One Platform to Rule Them All

[Virgil]

There's an interview with Yuji Horii [http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=62489] up at Eurogamer regarding the impending localized release of Dragon Quest VIII. The article is a good read overall, but I found one particular quote to be very interesting: "I don't care too much about the progression of hardware," he says, grinning, when asked about the next round of machines from Sony and Microsoft. "It really doesn't matter that much any more. I think it's sad that people are moving away from games because they're becoming more complicated, and it's getting harder to choose between platforms. I wish everyone would settle on one platform and make games for that platform. Controversial, I know."While competition is certainly good, I'm not entirely sure it's been working that well for gaming recently, and I can certainly see his point. Modern gaming hardware, in general, doesn't really differ much between platforms, and the gap has been getting smaller. The PS2, GameCube, and Xbox are, at least for users, basically the same thing - which is why most games and game engines are available for all the different systems. Even the PC isn't much different these days, other than the display resolution and the keyboard/mouse interface.

If the whole point is the games, might we be better off with fewer options, so the developers could focus their efforts and optimizations to give us better software?

 

[Virgil]

Original Comment by: chris

Yes.

With only one console, we would face all the problems associated with a monopoly. But, with only one console to rule them all, I bet we wouldn't be faced with the era of reiterative tripe we deal with now. I'm looking at you EA...

 

[Virgil]

Original Comment by: Cody K.

If people are worried about a console monopoly, you can look at the personal computer industry for answers to those questions. The point is not to settle with one console producer, but with a consistent architecture/OS. The competition should be in who can build the cheapest and most reliable consoles to run an industry standard gaming architecture. I just hope that doesn?t entail upgrading the console hardware every six months. ;-)

With a standard console architecture: a single videogame?s sales would increase, development costs would inevitably go down, games would have a cheaper price tag and a longer shelf life, etc. The consumer wins anyway you slice it, but who is the loser? ?is there even a loser at all?

 

[Virgil]

Original Comment by: Scott Rubin
http://www.apreche.net
The 3DO originally tried to do this and it bombed. You may or may not be surprised, but Microsoft always has and is still pushing for this very thing. That's because they think they will be the ones to do it.

There is actually one problem with this sort of thing. Ever wonder why Nintendo still makes their own consoles instead of just being a game maker? It's because when they control the console they control the hardware. If there was just one platform things like the Revolution wouldn't be possible. Nor would it be possible to have GBA's connected to controller ports for Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. You need to have the features built into the system or no developer will ever make a game which absolutely requires them. Even Dance Dance Revolution can theoretically be played with a controller.

Whoever controls the platform dictates what types of games can be made profitably. And even if it's a standard platform, someone is going to be receiving licensing fees from every unit no matter who makes it. You also have to think about the fact that consoles are now sold at a loss. If all of a sudden there was competition of this variety who knows what would happen to the prices and profits?

While you m ight think only having one console will force competition that will result in the best games being made, you have to realize it will actually limit the potential of game design to boundaries set by the standard of the console.

 

[Virgil]

Certainly there are innovations in the hardware, but I don't know that they've been that significant in creating new gameplay up to this point. Sure, the connection of a GBA to the CameCube made it possible to do a few new things, but I don't think it actually added much to Crystal Chronicles, and it certainly made getting a game going a pain in the ass. Overall, the only game it really made a significant and cool impact on was Pac-Man Vs. - which was only used as a bonus pre-order bundle product. I would think the addition of an analog stick to the controller to be a much more significant innovation, also Nintendo's, but I think it would still have happened had they not done it first, though perhaps not as fast.

Certainly the Revolution could make that different, but other than the controller there doesn't seem to be a huge difference just yet. We could potentially end up with more games like Fable PC or Thief III PC - the same console game modified (rather poorly) to allow control with a different interface (keyboard/mouse for these). If that ends up as the popular trend, the Revolution could actually decrease the overall quality of the games, because it would require developers to design and test an additional interface to the same product. Unless most games begin requiring controller shells or GameCube controllers - then we're right back where we started. I hope neither of those are the case, but the potential is there.

 

[Virgil]

Original Comment by: Ian

Why can't the Revolution happen using using the Standard Gaming Input channel (a part of the Standard Gaming Architecture)? From what I understand, the Revolution's big innovation is just it's input device.

The challenge is to create games for these unique input devices, really - But that's a challenge the Revolution faces anyway. Still, if Guitar Hero taught us anything, it is most definitively possible to sell these things.

Nevertheless, it's going to take something monumental to get the console developers to give up their licensing fees. And then of course we would face the problems of a monopoly, which makes all of this seem too utopian to be true.

 

[Virgil]

Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

I'm totally against having one console. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass when you need to buy all sorts of different consoles to play all the best games, but competition is always good for the consumer. I would hate to have a "wintel" type alliance take over the console world, because that would be bad for us ("wintel" refers to the fact that a huge portion of pc's run windows on an intel processor, even though Windows is a poor OS, while intel processors run slower, hotter, and are more expensive than AMD cpu's). The console competition is starting to force some real innovation, which is a great thing.