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.
popular
RSS
I think at the moment we have a perfect number (3) of consoles. PC gaming will always remain. However i predict gaming will become more and more casual, pushing back the high end gaming market and replacing it with a mpre diverse range.
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
With one console, developers can focus on the software as opposed to compatibility.
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.
YOU CAN'T STOP THE NEW PSWII60!!!
All that waggle....
It sucks how you really can't have it both ways.
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...
PiiTriple60?
I just saw the trailer for your new game Doc... looks good!
Digital Distribution is flawed... Comcast is potentially figuring out how to charge for a set amount of DL'ed bandwith per month......
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. )
WiiS360 lol
Jebus, it's PSWii60 you guys...
Butmac hit the nail on the head
Indeed, I was young but I remember the first console wars I witnessed, and it was Genesis Vs. NES.
To the younger people, that didn't make sense, everyone thought the first and only rival Genesis had was the SNES.
One console future people are the most ignorant people around. Guess what a one console model would look like, see PC gaming. Instead of selling us games, they'd be selling us hardware and games.
I'm king3vbo, and I approve of this message
Also, the Wii is Nintendo's attempt to go back to milk one type of hardware. They only spent money developing the wiimote's functionality instead of a whole new system.
Not to promote another podcast / website but 1up Yours had Denis Dyack on awhile back who seemed completely and utterly convinced of the inevitability of a one-console future.
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.
I may be the only person who doesn't think digital distribution is the future. I like having my game cases, I like having my game discs, I like not having to worry about a crashed hard drive, I like not having to wait to download things off the Internet, and the only thing I could do without with the current system is driving to Best Buy, but pros far outweigh the cons for me.
a one console future would be good... no more fanboys
I just hate how when a game is multiplatform you have a to pick the group of friends you want to play with, or try to get friends to buy it for your console. I wish games would have a single online. FFXI has it, PC, PS2 and Xbox360 all play together in the same place. I wish I could play GTA4 with my friends who bought it for 360. I doubt that will ever happen, but I'd want that rather than a one console future.
P.S. This is my first post, for some reason it's taken me years to comment on something.
As much as I'd like to see the 1 console future as it could allow for vastly superior software, I just don't see the big 3 coming together.
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
Good read, and my thoughts exactly. Look at Madden for example, as soon as they no longer had any competition, they became stagnant. The idea of a one-console future is a lot better than what the reality would be.
DLC isn't a good idea if DRM is still around, once a device fails then you're going to pay to download it again.
Thriistation
Maybe not a one-manufacturer solution, but a single architecture solution would be feasible I think. Having a situation like most entertainment systems (DVD players, stereos etc) could only be good for developers and consumers alike.
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.
I predict that eventually consoles will merge with PCs. Game systems are already computers that can only game and play movies. Once someone adds the ability to surf the internet *cough*Wii*cough* and do other stuff they'll basically be PCs.
"nuttier than a Snickers bar"
Good ol' Louisiana humor.
When my hard drive crashed I was pissed until I called up apple. 'Of course you can redownload everything you've ever bought from us without repaying. just dont do it too often,'
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.
Your point is already proven - take a look at the handheld market: Nintendo had very little competition when it came to the Gameboy. After Sega's Gamegear and Atari's Lynx died out, no one tried to take on Nintendo for a long time, so they kept the system going for 12 years. This is exactly what you said - almost as though a whole generation was skipped.
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.
Even dough if one reign king, that doesn't mean it will be better. Look at cell phones for example, All cell phone companies were very happy milking all of us with shitty ass phones, selling for high prices with no real upgrades. 1990-2005. 15 years of the same shit, over and over, yes there were improvements, but no significant leap.
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.
@Eschatos interesting. Not sure if I am afraid of that or not. Certainly, it would be nice to not have to upgrade individual parts every year or 2, but then we loss the customization aspect that is so appealing to PC gamers. Maybe if Microsoft and Sony fleshed out their tiered console system to include more than just hard drive size exc.
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.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to believe that there would be no innovation in a one console future. That's assuming that hardware manufacturers keep the same mindset as today. Obviously, the entire industry, including ways of thinking, would have to change to accommodate a one-console environment.
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.
I'm surprised that so many people cannot figure out the one aspect that would make a single-console future a good thing. Everybody is always laboring under the notion that one console means a collaborative effort between lots of companies to make the darned thing. Under this assumption, of COURSE it's a bad idea.
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.
blog post is half baked...
Did anyone else see the new Discover Card commercials and saw not a "Discover Card idea", but a Gradius option?
I used to think that this one console was a bad idea, too, but then I grew up and stopped being so naive. The console would still have to be good, or no one would buy it, and there would be multiple video game companies still creating games that they would want people to buy. Otherwise there would just be a game crash like back in the '80s. Remember? Consumers vote with their wallets, and I believe most people will not buy something just because it is the only one that is offered (perhaps some would, but not enough for profit).
This sums up everything I wanted to say on the subject.
While I agree that there are definite benefits to be had, I think it would be naive to think that companies would have the customer's best interest in mind. But even with VHS tapes, how long was it before DVDs came around? 20-30 years. The gap between the PS2 and PS3 was 6 years. Thats 4 to 5 times difference. Granted, the rate of technological advances has been growing at an exponential rate.
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.
This is once again, an awesome write up. But I agree, technology CAN'T just stop evolving. That's like asking us to revert the world back in time. Somehow, some way, someone will find a breakthrough in technology.
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.
back to the whole competition and innovation thing...
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?
ok no, then you might as well make a goddamn one world religion and a new world order. I read about sony and microsoft teaming up together last year to create a console in one, one side playsation, the other, xbox. Good thing it was just a rumor.
Who the hell are you, Dad?
Is it too late to get my two cents in on this?
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.
I dont' really ever see the three coming together. but what i could see happening is some company making the next coming of christ. In which everyone one owns it, it is everything they have ever wanted. and it is a sex simulator. That's boosts sales buy atleast 175%.
Apocalypse...
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?