Q & A with Denis Dyack, president of Silicon Knights

[jvd]

http://www.n-sider.com/articleview.php?articleid=470

Q: Do you think there’s enough room for the three console manufacturers with their unique philosophies?

Dyack: Well, it’s a big industry, and it’s growing all the time, and certainly there is room for multiple pieces of hardware. Though, my general theory is we’re evolving to one platform. And the value of hardware is significantly decreasing. I don’t know if I’ve ever talked to you guys about this, but my sort of thought process on videogames is that hardware is becoming more and more irrelevant. And consumers are reaching a perceptual threshold, where the average consumer cannot tell the difference between the hardwares. So even last generation, you take someone who doesn’t take games, ask them if this is a PS2, a GameCube, or Xbox; I’d be able to tell that’s GameCube, Xbox, or Playstation 2 right away; the average consumer, or mothers buying games for their son, they cant tell. This generation, with the technology ramping up even more, and faster, the difference between, you know, more and more processor power or how many polygons you can do, are becoming much faster, but the differences are also much smaller. So I think at the end of the day, we’re moving towards a point where hardware doesn’t mater, and it’s more about the games, it’s all about the content. I really think that’s the future of the industry.

I really like his thoughts about how the hardware is becomeing less important and how the casual gamer can barely see a diffrence even in the last gen

 

[Wunderchu]

thanx for the heads up

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Which is what I've said all along - I want one piece of hardware with all the games, and not need ot have 3 pieces of very similar hardware to gain access to the full range of games.

 

[Acert93]

Which is what I've said all along - I want one piece of hardware with all the games, and not need ot have 3 pieces of very similar hardware to gain access to the full range of games.

But who gets to make that HW? Unless MS, Sony, Nintendo (and the PC?) all agree on a cheap open format where every company can be competitive it wont happen.

Look at 3DO :?

I see two huge hurdles:

1. Licensing. Royalties are HUGE on consoles. Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc... make a TON of money from this alone.

2. Cost. If it is an open standard like the PC, that means the console makers HAVE to make money on the platform if there are no royalties.

While in the future costs COULD go down because power becomes less important, that is a while away. PS5 time frame in my guestimation. But there is a catch: CPUs and GPUs and Memory are not the only costs.

HDD.
Optical Storage.
New control inputs.
New features and functionalities (e.g. online).

The list goes on. These new parts are required to expand gameplay yet they cost more money. Money that the SNES never had to bother with. By the time the PS5 is here there will be an "Uber Wizzbang Spectrometer" that makes up for any savings on other hardware costs. These features also differentiate the companies AND the company goals.

e.g. Nintendo is very big on developing platforms that meet THEIR personal needs and vision. An open platform would just not cut it for them.

Basically too much money involved

On the other hand, what he is saying is DEAD ON.

PS3 => PPC core in CELL, PC GPU IHV made video chip, optical media, online support, HDD support

360 => PPC cores in Xenon, PC GPU IHV made video chip, optical media, online support, HDD support

In many ways we are seeing consoles that are like divergent PC designs. As an analogy you could think of it as a PC with a PPU and an OpenGL video card vs. a dual core PC with a DX video card.

That over simplifies the issue, but it does demonstrate where the market is going. If not a single platform, at least a platform of moderately similar core hardware.

Next Gen we will see Sony with CELL and NV again. I would assume MS sticks with IBM and ATI, but I am not so sure that MS will stick with the same PPC type core. Maybe something compatible, but in 5-6 years I can see such a limited core being useless. Would it not be a gas if MS used CELL

Anyhow, this gen should be, in many ways, easier to port back and forth. At least by year 3 or 4. The performance differances are not huge and the hardware is similar.

And great games will depend on great vision and artists, not hardware. Ahhh how great gaming has become!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

MS have talked of an open standard before. I wouldn't be surprised (Allard IIRC said he wanted this) if XB3 (720? XBoxX?) were an open standard (XNA Box) that anyone could create hardware for as long as it runs the MS APIs and conforms to standard. In essence Gaming PCs. I'd HATE that, as non-standard PCs are a pain in the arse and closed box is much more efficient, but that might be one approach(?)

 

[hey69]

it can be a closed box open standart to hardware manufacture.

something like a philips / samsung/panasonic playstation4 or YBOX or something like that

off course as long MS can have a $ for every platform sold. hardiharrrr

 

[Acert93]

That is why I don't see it working.

