Dyack: "One console STANDARD to rule them all," & Too Human tidbits

[jamesb23]

First the Too Human bit:

BIZ: Can you put a percentage on how far along in development you are? DD: It's much, much further along than what people think. The perception right now, because we're being so quiet about it, and we're being unusually quiet about it, is being misinterpreted as we're not that far along but it's going very well.

On the future of hardware:

I think in the long term, honestly, [I'd like] one hardware platform to rule them all. It's what happened in the movie industry. I think we're moving towards a homogeneous platform whether people like it or not. At the end of the day, I think it's in everyone's best interest that there be one hardware console, whether it be Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or whether all three of them got together and said, "Ok we're going to agree upon a standard for everyone to make." In the movie industry it helped tremendously because as a content creator, all we want to do is make games and entertain people. Don't get me wrong, I love the hardware platforms, like the Sony platform and I think the Wii's got some really unique things and Microsoft's platform we obviously love a lot. However, we'd rather spend time making the games than worrying about the hardware. And if everyone had the same hardware and when you made a game you knew you got 100% penetration because anyone who plays this game had to buy this hardware platform just like a DVD or whatever standard media format's going to be. I think that would ultimately be much better for gamers. ... I think it's inevitable, actually. The reason I think it's inevitable and there's no choice... have you ever heard of Peter Drucker? He's recognized in financial and business areas but he's basically an academic who deals with corporate structure and really is considered the grandfather of modern corporations and how they should be run. Anyway, he's written a couple of really interesting books, one of them called "Post-Capitalist Society." It's not about communism or anything like that; it's talking about how knowledge based companies are going to continue to be the dominant type of company in the future. He talks about things, and this is generally accepted about the commoditization of technology, and historically if you look at a technology, once something becomes ingrained within culture, the value of that technology at the end of the day will diminish so much that there's actually no value to it. So if you take something like, say a toaster. When the toaster came out they were actually pretty expensive. Now, a toaster or a cellphone, another good example, they don't care if you buy the cell phone anymore, they only care about the service so they'll give you the cell phone for free. Whereas cell phones used to be a couple thousand dollars, then for five hundred dollars and now it's just, "Here take this cell phone." So if your going to look at consoles the same way, if it's really all about the games... Doesn't everyone say that now, it's all about the games, it's not really about the hardware? Nintendo says it, Sony says it, Microsoft says it. If the value of that technology continues to diminish, and it's becoming more and more expensive to manufacture and research & develop these, eventually there's going to come a breaking point where everyone goes, "You know what, let's stop spending all this money on R&D into this hardware where no one really cares about it as much as they used to because of the value of it. Everyone's got one, so why don't we just spend our money on making games because all the money is in the software anyway?" So I think it's going to get to the point where the value of the hardware, like a PS3 or an Xbox 360 or a Nintendo Wii or whatever in the future, is going to be very low.

Tons more interesting stuff including his interest in returning to Legacy of Kain, if Eidos allows it that is: http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15712

[Kazenone]

The perception right now, because we're being so quiet about it, and we're being unusually quiet about it, is being misinterpreted as we're not that far along but it's going very well.

I wish he'd actually give the answer in numerical form - his answer was too cryptic, and Eternal Darkness 2 - where are you?

Edit; ED2 comment

BIZ: Is a true Eternal Darkness sequel coming? Can you talk about that? DD: I can't comment on the titles that are upcoming. I can say without question, and I said this in my blog, we've planned and created an entire universe around Eternal Darkness and a sequel is very doable and very possible. I think at the end of the day, it's going to take the right time and the right things to come together to make that happen. But usually when we create games, we create more than one. So we've talked and planned about it quite a bit.

[Vrolokus]

In before irrational Dyack hate.

[mr_nothin]

BIZ: Can you put a percentage on how far along in development you are? DD: It's much, much further along than what people think. The perception right now, because we're being so quiet about it, and we're being unusually quiet about it, is being misinterpreted as we're not that far along but it's going very well.

Sounds like 5 more years


Vrolokus, YOU WIN THIS TIME!!!........

