One universal console to rule them all

via joystiq

Next Generation examines while voicing support for the formation of a video game standards commission with the end goal of creating a standardized console format. Like, no more proprietary Nintendos, Sonys, or Microsofts; just commodified machines that adhere to a protocol and play the same games like DVD and MP3 players do with their respective media.

From the article: "Honestly, at its current rate I don't know how much further the industry can go unless we do all band together and start watching out for our best interests as a community... Cliché as it might be, a united front is a strong front – and we've got a hell of a lot to offer the world."

But alas, the technical gap between platforms is far too great and differentiated at the moment to concede to a set standard, not to mention the heavy resistance of major corporations protecting their proprietary pockets. And do we really want to commodify video games more than they already are?

A universal games console sounds like a great idea...

(...not that it would happen anytime as of now, though.)

its already here..its a pc...lol

sony, microsoft and nintendo, whatever they say, are very greedy and want to keep their own stuff, but in reality could do far better with a single console.

The one problem with a single console is that it could be priced anywhere, competition = lower prices (usually)

If all the companies worked together on a single console, there would be no console wars, no format wars and everyone would come out on top.

This is a good idea for the consistent losers in the games industry but for the consistent winners its not.

But CPU_Smarts is right, no competition = a monopoly thus much higher prices.

I think that one console would be really cool, as long as the prices weren't to high due to lack of competition.

AS nice as it sound, and boy does that sound nice, it will never happen for two reasons i can voice without getting beaten: 1) as long as there is a microsoft it'll never happed, they love money more the making good produces and 2) As long as their are fanboys out there then some companies won't have to agree to go in on an universal console. Well that's what i think........

I don't know why nobody said this before me but I don't think this is a good idea at all. Without the competition and only 1 universal console to play the games on, game developers can shovel out masses of garbage games more than they are already doing.

Consumers will have no choice. I just don't think this will ever be a good idea.

Instead, there should be standards regarding HD (High Definition), surround sound, WiFi, etc. that the consoles put out. But I'd rather have Nintendo make their own console, Microsoft their, and SONY theirs.

Its all about the games and better games will come out of that.

This idea is silly. Wouldn't work in practicality, look at a PC, even with every processor being an X86, software never works the same on every variation, processor, and hardware setup.

At least with consoles games are written for a specific, exact hardware setup so you get higher frame rates, better AI, better graphics, etc.

That has been my dream in the video game world. I just think that would be sweet to play all your old games and new games on one console. Right now the PSP is probably the nearest we will come to it.

The closes we will ever get is called a PC. I will bet everything i owen that thats a merger between 3 big multi billionar companys thats never going to take place.

Yes, the game console owners are far too greedy and money-hungry to do such a thing. They should just conced like bell south and the other phone companies that became the new AT&T.

I don't favor the idea of a universal console. Some of the greatest games came about due to competition and pressure on companies to 1up each other.

I think a universal console is a horrible idea. It takes the competition out of creating newer and better gaming systems. It also takes the excitement out of waiting what the companies that bring out the systems will bring out next.


Besides, Do any of you remember the 3DO and Trip Hawkins dream of conquering the world with a universal system? it flopped.. royally. I'm not saying its a krappy unit, I happen to own one. But, it was a horrible idea because different companies would want to do different things with their hardware rendering the "Universalness" completely useless and confusing to the consumer. 3DO technoligy was licensed to SANYO, GOLDSTAR, PANASONIC, AT&T and from my recollection.. some wanted to add more ram and others wanted to add other features that would give one console that would be universally compatible an upperhand over another console thats so posed to be compatible with it.

Whats so bad about letting the market decide a winner and a loser in console battles?

My dream console is something like the laseractive, that would be foward and backwards compatible via modules. Other good examples would be the GameBoy Player for the GC, the atari vcs module for the ColecoVision, the Power Base converter for the genesis, or the Super Gameboy for the SNES.

Even prior to the 3DO we had the MSX platfom which, whilst not an entire flop, didn't unite the world of gaming.

Whilst it is gutting to see an exclusive game on a platform you don't have, this seems to be less of an issue these days (save for Nintendo themselves).

Need to see a proper analysis of Sega's fortunes and output since they got out of the hardware game. Despite the subsequent arrival of the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube in that generation, the DC (under Sega) still holds my heartstrings for its pure originality and quality of games (i.e. not 99% FPS or straight-up racing games).

I feel torn on this issue. Whilst I'd rather not have (currently) 4 consoles stuffed under my telly (and that's without 360, PS3 or Wii) I would hate to see creativity stifled. But then, with a larger overall user base for a single console format, developers would be free to concentrate on creating a single title (no massive resource usage on porting) without caring about trimmed down versions for lesser hardware. Quality of software, rather than exclusivity of platform, would dictate the success of the title. Or, to put it more simply, crap software wouldn't sell well, whilst creatively unique software would have access to a larger target audience.

