Unified Gaming Platform – An Idea Whose Time Has Come

First, let me ask all of you to put aside your fanboy tendencies and look at what I am posing objectively. I know that will be harder for some of you than others. Second, suppress the knee jerk reaction of “It’ll never happen!” There are many reasons why it could and should happen and in the near future. I will stipulate that given the adversarial nature of the gaming industry that it is not likely, unless the players involved are looking long term at the big picture.

We have reached a point in the development of the games industry where the constant format war that wages between the various hardware manufacturers has begun to work against us, rather than for us. Game development costs have gone through the roof, forcing a heretofore unseen level of consolidation within the industry. Because of the high development costs, the days of third party exclusives are over. Metal Gear Solid 4 is the last of the major exclusive titles to come from a third party. What we are seeing instead is a wave of acquisitions by Microsoft and Sony and third parties merging into massive corporations, a la EA, in order to survive. A large part of the escalating development costs are associated with having to develop two completely different versions of a game for consoles with different strengths. As a result less time is spent optimizing the game for a single platform, creating innovative gameplay and compelling content and less time rooting out errors with the console titles.

Add to that escalating hardware costs for consoles that, even this generation, are so powerful that any meaningful measure of their capabilities when balanced against one another is pointless. Both the PS3 and 360 are more than powerful enough for most game designers to realize their visions and the real difference in visuals in most games comes down to art direction, rather than raw power. Both Sony and MS are attempting to mimic each other feature for feature, both trying to dominate your living room with their Trojan horse game machine and both wanting to sell you downloadable content over the wire.

In addition, Sony’s Blu Ray victory in the next gen disc wars has ensured that MS will have to use a Blu Ray drive in their next console and reportedly they are already talking to Sony about it. Any Xbox 360 owner that has had hardware issues with the 360 (I’m currently waiting on my fourth console), and any PS3 owner that has used Sony’s online services (such as they are), would agree that each company has its strengths and weaknesses. The combined expertise and Intellectual Properties of each company would spur the industry to new growth on a powerful, (hopefully) easy to develop for platform leading to the kind of competition that we all benefit from: game publishers competing with each other for our gaming dollar.

If they choose not to go this route the next generation, it has little effect on me personally, I have no trouble justifying the cost of multiple game consoles, though this generation it took me longer than ever before to justify adding a PS3 to my rig (and technically I still haven’t, the PS3 belongs to my housemate), but Hotshots Golf and Ratchet and Clank have pushed me over the edge. Prior to this generation I bought every console at launch as a matter of course because I knew that each one would have enough exclusive content to justify the purchase.

But, most importantly to me, I can stop listening to fanboys of game consoles and electronics companies bicker back and forth about whose brick is better and they can start arguing over which games are better. At least I hope. Odds are they’d just argue over whose accessories are better, Mad Katz or Nyko.

Here are a few things I’d like to see:

A Sony manufactured console that both MS and Sony agree upon in terms of design.

An entirely new controller that improves on the near perfect design of the 360 controller.

A HDD included in every console, preferably a solid state drive, but with the option to add an internal drive to increase storage capacity and/or the ability to link to external storage.

An MS designed user interface and Xbox live type online service, gamer tags, and, of course, achievements!

A powerful, easy to develop for system architecture free of the bottlenecks that plague Sony’s consoles.

So, do you think this UGP will ever become a reality? If so, what features would you like to see in such a beast? Which controller would you like? The 360’s? The PS3’s? A brand new design? What do you see as the potential drawbacks to a unified platform?

Competition breeds improvement. Look at how stagnant BD has already become now that it "won" a mere 2 months ago.

Look at most categories in life - there are very few monopolistic tendencies.

There is already a "unified gaming platform" that is open to all H/W and software developers.

It is called a PC.

As the poster above has already said, competition is a good thing. And there is really no reason for Sony or Microsoft to combine their forces and give up their profits.

I believe having new hardware that cycles in and out every generation is what has fueled this golden age of electronic gaming. UGP will only deter that.

Not interested.

^ word
I doubt they'd subsidize this UGP so we'd have to pay like $1k for it, so it'd basically be the same as building a pretty good gaming rig anyways.

I think you just have to look at the Madden/2k8 series to see what happens when competition dries up. Basically, the product goes to hell. The only way this would work is to have a situation like a PC, where all gaming machines would play universal discs, and the machines could differentiate themselves. But then, why not just buy a pc?

I personally do not like the idea.

The cost of of producing game seemed to skrocket every gen compaired to the last I'd think. It is just the worst it has ever been every time. I work in the IT industry focused in manufactureing (truck frames) The whole market auto sucks, everyone is losing money but I don't ever see diffrent companies combinine forces to make a car together. It might work great but I just don't see it happenning. 3rd party software dev's like suppliers in the auto industry would love to make one part for all cars accross the board but the big boys sure don't want to team up. They just tell the suppliers to deal with it.

But of course that is my opinion and who knows maybe someday this will happen.

Compition is needed even when it is not the most efficent way of doing business.

Did this guy seriously post this thread in every gaming board? He must have, I just read in the 360 board! Are you kidding me?

The "near perfect" 360 controller. What are you smoking man? That's the biggest reason I don't own one.

You argument for a Universal Game Platform (lets go with UGP) is well written, but I don't think you addressed the real details of how anything like this could ever exist in reality. The logistics of setting the standard would likely make the Blu-ray & HD-DVD war look like a tea party... but I digress.

There are a few reasons that this is a bad idea. The main one, in my mind, is competition.

The reason for the continued innovation in hardware is precisely because these companies are competing with each other for ALL the gamers hearts and minds (and dollars). What this UGP model would do is give a consortium of big companies an instant monopoly. And then... How could you stop other companies from getting their own first party developers and making hardware and software that is better? This would only open the door for that... If Sony, MS and Nintendo all decided to make just one console... what is to stop Sega from saying... "Look here... Now there's only 1 brand to compete with." Are we suggesting a law against game console design passed by congress... or the United Nations for that matter?

This argument for a UGP seems an attempt by these large Software distributors merely to cut their internal costs. Many question their commitment to quality already, and I would think that they'd simply cut their budgets and make more money. And I think those games would still be at about the same level as most multi-platform games are now.

The whole reason MS and Sony and Nintendo "invest" in these GREAT 1st party and 2nd party games is so they can push THEIR console. This would dull the incentive that causes hardware/console makers to add to the budgets of these types of great exclusive games...

...we'd all get the same choices, and gaming would get boring.


But as I said, there just isn't really a viable way that this could even happen. The market will pick the winner each go around and it will be based on what console appeals to the most people. And the console makers will constantly try to improve their offerings to appeal to those that buy other consoles.

As for the third party developers... My advice to them is to stop whining and start focusing on making great games. If making it for 7 different platforms is too hard, then PICK ONE and focus on making a truly great game. There's no reason that they need to spread themselves so thin... Does there *need* to be a Gran Turismo 5 on the Wii? I don't think so... Game makers need to be forced to come up with new and innovative games for whatever console they choose to publish on. Maybe a fun non-graphics heavy game works well on the Wii... And there's a HUGE market (obviously) for that... and that market will buy Wiis.

What if this idea was implemented 10 years ago? They might have come up with the PS2! Instead of what we have today, sadly, I think we'd all still be playing the PS2... Or maybe we'd be PC gaming (assuming that were legal). ;)


Just as another point against this... Let's take your "dream console"

Unified Gaming Platform – An Idea Whose Time Has Come


Here are a few things I’d like to see:

A Sony manufactured console that both MS and Sony agree upon in terms of design.Assuming these two drastically different companies ever did agree... You currently can buy a Sony manufactured console.
An entirely new controller that improves on the near perfect design of the 360 controller.Different strokes for different folks. Many prefer the 360 controller... many prefer the PS2/3 design. Both systems are capable of adding any new controller design they see fit, and 3rd parties can also make controllers to meet demand. Developers can also choose to make a game so original that it calls for a new controller peripheral... which we see occasionally. You now have a choice between three DIFFERENT "near perfect" controllers (if you ask the companies). Limiting that down to one seems to restrict the choice of people that obviously have different opinions. (but there still is the option of 3rd party designs)
A HDD included in every console, preferably a solid state drive, but with the option to add an internal drive to increase storage capacity and/or the ability to link to external storage.Well, hopefully Sony would have gotten their way on this one eh? No solid state (yet), but you got everything else in the PS3 really.
An MS designed user interface and Xbox live type online service, gamer tags, and, of course, achievements!And does it stay as it is? Do we never get to see PlayStation Home? What if one is better? What about the people who don't like MS interfaces?
A powerful, easy to develop for system architecture free of the bottlenecks that plague Sony’s consoles.Many argue that it is Sony's design that actually allows for games to progressivley get better over the consoles lifespan. Have you ever compared God of War II to a PS2 game from the first few years? (And everyone thought stuff look great back then). I don't know how "plagued" Sony's consoles are, but Sony sold 102 million PS1s, and has sold 118 million PS2s (to date)... The next closest console was the NES at 62 million and the SNES at 49 million... MS has proven they could sell 25 million of the original Xbox... (For reference, the Wii is at 22 million, the 360 at 18 million and the PS3 is at 10-11 million.)

Assuming "architecture" matters, all things considered... Sony's done something right.


All this is to say, I'm profoundly happy that I have the personal choice to buy the console that I think was designed the best and fits best for me. (And I have chosen to buy just about all of them... I own a PS3, 360 & Wii).

Multiplatform games that struggle to even make one good version? Well, I don't buy them. If the game is good enough, I'll buy it on the console that works best for me...

...and I can still look forward to these gigantic companies spending millions and millions to create "exclusive" games that are what really drive future games to be better and better.

I think this is a bad idea as well. I disagree with Johnsteph10 at least in regards to markets, business are always trying to establish a monopoly whether it be by beating their competition or finding a niche market where no competition exists - either way, businesses tend to want to avoid competition. Competition favors those with the most available resources. Carving out a monopoly leads to the efforts of conservation, not innovation (as evident in the EA Madden Case) and can only be bad for us gamers.

Next, the one and only one opinion.

No, I meant the Unified Opinion.

Only if it's painted Red. :p

I agree with #3. We already have it, it's called a PC.

Hmmm, I admit I figured this idea would be unpopular, but it's the unpopular ideas that need to be given a voice so...

Having a unified hardware format for home consoles does not mean that there will necessarily be a lack of competition. A lack of competition for the sales of a particular hardware platform yes, but note that both Sony and Microsoft are game publishers as well as console makers so they would still be competing on the more important games front. In fact, competition among publishers would be more fierce than ever, since they would have to compete against every game released, not just the games released on their platform of choice. Of course, with all of the multiplatform publishing going on we're not far from that now, but imagine having Resistance competing directly against Halo and Gears of War.

A unified hardware platform also need not be limited in choices for user interface, online service, controller option or even which manufacturer you choose to buy your console from. Do not confuse my listed preferences at the end of original post with an edict of the only way that I think a unified platform could or should be built. The most important aspect of a unified platform would be that first, unlike a PC, the hardware would be a closed spec system that is a known quantity for developers and that second, every game made could run on that platform. Just like other consumer electronics formats that exist, take DVD for example, even though the manufacturer is different, with a different user interface, different remote controls and even different features, they all play the same discs. If I take a DVD from my collection to a friends house I am sure that it will play on his machine.

