Support NeoGAF

[Tiduz]

I will jump in with a few points:

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. pSo 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.

While you make some good points, Thats the whole problem, I like the Wii and the PS3, 360 as well. But there are people who dont, and i can respect that.

But People have different preferences, so like you say because YOU and others dont like graphical upgrades, other people DO, why rob them of their choice?

And graphical updates PLUS good and innovative gameplay IS possible.

Different people different choices, thats how i see it.

And for people who would like Wii graphical style games, But it can do PS3 style games, wont they have the feeling that they dont get everything out of the console that it has to offer? Thats why the wii is cheaper than a PS3 right, different crowd with different preferences.

But still, its your opinion and i wont say you are wrong

 

[HiVision]

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. 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
David

Hello Dave,

Actually this point is an illusion - your TV can only play every show because it has been converted to whatever the common medium is these days. Of course, you don't see this conversion process directly, but old tv, old movies, etc. all have to be "ported" to the new mediums and prepared in newer more modern broadcast formats. Sometimes they have to be re-edited to fit in more commercial breaks, etc.

In the same way, the games consumer doesn't see this "porting" process either - they just see old games that are now working on their newer systems. The point you are making is semi-valid of course, because porting games is a right royal pain in the rectum compared to editing/converting video formats, but that's due to the interactive nature of the games medium. Lately consoles have really started helping this process by providing emulators for the old systems and this is actually evening it out in the way you describe for TV broadcasts.

Of course, the major difference is forward compatibility, but you weren't making that point ie. your old 80s tv can display whatever is broadcast nowadays (well as long as you have a digital decoder). I'd love to see Assassin's Creed or your own God of War running on a Commodore 64.

 

[haunts]

I want a one console future too, thats why I bought the PS3.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

As always. I’m up for being proven wrong. I don’t think I have the ultimate answer and I know there are some strong feelings on this topic from some folks. But I’ve yet to have a good argument from anyone-including these vocal anti single system folks- as to why a single console is wrong. Please to educate me? Even if the reason is competition, please explain why it works in other industries but would not work in ours? Thanks!

David

The reason it will never happen? Game hardware is not static.

We had a bunch of companies come together and agree on a format - DVD - and we all reaped the benefits.

When it was time to upgrade, as there was an obvious and affordable way to upgrade the technology, what did we end up with?

Format war.

There will always be comapanies stepping over each other to be the first in line with the "next big thing".

No one has the right to mandate when it's 'right' to upgrade hardware. And even if the hardware is made by different manufacturers, are we going to hand over a monopoly to Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or ATI? If not, then the problem of inconsistent hardware specs raises its head again.

It can't work.

 

[LCGeek]

I will jump in with a few points:


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

Damn I really hope this ain't a joke post

b. I'm an elitist and see that point clearly difference I know what I want cost a heavy price and will pay for it. I say two sku because you shut up the users who want that heavy tech or performance while keeping architecture benefits that the pc world is just never gonna have.

Other then that I agree with the concept but I did my own little schtick of this a while ago and came to the conclusion too many vested parties to give up for what would be a better industry. Consumers won't back devs or go along because they are divided. Publishers will never put up with an environment that nintendo is in software wise let alone one where the amount of titles is far more than it has ever been. Manufactuers lose out on profits when it comes to accessories see MS and 360 licensing they have a foothold that is disgustingly unfair.

 

[FightyF]

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.

The DS and Wii are a result of hardware competition, something you don't want. The GameCube wasn't selling well, it took a hardware upgrade (in the form of controllers) to get people interested in Nintendo home consoles again.

Graphics are one thing, but there are other factors such as online capabilities, controllers, sound, and convenience.

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.

Maybe this has more to do with software engineering practices than anything else. A multimillion dollar movie still requires lots of money. Budgets for movies and shows are still pretty high. "Better content" as you put it, still requires a lot of talent and still has high costs associated with it, no matter if you can play it on a B&W TV or 1080p HDTV.

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

Users have no problems paying for a new cell phone every year, despite the fact that the software made for the previous one may not work with the newest one. People want bigger, better, faster, stronger things. As long as they're buying, who cares what developers want? It's all about the consumer. These consumer can get used to some practices and completely embrace them (ie. satellite vs. cable offering different channels).

If the consumer constantly craves new experiences, developers must accept that. If someone wants a Wii because they like the idea of using motion controls, then move your development to the Wii, don't stick with the GameCube.

