EA wants 'open gaming platform'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7052420.stm

"Gaming will just require potentially a £49.99 box from Tesco made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection and a games engine inside."

oh the vision LOL ..

ea will take over the world

This is OLD NEWS!

And obviously it will save money if there is only one console. This applies to all 3rd party publishers. They would rather have one console than optimise for 3.

EA stinks.Haziqonfire

dude...can u plz change ur sig....it makes my cravings for SMG unbearable :'(

I've just read the article...

That quote was blown out of portion...

The guy was only stating that in the future console gaming may change into a single format.

Why would he use the word "predict" a lot?

EA isn't planning on creating a console.

He just thinks the importance of multiple consoles will eventually become obsolete.

So instead of a console they want content channels (Xbox channel, PS Channel, etc.) and a box to unscramble it and hook controllers up to. The game would be ran on their hardware on their end and the content would be streamed to your box.br0kenrabbit

What about those people who don't have online connection, how are they going to stream that?

I also believe their should be only one console and a large host of developers and publishers. Velric

[QUOTE="Velric"]I also believe their should be only one console and a large host of developers and publishers. Dante2710

There wouldn't be a monopoly in having a single development console. It would work in the same way that DVD's and CD's work. Companies compete based on the quality and extra functions of their product, not on the console itself.

If you want to see the whole story on why this HELPS developers as well, read here One Console .

This sounds sort of like what killed the game industry in 1984. Companies had no say in quality control for their consoles.Tylendal

That was largely due in part to the fact that games weren't an established industry, not just because of the quality.

I hope it never happens. It'll be a choice between a gaming PC or a crappy box with crappier games and the market will die.Tiefster

You really don't know anything about gaming with a comment like that.

Ban together and stop the EA.

For all of gaming. Stop Goliath. Pull a David.

One console = Less compatition, Compatition is good for the industry.Marka1700

If this happened consoles would be like DVD players and the would be far more competition with prices. With exclusive games/hardware it's simply too hard for smaller companies to break into the market but if there was a set standard like with DVD players then most electronics companies would venture into the market.

One console = Less compatition, Compatition is good for the industry.Marka1700

The competition needs to be between developers, NOT the console makers. If there is only one console and only one audience, developers have to compete more for their attention.

One single platform is the future for consoles just like every other appliance, remember when there were hundreds of different computer brands incompatible with each other? But it's the software companies that will take the initiative. There's only one problem: copy protection. If the x360 was an open platform some chinese manufacturer could make and sell a brand that would play pirated game right out of the box, just like they have sold region and macrovision free DVD players.

No thanks on there only being one console.

What if the company that decides to make that one console made it with shoddy hardware like MS did with the 360? I'm just putting it out there that having more console choices is better when one company messes up in this manner. There just isn't a perfect console to make the standard for everything.

Also, EA benefits greatly having one standard console and they'll in turn use that money to buy out more devs. Remember devs such as Westwood, Origin, Bullfrog, and Janes. No thanks. Anything that helps keep EA from dominating the market is a plus for me.

That would kill gaming

Velric: How do you think such standards should be achieved?

--

It's amazing how people without the slightest understanding about market dynamics and standards are quick to point out that "that would kill competition" or that "they don't want a monopoly". If you have no knowledge about the subject, don't make useless comments, go read about it some more.

http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_of_standards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

http://www.openstandards.net/viewOSnet3C.jsp

[QUOTE="Marka1700"]One console = Less compatition, Compatition is good for the industry.Velric

The competition needs to be between developers, NOT the console makers. If there is only one console and only one audience, developers have to compete more for their attention.

How would you achieve an open gaming platform with no companies directly benefiting from the console itself? For there to be one console without anyone benifiting from it is has got to be one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard a big company say.

I don't think a unified platform is a bad monopolistic thing. Look at TVs and recievers. They all use the same standards, but there's also a huge variety in them and made by many different companies to keep competition strong. You can get a Sony 5.1 dolby digital reciever for 500 bucks, or you could get a no name brand for a hundred. But they both use the same standard of dolby digital.

So instead of a console they want content channels (Xbox channel, PS Channel, etc.) and a box to unscramble it and hook controllers up to. The game would be ran on their hardware on their end and the content would be streamed to your box.br0kenrabbit

And we will have services like Metro PCS and Cricket as a standard. I don't want that. Imagine having one of everything, how inconsistant and lack luster would that be.

I also believe their should be only one console and a large host of developers and publishers. Velric

Competition is important in videogames. With no competition then the products won't be nearly as good.

[QUOTE="Velric"]I also believe their should be only one console and a large host of developers and publishers. rockydog1111

Competition is important in videogames. With no competition then the products won't be nearly as good.

People, look. Read all of my posts if you are going to try and comment and disagree with the.

1) Having one console would be the same as the DVD an CD formats. While there would only be one format for games each generation,t here would still be a number of different player's for the games. Much like DVD and CD players the biggest differences would be in the extra features and the price, not the format that they play.

2) Having a single audience and single format allows smaller developers to break to into the industry as prices on development drop thanks to that single format. With the unified audience it also forces developers to become original or stand out from eachother in order to get as much attention for their games as possible. While developers now can afford to spread their games across multiple consoles as the audience is split between them and it doesn't need to directly compete with everything else that is out, that wouldn't be the case on a single console.

It is really a very simple concept. Read this article on it One Console .

So instead of a console they want content channels (Xbox channel, PS Channel, etc.) and a box to unscramble it and hook controllers up to. The game would be ran on their hardware on their end and the content would be streamed to your box.br0kenrabbit

this could easily turn to pay per play.

[QUOTE="rockydog1111"]

[QUOTE="Velric"]I also believe their should be only one console and a large host of developers and publishers. Velric

Competition is important in videogames. With no competition then the products won't be nearly as good.

People, look. Read all of my posts if you are going to try and comment and disagree with the.

1) Having one console would be the same as the DVD an CD formats. While there would only be one format for games each generation,t here would still be a number of different player's for the games. Much like DVD and CD players the biggest differences would be in the extra features and the price, not the format that they play.

2) Having a single audience and single format allows smaller developers to break to into the industry as prices on development drop thanks to that single format. With the unified audience it also forces developers to become original or stand out from eachother in order to get as much attention for their games as possible. While developers now can afford to spread their games across multiple consoles as the audience is split between them and it doesn't need to directly compete with everything else that is out, that wouldn't be the case on a single console.

It is really a very simple concept. Read this article on it One Console .

Velric everything you just mentioned already exists. It's called a PC.

if EA had their way we'd all be playing with machines that cost 5$ to make that retail for 100$, full of crap hardware to power their craptasticl lineup of games.

mediocrity... how i despise thee.

[QUOTE="Velric"][QUOTE="rockydog1111"]

[QUOTE="Velric"]I also believe their should be only one console and a large host of developers and publishers. _Pedro_

Competition is important in videogames. With no competition then the products won't be nearly as good.

People, look. Read all of my posts if you are going to try and comment and disagree with the.

1) Having one console would be the same as the DVD an CD formats. While there would only be one format for games each generation,t here would still be a number of different player's for the games. Much like DVD and CD players the biggest differences would be in the extra features and the price, not the format that they play.

2) Having a single audience and single format allows smaller developers to break to into the industry as prices on development drop thanks to that single format. With the unified audience it also forces developers to become original or stand out from eachother in order to get as much attention for their games as possible. While developers now can afford to spread their games across multiple consoles as the audience is split between them and it doesn't need to directly compete with everything else that is out, that wouldn't be the case on a single console.

It is really a very simple concept. Read this article on it One Console .

Velric everything you just mentioned already exists. It's called a PC.

Not quite, but close. Consoles have always been the more user friendly, less amount of set up alternative. It would still be that way.

Not quite, but close. Consoles have always been the more user friendly, less amount of set up alternative. It would still be that way.

Velric

you know I may actually have gotten your point.... It would be difficult, but it certainly isn't impossible. The only problem is how do you keep the different platforms feeling important with a shared platform?

That would kill gaming

-supercharged-

It did kill gaming in 1984.

[QUOTE="-supercharged-"]

That would kill gaming

Tylendal

It did kill gaming in 1984.

it's not about a single console with a single company backing it up, but more a single OPEN console. Kinda like the pc, but strictly for gaming only so that it is cheaper.

[QUOTE="Velric"]

Not quite, but close. Consoles have always been the more user friendly, less amount of set up alternative. It would still be that way.

_Pedro_

you know I may actually have gotten your point.... It would be difficult, but it certainly isn't impossible. The only problem is how do you keep the different platforms feeling important with a shared platform?

You don't. In this case the brand names, Sony and Microsoft for example, would only have meaning as to how reliable their hardware is and what additional features it might offer like DVD playback, harddrive space, wireless, etc. The actual gaming hardware components would be the same between all of the manufacturers.

This would allow the focus to be on the games themselves and not the platform.

One console = Less compatition, Compatition is good for the industry.Marka1700

correct my good mate

one console = death to gaming plain and simple.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="-supercharged-"]

That would kill gaming

_Pedro_

It did kill gaming in 1984.

it's not about a single console with a single company backing it up, but more a single OPEN console. Kinda like the pc, but strictly for gaming only so that it is cheaper.