stop playing games now as I just dont like it. 360 & to a lesser extent PS3(stupid s**te sixaxis) keep traditional controls that I enjoy & keep me immersed in games
kricca wrote: 2 years ago I would have said Nintendo would never have done that, but even they seem to be all about the profit these days. So, if it makes financial sense..
erm, hate to be cynical but Nintendo has always been about profit, the fact that they haven't posted a loss since the 60's is, I think, fairly strong evidence of this
Doh! And there was me thinking Nintendo just wanted to please me at whatever cost..! Or not. I meant at least Nintendo *used* to give me a reason to line their pockets, by releasing some truly amazing stuff, which in my opinion they are not doing now. Profit is up whilst quality is *in my opinion* very much down.
I'm not saying I want a unified architecture - I like a big shiny new toy every few years and I could see iterations of a new architecture taking 6 - 8 years to filter through.
Wouldn't that just be a monopoly... erm, isn't that illegal!?
Do Sony have a monopoly on Blu-ray? Or Phillips on CD?
Imagine if Sony and Microsoft had got together and created a console design, and each released their own version, all games would work the same on each, they would each have their own individual online services, so you could choose which one you want to support based on your personnal taste, and any number of other hardware manufacturers could produce their own version, keeping the prices down.
The worst thing about this is the idea that we end up with a system like PC gamers have, where the hardware is constantly moving forward, and if you don't upgrade every year you end up with something, in couple of years, that barely works.
Can people stop going on about PC being it. I bought mine 3 years ago & already the minimum spec on todays games are well above it. Youve still got various different companies on that - Intel & AMD - essentialy Sony & MS, Theres Dell, different types of Graphic card manufatcturers etc.
I cant be bottomd with the hassle a PC is to operate & maintain for games. Consoles give everyone the same experience. The people with less money dont get a cut down experience just because they cant afford the upgrades.
Also with consoles as mentioned before there is a difference already that is created because of competition. The Wii.
If I only had the Wii as a choice & had to use motion sensing for all types I would stop playing games now as I just dont like it. 360 & to a lesser extent PS3(stupid s**te sixaxis) keep traditional controls that I enjoy & keep me immersed in games
well in all honesty i bought a PS2 5 years ago and i cant even get new games on it( that are decent anyway ), at least they'll run on your PC. Not only that but throw in a new gfx card and you can play the latest games on full
Yes PC's are complex, but both PC's and consoles are converging, consoles are getting more functionality and more complex, PC is getting more functionality but less complex, the PC wont be at the same level of a console, switch on and away you go for a while, but it is gonna happen and its not actually that difficult to do, and is effectively what M$ did with the 360 but they did so by eliminating the PC part
Can people stop going on about PC being it. I bought mine 3 years ago & already the minimum spec on todays games are well above it. Youve still got various different companies on that - Intel & AMD - essentialy Sony & MS, Theres Dell, different types of Graphic card manufatcturers etc.
I cant be bottomd with the hassle a PC is to operate & maintain for games. Consoles give everyone the same experience. The people with less money dont get a cut down experience just because they cant afford the upgrades.
Also with consoles as mentioned before there is a difference already that is created because of competition. The Wii.
If I only had the Wii as a choice & had to use motion sensing for all types I would stop playing games now as I just dont like it. 360 & to a lesser extent PS3(stupid s**te sixaxis) keep traditional controls that I enjoy & keep me immersed in games
well in all honesty i bought a PS2 5 years ago and i cant even get new games on it( that are decent anyway ), at least they'll run on your PC. Not only that but throw in a new gfx card and you can play the latest games on full
Yes PC's are complex, but both PC's and consoles are converging, consoles are getting more functionality and more complex, PC is getting more functionality but less complex, the PC wont be at the same level of a console, switch on and away you go for a while, but it is gonna happen and its not actually that difficult to do, and is effectively what M$ did with the 360 but they did so by eliminating the PC part
Yeah but thats the minimum spec. Lost the ability to have full graphical effects long before that.
i agree with consoles being more complicated now but nowhere near that of PC. Also PS3 is a lot closer to a PC than MS did with 360.
how does having one console make (the console itself/games) cheaper??? it makes them way more expensive as there is no competition
then there is the fact that many gamers will miss out say that this new console is similar to the pc right, then what about gamers that enjoy the wii style of gaming? (and considering wii sales thats alot) thay get left with nothing.
not many gamers even own both the ps3 and 360
(not 100% sure mind but) have people always had all the consoles???? ive onyl ever had 1 console at a time not sure bout every1 else...
but its as stupid as standardizing tv's or camcorders or digital cameras or whatever. How can the companies involved make money from it when the competitor has the exact same. Its the communism approach and just doesnt work.
