Slashdot Mirror
David Jaffe - In Ten Years Just One Game Console
The folks at 'The 1up Show' had the chance to interview David Jaffe, the well-known designer behind God of War. They discuss his upcoming project for the PS3, Calling All Cars, the future of the God of War series, as well as the ever-increasing price of making games. From the article: "A lot of games recently it's cell phone, PC, DS, PSP, if you look at EA they blanket it -- it's everywhere. As a gamer, I kind of miss the 'you can only get it on this system.' There's kind of an excitement that was about that back up until recently. With this new hardware, though, that idea is seems to be going away. Is it really all going to come down to first party now? Or it ultimately going to come to one system? 'Cause 10 years from now there's going to be one system because there's so much more third party software than first party software from any hardware manufacturer. It may not be feasible to make it the war of the first party or the war of the exclusives." The entire interview is viewable online.
As PCs get cheaper I think they will take market share from the consoles, until the PC becomes the de facto single console. I think there are already more PC game titles than console titles, and the penetration of PC's is higher than that of game consoles.
Yes, companies will just GIVE UP trying to make money!
I mean, seriously, the only company making a console now that even was in the game business ten years ago was Nintendo. How many different companies have put out a console since then? There's no way that companies will cease trying to make money on console hardware in the games market.
If he is correct, it will most likely simply be because of computer/console convergence. The only real reason you have a console now is because it interfaces with your TV easily and comes with nice controllers and all the games "just work" on it. If computers become ubiquitous, stable, and easily accessible, I believe it is possible that one day we will have NO consoles. But ONE console -- not a chance.
As a gamer, I find this kind of statement asinine. I really only have the budget for one console, so I am forced to miss out on some games. I love the Gran Turismo series, but am not going to buy a PS3 just to play that when I have a perfectly good xbox 360. So I miss out on that game. To me, the console is a platform; I am not choosing an allegiance to one side or the other.
I suppose he means the PS3 and the 360 for which there will be Halo and Final Fantasy as the exclusives. Nintendo doesn't really seem to have a problem with exclusive games (Mario Kart/Party/64/etc, Metroid, Zelda, Smash Bros) and I'd argue the biggest reason behind Nintendo's success is because of their first party games, especially since other than Capcom (Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe), I can't think of any other company that even did GC exclusives (granted, these games were later ported to PS2). With the Wii, it's even more different. The vast majority of Wii games are ONLY on the Wii console. Ubisoft and other publishers are doing Wii-only games with no chance of a port.
So I don't know what this guy is talking about with lack of 1st party support or exclusives, unless he means Sony and MS.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
He is assuming that all the consoles will be essentially the same, just by different brands.
Which, essentially, is true. Up until now at least. The Wii and the DS both have completely different input methods, which makes entire genres of games available which weren't available for other systems.
As long as new systems are not just "the same but FASTER", this prediction won't come true.
In case no one can read between the lines, he's saying that platform exclusivity is a very good thing that needs to be saved. ...He's also an exclusive title developer for Sony.
No self-interest here.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
The Fanbois will never let this 'only one console' thing happen. They'd launch some kind of jihad against the surviving consoles the likes of which the world has never seen. The aftermath would leave the world a scorched earth, barren, desolate place. No life would remain, only the scarred, smoking rubble of a once proud gaming civilization. Perhaps the consoles themselves would rise up and enslave the populace, using the humans as living pawns in their own games. Interestingly, these scenarios are only marginally worse than the existing console related threads which appear routinely on /.
This sounds very much like: "In the future, all restaurants are Taco Bell."
/sig
Console developers could come together and make a hardware/api "standard." Same type of disc, same hardware capability, etc.
Each console would then have its own flavor around it. Microsoft could continue the Xbox LIVE service for game delivery, purchasing/renting movies and music, home theater integration, peer to peer communication, PVR capability, etc. The next gen of consoles will be much broader than just games.
Game developers then could make just 1 game for all consoles that meet the "standard" and would be assured compatibility. More time is spent making the game better rather than making it work on different pieces of hardware. Development costs would plummet.
Console developers could then focus on making the best hardware that meets a standard and gives the customer more functionality. Game developers could focus on the game itself, rather than morphing the game to fit different hardware. Customers can buy 1 disc and play it in a PC, Mac, xbox, playstation, nintendo, etc.
Will it happen? Most likely not, but probably a better chance than companies simply leaving the console market. Games make too much money.
Um... It hurts them too. Remember when Nintendo had 90% share with the NES? The put 3rd party developers over the barrel. Because they could. Sony was no different, and I can't imagine MS being more 'benevolent'. Having solid competition between 2 or 3 providers is healthier for developers.
Exclusives are important as they drive sales of any console. Most people only buy 1, and they buy the console for the games, not the other way around.
Can't see the "one console in ten years" happening, either.
...
If it does happen I fear for the health of the industry
As it has been talked about inside of the industry many times, when you have one platform which is as dominant as the PS2 is/was you end up in a very bad position; you have (basically) no choice but to produce a game for that platform which makes the company who produces the platform grow arogant and stop meeting your needs. If you look at the PS3 you can see the consequences of Sony's success with the Playstation and PS2; a Blu-Ray player which increases the cost of the syste, Blu-Ray discs which increase the production cost of every game, a complicated (difficult to develop for) platform with an inadequate tool set.