If Sony and Microsoft want to compete for online services with Home vs. Live, then that's fine, you just need an internet connection on your unified platform and you can choose whomever you want.

As for why release another hardware platform if there is only one, well, at some point on a fixed hardware platform, the price drops and the numbers sold will reach a saturation point to where everyone who wants one has one. The developers will reach a point where they have squeezed all that they can out of the platform and the year over year improvement in games begins to decline. As that happens there is a natural incentive to start over on more powerful hardware.

Format wars have traditionally been bad for sales on a whole. The gaming industry has been different in it history. I've been playing games since the Atari 2600 and I do not make this suggestion lightly. I would have thought it an awful idea even before the the launch of the 360 and PS3. But with the generation that follows, it is a thought worth considering. And as for Sega or some other player deciding to throw their hat in the ring against the combined efforts of Sony and MS, well I wish them luck if they want to try.

Oh, and I only posted this in the Xbox and Playstation areas as I am mainly talking about Sony and MS getting together and I know that not everyone reads both forums.

I agree with #3. We already have it, it's called a PC.

The PC platform is a mish mash of differing hardware specs and platforms that is in constant flux. PC developers have to contend with a near infinite pool of hardware configurations that their game might run on and never really get a chance to optimize their games for any single hardware config.

The "near perfect" 360 controller. What are you smoking man?

exactly. an entirely new controller is not something designed after the 360 remote... because it would be just that, an upgraded 360 remote. I'd prefer the DS3 with pro triggers.

this sounds like more of a way to get rid of or unite fanboys than being helpful for the next gaming generation.:p

Obviously I am expressing an opinion when I speak about the 360 controller. And by improvement on I mean better than, not based on. That's the entirely new part. You probably have small hands and like the feel of a Dual Shock, or you were weaned on Playstation. I have large hands and prefer the stick layout of the 360 over the DS3, but I was never partial to the Playstation controller anyway so in that regard I am biased. But you have to admit that in an era where 99% of games are controlled with one or more analog sticks, putting the stick where the d-pad is makes a lot of sense.

Obviously I am expressing an opinion when I speak about the 360 controller. And by improvement on I mean better than, not based on. That's the entirely new part. You probably have small hands and like the feel of a Dual Shock, or you were weaned on Playstation. I have large hands and prefer the stick layout of the 360 over the DS3, but I was never partial to the Playstation controller anyway so in that regard I am biased. But you have to admit that in an era where 99% of games are controlled with one or more analog sticks, putting the stick where the d-pad is makes a lot of sense.

I think you just made the case against your case.

We all are different and therefore one-size-fits-all is not the way to go.

Obviously I am expressing an opinion when I speak about the 360 controller. And by improvement on I mean better than, not based on. That's the entirely new part. You probably have small hands and like the feel of a Dual Shock, or you were weaned on Playstation. I have large hands and prefer the stick layout of the 360 over the DS3, but I was never partial to the Playstation controller anyway so in that regard I am biased. But you have to admit that in an era where 99% of games are controlled with one or more analog sticks, putting the stick where the d-pad is makes a lot of sense.

actually i have pretty large hands... (i'm about 6'5" haha), and i still find it a little bulky.

i was weaned on SNES and NES remotes fwiw :D

I think you just made the case against your case.

We all are different and therefore one-size-fits-all is not the way to go.

that's exactly what i was getting at.

I made a case against a controller. Read my post a few up. My case is not that I want to see a one size fits all console. You shouldn't focus so much on my list of personal like to see's, as it's just that, but rather the idea itself. If MS and Sony want to manufacture completely different sets of hardware that all play a unified set of games then that's fine. This is about a unified gaming platform, not system, a platform from which one or more sets of hardware, user interfaces, controllers, online subscription services, etc. may emerge.

I posted my list of things I'd like to see in the hopes that others would list the things they would like to see in a unified platform, not to promote them as a one size fits all decree for all.

Terrible, terrible idea IMHO. Keep the competitive spirit going to force innovation in future platforms. When we have true 3D consoles with visuals indistinguishable from real life, THEN let's talk about one platform.

In any case, I feel this is what Microsoft and EA are plotting behind the scenes to try and force it on gamers even though we seem to hate the thought of it, but that's another topic.

That's a bad idea.

If it wasnt for competition, then the PS3 would never get in game XMB

The 360 would also never receive a BD add-on.

Competition drives manufacturer's to constantly improve their products, and lower prices. Without competition, what incentive would a manufacturer have to make a good product when everyone HAS to buy it if they want to play games.

Hmmm, I admit I figured this idea would be unpopular, but it's the unpopular ideas that need to be given a voice so...

Having a unified hardware format for home consoles does not mean that there will necessarily be a lack of competition. A lack of competition for the sales of a particular hardware platform yes, but note that both Sony and Microsoft are game publishers as well as console makers so they would still be competing on the more important games front. In fact, competition among publishers would be more fierce than ever, since they would have to compete against every game released, not just the games released on their platform of choice. Of course, with all of the multiplatform publishing going on we're not far from that now, but imagine having Resistance competing directly against Halo and Gears of War.
Competition would not be more fierce. As you stated, multi-platform games are competing anyway. The reason we got games like Resistance and Halo and Gears is because the hardware makers wanted to make huge investments to push their own hardware and tailor these games to show off things that can't (at the time) be done on the other system...
A unified hardware platform also need not be limited in choices for user interface, online service, controller option or even which manufacturer you choose to buy your console from. Do not confuse my listed preferences at the end of original post with an edict of the only way that I think a unified platform could or should be built. The most important aspect of a unified platform would be that first, unlike a PC, the hardware would be a closed spec system that is a known quantity for developers and that second, every game made could run on that platform. Just like other consumer electronics formats that exist, take DVD for example, even though the manufacturer is different, with a different user interface, different remote controls and even different features, they all play the same discs. If I take a DVD from my collection to a friends house I am sure that it will play on his machine.

A good point... there's no reason that you couldn't have a few different online platforms on your "unified" system.

If Sony and Microsoft want to compete for online services with Home vs. Live, then that's fine, you just need an internet connection on your unified platform and you can choose whomever you want.

But hey? Where'd our "unification" go? Now are we stuck back paying MS for Live or getting less features for free on the PSN? How would the games work with both systems? Wouldn't that take additional programming work by the developers? Wasn't this what a UGP is supposed to avoid?
As for why release another hardware platform if there is only one, well, at some point on a fixed hardware platform, the price drops and the numbers sold will reach a saturation point to where everyone who wants one has one. The developers will reach a point where they have squeezed all that they can out of the platform and the year over year improvement in games begins to decline. As that happens there is a natural incentive to start over on more powerful hardware.

But that natural incentive will take much longer to evolve. Up until recently, the PS2 has been outselling the PS3 and the 360. Any financial analyst would probably still be recommending to squeeze those sales for a few more years... So, no Gears, no Resistance, no "next-gen", ... yet.

Format wars have traditionally been bad for sales on a whole. The gaming industry has been different in it history. I've been playing games since the Atari 2600 and I do not make this suggestion lightly. I would have thought it an awful idea even before the the launch of the 360 and PS3. But with the generation that follows, it is a thought worth considering. And as for Sega or some other player deciding to throw their hat in the ring against the combined efforts of Sony and MS, well I wish them luck if they want to try.
Well, then we agree. If you're not suggesting making it somehow illegal for a company to make it's own proprietary hardware with exclusive games... then we have what we have now. But that crashes this whole model to bits... As soon as Sega introduces something *new* or different... creates some buzz... then we're back where we are now... And the consortium members start fighting... they break off... and all get back to doing their own thing.

So, touche'... If a bunch of companies want to try to get together and think they can force a single unified gaming standard... well, I wish them luck too!

Oh, and I only posted this in the Xbox and Playstation areas as I am mainly talking about Sony and MS getting together and I know that not everyone reads both forums.

Good stuff... my thoughts in red above.

as an owner of all 3 systems, and still an old xbox1 lying around, and a PC...yeah, I like the simplicity of a unified system. But sadly, it'll never happen. MS, Sony, Nintendo....like them or not, they all want to be that number 1, so it's never going to happen. I like having choices more anyways. I liked the car analogy too, again i like choices and certainly would not want to be forced to drive a unified ford all day... :)

There is already a "unified gaming platform" that is open to all H/W and software developers.

It is called a PC.

As the poster above has already said, competition is a good thing. And there is really no reason for Sony or Microsoft to combine their forces and give up their profits.

I believe having new hardware that cycles in and out every generation is what has fueled this golden age of electronic gaming. UGP will only deter that.

Not interested.

+1

Throw me in the "not a good idea" camp. Monopolization breeds complacency, not innovation.

There is already a "unified gaming platform" that is open to all H/W and software developers.

It is called a PC.




THIS



Topic fails!

I remember my 1st multiplatform game. It was 1998 and my friend and I could both play starcraft against each other. He had a mac and I had a pc. Unfortunatly, few companies have followed suit. I doubt sony and MS will ever agree to agree. I just play games, I don't care on what.

Yeah totally agree with gameboy. Its the PC.

Somehow I see a scheme of a scam coming. Manufacturers like Nintendo making shorter lifespan consoles so that they are updated more often.

Wait..isn't that what gamers complained about the PC? having to upgrade so often? so they want to make the consoles the same. BS.

Sounds like the OP has been listening to Dennis Dyack. He's a firm believer of a single console future. Why? Because it benefits the game developers. I'm sure hardware makers would have something about that.

The PC is dying. Face it. Games are getting better and are forcing PC gaming into niche of only the hardcore. Look at Crysis. Does your PC run it? If you say yes, you're a hardcore PC gamer and in the minority.

Single console future means grandma can walk into Walmart pick up a game for lil' Johnny and KNOW it will work. That's the basis of SCF. It will force competition between the gamemakers and therefore hopefully increase the quality of the games. It is about the games right?

As long as there are companies saying my technology is better than yours, a unified gaming platform will never happen. It's utopian or socialist. Not sure what. LOL. If it does, I'll eat my words. If I'm still alive.

Sure, and maybe they can make it "free" like certain other "universal" proposals. :rolleyes: <insert vomit smiley>

I like competition and the only one who really likes this "single console" idea is a company like EA to make it easier to crank out their shovelware. No thanks, I like that MS put enough pressure on Sony to literally change the rules of the game, and now Sony battle back with some impressive results.

So, do you think this UGP will ever become a reality? If so, what features would you like to see in such a beast? Which controller would you like? The 360’s? The PS3’s? A brand new design? What do you see as the potential drawbacks to a unified platform?

You make a good and well written point. I just don't agree.

I don't think that game consoles will become standardized like a DVD player anytime soon. I really HOPE that game consoles don't just become another ubiquitous media player that has software thrown at it, regardless of quality. Right now there are plenty of games that are complete crap, yet can you imagine the amount of junk that would flood a Universal Console? We would lose the magic.