[Karma Kramer]

**** you denis...

stop talking and show us your game already.

jesus mary and jospeph

[Zombie James]

What does he mean by one hardware platform? Does he mean having a single system on top (MS/Sony/Whatever) or a single hardware spec being the same accross different manufacturers (3DO)?

[TemplaerDude]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

[Mrbob]

One console future, bring it. I want it.

[Newzboyz99]

Of course Dynack wants a universal console, that way Too Human 2 doesn't span over 4 different consoles.

[Grecco]

So basically Dyack wants the worst possible outcome for the industry.

Thanks!

[Branduil]

One console future won't happen, and I'm glad.

[pooteeweet]

But with only one system there would be no system wars, and no system warriors. Such an idea is doomed to fail. We need the conflict. GAF feeds on it.

[mr_nothin]

What does he mean by one hardware platform? Does he mean having a single system on top (MS/Sony/Whatever) or a single hardware spec being the same accross different manufacturers (3DO)?

It makes no sense to have ONE CONSOLE.
It means no competition and nothing innovative.

Take madden for example. That's the worse thing that could have happened. :(
And how are we moving towards one console? lol each company is moving in totally different directions

[jamesb23]

I think what he means is that the hardware is all getting so powerful that soon the spec won't matter, so yes it could be one hardware spec, but possibly different manufacturers just as you have different DVD player manufacturers or whatever.

[Ranger X]

I'd sign up for the one console future.

[Mama Smurf]

Dyack is obsessed with talking about other forms of entertainment. I hardly ever him him talk about games without comparing them to something else...movies, novels, Shakespeare, Aristotle...just shut up and talk about your game, I can compare it myself.

[Bildi]

Gee, those analogies are awful. Well done Denis!

[mckmas8808]

One console future, bring it. I want it.

You now this can't happen.

[Moses]

Dennis needs to stop blowing steam up our ass and release his game.

[BocoDragon]

I think it's inevitable, actually. The reason I think it's inevitable and there's no choice... have you ever heard of Peter Drucker? He's recognized in financial and business areas but he's basically an academic who deals with corporate structure and really is considered the grandfather of modern corporations and how they should be run. Anyway, he's written a couple of really interesting books, one of them called "Post-Capitalist Society." It's not about communism or anything like that; it's talking about how knowledge based companies are going to continue to be the dominant type of company in the future. He talks about things, and this is generally accepted about the commoditization of technology, and historically if you look at a technology, once something becomes ingrained within culture, the value of that technology at the end of the day will diminish so much that there's actually no value to it. So if you take something like, say a toaster. When the toaster came out they were actually pretty expensive. Now, a toaster or a cellphone, another good example, they don't care if you buy the cell phone anymore, they only care about the service so they'll give you the cell phone for free. Whereas cell phones used to be a couple thousand dollars, then for five hundred dollars and now it's just, "Here take this cell phone."

It's not as if we have a "one cellphone future" where cellphones are just cheap junk and we can go with whatever network we want.... Actually, the very fact that the tech is so cheap means that companies love to lock customers into closed systems.... not unlike a proprietary videogame format which actually makes money off software.

[Mrbob]

It makes no sense to have ONE CONSOLE. It means no competition and nothing innovative. Take madden for example. That's the worse thing that could have happened. :( And how are we moving towards one console? lol each company is moving in totally different directions

Competition stems from wanting to sell your product. Competition from other software makers will ensure the product is good.

Imagine how much better Madden could be if Tiburon could focus on making one version instead of 12.

[Goreomedy]

Too Human released a week ago.

It was brilliant strategy. There hasn't been one word of negative press!

[mentalfloss]

Yea, one $600 console, instead of giving me the option to get something with better value at a lower price. This guy's like a polite version of Rein.

[krypt0nian]

One console future won't happen, and I'm glad.

Amen. Stop yapping, Dyack. What would Socrates say?

[goldenpp72]

A one console future to me is a good thing, maybe hardware would be a tad more expensive, but people who think games would suddenly stagnate are idiots, because instead of having to compete with 'consoles' they would have to compete with the games themselves. You wouldn't have viva trying to help 360 vs mario on the nintendo, it would be viva directly against mario in terms of trying to appeal and sell, which would create a greater competition within the software industry.