Two words. Boll and Ocks.
Take the TV (your first example.) That is a standardised creation in today's market; yet there are dozens of manufacturers out there making money because they offer various shades of quality and connections etc whilst ultimately being "the same"; and best of all they give the consumer the personal choice they require.
Sony make money for their models, Daewoo (God Forbid) turn a profit out of theres (and the two brands are maddeningly different.)
Even B&O, Loewe and all the other "high end" vendors make a profit. So your argument is a tad flawed mate.
Thank God for the three other posters on here who have managed to grab the concept for what it is and not just vomitted e-bile all over the forums.
A couple of thoughts. Of course PC comes to mind and admittedly it is, in conjunction with the Windows/DirectX subsytem, a unified gaming platform. We all know that maintaining a gaming PC is both a hassle and a relevant expense, but that is not what should prevent the public from hoping the industry goes in that direction. The main problem is that, while the PC is a standard of sorts, its specifications are wildly open. In other words, just take a PC game and compare the minimum and reccomended requirements. There's a huge gap of money and/or time there, and don't forget it's an optimistic, publisher-side view of the issue. I can buy a gaming PC today for 1000$ plus, and in a year I will be missing something from the newest games, since they will be designed with the absolute newest and best (if not yet to come) and most expensive hardware in mind. Or I can buy an Xbox360 or a PS3 and know that for at least 3 or 4 years my games will run exactly the way they were designed, to the best their makers could do. The natural objection is that this way, consoles have a head start when they come out but start lagging behind PC games as the "gen" goes by. I believe this is only marginally true (have a look at God Of War), plus it forces game makers to exploit and push the hardware they work on and it's finally an absolutely acceptable (even desirable) trade-off.
As a note, competition is said to be always beneficial to users, but everyone should be aware by now that this is just a myth of capitalism. In the console wars case, two evident negative aspects stand out:
- Multiple platforms force developers to make unwanted choices and to spread their resources. Bad.
- Xbox360 and PS3 have completely different hardware designs, from an architectural and engineering point of view. With less and less exclusives (Good!!!), game makers are forced to spend a lot of energy trying to make their games look and work the same on both platforms. Bad. And stupid.
While it's obvious that EA wishes are driven by their own interests, I do believe a unified platform would benefit everyone - but only as long as games run exactly the same on each and every implementation of it. The ideal situation would be a consortium of game makers, who should know how gaming-oriented hardware should be (contrarily to Sony, it seems). Of course the road to the uinified platform is obstacled by hardware makers who think they can win instead of reaching a sort of truce, and I'm told they're quite powerful. Like many people already mentioned, It will probably be possible to reach the goal when hardware is a cheap and disposable commodity, like the 15$ DVD player that came out in the UK.
but its as stupid as standardizing tv's or camcorders or digital cameras or whatever. How can the companies involved make money from it when the competitor has the exact same. Its the communism approach and just doesnt work.
Two words. Boll and Ocks.
Take the TV (your first example.) That is a standardised creation in today's market; yet there are dozens of manufacturers out there making money because they offer various shades of quality and connections etc whilst ultimately being "the same"; and best of all they give the consumer the personal choice they require.
Sony make money for their models, Daewoo (God Forbid) turn a profit out of theres (and the two brands are maddeningly different.)
Even B&O, Loewe and all the other "high end" vendors make a profit. So your argument is a tad flawed mate.