Competition in business and quality of product go hand in hand, so you can guess what happens when competition goes away. The software would still be there, but that is not competition- it's marketing. If it's marketed well then it doesn't really have to be that good (see The Movie Industry for example). Not having first party developers, without a company that has an investment in the platform itself, will turn the console games industry into a backwater of bad games with lousy support.

The magic I mentioned? Gone with a one console future. You have to admit, the unique games that are available for just one platform have a certain magic to them. Would God of War be as good if it was ported to every platform, with a sequel every year? Would a game like Every Day Shooter even get noticed without being an exclusive? If HALO was originally on PS2 and Xbox would it be as successful? The answer to all three: Maybe, but they wouldn't be as special.

I don't want to lose the unique ideas that multiple consoles bring.

You all keep confusing the issue. A "universal console" wouldn't kill competition. For example, just because there's a relatively "universal" format for DVDs and players, doesn't mean competition disappears in that industry. Why would it be any different here?

A universal console would not be manufactured by any one single company. It'd be like any other piece of electronic equipment. There would be one more or less standard format and technology produced by a number of different manufacturers. The only catch would be that processing speed and other similar tech would need to be standardized.

Among potential manufacturers there would be some variety in picture and audio quality (and maybe overall reliability), but otherwise they'd have to be pretty standardized. That would leave room for plenty of competition (important in this industry) while still keeping things as even as possible across the spectrum.

I think this would be a good move for gamers, a financially sound move for developers, and a potentially expansive move for the electronics industry at large.

Competition could actually be increased with a universal console. No longer would console manufacturing be limited to just a handful of manufacturers, so there'd be a whole slew of new manufacturers in the industry. The current big guys in the industry (Nintendo, Sony, and MS) could benefit from their own experience and brand-recognition in the industry, so they wouldn't be in any real danger from an expanding market. People would still want to buy a "Playstation UGP." Manufacturing costs would also be driven way down much more quickly since everyone would be working towards the same technological ends; parts and processes would become much cheaper much more quickly.

Development costs would also be much more manageable since you'd be developing for a single platform. It would also improve the situation for smaller scale developers who wouldn't face such a high price of entry into the industry. No more console-specific development kits and no more console-specific development teams. One team. One architecture.

And gamers wouldn't have to buy multiple consoles in order to play all of their favorite games. Not just that, but there'd likely be much more variety in the price and type of games available.

It seems like a winning situation all around.

The DVD player analogy falls down a little as it is based on a good/better/best model, versus a console market where devs shoot for a fixed "best platform experience". I think MS dabbles in this with stuff like the Arcade 360 model, which I think is a mistake.

This idea only works if you consider the console an appliance, but the 360 and PS3 have proven that there is quite a rich environment to be exploited and the combined lust for profit and corporate one-upmanship has driven some pretty cool advances.

The DVD player analogy falls down a little as it is based on a good/better/best model, versus a console market where devs shoot for a fixed "best platform experience". I think MS dabbles in this with stuff like the Arcade 360 model, which I think is a mistake.But if the hardware were stabilized (short term, of course), processing speed wouldn't be an issue. The difference between different manufacturers' versions of the "UGP" would be closer to the HDMI v. component difference. It doesn't affect playability or processing speed, just things like picture clarity, resolution, sharpness, and color depth. It'd be far easier to develop accounting for those smaller differences rather than the major differences between current consoles. No one's getting "cheated" or "short-changed." It'd just be a spectrum of quality rather than basic performance.

This idea only works if you consider the console an appliance, but the 360 and PS3 have proven that there is quite a rich environment to be exploited and the combined lust for profit and corporate one-upmanship has driven some pretty cool advances.Except that it isn't all that impressive. Each console pushes the boundary just a bit further. The other catches up. Sony is playing catch-up in its online features (community, downloads, etc.). MS is playing catch-up in AV tech features (HDMI, HD discs, high-def format compatibilities, etc.). A one-on-one console match does not lead to very much innovation. More and more developers are just going multiplatform anyway in a last-ditch effort to improve profitability. That's why the "third man" (Nintendo) has been the biggest innovator this gen.

Since this theoretical "UGP" would still follow the same 5-8 year console cycle, manufacturers would need to give consumers continued incentives to replace their old consoles. So there'd still be new features and improved performance. Along with that, different manufacturers would have to find creative and innovative ways of distinguishing their console from other manufacturers without affecting performance standards (non-game-related features like media playback, extended network functionality, appearance, size, portability, etc.). Since there'd be a whole new group of console manufacturers, competition in this area could be vastly increased rather than decreased.

Lastly, there's no reason why certain console manufacturers couldn't still have some sort of exclusive contracts. Do some sort of DRM lock-out so that certain first-party games and exclusives could only be played on your console. Most developers wouldn't see this as profitable compared to going multiplatform in a "UGP era," so I don't think many would choose this route (probably only in-house developers like Nintendo).

You all keep confusing the issue. A "universal console" wouldn't kill competition. For example, just because there's a relatively "universal" format for DVDs and players, doesn't mean competition disappears in that industry. Why would it be any different here?


They just aren't the same. The way movies and games are interacted with kills this argument. What is universal about the PSP vs. the DS? Or the Wii vs. the 360? These are separate companies that (whether Nintendo will say it or not) are definitley competing and pushing the industry in their own new and very interesting directions. Nintendo would never (or very likely never) be willing to hand their Wiimote over to a Sony console. Sony would never (or very likely never) be willing to go Nintendo's route on a very budget-friendly, non-media center console with last gen graphics/memory, etc.. There is a reason these companies do their own things and the industry continues to set sales records every year while PC gaming is falling fast.

The consumer will always want the choice of one or the other (or both) over one in which compromises had to be made in order "to make everyone happy." You will NEVER make everyone happy. So allow everyone to choose.

You all keep confusing the issue. A "universal console" wouldn't kill competition. For example, just because there's a relatively "universal" format for DVDs and players, doesn't mean competition disappears in that industry. Why would it be any different here?

Hardware-wise there is no innovation in DVD players. They all have pretty much the same features for pretty much the same price. When one gets a new feature it's soon available on all of them. Brand name is the sell for DVD players, not how innovative they are.

Development costs would also be much more manageable since you'd be developing for a single platform. It would also improve the situation for smaller scale developers who wouldn't face such a high price of entry into the industry. No more console-specific development kits and no more console-specific development teams. One team. One architecture.

Games development is more expensive because the technology allows much more detailed games to be created. Gamers are also expecting a leap from the previous console generation, and bless 'em the developers are delivering. All that extra content and detail costs more money plain and simple. Making a unified platform might lower dev costs somewhat at the beginning, but the "bigger, faster, better" mentality of the game industry will still rule what gets made.

^^^ I still don't see the issue.

the 360 and ps3 controllers are basically identical and haven't changed much since last gen. the Wii controller is very different, but again I think it's because of the whole one-on-one style competition between sony and MS that opened things up for a "third man." In a universal console scheme, there'd be numerous manufacturers, so there wouldn't be the need for a Nintendo style coup.

there's no reason that console manufacturers or peripheral manufacturers couldn't come up with their own unique control schemes. Even more likely, though, is that specific games or developers would come up with a game-specific or developer-specific controller. Say, for example, that Nintendo wanted to implement a new controller. Use the UGP's controller input (or USB input or whatever) for whatever new controller setup you want. That is how people are hooking up the Wii remote to PCs, after all.

I really fail to see how it's in anyone's interest (manufacturers, developers, consumers) to continue down the current road. Don't get me wrong, I love things now the way they are, but a universal gaming standard would be even better.

I personally would like to see technology developed to have multi-platform online games played through one gateway. An application gateway so to speak. This way you could BYOC and play like games from any platform.

^ The only way to know is to actually get a game standard. The only way a gaming standard happens is if someone dominates the market to a point that no others can compete. I just don't see a happy, friendly summit one day and BOOM! there's a standard for gaming.

Even more likely, though, is that specific games or developers would come up with a game-specific or developer-specific controller. Say, for example, that Nintendo wanted to implement a new controller. Use the UGP's controller input (or USB input or whatever) for whatever new controller setup you want. That is how people are hooking up the Wii remote to PCs, after all.

Game specific controllers?!?! The Guitar Hero guitars take up enough space and cost enough money, and now we're going to throw in that?! LOL. We already have that with developer specific consoles. I don't think people want 40 different controllers sitting around their living room and game specific controllers is exactly the opposite of Nintendo's current philisophy: a simple, easy to recognize/relate-to controller that anyone can pickup and play.

^ The only way to know is to actually get a game standard. The only way a gaming standard happens is if someone dominates the market to a point that no others can compete. I just don't see a happy, friendly summit one day and BOOM! there's a standard for gaming.

I agree that there would have to be a standardization. I disagree with "The only way a gaming standard happens is if someone dominates the market to a point that no others can compete." I am employed in two industries that are heavily governed by standardizing bodies. These bodies were not introduced because of domination in the industry but rather by a better way of designing and implementing products. In order to achieve what I suggested, a third party host would have to gather the data transmitted/received from different platforms and make translations that the other gaming consoles could recognize. None of that would be easy because of the millisecond processes that would have to be done. Of course, this is my opinion.

And herein is why communism doesn't work. You can't have a one-size-fits-all console because people have different preferences. You can't have a monopoly on the hardware manufacturing. If you strip away the competition you'll lose innovation and quality. If you think MS, Sony, and Nintendo are ever going to collaborate on a project with this many dollars attached...

The PC platform is a mish mash of differing hardware specs and platforms that is in constant flux. PC developers have to contend with a near infinite pool of hardware configurations that their game might run on and never really get a chance to optimize their games for any single hardware config.

Here is a problem with a Unified Platform. The thing is, with more chefs in the kitchen the quality of the dish prepared goes down, not up.

If there was a UGP before Xbox or PS3 or Wii came into existence, we would not have had the support for Blu-Ray (too new, unknown, MS AND Nintendo would have objected), we would have a bastardized version of Live with most likely on-line support left up to publishers (Sony and Nintendo would prefer that way). And most definitely we would not have the innovative motion-sensing controllers like we have with Wii (MS would have objected).

Any "grand" unified platform have the same problem. Whenever you have a committee of people dictating standards, you are left with only those that are least controversial, least innovative.

Why would anyone want that?

PC might be "too open", but at least I can add a new BR drive on it whenever I want, add a new video card, increase memory, etc. based on what is the most innovative component I want.

Everything comes with good and bad. UGP may make it easier for developers to program for, but it will certainly limit the amount of hardware innovations that occur between generations.

as long as it says sony on it, that would be fine with me. i won't lie, i really do prefer sony's products when it comes to electronics.

As soon as Wii owners realize how stupid they look waving around a wand and very soon when there are no more working 360's, PS3 by default will become the UGP that you guys want. J/K for the satire impaired :)

As stated by someone else in this thread. A UGP formula would lead to a Least Common Denominator console.

Instead of the best innovation from all, we would have the safest parts of all.

confidenceman: How do we have UGP's and then ALSO have different and NEW control schemes? That is contrary to having the UGP in the first place. Everyone has the same console, but then we have controller competition?!

Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft are all setting console sales records. Why in heck would they change when they are setting records?

