Slashdot Mirror
Gaming on a Universal Platform?
Riffing off of David Jaffe's earlier comments, an article up on the Next Generation site theorizes about a single unified gaming platform, ala the music and movie businesses. He proposes a 'videogame standards commission', which could look out for the future of the industry as a whole. They might, he says, not even agree with his conclusion that a global platform would be a good idea. The point, he says, would be to maintain "a detailed yet flexible long-term plan for progressive development of the medium. The board would assay in accordance with a constitution of irrefutable primary standards and ideals ... From what I can see the only way such a body could conceivably be formed is by appealing to the idealism of visionary designers and executives across the spectrum - your Satoru Iwatas and Ken Kutaragis, and Will Wrights and David Jaffes. The Game Developers Conference and other gatherings already embody some of the spirit of this proposal." Curmudgeon Gamer has extensive commentary on Eric-Jon Rossel Waugh's piece.
For a variety of reasons...competition is a GOOD thing...in addition, while having different hardware might make cross-platform games tough, it makes proprietary games more interesting because the hardware in each console is different...each is capable of different things in different ways, thus lending to a uniqueness to certain games.
Case in point: SNES and Genesis. You knew which one was in use simply by looking at the screen.
Same goes for Xbox and PS2. And Dreamcast. And Gamecube.
And every other system (with the possible exception of modern PC games) Every system has it's own very unique look, and even many cross platform games look quite different. I find this uniqueness refreshing, and enjoy having a choice of gaming platforms. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses.
As a former auto-tech, one of my favorite mottos: The right tool for the right job.
(Another favorite is "the guy with the biggest hammer fixes the most stuff", but that's another conversation...)
Living With a Nerd
They might, he says, not even agree with his conclusion that a global platform would be a good idea.
You think?
Seriously though, there's already a near-universal gaming platform. It's called the PC.
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
* The "Greenbook specification" aka "Philips CD-i"
* 3DO
* Apple Pippin
With successes like these, who could doubt the wisdom of a universal game platform?
[...]
(That was sarcasm for those who didn't catch it.)
The idea itself is sound, but it completely ignores the technological advancements that keep the industry afloat. Consoles don't just sit still with the same graphics designs, the same media, the same processors, and the same controllers. They branch out from each other, each trying out new concepts to bring fresh new possibilities to gaming. You cannot standardize a thing like this.
The closest thing the industry has ever had to a true standard was the PS1 and PS2. They provided a fairly generic but powerful platform upon which a variety of games could be developed. With the success of the PS2 as a DVD player, it almost became as standard in the home as DVD players themselves. But that may be over now. Technology is moving on again, with a new batch of multiprocessing, motion sensing, and graphically interesting game consoles. Leave the "standard" console concept in the grave where it belongs.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I thought Microsoft already developed that! :-)
Seriously, this is a great way to completely kill all innovation in gaming hardware. Standards are fine for industries that have matured to the point that the product is a commodity. At that point everyone can build to the standard and compete on price (or perhaps service). Fortunately, the game industry isn't close to that point. Do you want super-powered graphics, integration with high-def video content, internet based multi-player support, novel control schemes. You (the market) decides and the winners go onto to the next round.
[Insert pithy quote here]
They don't say much of any value. Hell will freeze over before Nintendo allows itself to be bound by a "videogame standards commission." We wouldn't want such a commission to be formed anyway. Major publishers and developers would only come closer to absolute power in the industry.
You're forgetting the actual large companies. Other than EA companies like Activision, Ubisoft, Sega, THQ, SCi/Eidos, LucasArts, Atari, Midway, and Vivendi Universal (not just Blizzard) all produce a majority of their stuff cross-platform. So yes, the majority of large gaming companies do make games that are cross platform. Huge blockbuster titles with exclusivity are usually ported around a year later anyway (Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, GTA).
Think about all Microsoft's first/second party games (Bungie, Rare, etc), all the Nintendo first/second party games, now add the fact that Square-Enix, though not exclusive as a company, is exclusive on a game by game basis. That's 3 out of 4 of the largest game developers in the world (excluding EA).
Well, first of all, excluding EA doesn't work. They are by far the largest developer in the world. They have somewhere around 20% of the market. Second, Square-Enix is nowhere near the top of the video game world as far as sales go (they're probably around 10 or lower). The big developers and the majority of games are not necessarily the developers you like and the games that you like.