Thank God for the three other posters on here who have managed to grab the concept for what it is and not just vomitted e-bile all over the forums.
lol, may i ask exactly what part of a tv do you find thats standard? menus? remote? Penel types? LCD panel types( last i remember there are 3 or 4 different types ), or was that Plasma, or maybe CRT? Audio? stereo/5.1/Dolby Logic They all have teletext? refresh rate? 50Hz/60Hz/100Hz etc. PAL? NTSC? SECAM? 1080p/1080i/720p? Screensize? 15/17/19/21/28/32/42/50............... Actual color? black/grey/whatever Contrast? Colour? What standard? do you have a white paper reference for the colour reproduction standard that all tv's use? Number of ports? Connectors? Svideo/Composite/Scart/HDMI?
So here, remind me again which part of a tv do you find thats standard? or is it just the part that it has moving images/produces sound and is rectangular in shape? Im glad you reminded others that at least some people post something with a least a bit of sense
The people who are most against this idea are the hardware manufacturers like Sony and Nintendo, who would rather divide up the market and dominate their piece. Nintendo know they are top dog when releasing their games on their systems, they used to use their cartridge monopoly to control the games being released on the SNES, they controled how many were made, how much they cost to buy and how long it took to produce them. Sega did the same, and it was EA who went to court to get the rights to make their own Mega-Drive cartridges. Sony did well with the PS1 because they allowed the third party publishers/developers more access to code and made ordering/manufacturing games on CD so much easier.
And Microsoft just don't want to play fair with anyone else, they'd rather buy them or put them out of business.
If there was a single/unified console design, it would need to have it's hardware locked into a five year cycle, to avoid the constant need for updating hardware and software, with all involved coming up with a whole new design every five years.
but its as stupid as standardizing tv's or camcorders or digital cameras or whatever. How can the companies involved make money from it when the competitor has the exact same. Its the communism approach and just doesnt work.
Two words. Boll and Ocks.
Take the TV (your first example.) That is a standardised creation in today's market; yet there are dozens of manufacturers out there making money because they offer various shades of quality and connections etc whilst ultimately being "the same"; and best of all they give the consumer the personal choice they require.
Sony make money for their models, Daewoo (God Forbid) turn a profit out of theres (and the two brands are maddeningly different.)
Even B&O, Loewe and all the other "high end" vendors make a profit. So your argument is a tad flawed mate.
Thank God for the three other posters on here who have managed to grab the concept for what it is and not just vomitted e-bile all over the forums.
lol, may i ask exactly what part of a tv do you find thats standard? menus? remote? Penel types? LCD panel types( last i remember there are 3 or 4 different types ), or was that Plasma, or maybe CRT? Audio? stereo/5.1/Dolby Logic They all have teletext? refresh rate? 50Hz/60Hz/100Hz etc. PAL? NTSC? SECAM? 1080p/1080i/720p? Screensize? 15/17/19/21/28/32/42/50............... Actual color? black/grey/whatever Contrast? Colour? What standard? do you have a white paper reference for the colour reproduction standard that all tv's use? Number of ports? Connectors? Svideo/Composite/Scart/HDMI?
So here, remind me again which part of a tv do you find thats standard? or is it just the part that it has moving images/produces sound and is rectangular in shape? Im glad you reminded others that at least some people post something with a least a bit of sense
Don't mean to be rude here but, what are you talking about? What about all TVs working with all brands of set-top box, DVD players/recorders, VCRs, satalite boxes and ariels? All remotes are based on the same design standards, you can pick any one up and see straight away how it works.
Most modern tv sets are designed to accept foregn signals, and since most are made in Korea, Taiwan or China, they have factory setting options that allow you to make them work with foregn equipment.
Everything about a TV set is standardized, to say otherwise is pure lunacy.
how does having one console make (the console itself/games) cheaper??? it makes them way more expensive as there is no competition
Wll the idea is that if there's one console standard, similar to what the DVD standard is, then any electronics company can manufacture them, thus driving a price war between them, you pay more for better ones or you can pick up a cheap tatty one but they'll all play the games regardless.
Games would be cheaper because at the minute its the console manufacturers who manufacture the games and thus collect the lions share of the takings as publishers have to pay them so they can publish games on their machines. This is why PC games are almost always cheaper, you take the company charging the license (and taking a lump of the sales price) out of the equation, so publishers can take a bigger slice of the profit for themselves and still charge less for games.
but its as stupid as standardizing tv's or camcorders or digital cameras or whatever. How can the companies involved make money from it when the competitor has the exact same. Its the communism approach and just doesnt work.
