Pointing out that some gaming related companies are going under does not mean that we need a single-console future. Infact I would go so far as to say that a single-console situation would be highly detrimental for us, the gamers.

Think of it this way. If Sony became the only console manufacturer in the 90's, do you think we would have the WiiMote today? How about wireless controllers?

Competition breeds innovation people. It also gives us, the gamers, choices and options. If you don't like gaming on a PS3, you can game on a Wii or X-box instead.

You get none of that with a single console situation. Of course a lot of content providers would love it because it would mean they wouldn't have to port for multiple platforms, and would have access to the entire market at a single go. However, sometimes the differences in platforms changes the game play experience, and that's to the consumers benefit.

Going back to the original point. Some gaming companies struggling does not mean things need to change. It's called capitalism people. Capitalism is in many waves, economic survival of the fittest. There have been companies struggling since the game industry began, and even with one console there will still be game companies struggling.

That's just the nature of things.

WolvenOne

Since the beginning of time, there has always been more than one console. It will be this way today, in the near future, and 1,000 years from now when people will have stopped mourning the demise of Silicon Knights and their blustering figure-head.

Soldrak

Wait, so let me get this straight. The one console thing. He's talking about PCs. They are the "one console" the different branded open console that anyone can make and sell, and all the games run on them.

There is a reason why PC games are dying. People can't keep up with PC hardware. So buying games for them becomes a headache.

The closed model works so much better, because there are only a couple of major players with static systems with multi-year life spans, where you know that if you buy a game for it, it's going to run, and look exactly how it was intended to look.

*shakes a fist*

Polite_Society

Microsoft and Sony don't make their own consoles either so in this utopian idea Foxconn, AsusTek, and whoever else makes their consoles would be able to label the exact same consoles they are sending to MS and Sony and sell them possibly for less money. Then the accessories get sold the same way so there would be no profit in the hardware being sold and no subsidies on the hardware. I doubt Sony would want to work with MS anymore than Nintendo would.

nox

@Pantsman: Yes we understand he wants it "like dvd players". But people are still licensing technology there and people are going to fight over the technology that will be chosen (see bluray vs HD DVD) and these battles will take longer than the lifespan of consoles. Video formats have a much longer life.

Paroxysm

It seems not a single person in this thread understands what he's trying to say. He's saying consoles should be like DVD players: each company would still make its own, but they'd all play the same games. If you buy a game, you don't have to worry about what kind of system you own, because they'll all be able to read the disk and run the game. It wouldn't be a monopoly, and it wouldn't be like PC gaming.

Pantsman

Some of you guys are missing the point. What he is talking about is an open standard, which is not a monopoly at all. This is a similar business model to DVD players, or even the 3D0 is you are old enough to remember that. Meaning that Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo could still bring out their own hardware, but it would be the same standard. Other companies like Panasonic or Samasung could pay a fee to license this set of specs and build their own hardware, just like they do with DVD players, etc. This is very far away from a monopoly, in fact, its almost the opposite because no one company would own the standard.

How come so many people seemed to be clamoring for HD DVD to die because "the market cannot support 2 video standards" yet the idea of one video game standard is like garlic to a vampire?

cybereality

@TC: I think I see where my statement and yours branch off.

Yes, a one-console possibility exists, but... at the same time, it doesn't.

For one console to exist, not only would the hardware have to have standards, but so would the peripherals and the services offered. With PC gaming, the limits of the games are only really in the video card and processor you've got. For one console (Which would not be upgradeable, if any hardware maker had its way), You've got the hardware, all the controllers, and all the things that the system is capable of pulling off.

That means no real innovation, unless hardware makers once again started tweaking their own versions of the "one console" to do things that the others don't, outside of the hardware specifications.

And that would no longer be "one console". That would be Nintendo's Game Console (With motion sensing!), or Microsoft's Game Console (With Live!), or Sony's Game Console (With Whatever they'd use to differentiate themselves.) Each company would do their damnedest to make their "one console" do things that the other consoles don't do, to attract developers and consumers to it.

The only way to avoid THAT is to make it so there's just one manufacturer of the console... and let's face it, what are the odds of that monopoly not only happening, but being welcomed?

JChaos

I don't understand this one console argument. If it's not economical for a developer to make a game for multiple consoles then pick a platform and stick with it like Insomniac or Bungie. If this guy thinks that a one console future makes so much sense, then he should start manufacturing this "universal" console instead of trying to tell those guys how to run their business.

rawg

I can see this happening as a result of economic pressure rather than simply it being "the right thing to do." I definitely don't see it as the cure all of every woe that plague this industry, it's simply an alternative. Anyone that thinks this idea is without fault is spewing bullshit. However, whatever is held for the future videogames is gonna happen when it happens, no matter what I think about it.

