David Jaffe wants a 1 console future (Dyack Redeemed)

#51
WrikaWrek said:
WOuld be awesome.

Let MS handle the software side of the system, Sony the hardware side, Nintendo the Input Side of the system.

Pie in the sky dream, but nonetheless....

Oh AND DENIS DYACK SAID IT FIRST AND HE WAS CALLED A FOOL, I GUESS SOMETIMES FOOLS ARE JUST THINKING AHEAD

:p
MS is decent at software and no windows vs the pc industry is proof they shouldn't have a blank check in this group to do it if. Once MS has an idea in software it can be great at other times no as it's self serving.

Sony should not deal with hardware at all not once have they demonstrated the ability to make a machine that really balances the aspects of the consumer. Go ahead and bring whatever argument you got. PSX only won because nintendo screwed up. PS2 was an issue of timing but tech wise a nightmare initially that only lasted because ms and nintendo launched late with no clear vision. PS3 does it even need to be said. These three companies and their engineers alone would ensure a sku or two that would fit the needs.

Nintendo gets too much credit for input yes they have a history but their competition forces it out of them. The problem with nintendo is they go to fast without consideration for the legacy they may destory you can easily look at Wii and n64 as proof of how their new interfaces can kill off established styles of gaming.

The idea works but you need two skus. Somehow convince nintendo they would earn more money in that industry than they do now. MS has to give API control. Publishers need to be eliminated or marginalized because they have various reasons themselves for not wanting this future IE the nintendo tiered devs in this environment getting a lot of the glory.
 
Mar 30, 2007
1,054
0
0
#53
Remove the competition? what a silly idea really.. the only reason consoles have advanced so much is because they are trying to out-do one another (even the Wii but in an ergonomic sense rather than a technology sense).

If there was one console, it would be priced higher than it should be (well, why not? you can't buy a rival cheaper console so suck it down consumer!) and the technology would still be at Wii levels (well, why not? the closest thing you could buy that's better is a PC which is 2-3 times the price).

Look at how long Nintendo milked the gameboy simply because they could. The DS-Lite wouldn't have come out as quickly as it had if the psp hadn't been around to show up the original DS for the clunkamachine-looking thing it was.
 

Tiduz

Eurogaime
May 20, 2006
9,635
0
1,325
33
Netherlands
#54
Core407 said:
One console would result in so much shovelware and with so many games for a single console, a lot of the games would be overlooked.
Best argument yet. And mascots would be a thing of the past, I really like that 360 has Gears, PS3 has Resistance, Nintendo has Mario etc. If all games came out on one console it wont have its own "face"

A) Way too much releases coming out at the same time, which in turn makes you forced to choose one over the other.

B) One controller, if you dont like it you are basically screwed.

C) One console that has it all would be extremely expensive or ridicilously behind on seperate tech. Like the Cell for instance.

D) Online play would be horrible, Look at Xbox Live this last month. Its getting overloaded already, imagine if all the PS3/Wii people where on there as well.

E) Exclusives can be a good thing.
 

hellclerk

Everything is tsundere to me
Apr 11, 2007
7,168
0
0
#56
i don't see it happening until we hit a saturation point for technology when we have the ability to make something look 100% lifelike. course that's not happening any time soon. we're likely to have holographic display before that, and that creates a whole new set of problems.
 
Feb 17, 2005
6,724
0
0
web.mac.com
#57
LCGeek said:
Nintendo gets too much credit for input yes they have a history but their competition forces it out of them. The problem with nintendo is they go to fast without consideration for the legacy they may destory you can easily look at Wii and n64 as proof of how their new interfaces can kill off established styles of gaming.
The Wii hasn't killed off any genres or established styles of gaming. All it's doing is creating a modified control paradigm.

In my opinion we're not really seeing evolutionary leaps in controllers. i feel that game genres are the real benchmark of how innovative hardware design truly is.

The emergence of a game genre to me signifies that a leap in hardware design has been made because what was once impossible is now possible.