Two words. Boll and Ocks.
Take the TV (your first example.) That is a standardised creation in today's market; yet there are dozens of manufacturers out there making money because they offer various shades of quality and connections etc whilst ultimately being "the same"; and best of all they give the consumer the personal choice they require.
Sony make money for their models, Daewoo (God Forbid) turn a profit out of theres (and the two brands are maddeningly different.)
Even B&O, Loewe and all the other "high end" vendors make a profit. So your argument is a tad flawed mate.
Thank God for the three other posters on here who have managed to grab the concept for what it is and not just vomitted e-bile all over the forums.
lol, may i ask exactly what part of a tv do you find thats standard? menus? remote? Penel types? LCD panel types( last i remember there are 3 or 4 different types ), or was that Plasma, or maybe CRT? Audio? stereo/5.1/Dolby Logic They all have teletext? refresh rate? 50Hz/60Hz/100Hz etc. PAL? NTSC? SECAM? 1080p/1080i/720p? Screensize? 15/17/19/21/28/32/42/50............... Actual color? black/grey/whatever Contrast? Colour? What standard? do you have a white paper reference for the colour reproduction standard that all tv's use? Number of ports? Connectors? Svideo/Composite/Scart/HDMI?
So here, remind me again which part of a tv do you find thats standard? or is it just the part that it has moving images/produces sound and is rectangular in shape? Im glad you reminded others that at least some people post something with a least a bit of sense
Don't mean to be rude here but, what are you talking about? What about all TVs working with all brands of set-top box, DVD players/recorders, VCRs, satalite boxes and ariels? All remotes are based on the same design standards, you can pick any one up and see straight away how it works.
Most modern tv sets are designed to accept foregn signals, and since most are made in Korea, Taiwan or China, they have factory setting options that allow you to make them work with foregn equipment.
Everything about a TV set is standardized, to say otherwise is pure lunacy.
No, thats standardized I/O not capibilities or internal technology or features. By your defination you could say a console with USB ports for controllers and support for the same media and output is standardized
Standardized by defination means that everything conforms to 1 standard, not 100's of different types
compliance to lots of individual standards does not mean a standard
No, thats standardized I/O not capibilities or internal technology or features. By your defination you could say a console with USB ports for controllers and support for the same media and output is standardized
Standardized by defination means that everything conforms to 1 standard, not 100's of different types
compliance to lots of individual standards does not mean a standard
Hang on, are you trying to tell us that TVs don't use the same standard for their connections?
Jesus, that explains why I need so many different tvs to watch all of the different channels out there, and connect the many varying video devices I have around the home...
Crikey, lmimmfn, that's the single weakest argument I've seen put forward by anybody on this forum, on any subject. And that's saying something.
In fact, I want you to follow this YouTube link, to show you exactly how I feel about your post.
The TV's not been standardised example is ludicrous. I can watch ITV on my 14" TV in my room and on the 21" in the sitting room. If I want to watch Channel 4, I don't need to buy another TV.
If I want to play Motorstorm, I have to buy a PS3. I don't exactly see what's so difficult to grasp about Von Trapp's original post.
TV's may have different specification much as the way DVD players, microwave oven, even cars but these don't prevent them from be used in the same way no matter what the brand.
In many ways it would be better for the consumer, given that you'd only have need to purchase one console, a significantly cheaper investment, and everyone would have access to all games.
For developers it would also be easier, for fairly obvious reasons.
The downsides are the fear of a monopoly, but also: who would make this console? Surely if different manufacturers made their own versions, there would be subtle differences, and not all systems would run all games? Many DVD players have this problem (apparently, no one DVD player can run all discs).
Didn't that happen a while back with some long-fogotten console? (Did it happen with the MSX? Can't remember). But those consoles failed for that reason.
For such an idea to work, some pretty solid ground rules would need to be established first.
You could do it with any of the curret consoles, Microsoft could farm out the 360 specs, and you would see a dozen different designs, some cheaper and some more expensive, but as long as they conform to a set standard they would all work.
but its as stupid as standardizing tv's or camcorders or digital cameras or whatever. How can the companies involved make money from it when the competitor has the exact same. Its the communism approach and just doesnt work.
Two words. Boll and Ocks.