StarStabbedMoon

On one hand I can see it would be nice to have one true open platform I don't see that happening. The PC somewhat fits that bill but is not economical. I really think we have to hit the technological ceiling a little more for this to be feasible.

Say all the game manufactures agree upon a standard much like VHS,DVD, and now Blu Ray for movies it would be nice at 1st as technology would be pretty even. Maybe Sony would sell a version that had some extra features and MS had one with some other features same for Nintendo but all the basic features overlaps. The issue comes to one of a couple things happening. Either we are stuck with a standard for 10-15 years with no hardware innovations or the hardware features become upgradeable. Now the PC has this last model now so we have to look at the issues with that model. You can either say this game will not work if you don't have this this and this. Or you make the game scalable thus limiting the potential of the game. This makes for inconsistent experiences. The hardware being the same in the current closed model allows developers of console games to squeeze every ounce of power out of it but with an open model my console might have enough processor for more Physics Effects etc but be cut down so people on weaker systems could play too (not to say this doesn't happen to at least some extent now on multiplatform games).

Konchu

Maybe Dennis should focus on shipping a game some day.

Not sure why blogs seem to think that because a guy can make (well, in this case used to be able to make) games, he has a clue about business or market forces. Between this idiot and Jaffe, we could have a blog that does nothing but recycle their stale old pet topics over and over and over and over...

wheezo

I agree with the one console future.

The video games will subsidize it, it will be like DVD players.

There aren't 3 different types of those, are there? No, people make DVDs that will all work on every player.

In the future, games will work on any console, which will all have similar basic specs, differentiated by extras or whatever. Done.

N-Bomb

One middleware future? We're almost there.

One console future? Ha, ha - no.

WaterMedia

I really don't understand why we're talking about these topics when we haven't had a one console monopoly since the NES. I mean, let's exercise some discretion here Bashcraft. EVERY SINGLE TIME Dyack decides to repeat what he thinks, do you really have to make a story out of it? We have three very strong competitors in the arena right now that are also competing with the PC. When somebody else decides to step out of the industry, then maybe this will gain some credence. But with Nintendo never having been in a stronger position, Microsoft finally making a profit, and Sony's systems sales catching up, I don't see when that is going to happen.

We're going to have a much more fruitful discussion about how much more like PC's consoles are going to become rather than talk about a one console future. As long as ideas rule the marketplace, and I assure you that they always will, there is always going to be more than one take on a product. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are never ever ever going to have this market to themselves.

Gagamus

I've had enough one console proclamations.
Yes... the whole industry is moving toward a monopoly. It's been moving toward a monopoly for almost 50 years now! And there are not only more console manufacturers than when I was a kid, there are more games markets! Portable, mobile (phone), MMO, casual/arcade downloads, episodic games...

Now a one console future would be a monopoly - whether by corporation or consortium. "Well, since our group sets the standard for console games, we've decided that a new game is worth $130."

Competition only fosters a monopoly when all competitors are beaten. The last generation was dominated about 75% by a company who was a newcomer who had started about a half dozen years earlier. Now they're struggling in the NA market to keep up with the previous underdog.

On the contrary, we are moving away from a console monopoly. Now the actual game companies like Namco-Bandai, Square-Enix, Sega-Sammy, etc... that's another story.

fuchikoma

@quen: There is also the future of display technology to consider, I doubt we'll be stuck with flat, 2-D displays forever ;)

DaiMacculate

@nxp3: I find your lack of comprehension disturbing.

MingTheMagnificent

A unified gaming platform architecture would be good. Let me explain by using DVD players as an example: Different brands churn out different DVD players but what do they all have in common? They play DVD movies without giving a flying **** which studio the movies came from. A Samsung DVD player could play any DVD movie you placed in the tray regardless of whether the movie came from Warner Bros, Sony Pictures, or Touchstone. The same goes for DVD players from Philips, Sony, Hitachi, etc.

garytek

@kNZA: Yes, the idea of a shared spec is simple, but you have one catch: 'extra features are allowed'. No, they absolutely can't be, or games don't run on all systems. What you mean is 'extra features are allowed as long as they don't affect game software in any way.'

So for instance if you want to upscale all games to twice HD resolution, that's fine, if you want to cache games on hard disk automatically to speed loading that's fine, if you want to integrate a TV recorder that's fine. But if you want to add something that actually affects games (like say a motion-sensitive controller) then it's not fine. Otherwise somebody will make games that require it (or suck without it) and there you go, no shared platform.

I think this is plausible but only once technology stops driving console development. Basically when we can essentially get any graphics we want at HD resolution, for a low price, and there's no real need for more improvement. At that point consoles can become commodities, I don't really see it happening before.

quen

@kNZA: PDF is not hard to work with, provided you pony up for the appropriate tools. I'm sure if you sent whatever PDF you were having trouble with to me it would take an hour (extreme top-end estimate), or less for me to crop out whatever section you're struggling with. Heck it might not even cost, I wouldn't be surprised if I could do it with something free like GraphicConverter.