Id be all for one hardware spec.. I just don't see manufactorers ever agreeing to make a joint console and as such it would take one company dominating the rest.

I just imagine being able to not buy a ps3 and a wii and play all the games I want on 360, even if my 360 costed 'break even to profit level' at purchase id still ultimately save money, I don't see consoles hitting 1250 dollars :)

[banKai]

i would also welcome a one console future, but the console has to be made buy someone who is not one of the big three, meaning nintendo, sony or microsoft. but this will never happen i guess ;)

[AdmiralViscen]

Why would he care if there was one platform or many? He never has to port over, his games are always exclusive. So he can just make believe everyone who likes games has his console, and he's set.

[Tiktaalik]

One console future would be horrible for gamers. With less competition and no exclusives, gamers really wouldn't see the same sort of investment and effort that go into today's games.

[rage1973]

I think what he means is that the hardware is all getting so powerful that soon the spec won't matter, so yes it could be one hardware spec, but possibly different manufacturers just as you have different DVD player manufacturers or whatever.

That was my understanding too. One console future may not be best for consumers but it would be best for developers since they would get access to most marketshare without additional effort.

[KTallguy]

One console future would be horrible for gamers. With less competition and no exclusives, gamers really wouldn't see the same sort of investment and effort that go into today's games.

If there was one standard, it may help in other ways though.

Hell, if there was the Wii and one other more "movie theater like" console, I think it'd be perfect.

That way the hardware battles can stop and devs can just concentrate on making games, not porting them everywhere.

[Grecco]

Why would he care if there was one platform or many? He never has to port over, his games are always exclusive. So he can just make believe everyone who likes games has his console, and he's set.

Preemtive spin for a game if it goes bomba.

Cause hey if Too Human came out for Wii/360/PS3 instead of 360 it owuld sell better

[rage1973]

Closest we can get to one console future is if somehow Sony and Microsoft agreed to make a single console together with Sony creating the hardware and Microsoft doing the software and online. But I doubt this is even possible.

[C4Lukins]

So basically Dyack wants the worst possible outcome for the industry. Thanks!

It is the worst possible future for fanboys, not the industry. It is such a misguided notion that consoles no longer competing with each other would somehow end innovation. The game developers would still be in competition, and if they want their games to sell then they could not produce complete shit. They would instantly have a much broader market though, and that would be good for them financially. Ports would be a thing of the past, and you would always be buying the best version of a game. His comparison to the movie industry is pretty decent. Imagine if you had to own 3 different video player formats to watch your favorite films. It is kind of that way now in this transitional period, but I am sure that will change.

The only loss of innovation would be in the actual innovation in the tech of the consoles themselves.

[Tiktaalik]

I think the main area where the "one console future" would hurt is with the console itself. I mean good game developers would still make great games, but I think innovation in console services would really suffer.

If Xbox Live never came around, would there really have been a reason for Sony to make their online service any different from the PS2 days?

I could easily imagine in a one console future, a console having an average downloadable arcade service, and despite complaints, having it never improve because there is no competition from anyone else.

[Ranger X]

One console future would be horrible for gamers. With less competition and no exclusives, gamers really wouldn't see the same sort of investment and effort that go into today's games.

??
All the competition effort would be at the software level. Games would NEED to be better to sell more than the other ones. If there is something the one console futur would help its the game quality.

[Leondexter]

That was Trip Hawkins' dream. It was a bad idea then, and it still is. People who think videogames are somehow destined to follow in the footsteps of the home movie business just don't get it.

When specs cease to matter and hardware becomes cheap (I love how he thinks cellphones are free, by the way), we're going to have MORE consoles, not fewer. And that's aside from the TVs, Mp3 players, phones, cars, and whatever other devices are on the way that will have games for sale.

[hydragonwarrior]

If a one console future existed, there would be nothing interesting to discuss on GAF...

[junkster]

There always was and always will be a one console and it's here right now. It's called the PC.

Everything has its pros and cons.
Go home Dyack.

