Console standardization

Errr, I think you guys are conflating "single console standard" with "single console."

The Kagami topic has now reached 201 posts! (Nov 5)

I think you're right. Given the odd mention of anti-monopoly law, one does suspect that this misinterpretation is indeed the case.

How much could it cost to slap together a PC made from two-year-old hardware and throw on Windows 7 Cheap Edition as the OS then sell that with a custom gamepad-optimised shell?

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.

^Not much at all, if you want to play PS2 games.

From a technical standpoint, I'd note that DVD players standardize the data format, not the actual architecture. Far as I can tell, the equivalent for a console would be that you either:

• define a standard VM and API (Java, .NET, or the like) that all games for the console must use- which means you can only use features defined in the standard.
  • Simply extending the standard would not be easy, since standards generally are derived from existing non-standard implementations that prove the practicality of the concept, and if you have multiple hardware implementations of the standard each would have different ways of upgrading- so you either deal with PC-level complexity, or are forced to wait for a new generation of consoles.
• define a standard game engine that games are to use. Allows better hardware integration, sure, but obviously removes significant control of the user experience from the game designers.

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

Neither of which are possible because of Microsoft and Epic.

Microsoft's API for the Xbox line is Direct X, whereas Sony and Nintendo use Open GL. Microsoft refuses to make Direct X work on systems other than Windows and Xbox and refuses to use Open GL.

The standard game engine for this generation is Epic's Unreal Engine 3, which works on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3, but not on the Wii. Epic themselves have a hate of anything Nintendo related, so I doubt you will see an Unreal Engine on a Nintendo platform.

For there to be console standardization, you must get Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo to agree on it and none of the three will because they benefit more from locking out the other two.

edited 19th Oct '10 11:28:31 AM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly

@Ronnie: a two-year-old graphics card will run Bioshock. Maybe not at full detail, but it will run it at a playable speed.

I think the problem is the mindset of the current three companies. Lock their CE Os in a room a and refuse to let them out until they reach an agreement.

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.

When you come back, one CEO will be gnawing on the bones of the other two.

One of my few regrets about being born female is the inability to grow a handlebar mustache. -Landstander

As I noted in another thread, about $300 retail for a roughly PS3-level system several months ago, obviously much less for something made en-masse.[[/quoteblock]]

The problem is that consoles exist as a parasitic tumor on the industry, sapping gamers' dollars away through restricted devkit licenses. Consumers put up with it because the backloaded pricing structure offers the delusion they're saving money. Once subsidized hardware died off, the problem would be solved permanently.

Eric,

$300? That's only a third of what the PS 3 launched for (all the junk mail at the time priced it at $999 AUD). That's probably also comparable to what you pay for the current consoles right now, come to think of it.

Subsidised hardware? What sane government would subsidise the manufacturing of electronics?

Accidental mistakes are forgivable, intentional ones are not.

Subsidized in the sense that the consoles are sold at a loss, with games marked up to make back the difference.

(Which apparently could be part of the reason Sony killed Linux on the PS3; too many people building supercomputers from the consoles and obviously not buying games afterwards.)

Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

People buy consoles because more people want to play a video game on their TV then play a video game on their PC. Like how more people want to watch DVDs on their TV rather than their PC and thus buy DVD Players. Netflix's online viewing really didn't explode until people were able to do it on their TV. Your information points out why exactly there cannot be a one console standard. Would any console gamer spend $300 on something that is at a PS 3 level of power when they could buy a PS 3 for that much?

Now you may point to the Wii, but the Wii was from a company with a 20 year history in video games with nothing to lose and used a completely new control scheme. It was very much a risk that could make or break Nintendo. It was a move worthy of the meaning of their own company's name. Nintendo took a risk, left luck to heaven, and it paid off for them.

edited 20th Oct '10 11:47:12 PM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly

^ To be fair, they would have still had their lock on the handheld market. And a number of analysts before the Wii's launch were insinuating and/or predicting that Nintendo would eventually drop out of the home console market to focus on handhelds...

Let's play a game about Pokémon...

Not really, people were predicting the PSP to blow the DS away like the PS1 blew the N64 away. Instead, DS became a beast and PSP became the best selling handheld not made by Nintendo.

edited 21st Oct '10 1:23:27 AM by GameGuruGG

Wizard Needs Food Badly