So thats kind of a poor comparison to say, PS3 development, which we have on good authority from several developers is challenging even with the highest end and most expensive tools imaginable. Still, the payoff is that, at least in theory, PS3 games 2-3 years hence will be consistently stunning in their graphical presentation while MS is scrambling to produce the 360's successor. I'd rather have the unpredictability and the competition than the alternative Dyack envisions.

Oh and not "everyone" on Kotaku thinks we need unified HD video formats, I could care less as long as I can get a reasonably priced multi-format player. That was always more my concern than which one "won" the war.

DaiMacculate

@bunch.of.wackos:

Consumer confusion exists for EVERY single product out there, regardless of how simple or complex it is. Look at the various DVD and BD players out there for example, including HDTV's. That's not really much of an argument.

Using the Wii as an example isn't good at all, because specs haven't changed much from the GC and is quite cheap to develop for. AAA titles regardless of the platform will need bigger budgets, and one console isn't going to solve that.

One standard has bigger holes in regards to specs. Who decides them, and when are they do for the next generation? Picture more confusion now with various CE companies trying to compete by making their players with more feature and/or reliability factors. If 3 console fanboys weren't bad enough, imagine having 10+ of them.

SG79

I think it is inevitable, from a industry point of view the "closed" model is not realiable, developing for PS3, 360, and WII takes too many people invoilves too many man hours to learn the coding and apply it to the different architectures, (it requires people, and people require money) if a gaming standard is accepted that opens the market to pretty much every other hardware manufacturer (imagine buying a samsung console and playing Microsoft games on it)and the gaming companies will have to focus on delivering the best gaming software possible .
I think is inevitable because the game has been open by the same manufacturer that would loose the most on this model, Nintendo; think of all the millions of WIIs sitting on living rooms waiting for the next time they'll be used. The average (casual?) consumer doesn't care for brands, they see a game on a magazine they want to play it on their console, i have my comic/videogamestore (you wouldn't believe how hard is to explain a customer why they can't play winning eleven on their wii, or why the copy of X game is not the correct for their console) (yes some parents really are that clueless) opening the gaming market to the casual player means the industry will have to abide by the rules of commerce (offer an demand)
So before you write off Denis Dyack's theory of a one console future, think of the hordes of consumers (parents?) looking to buy something they don't understand for a son that can't explain in a store that has no help... (chinesse knock off anyone?)

bunch.of.wackos

@duckmouth:

Moving development on 4 consoles isn't abnormal, including delays on the same console? Eternal Darkness certainly didn't ooze of quality that you'd expect from a game in development (according to you) for 4 years.

And MGS TTS wasn't even completely developed by them, nor was it a new game that surpassed the quality of the original. So we have 3 games here in the span of a decade, developed by teams comparable to the sizes of Namco's Tales and Kojima's teams. Bigger than the team that created RE4 too.

Are any of the games monumental including the upcoming Too Human? Doesn't appear to be. Not exactly fair to compare them to much smaller teams with limited budgets.

Yet SK actually got the backing of MS, but once TH, who's going to take chances with them anymore?

SG79

@tei:

How about PDF?

Ever try printing one part of a PDF page?

It's a nightmare.

Thanks, closed standards!

kNZA

I think it's pretty funny that everyone on Kotaku thinks there must be one standard video disk format but no one wants a standard game format.

Console prices would be worse? Maybe so.

No company would swallow losses on new hardware if they don't have the software-license profits to compensate for it.

--

It's simple.

Let's assume this gen is roughly a tie. (please)

-

So Nintendo, Sony, and MS agree on a hardware spec.

A group representing all three licenses games that work well on that spec.

Games with the license pay $1 to the licensing body to cover costs.

Manufacturers compete to sell you the cheapest, best-looking, most reliable console that meets the spec.

Extra features are allowed.

Nintendo can sell weird controllers all they want.

---

The biggest change?

Software.

Games can cost less (much lower licensing and bigger market)

Smaller developers can compete (same reasons)

--

Nobody loses out.

kNZA

@Jaml: Your argument would be correct if you paid the creators in advance, but you don't. You basically just criticised your own point - "And as soon as i put down 50$ they owe me a working and entertaining product just like a tv salesman owes you a working TV if you pay him. And you don´t want to hear Sony complain about how hard it is to make their Bravia TVs, you just want a working unit." You HAVEN'T put down your $50 yet, so they owe you nothing.

Complaining does change things - it makes people realise something is going wrong. Maybe it won't work in your situation; as a network technician you're providing a service, not a product. But video games are still in their infancy in regards to development and relevance, and the stupid console wars that happen every five years are indications of how young and unorganised the whole industry is. Fact is, a three-console model cannot be supported in the future, it just isn't economically feasible. Unless, of course, you want everything to be made by EA or Activision.

