So either every manufacturer makes the same console with no ability to distinguish themselves, or you get the current multi-SKU situation only much much worse... just like the PC gaming market!

Unfortunately most of the "decision makers" could give a rat's ass about what's hard for the economy or harmful to the industry.

Microsoft's a software company, Sony's arguably a hardware company, and Nintendo's a "game" company...

Except there will be so much bickering over just who gets to be that "one console" that it would never really work. Not without some economical cataclysm.

Yeah so when we get to this "One Console" heaven you dream of and said console cost 1500 bucks because it has no one to compete against are you going to buy it for me? I didn't think so.

if there was only one console, it would end up being the equivalent of what EA and madden are

You know what Dyack's been doing besides developing Too Human the last nine years? Thinking, that's what.

Eternal Darkness feels forgotten.

One console to rule them all, and in the markets, bind them.

So who gets to decide what the one console is? Nintendo? Great now we have underpowered systems with shit online. Microsoft? Now we have awesome online but unreliable hardware and are nickled and dimed for every tiny piece of proprietary download/perpherial. Sony? Now we get to buy $2000 consoles complete with betmax, ATRAC, memory stick and minidisc player builtin.

@Balance_In_Life (PSN): No, because that would be "closed model." Only Nintendo can make the Wii - hence, no competition.

In an "open model," any hardware manufacturer could create this hypothetical "single console." So sure, Sony could charge $1,500 for their version of it, but then they'd get crushed in the market if Panasonic were to sell a $399 model.

Look at the Wii. If you want a Wii, you have to pay whatever Nintendo decides to charge for it. How is that a competitive market?

Frankly, if this consolidation continues (EA acquiring Take-Two), then the game publishers will hold all the cards. Sony and Microsoft are hardly going to release a console without all that third party support.

Nintendo? Nintendo are Nintendo. They'll just keep churning out games and hardware until Miyamoto retires or dies of exhaustion.

Aint gonna happen is what I say.

Archive this idea in the "In a perfect world.." area.

I dunno, seems like if one hardware manufacturer goes down another company will just step in to take its place. Xbox came in around the time Dreamcast was dying out. If one of the current three consoles disappeared I could see a company like Apple, HP, Samsung announcing their new gaming console.

He's neglecting to realize that if you stop making closed-platform consoles...you're left with PC gaming. The thing people love about console gaming is that you can buy the system and be able to play any game with that system's name on it. No dicking around with video card requirements and upgrading your PC constantly.

If you go for an open-platform approach, all the advantage current consoles have over PCs disappear. All games end up with a grocery list of requirements as to which of these open-platform consoles they will work on and which they won't.

...

Let me get this straight.

This guy's idea of solving the problem of a monopoly is... to create a monopoly? What?

I'm not even sure if this guy understands the words that he's using. Has anyone here EVER said "I'm just gonna buy one system," and at the same time said "I've got enough money to pay any price for a system," cause I sure as hell haven't heard that line of thinking ever.

What he's describing here is not monopoly, it's competition. Yes, third parties might like to only have to develop for one platform. However, until there's a perfect world where there is only one reasonably priced platform, that's not going to happen. If you make a game and it doesn't get bought, it's not the fault of the console market. It's the fault of a bad game, or bad advertising.

So...it's the third party developers that will establish the one-console standard? Riiight. Hello? Consumers own that area, and we'll pay for what we like, thank you.

If developers/publishers can't make sound decisions and waste gobs of money on a title that failed on a specific console, that's their fault. They can whine all they want about how console makers should make it easier for a cross-platform standard, but it won't happen.

@Xiedo:
Hey, we can't expect Ashcraft to actually do some reseach... because that would include him being a good, unbiased journalist. And we all know thats no fun ;)

Besides, religiously posting Denis Dyack comments out of context to make him look like an ass is fun :) no?

