Dennis Dyack calls for a universal gameing console

He wants to get rid of all the competition and have Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft agree on one standard console. Why? To make is easier for game developers like himself and, I think, to eliminate all the confusion that plagues the video game industry.

I'm down with that so long as the price is kept within the $200 - $299 range. You want mass consumer appeal you must watch that price tag.

 Dennis Dyack:

 "I think we're moving towards a homogeneous platform whether people like it or not. At the end of the day, I think it's in everyone's best interest that there be one hardware console, whether it be Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or whether all three of them got together and said, "Ok we're going to agree upon a standard for everyone to make." [...] We'd rather spend time making the games than worrying about the hardware. And if everyone had the same hardware and when you made a game you knew you got 100% penetration because anyone who plays this game had to buy this hardware platform just like a DVD or whatever standard media format's going to be. I think that would ultimately be much better for gamers."

http://kotaku.com/gaming/denis-dyack/dyack-wants-one-console-future-says-too-human-going-swimmingly-250096.php 

That's odd... I was thinking this was the most heterogonous generation we've ever seen.

Edit: Not sure why I quoted. It's been removed. 

Competition brings about the best out of the competitors (unless your Nintendo).  This is why, at heart, every fanboy adds even more fuel to the fire that is System Wars.

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines. 

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines.

hamumu

Noble idea if we lived in Lalalooloo Land, but sadly we live on Earth and are a part of the human race. The basic function of the human race is to compete it's inate. It's kinda like saying why don't Israelis and Palistinian share the holyland and live happily ever after, while Bush and Bin Laden get together for after noon tea with Kim Jong II. Sounds great on paper but ain't gonna work

[QUOTE="hamumu"]

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines.

lordxymor

Yes yes, we know, it's called the PC. Been around for the last 50 years. Huge user base, unified platform, no porting needed. :)

I was reffering to console features, competition forces the companies to innovate or offer their competitors product for cheaper. Nintendo for example would not have put online in this gen if Microsoft and Sony didn't.

Different consoles are needed, take the Wii for example, if it was unified, it would have cost $500, with nice HD graphics. Processor, GPU and mobo costs don't suddenly go down just because there is a huge demand for them. We would have been forced to choose between 3, very very similar consoles, each costing $500. One platform would have a major buying advantage (Same price, just choose the better features).

So no, a unified console would be a miserable failure, drive prices up, or it would make companies lazy. 

    Competition = Capitalism

    No choice =  monopoly.

    I am not fine with that at all. In fact, that is the worst idea I have ever heard. Just because he does not want to code ports or tweak code does not mean I should be forced into just one choice.

    What would stop the companies from charging a mint for a system, or stop upgrading them all together? Its just a whole can of worms that should never be opened, because that would be the begining of the death of gaming. 

Competition = Capitalism

No choice = monopoly.

I am not fine with that at all. In fact, that is the worst idea I have ever heard. Just because he does not want to code ports or tweak code does not mean I should be forced into just one choice.

What would stop the companies from charging a mint for a system, or stop upgrading them all together? Its just a whole can of worms that should never be opened, because that would be the begining of the death of gaming.

SpruceCaboose

Edit: And don't worry: It will never happen on the cosole side of the market. 

[QUOTE="hamumu"]

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines.

lordxymor

He wants to get rid of all the competition and have Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft agree on one standard console. Why? To make is easier for game developers like himself and, I think, to eliminate all the confusion that plagues the video game industry.

I'm down with that so long as the price is kept within the $200 - $299 range. You want mass consumer appeal you must watch that price tag.