Many people *do* like hearing about the problems of the industry because they give a shit about where it is going. You can tell who on this site genuinely gives a shit, for example - they're the ones who haven't outright dismissed Dyack's claims, even if they do not personally agree with him. If not, why are you reading a site like Kotaku that sets out to highlight everything there is about video games, warts and all?

Spoiler Duck

Theres only one open stadadard: The PC. IBM "forgot" to register the system, so some guys starting createing clones.. that whas create the sucess of PC, over things like the closed Mac.

You can't have a closed standard. Made no sense. Look at Flash, Adobe can change the spec every week, and you will not know, because these guys produce the editor "Flash" and the viewer "Flash", anything in-betwen is unknowm(on the last versions, others have specs).

About the topic: I hardly see Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo coop. Why would do that?, these guys are canival, will kill each another If can.

tei

forgive bad grammer and spelling above. Me tired and me brain thunk poorli.

realyst2k

Dyack went on about this on a 1up Yours podcast a while ago and it really was interesting and made lots of sense so it shouldn't be dismissed outright. The problem being is the following:

We have a unified gaming platform: the PC.

All you have to do is get the games to launch from disc without installer 6 gigs of data and polluting the registry(better yet, skip Windows and its godawful registry system altogether)

It's running into it's own problems. The hardware, not being subsidized is expensive because game makers want something new and fancy to draw people in and 'new and fancy' costs money.

If you limit the technological advancement, who does the limiting? And to what ends? Also, you end up homogenizing the environment and interfaces because if you deviate too much, you're stuck developing for every possible peripheral/add-on the person may potentially have(see joypad support in PC games).

Also, companies are jumping to consoles under the perception that the DRM is stronger(harder to get a rip of a 360 game working then of a Windows PC).

------

Having said that, a more uniformly functioning console marketplace is starting form around the seams. PS3 has linux support out the box(crippled as it may be). XBox's SDK makes porting from PC easier. Mini niche consoles like the GamePark, GP2X and upcoming Pandora platform are taking advantage of free and open operating systems(which is where the majority of the pain in cross-platform porting comes from).

Will we ever have a "one console"? I really hope not for some of the points above, regardless of what the devs want.

However a "one platform" is available, possible, probable and may show up sooner then one might think.

realyst2k

@Spoiler Duck.
I fix problems myself. Im a network technician and do you think thats easy? My customers don´t give a fuck about how hard it is to get their stuff working and its their right to do so. I love my job and do not complain if i have to work overtime to find and solve a problem, its part of the job.
And as soon as i put down 50$ they owe me a working and entertaining product just like a tv salesman owes you a working TV if you pay him. And you don´t want to hear Sony complain about how hard it is to make their Bravia TVs, you just want a working unit.
All that crying in the gaming industry makes me mad cause its just childish. Do your work or change your work to something that suits you. Complaining about it isn´t gonna change anything. No other buissness whines so much about how hard it is, they adapt or are left behind.

Jaml

They've been working on this game for 12 years.. right after they finished off Legacy of Kain in 1996. They just.. took a break a few times. lol.

wicko

@Xiedo: yeah I was going to say that Dyack has done something in the last 9 years, otherwise why did he write a blog quoting him.

I think this topic has been talked about to death and, for the most part, the idea is beyond most of us. I think the last time this came up (not from Dyack) the person stated that there could possibly be one console with different OS's (for lack of a better way to describe it). These OS's would be developed by the current manufacturers.

jp182

What the hell is he yacking on...that's just stupid. I say the more the marrier. Competition keeps monopoly away. If one company is getting too big and trying to gouge prices, then anohter cheaper better one comes along to keep it in check. He's stupid, where did he go to school.

nxp3

Great idea, makes a whole lotta sense. 1 Problem: Never Gonna Work. None of the companies are going to sit down and say "hey, you know what? we're destroying economy and the such, maybe, just maybe We could all band together and make 1 system!" No one will do that. We all know it.

TheBoxNinja

Yes dyack. That would mean screwing over every single early adopter there is when they buy a console early and it breaks a few months later with no real refund on it like dvd players did. It means consumers getting tricked into buying a "higher end" model by best buy that's exactly the same as the low end model because there's no set price point. It means lower end hardware which would just make the pc a dominating force that way more places could manufacture the hardware. It means cheap knockoffs. Does anyone think of this stuff honestly or do you all just seem to forget the past 10 years?