[goldenpp72]

Why would xbox live suffer because of no competition? It's not like microsoft released vista recently and didn't really change anything, look at all the OS competition they have too

Its like people assume employees of companies are robots, believe it or not, normal people work on things like this and they always want to add and tweak things, even if it's not NEEDED because of a lack of competition. Now EA is a company that does this kind of practice but not all companies do. The movie industry still sees great movies, they don't say 'WELL IM GONNA MAKE AN AMAZING MOVIE TO SAVE TEH HD-DVD!', they are concerned with either making an awesome movie or at the most, competiting with OTHER MOVIES. If you threw all games into one place they have to compete with each other but they also can have larger budgets BECAUSE everyone can play them, the competition is still there. Maybe hardware wouldn't evolve quite as much or it would cost more, but there is no way it would cost more then buying all 3 platforms.

[Chrono]

haha dyack.

[Mifune]

Good interview. Great, in fact.

Now show me f'ing Too Human.

[underfooter]

Why does Dyack get so much credibility in the gaming community? He talks to the talk that Silicon Knights can't walk. Eternal Darkness was good, but not great, and the Twin Snakes was a pitiful joke.

[CamHostage]

It makes no sense to have ONE CONSOLE. It means no competition and nothing innovative. Take madden for example. That's the worse thing that could have happened. :( And how are we moving towards one console? lol each company is moving in totally different directions

Full of crap. For one, Madded made the most innovation in years the day 2K got forced out, the Flashlight feature was so innovative that fans hated it and demanded that they go back to the original. (I might add that while the flashlight ignores peripheral vision, it's actually a good idea for simulating the pressure and focus of being a QB, yet fans still want the cheap old see-all system, so thanks for nothing.)

If you had one machine, you'd still have competition between the game makers, you would just be removing that stumbling block that a good portion of the audience interested in your game has no chance of playing it unless they've chosen the system you're making it for. True, the 1st and 2nd Party structure makes great games, and there Sega is a clear example of where not being the platform owner leads to you not being anything at all (though I might say that the fall of Sega was already set before the Dreamcast died), but overall, there is plenty of evidence to support the one-platform concept.

It's not as if we have a "one cellphone future" where cellphones are just cheap junk and we can go with whatever network we want.... Actually, the very fact that the tech is so cheap means that companies love to lock customers into closed systems.... not unlike a proprietary videogame format which actually makes money off software.

It's not as if cellphones by one manufacturer can't call phones by other companies. That's what we're talking about here. XBL and PSN can never talk to each other, and that's a potential problem for both platforms. Plus, it's dumb as hell that I can't get many of the features or products I want for my cellphone simply because it's exclusive to a provider. You're saying that competition and exclusivity is important because that Cingular-exclusive Gwen Stefani "Bananas" ringtone would otherwise never have been available from such a hard-to-get artist? Whoop-de-sh!t.

When specs cease to matter and hardware becomes cheap (I love how he thinks cellphones are free, by the way), we're going to have MORE consoles, not fewer. And that's aside from the TVs, Mp3 players, phones, cars, and whatever other devices are on the way that will have games for sale.

We'll have more choices in consoles, but we won't have more consoles. I don't see anybody else getting into the business. It's possible, but unlikely. Those that do won't matter. Apple TV is a "console", for instance, but all it is is a Mac that only plays certain games. Developers do not want to make more versions of games than they have to, if it'll sell on multiple platforms and the toolset can spin off a version then great, but if they have to customize a game for dozens of versions of platforms and consoles, that's just hell.

A one console future to me is a good thing, maybe hardware would be a tad more expensive...

Depends on how they do it (and they won't do it, by the way, we're aguing over nothing really). PCs are dirt cheap because every company can make one, and they can toss in a tiny widget and maybe sell a few more than a widgetless version.

[Jonm1010]

It is the worst possible future for fanboys, not the industry. It is such a misguided notion that consoles no longer competing with each other would somehow end innovation. The game developers would still be in competition, and if they want their games to sell then they could not produce complete shit. They would instantly have a much broader market though, and that would be good for them financially. Ports would be a thing of the past, and you would always be buying the best version of a game. His comparison to the movie industry is pretty decent. Imagine if you had to own 3 different video player formats to watch your favorite films. It is kind of that way now in this transitional period, but I am sure that will change. The only loss of innovation would be in the actual innovation in the tech of the consoles themselves.

