There's been some interesting discussion on why the industry would be better off with a one-console future. Even such industry heavyweights as David Jaffe and Dennis Dyack have questioned, in their oh-so-charming ways, why it's better.
As Jaffe asked, "Can anyone explain to me how having one console would be bad for gamers? Or game developers for that matter?"
So rather than ask why we don't have a one-console future, let's imagine a future if we had 10 consoles on the market. Or better yet, let's say 200.
The Ghost of Gaming Yet To Come
I know, I know, that sounds ridiculous -- like Tila Tequila getting her own show. Wait ... that did happen. But for the sake of analysis, let's just say in a twisted future world it was this way. And we can then take data we have on a comparable industry: the mobile games industry.
What many people don't know is that in the mobile games industry, one game needs to be ported to nearly 200 different phones. And phones have different CPU power, different screen sizes, and even different button layouts. Trust me, you do not want to be a mobile games developer!
So what problems does this cause? It all comes down to added cost. While typical mobile game development can run $100-200K, the cost of porting a game to so many handsets more than doubles the cost. That includes the cost of porting, QA testing, and just learning about all of the new phones that come out each year.
So what to do? What to do?
Clever game developers have found a way to reduce the porting cost by creating a couple of "reference" builds. In other words, rather than create 200 different versions of a game, they create five to ten key ones, and they use these key builds to port to similar phones.
Doing that, however, doesn't make the game code optimal for the individual phones it works with. As an example, one version of a game may only have five levels out of 10, so that it fits on a mid-tier phone. That version is then ported to phones that can support up to five levels, six levels, and seven levels, etc. Once we get to 10 levels, they may have another reference build to use for the advanced handsets.
That means the guy who bought the phone that can handle nine levels is only getting five levels. Also, chances are that the game may lack other features and qualities that his phone may offer, simply because a developer can't afford to fully customize the game for his phone. Graphics may be slightly worse, some sound effects may be missing, and the framerate may suck a little, too.
Sounds like a bad deal for many gamers, and a potentially scary future if it came to pass.
The Ghost of Gaming Past
So let's step back in time to just a few years ago, when the PlayStation 2 and the Xbox were competing in the marketplace. With just these two consoles, we already started to see the ugly side of porting. For many years, Xbox owners were complaining that games ported over from the PS2 never really took advantage of the Xbox hardware.
So even though Microsoft spent much R&D making a better system, few games took advantage of it for a long time. They effectively wasted their R&D money. Few third-party developers were willing to custom-build their game for the Xbox because there were fewer systems on the marketplace, and because the PS2 ruled the house. It made sense to make the game for the less powerful system, and just tweak a bit for the Xbox.
OK, back to today's world. Wow, that felt like Ebenezer Scrooge trippin' on the "Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come" and "Christmas Past."
But it does show you what happens when we have multiple hardware manufacturers creating different systems. It results in a lot of time and money spent on things that, on many occasions, results in addressing technical challenges rather than on building a game. I won't even go into the money that's wasted in creating the marketing wars to pitch different game systems.
That being said, would I ever want a ONE-console future? NO WAY. Jaffe and Dyack are crazy if they think that it will make gaming life better. So why would I waste five minutes of your time seemingly giving the thumbs-up to a one-console future? Because while I painted what an ugly future it would be if we had 200 consoles, having one would be even worse. Stay tuned for an even scarier time-traveling journey to see what the future would be like with one console!
----
Dr. Boa may sound like someone who starred in some porn with Dirk Diggler, but his true passion is interactive entertainment. He's notched +15 years in the gaming industry from QA to launching several big hits, so he's got a healthy perspective on what goes on from the flipside. It's amazing he's not a jaded cynic yet. He's finally glad to see more drug filled parties with playboy bunnies and B level celebs like all other entertainment fields. Yes, gaming has finally made it.
Contest:
8:30 AM on 05.07.2008
| 
I think the phone scenario is unlikely, through out the history of mobiles, there have been many driving forces which create so many variations. Size, speed, personnel preference etc. With games consoles, there have always been just a few because that has been what the demand if for.
A single console is just a crazy idea. Unless it was a free (free a in freedom (see GPL)) design and implementation which made it for the good of gamers, not for the good of the sales.
At least the xbox1 gave us the shiny Ninja Gaiden and DOAX though. And errrm.. errrrrrrrr...
Oh yeah, and a free console would be interesting, but I fear the amount of crap that would get released on it. We already have one Wii, thank you very much.
central servers hosting gametap like services included in your monthly bill for phone/internet/cable. further more, you won't have a pc either! everything will be hosted on a gigantic terminal server of sorts and controlled thru set top boxes no larger than your current cable box. look at the quality of browser based games, like the new battlefield, consoles? ha! this will all happen sooner than you think, within 20 years. so maybe one or two more console life-cycles, then buh-bye!