NessD12

Come on Den-Den.
Less interviewy, more game makey.

glamnesia

God this Dyack guy really has a big, huge mouth. He just keeps talking and talking and talking, and yet his pet baby project that's supposedly going to take over the gaming universe at this point might as well be vaporware. And do keep yacking on and on Dyack, because maybe Microsoft will get sick of you talking about how there needs to be only one console in the future, unless of course what you're really saying is you want Xbox to win.

Soldrak

@Jaml: The developers owe you nothing. Calling them lazy just illustrates your complete lack of understanding in regards to how difficult games are to create, how it is even more difficult to get the said game running on multiple platforms. If you think they are simply lazy when the problem is simple, why not just fix the problem yourself? You make the whole thing sound like a cakewalk.

As for leaving PR guys to do all the talking, I know I prefer to hear from the developers themselves. It offers insight into their process and philosophies. Dyack is presenting his honest and intelligent opinion and everyone here, including a very biased Ashcraft, are crucifying him for it. How many people even bothered to read the 1UP article this came from? He gives very logical arguments about why the 'one console' (and people really need to research what exactly he means - do we have just 'one' DVD player available to buy? No, but everyone is close to the same in spec) future is inevitable.

Spoiler Duck

If all the third parties go away, there's not going to be a games industry, so something's got to give somewhere.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks Dennis, I needed a good laugh to start my day with.

DaiMacculate

You know Microsoft did this (with the focus mostly in Japan) in the 1980s with their MSX and MSX2 computers. Any company could make a MSX (then later MSX2 and I'm sure there are some spin offs)... heck even Sony had a MSX computer. All Microsoft did is set down a list of requirements so software would be functional across all platforms and then hardware makers were free to do as they please beyond that.

It would be cool to see something like that happen again for the console market. The 360 and PS3 are already a lot a like in hardware (most of the parts that are not could easily be changed). If something like this were to happen, then you'd have developers all working on a standardized platform, and if Sony or Nintendo wants to release a special controller for their systems they can (analyst will tell you a lot of the money in consoles comes in from licensing and peripherals.

As far as Dyack, yack it up after you finish your game buddy.

Also for more info on MSX1/2, check out - [en.wikipedia.org] - I only know about the system because this is the system the first two Kojima-produced Metal Gear games where on, I never owned one myself but when I talk to other people about it, they are really surprised Microsoft would do something this... non-evil. I guess they grew more evil as the decades passed.

DeeBG

This is simply wrong.

All three console makers will make a healthy profit on their consoles (even Microsoft -- probably). No one is going to say "we're making a profit doing what we're doing, let's stop it now".

What indicates there won't be similar profits available for all 3 consoles on the next console generation?

I say we're more likely to get a 4th and 5th major console than for the number to shrink. Profits attract new competitors to a market.

Kohath

"One Console Future" is a terrible misnomer, seeing as there would be far more consoles than there are now. This term is why most people just don't understand the ideas behind it (at first anyway).
It also implies that there wouldn't be a different set of standards every six years or so, in keeping with the latest technology (like dvd -> blu ray), which wouldn't be the case either.

By the way, I highly recommend everyone to listen to Dyack's last 1up podcast, everything is explained really well.

EgoMonk

@xot:

Yeah, I was thinking 3DO as well. As great as the idea is in theory, I don't see it working any time soon. We just had a totally unnecessary HD-DVD vs Bluray war and even now a lot of people just stick to normal DVD. A video standard is much easier to estabish than a console standard.

3 consoles are sustainable so the console manufacturers won't go that way easily. Add to that, that there are many differences in what consumers want. Not everyone can afford a PS3 but most can afford a PS2/Wii. Who decides what it will be? In the past consoles launched much cheaper, in '95 Saturn's $399 was considered rediculous. But things like graphics power, controls and online are just as important.

The only way I see it happening if publishers just refuse to support more than one platform. Like the way EA decided to kill the Dreamcast by not supporting Sega. Whether or not the DC failed because of EA is debatable but it didn't help matters much in the good way. EA is now much bigger so has more power. Nintendo could do without I guess at this point as they don't get a lot of support anyway but how would you sell a ps3 or 360 to the mainstream if it wouldn't play Madden and Fifa? Note that I do see some anti-trust cases coming when this situation becomes reality.

TrekVogel

@thinkfreemind: If gaming manufacturers got together to create a one console spec, EA (who is a publisher) would not be included in that decision unless they decided to start a manufacturing division.

Also I honestly don't think the rest of the industry would care one bit if Nintendo remained on their own... 1) It has its own niche market, 2) Their most successful titles are mostly their own, 3) It wouldn't rule them out of changing their minds later either. When they stuck with cartridge as the rest of the industry went disk look what later happened - Gamecube/Wii. So much for thick and thin.

