So I just spent a whole feature talking about the problems of trying to support multiple consoles -- why would we still NEVER, EVER want a one-console future? After reading a number of the comments from Dtoiders on my last post, I'm quite impressed how many people seemed to piece it all together, and see that with just one console, there is no competition.
Competition becomes even more vital in an industry that is technology driven. It's quite amazing that Moore's law, which states that computing power doubles every 18 months, still holds true. This rapid evolution is primarily driven by competition. People are constantly trying to outdo each other. Consoles typically have a shelf life of about five to six years. What would happen without competition?
Probably something like what I'll show you after the jump.
Where da Genesis go? What happened with the PlayStation 2?
Launch Date Platform
1983 Nintendo Entertainment System
1994 PlayStation
2005 Xbox 360
Having nightmares yet?
In other words, we would potentially skip a whole generation of hardware. So what would make this such a likely scenario? Because when no competition exists, then you have a situation where a company's bottom line is less aligned with consumer needs.
As an example, Nintendo was once clearly dominating the market with the NES. While the Sega Master system was on the market, it had less than 5% marketshare. Nintendo was so comfortable in their position they honestly felt like they could have extended the life of the NES by a good couple more years. From a business perspective it made sense. If they had a massive install base, then they can easily earn revenue with the fees they charge publishers for every game unit sold, a standard practice for all console makers. If they created a new cutting-edge system, the cost would be high, and the user base would have to be rebuilt from scratch. That's just a high level of risk that most companies would rather avoid as long as possible if they could. Even when the Sega Genesis came out, Nintendo was still trying to milk the NES. But the Genesis actually worked. And Nintendo started to expedite the launch of the SNES, and that's when we started to have our first real console wars.
Granted this is one example. Do all big companies really act this way when they are in a dominant position? There are too many examples of how new competition fuels the push for some big changes.
Remember when AOL use to dominate the interwebs? They had over 20 million dial-up customers. Keyword: dial-up! Even though broadband was available, AOL didn't want to upgrade because of the cost, and because growth for the dial-up service was still strong. And then cable companies started to offer broadband, and within two years, AOL fell from grace, because it was losing customers at a scary pace. Then they merged with one of the biggest cable guys around, Time Warner.
A FUTURE SO SCARY
So we have no Genesis and no PlayStation 2. That is one possible scary scenario with a one-console reality. But it doesn't end there. I argue that we also wouldn't have Microsoft's Achievement Points. The whole achievement points system is really a clever way to build loyalty towards the Xbox 360 system. In many ways, I find it similar to Discover Card's "cash back rewards" system. They were a small player in the space, so they created a loyalty system that would pull customers away from Visa and Mastercard. Because it worked, today you have all sorts of loyalty reward systems in place for just about every credit card. I also see a future with no Nintendo Wii. The Wii in many ways was born out of Nintendo's desire to change the rules of the hardware race by focusing on a new experience rather than improved hardware performance. Without competition, would they have been so bold to try something so crazy? Mind you, when the Wii was first announced, everyone thought they were nuttier than a Snickers bar. Including me.
WHEN DOES A ONE-CONSOLE FUTURE MAKE SENSE?
I will say this, there is potentially one day when a one console future makes sense. And that's when technology has reached its absolute peak, and no more improvements can be made. Thus, there's no more reason to upgrade. Then the focus shifts from hardware to software. And that's when having one console makes sense, because then we are thinking about how to make games better. But it almost seems impossible to think that technology can't keep improving. Soon we'll have our flying cars (only to be made obsolete with teleportation chambers).
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
Some people propose the potential for a one-console future by having different companies come together and create one console core technology. The only problem with this is that some companies refuse to work with others, simply because they are competitors. The other problem is that if you have lots of companies coming together to make a core system, everyone would want a cut of the profits. If it were that easy, then we wouldn't have the whole Blu-ray vs HD-DVD debacle. This fight was ugly, and it wasn't because of whose technology was better, it was about who would eventually control the market with THEIR technology, so they can earn residual money on every disc made compatible with their system. That's hundreds of billions of dollars on the line.
DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION IS OUR FUTURE
There are some folks who think that the concept of console wars will be obsolete in the future. Gaming will move towards a digital distribution model. That is very fascinating, and does warrant some further discussion!