You can tell that consumer, "Stick with the GameCube! In time there'll be a lot of games and because of the competition between software makers you'll have better games in the end.", and see if they'll buy it.

I think you've only presented 2 strong reasons why a one console future is a good thing:

-Bigger profit margins for developers
-Hopefully less of a cost to the consumer when buying the console (rather than buy 3 consoles over $250 each)

That's it. There's not going to be more creativity, and you can't say that there will be better games (I can't imagine Super Mario Galaxy being somehow inherently better due to more competition from other games).

 

[davidjaffe]

While you make some good points, Thats the whole problem, I like the Wii and the PS3, 360 as well. But there are people who dont, and i can respect that.

But People have different preferences, so like you say because YOU and others dont like graphical upgrades, other people DO, why rob them of their choice?

And graphical updates PLUS good and innovative gameplay IS possible.

Different people different choices, thats how i see it.

Here is why I would suggest robbing them of choice. They are being robbed anyone. Think about it:

70 bucks for a fucking video game? That's obscene. Almost 100 bucks for a 10-12 hour experience? Nuts man. Just nuts.

As games get more expensive, less games will get made.

As games get more expensive, less interesting games get made.

With multiple consoles to serve, teams do not get to focus all the energy on the game...alot of time and effort leaves the game making process and goes into the porting process.

To me, I would give up sexy graphics to have those issues fixed anyday.

And the Wii is not the answer since my fave devs do not work on the Wii.

And PLEASE people, stop with the PC argument. It's NOT the PC. I want a one console future where the console runs EVERY GAME plug and play and there is tons of development for it AND that development has a variety of genres. And the console costs 300-500 bucks...not 1200-2000 bucks. That doesn't sound like a PC to me.

 

[xfactor]

sales figure, fanboy war, remarks made between different companies' key personnels provide the 50% of the entertainment for me in the gaming industry. The other 50% comes from playing the actual games.

so no.

 

[haunts]

70 bucks for a fucking video game? That's obscene. Almost 100 bucks for a 10-12 hour experience? Nuts man. Just nuts.

not really that obsecne. about 7 or so bucks a hour. not bad. comes out to be about the same as going to see a movie (10 bucks for 1 1/2 hours of entertainment) cost wise, but there is more value over all in a game.

 

[davidjaffe]

I think you've only presented 2 strong reasons why a one console future is a good thing:

-Bigger profit margins for developers
-Hopefully less of a cost to the consumer when buying the console (rather than buy 3 consoles over $250 each)

That's it. There's not going to be more creativity, and you can't say that there will be better games (I can't imagine Super Mario Galaxy being somehow inherently better due to more competition from other games).

How about the fact that:

with one console, a CONSUMER can walk into any game store and buy any game? That seems like a good reason to me.


How about the fact that:

If all CONSUMERS owned the same system, developers could take chances on software because there would be more people who fill out the niche categories? If everyone who owned a PC for games, a PS2, an XBOX, and a GAMECUBE could have purchased SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS or OKAMI, those titles would have done better and publishers would greenlight such titles more often.

How about the fact that:

As a CONSUMER, your online games are filled with more folks playing because there are no exclusives and no ported titles that splinter the online players between a 360 and a PS3?

Dunno, those sound like pretty good CONSUMER reasons to me.

 

[davidjaffe]

not really that obsecne. about 7 or so bucks a hour. not bad. comes out to be about the same as going to see a movie (10 bucks for 1 1/2 hours of entertainment) cost wise, but there is more value over all in a game.

It is still too much to pay for entertainment in one go FOR MOST PEOPLE.

You and I post on NEOGAF, we are different. I work in the games biz. I am different.

But I want to seem games reach a much larger audience and a much larger audience is NOT going to pay that kind of money- or close to it- for a game.

 

[Kintaro]

I don't know about you, but the prospect of Nintendo's first party, Sony's first party, Microsoft's offerings, EA, Ubisoft, and so on and so on, all on one console would be scary as hell. It's already hard for small developers now, but all on one console? What hope of a ghost of a chance would any company not a part of these huge guns have? Do you think Gamers would have any money to bother with any smaller titles? They barely do now! Plus, if I were to look for a more casual title, with Nintendo on the console, why look anywhere else?

