Hoyt refutes Dyack's "One Console Future" arguments |
Ó
There's been plenty of talk coming from the movers and shakers of the gaming business about a possible "One Console Future" where one universal platform would apply, and all developers would be placed on the same playing field as far as gaming consoles are concerned.Electronic Arts executive Gerhard Florin and Silicon Knights President Dennis Dyack were both quoted expressing their favor for the idea, with Dyack implying that the One Console Future is imminent and "everyone would win" in such a scenario. Not everyone, however, was convinced.
Ben Hoyt, a producer at game tools company Emergent, had a particularly different take on the subject. He says that both Florin and Dyack failed to consider some basic realities of the industry.
Hoyt argues that "Florin's vision of a 'box...made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection, and a games engine inside,' conjures eerie images of the aptly-named Phantom Game Console" and "fails to address fundamental technical realities relating to local versus server-based games. Nor does he address the exciting diversification of gameplay experiences enabled by today's variety of gaming hardware options."
Moving on to Dyack's case, there are two points that Hoyt strongly disagrees with. First is Dyack's belief that the competition of today's gaming platforms create an "unhealthy" industry; second is his assertion where he described a one-console industry as a place where "everyone would win."
"I'm afraid that I fail to see how, in a world where our industry is dominated by a single, monopolistic, console manufacturer, 'everyone would win,'" says Hoyt. He went on to raise some points:
What incentive would this console manufacturer have to fund AAA exclusive titles when all titles would be exclusives? Why would they launch new hardware at a loss when anyone who wanted to play console video games would be forced to purchase one of their systems? How much would they charge independent publishers and developers for the right to release games on their platform?
He continues "perhaps most importantly, what incentive would this monolithic industry entity have to absorb the cost of releasing exciting new hardware configurations every five years? Why not 10? Or never?"
"Finally, I ask him to explain how his vision for a 'unified platform' game industry would avoid the classic, Econ 101, pitfalls of a monopoly, in which the only 'winner' is the monopolist," concludes Hoyt.
GamesIndustry.biz says they're waiting for a Dyack response to Hoyt's rebuttals. If he does answer, we'll update you in a hurry. For now, let's hear what you think about a "one console future."
24 Jumps Custom firmware 5.50GEN-D now out
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
As an economics major, I agree. A one console market is a horrible idea. Competition is a good thing, well at least for consumers. Without pressure to be better and do better than the other guys, there's less incentive to innovate, expand, and to put out a quality product when there's no competitive firm pushing you.
I can see how some of the game industry people would like to have only one console to make games for, since then they don't have to waste so much time converting or programming the same game for different systems, but Hoyt is correct in saying, what's to stop the manufacturer of said console from charging whatever they want for the rights to put out a game on their system... what's to stop the manufacturer from being lazy with developer tools and relations... Without competition, there's so much less incentive to do all of those things, that developers are going to be hurt, and more importantly, consumers will be hurt.
This guy said what I wanted to say in the last article, only he says it better. But then again, that's to be expected because he actually works in the industry...I'm just a gamer.
Either way, if anyone read my thoughts on the last "one console" article you know that I agree with Hoyt whole-heartedly.
Monopolistic companies should never be supported.
Which is why I'm boycotting Microsoft ever since the 360 was launched. If people think Sony is "Teh Evil" then go ahead, support Microsoft, hand them over the video game market then see what happens... You'll regret you ever gave your money for an XBox.
And before certain morons (as in, XBox fanboys) jump on me saying that Sony had a monopoly on the videogame market last gen, you don't even know what a monopoly is! Become acquainted with the concept of barrier of entry, then we'll talk.
So you're never going to fill your gas tank again?
How about just supporting a company that delivers what you want, instead of supporting a belief that makes no sense?
Can you imagine how depressing it would be if Nintendo had the videogame monopoly? We'd all be forced to play overpriced gamecube hardware for the next 20 years!
As much as Mister Common Troll annoys me all over these posts, he does have a point. We are all guilty to contributing to mono or semi-monolistic corportations. Even when you drink a pepsi or coke, you are helping these corporations keep the small guys out of the business. Also, if you want to boycott the worst monolistic "big ten" companies of the world, boycott Sony, they have a much greater hold on your life than Microsoft. Microsoft might have a near monolistic hold on the software business, but remember Sony has: Movies, Consumer Electronics, TV shows, etc. But then again is that really necessary? Boycott Microsoft because you dislike their products, but seriously don't boycott a product if you think you are doing the world a service, cause in reality unless you boycott everything and grow your own food and produce your own energy, you are not!
You've already heard what we have to say. Every time this news is posted you get dozen of people explaining how Gerhard Florin and Silicon Knights are completely full of crapola!
How many times does this need to be rehashed?
Further more according to them, it will happen whether we want it or not because the past has taught us that all areas "electronic" come to this. Even though they can't state ONE INSTANCE where this has come true or where this has ever happened.