----
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:
5:00 PM on 05.10.2008
| 
Consoles will continue to grow
PC gaming to become more casual
I have rambled for too long...
Good article as usual, we need more of you on the FP Dr. Boa
The "One Console Future" is superior in every way. And do not say that technology will not advance because look what has happened with this "Next Gen" nonsense.
Bring on the one console future, I'm all for it.
Or we can just have something similar to the PC, which is a single platform, but the hardware is interchangeable. Which is obviously the best way to go.
All that waggle....
Different companies build different architectures in their hardware and thereby improve on the previous generation. With competition we get some innovation (motion controls, gamerscore, online coop, etc.), but with different consoles you've created a mess for developers that wish to have their game on as many consoles at once. The PS3 hardware is very different from the 360 hardware, and the Wii hardware is only a 1/2 step up from last generation.
This is why most PS3 titles that were developed for the 360 first and the PS3 second in the first year of the life of the system absolutely suffered in comparison to their 360 counterparts. This of course fueled fanboy arguements about the abilities of the PS3.
The closest thing we have to a unified, scalable system is the PC. But, because of the different manufacturers of hardware and varying capabilities therein, PC games appear to have as many if not more development issues as their console counterparts.
At least that's how I see it.
Do you think we'll start to see a more unified structure in consoles in the near future?
We're already seeing unified features like downloadable games/demos/TV/music/internet...
Because YouTube ( Streaming Video ) , Netflix ( DL'able HD Movies ) & piracy. Is consuming up bandwith & their equipment's life. Over high-speed connections constantly 24/7.
So anything you buy ( DL'able Game ) in the future will cost you just to DL.... PRAY TO GOD that doesn't happen! Oh yeah they're working on it. ( Comcast & Direct TV. )
To the younger people, that didn't make sense, everyone thought the first and only rival Genesis had was the SNES.
It's interesting to hear someone who seems convinced but with the way technology operates, it would be rather presumptuous to predict such an erratic industry to conclude on an inevitability. I would like to hear how something like the Wii would fit into that mold of a period of time where their's a set standard of technology to which game developers make. I'm skeptical but not dismissing the option.
P.S. This is my first post, for some reason it's taken me years to comment on something.
There was a time where a few games could be played cross platform something like C64 and Amiga (somebody correct me if im wrong).
But can you imagine what gaming would be like when something like quantum computing is developed? - That would be the next step into creating VR games, cus we've all wanted to play a game like in Futurama
As far as hardware vendors, MS could continue (and easily improve upon the admittedly shitty) support for media streaming through Windows and build upon their other unique selling points, and Sony could do whatever it is they do. Nintendo can become increasingly behind with online features as they are now or whatever.
Of course, that'll never happen because the Sony/MS/Nintendo will always be greedy and wanting their cut of the sales.
As far as missing or delaying hardware generations. Fine by me, most of the innovation and those "must play" games don't appear until later on in a system's lifespan anyway. I would much rather have engaging storys and immersive, highly polished gameplay over flashy visuals that cause disgraceful drops in frame rate (looking at the current gen here).
Of course with EA buying everything we'll probably end up with a new console every year to be packaged with each annual EA sports title, along with GTA 2009, 2010, 2011 etc.
There are few memories that make me happier than wrestling with my brother in the backseat of the car for the instruction booklet of a now long forgotten game. Long live retail outlets.
I think they would have done the same with GBA if Sony hadn't announced the PSP. People say Nintendo are due for another handheld soon, but I think this will only happen if PSP continues to be a success. If it fails, we'll be stuck with the same portable system for a while longer.
Then the iphone came, in a saturated and over dominated competition, this new contender came and did what many companies COULD have done, but why!? if there is no real competition, we can continue to milk the consumer with little effort. Now what? look how apple took king of the cell phone competition and every company out there and their mothers are trying, and trying and TRYING to make the next iPhone killer. and they still fail. what a shame, they had 15 years to actually come up with major upgrades, but most companies were satisfied not taking big risks.
So this applies to gaming, competition is good, it will keep pushing technology and keeping competitive prices.
I think that eventually we will reach a point that there is only one way hardware can improve and one of the big three will copywrite a key aspect of it and cut out the other two. My money is on Microsoft. They are going to come up with the biggest thing since the microchip, and refuse to let Sony or Nintendo use it.