 

[monchi-kun]

Here is why I would suggest robbing them of choice. They are being robbed anyone. Think about it:

70 bucks for a fucking video game? That's obscene. Almost 100 bucks for a 10-12 hour experience? Nuts man. Just nuts.

As games get more expensive, less games will get made.

As games get more expensive, less interesting games get made.

With multiple consoles to serve, teams do not get to focus all the energy on the game...alot of time and effort leaves the game making process and goes into the porting process.

To me, I would give up sexy graphics to have those issues fixed anyday.

And the Wii is not the answer since my fave devs do not work on the Wii.

would a more practical solution to the dilemma be more innovation on the process of developing these games as well as innovations on the business side? can the way games are made, financed, and sold evolve instead?

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Great points and it is a nice dream, but Ninty won't go for it while they can print money just by being different at the hardware level. Unified format otherwise seems like a slight possibility in another two generations.

 

[The Jer]

70 bucks for a fucking video game? That's obscene.

QFT

 

[Tiduz]

Here is why I would suggest robbing them of choice. They are being robbed anyone. Think about it:

70 bucks for a fucking video game? That's obscene. Almost 100 bucks for a 10-12 hour experience? Nuts man. Just nuts.

As games get more expensive, less games will get made.

As games get more expensive, less interesting games get made.

With multiple consoles to serve, teams do not get to focus all the energy on the game...alot of time and effort leaves the game making process and goes into the porting process.

To me, I would give up sexy graphics to have those issues fixed anyday.

And the Wii is not the answer since my fave devs do not work on the Wii.

And PLEASE people, stop with the PC argument. It's NOT the PC. I want a one console future where the console runs EVERY GAME plug and play and there is tons of development for it AND that development has a variety of genres. And the console costs 300-500 bucks...not 1200-2000 bucks. That doesn't sound like a PC to me.

70 bucks is indeed pretty pricey, but it all depends on how much you are willing to pay, alot of people wait for bargain bins and i dont blame them. Sony should just make more PSN games available imo, And especially in Europe come out with those stupid PSN cards because MANY MANY people dont have a creditcard over here.

But would i give up games like Gran Turismo 5, Gears of War, Ratchet And Clank etc. now that i have witnessed them compared to last gen games? Id rather not because in the end the gameplay of them is good and they are full of amazing visuals.

Sure i can appreciate a Wii game as well, but in the end the difference is pretty big in visuals. I imagine Zelda with the gfx of the ps3 op 360 and the gameplay of the wii, and i would be amazed.

About games getting expensive, that is indeed a problem i cannot deny, and graphics will get to the point that it just cant get any better, maybe that is the time for "one console"? I have no idea since i am not a game developer, but i guess im a graphics whore who can appreciate wii or DS games as well, i just play everything but still prefer HD games that just look breath taking and play good when possible.

 

[Man God]

same platform, open standards, sounds an awful like a PC.

Doesn't matter anyways, after Wii Fit lands and sends out its powerful console destruction beams and melts everyone's PS3's and 360's there will only be one console.

 

[FightyF]

With multiple consoles to serve, teams do not get to focus all the energy on the game...alot of time and effort leaves the game making process and goes into the porting process.

To me, I would give up sexy graphics to have those issues fixed anyday.

Yes, you would because you are speaking from a developer's perspective, and not a consumer's perspective.

Consumers want their latest gadgets, and consoles are no exceptions.

I can see where you're coming from, I had a Nokia cellphone that had a monochrome display and no mp3/picture capability for years. I was happy with it, it did all that I needed it to do. If everyone were like me, we'd still be using these phones, and yeah, maybe they'd be dirt cheap and have a lot of software for them as well. So I can see how you don't understand the consumer's fascination with the latest and greatest hardware, I feel the same for phones.

But gamers want new experiences, and I'd argue that over a 5-6 year span of a console's life, those experiences start to wear out without an upgrade to the hardware.

How about the fact that:

with one console, a CONSUMER can walk into any game store and buy any game? That seems like a good reason to me.

Less confusion is a good point.

How about the fact that:

If all CONSUMERS owned the same system, developers could take chances on software because there would be more people who fill out the niche categories? If everyone who owned a PC for games, a PS2, an XBOX, and a GAMECUBE could have purchased SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS or OKAMI, those titles would have done better and publishers would greenlight such titles more often.