I like exclusives. I want to see something done that noone else has the balls to try (Home, echochrome). I want to see things done that are almost flawless (Xbox Live).

The only people who benefit with one game platform are developers. They won't have to make ports and they can shovel as much crap out as they want to knowing that somewhere, SOMEONE will buy it. (If you notice, most of the benefits of this strategy are developer benefits)

I work in Telco. We would not have most of the telco things we take for granted (cell phones, ring tones, number portability, Caller ID, distinctive ring, etc) if the government hadn't broken up ma bell.

UGP might be a great idea if Video Games were not kicking movies, TV, and Music's ASS right now.

One dominant console really helped Atari didn't it?

^^^ The telephone analogy is almost perfect, with the primary difference being that breaking up Ma Bell shows why privatizing most goods and services is faaaar better than leaving things in the hands of the government. Still, the point holds true that competition what will promote innovation while putting pressure on prices.

Imagine if the attempts of Microsoft trying to buy Nintendo came to fruition 4-5 years ago. I'm sure a bajillion DS and Wii owners would agree that it would have been the worst possible event in the history of the gaming industry. Such is true for the dumb idea of a unified gaming platform.

WORST IDEA EVER.

What's next, a Unified Car Manufacturer? Too many choices now.

What about DVD players? Should we have a Unified DVD Player?

How about soft drinks? It's about time Pepsi and Coke got along. The Unified Soft Drink (I can see it now).

Seriously, this is an absolutely HORRIBLE idea. Choice is GOOD for the industry. Competition is GOOD for the industry. A unified gaming system would become stagnant, expensive, and boring very quickly.

Not sure why I'm suddenly into this whole "unified console" concept all of the sudden, but I actually am starting to see some real benefits. Some replies:

I don't think people want 40 different controllers sitting around their living roomHave you seen my living room? :D

Seriously, though, every console comes with new controllers and peripherals. It's possible that a unified console standard could actually cut down on the number of controllers and peripherals. It'd only be a few developers who might want or need specific controllers (like Harmonix and Nintendo). Few other developers have the resources or the desire to mess with controller standards.

In order to achieve what I suggested, a third party host would have to gather the data transmitted/received from different platforms and make translations that the other gaming consoles could recognize. None of that would be easy because of the millisecond processes that would have to be done. Of course, this is my opinion.It depends on the tech standards that would be set by the standardizing body. I'd imagine that network functionality would be a key concern to standardization, so I'd imagine it'd get plenty of attention. That isn't to say there wouldn't be problems, but there are plenty of those now as it is.

The bigger problem is that console manufacturers would need to see/recognize the benefit to agreeing on a standard and agreeing to adhere to those standards as set (by their own representatives). I imagine that the bigger, richer manufacturers would play a larger role in determining those standards; hence this would be much more like Capitalism than Communism for all you anti-reds out there. In any event, the standardization body would need to be given enough autonomy and balance by its constituent companies to avoid being overly influenced by any one manufacturer. If anything, this is the one thing that might keep this from ever happening.

And herein is why communism doesn't work. You can't have a one-size-fits-all console because people have different preferences. You can't have a monopoly on the hardware manufacturing. If you strip away the competition you'll lose innovation and quality. If you think MS, Sony, and Nintendo are ever going to collaborate on a project with this many dollars attached...Again, not true. Console manufacturers already adhere to certain industry tech standards (display standards, audio/video standards, connection standards, etc., etc.). It's not a foreign concept to these manufacturers. In that sense, they already "collaborate" to a certain degree. No one wants to shake the boat so much that they doom themselves or the industry.

Every manufacturer would still have room for various proprietary hardware (harddrives, cables, etc.). And since they don't generally make money on the console hardware itself until many years into a cycle, this wouldn't be much different. Their big money makers are licensing fees (and peripherals in MS's case). In this scenario, they'd actually start making money much sooner and to a greater degree on the hardware itself. Licensing fees would either cease to be relevant or they'd fall to the standardization body (as in the movie industry).

This has absolutely nothing to do with "communism" since this would be a scenario rife with profitable competition. We don't call the HD standard "communist." It's to display manufacturers' own interest to agree on a standard for everyone. There's still plenty of difference in quality and features, but HD displays still adhere to certain industry-wide standards. Those standards change and adapt as the various tech improves (through competition), so everyone wins.

Here is a problem with a Unified Platform. The thing is, with more chefs in the kitchen the quality of the dish prepared goes down, not up.As it is, any single console is the work of thousands of "chefs." With the slight exception of Kutaragi-san, every console is a collaboration. The video game industry (much more than the film industry) depends upon teams and corporations for its creativity and innovation.

If there was a UGP before Xbox or PS3 or Wii came into existence, we would not have had the support for Blu-Ray (too new, unknown, MS AND Nintendo would have objected), we would have a bastardized version of Live with most likely on-line support left up to publishers (Sony and Nintendo would prefer that way). And most definitely we would not have the innovative motion-sensing controllers like we have with Wii (MS would have objected).Why not? With many manufacturers each producing their own version of the unified "Z-console," there would be (or would have been) plenty of room for non-gaming related things like media players, fancy network adapters, and so on.

As for Xbox Live, that wasn't a result of competition. That's a direct sign of MS's looking for new ways to get money out of consumers ($50/year). With a unified console, you can expect you'd start seeing things closer to cable packages for video games. Pay x amount for this service, pay y for this service, and z for ultra-mega service. Each service level would benefit any number of developers and manufacturers (online play, download services, etc.), and would provide consumers with plenty of innovative content. Cable is not a competitive industry (in the traditional sense), yet it's taken off by leaps and bounds lately.

Give it a couple of console generations. Something like it will start appearing. I think the latest move towards downloadable content is the first sign that a unified console might be an inevitability.

EDIT:
What about DVD players? Should we have a Unified DVD Player?Lol. We already do!! We're not talking about a single manufacturer here, folks. Simply a few key industry standards so that games are playable between consoles. You can play any DVD on pretty much any DVD player you want. That's called standardization.

Also, in answer to people wondering why Nintendo, Sony, and MS would agree to let this happen: it'd be profitable. They would need to shift their profit focus from licensing to actual console sales. As I said in an earlier post, with key tech standards in place, manufacturing costs would drop much more quickly (watch what's about to happen with blu-ray) and consoles would see far greater and much faster profitability.

Nintendo was hugely profitable not just because their consoles sold so well, but because they could turn a profit on the hardware very quickly in the cycle.

Sony and Nintendo are already profitable with their gaming ventures! The PSOne and PS2 remain the most successful consoles of all time. The PSP is clearly a success story in a Nintendo-driven arena. The PS3 overall is matching, and in some areas slightly exceeding, the PS2 sales curve during the same time in its life cycle. I don't have to detail Nintendo's success with the NES, Super NES, Game Boy, DS and Wii. In fact, they've never launched a machine at a manufacturing loss like all the others seem to initially suffer through.

Only Microsoft has struggled with their gaming division when it comes to making money. Since they have formed their gaming unit before the first XBox came out, they have yet to make one net penny in the black. Billions were lost throughout the first XBox's life, and although the X360 stopped losing money per unit made, the total cost that Microsoft spends on RRoD fixes (almost $2 billion set aside for it they claim), buying exclusives and exclusive windows (or companies outright) to make up for internal development that lags far behind their two competitors, and other marketing strategies like subsidizing Devil May Cry 4 purchases by 10 Euros a pop to gain market share, continues to prevent them from seeing any true net profits.

That's of course besides the recoup of overall R&D spending that each game manufacturer has to eventually pay off. Microsoft is the only company of the three console makers who would want something as insane as a Unified Gaming Platform for profit reasons - the other two are doing just fine thanks.

I just thought I'd point that console gaming was heaven before ms decided to screw it up. There were two consoles. If you wanted kids games you got a nintendo. If you wanted everything else you got a playstation. There was no if you want *insert game* you have to buy a *insert console*.

If you wanted kids games you got a nintendo. If you wanted everything else you got a playstation.

Just a rediculously over-generalized, predictable comment.

I think the aspect you haven't adressed is why would Sony or Microsoft do this.

If there were a unified platform - who would benefit from producing them. No one makes money on the hardware. They make money on the software. If there were one platform why would any one company be the one to step up and take the losses associated with building the hardware.

A larger part of why Microsoft and Sony are willing to lose money on their proprietary hardware boxes is that they see value the potential of what these devices could do in the future. Things like being a media server for all of your entertainment needs in the future or selling content through their own online stores.

If there were a unified box, it would obviously provide for a level playing field for Sony and Microsoft and Nintendo to each sell their services and content etc. There's more value in winning the hardware game to gain a monopoly in delivering content and services to people who select your devise over the competititon than there would be in having to compete on price and qualtiy with your services and content on a unified platform. Once you have the customer's on your proprietary hardware, they'll only get your goods and services at a monopolistic (read higher) price.

I have a hard time seeing the compelling value proposition in the unified hardware approach that would ever prompt any of the players to go this route.

I agree the PC is the answer to this. I get very frustrated with how close the PC is to the ultimate universal box for the theater. As of now I can build an awesome gaming machine OR an great media player. I can't seem to make both work reliably with the same hardware/software. I think Intel should take the lead and create the ultimate home theatre machine and everyone else can develop software and accessories for it.

I would prefer to do my gaming on a PC mostly for the ability to customize the games. Rather that be UI or more in depth with multiplayer maps. The PC just doesn't work well with the TV when you consider the cost and size...

I agree in that we should have a piece of hardware that will allow us to have BOTH the 360 and the ps3 (into the future) in one box. Im not talking about anyone playing nice with one another, the war can continue as it has. If the box costs $800 thats fine with me too.

I guess what Im really trying to say is I dont know why MS doesnt just maintain their "software" side while letting Sony cover the hardware side. If you want to buy Live and install it, then let the box run live. If you want the PS Home let the box run home.

I dont know what Im talking about...:confused:

3do

I guess what Im really trying to say is I dont know why MS doesnt just maintain their "software" side while letting Sony cover the hardware side. If you want to buy Live and install it, then let the box run live. If you want the PS Home let the box run home.Totally. If this were ever to happen, this would be a great way to maximize benefit for all corporate parties.

MS could still maintain a for-pay online service that exists in conjunction with some (or most) software developers. MS works out a deal with the console manufacturers and with the individual developers/publishers to do something akin to Valve's Steam service. Neither Nintendo nor Sony has shown themselves to be very capable in this area, so leave that infrastructure to MS.

We could then have a unified console (keeping in mind that these things would still be manufactured and sold by a whole slew of different individual manufacturers) with different "virtual consoles." Not in the Nintendo sense, but in the sense that we'd have a single box with different potential services. It'd be the same idea as what we have currently (a small number of different major companies channeling all software for a huge number of publishers), but it'd still be cheaper and more cost-effective for everyone. One purchase price for the hardware, three (or four or five) different distribution services run by three (or four or five) different corporations.

In this scenario, there'd even be room for companies like Sony to do "free" services like they do now. They'd make their money through licensing fees (like they do now) and possibly through advertising (but that wouldn't be financially necessary).

Totally. If this were ever to happen, this would be a great way to maximize benefit for all corporate parties.