Game Design relies on a multitude of technologies beyond the console itself. There are displays (which really haven't made an evolutionary leap yet), audio systems, and external sensory feedback systems. These feed into and off each other. Without hardware competition it may be a very long time before we see a new genre created.
 
Dec 3, 2005
3,626
0
0
#61
Yay no competition whatsoever. Yeah thats future. Great for those that can only afford 1 system but sucks for gamers as a whole. You really think Sony or MS would be busting there asses to lower prices and add new features if there was no competition? Would you want the technology in the Wii for 10 years? Give me a fucking break.
 
May 13, 2007
9,025
0
0
Chile
#62
WrikaWrek said:
Yes...this is really the Wii's doing. Because the other consoles aren't delivering the goods at all *rollseyes*
The casual segment shift towards Nintendo. I talking about the next gen model, it´s seems not working for most developers akin we have this thread. That´s why I found this call cynical, they want just one console not because gamers will but a mesure to maintain their own bussiness structure.us
 
Jun 7, 2004
27,826
1
0
#63
Yeah, I'd want a one console future as well.

As long as that console is fully featured and cheap to boot.

Really wouldn't want to see a 'one console future' under any one of the current manufacturers right now, although I'm most partial to the PS3.
 
Jun 9, 2004
18,546
1
0
Winnipeg
#66
Drinky Crow said:
ONE CONSOLE FUTURE

BELIEVE.
If it wasn't for the fact I'd have to live in your nightmarish, standard def dystopia too I'd pray for one console standard just to watch your reaction to basically having an upscaled Wii (if we were lucky) as the only option.
 

Jive Turkey

Unconfirmed Member
Mar 10, 2005
15,819
0
0
#67
Jaffe said:
We have it with DVD, we had it with VHS. We have it with televisions (in the sense that- for the most part- every tv is capable of broadcasting the same signal). So what do we lose by having it for game consoles?
Sounds like he has his arguements confused. This is an issue of licensing. You can play any DVD on any player (provided it works with region coding - another licensing issue) and that's far different than playing any game on just one console.
 
#70
Tiduz said:
Best argument yet. And mascots would be a thing of the past, I really like that 360 has Gears, PS3 has Resistance, Nintendo has Mario etc. If all games came out on one console it wont have its own "face"

A) Way too much releases coming out at the same time, which in turn makes you forced to choose one over the other.

B) One controller, if you dont like it you are basically screwed.

C) One console that has it all would be extremely expensive or ridicilously behind on seperate tech. Like the Cell for instance.

D) Online play would be horrible, Look at Xbox Live this last month. Its getting overloaded already, imagine if all the PS3/Wii people where on there as well.

E) Exclusives can be a good thing.
None of that has to happen

The idea of a one console future doesn't happen because of singular thinking. You can have something based from one api and architecture yet serve many needs. BTW idea one console doeesn't mean one sku it's the platform idea not the result of how it's delievered.

A. There's a pro and con to everything in life way to see the obvious. This argument fails because the same applies for movies and music it's up to the consumer to find out about the products. Nothing wrong with playing titles later in their life don't need to be a jones.

B. Another bad argument. You end up with pc problem which is no real standard. If anything I'm more for devs in the genres they are creating the controller most follow this takes crap that ms does in fps field out of their hands and what nintendo does out of their hands. We are only left with what the dev feels is worth the experience. Won't happen because a lot of people are too flipping cheap and a want a bargain.

C. Multiple Skus I mentioned this at the start one for the basic user and the other to shut up the user who won't pc prices but wants high end pc performance. Like other electronic hardware you make the consumer make the choice, which seems to be too hard for some despite the whining I want one console.

D. Online on consoles suck because doing dedicated servers is downright dumb. Make it like PC let 3rd parties and DIY gamers build this aspect otherwise your always going to putting up with mostly P2P crap.