Dennis Dyack:

"I think we're moving towards a homogeneous platform whether people like it or not. At the end of the day, I think it's in everyone's best interest that there be one hardware console, whether it be Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or whether all three of them got together and said, "Ok we're going to agree upon a standard for everyone to make." [...] We'd rather spend time making the games than worrying about the hardware. And if everyone had the same hardware and when you made a game you knew you got 100% penetration because anyone who plays this game had to buy this hardware platform just like a DVD or whatever standard media format's going to be. I think that would ultimately be much better for gamers."

http://kotaku.com/gaming/denis-dyack/dyack-wants-one-console-future-says-too-human-going-swimmingly-250096.php

Is that why Windows suck compared to the competition? I think so. Other operating systems are technically superior to Windows because they have the strive to build a better system in hopes of gaining market share. For Microsoft, improvement isn't really necessary since it owns most of its market share and that market wouldn't slip away.

This is same about every single industry, you NEED competition. EU has the strongest anti-monopoly enforcements out there, so gamers and other consumers can choose. As an industry and for the consumer, competition is ALWAYS what you want.

I disagree to this Dennis Dyack person.

gnutuxgnutux

    IMO the EU is a little too strict in the Anti-monopoly, anti-trust thing. However, competition breeds innovation, which benefits consumers. 

[QUOTE="lordxymor"][QUOTE="hamumu"]

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines.

KSD22

Right now, There a triopoly in the game market.

Developing a standard isn't like a monopoly at all(of better is a natural monopoly, everyone agrees and have saying), every developer is free to implement it any way they want, using low cost or high end hardware, and the public and other developers can help improve the standard submitting new ideas for future updates. With a standard, the software is automatically compatible in every platform, and that's when we will see real competition.

Open standards: a natural monopoly arises (de facto) or a monopoly is
defined and agreed upon (de jure) in a technology, but the monopoly in
the technology is accompanied by full competition in the market for
products and services based on the technology, with no a priori
advantage based the ownership of the rights for the rights holder.

http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

[QUOTE="KSD22"][QUOTE="lordxymor"][QUOTE="hamumu"]

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines.

lordxymor

[QUOTE="KSD22"][QUOTE="lordxymor"][QUOTE="hamumu"]

Competition creates low prices, unique features, and ultimately, a better product.

It would be nice to have a standardized set of graphical features and processor features. We would see more cross-platform engines.

lordxymor

lordxymor you're not making any sense to me.
PC game costs 10-20 less reason 10-20 goes to console manufacturer aka Sony, MS, Nintendo it's called royalty for using there hardware as a distribution base.
If three companies were to come together to make one unified console the royalty fees will double if not triple, because each company would still want what they are recieving now. So games taht use to cost 10-20 dollars more on console are now 20-40 dollars more. Thus an unified console will never ever happen because no console manufacturer is willing to give up there share of the royalty. It's kinda like a gangsta charging protection fee for operating in there territory, well imagine if three gangstas all wanna charge for the same area, the poor devs would have to pay triple what they use to pay and hence they have to mark up there goods and in the end we as consumers get the shaft.  Thats why gangsta have there own territory and thats why we have muliplats.

This would quash all innovation in the industry. What's the reason to innovate if you're not going to compete? It would also create an oligopoly, they'd push everyone else from the industry (simply because developers aren't going to make a game for something that's not this maximum penetration universal system).

Thankfully, this will never happen, there will always be a Red vs Green situation in the market, and there will always be innovative independent hardware developers such as Nintendo. 

Having a single standard would make a lot of things easier, for sure.

However, it simply isn't in the interest of console makers to consolidate to that extent. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo don't really care about how much it costs to port games as much as they care about their own ability to make money. And they'll have a much harder time making money if there's an open standard.

Despite that the costs of game creation are increasing rapidly, there really doesn't seem to be much movement towards one standard. It would require a concerted push by developers and publishers for a standard to happen, and that type of collaboration doesn't seem to exist.

        I Agree, games would be much better, with 100% marketshare you could spend more millions on games cause obviously more people would buy them. And I´m pretty sure if there was only one gaming system more people would have consoles. This would be the best way to get a game console into everyones home and make gaming into something even bigger then it has already become, what I mean is, more reviews in newspapers, more advertisement, more coverage.

        I don´t agree with your pricerange though, Believe me I´m not rich but I´d like the console to cost around 500$ obviously more expensive cause it´s better lol I don´t enjoy wasting money lol.