MS could still maintain a for-pay online service that exists in conjunction with some (or most) software developers. MS works out a deal with the console manufacturers and with the individual developers/publishers to do something akin to Valve's Steam service. Neither Nintendo nor Sony has shown themselves to be very capable in this area, so leave that infrastructure to MS.

We could then have a unified console (keeping in mind that these things would still be manufactured and sold by a whole slew of different individual manufacturers) with different "virtual consoles." Not in the Nintendo sense, but in the sense that we'd have a single box with different potential services. It'd be the same idea as what we have currently (a small number of different major companies channeling all software for a huge number of publishers), but it'd still be cheaper and more cost-effective for everyone. One purchase price for the hardware, three (or four or five) different distribution services run by three (or four or five) different corporations.

In this scenario, there'd even be room for companies like Sony to do "free" services like they do now. They'd make their money through licensing fees (like they do now) and possibly through advertising (but that wouldn't be financially necessary).

I think you should listen to what markettymer is saying. Giving MS "control" of the software side is the same as just giving up and not releasing a console altogether.

Right now, Sony pushes the PS3. They push the PS3 and if I go to the store and buy one, everything that is run on that system is Sony-oriented. One sale is one more Sony customer. Why would Sony spend a cent evangelizing a platform which someone can pick up from the store and then run all of Nintendo's and Microsoft's stuff? Why would Nintendo and Microsoft do it for that matter? One sale is maybe one Sony customer, or maybe one Microsoft customer.

Consoles are, really, a service more than anything else. Especially today. When you buy a console you are buying the hardware but you are also buying the ability to play stuff in the future you may want. That is why it is in the company's best interest to "lock" you into the platform for good. If they couldn't lock customers in like that then they wouldn't take all the trouble to release the system at below-cost, evangelize it to developers, ship engineers to countries to work on engines, fund tools and developments, etc. It's not worth the trouble.

Nintendo with the NES pretty much designed the console business. It is a proven model that has made Nintendo, Sony, and Sega quite a bit of money over many generations. MS is in the business to get hooked into that money pipeline while Nintendo and Sony are in it to keep it going. Why would they all of the sudden open up their platforms and let each other fiddle around on it? Their platforms are sacred.

I just thought I'd point that console gaming was heaven before ms decided to screw it up. There were two consoles. If you wanted kids games you got a nintendo. If you wanted everything else you got a playstation. There was no if you want *insert game* you have to buy a *insert console*.

There were not two consoles.

3do

Right, 3DO did use that business model. But did the system fail because the business model was too flawed or because it actually did suck? I think most people would say the latter.

Unless, of course, the reason the system sucked was because of the business model (too much compromise, too many people to please led to too high of a price, etc.).

Unless, of course, the reason the system sucked was because of the business model (too much compromise, too many people to please led to too high of a price, etc.).

I remember reading EGM and being super excited about the 3DO. But then it cam out and the price was somewhere around $799. No matter how cool SF2, Madden, or Samurai Showdown 2 looked, it was $799! The first time I saw FIFA on it at a Diehard Games it was next to Donkey Kong Country. DK looked cool, but 3d FIFA blew it away. It was still $799. By the time the cheaper Goldstar model came out with the fliptop cd drive, it was too late. We've all heard the complaints about the PS3's price, lets not forget that the $599 it was was still $200 less than the 3DO and that's not even standardizing the dollars using the CPI. The hardware costs are too high for this kind of model...too high at least to make worthwhile. Once you start getting into this price range, why not just build a PC?

Did the 3DO suck? Maybe. Did enough people buy it for that too be the reason it failed? No. It was too expensive for people to buy in order to find out in the first place. There is a reason this model is not adopted.

I just thought I'd point that console gaming was heaven before ms decided to screw it up. There were two consoles. If you wanted kids games you got a nintendo. If you wanted everything else you got a playstation. There was no if you want *insert game* you have to buy a *insert console*.

This has never been the case. Ask the kids who had the Sega Master System about a little game called Super Mario Brothers. Or ask Genesis owners about Street Fighter 2. Ask Playstation owners about Virtual Fighter 2. Consoles have always had exclusive games. What hasn't always been present is how prolific 3rd party titles have been on multiple consoles. With the exception of Capcom and all their Ghost's and Goblins variations, most games, including 3rd party titles, were limited too one console (of course computer games were always more promiscuous). It wasn't until late in the 16-bit era and early in the 32-bit era did multi-platform games gain prominence.

Isn't a PC already a Unified Gaming System?

Isn't a PC already a Unified Gaming System?People keep bringing this up. There are many problems with the PC as a "unified gaming system."

First, most consumers aren't computer literate enough to use it this way. Too much management and general upkeep are required.

Second, there's no standard for processing speed and basic graphics hardware. It changes too often, and as above, most consumers aren't savvy enough to know how to change these things. Plus, it becomes prohibitively expensive to keep up even if you are savvy enough to know how.

Third, most PC owners don't own a PC for gaming. Even if most of them game is some form (flash games, internet games, etc.), they don't think of their PC as a "gaming platform."

There are of course other problems with the PC as a "unified console," but basically it's just too clunky, too expensive, too difficult, too large, and too varied to work well as a unified gaming system. The whole point of having a unified console would be simplicity, the exact opposite of how PCs work. And in order for it to be worthwhile to console manufacturers, it would also need to be relatively cheap to produce. PCs are just too difficult for consumers and manufacturers to ever become a unified gaming console.

People keep bringing this up. There are many problems with the PC as a "unified gaming system."

First, most consumers aren't computer literate enough to use it this way. Too much management and general upkeep are required.

Second, there's no standard for processing speed and basic graphics hardware. It changes too often, and as above, most consumers aren't savvy enough to know how to change these things. Plus, it becomes prohibitively expensive to keep up even if you are savvy enough to know how.

There you have it. The PC is a UGP, and it's a mess. I'm talking from the software side: lots of different requirements and specs to run the various software offered. The problem isn't making the hardware that everyone can agree on, it's getting the developers to stick to a standard that's rigid enough to keep the game quality high and avoid having a player that won't work with some titles. Look at the problems that Sony and MS are having with back compat issues. The software emulation of last gen titles is difficult because of the way developers bent the rules of the platforms, and those are closed systems! Can't imagine getting every garden developer into a small enough ballpark for a single, unchangeable machine to work without a hitch.

What's the matter, didn't get the trolling out of your system the first time?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1006052

^^^ Calm down, please. You're the first "troll" to appear in this thread. Please try to avoid the large fonts and senseless accusations if you're going to hang out here with the adults. :eek:

There you have it. The PC is a UGP, and it's a mess. I'm talking from the software side: lots of different requirements and specs to run the various software offered.But the PC wasn't designed as a UGP. It's got no standardization organization. Microsoft is trying to make this happen retroactively with its "Games for Windows" deal, but it's far too little too late. It's not a dedicated gaming machine (despite what many think). PC's are a mess in all kinds of ways, not just as gaming machines!

Look at the problems that Sony and MS are having with back compat issues. The software emulation of last gen titles is difficult because of the way developers bent the rules of the platforms, and those are closed systems! Can't imagine getting every garden developer into a small enough ballpark for a single, unchangeable machine to work without a hitch.Seems to me that once you have a "single, unchangeable machine," it's a hell of a lot easier to pinpoint and fix the problem. Moreover, it seems very likely that emulation, web access, web subscription, and download services will be the norm in a console generation or two. That'd make for an ideal way to implement "virtual consoles," essentially an operation environment for a particular publishers' games (as in Valve's Steam service for the PC).

Sony and MS are having problems with software-based backward compatibility because they didn't take it as seriously as Nintendo did. MS still doesn't care, and Sony's not sure whether they regret that decision or not. It's still being "assessed." It's not for a lack of technical ability; it's because MS and Sony didn't dedicate much resources to it.

Critics and gamers have continually given Nintendo crap for doing half-assed online infrastructure. But those critics and gamers always ignore the genius and continued potential of the Virtual Console. If Nintendo can continue in that direction, they may just have an entire virtual console environment (for new and old games alike) for their next console while Sony and MS continue running around in surprised confusion. :confused:

WiiWare is a big experiment for them. It could be just like XBLA and PSN, or it could be the homerun that the VC has been. We'll see.

It is pretty clear the market is willing to support multiple consoles and the only interest in this is from devs who want to cut cost. If someone would show me that those cost reductions were passed on to me (anyone recall how in game advertising was going to save me money if I would put up with it???) then I might bite, but I see no evidence this will happen.

Any of you that support the idea... Just answer me this:

How do you stop a creative company with an idea for hardware and exclusive software (that they believe is better than the UGP device) to invest in making it?

Why did Intellivision come along after Atari? Why didn't they make their games for Atari? Colecovision? Nintendo? Sony? Sega? Microsoft?

How do you stop this? You need to answer the question of how this will be stopped before you event try to explain why anyone would want it to be stopped.

Any of you that support the idea... Just answer me this:

How do you stop a creative company with an idea for hardware and exclusive software (that they believe is better than the UGP device) to invest in making it?

Why did Intellivision come along after Atari? Why didn't they make their games for Atari? Colecovision? Nintendo? Sony? Sega? Microsoft?

How do you stop this? You need to answer the question of how this will be stopped before you event try to explain why anyone would want it to be stopped.

Well said.

Seems to me that once you have a "single, unchangeable machine," it's a hell of a lot easier to pinpoint and fix the problem. Moreover, it seems very likely that emulation, web access, web subscription, and download services will be the norm in a console generation or two. That'd make for an ideal way to implement "virtual consoles," essentially an operation environment for a particular publishers' games (as in Valve's Steam service for the PC).

You didn't respond to anything anybody said (including me) about this stupid "virtual console" idea.

Sony and MS are having problems with software-based backward compatibility because they didn't take it as seriously as Nintendo did. MS still doesn't care, and Sony's not sure whether they regret that decision or not. It's still being "assessed." It's not for a lack of technical ability; it's because MS and Sony didn't dedicate much resources to it.

No. Nintendo built a system which was a superset of their old system and could go into "GameCube" mode as desired. The 360 and PS3s are totally different architectures, they share no components. The 360 does not use Intel or Nvidia chips and in fact MS has a lousy relationship with Nvidia over this. The PS3 uses an off-the-shelf GPU rather than a custom built part like the GS and a CPU which takes its design cues from the PS2 CPU but is totally new.

I fully expect the next generation of systems from both companies to use the same philosophy as Nintendo: build supersets of their existing systems. The PS4 will have a Cell with 16 or 32 SPUs or whatever but could go into 7 SPU mode when a PS3 is plugged in. They could include a better Nvidia part or even the RSX as a PPU or something (similar to the way the PS2 used the PSX CPU as an I/O controller). Microsoft will use an AMD/ATI CPU with 8 or 16 cores or whatever. Perfect BC. This has the added advantage of not rendering all developer tools and knowledge obsolete.

WiiWare is a big experiment for them. It could be just like XBLA and PSN, or it could be the homerun that the VC has been. We'll see.

The VC has been very successful but I don't think its any more or less successful than the 360 XBLA. From the tiny amount of information Nintendo has released they haven't even pushed out an average of 1 download per console.

