GCDC: Next generation could see unified console - Dyack

Outspoken developer Denis Dyack outlined his vision of a one-console future in a speech at GCDC yesterday, arguing that the history of commoditization in other industries meant the standardisation of gaming hardware was an inevitability - and something we might see as soon as the next cycle of console hardware.

Dyack, president of Too Human developer Silicon Knights, believes that a "unified gaming standard" is on the horizon - and that "just like a DVD, just like a camera, everyone would know what those specs are". It's an argument Dyack has made in public before now, and with an hour of GCDC to fill he seized the opportunity to expand on what he admitted was a contentious point of view. "If you talk about commodification to a hardware manufacturer, they usually turn white," he joked.

In the future, companies like Sony, Microsoft, Toshiba, Samsung, Sharp and Dell would line up to deliver gaming systems of comparable power that supported all gaming software, Dyack predicted. In the rare case of a game that didn't work, "it would be the hardware manufacturer's fault", he said, removing a number of burdens from software developers' shoulders.

This standardisation, as he put it, would mean better hardware at lower prices, the abolition of a first-party product approval service, cheaper development due to the loss of multiple SKUs, resultant lower game prices, and a 100 percent market share for developers to target rather than a range of big fractions marked Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, which is the current model.

Remarking that he wished he'd "gone back to back" with Stormfront's Don Daglow - because he firmly rejected the idea that the predictable console cycle Daglow identified would recur ad infinitum - Dyack said that the increased difficulty of working within the current business model was symptomatic of "performance over supply" - a strong indicator that commodification is in the offing.

"We've got a bunch of pressures that are now starting to push us to a certain direction," he said of games development. He argued that things like the rising costs of development and staffing needs, a more even split of market share between three platform holders, and the reality that a successful game needs to sell a "frightening" number of units to make back investments, meant that it was "increasingly difficult to be successful".

Equally important, he said, was how little distinction there was between PS3 and Xbox 360 graphics. "We're starting to reach a perceptual threshold where the average consumer can not tell the difference between the next-generation consoles," he argued. "I think this trend's going to continue."

Citing renowned polymath Ray Kurzweil's belief that technological growth will not slow down according to Moore's Law - the belief that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every 24 months, and that this cannot go on forever - he said other divergent technologies would take over to compensate and that gaming consoles would grow closer still in technical capacity.

But perhaps most importantly, he said, there are simply too many games. "A couple of years ago in November there were 250 games released. There's not enough consumers to play all those games," he told the room, remarking almost exasperatedly that a "normal market" would never produce a situation where Resistance: Fall of Man - Insomniac's PS3 launch shooter - and Epic Games' Gears of War for 360 were not actually competing for the same buyer.

He also challenged the belief that Nintendo Wii will continue its meteoric rise. "With the Wii adoption rate, Nintendo's come out of the gate much faster than anyone expected," he admitted. "Short term, I think everyone agrees Nintendo's doing great - long term, they might not take that bet."

Nor is he convinced that PC gaming has much life left in it. "I think the PC is the ultimate 'no standard', which is the opposite of where I think we're going," he said. "That whole market's going in circles and it's going to go nowhere...Unless there's some kind of standardisation there it's going to get worse and worse."

In a Q&A session following his talk, Dyack said that services like Xbox Live would be able to endure in this one-console future - perhaps akin to the way Blockbuster serves film and television.

Admitting that the interface for a unified console would be a sticking point, he nonetheless said he felt we were "there" with current efforts, and that changes would still be possible.

He also admitted his concern that the commoditization of film pointed to a future where developers were brought together for projects contractually, rather than given full-time positions - something he said that Silicon Knights "would fight" because it was "dehumanising".

Concluding that a one-console future - the title of his talk - was inevitable, he said that the current model would endure for as long as people could afford it, but that once developers and publishers started to find it too difficult to compete, change would occur naturally. "Next generation, you could see people agreeing on one platform," he said. "I think this model, if it occurs, will change everything."

via gibiz

Although this would completely eliminate the competition and probably crapatize the console as Madden has done without competition, I still can't help but to think of what it would be like if there was one console and the game makers were the only ones competing, or if the console makers didn't take advantage of us and continued to use all that they have to make the greatest console possible. That would never happen though. :/

This idea is awesome for those who manufacture the console systems and games, but bad news for everybody else. I say this for the following reasons:

1. No competition, or less competition, means that we will be less likely to see prices drop anytime soon. In fact, if the people at the top of the food chain among console systems have only one system between them then they will increase the price to whatever they want. And where does that leave the average gamer? Either switching back to PC gaming or taking this up the arse.

2. There will be less innovation among the console systems. Standardization does mean greater compatibility between console systems, but it also means certain technologies that would benefit the gamer will be delayed. Those who vote on the standards and how they will be implemented will not allow any technology that they can not currently compete with to be available until they can match it, which means most parties will likely vote against it. In the end, we are looking at several years of waiting for something cool that could have been released during the current year.

3. There will be absolutely no real choice among console systems. If there is only one system and the console gamer does not really like it then what else can he purchase instead?


OK, as a gamer I do get tired of the politics of console system manufacturers competing, but I would rather see individual systems with something new to offer than systems that are clones of each other with only minor differences.

I think this is overly simplified, and is missing a major concept - competition breeds innovation. The concept of only having 1 appliance that handles entertainment in the living room has been dreamed about for a while, but the reality is that different visions breed new ideas.

The computer gaming environment is closer to this reality in a lot of ways than the consoles, and he is already tearing it apart as being stagnant. You have a limited number of hardware manufacturers that are focused on the space (mostly nVidia and ATi), and a limited number of choices in development platform (DirectX or OpenGL), and what level of innovation are you really seeing?

A single console with a single development platform would have some benefits to the developers, since they would not have to choose between platforms to develop for, but it would have little to no real benefit to the consumer.

Don't know where he gets his ideas about pc gaming. With upcoming games such as bioshock, crysis and the orange box all for pc, things look good for the pc as a gaming platform.

As nice a hippie dream as that is, the whole thing seems a bit skewed by something in his early statements. The DVD is a standard...or was. Next-gen saw another format war. Even if we got a unified console for one generation, it wouldn't last. Immediately someone would see a flaw, or a way to improve, other groups would see others, and you'd have factioning all over again...just human nature.

Unified console?

I doubt that, this is just a dream , didnt they have some sort of related news like this few years back, something about Nintendo and sony teaming up lol, well it didnt happen , nor will this.

There will always be competition, sure there could be some related multi releases, but a unified console is just a pipe dream.

A unified console sure. A unified controller interface? How would they standardize that? I sure as hell wouldn't want a dual shock! Perhaps manufacturers will compete in the controller interface department if the "unified" console was to eventually happen

Dee

I doubt *ANY* of the Big Three would co-operate. They'd sooner drop out than not have things their way.

And yeah, unified console meaning lower costs, bull. That's never going to happen. No competition means no reason for the manufacturers to part with their extra profits.

Video games are a significantly broader entertainment medium, in terms of what they're capable of, than movies. And even THAT doesn't have a unified format now that HD has hit. Step into an arcade sometime, and ask, how do you put every machine in there into one gadget without losing something in the process? You can't do it. Games thrive on creativity, and that means challenging the standard. Whether it's in hardware or software.