There has been some loose talk amongst analysts and some developers of the possibility of a one-console future. Just one console for us to buy? How do they figure that?

Well, they're using DVD players as a model. They figure that one of these days, because of cost and inconvenience of developing for multiple platforms, the industry will form one standard. And just like DVD players, there will be one set of specs to meet, one system to learn, and no worries about people not having the right console for your game. And how would the Big Three figure into this? Well, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft would still make their own versions of the console, just like how you can get a Toshiba or RCA DVD player that play the same movies. The system would have its standard controller type (like the 360 an PS3 controllers are nearly the same thing) and something like the Wiimote would be a peripheral.

How do you feel about this idea? I like the idea of it happening, since I can just buy one console and get any game I want, but I seriously don't think this will happen. I can't imagine any of the big three console makers wanting to share the pie instead of trying to just dominate it all. They make their money from game royalties, and with a unified console, those royalties would probably go to one entity.

But tell me what you guys think.

It'll never happen, and if it does, it's a long way off. The Game industry is still relatively young. I'm not too sure how I'd feel about a single format game system, my gut tells me it may cause some form of stagnation. Competition between seperate consoles is good for the industry overall.

The lack of competition during the Atari era led to market stagnation and an eventual crash. I can't honestly see anything like this happening until we hit the point where technology has no more room for improvement. Of course, once we hit that point, we run into another problem. System manufacturers only manage to pull in a profit from a continually expanding market. That's why each generation needs to reboot with new technology. When we reach the height of graphics and performance, we may be faced with another crash, only this time, consoles may not make a comeback. Of course, by then, PCs will be in every household and people won't need to spend $500-$1000 every half year to keep up with the gaming industry.

So I think it is more realistic to say that instead of us reaching a point where there will be one console gaming standard, it is far more likely that consoles will die out entirely and prefab PCs will take over the market. Both the PC and console markets are starting to enter grey areas at this point with home PCs taking on more media functions, the lines between computer monitor and TV blurring, and consoles taking on PC functionality with web browsing and even dedicated OSs.

Another problem with the multiple manufacturers for a single standard approach is that nobody can make royalties off the software. This drives up the price on hardware. Want a good example of this from the past, look at the 3DO. It used the same model where the gaming hardware had certain technical standards, but the actual units were manufactured by a couple different companies. In the end, you got three different model systems that each cost a small fortune.

Short answer: No. Long answer: Read on.

There won't be any "one-console" anytime soon, main because of three things: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. They're all making money by having their own console to do battle against the others, and having only one would mean they'd be out of luck unless they could start putting out some killer games for it. I don't see that as likely. Even in the '80s you had a ton of different gaming options, more than now if you really think about it.

Intellivision, Commodore, ZX Spectrum, NES, and of course anything I'm probably missing. All of these competed at one time or another, and that competition for your hard-earned gaming dollars will continue. And each one of these systems was different; not like a different brand, but like a totally different experience.

So to sum up, I don't any company would let there be only one system because the profits for themselves would be so slim. I mean, it would be neat if all they would do was manufacture a different model of the same system, but isn't that close to what the Xbox 360 and PS3 are right now? And to be frank, the Wii's only difference is in it's control method.

Well, they're using DVD players as a model. They figure that one of these days, because of cost and inconvenience of developing for multiple platforms, the industry will form one standard. And just like DVD players, there will be one set of specs to meet, one system to learn, and no worries about people not having the right console for your game.

I didn't really think about it in my last post, but the DVD market is probably a bad example of where the industry is headed. With the new fully digital video market starting to take shape, we're actually seeing less standardization in video formats. Forget about Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, they aren't where the market is headed. Instead, take a look at the low cost video rental and sales market happening online. Stores, rental places, video game systems, and even DVRs (like Tivo) and cable services are all offering digital video downloads at a lower price point than even DVDs (often with superior video quality). As connection speeds get better and home theater systems get more digital, I think we'll start to see the physical media market start to fade. Within the digital market, though, there is no set standard on format, codec, or even delivery method. As things advance further, we likely won't need one. It's not like it costs the consumer anything extra to choose one online service over another (in other words, you aren't paying for the priviledge of downloading movies from Amazon, you just pay for the movie and the player is free), as long as PCs or whatever media device people choose to use supports all formats (or can at least download firmware updates to add new formats), it won't matter what retailers offer. That's the beauty of the digital market, consumer choice.