Any of you that support the idea... Just answer me this:

How do you stop a creative company with an idea for hardware and exclusive software (that they believe is better than the UGP device) to invest in making it?The same way you "stop" a company from developing any new competing technology. You don't. Instead, you take the decidedly capitalist approach of making it overwhelmingly appealing to stick with what everyone else is doing. But just because DVDs were a pretty reliable standard for ten years didn't stop minidiscs, hi-8, and didn't prevent two competing HD formats. You can't mandate these things. You just make sure it makes market sense. The direction in the last couple console generations has been toward more and more multiplatform development and is now moving deeper into downloadable content that is very easily adapted to work on any platform. The only real reason a unified console would happen is if it makes financial sense. If things keep heading in the same direction they are, it seems inevitable. But things could always change.

You didn't respond to anything anybody said (including me) about this stupid "virtual console" idea. Not sure what your questions were.

No. Nintendo built a system which was a superset of their old system and could go into "GameCube" mode as desired. The 360 and PS3s are totally different architectures, they share no components. The 360 does not use Intel or Nvidia chips and in fact MS has a lousy relationship with Nvidia over this. The PS3 uses an off-the-shelf GPU rather than a custom built part like the GS and a CPU which takes its design cues from the PS2 CPU but is totally new.Not sure why you think this has anything to do with each platform's download services. I certainly wasn't saying anything about console architecture. I was saying that backwards compatibility doesn't mean the same thing to MS or Sony as it does to Nintendo. There's no actual hardware limitation keeping MS or Sony from implementing more robust software-based BC. MS doesn't value it or think it's very relevant. Sony isn't sure what to do with it, and just keeps saying they're "committed" to it.

I fully expect the next generation of systems from both companies to use the same philosophy as Nintendo: build supersets of their existing systems.Why? This hasn't been the trend in the past; what's changed? Is it just because Nintendo was able to do it successfully this time around?

The VC has been very successful but I don't think its any more or less successful than the 360 XBLA. From the tiny amount of information Nintendo has released they haven't even pushed out an average of 1 download per console.All of the platforms' download services have been surprisingly successful. You can bet that next gen will focus even more on these services than in this generation.

What sets Nintendo's VC apart, however, is that it has involved no development whatsoever. The focus has been on emulation and licensing contracts. Thus, Nintendo's made serious bank on this. From figures I've seen (can't find them ATM), the attach rate for VC games hasn't been that great compared to XBLA and PSN, but the profit margin is much larger. Not just that but since the Wii has been selling so strongly, attach rates are a bit skewed. Moreover, MS fudges their XBLA figures a bit with their title giveaways and whatnot. Last I saw, VC sales were up around 10mil (as of last December). Here's a link:
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6185358.html

My bet is that within a couple more console cycles, these download services will be the primary focus of game consoles (I'm hardly alone in thinking so), and I wouldn't be surprised if that's about the time we start seeing a more "unified" console.

Why? This hasn't been the trend in the past; what's changed? Is it just because Nintendo was able to do it successfully this time around?


What has changed is the fact that both off-the-shelf (which is always backward compatible) and multi-core systems have become more popular. Modern parts are more scalable than, say, the PSX CPU was or whatever. It is "easy" to release a Cell which can do everything the current Cell does and so much more, just make more SPUs. It is more cost-effective, it is more developer-friendly, it's just a better way of doing things.

Not sure what your questions were.

I and another chap expained why it is a bad idea in the first page. Put simply, companies essentially give away hardware because any single person that owns the hardware is a guaranteed customer in some capacity. There is no reason for companies to give away the hardware at massive costs to them if they can't even be guaranteed they will get a customer.

If 360 and PS3 came out at cost they would've each launched at $700-$900. Nobody will buy a console, even a "unified" one, at $700-$900. And no way will Sony eat 30% of the cost of a unit if they aren't even going to get a guaranteed customer out of it. Or even 15%. So, what would happen is that they would have to get the cost down to a manageable level, which means the system will be weak and crappy compared to the technology of the time.

There's a reason the console business is what it is, its because Nintendo designed it in the 1980s and made a shitload of cash from it. Then Sega did the same thing and made a ton of money. Then Sony. None of these companies are going to change it anytime soon.

My bet is that within a couple more console cycles, these download services will be the primary focus of game consoles (I'm hardly alone in thinking so), and I wouldn't be surprised if that's about the time we start seeing a more "unified" console.

I do agree that downloading will become very important but there's no reason to believe downloading will be the cause for more cooperation among these manufacturers.

^^^ The Atari 2600's blockbuster success pre-dated the NES (first console to have some games sell millions of units), but good points overall.

Modern parts are more scalable than, say, the PSX CPU was or whatever. It is "easy" to release a Cell which can do everything the current Cell does and so much more, just make more SPUs. It is more cost-effective, it is more developer-friendly, it's just a better way of doing things.Sounds believable enough. At the very least, we can assume that for the next generation MS will continue going the near-PC architecture route, and Sony will continue going the frustratingly unique architecture route. In the meantime, though, XBLA and PSN will become a bigger and bigger portion of their business model.

If 360 and PS3 came out at cost they would've each launched at $700-$900. Nobody will buy a console, even a "unified" one, at $700-$900. And no way will Sony eat 30% of the cost of a unit if they aren't even going to get a guaranteed customer out of it. Or even 15%. So, what would happen is that they would have to get the cost down to a manageable level, which means the system will be weak and crappy compared to the technology of the time.Not necessarily. What this gen's crazy multi-sku strategy has shown is that the market can bear a variety of different versions of the same console sold at different price points. Once you've decided on a bare minimum set of standards (mainly processors), you're left with a whole slew of possible variables that help defray costs at the lower ends.

Not just that, but as I've said before, with all manufacturers using many of the same processors and basic hardware architecture, manufacturing costs would fall much more quickly than they do currently.

There's a reason the console business is what it is, its because Nintendo designed it in the 1980s and made a shitload of cash from it. Then Sega did the same thing and made a ton of money. Then Sony. None of these companies are going to change it anytime soon.Until the Wii, the going wisdom was to lose money on your console initially, then break even on the hardware as it starts to turn a profit later in the cycle. The actual money-making part of the console business comes from licensing fees and software sales. This was what Nintendo discovered in the '80s. Nintendo's changed the paradigm yet again, this time showing that you can actually make money on the console itself. It's this new paradigm that would be a perfect fit for continuing down the road to a unified platform focused on emulation and downloadable content.

I do agree that downloading will become very important but there's no reason to believe downloading will be the cause for more cooperation among these manufacturers.We're not talking necessarily about "cooperation"; simply mutual benefit. If the focus turns to generating profit on the consoles, quickly driving down manufacturing costs, and moving to an emulated future, then there's no reason why it wouldn't happen.

Nintendo's changed the paradigm yet again, this time showing that you can actually make money on the console itself.

Right, they did that by releasing massively underpowered hardware 3 or 4 years behind the tech curve. I don't think that is a model I want every manufacturer to adopt.

What this gen's crazy multi-sku strategy has shown is that the market can bear a variety of different versions of the same console sold at different price points. Once you've decided on a bare minimum set of standards (mainly processors), you're left with a whole slew of possible variables that help defray costs at the lower ends.


Like doing... what, exactly? A 20gig PS3 was only like $50 less to manufacture than the 60gb. The most expensive parts of a system are the CPU, and the GPU. You can't have variation in those.

Right, they did that by releasing massively underpowered hardware 3 or 4 years behind the tech curve. I don't think that is a model I want every manufacturer to adopt.You can bet that manufacturers will go where the money is, whether you want them to or not.

But it could also be the case that Sony's onto something with their SPU strategy. It's possible they could make a "future-proof" architecture by cheaply giving developers more power than they need or could even use. In effect, by next gen the hardware would be "3 or 4 years behind," but it would be more than enough. But that's hardware tech that I really don't know much about.

P.S. Just hit 1000 posts!! Where's my martini?

You can bet that manufacturers will go where the money is, whether you want them to or not.

This is true, much to my chagrin, but the problem is that IMO neither Sony nor Microsoft are convinced that cooperating on a single platform is where the money is.

p.s. before we continue on this, are we really sure having multiple consoles is a bad thing? You know, historically, there have always been more than 2; the problem was before the market was not big enough to support more than 2. Hence, the TG-16, the Saturn, the Dreamcast, the Atari 7800 or whatever. Nowadays the market can support 3 consoles, maybe even more but its very difficult to get into it.

Ever since blu ray won, prices have gone up not down. I like the competition. I see no benefit of having only one console.

p.s. before we continue on this, are we really sure having multiple consoles is a bad thing?no? :D

I doubt it'd be a "bad" thing, regardless of how the video game console market changes or doesn't change. No matter what, we'll all still be playing games. Hell, I'm stoked with things as they are now, since IMO this is the best console generation since the NES days.

I'm not necessarily advocating a unified console; I'm just entertaining the very real possibility that it may happen and trying to figure out why and how it might work.

No matter what, any outcome will be "good." The market keeps growing. Smaller and larger developers are both finding more and more ways to get games to consumers.

But I am very interested in what a unified console might give us. It seems like it'd be able to support an even more independent stratum of developers and free up larger developers to do what they do best. And it seems potentially viable for manufacturers also so that they could focus on all the cool bells and whistles (like blu-ray).

The "near perfect" 360 controller. What are you smoking man? That's the biggest reason I don't own one.

Up to this post I agree with all the replys. OP common man, a single platform? What good does it do me? A fan of PS and a nut who loves to program PS2, PSP, PS3 platforms?

You argument for a Universal Game Platform (lets go with UGP) is well written, but I don't think you addressed the real details of how anything like this could ever exist in reality. The logistics of setting the standard would likely make the Blu-ray & HD-DVD war look like a tea party... but I digress.

There are a few reasons that this is a bad idea. The main one, in my mind, is competition.

The reason for the continued innovation in hardware is precisely because these companies are competing with each other for ALL the gamers hearts and minds (and dollars). What this UGP model would do is give a consortium of big companies an instant monopoly. And then... How could you stop other companies from getting their own first party developers and making hardware and software that is better? This would only open the door for that... If Sony, MS and Nintendo all decided to make just one console... what is to stop Sega from saying... "Look here... Now there's only 1 brand to compete with." Are we suggesting a law against game console design passed by congress... or the United Nations for that matter?

This argument for a UGP seems an attempt by these large Software distributors merely to cut their internal costs. Many question their commitment to quality already, and I would think that they'd simply cut their budgets and make more money. And I think those games would still be at about the same level as most multi-platform games are now.

The whole reason MS and Sony and Nintendo "invest" in these GREAT 1st party and 2nd party games is so they can push THEIR console. This would dull the incentive that causes hardware/console makers to add to the budgets of these types of great exclusive games...

...we'd all get the same choices, and gaming would get boring.


But as I said, there just isn't really a viable way that this could even happen. The market will pick the winner each go around and it will be based on what console appeals to the most people. And the console makers will constantly try to improve their offerings to appeal to those that buy other consoles.