As gamers, the perceived negatives that ALWAYS come up on every blog/podcast/roundtable discussion for the last umpteen years of this beaten and dead horse are:
a) Who determines the hardware specifications?
b) Who builds the hardware?
c) Will this stifle innovation?
d) What would this mean for the price of the console/games since there would no competition between vendors?
e) Why would console vendors want to join forces as there is no perceived financial benefit?
Putting my software engineering hat on, from a development and QA perspective a single and unified platform is practically a wet dream.
a) Reduced permutations
b) Reduced development and QA team sizes
c) Potentially faster turnaround time for titles
Mobile games QA over here. In the porting business, even.
I'm gonna nitpick, because I'm one of the few people that can in this situation: with mobiles games, there is something in the system that basically works, and that's the concept for a shared development and implementation platform across different devices (usually by carrier). While you have 200 phones (a bit more than that in actuality), you have basically 2 or 3 "Operating systems" for making and running games.
Porting one application from phone to phone by the same manufacturer is a reasonable effort with a capable team. The hard part is switching platforms (J2ME to BREW to BlackBerry to Windows Mobile, oh my!), which takes a significant effort, essentially rewriting the reference build. If the console makers can agree on a single *platform* (think OS), gamers could benefit from high portability. Wii Half Life 2 wouldn't have bitchin' textures, but it would be basically the same code, and the same game . . . minus a few levels.
So for me, one console = bad . one platform for multiple consoles = good!
Man, the free market is crazy!
As far as deciding on one format, I don’t see why it can’t work the same way as DVD players – developers agree on one format, then third party manufacturers develop the consoles. Even Sony and MS could still develop the consoles and make money, but just to a standard agreed upon by the industry. Maybe I’m just not thinking deep enough about it, but it seems pretty easy to copy any other electronic format.
I personally like the many consoles. Even if I don't want some all the time. It gives options for developers low on money or testing waters.
Best case scenario we'd end up with something on the level of an xbox 360 that has poor interface conventions, faulty hardware, and forced service lockin that extends beyond the console game platform. And there's no way we'd end up with anything even that good if there weren't any competition.
But the console designs would be:
A) Designed by multiple companies all trying to secure the winning bid among the industry to be considered the standard. If anything it promotes competition more because if they want to become the standard they have to ensure they have the best console for developers.
B) Once the hardware has been agreed upon, third parties would be manufacturing the consoles, just like DVD players. If MS makes a version that has a huge powerbrick and is noisy as hell, Toshiba might make a version half the size, twice as quiet and a tiny powerbrick. There wouldn't be one company producing buggy crap, even though that is exactly the situation now (who else are you going to buy a 360 from?), but instead have multiple companies competing for the best design for the best price.
Like I said, maybe I'm getting this wrong, but it would seem that rather than the 2 console 2 company deal we get now where if we don't like it, tough, we would have a hundred companies all competing for the best design and price keeping inside an industry standard, promoting much more competition than today.
I never thought about it like that, but your dvd player analogy makes perfect sense.
I'm not saying that's what I want to happen, I mean, as much as I hate to say it, I'd agree with galagabug and say that physical media is on it's way out.
You do realise that a substantial portion of the populace either wants or needs to have their processing capability under their own control, right?
On top of that, there aren't many games that actually come from the web and still look or feel like something worth playing for more than a few minutes, and there's always the matter of bandwidth to consider - namely that there wouldn't be nearly enough to go around.
And if you think that the future of gaming and/or computer processing is safe with telecom or cable companies... well, that's a discussion for another day.
@Boolean - Then you're really back to square one. We already have multiple companies vying for our money and they do so through choosing either which console they consider most creative, which one can power their game to the fullest, or which one will sell the most in the marketplace. It is all about money in every industry and clearly there is no feasible reason why Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft would sign up for one console when they could each make their own console and potentially much more money. Oh, and there's also that thing called "originality"...
Z80 computer has been sold/resold as: Spectrum, Colecovision, Sega Mark3/Master System, Donkey Kong arcade game... 68000 computer sold/resold as Amiga, Sega Genesis/CD, .. All 3 consoles now use IBM chips.. I'm starting to think there's more similarities than differences. (The ram size in the Wii is approx. the same as the xbox 1, etc..) But the games are still the reason to play, of coz.
Let’s just look at our gaming “services”:
Gametap
Steam
XBL
PSN
Nintendo “Shop/Channel”
These services are the beginning of what we’ll play our games on. I’m sure there physical media will be around for a long, long time simply because there are many people that still want to hold onto something tangible. They want to collect the games and not just play them, but really have a sense of ownership over the title.