TC

I thought he was a samurai, what's up with the medieval armour?

me, my yoke + i

Even if there ever was some sort of one console revolution, Nintendo would not be a part of it. Nintendo will always keep doing there own thing through thick and thin. If there is a one console future, I know that I wont have to worry about it. Not to be a fanboy, but I'd stick with Nintendo over the possible future EA game machine.

thinkfreemind

@marlblank: I agree, I don't get the implication that this "one console" idea is complete rubbish, because the PC game industry is beginning it now as we speak.
[kotaku.com] & [kotaku.com]

TC

I like Dyack's idea of an open model if only because we could buy based on hardware quality rather than exclusives.

munkah

poor Dydack...

Too human is going to bomb, and all he can do is complain about the 3 gaming consoles on the market...

I guess it's better use of his time, since he probably can't fix something he broke in the first place.

lasttimeyouaskedme

@xot: So true.

FranUnFine

@tei:
No the only job devs have to do is to develope our games. Talking to customers is the job of PR and support people.
Do some "developers" even develope anything anymore inbetween writing their blogs, answering questions on forums, trashtalking in podcasts and giving interviews on gametrailers? No wonder games take years to develope, they aren´t in their offices half the time anymore.
Get the PR people out there to do press work and whip those lazy asses back to the nearest C compiler.

Jaml

In other news, Trip Hawkins seen dusting off a warehouse full of 3D0s.

xot

@JChaos: While I agree the "one console" idea is sadly a pipe dream, that doesn't make it similarly a monopoly. That isn't the mindset or theory devs are having behind the "one console" idea at all.

No one specific company is controlling the "one console" hardware spec. The theory is similar to what ex-CEO of IBM, Lou Gerstner, did by playing matchmaker to Sony and Toshiba's (MMCD or Super Density Disk) format war during the 90's. He got them to agree on a spec that later became the DVD standard. This is what devs who theorize the "one console" idea desire, someone to play matchmaker to Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony to agree with a universal hardware spec that all games will play on. Similar to currently buying any DVD player, from any manufacturer, to play any DVD that you wish. Or similar to the PC alliance recently formed amongst all the PC industry giants to agree on a standard for PC gaming. It is about creating a universal spec that any manufacturer can use. Even beyond just MS, Sony, and Nintendo to companies like even JVC releasing a version of the agreed spec or RCA, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips, etc. It takes some of the hardware bullshit off a company like MS, Sony, or Nintendo's gaming division hands and lets them god forbid - focus mainly on game development.

The "one console" pipe dream depends in getting the gaming manufacturers to agree on an alliance that decides a universal hardware spec that they each can sell within their own brand name that all games can play on.

After spending most of my gaming life living through 6 generations of obnoxious console wars, purchasing multiple hardwares (especially this gen where games look similar with exception to Wii), and brand fanboys makes me hope this pipe dream comes true someday - but I won't cross my fingers.

TC

You know who "drones" on more than Denis Dyack? People online who whine about him.

Snaphaunce

Actually, this DOES make sense. It may seem utopian, but one unified console can have a good shot at being succesfull without having to drop the advance of technology. ship ports and other similar businesses have learnt to specialize and complement each other, instead of competing against each other, and it worked out fine for them.

Having a unified architecture through game consoles couldn't hurt, but I don't see it happening anytime soon though.

marlblank

If the only console I could own was a wii I would be a sad bunny.

I will continue to support a multi console market because I feel that the competition between these giants is making a wonderful rainfall of great games fall onto the heads of we gamers and we can only benefit from these battles.

A single console limits innovation and competition and it would slow the development of games technology.

Just look at the gap that been closed between PC and console games in the past few years. It's incredible!

Grocerspride

he's not talking about 1 company owning a closed system and everyone makes games for that. he's talking about a standard. it's like betamax vs vhs. Right now game machines each have a different closed standard, which makes it economically difficult for softwawre vendors to make shit for each one. if you had one standard (think vhs, dvd, bluray), then software makers could make shit that matches the standard and hardware makers could make shit that will guarantee that that software will run on it, and everyone wins. multiple hardware makers compete and drive down prices for the console on the hardware side, and costs of development go down for software makers and they get a bigger unified market, so you get more software. it won't result in all games being the same either, because the standard just needs to ensure hardware specs and API's, you could still get the best nintendo games and controllers to work with the console, and still get god of war3 to run on it too. there's no reason to have closed standards

baccardi84

@Jaml: Hahaha.. your comment is rough on the corners. But made me laught. Haha. Not all dev's work is to code, but some dev's jobs is to talk to the client. You.

tei

The only reason the developers would want a one console future is to stymie the rising development costs. Or rather, off-set them, since the software they develop will ultimately work on all the consoles. Or that would be the hope.