Then you get knuckleheads that discuss how this would be great because look at DVD players!!!! One player that accepts ALL FORMS of video format....oh wait...that's right, them, just like everyone else is dead wrong.
Also, this article is misleading:
"There's been plenty of talk coming from the movers and shakers of the gaming business about a possible "One Console Future""
That is absolutely FALSE. The only reason it would SEEM there has been plenty of talk is because of people such as QJ constantly rehashing the same news OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
NO ONE today is considering anything. They're claim is that over MUCH TIME the industry will eventual lead towards a single common solution.
Take for instance, our society eventually adapts to one PC for every living room. That would force game companies to make sure they dev games for not only consoles but for PC's as well even if they haven't in the past. Why would people continue to buy consoles? Consoles "COULD" fade out and people would favor the PC they already have. That SORT OF fits in there plan. The problem is, it still would NOT be a single console (machine) for all games. It would simply be a shift in consumer goods.
So, as usual, this news is bogus and doesn't pan out.
Now everyone can sit back and wait for QJ to post this news YET AGAIN next week. See you there!
Seriously dude, you have a personal vendeta with Nintendo. None of your comments do any good on these posts except promote your ignorance. I feel as if a huge Nintendo Fan used to bully you in grade school to create such hostility. Remember, it's just a video game system.
I'll play devil's advocate on this one. The original article isn't talking about a single manufacturer, but rather a single standard. If all systems were built around a unified standard developer's could develop for a single platform. The current hardware is pretty close to standardized as it is. Single cpu(multithread ed on ps3/360), gpu, usb, network connectivity, wireless controllers, disk and/or flash based storage, and some sort of optical media. If you were to make a baseline system which had say 20 gb of storage, a certain speed CPU and GPU, USB, ethernet, and blu-ray or hd-dvd(personally don't care which). Then developers code for this base system(would have to be java, .net, or some new intermediate language type). Innovations like the wiimote are simply USB attached devices. If the standard was developed by some sort of consortium of manufacturers, just make sure there is a guaranteed hardware update schedule. Maybe a refresh every 3 years or so, and require full backwards compatibility. All new systems should be able to play all old games.
The real benefit comes in when you require (whenever possible)that games be developed with compatibility for the older models. I.E. when a hardware rev 3 game is run on a hardware rev 1 system the lower res textures are used, the pixel and vertex shaders revert to a simpler setup and the total screen resolution is lowered. Now people can buy the newest games without having to invest in the newest hardware, but still have an incentive to do so. If a game simply can't be run on a lower rev, just state the rev. 3 is required to play. Plus you may even get to a situation where portable devices are simply a lower revision of the hardware, so when you buy the wiistation 360 portable rev 3 it's actually capable of playing your old rev 1 games automatically.
In the end you basically end up with a PC gaming type model with guaranteed system configurations. Basically the best of both worlds. Manufacturers differentiate themselves with additional features(DVR, built in wireless, vs addon, larger storage), price or design(both exterior, or interface). Portable devices, or even PCs can be supported by the model, such that a PC could be analyzed by some benchmarking app to certify it for rev X. gameplay. The consumer benefits by needing only to know a single number to know whether they can play a game or not, and what peripherals they might need. The hardware would eventually become cheap enough that any standard cable box would be able to play games from a revision or two ago.
Anyway, though I think that model could stifle hardware innovation somewhat, I think it might make game innovation flourish, since the barrier for entry becomes lower. And if it truly is the games that matter more than the system, then this type of ecosystem, could be good for the industry.
Not all DVD players play all video formats. So useing the DVD player in this case is wrong. Now you are right about PCs, but the market for PC games is extermly low at this point. Plus I do not see the PC becoming the main gaming platform like it was in the 90s. The reason consoles took over PCs was that you needed to upgrade every 2 to 3 years to keep up at a cost of over $1000 and the PC was not just for games. Consoles cost less then that, and you only need to upgrade every 5 to 6 years, and consoles are mainly made to play games.
Also take a look at who are for this. Electronic Arts and Silicon Knights. EA's only games that are good are MoH and Madden. The rest are not worth playing. Silicon Knights only game worth playing was Cyber Empires, and that was back in 92.
Dude your trippin, Eternal Darkness was a EXCELLENT GAME. This was also by Silicon Knights!
That's not his only problem!
Nintendo is cool......
I love bashing the Wii, it's just too easy. From the name, to the graphics, to the game selection, to the fact that Nintendo seems to have no future plans for it is very funny.
It's easy for you to say you don't like it? Gee, there's a no-brainer that shows absolutely no intellect what-so-ever.
The fact of the matter is, sales figures prove you wrong every time you open your mouth.
How sad it must be for you to fail so often???
I did not find the game all that great. but that is just a matter of if I found the game worth playing, and I did not.