E. Exclusives are nothing more than incentives to support a platform they don't effect the consumer actually they do see games like SC3 and others like that happen because of money hats or loyalty.
 

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Mar 15, 2007
13,090
130
1,235
#71
Why is Dyack Redeemed now? Oh yeah, because GAF will overlook wisdom if it comes from the mouth of the wrong person.
 

godhandiscen

There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
Mar 15, 2007
13,090
130
1,235
#74
kenta said:
if Sony makes the hardware and Microsoft makes the software, I'm there day one
I think this would be the ideal solution. Throw in some Nintendo innovation for those who want it, but keep them away from the online implementation plz.
 
Jun 9, 2004
18,546
1
0
Winnipeg
#75
godhandiscen said:
Why is Dyack Redeemed now? Oh yeah, because GAF will overlook wisdom if it comes from the mouth of the wrong person.
Obviously, the title is a joke. At least it better be, because it makes no sense on any level - look at how many people are laughing at the idea in this thread, it's probably about the same percentage as laughed when Dyack brought it up. No one who thought it was stupid then thinks it's a great idea now just because a different outspoken developer gave an unworkable utopian ideal a thumbs up.
 
Feb 2, 2006
5,327
1
0
36
#76
This generation, where the 360 and PS3 are virtually the same, it would make sense to just have one very strong HD system instead. You'd see way more people adopting because right now there's no clear winner of the two, and its annoying that some games are exclusive to one or the other when they're all on the same level technologically.
 
Jun 12, 2004
6,031
0
1,330
California
#77
PolyGone said:
This generation, where the 360 and PS3 are virtually the same, it would make sense to just have one very strong HD system instead. You'd see way more people adopting because right now there's no clear winner of the two, and its annoying that some games are exclusive to one or the other when they're all on the same level technologically.
no clear winner?
 
Jun 7, 2004
6,477
0
0
#78
IBM has a hand in all three consoles currently. ATI is in two of them. It's partly there. Technically, the only thing you are really paying for is the opportunity to play whichever first party exclusives you prefer. A one console future will give you the ability to play all these. The companies could then just create their own controllers/peripherals if the game needs it and bundle them in with the title, maybe for say $10 more or so. Basically, instead of a collector edition with a useless making of dvd, they give you the controller that you would need for their title.
 
Jan 27, 2005
17,175
2
1,155
36
South Carolina
#82
Dave Long said:
I realize there's already someone in this thread hating the Wii, but the bottom line is that without the competition between the consoles, we wouldn't ever get control innovations like the Wii, or analog sticks, or rumble, or any of that.

Those are powerful differetiators that really do need to be a part of console design, and if there was only one console maker, they wouldn't be obliged to research any of that kind of thing.

Plus, I bet those folks who love constant graphics upgrades would be really disappointed because just like controls, there would be little reason to innovate there.
Yep. I respect Jaffe's opinion but it just won't ever happen, and it wouldn't be a good thing for gamers in the long run either.
 
Sep 20, 2005
18,207
45
1,335
#83
Publishers always make their games based on who the platform is intended for. This would no longer be the case in a one console future. They wouldn't be like "360/PS3 is for older gamers, Wii is for kids and their parents" anymore. The mindset would change to "lets make a game about whatever we want and sell it".

No more ports would save publishers tons of cash. Huge teams right now at EA are working on each platforms version of Madden. Eliminating those extra teams would save the tons of cash.

And could you imagine the entire industry using one open source game engine (ala Unreal 3) designed to run on only game platform? The machine would become understood much more quickly.

Hardware would be forced to change whenever software sales become stagnant. If gamers get bored, then publishers lose money. If publishers lose money, a new platform is introduced to spur game sales once again. This force would not change in a single platform future.

There are benefits there if you look for them.
 

Eggo

GameFan Alumnus
Jun 9, 2004
5,551
0
0
44
Santa Monica, CA
#84
Why one console is bad:

1) The console manufacturer has little incentive to innovate. Do you think Home would be the same if there were no Xbox Live to compete with?