This is completely the fault of the publishers, and not anyone else's. I can see what you mean about niche games selling to niche audiences, and thus with a larger userbase you'll have a larger niche audience. But when publishers compare those sales to the sales of blockbuster games, niche games will still remain niche games and still be treated the same by publishers.

How about the fact that:

As a CONSUMER, your online games are filled with more folks playing because there are no exclusives and no ported titles that splinter the online players between a 360 and a PS3?

Dunno, those sound like pretty good CONSUMER reasons to me.

This is a good point especially if we're talking unpopular games that don't have many users, but I would argue that the advancements made in the online experience (due to hardware competition) far outweigh this benefit (again, which only helps those who play unpopular online games).

 

[davidjaffe]

I think the fact that EA is bitching about it means something.

I think you will see the change from the publishers who are getting fucked over by this new generation. Sure Sony, MS, and Nintendo are not going to play. Why would they? They don't need to.

But if EA, Ubi, Capcom, Valve, etc. created a consortium and made hardware and no longer made games for the big three?

And it's not that nuts. It could happen as these game publishers keep watching profit margins shrink.

But hey, it's my dream. Not saying it will happen. I just want it to

 

[davidjaffe]

Nice chatting with ya'll. Gonna go online and play some WarHawk.

Later ya'll!

David

 

[The Jer]

comes out to be about the same as going to see a movie (10 bucks for 1 1/2 hours of entertainment) cost wise, but there is more value over all in a game.

This is why some people (like me) won't pay to go see movies (except very, very rarely).

I tell you what, I'd buy a lot more video games and I'd play alot of games much sooner, if they weren't so darn expensive.

 

[TheJollyCorner]

I just want joysticks to come back.


All of these goddamned buttons... making my nuts feel like the water cooler at an REO Speedwagon concert.

 

[LCGeek]

I think you've only presented 2 strong reasons why a one console future is a good thing:

-Bigger profit margins for developers
-Hopefully less of a cost to the consumer when buying the console (rather than buy 3 consoles over $250 each)

That's it. There's not going to be more creativity, and you can't say that there will be better games (I can't imagine Super Mario Galaxy being somehow inherently better due to more competition from other games).

Your other points I mostly agree so I want to target this specifically

Creativity has nothing to do with competition rather the indivuduals that make up the development teams. Some creators focus in on themselves ie miyamoto while others are influenced by competition. Some games will be better because of the fact they will be in a clear environment with direct challenges to what they do.

Your point about budgets and software engineering could use some clean up. The high costing games do that today because of time and money needed to make the things at the level. If development from the point of tools and from the point of effeciency were fixed game budgets would see a fall because they wouldn't suffer from the problems having multiple consoles forces on devs. For a majority of devs a console future would be far better then the current get go.

Honestly console devs should fully embrace steam and fix the pc platform with or without ms you could have what you want most bothered to fix the pc's problems. Hardware (make better scalable engines), Pircacy (online enable titles online only), and input devices ( go to controller manfuacturers and work out a deal for titles or titles in genre)

Jaffe I have a question if the devices cost 300-500 bucks how often is the consumer paying for a new change of hardware?

 

[loosus]

Seems to me that, while consumers would generally benefit from the "your game will play on your machine no matter what" perspective, getting unique controllers like the Wii remote would be a little more annoying and would certainly not catch on, as well. It would be seen more as a peripheral. That's why, if you'll notice, no PC commercial developers have really used the Wii remote, despite the fact that you can pretty easily use it on a PC.

And, it's also cool how everything on Wii (and to a lesser extent, PS3 and 36) is tailored specifically to that system. When you buy the machine and the software, you're buying two pieces of highly integrated pieces. For example, when the screens tells you to press a button, your controller has a 99.99% chance of matching the image of the controller on the screen. It's extremely consumer-friendly. On the other hand, on PC, for example, your game has a high probability of working on your hardware, but it's just not as integrated.

And the Wii is not the answer since my fave devs do not work on the Wii.

So the Wii is not the answer because YOUR favorite developers don't work on the Wii. I understand now.

 

[sleeping_dragon]

i disagree simply because if there is no competition between them then there wouldnt be any incentive to advanced the technology, without a doubt i still think the PS3 wouldnt be what it was today if the Xbox didnt exist.

 

[Slavik81]

There's this strange notion that 'one console' means 'no competition'. That's not the case. In fact, there would be SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER COMPETITION under a single console, both in terms of hardware and software. The simplest example is in software.