Rather, I think this generation will smash Denis' argument into pieces when it's finished. We will have proven that multiple consoles are quite a viable option in the market. Games are only expensive because they've constantly gotten more complex, and developers have bloated to make sure they can handle the complexities, not because of the amount of 'closed models' out there in the market. We've always had two or three throughout the years, and I don't remember people bitching about how expensive it was to make games in the halcyon days of 8 bit, 16 bit titles. Now there's tons of money to be had in the industry, and everyone wants the good talent, everyone wants the good coders, so those people with the skills actually EXPECT to be paid a decent wage. Combine complex gaming engines, coding, and debugging with the need for skilled employees to handle it, and essentially gaming has strangled itself.

But lo, there are two salvations to these problems this generation. The Wii, and Live/PSN gaming. The Wii is underpowered, but it also proves that gaming can be fun without the need for huge budgets. Sure, not all the best selling games are awesome, but to a developer who spent maybe a fourth what it might cost to make the same game on another system in full HD and compete against other pretty titles, profits are profits. The constant PS2 sales prove that graphics aren't everything anymore, good games still draw system sales, and it's huge library still coaxes people to buy the system (be it for the first time or to replace broken ones.) Same with PSN/Live. The games that can be made for download prove developers can have smaller teams work to make good games that still look good and make profits on these smaller titles that can fund larger, more ambitious games.

Rather, it sounds to me that Denis is crying because he put all his eggs in one basket, and the consoles this generation (as well as the PC's download services like Steam and Gametap.) have provided more baskets.

Ampillion, now with the hair stylings of TVs Frank

@duckmouth:

Do you want me to be? :)

Nope, not Denis.

As for the Monopoly thing, Yes, that could be a very bad thing.
A proposed open model would would still have multiple console manufacturers, therefor there would likely be even more fierce competition between Hardware, and fiercer competition between software, as everyone would be competing.

What we have now is Monopolistic competition. In an open commoditised platform, we'd have perfact competition.

Commodification - [en.wikipedia.org]
Perfect Competition - [en.wikipedia.org]

I personally just want to see it so we don't see nearly as much uninspired, redundant software (though I'm sure that will still be there in spades). Plus, I beleive it would raise production values (at least for the upper tier), and the market would be large enough (Hopefully comparable in size to the penetration of the DVD player) to fully suppot independant developers on a greater scale. Which would hopefully create more original software across the board (there would obviously be a flood of uninspired tripe too.

But then again, I'm an art nerd, so I tend to desire odd things.

theALLseeingEYE

Well they are talking about a PC. Every Pc has a Keyboard and Mouse just like every Car has a driving wheel and a gas pedal. And last time i checked no one wants to develope for PC anymore.
A single console would kill progression and thats bad for us gamers so i say the more the better cause competition keeps those greedy corporations on their toes.
And those lazy developers should just churn out good multiplatform games and shut the hell up. When did every dev became a rockstar? You are workers just like everyone else. Do your work and keep your trap shut. I dont remember programmers for applications treated like prima donnas, someone should put game devs back in place. That beeing a cubicle in an office and not in front of a camera.
Damn lazy bastards.

Jaml

@duckmouth:
Having listened to the Dyack interviews on the 1up podcasts during GDC and read a few of his interviews... I don't think he needs any help making himself look like an ass. ;)

bnpederson

@Heartwork: Actually what he might be getting on about is the possible concept of console manufacturers partnering to develop a single, unified console system without having to compete with a wide variety of requirements and features that set each other apart in a closed model.

Microsoft+Sony partnering on a next-gen console sounds very plausible to me, but Nintendo is likely to remain stand-alone regardless.

Another possibility is that all major publishers and console manufacturers have a meeting, discuss what the specifications will be for the next-gen, establish a goal framework, and then make their own development models. After that, they present their development models to the public, press, and their peers for feedback.

Once that's done, and the apparent winner is chosen, that winning design's specs become disseminated to the rest of the manufacturers with a universal development kit. This way, third party manufacturers can get in on the act and offer their own versions of the console with different parts but still serve the same architecture, design, etc that would hopefully deliver the same level of performance.

This way, the manufacturer that builds the best console version of the "chosen design" the cheapest, wins out without having to limit the game development industry by way of cross-platforming.

And obviously, makes games work across different manufacturer's verisons of the same console without having to waste loads of money.

NKato

@V1L3:
If I want to buy an iPod I have to pay whatever Apple decides to charge for it. That's a competitive market because I don't need to buy a freaking iPod, even if I need one to play many iTunes files. There are other ways to buy and/or play digital music. They might not have the same convenience, selection, or quality as iTunes/iPod combination, but that's my choice.

As far as consolidation, even if EA decides to put up the massive funds it takes to develop a home console themselves do you think they're going to allow Activision-Blizzard to use it for free? I think they'd end up charging fees for other companies, non-EA owned companies, to make games on it in order to pay for their research and development. Wait, that'd make them just another Sega with a closed model. How about that?

bnpederson

@theALLseeingEYE: Are you Denis Dyack?

duckmouth

"If they win market dominance, it moves the market toward a monopoly, because it's not an open, competitive market. If Nintendo wins 95% of the market, it definitely becomes a monopoly".