2) If you get a console manufacturer like Sony running the show, they can decide they're not fans of 2D gaming, and publishers end up not getting their games through concept approval. With no other option out there, those types of games would be dead, based on the console manufacturer's preference.
 
Feb 17, 2005
6,724
0
0
web.mac.com
#85
Cap7ain Blood said:
if there was only one console for people to buy the PS3 would still be 600 dollars instead of 400
going to play devils advocate a bit and argue that price wouldn't be that high because you cannot have a successful product unless it is priced within the reach of the largest number of consumers in the game industry.

the price would HOLD longer instead so say goodbye to price drops every other year
 
Sep 20, 2005
18,207
45
1,335
#86
Eggo said:
Why one console is bad:

1) The console manufacturer has little incentive to innovate. Do you think Home would be the same if there were no Xbox Live to compete with?

2) If you get a console manufacturer like Sony running the show, they can decide they're not fans of 2D gaming, and publishers end up not getting their games through concept approval. With no other option out there, those types of games would be dead, based on the console manufacturer's preference.

Who says one company would be in control? DVD is owned by a large consotium. The same concept could be applied here.
 
Feb 2, 2006
5,327
1
0
36
#87
Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
And could you imagine the entire industry using one open source game engine (ala Unreal 3) designed to run on only game platform? The machine would become understood much more quickly.
I wouldn't want every game to look like Unreal 3 though

ugh just thinking about that makes me shudder
 
#88
Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
Publishers always make their games based on who the platform is intended for. This would no longer be the case in a one console future. They wouldn't be like "360/PS3 is for older gamers, Wii is for kids and their parents" anymore. The mindset would change to "lets make a game about whatever we want and sell it".

No more ports would save publishers tons of cash. Huge teams right now at EA are working on each platforms version of Madden. Eliminating those extra teams would save the tons of cash.

And could you imagine the entire industry using one open source game engine (ala Unreal 3) designed to run on only game platform? The machine would become understood much more quickly.

Hardware would be forced to change whenever software sales become stagnant. If gamers get bored, then publishers lose money. If publishers lose money, a new platform is introduced to spur game sales once again. This force would not change in a single platform future.

There are benefits there if you look for them.
BS pubs serve themselves under the guise of helping the customer. Hell any nintendo fan whose still with them will say the past 3 gens straight pubs have ignored the needs of most consumers on their platforms shoving us crap 80% of the time instead.

You would still have various game engines. Ask any dev a genre in of it's nature has much different needs from one title both in scope and look. Rendering just isn't that developed to say one engine will serve the needs of any game that would be created.
 

davidjaffe

The Fucking MAN.
Mar 8, 2005
646
1
0
#89
I will jump in with a few points:

a- I know how to spell 'great', asshats. I typed a design doc today and a blog entry and a crap ton of IMs. Give me a break :)

b- While I appreciate that there are gamers out there who care very much about graphical upgrades, I am not one of them. Any more than I really cared to upgrade from DVD to HD. I did it because I could afford to and we needed a new tv and I am glad I did cause the picture looks stunning. BUT I could have lived with DVD quality for 5-10 more years and been just fine. So while the argument against my desire for a one console biz may work FOR YOU because you care much for the bleeding edge of graphics, don't be either a) so arrogant or b) such a poor debater to assume that your argument works for everyone and thus, you've 'won' the debate. For people like me- and we are legion given the success of Nintendo DS, Wii, and the rise of casual games- your argument does not hold water.