Currently Dead or Alive and Tekken are never on the same platform. Because there's so few people who own both Xboxes and PlayStations, very few people can choose between the two. As a result, there's little competition between those two games. Were there a single platform, they'd be in direct competition with each other for a very similar target audience.

On the hardware side, there's a misconception that 'one console' means 'one designer/manufacturer'. That's not the case. Every single company would try to make the console with the most extra options, and make it as efficiently as possible because they could no longer rely on exclusive games to get people to buy their hardware. They'd have to actually design good hardware to get people to buy it. Currently, they do not, as exclusive games are an important factor in purchasing decisions made by consumers.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

There will never be one console.

But consoles will be cross-compatible.

And they shall be called the 3D0!

 

[Jive Turkey]

i disagree simply because if there is no competition between them then there wouldnt be any incentive to advanced the technology, without a doubt i still think the PS3 wouldnt be what it was today if the Xbox didnt exist.

You don't think it would be selling better? And wouldn't still be Five Hundred and Nintey-Nine US Dollars?

 

[TheJollyCorner]

i disagree simply because if there is no competition between them then there wouldnt be any incentive to advanced the technology, without a doubt i still think the PS3 wouldnt be what it was today if the Xbox didnt exist.

I don't necessarily believe that.


then again, I'm a Cubs and Vikings fan. :\

 

[APerfectCircle]

has anyone mentioned the difference b/t video games and other hardware is that in a sole console situation, one company would own the industry. Its fine to have dvds, because every electronic company is allowed to create their own product, targeting different segments, people who want cheap, can get cheap, whilst people who want the best, pay extra.
now if one company had the only video game console, this situation doesn't arise. Only (say for examples sense) sony hardware will play video games... other companies can't go and create system which play the sony console video games, for legal reasons. so we would be still seeing products, such as the ps3, at their original price, due to monopolistic market. there would never be a product such as the wii, which comes in, and forces the competitors to reconsider their pricing strategy. One console future means better conditions for producers and hardcore video gamers (who have no problems with cash flow), for the rest it alienates them. i have a wii and my gf a ps3, together it cost us around 1K-1100. which is still cheaper than the original ps3 price, so i'm happy with competition.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

The idea of a "one console future" is completely ridiculous and would seriously hinder creativity in the industry. Let's face it, current hardware manufacturers have profound creative differences with respect to what direction to take the industry. Comapnies can't agree on pricing, target audience, functionality, or control scheme. Sony and Microsoft appear to be on a similar wavelength, but Nintendo is always going to shape the industry the way they want to. Many companies doubted Nintendo's vision for the Wii, and I have to wonder it the Wii would even exist in a "one console" universe. Competition brings forth innovation, which will always be an important aspect to video games.

 

[Ranger X]

i disagree simply because if there is no competition between them then there wouldnt be any incentive to advanced the technology, without a doubt i still think the PS3 wouldnt be what it was today if the Xbox didnt exist.

This wouldn't really happen either. When the unified console would see sales going down, they would upgrade it. They could renew the hardware each 5-8 years just like right now.

 

[Deku]

I'm not sure a one console future is beneficial. Consoles until this current crop, except the Wii (which isn't next-gen but new gen) has benefited from being the lowest priced gaming platform, and having each company differentiating their platform through innovative schemes or pricing models. The consumers benefited. The death of the console exclusive is probably one of the best new developments for consumers this generation.

From a publishing perspective, of course you only want one console, or at least one platform. You don't need to hire a 2nd or 3rd team to port, but it's not beneficial to consumers.

 

[disappeared]

I would love a one console future. Much less confusion with exclusives, peripherals, incompatibility, etc. Not to mention less cables and using less power than having anywhere from 2-5 consoles plugged in.

 

[vpance]

As long as the pie is big enough, and all players bar one dont completely stumble and DC's themselves, there will be competing platforms. It's as possible as world peace at this point. In the future, it may not matter so much anyways when the games program themselves.

 

[sprsk]

I'd like a one console future, just variants in OSes and peripherals. Sounds good to me.