As for the third party developers... My advice to them is to stop whining and start focusing on making great games. If making it for 7 different platforms is too hard, then PICK ONE and focus on making a truly great game. There's no reason that they need to spread themselves so thin... Does there *need* to be a Gran Turismo 5 on the Wii? I don't think so... Game makers need to be forced to come up with new and innovative games for whatever console they choose to publish on. Maybe a fun non-graphics heavy game works well on the Wii... And there's a HUGE market (obviously) for that... and that market will buy Wiis.

What if this idea was implemented 10 years ago? They might have come up with the PS2! Instead of what we have today, sadly, I think we'd all still be playing the PS2... Or maybe we'd be PC gaming (assuming that were legal). ;)


Just as another point against this... Let's take your "dream console"



All this is to say, I'm profoundly happy that I have the personal choice to buy the console that I think was designed the best and fits best for me. (And I have chosen to buy just about all of them... I own a PS3, 360 & Wii).

Multiplatform games that struggle to even make one good version? Well, I don't buy them. If the game is good enough, I'll buy it on the console that works best for me...

...and I can still look forward to these gigantic companies spending millions and millions to create "exclusive" games that are what really drive future games to be better and better.

Best argument so far!

I couldn't agree more, thanks for saving me all the typing :D

The same way you "stop" a company from developing any new competing technology. You don't. Instead, you take the decidedly capitalist approach of making it overwhelmingly appealing to stick with what everyone else is doing. But just because DVDs were a pretty reliable standard for ten years didn't stop minidiscs, hi-8, and didn't prevent two competing HD formats. You can't mandate these things. You just make sure it makes market sense. The direction in the last couple console generations has been toward more and more multiplatform development and is now moving deeper into downloadable content that is very easily adapted to work on any platform. The only real reason a unified console would happen is if it makes financial sense. If things keep heading in the same direction they are, it seems inevitable. But things could always change.
Well, if "you don't"... Then what are we even talking about here? Somehow getting a bunch of companies to do things one way, until someone decides not to? OK then... You win. ;)

I might say to you that Sony has already made the UGP. It is called the PS3, it's got everything we need. Developers should get behind it exclusively and then they have a "UGP".

Or you might say the UGP is the 360... But those pesky folks at Sony have these exclusive games that are only going to play on their hardware... And people are going to buy the darn thing! How do we get EA, Activision, Ubisoft and the other big companies to ignore them?

And what about the casual gamer? He just wanted a remote to swing around and hit some tennis balls... What's with all this expensive hardware he'd have to buy for it?!? (He's pissed.)

No, you still don't get it. It's supposed to be a one-size-fits-all platform that every console maker is forced to use to earn much lower profits than if they went out on their own so the public will have no choice but to be satisfied with mediocrity from lack of choices. Think of it as virtual socialism and the genius of it will all become clear.

I can't believe people still are defending this after the stupidly obvious arguments that have been made it against it. It's beyond clear a UGP is a bad idea that the vast majority wouldn't support.

Competition gives us creativity, price wars and something interesting to talk about. 3rd party exclusives are largely dead, yes, but thereare a lot of 1st party studios for each console......And because of the competition, in things such as XBL vs PSN for example, both will strive to be better than the other and we all win.

I can't believe people still are defending this after the stupidly obvious arguments that have been made it against it. It's beyond clear a UGP is a bad idea that the vast majority wouldn't support.


Exactly, I have not read a single good argument to support a UGP. Who's to say who would collaborate on the design on this thing? Sony, MS, Atari, Sega, Nintendo all have had very unique systems over the years. They would NEVER agree on a single design and have it come out cost effective, even if you left out Sega and Atari. And even if they did, WHO is to stop someone like Toshiba, Pioneer or even Apple (iconsole anyone?) to come out with something more revolutionary and better and blow the UGP out of the water??? I do have to credit the guy that coined "UGP", nice.

Since I think I'm now the only one willing to entertain the idea of unified console, I'll keep this thread alive. I am surprised at how vehemently some of you are against it, though. It's just a console.

Well, if "you don't"... Then what are we even talking about here? Somehow getting a bunch of companies to do things one way, until someone decides not to?Exactly. That's the nature of a competitive market. Let's take the music industry as an example. Up until recently, there has been one dominant music format. Nothing was stopping the industry from branching out from the standardized CD format into five billion digital formats. However, even among those digital formats, we see many digital music player manufacturers working towards unity while the backers of individual formats working towards individualized, proprietary formats that are incompatible with one another. Is this sort of competition "good"? Will it last? I'll leave that to you all.

Think of it as virtual socialism and the genius of it will all become clear.

Competition gives us creativity, price wars and something interesting to talk about.Many of you still don't understand what a "competitive market" is or how a Capitalist market works. A unified console is not "socialist." It is not "communist." Are TVs "socialist" or non-competitve because there are HD standards? Are tract homes "communist" because they recycle the same floor plans over and over again? Market standards are essential to a healthy (and very capitalist) marketplace. Too much differentiation is bad for business. Imagine, for example, if the book industry hadn't decided on a standard size and materials for mass market paperbacks. We'd all be drowning in books (or more correctly, book stores wouldn't exist and neither would many readers).

These are standards set by industry not by government.

Exactly, I have not read a single good argument to support a UGP. Who's to say who would collaborate on the design on this thing? Sony, MS, Atari, Sega, Nintendo all have had very unique systems over the years. They would NEVER agree on a single design and have it come out cost effective, even if you left out Sega and Atari. And even if they did, WHO is to stop someone like Toshiba, Pioneer or even Apple (iconsole anyone?) to come out with something more revolutionary and better and blow the UGP out of the water??? I do have to credit the guy that coined "UGP", nice.Again, nothing would be "stopping" anyone from breaking from the pack other than business sense. In other industries, companies that break from the pack either fail or end up driving the industry in new directions, which everyone else then follows.

If any console manufacturer is close to already having something like a UGP, I'd say it's actually Nintendo. Not just because of its sales, but also its VC and multiple controller styles.

Actually I am with you. I DO NOT believe competition is always in the best interest of the consumer as that is more of an American mentality of me, me, me and greed as opposed to people working together like they do in Japan. The group being more important than the individual.

This maybe apples and oranges to some, but I think cell phone service in Europe and Japan are good examples. They have a more unified standard in those regions. Most use 3g or even 4g now I believe. We here in the US have how many different cell phone standards? CDMA, GSM, TDMA, iDen, etc. ---> that does not benefit the consumer and the best seems to be 3g or 4g. As much as I don't like govt. interference with business, sometimes having something like a unified cell standard like having a unified tv standard makes more sense. We can have one phone standard that the engineers can work on and make better after weeding out the lame ones. I am not saying don't allow companies to try new concepts and tech, but let the one that is the best be the standard with benefit to all.


I think that while we can have different companies working on different tech products that are new and innovative, we could also have them work on the current standard or product to make it better, all working toward the same goal. Let competition make the best product and then the industry/companies in some pre-agreement assume that as its standard.

I think too many products can actually water down a good or better product.

Gaming is a tough one and maybe a bit different from other tech.

I guess I believe in the All for one and one for all mentality as opposed to one for oneself as I see it being all about me and what I have made instead of progress coming out of sharing.

Since I think I'm now the only one willing Exactly. That's the nature of a competitive market. Let's take the music industry as an example. Up until recently, there has been one dominant music format. Nothing was stopping the industry from branching out from the standardized CD format into five billion digital formats. However, even among those digital formats, we see many digital music player manufacturers working towards unity while the backers of individual formats working towards individualized, proprietary formats that are incompatible with one another. Is this sort of competition "good"? Will it last? I'll leave that to you all.

Many of you still don't understand what a "competitive market" is or how a Capitalist market works. A unified console is not "socialist." It is not "communist." Are TVs "socialist" or non-competitve because there are HD standards? Are tract homes "communist" because they recycle the same floor plans over and over again? Market standards are essential to a healthy (and very capitalist) marketplace. Too much differentiation is bad for business. Imagine, for example, if the book industry hadn't decided on a standard size and materials for mass market paperbacks. We'd all be drowning in books (or more correctly, book stores wouldn't exist and neither would many readers).

These are standards set by industry not by government.

Again, nothing would be "stopping" anyone from breaking from the pack other than business sense. In other industries, companies that break from the pack either fail or end up driving the industry in new directions, which everyone else then follows.

If any console manufacturer is close to already having something like a UGP, I'd say it's actually Nintendo. Not just because of its sales, but also its VC and multiple controller styles.
confidenceman... you are simply not arguing FOR a UGP here.

What you're saying is to let the free market decide... And that's what most everyone here agrees with. And most everyone is also saying that the free market is not going to be able to generate a successful UGP. Why? Because gaming consoles are NOT akin to the HDTV or, CD, or DVD spec standards. Games are the actual creative content, and the programming of them in conjunction with the specific hardware is very much part of the creative design. Films are made completely independent from worries of DVD or broadcast standard specs.

Picking whether to broadcast at 720p or 1080i, or what codec to use when encoding a moving is not in the same ballpark as deciding the entirety of the technical, engineering, delivery, and even creative process of making a video game start-to finish.

Deciding to use aiff on a CD vs .wav or some other process is just a false analogy here. The fact is, a musician is going to record their music master in the best possible quality they can afford. The multitude of ways it can get to people after that is very easy to get to...

This is not the case with games.

So with your good points about capitalism, I hope you can see that you are not actually arguing for anything at all to change. You seem only to be hoping that Sony, MS and Nintendo all agree that it is best for them to all make one console. If this was truly the path to the greatest games, then the greatest sales would follow... and there would already be companies capitalizing on this. But, they're not. So to get to this UGP, you would *need* to make sure there was no competition... And we try not to do that (as much as possible) here in the U.S.

Ding ding ding!

Until the Wii, the going wisdom was to lose money on your console initially, then break even on the hardware as it starts to turn a profit later in the cycle. The actual money-making part of the console business comes from licensing fees and software sales. This was what Nintendo discovered in the '80s. Nintendo's changed the paradigm yet again, this time showing that you can actually make money on the console itself. It's this new paradigm that would be a perfect fit for continuing down the road to a unified platform focused on emulation and downloadable content.

oops, reread your post and you're right. but....nintendo took a huge gamble and it payed off. i think you're discounting what sony has done. their trojan horse blu-ray/video game system ps3 is starting to pay dividends. thanks to the ps3, their hd format is being adopted at a quicker pace than dvd and it reduces their cost on blu ray diodes/lasers. this gave us a massive ps3 price cut in less than 1.5 years and will lower the prices on stand alone players.

in a couple of years when microsoft releases their next system, their only going to have two alternatives. sell each system with a huge hard drive or use blu ray drives. if microsoft is smart, they'll include a blu ray drive in their next system. knowing microsoft, they might still be bitter about the loss of hd-dvd and create their own priority format.

So with your good points about capitalism, I hope you can see that you are not actually arguing for anything at all to change. You seem only to be hoping that Sony, MS and Nintendo all agree that it is best for them to all make one console. If this was truly the path to the greatest games, then the greatest sales would follow... and there would already be companies capitalizing on this. But, they're not. So to get to this UGP, you would *need* to make sure there was no competition... And we try not to do that (as much as possible) here in the U.S.Argh. I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but nothing about this idea would limit competition, and would probably only increase competition in the console market. There's no need to do away with competition as a central factor of the console industry with a UGP. But, I've said this all before...