c- I still am not sold on the fact that my tv analogy is flawed. Every TV- for the most part- can play EVERY SHOW. And not just every show from today but from the original broadcast from what? 60 something years ago?!? And show makers can jump right into content from the get go without having to reinvent the wheel every 5 years. Us game makers can not do this and you guys suffer for it (not graphically but play wise and feature wise and COST wise ((69.99 for game?!?)), you totally do). So for those saying, "But I want THIS feature from console X, and THAT feature from console Y"...I get it, I hear you. I KNOW you do. But consider the alternative. At CES this week there were 3D televisions and tvs that did all kinds of things that will probably never get off the ground. And no one will really miss it. But they are going to start missing great television because the writers- who make the content using the stable tools of the biz- are still on strike. You are right, you lose out with my plan. But you lose out with BOTH plans (mine and what we have now). And all I am saying is, if I gotta lose something to gain something, I would take better content (with a degradation in features and graphics) over bleeding edge graphics any freaking day. We can disagree, but I hardly thing you can call my opinion wrong. It's just we value different things in our games.

d- Yes, perhaps I should have said format versus console so the DVD/Television analogy worked better. But the point is still the same. For the analogy not to work it would mean that I could ONLY watch LOST on a Sony tv and you could ONLY watch the presidential debates on a Samsung and there would be crazy fights to see who gets the exclusive rights to air NFL games. When you think of it that way- and that is the way the game biz is- it sounds insane, doesn't it? I think we have simply gotten USED to the way things have been for so long that we don't even stop to consider how nuts it really is.

David
 
Mar 12, 2007
10,773
0
0
Canada
#90
IMO it would be perfect with two but one is a no no. If you only have one, that company is in way to much control. You cant give one company the ability to charge w/e they want for services. ALso, hardware will improve with competition and drive to lower costs
 

Fatghost

Gas Guzzler
Jun 22, 2004
9,149
1
0
#91
The only thing that is wrong about a one console future is that without competition, there is a much smaller incentive to move ahead with next generation hardware.
 
Feb 17, 2005
6,724
0
0
web.mac.com
#94
davidjaffe said:
I will jump in with a few points:

c- I still am not sold on the fact that my tv analogy is flawed. Every TV- for the most part- can play EVERY SHOW. And not just every show from today but from the original broadcast from what? 60 something years ago?!? And show makers can jump right into content from the get go without having to reinvent the wheel every 5 years.
but that's a passive form of entertainment you sit and watch, or press the play button, use a D-Pad of all things to navigate a menu. game design and innovation have been greatly affected by rapidly changing technology, particularly controllers.

how quickly would we move away from abstract input (controllers of today) to a control system that every consumer can easily relate to without competition (both hardware and software) pushing the boundaries in all possible directions?
 
#95
monchi-kun said:
funny you should mention DVD because there are so many different and competing hardware manufacturers for that format alone.
It's the idea a dvd made for dvd works on any player, we'll ignore the early machines due to playback issues this is what game devs want, keyword game devs not pubs or the greedy manufacturers.

Devs have no balls I'm surprised they haven't unionized and gone after both of the masters because they hold back in more ways then they realize.
 
Oct 22, 2006
3,672
0
0
#96
Does "one console future" also mean "one SKU future." If so, then all companies involved would have to get along throughout many different departments. It would be nice, but I just don't see that happening.

Would it work like VHS and DVD players. There are several different SKUs and hardware models for DVD players offered by several different companies. These companies have to adhere to a certain standard when producing their DVD players. The only issue here, with game consoles, is that software would have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Higher end "players" could be quite a bit more expensive but they wouldn't reap the same benefits if they were the only "player" the software was being made for. It's not that it couldn't work, it could. But, it would be extremely difficult, more so than with video content. And you have the issue of having to appeal to lowest common denominator allowed by the standard.

Also, what Nintendo wants in hardware right now is very different from what Microsoft and Sony want in hardware. It comes down to more than simply "extra features" or "different features." Don't get me wrong, the Wii is great and, certainly, a lot of fun. But, I, personally, wouldn't want my one console of the future to be a Wii.