Take the TV (your first example.) That is a standardised creation in today's market; yet there are dozens of manufacturers out there making money because they offer various shades of quality and connections etc whilst ultimately being "the same"; and best of all they give the consumer the personal choice they require.
Sony make money for their models, Daewoo (God Forbid) turn a profit out of theres (and the two brands are maddeningly different.)
Even B&O, Loewe and all the other "high end" vendors make a profit. So your argument is a tad flawed mate.
Thank God for the three other posters on here who have managed to grab the concept for what it is and not just vomitted e-bile all over the forums.
lol, may i ask exactly what part of a tv do you find thats standard? menus? remote? Penel types? LCD panel types( last i remember there are 3 or 4 different types ), or was that Plasma, or maybe CRT? Audio? stereo/5.1/Dolby Logic They all have teletext? refresh rate? 50Hz/60Hz/100Hz etc. PAL? NTSC? SECAM? 1080p/1080i/720p? Screensize? 15/17/19/21/28/32/42/50............... Actual color? black/grey/whatever Contrast? Colour? What standard? do you have a white paper reference for the colour reproduction standard that all tv's use? Number of ports? Connectors? Svideo/Composite/Scart/HDMI?
So here, remind me again which part of a tv do you find thats standard? or is it just the part that it has moving images/produces sound and is rectangular in shape? Im glad you reminded others that at least some people post something with a least a bit of sense
Don't mean to be rude here but, what are you talking about? What about all TVs working with all brands of set-top box, DVD players/recorders, VCRs, satalite boxes and ariels? All remotes are based on the same design standards, you can pick any one up and see straight away how it works.
Most modern tv sets are designed to accept foregn signals, and since most are made in Korea, Taiwan or China, they have factory setting options that allow you to make them work with foregn equipment.
Everything about a TV set is standardized, to say otherwise is pure lunacy.
No, thats standardized I/O not capibilities or internal technology or features. By your defination you could say a console with USB ports for controllers and support for the same media and output is standardized
Standardized by defination means that everything conforms to 1 standard, not 100's of different types
compliance to lots of individual standards does not mean a standard
TVs conform to the standards that they can display a picture and output sound, either from a DVD player, games console, VCR or satallite/set-top box plugged in via SCART/S-Video/Component?composite/VGA/HDMI.
That would be the standard definition of a standard if there ever was one.
Can people stop going on about PC being it. I bought mine 3 years ago & already the minimum spec on todays games are well above it. Youve still got various different companies on that - Intel & AMD - essentialy Sony & MS, Theres Dell, different types of Graphic card manufatcturers etc.
I cant be bottomd with the hassle a PC is to operate & maintain for games. Consoles give everyone the same experience. The people with less money dont get a cut down experience just because they cant afford the upgrades.
Also with consoles as mentioned before there is a difference already that is created because of competition. The Wii.
If I only had the Wii as a choice & had to use motion sensing for all types I would stop playing games now as I just dont like it. 360 & to a lesser extent PS3(stupid s**te sixaxis) keep traditional controls that I enjoy & keep me immersed in games
the PC comparison is good as it shows that many different manufacturers can make their own stuff but it all works together. no-one is talking about upgrades, only you!
if consoles had to commit to a specified standard it could drive the price of consoles down due to parts sharing and increased competition for sales.
Games could be cheaper too as dev costs may be lower and a higher target audience could lead to more sales. pc games are quite cheap to buy as they are relatively cheap to make.
The TV's not been standardised example is ludicrous. I can watch ITV on my 14" TV in my room and on the 21" in the sitting room. If I want to watch Channel 4, I don't need to buy another TV.
If I want to play Motorstorm, I have to buy a PS3. I don't exactly see what's so difficult to grasp about Von Trapp's original post.
TV's may have different specification much as the way DVD players, microwave oven, even cars but these don't prevent them from be used in the same way no matter what the brand.
Awww shucks Thanks!
The original counter argument against my post; just goes to show how the various competitors can still differentiate their "standard" platform and give the consumer the choice they need.
Want a fancy one with all the bells and whistles? Have Brand A. Want a shonky one that just about does the job? Have Brand B's budget entry, etc..
They still all play the same games (or in this case, TV programmes.)
