Every now and then stories come along that warrant more than a single article. With the “Alt On” series, the entire staff takes a deeper look at things and how they effect the geek landscape as a whole. There has been a lot of talk recently about the industry eventually moving to a one console future in order to spur growth, decrease development costs, and standardize the technology. Ideally, game developers would agree on a single set of specs, all manufacturers could produce consoles and publishers wouldn’t have to worry about exclusivity deals and everyone wins. If only it were so easy. Do you think it is viable for the future of the gaming industry to move to a one console future and is this something you would want?

Stan
I am not a fan of the “OCF” for a number of reasons.

First off, competition among the console makers keeps them in check and drives innovation. Sure, the R&D costs are enormous, but companies are willing to pony up the money to make it back on licensing fees, peripherals, etc. Putting that money into a consortium means less profit and control for all parties and less incentive to get involved at all.

The three current console makers have their unique strengths but pretty different market strategies. Assuming all three would just play nice to make a standard console is pushing it. The term Jack of All Trades but Master of None comes to mind. Plus Sony and MS in particular are making a ton of money off their ancillary businesses such as the Video Marketplace and BluRay.

Finally (with feeler alert), making a video game console an appliance takes some of the magic out of the hobby. Now, when you buy a new system, it’s something special. You’ve got a new PlayStation, Xbox, or Nintendo and that means something about what kind of experience you want and expect. Going to Best Buy for a new Sanyo GamePlayer BD500 just sounds wrong.

Scott
A one console future benefits who exactly? Gamers? I don’t think so. With one console only there is no reason for them to push the limits of technology and try and make it better. Game developers? To a degree I guess it would. The console manufacture? I guess that would be the only true winner in the situation of an OCF.

I don’t think an OCF is ever going to happen. I don’t think you will ever get Sony, Nintendo, and Miscrosoft to agree to get out of the console making business. That’s about as likely as an One Movie Studio Future. It would also be horrible for gamers. The OCF is about the dumbest thing I can think of and I can’t even believe I took place in this discussion. *hrmph*

Paul
I am going to play the devils advocate for a bit, because it is always fun to do so.

Allowing for a single console would work the same way DVD players do. A consortium would get together and decide on a minimal level of specs. From there electronic companies would use that as a road map, and add any other features they would like. There still would be a great amount of competition between companies. In fact more because there would be potential for many more manufacturers to join in. Now instead of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft..we can also see Samsung, Panasonic (again, lol) and others.

There would be one platform and we could all expect it to work. Just like a DVD player these days. You have a player and the DVD will play. You want it too upscale? network capabilities? Then you look to another make. You may have to shell out more for it but that option is available.

Right now there is barely enough room for 3 consoles, all are competing (as much as Nintendo thinks they are not they are) for your dollar. We hear the rumours of EA getting into the business but that will never happen. Creating a standard will allow for MASS adoption by the general public as there will be no confusion. Any game will work with your system, your only real care are the options.

Rod
There’s already no confusion on the part of gamers, so I don’t see the point in a one console future. You have an Xbox 360 game? That’ll play on an Xbox 360. You have a PS3 game? Hey, it could happen, and if it does…that’ll play on the PS3. Where’s the confusion come from? It sure as fuck isn’t gamers getting confused.

There’s never going to be only one console, the market is just too big. There’ll always been some company out there that thinks “Hey, if we make a machine that’s a little more powerful and sells cheaper, we could make a killing on software!”

There already was a ‘one console future’ style system, where a minimum spec was set and manufacturers could make their own hardware. It was the 3DO, and it showed how poorly the theory worked in practice.

Individual manufacturers split the total sales of the console among one another, meaning no one manufacturer saw the ‘economy of scale’ really tip in their favour and lower their production costs and the machines stayed expensive for far too long. They also didn’t have equal performance, something that having a “base spec + add ingredients to flavour” system allowed.

Then there’s the other side of the equation - moving to the next-gen. With a ‘one console future’ who decides when it’s time to move to new hardware and how is it handled? If DVD is the ‘one console future’ analogy, then the Blu Ray vs HD DVD mess that the HD changeover sparked is as good an argument not to go ‘one console future’ that anyone can make.

The ‘one console future’ can join Communism on the pile of things that sound workable in theory, but will never work in reality.

Keep reading and you might get a little Dick Butt!

Share:

Pages: 1 2 3

THIS WAS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE OR PERSONS WHO ARE ON THE STAFF HERE AT ALT. I AM SURE THEY LIKE STUFF AND THINGS AND JUST COLLECTIVELY TOLD YOU ALL SOMETHING VERY INSPIRATIONAL OR INFORMATIVE. ENJOY.
Email this author | All posts by Staff