I'm down with a one console future. It'll be a one console future for me, either way ;p. But, at least this way we can stop having stupid arguments about which hardware is better and start having stupid arguments about which software is better.
 

davidjaffe

The Fucking MAN.
Mar 8, 2005
646
1
0
#97
monchi-kun said:
but that's a passive form of entertainment you sit and watch, or press the play button, use a D-Pad of all things to navigate a menu. game design and innovation have been greatly affected by rapidly changing technology, particularly controllers.

how quickly would we move away from abstract input (controllers of today) to a control system that every consumer can easily relate to without competition (both hardware and software) pushing the boundaries in all possible directions?

My response to that is this: as many have said, you can have standard console that plays all games BUT companies are still free to make whatever controllers they want for it, within the limit of the hardware. Sure, agian, you will miss out on SOME innovation with that limitation. But that is life in ANY medium. We miss out on books I suppose because books don't ship with smell-o-vision...so what? To assume that the main reason games are great is because of hardware innovation is the main flaw for me in your argument. I don't think this is the case at all. I appreciate you do and you are not wrong, but again, it's about what I deem important in games and what you deem important.
 
Dec 31, 2005
17,646
0
0
#98
davidjaffe said:
I will jump in with a few points:

a- I know how to spell 'great', asshats. I typed a design doc today and a blog entry and a crap ton of IMs. Give me a break :)

b- While I appreciate that there are gamers out there who care very much about graphical upgrades, I am not one of them. Any more than I really cared to upgrade from DVD to HD. I did it because I could afford to and we needed a new tv and I am glad I did cause the picture looks stunning. BUT I could have lived with DVD quality for 5-10 more years and been just fine. So while the argument against my desire for a one console biz may work FOR YOU because you care much for the bleeding edge of graphics, don't be either a) so arrogant or b) such a poor debater to assume that your argument works for everyone and thus, you've 'won' the debate. For people like me- and we are legion given the success of Nintendo DS, Wii, and the rise of casual games- your argument does not hold water.

c- I still am not sold on the fact that my tv analogy is flawed. Every TV- for the most part- can play EVERY SHOW. And not just every show from today but from the original broadcast from what? 60 something years ago?!? And show makers can jump right into content from the get go without having to reinvent the wheel every 5 years. Us game makers can not do this and you guys suffer for it (not graphically but play wise and feature wise and COST wise ((69.99 for game?!?)), you totally do). So for those saying, "But I want THIS feature from console X, and THAT feature from console Y"...I get it, I hear you. I KNOW you do. But consider the alternative. At CES this week there were 3D televisions and tvs that did all kinds of things that will probably never get off the ground. And no one will really miss it. But they are going to start missing great television because the writers- who make the content using the stable tools of the biz- are still on strike. You are right, you lose out with my plan. But you lose out with BOTH plans (mine and what we have now). And all I am saying is, if I gotta lose something to gain something, I would take better content (with a degradation in features and graphics) over bleeding edge graphics any freaking day. We can disagree, but I hardly thing you can call my opinion wrong. It's just we value different things in our games.

d- Yes, perhaps I should have said format versus console so the DVD/Television analogy worked better. But the point is still the same. For the analogy not to work it would mean that I could ONLY watch LOST on a Sony tv and you could ONLY watch the presidential debates on a Samsung and there would be crazy fights to see who gets the exclusive rights to air NFL games. When you think of it that way- and that is the way the game biz is- it sounds insane, doesn't it? I think we have simply gotten USED to the way things have been for so long that we don't even stop to consider how nuts it really is.

David
It sounds like you want a no console future. Everything you described already exists on the PC platform. It's a standard format where all manufacturers can build hardware as they like, and the hardware is backward compatible.

Take a look at the PC as a platform and tell me - is that really what you want?
 
Sep 21, 2006
13,299
0
0
Sweden
deletionquality.net
I would say there is a major difference here. TV and movie industry has already maxed out. They have what they need and unlike the video game industry we have not hit our roof. We have no idea how the best way to make player immerse into the games is. That is why we need competition to make new groundbreaking steps. If not we might not have joypad, d-pad, waggle, wireless, HD, 3D, Online etc. We need to reach the top before we can settle on one console.