The implication being that this would be bad, right? Then why the hell would he suggest one console would be better? Is he being hypocritical or am I misinterpreting this?

duckmouth

@Xiedo:
Hey, we can't expect Ashcraft to actually do some reseach... because that would include him being a good, unbiased journalist. And we all know thats no fun ;)

Besides, religiously posting Denis Dyack comments out of context to make him look like an ass is fun :) no?

Plus..Admitting that Denis was actually working on Eternal Darkness for 4-5 of those years would include having to acknowledge he made MGS: The Twin Snakes in that timeframe too. And then we'd actually have to admit that Too Human's dev cycle really isn't that abnormal in our industry. Especially for companies that like to put out good games, instead of just shoveling unfinished garbage out the door :)

theALLseeingEYE

So...it's the third party developers that will establish the one-console standard? Riiight. Hello? Consumers own that area, and we'll pay for what we like, thank you.

If developers/publishers can't make sound decisions and waste gobs of money on a title that failed on a specific console, that's their fault. They can whine all they want about how console makers should make it easier for a cross-platform standard, but it won't happen.

boopadoo

...

Let me get this straight.

This guy's idea of solving the problem of a monopoly is... to create a monopoly? What?

I'm not even sure if this guy understands the words that he's using. Has anyone here EVER said "I'm just gonna buy one system," and at the same time said "I've got enough money to pay any price for a system," cause I sure as hell haven't heard that line of thinking ever.

What he's describing here is not monopoly, it's competition. Yes, third parties might like to only have to develop for one platform. However, until there's a perfect world where there is only one reasonably priced platform, that's not going to happen. If you make a game and it doesn't get bought, it's not the fault of the console market. It's the fault of a bad game, or bad advertising.

JChaos

He's neglecting to realize that if you stop making closed-platform consoles...you're left with PC gaming. The thing people love about console gaming is that you can buy the system and be able to play any game with that system's name on it. No dicking around with video card requirements and upgrading your PC constantly.

If you go for an open-platform approach, all the advantage current consoles have over PCs disappear. All games end up with a grocery list of requirements as to which of these open-platform consoles they will work on and which they won't.

Heartwork

I dunno, seems like if one hardware manufacturer goes down another company will just step in to take its place. Xbox came in around the time Dreamcast was dying out. If one of the current three consoles disappeared I could see a company like Apple, HP, Samsung announcing their new gaming console.

UmeShoryu

Archive this idea in the "In a perfect world.." area.

tei

Aint gonna happen is what I say.

Witzbold

@Balance_In_Life (PSN): No, because that would be "closed model." Only Nintendo can make the Wii - hence, no competition.

In an "open model," any hardware manufacturer could create this hypothetical "single console." So sure, Sony could charge $1,500 for their version of it, but then they'd get crushed in the market if Panasonic were to sell a $399 model.

Look at the Wii. If you want a Wii, you have to pay whatever Nintendo decides to charge for it. How is that a competitive market?

Frankly, if this consolidation continues (EA acquiring Take-Two), then the game publishers will hold all the cards. Sony and Microsoft are hardly going to release a console without all that third party support.

Nintendo? Nintendo are Nintendo. They'll just keep churning out games and hardware until Miyamoto retires or dies of exhaustion.

V1L3

So who gets to decide what the one console is? Nintendo? Great now we have underpowered systems with shit online. Microsoft? Now we have awesome online but unreliable hardware and are nickled and dimed for every tiny piece of proprietary download/perpherial. Sony? Now we get to buy $2000 consoles complete with betmax, ATRAC, memory stick and minidisc player builtin.

greeble

One console to rule them all, and in the markets, bind them.

DevCo

You know what Dyack's been doing besides developing Too Human the last nine years? Thinking, that's what.

Eternal Darkness feels forgotten.

Xiedo

if there was only one console, it would end up being the equivalent of what EA and madden are

kickass solo(my GT)

Yeah so when we get to this "One Console" heaven you dream of and said console cost 1500 bucks because it has no one to compete against are you going to buy it for me? I didn't think so.

Balance_In_Life (PSN)

Except there will be so much bickering over just who gets to be that "one console" that it would never really work. Not without some economical cataclysm.

Lyrai

Microsoft's a software company, Sony's arguably a hardware company, and Nintendo's a "game" company...

KanoBlade

Unfortunately most of the "decision makers" could give a rat's ass about what's hard for the economy or harmful to the industry.

BenignMuffin

So either every manufacturer makes the same console with no ability to distinguish themselves, or you get the current multi-SKU situation only much much worse... just like the PC gaming market!

Torgen thinks AAA means “Costs $60”