Plus..Admitting that Denis was actually working on Eternal Darkness for 4-5 of those years would include having to acknowledge he made MGS: The Twin Snakes in that timeframe too. And then we'd actually have to admit that Too Human's dev cycle really isn't that abnormal in our industry. Especially for companies that like to put out good games, instead of just shoveling unfinished garbage out the door :)

"If they win market dominance, it moves the market toward a monopoly, because it's not an open, competitive market. If Nintendo wins 95% of the market, it definitely becomes a monopoly".

The implication being that this would be bad, right? Then why the hell would he suggest one console would be better? Is he being hypocritical or am I misinterpreting this?

@theALLseeingEYE: Are you Denis Dyack?

@V1L3:
If I want to buy an iPod I have to pay whatever Apple decides to charge for it. That's a competitive market because I don't need to buy a freaking iPod, even if I need one to play many iTunes files. There are other ways to buy and/or play digital music. They might not have the same convenience, selection, or quality as iTunes/iPod combination, but that's my choice.

As far as consolidation, even if EA decides to put up the massive funds it takes to develop a home console themselves do you think they're going to allow Activision-Blizzard to use it for free? I think they'd end up charging fees for other companies, non-EA owned companies, to make games on it in order to pay for their research and development. Wait, that'd make them just another Sega with a closed model. How about that?

@Heartwork: Actually what he might be getting on about is the possible concept of console manufacturers partnering to develop a single, unified console system without having to compete with a wide variety of requirements and features that set each other apart in a closed model.

Microsoft+Sony partnering on a next-gen console sounds very plausible to me, but Nintendo is likely to remain stand-alone regardless.

Another possibility is that all major publishers and console manufacturers have a meeting, discuss what the specifications will be for the next-gen, establish a goal framework, and then make their own development models. After that, they present their development models to the public, press, and their peers for feedback.

Once that's done, and the apparent winner is chosen, that winning design's specs become disseminated to the rest of the manufacturers with a universal development kit. This way, third party manufacturers can get in on the act and offer their own versions of the console with different parts but still serve the same architecture, design, etc that would hopefully deliver the same level of performance.

This way, the manufacturer that builds the best console version of the "chosen design" the cheapest, wins out without having to limit the game development industry by way of cross-platforming.

And obviously, makes games work across different manufacturer's verisons of the same console without having to waste loads of money.

@duckmouth:
Having listened to the Dyack interviews on the 1up podcasts during GDC and read a few of his interviews... I don't think he needs any help making himself look like an ass. ;)

Well they are talking about a PC. Every Pc has a Keyboard and Mouse just like every Car has a driving wheel and a gas pedal. And last time i checked no one wants to develope for PC anymore.
A single console would kill progression and thats bad for us gamers so i say the more the better cause competition keeps those greedy corporations on their toes.
And those lazy developers should just churn out good multiplatform games and shut the hell up. When did every dev became a rockstar? You are workers just like everyone else. Do your work and keep your trap shut. I dont remember programmers for applications treated like prima donnas, someone should put game devs back in place. That beeing a cubicle in an office and not in front of a camera.
Damn lazy bastards.

@duckmouth:

Do you want me to be? :)

Nope, not Denis.

As for the Monopoly thing, Yes, that could be a very bad thing.
A proposed open model would would still have multiple console manufacturers, therefor there would likely be even more fierce competition between Hardware, and fiercer competition between software, as everyone would be competing.

What we have now is Monopolistic competition. In an open commoditised platform, we'd have perfact competition.

Commodification - [en.wikipedia.org]
Perfect Competition - [en.wikipedia.org]

I personally just want to see it so we don't see nearly as much uninspired, redundant software (though I'm sure that will still be there in spades). Plus, I beleive it would raise production values (at least for the upper tier), and the market would be large enough (Hopefully comparable in size to the penetration of the DVD player) to fully suppot independant developers on a greater scale. Which would hopefully create more original software across the board (there would obviously be a flood of uninspired tripe too.

But then again, I'm an art nerd, so I tend to desire odd things.

The only reason the developers would want a one console future is to stymie the rising development costs. Or rather, off-set them, since the software they develop will ultimately work on all the consoles. Or that would be the hope.

Rather, I think this generation will smash Denis' argument into pieces when it's finished. We will have proven that multiple consoles are quite a viable option in the market. Games are only expensive because they've constantly gotten more complex, and developers have bloated to make sure they can handle the complexities, not because of the amount of 'closed models' out there in the market. We've always had two or three throughout the years, and I don't remember people bitching about how expensive it was to make games in the halcyon days of 8 bit, 16 bit titles. Now there's tons of money to be had in the industry, and everyone wants the good talent, everyone wants the good coders, so those people with the skills actually EXPECT to be paid a decent wage. Combine complex gaming engines, coding, and debugging with the need for skilled employees to handle it, and essentially gaming has strangled itself.

But lo, there are two salvations to these problems this generation. The Wii, and Live/PSN gaming. The Wii is underpowered, but it also proves that gaming can be fun without the need for huge budgets. Sure, not all the best selling games are awesome, but to a developer who spent maybe a fourth what it might cost to make the same game on another system in full HD and compete against other pretty titles, profits are profits. The constant PS2 sales prove that graphics aren't everything anymore, good games still draw system sales, and it's huge library still coaxes people to buy the system (be it for the first time or to replace broken ones.) Same with PSN/Live. The games that can be made for download prove developers can have smaller teams work to make good games that still look good and make profits on these smaller titles that can fund larger, more ambitious games.

Rather, it sounds to me that Denis is crying because he put all his eggs in one basket, and the consoles this generation (as well as the PC's download services like Steam and Gametap.) have provided more baskets.

@Jaml: Hahaha.. your comment is rough on the corners. But made me laught. Haha. Not all dev's work is to code, but some dev's jobs is to talk to the client. You.

he's not talking about 1 company owning a closed system and everyone makes games for that. he's talking about a standard. it's like betamax vs vhs. Right now game machines each have a different closed standard, which makes it economically difficult for softwawre vendors to make shit for each one. if you had one standard (think vhs, dvd, bluray), then software makers could make shit that matches the standard and hardware makers could make shit that will guarantee that that software will run on it, and everyone wins. multiple hardware makers compete and drive down prices for the console on the hardware side, and costs of development go down for software makers and they get a bigger unified market, so you get more software. it won't result in all games being the same either, because the standard just needs to ensure hardware specs and API's, you could still get the best nintendo games and controllers to work with the console, and still get god of war3 to run on it too. there's no reason to have closed standards

If the only console I could own was a wii I would be a sad bunny.

I will continue to support a multi console market because I feel that the competition between these giants is making a wonderful rainfall of great games fall onto the heads of we gamers and we can only benefit from these battles.

A single console limits innovation and competition and it would slow the development of games technology.

Just look at the gap that been closed between PC and console games in the past few years. It's incredible!

Actually, this DOES make sense. It may seem utopian, but one unified console can have a good shot at being succesfull without having to drop the advance of technology. ship ports and other similar businesses have learnt to specialize and complement each other, instead of competing against each other, and it worked out fine for them.

Having a unified architecture through game consoles couldn't hurt, but I don't see it happening anytime soon though.

You know who "drones" on more than Denis Dyack? People online who whine about him.

@JChaos: While I agree the "one console" idea is sadly a pipe dream, that doesn't make it similarly a monopoly. That isn't the mindset or theory devs are having behind the "one console" idea at all.

No one specific company is controlling the "one console" hardware spec. The theory is similar to what ex-CEO of IBM, Lou Gerstner, did by playing matchmaker to Sony and Toshiba's (MMCD or Super Density Disk) format war during the 90's. He got them to agree on a spec that later became the DVD standard. This is what devs who theorize the "one console" idea desire, someone to play matchmaker to Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony to agree with a universal hardware spec that all games will play on. Similar to currently buying any DVD player, from any manufacturer, to play any DVD that you wish. Or similar to the PC alliance recently formed amongst all the PC industry giants to agree on a standard for PC gaming. It is about creating a universal spec that any manufacturer can use. Even beyond just MS, Sony, and Nintendo to companies like even JVC releasing a version of the agreed spec or RCA, LG, Panasonic, Toshiba, Philips, etc. It takes some of the hardware bullshit off a company like MS, Sony, or Nintendo's gaming division hands and lets them god forbid - focus mainly on game development.

The "one console" pipe dream depends in getting the gaming manufacturers to agree on an alliance that decides a universal hardware spec that they each can sell within their own brand name that all games can play on.

After spending most of my gaming life living through 6 generations of obnoxious console wars, purchasing multiple hardwares (especially this gen where games look similar with exception to Wii), and brand fanboys makes me hope this pipe dream comes true someday - but I won't cross my fingers.

In other news, Trip Hawkins seen dusting off a warehouse full of 3D0s.

@tei:
No the only job devs have to do is to develope our games. Talking to customers is the job of PR and support people.
Do some "developers" even develope anything anymore inbetween writing their blogs, answering questions on forums, trashtalking in podcasts and giving interviews on gametrailers? No wonder games take years to develope, they aren´t in their offices half the time anymore.
Get the PR people out there to do press work and whip those lazy asses back to the nearest C compiler.

@xot: So true.

poor Dydack...

Too human is going to bomb, and all he can do is complain about the 3 gaming consoles on the market...

I guess it's better use of his time, since he probably can't fix something he broke in the first place.

I like Dyack's idea of an open model if only because we could buy based on hardware quality rather than exclusives.

@marlblank: I agree, I don't get the implication that this "one console" idea is complete rubbish, because the PC game industry is beginning it now as we speak.
[kotaku.com] & [kotaku.com]

Even if there ever was some sort of one console revolution, Nintendo would not be a part of it. Nintendo will always keep doing there own thing through thick and thin. If there is a one console future, I know that I wont have to worry about it. Not to be a fanboy, but I'd stick with Nintendo over the possible future EA game machine.

I thought he was a samurai, what's up with the medieval armour?

@thinkfreemind: If gaming manufacturers got together to create a one console spec, EA (who is a publisher) would not be included in that decision unless they decided to start a manufacturing division.

Also I honestly don't think the rest of the industry would care one bit if Nintendo remained on their own... 1) It has its own niche market, 2) Their most successful titles are mostly their own, 3) It wouldn't rule them out of changing their minds later either. When they stuck with cartridge as the rest of the industry went disk look what later happened - Gamecube/Wii. So much for thick and thin.

@xot:

Yeah, I was thinking 3DO as well. As great as the idea is in theory, I don't see it working any time soon. We just had a totally unnecessary HD-DVD vs Bluray war and even now a lot of people just stick to normal DVD. A video standard is much easier to estabish than a console standard.

3 consoles are sustainable so the console manufacturers won't go that way easily. Add to that, that there are many differences in what consumers want. Not everyone can afford a PS3 but most can afford a PS2/Wii. Who decides what it will be? In the past consoles launched much cheaper, in '95 Saturn's $399 was considered rediculous. But things like graphics power, controls and online are just as important.

The only way I see it happening if publishers just refuse to support more than one platform. Like the way EA decided to kill the Dreamcast by not supporting Sega. Whether or not the DC failed because of EA is debatable but it didn't help matters much in the good way. EA is now much bigger so has more power. Nintendo could do without I guess at this point as they don't get a lot of support anyway but how would you sell a ps3 or 360 to the mainstream if it wouldn't play Madden and Fifa? Note that I do see some anti-trust cases coming when this situation becomes reality.

"One Console Future" is a terrible misnomer, seeing as there would be far more consoles than there are now. This term is why most people just don't understand the ideas behind it (at first anyway).
It also implies that there wouldn't be a different set of standards every six years or so, in keeping with the latest technology (like dvd -> blu ray), which wouldn't be the case either.

By the way, I highly recommend everyone to listen to Dyack's last 1up podcast, everything is explained really well.

This is simply wrong.

All three console makers will make a healthy profit on their consoles (even Microsoft -- probably). No one is going to say "we're making a profit doing what we're doing, let's stop it now".

What indicates there won't be similar profits available for all 3 consoles on the next console generation?

I say we're more likely to get a 4th and 5th major console than for the number to shrink. Profits attract new competitors to a market.