First off, there would still be competition between developers trying to write code that optimizes the system. Instead of spending resources on porting a game, they can instead concentrate on developing engines to set themselves apart from everyone else. This applies to new peripherals as well as things like achievement points. And in the next iteration of hardware, these innovations can be put under consideration for inclusion in the system.
Second, there would need to be some kind of consortium made up of the hardware manufacturers and the developers. If they set a standard system lifespan (between 5-10 years or whatever), they could begin planning within budgets for what would be the best configuration while also netting them enough of a profit so not to go under. They could then work closely with developers to see what innovations need to be made, or have been thought of already but haven't been adopted. So if developers were clamoring for more graphical computing power, they have a voice and the manufacturers can listen.
Developers will always do what they do best and that's develop. Regardless of competition, Miyamoto will always look for different ways to play games. CliffyB will always look to developing game engines.
Here is how I see a one-console environment. I imagine a system with processor power and graphic capabilities dictated by the likes of Epic Games et al. I see peripherals and controller inputs dictated by Nintendo. I see an online system developed by Microsoft. And I see multi-media capabilities driven by Sony. Instead of wasting time concentrating on a mediocre part of their business (I'm looking at Nintendo's online capabilities) the companies can concentrate on their strengths.
If we're really talking about a one-console future, we have to learn to think outside of the box of normal business operations.
However, that is not how I view it. We can use video devices as an example. Back in the day, there was a format war between BetaMax and VHS. VHS won. Everybody used VHS. Later, to format improved to DVD. Now we had a better technology, despite the fact that there was no competing format to beat. The market just realized we needed a new format for a more modern time, and they gave it to us. Now, we are upgrading again past DVD. The format war here was between HD DVD and Blu Ray. Blu Ray won, and now everybody is going to have Blu Ray. In the future, something even better will come along.
So, except for a few battles along the way, video has maintained a single, unified format. Yet, that does not mean that Sony got together with, say, Toshiba, and we all had one single unit that played our movies. Quite the contrary. If you go to your local circuit city or best buy, you will see far more "consoles" to choose from than we have for gaming. They are all different, but they all share one common task: they play DVDs (ignoring Blu Ray since we're still in a transition to that).
The same should be true for gaming. Rather than having a single "console", what we really need is a single format. Then, we can have a huge number of competing consoles all fighting to be considered the best player of that format. Thus, we have competition, and we have also converged gaming into a single standard that every company follows. For the developers, this means making the game once only, cutting production costs by a significant portion. They can also focus on making better games because of this. For users, this potentially means that everybody has access to everybody else for multiplayer games. Fanboys, unfortunately, will continue to exist. For console manufacturers, they can focus on making the best unit that fits the standard, or perhaps they might push a new standard every once in a while. Everybody wins.
The question becomes, what would this standard look like? My guess is, it will contain a digital distribution model, as well as a disc format. It will also specify some minimum hardware requirements. These hardware requirements would not be along the lines of "this Nvidia chip" or "that brand of hard drive", but rather "a graphics card that has these features" and "at least this much hard drive capacity". Companies are free to exceed these requirements, if they think it would be good business. Game developers are now allowed to work within a single standard, and you might start to see some PC game-like graphics options emerge for those who have above-average hardware. They may even be able to automatically optimize the graphics by detecting what Video Game Player you have. Besides the hardware, the console makers have one other thing to play with: the hub. When you turn on a PS3, a 360, or a Wii, you don't go straight into the game. You get a menu. There will be standards here as well, but again a company is free to exceed these standards, or even meet them in a variety of different configurations.
This would be the ideal "one-console future" that I am hoping for. Hmmmm... this was my first post on this site, but maybe in the future I'll cut back on the length of my posts.
Granted, both sides of the argument is at extremes, and the reality of the matter is somewhere down the middle, and its impossible to know for sure what will happen if there really was a point where there is only one console.
And honestly, I dont see Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo allying to create one console to rule them all anytime in the near future. Also, the recent rumors that Apple might join into the fray would further complicate that matter.
Also, as you stated, someone's always trying to outdue someone else. Plus everyone's idea won't be used and someone will want to put their idea in action. It's just not happening. This idea is like asking for peace or everything in the world to be free. Someone's gonna get greedy and start charging people if things were to be free. Then everyone's gonna do it and we're back to the roots of paying crap. Let alone, people won't work for what people want. Sounds easy, but the bigger picture is not.