A final benefit of a single format would have to be shelf-life. I may be in the minority here, but I truly don't feel the Xbox, PS2 and GC were anything near the end of their life in terms of the quality of games from a hardware-limitation point of view. The leap from their generation to the titles currently on offer from PS3/360 doesn't seem to be that great.

Phew, I've rambled.

Anyone remember the video game crash of 1983?
Universal console: bad idea.

I'm sorry, but I see more problems for this than it is worth. Base technology aside, look at the practical technology. You wont be able to play 360 games on the Wii simply because of the controller difference. If there was a standardization, we would NEVER expect to see such consoles as the DS or the Wii because they would be too different. So, do we want to be all the same, or do we want to be different? As the article above says, do we want the gaming industry to be any more standardized than it already is?

I, for one, am strictly against it.

Bad idea.

I'm glad most people here see sense.

Every (original) company takes a different angle on games realisation. Their individial consoles are a reflection on this, if we just had one do-all box, then we would lose a lot of originality and a lot of potential.

Sadly, it may well go that way in the end. If Nintendo don't survive, Sony and Microsoft seem to be going for the universall entertainment centre thing....

...Actually ...Nah!... ;) There will always be competition :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Is'lan

I'm sorry, but I see more problems for this than it is worth. Base technology aside, look at the practical technology. You wont be able to play 360 games on the Wii simply because of the controller difference. If there was a standardization, we would NEVER expect to see such consoles as the DS or the Wii because they would be too different. So, do we want to be all the same, or do we want to be different? As the article above says, do we want the gaming industry to be any more standardized than it already is?

I, for one, am strictly against it.

---

I don't see your Wii argument holding up. The innovative thing of the wii is the controller. Nintendo would simply release their "Wii Controller" for console X which is required to play certain nintendo games for it.

Corporate Trusts = bad
Different companies making different games, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quzar

I don't see your Wii argument holding up. The innovative thing of the wii is the controller. Nintendo would simply release their "Wii Controller" for console X which is required to play certain nintendo games for it.

---

Why have a controller that is only to be used for certain games? Kinda not so standardized.

...
Wait, the Wii has different controllers for different games...

My point is, no one would take advantage of such innovation, and also, namely, that such innovation would never get built. The gaming industry would start becoming even more "same-old, same-old" than it already is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Is'lan

Why have a controller that is only to be used for certain games? Kinda not so standardized.

...
Wait, the Wii has different controllers for different games...

My point is, no one would take advantage of such innovation, and also, namely, that such innovation would never get built. The gaming industry would start becoming even more "same-old, same-old" than it already is.

---

DDR Dance Pad, Donkey Konga Bongos, headseat microphone for many games across platforms, n64 games came with ram expansion, gyromite for the NES had ROB, even as far back as the Atari VCS there were the paddle controls for certain games.

If everybody owned the same hardware, innovation could still be had through addons used by multiple games.

It's not just about hardware. Console's software tends to follow the original vision of the console it's running on.

A good parallel is Mac vs PC. What there is of Mac software always follows the slick and simple feel of the mac. Even homebrew and emulators on the mac are simpler and more friendly than their PC cousins. Most software is also centred around standards by apple and their collaborators.

PC's on the other hand are a jumble of different feeling applications fighting for their own standadization.

This is one thing on your home computer, but for consoles, "keeping things simple" is much more important.

The same thing would happen on a single cover-all console as we see on PC. In fact I think it would remove the goalposts completely. A peripheral and software standardisation fight would go on, with everyone having a different vision of what the customers want.

In the end I think it would also be at least as expensive.

The bongos, dancepads, eyetoys, r.o.b.ots give great variety as add-on peripherals, but historically, they've only really been used on one game (or one series of games). There is also a smaller budget for games released that need these add-ons as not many people own them.

Where as on a specific console, developers know that several million playstation3 owner will have a 6-axis dual stick controller and wants the best HD graphics... several million wii owner has a wiimote and wants good multiplay/party options... and several million XBOX owners want good graphics too and good internet gaming options.

I don't think all these different gaming "comunities" would happily live under the same roof, how could you possibly make one console that caters for everyone? If the wii is for people who want cheap fun games, and the PS3 is for people who want expensive HD graphics, how can one console deliver both needs? Cheap and expensive just don't live together.

...Also, how much would this "single" console cost? Without the cut that the developer gets from games, how much would they have to charge for a console alone to make it a worthwhile profit? For a start it would have to be powerfull and adaptable, that wouldn't be cheap. How much would the PS3 cost if sony wern't making an early loss on the console because of their long-term stratagy? A grand?

Only the console war losers would agree to this. the others will be making money and so won't give a toss.

No choice = big brother.

All I know is that I still scrounge for the LaserActive, and think it's one of the best conceived of pieces of hardware ever.