How about if lets say Microsoft wins out, they will be able to charge more money for their console a generation or so down the road because no other company can come in and formally compete. You get less new technology at a higher cost because there is no competition and instead of them selling below the cost of production at say $300-400 as they do now they charge above the cost of manufactoring and charge $600-800 or more. Now you have no alternative for games or systems. The only way that price comes back down is with a competitior in the marketplace. Not to mention Microsoft could start asking for more percentage of software sales driving game prices higher.

Not sure why anyone thinks monopolies are ever a good thing except in certain(very few) cases.

EDIT: I think i saw someone mention madden got better after they got the NFL license this is my response

next-gen maddens say hi (meaning they suck)

[goldenpp72]

Yeah, universal players could become the norm, but I don't imagine microsoft would be interested in that market.. or nintendo.

[LuCkymoON]

How about if lets say Microsoft wins out, they will be able to charge more money for their console a generation or so down the road because no other company can come in and formally compete. You get less new technology at a higher cost because there is no competition and instead of them selling below the cost of production at say $300-400 as they do now they charge above the cost of manufactoring and charge $600-800 or more. Now you have no alternative for games or systems. The only way that price comes back down is with a competitior in the marketplace. Not to mention Microsoft could start asking for more percentage of software sales driving game prices higher. Not sure why anyone thinks monopolies are ever a good thing except in certain(very few) cases. EDIT: I think i saw someone mention madden got better after they got the NFL license this is my response next-gen maddens say hi (meaning they suck)

yup, just like Nintendo and the Gameboy.

[Mifune]

How about if lets say Microsoft wins out, they will be able to charge more money for their console a generation or so down the road because no other company can come in and formally compete. You get less new technology at a higher cost because there is no competition and instead of them selling below the cost of production at say $300-400 as they do now they charge above the cost of manufactoring and charge $600-800 or more. Now you have no alternative for games or systems. The only way that price comes back down is with a competitior in the marketplace. Not to mention Microsoft could start asking for more percentage of software sales driving game prices higher. Not sure why anyone thinks monopolies are ever a good thing except in certain(very few) cases.

I think you're missing the point. This would be all manufacturers deciding on one base platform, but then Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo or whoever could come out with new iterations of that platform. Sony could include a Blu-Ray, say, for movies (not games obviously unless that's the base), Microsoft could have a bigger hard drive, etc. But all games would play on each version of the platform.

It's not about monopolies at all. It's about a unified format.

[Virgin Wii]

I agree that the dreaded "diminishing returns," coupled with the cost of developing more powerful consoles compared to what could be made on software sales while profiting on the hardware forevermore, are real future possibilites, and might just lead to the "one console" thing, with the BIG 3 hardware makers entering a split royalties on software agreement, and each being able to produce their own make of the standard hardware for profit. Although, Sony would definitely rule in terms of hardware sales, since with all things being equal, a lot of people would want to buy the Sony one to match with their other electronics. Even still, Nintendo and Microsoft would be getting a lot of profit out of this setup.

Another thing I think is important in getting this to happen is a standard method of control, and I don't think that's going to be figured out until a few generations from now.

[Hero]

Yes, one console without choice would be awesome. /sarcasm

I really wish this man would stop ****ing comparing video games to Hollywood movies.

I don't even understand what he's talking about when he mentions a unified platform for movies. Did he mean the format? While every movie is released on DVD, there's probably over a thousand different DVD players to choose from. You cannot compare sticking a disc into a player to watch a movie and sticking a disc into a system and expect people to play a game on one platform. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses and consumers are choosing what they want to buy to suit their own needs.

Sorry, but if you want a single console platform go develop for the ****ing PC.

[erlim]

I would be interested in a one console market be it nintendo or microsoft or whoever, as long as it played the tons of psone and ps2 games I have. Those were basically one console generations.