 

[duk]

we should only buy one brand of everything!!! let's go live in n korea

 

[KingJ2002]

well... from a software perspective it makes sense simply bcause you have access to everythiing.

but as of this gen or even next gen it wouldnt make sense... due to quality issues.

for example, there seems to be a understanding that every new console will be released every 5 years (or at least close to the 5th year). If we move to a single standard and have multiple manufacturers announce new consoles every CES... how will developers take advantage of the new system? what about controls introduced? there's patents all over the place that protects different schematics... then there's sound, etc... following this you'd have a model similar to PC... running on windows is a definite... but the hardware will determine your experience.

then there's price as well... because there's few... prices are controlled... this generation is the only gen where the "major contenders" system prices were really all over the place. but if you have multiple makers, with different hardware from low end to high end... how can you really market these without alienating people? then what about exclusives? they're bound to happen

...

you cant really make a 1 console future simply because of competitive practices.

 

[Ranger X]

Anyways, as microtransactions and higher prices for hardware and software WON'T save the industry and that the cost of making games will rise way faster than user growth, i believe the "unified console" might happen naturally at some point.

Next-gen might be the "last".

 

[loosus]

The whole idea of one console is honestly kinda dumb, anyway. I mean, what the fuck do you do when a manufacturer makes a competing standard? Go to their company and arrest all the employees?! And you know that'll happen, and sooner or later, one will become popular because someone will exclusively make great games for it.

And then, what will publishers on the old standard do? Ignore the userbase of the new standard? No, they'll create games for both the existingand new standards -- hey, a lot like we do today. Gee whiz.

 

[GauntletFan]

This 'one console' notion is ridiculous.

Competition is what fuels the creativity in this industry.

Thanks to the 360, we have all 3 companies striving to improve the online experience.
The Wii is bringing about more experimentation in new controller types and the reinvention of what it is to play games, and ps3 is pushing the tech side. None of these advances would have been made without the companies trying to one-up each other.

 

[Slavik81]

From a publishing perspective, of course you only want one console, or at least one platform. You don't need to hire a 2nd or 3rd team to port, but it's not beneficial to consumers.

No longer would hardcore gamers have to buy multiple consoles and multiple sets of controllers. The current scheme is just an enormous waste of resources for both consumers and producers.

And the current system leaves FAR too much control in the hands of individual hardware manufacturers. As things currently stand, you're basically locked into your console once you buy it. The cost of switching from one platform to another is enormous.

 

[sleeping_dragon]

This wouldn't really happen either. When the unified console would see sales going down, they would upgrade it. They could renew the hardware each 5-8 years just like right now.

but then would someone like Sony invest $200 millions on a CPU if there was only one console?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Here is why I would suggest robbing them of choice. They are being robbed anyone. Think about it:

70 bucks for a fucking video game? That's obscene. Almost 100 bucks for a 10-12 hour experience? Nuts man. Just nuts.

Games = $60. It sucks, but it's what we've been paying since the early 90's, if not moreso back then for some of the pricier SNES/Genesis carts.

As games get more expensive, less games will get made.

All games will not inherently be expensive to be successful. Much like Hollywood, low budget games, rehashes, and shovelware can and will be successful.

As games get more expensive, less interesting games get made.

Comparing 2007 to 2005/2006, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Bigger budgets yield greater potential for many things. It's not a guarantee of anything though, and will obviously have to be balanced against practicality. I doubt we'll see very many $100 million dollar games in our lifetimes.

With multiple consoles to serve, teams do not get to focus all the energy on the game...alot of time and effort leaves the game making process and goes into the porting process.

Even if the PC is the only alternative to this uberconsole, this would still be a problem. Unless you're suggesting the death of PC gaming as well.

To me, I would give up sexy graphics to have those issues fixed anyday.

There are millions of people who won't though. And they clearly spend a lot of money.

And the Wii is not the answer since my fave devs do not work on the Wii.

But the Wii, or something like it, is eventually what we will end up with in your ideal scenario. Underpowered hardware, 5 years past its prime, and everyone still making games for it anyway, selling far above cost because there's little relevant competition.

And PLEASE people, stop with the PC argument. It's NOT the PC. I want a one console future where the console runs EVERY GAME plug and play and there is tons of development for it AND that development has a variety of genres. And the console costs 300-500 bucks...not 1200-2000 bucks. That doesn't sound like a PC to me.

$500 is absolutely out of the question as a reasonable console starting price.

If there wasn't for the competition created by the Wii, this generation would've shrunken noticeably compared to the last, crushed under the weight of overpriced HD consoles. The market needs AFFORDABLE hardware competition to survive.

