Unified Gaming Platform

[Johan]

I'm curious about something regarding the idea of a unified gaming platform. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/78230-Denis-Dyack-Says-Unified-Gaming-Platform-Inevitable) In my travels across this and other gaming forums/sites, I have seen the following views very, very often shared and held by gamers, though rarely side-by-side as I am about to do:

1. Exclusivity on games is bad, because everyone should get the chance to play the games. Exclusivity on DLC is even worse, if possible, and brings about typically offended reactions from gamers.

2. A unified gaming platform is a horrible idea, because competition keeps the hardware manufacturers, at least in the console space, innovating and drives down prices.

Now, how can these two postulates coexist? I've always wondered at the source of this schizophrenic view of a gaming. If exclusivity on games is bad, then the same games should be offered on all platforms. And if the same games are offered on all the platforms, then why would a unified architecture be bad? Companies could compete on features, price, reliability, but the basic gaming architecture would be ubiquitous/standard. If a unified platform is bad, then games are necessarily one of the points of competition between the competing platforms! So why would it be bad that some games are exclusive? :confused:

I don't get it. Can someone enlighten me?

[Raen]

Well you could in theory look at the PC as a model. Games will run on any PC (assuming they have the hardware and OS to support it), and yet you continuously get competition between the manufacturers. However a standard hardware isn't necessary, more a standard interface like an operating system provides. However this would make it a lot harder to squeeze the same levels of performance out of the hardware that is currently given. Therefore you need standard hardware, so everyone knows what they're working with. But if you have standard hardware then it's very hard to create new features that a game could potentially utilize without making the game an exclusive title. So you end up in a similar situation to where we are now, with exclusive titles that require certain features. And in that case you may as well not have a unified standard.

Even without the above comments, it'd never happen. Companies would have to band together to create the platform, meaning they'd be spending their R&D money to assist the sales of another company. No way is Sony gonna pay out to support a Microsoft console, when they can take the same money and use it to create their own console that they'd hope would trounce Microsoft.

One final point is making standard hardware would make it much harder to compete on price. Companies are already making huge losses selling competing consoles. To undersell the competition who have basically the same hardware costs as you would likely require even bigger losses. What company wants that?

[QueQueg]

I think the point of a Unified Gaming Platform is to have a standardized base platform, and then to allow various hardware manufactures to compete on feature-level, but somehow still maintain the baseline requirements for the platform. Hardware manufacturers have to be allowed to compete or they won't participate. In other words, they must be able to innovate without violating the "rules" of the platform.

In my mind, Games for Windows comes as close as possible to this ideal already.

In regards to your question, I agree. The two ideas that you present are at odds. IMO, the console wars will not be won in our lifetime.

[Iron Past]

I don't want a unified gaming machine, and I don't mind exclusives. Exclusive games usually mean the dev studios try harder, resulting in a better game (at least first party excusives). Would I like to play LitlleBigPlanet, or the extra content in Bioshock? Absolutely. Is the world going to end if I don't? Nope.

Oh, yeah, and there is a unified gaming platform: the PC.

[Johan]

Oh, yeah, and there is a unified gaming platform: the PC.

It doesn't play console games! :)

Check that; it plays MS console games, usually! ;)

[pheriannath]

This thread is just ASKING for Denis Dyack to appear.

[Raen]

This thread is just ASKING for Denis Dyack to appear.

All human activities are designed to tempt Dyack into appearing. It's a little known fact.

[National Kato]

A unified gaming platform may never exist. Non-exclusivity in games? That's already happening and, in my opinion, will continue to grow as a trend.

[Wilkz07]

All human activities are designed to tempt Dyack into appearing. It's a little known fact.

How do you know Dyack wasn't one of the 26 laid off at Silicon Knights...

[KingGorilla]

The industry and its audience has a lot of growing up to do before we get to the one platform.

Eventually third parties will ask for one SDK and a set of hardware standards as the dev process gets more and more expensive.

[QueQueg]

The industry and its audience has a lot of growing up to do before we get to the one platform.

Eventually third parties will ask for one SDK and a set of hardware standards as the dev process gets more and more expensive.

Asking for one SDK when there are multiple platforms won't drive platform providers to unify. The provider will say "Yeah, we have ONE sdk... OURS."

The only way this would actually change the landscape is if all but one console manufacturer just went away. This will never happen.

Let's face it, a market isn't a market if there isn't any competition.

[mesh]

Consoles don't typically make money on the hardware, they do so on the games sales afterwards.

Having a common developped hardware platform and simply compete in better software would in one way improve things.

Think about it, instead of picking a Wii, or 360 or PS3 or for the more fortunates, 2 or all of em to jumble around in your home theater setup.