Plain and simple, we need competition consoles to strive in the gaming world. If people like it or not.
isn't it the story that the transistor was invented in the west, but because of the western market's refusal to move away from the vacuum tube that they were so heavily invested in, Japan was able to take the new western technology and dominate the once western market for electronics?
I just want to say one thing right now. Irregardless of any potential benefits or likely negatives of a one console future, the possibility of that actually happening is approaching impossible.
There is just too much money to be made in the video game market for there to only be one company making a console. If at some point, there was only one console on the market that wasn't 15 years, another company would soon get into the market in attempt to take part of the market share.
Thats what awaits us in the future of console mergers.
Besides... The ones that say there will be a console merger usually say there will be multiple SKUs for a single format.
A developer may only need to code a game for one system and it will play on any console. BUT! There might be high performance models of such or Wii style variants.
This gibberish was from the Two Human developer talking on 1UP Yours. I don't particularly remember the interview well but his ideas of a one console future was, in my mind, a PC.
Multiple different SKUs... that doesn't sound appealing for a console at all! Didn't we have enough of the 360 and PS3 variants already?
I couldn't imagine a consortium working either. Representatives from each of the companies would disagree on the philosophy. There would be a great difference between japanese and American and European views that we would be back where we started.
I don't really mind multiple consoles and portables. It seems like it would only appease developers. Listening to some of them whine now you'd think they never had to deal with multiple platforms. It makes them sound lazy and incompetent.
I know costs are going up, but seriously.
If the big three were to come together and develop a console, I'm sure they would all agree to having different peripherals. Some sort of input system that would only work for certain developers and aren't compatible for similar products (Rock band and Guitar Hero come to mind). Of course there'll still be competition, but it would bring some sort of ungodly fustercluck along with it. Nintendo makes a peripheral that only Nintendo games can use. Sony and Microsoft do the exact same things. Certain games have certain features with other games made by the same company. Achievements gained on any Microsoft Game Studio games would unlock content for games made by Microsoft. Games that can be played online would either have a subscription, or some premium if it were by a certain house developer. And don't even get me started on how Nintendo would cripple their online experience with their games.
When we're looking at who wants a one console future, you only see one group in favor of it. Developers. They want the whole pie. What they forget to realize that if the big three would come together for one console, the biggest first party developer would STILL be their biggest adversary.
For example, Nobody wanted to develop Nintendo software because they have to compete with Nintendo's games that have become the standard for quality on Nintendo systems. Now imagine if that's the only company you could develop for. The developers want to have their cake and eat it too, and that just ain't gonna happen.
All in all, a one console future would have all of the bad things that dissuade customers from one particular company in a bundle. DO NOT WANT.
That's a lie. The Wii is not a Gamecube with waggle. It's built on 7th gen hardware, just with reduced specs, to reduce space, cost, and power consumption. If it truly was "one type of hardware", the box would be at least as big as the Gamecube, since it would have the same parts. It would also need a second processor, just to handle all the Wii channels, while the Wii's CPU is redesigned with extra processing units built in, to handle those.
"One console future people are the most ignorant people around. Guess what a one console model would look like, see PC gaming."
Hate to break this too ya, but there IS such a thing as, "This town ain't big enough for the three of us" and the retailers are the ones saying this. They are always trying to offer 2, instead of 3 or more "gaming systems" to save "shelf space". Alot of them want to drop either the 360 or the Wii (at least when it was still impossible to find)..In ways I don't blame them, (and I don't even have PS3 yet) since at this generation and point, I'm pretty happy with the graphics and capabilities, we do need probably 1 last generation with another update/upgrade in features, and lastly: 1 FORMAT that will help drive costs down for consumers and at retail. I'm not saying "king of the hill" is the BEST way, but, since Xbox 360 games are $60 at retail, PS3 makes their games $60 at retail, and Wii games, (while mostly only $50) are being marked UP to $60 since "everyone else is $60", etc.. It is likely the only way to keep games from being $80+, next time or two around is to make the one format and allow supply and demand to set the price. I'm sorry, but $80 each game will never get my money.. not now and not ever!
Ok. This might just shock you, but competition is NOT GOOD for consumers in some cases. I'll explain this more later.