If everyone who owned a PC for games, a PS2, an XBOX, and a GAMECUBE could have purchased SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS or OKAMI, those titles would have done better and publishers would greenlight such titles more often.

If Capcom wanted Okami to reach a larger audience, there were avenues open to them.

It's a mistake they're going to make a lot less frequently this generation.

The NES, PS2, and GBA had >75% marketshare and nearly universal dev support, and people still demanded more.

 

[FightyF]

I think the fact that EA is bitching about it means something.

It just means that developers/publishers don't like the situation. They've got a lot of good reasons not to like the situation.

But consumers are loving these new consoles.

If developers/publishers, and yourself, feel this strongly, then why not focus on the #1 selling console right now? Move everything so it's exclusive to the Wii, and see it sell even more since it has all the publisher/3rd party support?

If PS3 titles aren't selling well, why not just focus on the 360? If that occurred, a "one console future" could be a reality.

I see a lot of talk (not just from yourself, but any developer understandably frustrated by multiplatform development), but I have a feeling that there isn't going to be much action to make the situation better for themselves.

Re: Cost of Games...

The cost of games aren't bad for the consumer, it's worse for the devs. A $70 game in 1997 (I payed over $80 Cdn for some N64 titles!) should cost $87 today. As you can see, coupled with rising costs of game dev and the profit margins go down big time.

 

[Ranger X]

but then would someone like Sony invest $200 millions on a CPU if there was only one console?

There's tons of people making CPUs. It doesn't matter at all. And the consortium that would create the platform would fund together the hardware and lock the specs of the machine.

 

[WinFonda]

On the hardware side, there's a misconception that 'one console' means 'one designer/manufacturer'. That's not the case. Every single company would try to make the console with the most extra options, and make it as efficiently as possible because they could no longer rely on exclusive games to get people to buy their hardware. They'd have to actually design good hardware to get people to buy it. Currently, they do not, as exclusive games are an important factor in purchasing decisions made by consumers.

And it's only a matter of time before some company with enough money gets a bright idea and says to themselves, "Hey, I can make the best gaming device. I can create unique hardware and unique content, AND I can do it cheaper than that big clusterfuck of hardware manufacturers over there fighting for peanuts because they can't innovate/diversify themselves enough in the eyes of consumers because at the end of the day, they all have to be capable of playing the same games.

Companies can work together if they want, but just the same there will always be companies who will stray and won't be so cooperative. If they feel they can offer the best solutions for consumers and do it with the least amount of outside help possible, they will do so. Why? Because it means more money for them. And if it means a better product for consumers, hell it actually doesn't even have to be better, if it's in the ballpark and is unique and/or compelling enough, people will buy into it. And thats what competition brings. You can't get rid of it. Which is why a 1 console future will never work.

 

[CowboyAstronaut]

http://3dny.thecgs.com/index.php?s=news&d=content&id=3105

Jaffe is so right.

 

[loosus]

I'm sorry, but the PC *does* sound exactly like what you guys are describing. :\

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

There's tons of people making CPUs. It doesn't matter at all. And the consortium that would create the platform would fund together the hardware and lock the specs of the machine.

The likelyhood that developers from NA, PAL, and Japan could ever agree on a universal hardware standard that would fit all of their needs is laughable.

I don't think Crytek and Nippon Ichi are going to see eye to eye. :lol

And it's only a matter of time before some company with enough money gets a bright idea and says to themselves, "Hey, I can make the best gaming device. I can create unique hardware and unique content, AND I can do it cheaper than that big clusterfuck of hardware manufacturers over there fighting for peanuts because they can't innovate/diversify themselves enough in the eyes of consumers because at the end of the day, they all have to be capable of playing the same games.

Companies can work together if they want, but just the same there will always be companies who will stray and won't be so cooperative. If they feel they can offer the best solutions for consumers and do it with the least amount of outside help possible, they will do so. Why? Because it means more money for them. And if it means a better product for consumers, hell it actually doesn't even have to be better, if it's in the ballpark and is unique and/or compelling enough, people will buy into it. And thats what competition brings. You can't get rid of it. Which is why a 1 console future will never work.

This. Even if there's one 'rebel' publisher (hey, imagine if it was Blizzard? Or Nintendo? Or EA?), the one console sytem collapses.