Not only will we be purchasing more and more games thru these respective services but we will start interacting more; just look at what Sony is trying to do with Home. They want control over what their customers get and to do that they will keep offering more and more ways for us to interact with each other, thru their services. I’m sure once Home takes off Microsoft will début something eerily similar. Hell, Nintendo might even give us something cool to do with our Mii’s other than that damned “Check Mii out” channel.
Sorry if this is TL:DR :-p
Which would be why that format/console is the one developers would choose to back as the format of choice.
"which one can power their game to the fullest"
As above
"or which one will sell the most in the marketplace"
Well considering everyone would have just this one console being produced and shipped by third parties, it would be by far the best selling.
"It is all about money in every industry and clearly there is no feasible reason why Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft would sign up for one console when they could each make their own console and potentially much more money."
I agree that I don't see a one console future happening anytime soon, it would take a huge push from game developers. At the same time though the companies would still be making money on consoles, just like companies make money on DVD players, or TV's, or cars, yet they just conform to a standard (watch movies, play tv or drive on the road).
The 3 console we have now is like saying having three separate incompatible dvd players with only three designs from just 3 companies would have made Spiderman 3 a much better movie.
(but I don’t want to get to far to one side of this debate as I’m hardly an expert.)
The problem with the DVD player model is the same problem with PCs... even if the software is compatible, if different companies are manufacturing the system with different specs who knows how a game will run with your particular model. A lot of people prefer consoles because they know a game is going to run at the same level of performance on their machine as their friend's. They don't want to bother with the Hardware Requirements found in tiny print on the bottom of the box. How many of you have worked in retail and had an upset customer try to return computer software that ran like shit on their setup?
It's very powerful and uses standard pc hardware in conjunction with FOSS
then all someone would have to do is come out with something that is.
Imagine if there was only the PC.
But then someone comes out with a fundementally diffrent computer called a game console.
It's has alot of the features of a PC but is diffrent enough to offer customers something new.
Now take DVD's so far they are the standard way to get movies. But say that Digital Distrubution becomes barable for more people to use and enough companies take advantage of it. Wouldn't that still be innovating the movie industry even though there was just the DVD player.
"One-Console FORMAT Future" = Good news. Do away with platform exclusivity. Games will be made for a multitude of consoles using a robust and general dev kit. It will allow third-party devs some breathing room instead of having to perform a juggling act between two or more wildly varying development processes. Additionally, shitty components such as the XBox 360 HDD will disappear. Propreitary electronics will be commercially non-existent. Consoles will be available from a wide variety of manufacturers, such as Samsung, Sony, and Insignia (bargain label,) with features being greater on the "higher quality" consoles. All of these consoles will take the same disc format and play the game, perhaps at slightly varying levels of quality.
If you live in Canada you'll understand when you go to get car insurance, the rape, she hurts.
There is no mass market product which has no competitor, even Jesus has multi-flavours.
If one format wins by simply being superior - it'd be ok. Possibilty of new player on the market + PC could keep owner of this console in check.
I'd expect some competition to survive - u'd get some "niche consoles" trying their luck on the side (prolly Wii-wise not competing where the big guy is strong, but explore beyond his reach). So this unification'd rather mean ~80% share than overkill.
In such situation all power-hungry graphics-loaded performance-squeezers'd land on one console format while u could also get "cheap console" with casual games and backaward compatibility to classics, "ingenious console" with tricks and innovations in place of power etc.
If "king of the hill" had bad release competiton would likely take his place, so he'd never be totaly secure in his position.
"One-Console Future" = Bad News.
"One-Console FORMAT Future" = Good news.
Exactly, and I think it's where people are getting confused. There would be no monopoly, there wouldn't be one company making all the money, it's just a standard that Toshiba, Sony, MS, Nintendo, Samsung, Bob from down the road, all develop to. Developers love it because they have one unified platform, gamers love it because they only have to buy one console, sellers love it because they can make money on the console without it losing a generation war.
Ever heard of the 3do? that didn't end very well. the real problem is money. Soon, one of the guys would want to differentiate themselves making a version of the console that spat chocolate when you got a 1000 points, and from there on there would be division of specs all over again. there's no way someone would make a unified console that was good to the current big three, so, unless someone kill 2 of them and no one rises up (thats just as hard to happen as one of them dying), it's not going to happen
But on a more serious note, I can't imagine one console doing anyone any good. Sure, it ends a lot of problems, but it creates a lot more, like price fixing, content control, and a lack of new ideas as there will be little reason to innovate hardware-wise. It's not like they're gonna go to the other guy...