First tho, that foundation in the quote is simply not true. Yes, a company might want to extend their good's life if it has monopoly, but something like Nintendo won't. Let's take a look at Microsoft's Window platform. It is the best case of monopoly in the world. If the author's claim is correct, then why do we have newer versions of Windows? It's because the revenue gained from its monopoly outweighs the cost SIGNIFICANTLY (hence the monopoly).
Example: Let's take a population of 10 people. Nintendo's NES currently has monopoly with little to no competition. So that means all 10 people bought the NES. Nintendo then start making money off the games. Say each game gives Nintendo $5, but each console gives Nintendo $100. Now. Nintendo knows, because it has a monopoly, that if a new console is launched with a cost of $50 per console, the net gain is $500 ($50 per person) in addition to all the future game sales ($5 more per person per game). But if it keeps doing games, it will only gain $5 per person per game. Therefore, if Nintendo doesn't upgrade, it loses a net of $500.
Now, this is the more economic theorist's part about why competition is bad. Now, we must understand this in a different way. Competition requires multiple items competing. This means that consumers will have the ability to choose between substitutive items (ie. sneakers bar and M&M).
Ok, let's say you value your MM at $.75 and Sneakers at $.40. Given only 1 choice (say the MM), you have gotten something that is worth $.75. However, given both choices, you obviously would pick the higher valued item, you have just gained $.75, but lost the opportunity to get a Sneakers, which is valued at $.40. This means, that the value of your MM is now $.75 - $.40 = $.35. That is what economists call opportunity cost.
Take the last situation: If nintendo provides 2 consoles themselves valued at the same price ($200), the consumers must choose between which console to get. This means that if you get console 1, you have gained a value of $200, but you lost the opportunity to get console 2, which is also $200. This means that you have gained a value of $200-$200=$0. You have just spent $200 to buy nothing.
Imagine if you could buy a game and use it on any console, each with their own advantages but with the same architecture so developers can easily make games that work on any console.
I guess it sounds exactly like the way PC gaming works at the moment, except you wouldn't have to buy a new graphics card every 6 months to keep up, you'd just buy a new console every few years and you'd be safe in the knowledge that, whether you bought the Phillips console or the Toshiba console, any game you buy will be playable on it.
Its difficult to tell what would happen with one console. Its quite different to, say, the pc component market; with graphics cards, they all end up doing the same thing, so the competition is direct, and helps the consumer. With consoles however, they dont. They have different game libraries, different menu functions, heck, different movie formats (this gen at least).
One console could work in our favour. Game prices would probably end up dropping (since now they would be directly competing) and simple supply and demand would keep the price of the console down; the problem is would that be higher or lower than the cost of buying all three current consoles? I dont know enough economics-y bs to tell.
Not to mention, a monopoly is never a good thing. Yes, Microsoft do release new Windows versions all the time. However, the price of the new version is always waaay too high for what you get; if i wasnt a student, there is no way i would own Vista.
In some situations market may overwhelmingly favour one option without doing any "harm".
Alcoa (if im spelling it right...) produced aluminium for decades. At some point it dominated US supply. But this domination wasn't systematic, wasn't built by special priviligies, or getting more movie companies on your side than blu ray. It was built with constant tech improvement and price cutting. They knew anyone could join this market and sustained improvments for decades, even though their share was high.
(I'm not shure if it operates to this day, but definatelty they wouldn' be allowed to be so big anymore, by antitrust laws)
It wouldn't be a problem if one console got nvidia'sque market share. They'd just need enviorment in which this domination was held only by superiority of thier product.
While NES story was alright - now another guy to get to such a situation may knew how it went down and try securing his position in another way.
BTW It would be very beneficial for software if all "power-console games" (these where polygon count and phisics sophistication matter) were on one standard. Well... I'd buy it then, even though i'm die-hard PC gamer. Now only few titles interest me and playing them would require 3 different systems.
Also, doesn't Moore's Law itself drive technology as much as competition drives it to match Moore's Law?
Finally, I disagree with some of the commenters that seem to think that one unified console would eliminate fanboyism. It would only reform it into software-based fanboyism instead of the hardware-based kind.
You won't get as much diversity either. Say that Gears of War made the chainsaw popular again as a mainstream usable weapon, I can't see MS pushing the chainsaw agenda to compete with that, but Sony definitely needs to join in the chainsaw race. Mr. President, we must not allow...a chainsaw gap!