How are hardware makers going to make a profit? Sony/MS/Nintendo are really territorial over royalties. And controlling HW costs is very important. I remember MS approaching DELL and others about making Xbox hardware. That did not go far

Call me a skeptic, but I remember the 3DO flaming mess. When you lose control you lose vision and market control. Hard to make hardware only partners to lose money or to cut costs to remain competitive.

I could see the market consolidating into 2 major brands though. Although I am not sure that could happen unless one of the three faultered really bad because I don't see Sony or MS being able to purchase Nintendo without a legal fight.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see it working either!Where will the jardware guys make their money? Just something MS spokespersons have gone on record as saying the like, being a software company and not a HW company. Though success with XB360 might change their perspective.

 

[Acert93]

I don't see it working either!Where will the jardware guys make their money? Just something MS spokespersons have gone on record as saying the like, being a software company and not a HW company. Though success with XB360 might change their perspective.

Yeah, if I remember correctly MS first floated the idea of everyone running a MS OS. Obviously Nintendo and Sony are STILL laughing at that one!

 

[Wunderchu]

Which is what I've said all along - I want one piece of hardware with all the games, and not need to have 3 pieces of very similar hardware to gain access to the full range of games.

a few of you have already discussed the possibility of all the console makers agreeing on a compatible tech that works with all games.......... I will put my 2 cents in about the possibility about a one console monopoly






lets say that eventually 'there can only be one', and two of the three console manufacturers go out of business similar to how SEGA did.....



.. IMO there are only 2 advantages to a one console monopoly

1. the advantage of being able to play all your favourite games, while only having to buy one platform, which Shifty Geezer mentions..............

2. the developers will have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with one piece of hardware, so the days of crappy ports would hopefully be over


On the other hand, a one console monopoly would be more bad than good, IMO, for the following reasons:

1. the old adage of "competition is good for the industry/consumer", runs very true here; if there were one console, the maker of this console could do the following:



a. - jack up the price of the console (i.e.: with one console, the days of console manufacturers taking a loss on hardware would be over, because there would be no need to do so with no competition)..



b. - jack up the price for 3rd party publishers to make games for the system [it's the only system, so why not get 3rd party publishers to pay big $$ (i.e.: through royalties), to put their games on the system]

... as a result of b. , the following could happen:

- developers keep making sequels, or similar types of games, because it's too risky to make create IP, or a new type of game and risk poor sales

- many newer/smaller developers go out of business, because prices are too high, and publishers are not willing to take any risks publishing their game(s)

- say Nintendo were to become the only console manufacturer. By jacking up the prices for 3rd/2nd party publishers, they could create an unfair competitive advantage for their first party titles





2. the single console manufacturer may not spend huge amounts of R&D making the console the best piece of hardware it can be, for the price point. For example:

a. - let's say Sony becomes the only console manufacturer. They would no longer need to pay leading CPU/GPU companies like IBM/ATI/NVIDIA millions of dollars for R&D, when they could just make their own hardware completely in house [similar to what they did to some extent for PS2 (although for PS2 they had Toshiba's help)] ..... the result is less probably powerful, less feature rich hardware for consumers/developers





3. quality of software could go down ....

a. I will use Windows operating system as an example... Microsoft basically had a monopoly as far as operating systems go (although in recent years, Linux, etc. have made inroads)..... Remember how buggy various versions of Windows have been at release? ... Remember how insecure Windows XP was at release (i.e.: very susceptible to viruses, spyware, etc.)? ... Remember how 'bloated' Windows XP is? .... Why? Because Windows has basically had a monopoly in the OS space, and so there was no reason for MS to do better, they just had to do 'good enough' so that consumers would buy the product

.. I suspect the quality of (first party especially) software could decrease in this way.. i.e.: Why spend ~10 million dollars and 3+ years making a great game, when you can spend ~5 million dollars and ~1-2 years making an OK game.. the game will still sell well, because of the fact that the single console will probably end up with >100 million units sold .... even if only 1% of the console owners buy your game, that's still 1 million copies ... [and with the unfair competitive advantage that 1st party titles could have (see 1. b. above), the profits should still be great] .......

 

[therealskywolf]

I like this guy. I really loved what they did with MGS Twin Snakes, and he sounds excited about Too Human.

Should be good.

 

[_phil_]

Yeah, if I remember correctly MS first floated the idea of everyone running a MS OS. Obviously Nintendo and Sony are STILL laughing at that one!

(And Sega don't ),...that's why MS decided to go with its own console,the need for its OS in our living room.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

a. - jack up the price of the console

I disagree. Prices will take longer to drop, but as long as console cost £300+ I won't buy, like most. They'll drop the price eventually to attract those that won't pay a premium

b. - jack up the price for 3rd party publishers to make games for the system

Not sure about this. You may be right, but they'll still need to keep the cost of software at something people will buy.