However, the reason this hasn't happened yet is because the technology and infrastructure hasn't been in a place where a UGP would make sense yet. But I think we're moving in a direction where this could happen. This is why I said that the Wii might be a closer picture to how a UGP might look than anything the other consoles are doing. Its VC offerings stretch across many developers, many publishers, and many consoles. It's been hugely successful and hugely profitable.

True, no one's figured out a good way yet to get disc-based legacy games selling very well. Neither Sony's nor MS's legacy title service has taken off. But all three major consoles are tapping into the current downloadable market. As those services grow, the differences between consoles (tech wise) becomes less and less significant.

The bigger problem to a UGP though, is that it remains to be seen if the bigger budget, bleeding edge tech, disc-based games remain the leaders of the industry as they have been. Costs keep growing at faster and faster rates. We're seeing more and more publisher/developer consolidations to defray those costs (as in the monster publisher EA eating up every developer on the planet). As that happens, we're seeing less and less innovation and more and more corporate-level "creative" decisions being made. Something's not working in the way that part of the industry is working, so it wouldn't be surprising if more development shifts to downloadables and smaller scale ("casual") titles. There's a lot of money being made in the big budget titles, but profits can't keep pace with the rate at which development costs are rising.

My over-long point is that judging by the way the console and gaming industry is going, it might prove most profitable to manufacturers and creatively liberating to developers to head down the road to a UGP.

Am I "hoping" this will happen? I frankly don't really care one way or the other. But I do think it's cool to entertain the idea of a UGP and consider what its benefits might be and how it might actually work.

Well, not to send us in circles, but for it to be "Universal" that would pretty much eliminate the concept of there being competing forces... But I digress.

And I think you're downplaying the creativity going on now. The Wii is selling like gang-busters because it pushed an innovated controller and concept to make it accessible to people that never considered themselves gamers...

The industry is doing well in the face of an overall less certain economy.

The 360 pushed forward with high def "next-gen" games and then the PS3 comes a year later with the attempt to push games "b3yond". We've seen games like Gears of War and Fight Night 3 as more/less first generation titles... And there's so much competition to out-do everyone, that even the console makers themselves are spending huge amounts on exclusives. Soon we'll have GTAIV, MGS4, Gran Turismo, Gears2 and I'm sure a lot of sleeper hits too? 8 Days looks to be trying some new stuff with gameplay... there's LittleBigPlanet, etc..

I just don't see as many different and unique forces being involved in creating games if it were limited to one platform. The competition creates a lot of diversity, it allows for more investment and more risk...

But again, if you are allowing for the possibility for competition in hardware and programming designs, then you're not talking about anything that is "Universal"... and we're right back where we are now.

Well, not to send us in circles, but for it to be "Universal" that would pretty much eliminate the concept of there being competing forces [...] But again, if you are allowing for the possibility for competition in hardware and programming designs, then you're not talking about anything that is "Universal"... and we're right back where we are now.Go back and read my earlier posts. A "universal" console would not eliminate competition any more than having a "universal" combustion engine eliminates competition in the auto industry.

The only thing that makes a universal console truly "universal" would be the ability to play a single game on any system without the need for "multiplatform" development.

On the Wii people have fun with Wii Sports, on the PS3 people have fun with Uncharted. There's no way that you can replicate the technical quality of Uncharted with the last-gen innards of the Wii. There is no way to give the expensive PS3 a mass market price tag so that bajillion casual gamers would pick it up for something similar to Wii Sports on the machine.

Two different audiences buyiing two different consoles for two different reasons. Do Wii fans want a more expensive console that has Blu-ray, uncompressed 7.1 audio and 7-SPUs built in, or do they prefer what they have? Would anyone here in this forum want all those features gutted out of their PS3 (along with a weaker graphic processor) if it brings it to a $250 cost? Just try to answer these questions HONESTLY and you come to one conclusion:

There is no such thing as one size fits all! The idea that everyone can be happy with one UGP is ridiculous.

If the OP hasn't noticed, almost no one wants a single platform with (as I mentioned before) the exception of a handful of developers. None of your replies have convinced anyone that what you propose will work. It would require the games industry to build a consortium similar to the on DVD did, and we all know how that turned out in the end (ignored in favor of BD).

Unified Gaming Platform – An Idea Whose Time Has Come

First, let me ask all of you to put aside your fanboy tendencies and look at what I am posing objectively. I know that will be harder for some of you than others. Second, suppress the knee jerk reaction of “It’ll never happen!” There are many reasons why it could and should happen and in the near future. I will stipulate that given the adversarial nature of the gaming industry that it is not likely, unless the players involved are looking long term at the big picture.

We have reached a point in the development of the games industry where the constant format war that wages between the various hardware manufacturers has begun to work against us, rather than for us. Game development costs have gone through the roof, forcing a heretofore unseen level of consolidation within the industry. Because of the high development costs, the days of third party exclusives are over. Metal Gear Solid 4 is the last of the major exclusive titles to come from a third party. What we are seeing instead is a wave of acquisitions by Microsoft and Sony and third parties merging into massive corporations, a la EA, in order to survive. A large part of the escalating development costs are associated with having to develop two completely different versions of a game for consoles with different strengths. As a result less time is spent optimizing the game for a single platform, creating innovative gameplay and compelling content and less time rooting out errors with the console titles.


Thigns like xbox live arcade will bring back the smaller games that devs can crank out and make alot of money for inbetween time left over from block busters. They can put future lead designers on xbox live (or psn or whatever) titles so they get training of leading a big group of people before they go on to the block busters. You also have dlc that can enhance the life span of titles and bring in money above and beyond what the title would have made on the last geneartion of consoles .


Add to that escalating hardware costs for consoles that, even this generation, are so powerful that any meaningful measure of their capabilities when balanced against one another is pointless. Both the PS3 and 360 are more than powerful enough for most game designers to realize their visions and the real difference in visuals in most games comes down to art direction, rather than raw power. Both Sony and MS are attempting to mimic each other feature for feature, both trying to dominate your living room with their Trojan horse game machine and both wanting to sell you downloadable content over the wire.

Bah , look at online. Sega introduced the first real online console system with the saturn. It was an add on , but that was 1996 I believe. in 1999 sega released the dreamcast with a built in modem . It took sony till 2002(or was it 3) to introduce an add on nic . Ms Came out in 2001 with an amazing online experiance , here we are in 2008 and nintendo and sony are still catching up to what ms did 6 or 7 years ago . Imagine if sony was left alone with the ps1 or ps2 .

That goes on to the next thing , if all the companys are making a single platform what drives the next generation ? Do you think Sony would have released the ps3 if the xbox 360 and wii didn't exist ? would u be happy playing halo 3 , resistance , and what have you on the ps2 with a 42 inch high def tv ? How about further out , would u enjoy 2009 or 2010 with no gears of war 2 , killzone 2 and other titles ? The ps2 is still selling very well and if it had big release titles there would be no reason to replace it .


In addition, Sony’s Blu Ray victory in the next gen disc wars has ensured that MS will have to use a Blu Ray drive in their next console and reportedly they are already talking to Sony about it. Any Xbox 360 owner that has had hardware issues with the 360 (I’m currently waiting on my fourth console), and any PS3 owner that has used Sony’s online services (such as they are), would agree that each company has its strengths and weaknesses. The combined expertise and Intellectual Properties of each company would spur the industry to new growth on a powerful, (hopefully) easy to develop for platform leading to the kind of competition that we all benefit from: game publishers competing with each other for our gaming dollar.

I can't agree with this . The psone and ps2 were full of problems in their first 2 years. It took sony 3 trys to make a great console with very few problems off the bat. who is to say that the next ms console will have rrod problems ? It could turn out to as low in failure rates as the ps3 currently is .

As for online , if ms was the only one handling online no one would have thought up home .



If they choose not to go this route the next generation, it has little effect on me personally, I have no trouble justifying the cost of multiple game consoles, though this generation it took me longer than ever before to justify adding a PS3 to my rig (and technically I still haven’t, the PS3 belongs to my housemate), but Hotshots Golf and Ratchet and Clank have pushed me over the edge. Prior to this generation I bought every console at launch as a matter of course because I knew that each one would have enough exclusive content to justify the purchase.


If a new console came out in 2012. Would u be alright if we didn't see a new console untill at least 2022 ? I personaly wouldn't be. I can tell you i wouldn't play a ps2 in 2010 as my primary gaming system and there is a huge group of hardcore gamers that wouldn't want that either. Many gamers were ready for something new in 2004 or 2005. I already know people who are ready for a jump above gthe 360 and ps3 .


But, most importantly to me, I can stop listening to fanboys of game consoles and electronics companies bicker back and forth about whose brick is better and they can start arguing over which games are better. At least I hope. Odds are they’d just argue over whose accessories are better, Mad Katz or Nyko.
They'll just complain about missing the good old days , like i do about missing sega


Here are a few things I’d like to see:

A Sony manufactured console that both MS and Sony agree upon in terms of design.

An entirely new controller that improves on the near perfect design of the 360 controller.

A HDD included in every console, preferably a solid state drive, but with the option to add an internal drive to increase storage capacity and/or the ability to link to external storage.

An MS designed user interface and Xbox live type online service, gamer tags, and, of course, achievements!

A powerful, easy to develop for system architecture free of the bottlenecks that plague Sony’s consoles.

So, do you think this UGP will ever become a reality? If so, what features would you like to see in such a beast? Which controller would you like? The 360’s? The PS3’s? A brand new design? What do you see as the potential drawbacks to a unified platform?

No because who makes money off what.

Lets say we have sony and ms .

Well who makes the console ? Sony ? are they now going to want to loose money if they have no competition ? No ? Then we get a lower spec machine or a higher price tag. MS is making all this software , where will they make money ? will they sell the software as a seprate download ? Do they just take royalitys off games and split it in half ? I doubt that will be enough to sustain the amount of sales they all have.


I don't think it will work , nor do I want it to work. I hate that when i buy a movie I really only have one physical option and thats bluray. I rather have a music industry where I can buy a cd , dvd audio or use an mp3 player.

Bad things happen when you only have a single choice in purchases.


Imagine how great it be if there was only 1 car everyone could buy and all the best parts of each car company were put into .

Imagine if we just focused on making one type of food that had the best of everything in it and just sold that.

I like choice

Go back and read my earlier posts. A "universal" console would not eliminate competition any more than having a "universal" combustion engine eliminates competition in the auto industry.

The only thing that makes a universal console truly "universal" would be the ability to play a single game on any system without the need for "multiplatform" development.

Exactly. And since you cannot prohibit competing hardware, game-makers will be forced to into multiplatform development if they want to reach more consumers anyway.

(And if a new hardware maker is really smart, they'll make their system that plays "exclusive games" also be UGP compliant... So then they can play every game PLUS their own exclusives.)

And in today's news:
Acer prepping a console-style gaming PC based on open standards? (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/17/acer-prepping-a-console-style-gaming-pc-based-on-open-standards/)