Would the console industry benefit from a single hardware platform/standard?

[blakjedi]

Looking back on the evolution of this latest generation of consoles I think there are several factors which now make a single hardware platform a viable end goal for the industry.

1) Evident skill sets - Sony is clearly better at hardware development (though not always design choices) than anyone else in the business. MS knows software and tools and Nintendo obviously still hasnt lost touch with the gamer. Each company needs the skill sets of the other two to prosper and the one that comes closest to maximizing each area in gamers eyes typically wins the generation... but each generation is becoming more costly and thus harder to perform well in the skillset that is not native to corporate values and culture.

2) Costs - in reality as economies of scale (and sales) become harder to achieve without massive R&D investments... why go it alone when you can have a unifed developer hardware platform. A hardware consortium could provide the best of all possible worlds to the Games platform owners, IHVs, hardware manufacturers/licensees and devs. A high-end fixed PC per se

3) Universal tech - Graphics and CPU is already basically industry standard anyway... ATI and NV have replaced in house graphics design universally (once Sony bought in) this dominance will not change in the future and makes cross platform devving (PC and console) more easily possible.

If i had more time (hey Joshua Luna) i would write more but for now these are just some of my thoughts... comment at will.

 

[Readykilowatt]

Looking back on the evolution of this latest generation of consoles I think there are several factors which now make a single hardware platform a viable end goal for the industry.

1) Evident skill sets - Sony is clearly better at hardware development (though not always design choices) than anyone else in the business. MS knows software and tools and Nintendo obviously still hasn't lost touch with the gamer. Each company needs the skill sets of the other two to prosper and the one that comes closest to maximizing each area in gamers eyes typically wins the generation... but each generation is becoming more costly and thus harder to perform well in the skillset that is not native to corporate values and culture.

2) Costs - in reality as economies of scale (and sales) become harder to achieve without massive R&D investments... why go it alone when you can have a unifed developer hardware platform. A hardware consortium could provide the best of all possible worlds to the Games platform owners, IHVs, hardware manufacturers/licensees and devs. A high-end fixed PC per se

3) Universal tech - Graphics and CPU is already basically industry standard anyway... ATI and NV have replaced in house graphics design universally (once Sony bought in) this dominance will not change in the future and makes cross platform devving (PC and console) more easily possible.

If i had more time (hey Joshua Luna) i would write more but for now these are just some of my thoughts... comment at will.

This post is clearly made by someone who doesn't understand that this is the gaming industry...

game ---> An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.

Expecting there to be one standard hardware for gaming is like expecting every single sport to be played on a soccer field or every singe board game to be played on a chessboard.

Spoiler

I would not like to play Monopoly on a chessboard or tennis on a soccer field.

 

[mrcorbo]

Just a couple of potential undesirable results of the "one console future".

The current model of subsidizing the initial losses caused by selling hardware at a loss at launch with royalties on software sales (and overpriced accessories) becomes a lot less viable when you are forced to share those revenues. This means one of two things. Less impressive hardware that can be manufactured more cheaply to maintain an acceptable price point or ridiculously-priced hardware. This was why the 3DO was $700!

Much less impetus to innovate after the initial product sees release. Without a competitor to force you to develop and deploy your next platform to compete with their next platform why not keep cost reducing and profiting from the existing one indefinitely? Good for the manufacturers. Good for the software publishers. Not great for the enthusiast who wants to have the envelope continually pushed.

I see the clear benefits of the one console approach, but there appear to be costs as well. I'm not sure it really is the best thing for the consumer.

 

[blakjedi]

This post is clearly made by someone who doesn't understand that this is the gaming industry...



Expecting there to be one standard hardware for gaming is like expecting every single sport to be played on a soccer field or every singe board game to be played on a chessboard.

Spoiler

I would not like to play Monopoly on a chessboard or tennis on a soccer field.

Um I dont think you are correct in your assessment. There is s standard/regulation size for fields, rinks, tables, lanes etc... so instead of there being an AFL and an NFL there is just the NFL (standard rules, measurements, officiating, etc). All the owners have to do (console companies) is come up with the right mix of players (developers) and playbooks (games/accessory tech) to be considered the "winner."

 

[blakjedi]

Just a couple of potential undesirable results of the "one console future".

The current model of subsidizing the initial losses caused by selling hardware at a loss at launch with royalties on software sales (and overpriced accessories) becomes a lot less viable when you are forced to share those revenues. This means one of two things. Less impressive hardware that can be manufactured more cheaply to maintain an acceptable price point or ridiculously-priced hardware. This was why the 3DO was $700!

Much less impetus to innovate after the initial product sees release. Without a competitor to force you to develop and deploy your next platform to compete with their next platform why not keep cost reducing and profiting from the existing one indefinitely? Good for the manufacturers. Good for the software publishers. Not great for the enthusiast who wants to have the envelope continually pushed.

I see the clear benefits of the one console approach, but there appear to be costs as well. I'm not sure it really is the best thing for the consumer.

Agree that with no competition the incentive diminishes... Or maybe with three inputs (money, resources, tech, ideas) we get the best innovation for the lowest price possible... beyond what ANY individual company can do... it maye even be that we need to get beyond looking to a "platform." I see this as akin to the HDDVD/BLURAY schism... who benefited from their being two competitive platforms? who benefits from there being one final standard? Isnt it better that that there are standard "features" to every device?

 

[RobertR1]

Let Nintendo think of the gaming innovation, Sony the hardware and MS the software and online integration and you'll have the grand daddy of all platforms.

 

[Arwin]

The only really important bit here is not a hardware standard, but a software standard. If you can write a game for a certain engine and run them without modification on several different platforms, that is going to solve most problems for games that target multiple platforms. We are clearly moving towards such solutions, and even platform holders are working with 3rd party developers to make that easier. That is not to say that we won't also keep developers that develop their own engine or games and engines that only target a specific platform. But we will have both for a long time yet I'm certain, and all that will change is how much software appears for either side.

A hardware platform is simply not needed, and the disjunct between software and hardware will never go away, and should never go away.

 

[Mobius1aic]

If consoles become standardized, then I think we'll be reverting back to them becoming PCs, except more closed up of course. But that's really redundant if you ask me.

 

[Zassk]

Let Nintendo think of the gaming innovation, Sony the hardware and MS the software and online integration and you'll have the grand daddy of all platforms.

And it'll cost $1k, great.