There are exclusives for all the systems, but they aren't iconic in the ways they used to be.
15 years ago the average gamer age was much younger than it is now. Gamers were kids, and kids identified with icons. Whether it was TMNT or ghostbusters on the television, Nerf or Super Soakers in the back yard, or Mario and Nintendo we were young and brand loyal.
In short, things felt a lot more black and white then. There were a lot of excellent and appealing iconic games. Sonic was arguably at the best he ever would be. In fact, many people feel the same way about Mario, Link, Samus and more. Something was lost between the SNES/Genesis days and the polygonal era that followed.
To some extent, it was the exclusive games. In those days most games of note were on one system or another, with key differences notable between the ports when they weren't. The difference between the systems was much more palpable.
Beyond that, it was quite simply easier to play. That's not to say it was easier to win, I'd be shot by many gamers if I claimed the old games were easy. What I'm suggesting is that it was much easier for anyone to simply pick up a game, a controller, and have fun.
This is something that up until recently the market had forgotten. Regardless of whether I like playing games for 15 minutes or 15 hours (ah, college) it's nice to have fun the moment I start playing. The longer it takes to get the ball of fun rolling, the less likely I am to maintain interest.
In conclusion, games should live by the Othello motto. "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master". Complicated and confusing controls/gameplay do not a deep game make anymore than confusing and disjointed plot/dialogue makes a good movie.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
Yes. In fact, if you print out this article and fold it in properly, it becomes a whole different story.
Sweet informative mod.
> Console developers could come together and make a hardware/api "standard." Same type of disc, same hardware capability, etc. [...] Each console would then have its own flavor around it. [...] Game developers then could make just 1 game for all consoles that meet the "standard" and would be assured compatibility.
Welcome to 1993 -- it's the 3DO all over again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft is actually doing all these things and a little more to boot.
As a game developer, DX10 really is moving in the right direction.
In D3D10 for instance, much work has gone into solving the "small batch" problem - a condition caused by the fact that state-changes (binding different textures, shaders, etc) are so expensive on today's 3D accelerators that processing many small batches can severly impact performace. Developers end up jumping through a lot of hoops in an attempt to optimally batch their triangles. This and other improvements to D3D10 have cut overhead by approximately one-half. They've also removed the capability-bits mechanism in favor of the more-defined feature compliance you mentioned. Cap bits were terrible because they only told you if a feature was supported, nothing about performance - Intel's Integrated graphics only support software vertex shaders (in the driver) for instance. Other accelerators make similar claims, or outright don't support a feature their caps bits claim to.
Microsoft is also pushing the play-from disc technology as well, though its slow to be embraced. For some reason, game devs are reluctant to do things differently than the way they've always done things, even if it is better - See all the bitching about migrating to the LUA profile model in Vista. The groundwork to do this is there now, its simply a matter of developers starting to make use of it.
PC joypads are also starting to come together now that Microsoft is pushing XInput over DirectInput. XInput not only provides a clean API to xbox-style gamepads, but also defines certain layout constraints. Things like the primary axis being the left thumb-stick, or button 1 is the 6'oclock face button. You'd be amazed at the amount of difference in non-XInput PC gamepads have in this area, "button 1" might be the 6'oclock face button on one pad, or the left trigger on another. This amount of variance is the primary reason that gamepad support is almost non-existant on most PC games, realisticly you'd have had to impliment a completely configurable control scheme, or not bother with it at all. Given the lack of a standard layout and the fact that it had to support every input device under the sun (gamepads, throttles, flicktsicks, peddals, etc) DirectInput became a unnecesarily large and comlex API. XInput pretty much solves everything from a developer standpoint, and its nice be able to take your Xbox 360 controllers to your PC when you need a gamepad; One (or more) fewer controllers to own and keep charged up.
The final big thing MS is doing to make the PC a more console-like experience is to bring XBox Live to the PC. Hopefully this will bring the days of everyone having different, half-finished or buggy multi-player lobbies to an end. A lot of companies have developed solid and featureful in-house implimentations over the years, aleviating the second two problems, but having a more unified experience is quite nice and will allow games companies to spend less time developing and maintaining their proprietary lobby systems. On top of that, there's now the possibility of playing PC vs Xbox 360.
In short, Microsoft is doing a lot to make the PC a more console-like experience, both from the developer's side and the user's side, but I still disagree with the grandparent that the PC will ever subsume the role of the console. People use consoles because they are stupidly easy to use. There's no worry about minimum specs or the quality of system components having a negative impact on performance. There's no worry about spyware or trojans. There's no worry that the input device you just picked up won't work well. Some of these problems are simply not solvable on the PC without pandering the a least-common denominator.
Linux and other FOSS Operating Systems will be able to ride the wave this will bring as well. Khronos is already working on OpenGL 3 specs which will streamline the API and bring it inline with D3D10 features, much in the same way that D3D10 is a streamled evolu
What the hell are you smoking? PCs are the "home" of MMO, FPS, RTS, Puzzle and -real- adventure games, and probably several genres I'm forgetting. Consoles don't come close for any of said genres, and where they make an attempt, they are second-rate(eg. Halo. Yes, compared to its PC counterparts, Halo sucks. Yes, I had an Xbox. Yes, I had Halo.).
I don't see consoles usurping PC gaming's top genres anytime soon.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden