Quick Jump Daily Digest
Thank you for your interest in the Quick Jump Daily Digest. Get notified of all new content on QJ in our free Daily Digest. To subscribe, enter your email address below and click the subscribe button.
Hoyt refutes Dyack's "One Console Future" arguments |
Listed in: PS3, Wii, Xbox 360 Tags: Electronic Arts, Silicon Knights
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."
| This story sucks? This story rocks! |
|
|
Comments
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.
Reply
Either way, if anyone read my thoughts on the last "one console" article you know that I agree with Hoyt whole-heartedly.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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!
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
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???
Reply
Reply