Wouldn't it be better to fetch one hardware platform, and games from any of the makers.

There coule be some addons and again they could compete there, as long as their products are compatible to the platform overall.

It would be to all sides advantage that the platform succeed, hence no more bickering over who has the better hardware.

No more poorly made, often out-sourced, ports, 'just to have it on both platforms'.

Overall, an easier entry into most folks home, especially given the current economy.

The pc is not a united platform, it's a mad scientist lab, a testing ground, a bleeding edge development platform for people with too much money and a masochist view of life.

Unfortunately, the current trends have had the consoles take the bad from the pc and vice-versa. Consoles now crash and require online patches. Pcs now have poor ports, crappy controls and more drm then ever.

[crazyD]

Why I am against a unified architecture - Because we would never see something like the Wii. The Wii only works because developers are forced to use the controller. This can generate new content and experiences that are impossible elsewhere. If we had a unified platform, and Nintendo just released the remote to work with it, developers would only be able to get the small portion of the market that actually owns the peripheral. Most companies would shoot for the largest target, and make games that work with alternate controls with tacked on additional waggle. See: PS3 games.

I don't mind exclusivity, so long as it means the extra time is used to polish the game on the platform.

[King3567]

Why I am against a unified architecture - Because we would never see something like the Wii. The Wii only works because developers are forced to use the controller. .

Forcing the developers to use the remote is a two way street. On the one hand, you get awesome new ideas implemented well (Bloom Blox), but on the other, far more apparent hand, you get tons crappy games made even crappier by the obvious lack of control.

The thing I dislike about the Wii is that over half of the games that are universally praised could have and in some cases, work better on a Gamecube controller (See: Smash Bros Brawl).


As far on my thoughts on a unified platform, I am mixed. Even if there somehow was one, they'd find a way to split the user base a la PC gaming.

[Jeffool]

(I happened across this, sorry to necro-post, but hey, only a week and a day...)

A common SDK is (in my eyes) a given eventuality, and absolutely the first step to a unified gaming platform. Platform manufacturers could only be required that their machine meet certain requirements. Just ensure that your system is capable of processing X data in Y speed, and held X data in RAM fetchable at Y speed, etc... As long as those benchmarks were met, the hardware behind the SDK-curtain could completely be up to manufacturers. Sure, it would cost more than a current gen console (it couldn't be sold at a loss,) but it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying all of the other consoles on the market at once.

It would be easy to point the finger at players and say "They didn't support the 3DO!" But the finger equally goes at developers for going with others instead of 3D0.

And saying we would never see the Wii is like saying that because of controllers we'd never see something like Guitar Hero; it's insane D. Given that our imaginary dream console has USB hookups (a given considering every current gen console has at least two,) there's absolutely no reason why we wouldn't see new input devices created and sold in addition to a standard input device similar to the PS3/X360 controllers. And it could completely be the prerogative of any game developer to support any input device they want, and their decision if it was sold separately or if they bundled it with the game.

Yay for long-head beliefs (http://blog.jeffool.com/2005/07/02/gaming-needs-gizmos/) that will never be realized!

[crazyD]

And saying we would never see the Wii is like saying that because of controllers we'd never see something like Guitar Hero; it's insane D. Given that our imaginary dream console has USB hookups (a given considering every current gen console has at least two,) there's absolutely no reason why we wouldn't see new input devices created and sold in addition to a standard input device similar to the PS3/X360 controllers. And it could completely be the prerogative of any game developer to support any input device they want, and their decision if it was sold separately or if they bundled it with the game.

That's the problem though. If additional controllers are not mandatory, any developer who uses them is only shooting for part of the market, in which case they will not get as much use as they can. Since everyone has to use the Wii's remote if they want to make games for the Wii, you see more games based around the use of this controller. The entire market has it, so they are not shooting themselves in the foot by making a game that requires it.

[MalReynolds]

does anyone think that MS Sony and Nintento will work together ?

[Purple Santa]

I just want to know did any of these posts answer Johan's question to his satisfaction?

[jeffbax]

I don't think there's any chance of us seeing it, and I don't really want to see it. A hardware monopoly is a terrible idea. Couldn't wait to see what kind of RROD-like scenarios happened with a hardware monopoly :barf:

[pomeroy]

I don't think there's any chance of us seeing it, and I don't really want to see it. A hardware monopoly is a terrible idea. Couldn't wait to see what kind of RROD-like scenarios happened with a hardware monopoly :barf:

But the idea is that we have all these standards already: DVD, Blu-Ray, CD, etc. And those work fine with people only producing content, not new standards. Why can't it work for games?

Anyway, Nintendo would never do it. They actually make money on their hardware from the word go.