No, thats standardized I/O not capibilities or internal technology or features. By your defination you could say a console with USB ports for controllers and support for the same media and output is standardized
Standardized by defination means that everything conforms to 1 standard, not 100's of different types
compliance to lots of individual standards does not mean a standard
Hang on, are you trying to tell us that TVs don't use the same standard for their connections?
Jesus, that explains why I need so many different tvs to watch all of the different channels out there, and connect the many varying video devices I have around the home...
Crikey, lmimmfn, that's the single weakest argument I've seen put forward by anybody on this forum, on any subject. And that's saying something.
In fact, I want you to follow this YouTube link, to show you exactly how I feel about your post.
lol, dont feel bad about the post No, i didnt say that at all, in fact i ssid the complete opposite, what i said was that all the standards in a tv do not make a complete unified standard for a tv. There are too many types of different tv's/sizes/panel/colour reproduction technologies to make a tv a standard in itself. If there is a unified console platform, how can it comprise several different technologies? If you look at the PC it has several interconnectable and to an extent interchangeable standards, i.e. for mobos, P35 mobo with socket 775 for CPU, 680i with socket 775 for cpu, 650i/x38/p965/p945 etc. These all accept intel socket 775 CPUs. Look at the memory DDR2, all DDR2 works with all those mobos, SATA 2, USB etc. The list goes on. Obviously every 2 years or so theres a refresh of technology that is sometimes incompatible DDR2->DDR3, and other times compatible PCI1.0->PCI1.1->PCI2.0 Even the level of backwards compatibility varies, e.g PCIE1.0 and PCIE1.1 are forwards compatible, PCIE1.1 and PCIE2.0 are forwards compatible, but PCIE1.0 and PCIE2.0 are not compatible The OS on the PC handles all these different configurations, and that wouldnt/couldnt work on a single platform console simply because its all those configurations and possible slight incompatibilities( because there is no standard body responsible for the overall PC standard ) that cause all the problems in the PC world, this is something that M$ have to overcome in their OS( and Linux ) and is why it makes PC's so complex/prone to failure/driver issues and takes ages to load the OS and all the device drivers.
A standard is something that everyone adheres to and is compliant with, ive yet to see/hear about an actual full complete hardware device that is a standard/completely standardized( thats not to say one doesnt exist, i just cant think of one at the moment ) In software its quite simple as all languages are standardized and versioned, mathametical libraries are standardized and conform to different versions of IEEE. Mobile phones comply to the GSM/3G/UMTS/GPRS/WAP standards some of which are set by the 3GPP, but thats just the interface to the the RBS or BSC, the devices themselves are not standardized.
Point being, several different standards used in a hardware device does NOT mean that the device itself is standardized
There is no one body responsible for a unified tv standard, each of the commitees responsible for the tv standards are entirely seperate, i,e, you have ATSC, BTSC, PAL, SECAM, NTSC responsible for the individual standards. Most tv's conform to them but that does NOT make the tv a standard in itself. Even look at the 2 new HD standards, blu-ray and HDDVD, the players thet conform to both standards are not themselves standardized because no committee has decided that all standard players should support both, its simply the manufacturer complying with both to increase sales
I work with standards every day, if there is a tv standard, can someone direct me to the unified tv standard, the single committee involved in revisioning and somewhere where i can read a white paper on the latest version and ONLY tv standard
What scares me is that idiots like this guy get paid rediculous amounts of money for coming out with the inane b******s.
Will never happen. The competition is what is going to push the industry forward. If there is only one console they can release what they want without reprise.
Some people really don't get it. Consider it like this - a universal console is released, one that plays games from all formats. That technology is adopted by Nintendo, MS and Sony, and eventually many others. Eventually, there's no need to have multi-format games, as they all play on the same systems.
This end result is what he means when he says a 'standardised system'. I for one think it's a great idea.
Well, this will never happen. Why? The companies. Nintendo focuses mainly how the players will enjoy the game, but not on graphics, SONY on money (as we can tell by the PS3), and 360 on online play. The companies would just argue and argue. Have you also forgotten Nintendo is pretty censored? Most of your favorite games would be gone if they all joined. Sega is making Sonic and Mario appear in two games together. So everybody is fine. This will never happen. FINAL.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