- developers keep making sequels, or similar types of games, because it's too risky to make create IP, or a new type of game and risk poor sales
- say Nintendo were to become the only console manufacturer. By jacking up the prices for 3rd/2nd party publishers, they could create an unfair competitive advantage for their first party titles

Regards software, competing software houses will decide what sells or doesn't. If ALL games are generic sequels, there'll be startups producing innovative titles competing for the divers market (if one exists - maybe people only like generic sequels?). If licensing costs are raised, it'll have no more influence than now. Already publishers won't fit the bill for innovative titles. With only one console the user base for niche titles would be larger than a split market, so it could even be more conducive to innovative niche titles.

2. the single console manufacturer may not spend huge amounts of R&D making the console the best piece of hardware it can be, for the price point. For example:

This'd be the most hit area I think. Console RnD would be retarded. Look at GB for a monopoly that progressed nowhere on the tech front! Tech would be milked for all it's worth. That said, Iwouldn't mind too much. We don't NEED super tech advancement. As long as there's games to enjoy, and good games, whether it runs at 1080p or 2160p makes little odds. There's plenty of people enjoy n-thousand-year-old tech for recreation! When I get tired of the tech I'll stop buying games (because they'll all reached the limits of the machine so lack diversity from previous games) - then the console company would have to produce a new machine to offer new games that don't bore me.

3. quality of software could go down ....

I don't think software quality can be related to competing hardware (except large scale lossy investments for system pushers). Software is competing against software. The GT series wouldn't get any less attention in future incarnations on the one system because if it doesn't advance much, I'll buy Forza instead. As long as there isn't a monopoly in the software stakes we still have competing products where the competition is pushing the envelope.

For me, I'd expect slower price drops and less technical innovation in a hardware monopoly, but software should be as expansive, varied, and competitive as it is now, if not even better with a single large mass-market (eg. 120 million possible customers instead of 80 or 20 or 20 million)

 

[Farid]

I'm still, to this day, unable to understand why people care what Denis Dyack has to say...

And why a Nintendo fansite does interview him, by the way?
SK is now developing a game (Too Human) published and produced by MGS for the X360.

 

[Readykilowatt]

I'm still, to this day, unable to understand why people care what Denis Dyack has to say...

I can't understand this phenomenon either? Why is Denis Dyack and what he has to say important?

And why a Nintendo fansite does interview him, by the way?

Good question.

 

[Oda]

If there is any consolidation between the Big Three in the future, it will be a Sony Computer Entertainment + Nintendo merge. MS couldn't afford Sony at the price they're sure to demand, and Nintendo has already turned down the $25 Billion offer MS made in 2000.

Japanese companies are extremely apprehensive to being bought out by Western (especially American) conglomerates, even if those companies try and pay a massive premium.

Nevertheless, unless over the next 5 years the PSP absolutely destroys the DS (I'm talking sales of 5 or 6 to 1) and the Revolution bombs completely, all three will be around for a long while.

 

[Lazy8s]

He's talking about the platform shifting from being hardware to being the network, like SEGA was doing with SegaNet and Microsoft is doing with Live.

 

[gurgi]

Which is what I've said all along - I want one piece of hardware with all the games, and not need ot have 3 pieces of very similar hardware to gain access to the full range of games.

I'd rather have 3 big companies all spending big money, and even losing money on hardware, all competing for my dollar. I'd much rather spend 299 on a single console, even if it means I miss out on some good exclusives, than spend 1000 (sony's estimate for PS3 if it were released as a home PC for profit) on a single machine. Competition is good.

but as long as console cost £300+

You honestly think the same business model would exist if it weren't for competition? Machines would be less powerful and/or more money.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

One platform? Hard to say. Hardware irrelavence? Probably.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

but as long as console cost £300+

You honestly think the same business model would exist if it weren't for competition? Machines would be less powerful and/or more money.

If only PS3 were coming out, and Sony charged £1000 for it, it wouldn't sell - not in any numbers anyway. At £500 it wouldn't sell. They'd have to drop the price to something people were willing to spend. Might be say £200, where it'd be £100-150 with competition, but prices would drop to what people were willing to spend. How can it be otherwise?

"We Sony. We makee gleat console. We selly console for thousand pounds. We only sell 50 console. We could sell 50 million if we sell console for £200, and we makey more money from licensees, but we sell for thousand pounds - it is velly good money for work of art that is PlayStation most beautiful."

I think not