[KingGorilla]

does anyone think that MS Sony and Nintento will work together ?

I think that EA, Ubisoft, and Blactivision can bully most parties into it. No other business has to put up with catering to so many standards and all of proprietary ass-hattery. And I see Nintendo dragged in the same way they took on DVD, kicking and screaming.

[Schnoogs]

Let's face it, a market isn't a market if there isn't any competition.

DVD's and about 100,000 other products are laughing at you right now.

Competition between manufacturers is not the same thing as competition between platforms or standards.

I'm having dejavu to about 800 EvAv threads.

[Johan]

I just want to know did any of these posts answer Johan's question to his satisfaction?

NONONONONONO!

no. :)

Here it is...again:



1. Exclusivity on games is bad, because everyone should get the chance to play the games. Exclusivity on DLC is even worse, if possible, and brings about typically offended reactions from gamers.

2. A unified gaming platform is a horrible idea, because competition keeps the hardware manufacturers, at least in the console space, innovating and drives down prices.

Now, how can these two postulates coexist? I've always wondered at the source of this schizophrenic view of a gaming.

I don't get it. Can someone enlighten me?

Seriously now...far too many gamers suffer from schizophrenia in this regard. If exclusives are bad, then they should be offered on all systems. And if they're offered on all systems, then a unified gaming platform can't be bad!

[crazyD]

I answered it, by saying I don't mind exclusivity. In fact, if it means more time was spent polishing for the platform it was released on, I prefer it.

[KingGorilla]

Your second premise is highly flawed. Hardware prices in the console price ebb and flow, often trending upward. In the span of a generation we have seen Sony raise the price of entry more than 60 percent. Or the costs get so back loaded, 300 dollar Xbox 360 +storage, at the bare minimum.

And the actual innovation takes place on the more unified platform, the PC.

And if you really thought you would find a person who it not a hazard while in the presence of anything sharper than a soft boiled egg, who disagrees that Exclusivity is bad, we need to euthanize the poor thing.

I believe that there do exist people in both camps. So everyone get their shovels ready, we have graves to dig.

Hardly anyone who paid attention in Economics or History can dispute the tendency towards standardization and uniformity. They fail to recognize that innovation and huge divides can exist in those same standards. They also tend towards those fucking twats who buy into the "wars."

[Johan]

Your second premise is highly flawed.

I'm like a frog with warts. Just give me a kiss and I'll turn into a

frog with warts.

[KingGorilla]

The best argument I heard against a more unified platform was fro Garnett Lee. So long as Money Hats are dolled out for exclusivity and "platform of choice" development, the greed will take over.

[Heretic Machine]

Not reading the whole thread at the moment, but I think what a lot of gamers don't understand is that there can be a unified architecture for a gaming platform, and still competition between consumer electronics companies. Not all DVD players are created equal, and they come in a wide variety of prices to go along with the variation in quality. There are lots of value-added features that could be put onto a unified gaming platform (like say, a blu-ray drive) that could differentiate them, as well as different quality parts from different vendors. We're basically talking PCs with minimum spec requirements on all units, like the MSX.

Now, this would slow the development of new hardware, but I think that would actually a good thing for the industry. We all saw how third parties struggled with the transition from last gen to this one.

[RandoM51]

I really don't understand why this discussion keeps coming up.

The simple fact of the matter is this:

Make a unified standard and/or platform.

What stops Microsoft, Sony, or somebody else from embracing and extending that platform to create something even better?

Basically you're expecting videogame socialism, don't hold your breath.

People trying to compare this to DVD players are way off base. Movies ARE NOT interactive. Big difference.

The DVD player? Playback device for a medium, the medium being DVD. Does the medium limit the director in his camera angles, his lighting, the abilities of his actors, basically anything important? No, not really.

Compare that to videogames, where the technology in the console places many limitations on the Developer. They have to fit in the ram footprint, the cpu footprint, the storage footprint, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Videogames are not movies, and trying to draw a comparison between the two in this particular argument you should be highlighting how they differ, not how you think they are the same.

[JayVe]

That's the problem though. If additional controllers are not mandatory, any developer who uses them is only shooting for part of the market, in which case they will not get as much use as they can. Since everyone has to use the Wii's remote if they want to make games for the Wii, you see more games based around the use of this controller. The entire market has it, so they are not shooting themselves in the foot by making a game that requires it.

Not only that, but this approach is actually EXPANDING the audience. A direction like Wii would be nigh-impossible on a unified platform.

I think we will eventually see a common, multi-company platform for gaming, but there will never be 'only one' platform just in the same way that there aren't only one type of PC or phone or automobile, or recliner chair.