As for how this would apply to games, we may see custom hardware fade as specs get higher. Instead, we'll see companies like Havok and Epic rise. Instead of selling systems, companies will sell engines and programming tools on which other developers can build their games at a lower cost. Plus as visual quality increases and AI algorithms get more complex, space requirements are going to go through the roof. HDDs are getting cheaper, particularly with so many commercial uses for them these days, it makes more sense to think that future systems will rely more on downloadable games than physical media games. It eliminates the problems with space constraints and knocks off a lot of the overhead of advertising, printing, delivering and reselling games.

hpkomic
Competition between seperate consoles is good for the industry overall.

QFT

Wouldnt that eliminate the good games that each company owns by itself
like Halo or Zelda or etc?

either that or might the games be watered down like those games
that are produced for each console like the racing ones or sports ones?

Kxela
Wouldnt that eliminate the good games that each company owns by itself
like Halo or Zelda or etc?

either that or might the games be watered down like those games
that are produced for each console like the racing ones or sports ones?

The theory is that it would be just the opposite of that, because developers only need to make one version of the game, so they don't have to water it down for three different consoles. They can concentrate on it working well for one console. And the first-party games like Halo and Zelda would still exist, but I bet they wouldn't be as good since somebody like Nintendo and Microsoft wouldn't have the motivation of trying to get everyone to buy their console.

Actually, the problem with the single console approach isn't that game quality would go down. If anything, if the major game comapnies were forced to compete over software, they would need to make their games better to beat out their competitors in sales. The problem is that a set standard for hardware would result in a stagnation of development and an eventual decline in interest from the consumers. What keeps the console market going is the inevitable upgrade to the next generation. this keeps people buying new systems and games. Once we reach the height of graphical and AI technology, though, it will be up to the game developers to offer new experiences and franchises.

Isunkun is right on the money with that last post about how hardware standards would eventually hit bottom with only one console. Think about it, without the competition of a newer, better looking and better playing system what would gamers have to look forward to? This is one of the reasons I personally believe Atari bombed out in the late '80s. Lack of hardware and overly simplistic games in an era when Nintendo was coming of age.

But I do have to question whether we'll ever see the 'height' of graphical and AI tech. I mean, seriously, that would basically be emulating real life, right? And everyone knows how boring life actually is. I think there will never be a plateau for graphics and other advancements, just as there won't be with movies. I mean, CG effects don't look real, and I don't think they'll ever look as real as a stuntman doing the scene. But movies have a style all their own; same as video games will eventually. Different games will look different (e.g. cell-shading etc.) but I don't think we'll ever reach a point where we'll just stop and say, okay, this is good enough for me.

One thing that I've seen Isukun say a lot is the inevitability of us reaching a technological "Peak" in which it would be impossible for the systems to improve. Now while I don't doubt that it will happen eventually, I think that it's a long way off. And I also don't think that it would be the death of the gaming industry.

I've been playing with the things for years now, since I was 5 or so, and though they have upgraded with joysticks and such, I never really noticed that much of a difference. I still love my old games. In fact, I still play many of my SNES games. So really, I doubt that, even if we do reach a paragon of technological advancement, the industry will die. Because there will always be people like me.

I expect games to behave in the same way that books and movies have. Eventually, games will become just as accepted a form of media as the written language and theatre are. Many of the best old games will be considered "Classic" (The early Mario games come to mind, as well as some of the best newer games, since they'll be pretty old by that time), and may even be required material in classes studying gaming, possibly for becoming a developer, or even just studying the history of gaming. Like I said before, gaming will eventually be considered the same as other media, a form of self expression and entertainment.

As for the single console theory? I have no idea. While I would like to see it happen, I really don't know if it will. It's highly possible, especially if what I said earlier becomes true, in that it will allow game designers a greater freedom expressing themselves. And while it may stagnate the industry, you have to realize that some games will be good. The majority of movies and books are terrible, but there are always the gems that you can find. In fact, the gaming industry is like that right now. There are an enormous number of horrible games. But the best games are the ones that are always discussed. Horrible games are generally forgotten, unless they were hyped up to be better than they actually are.

I mean, seriously, that would basically be emulating real life, right?

Not necessarily. I think you are also confusing hardware topping out with a decline in creativity. Hardware will reach a plateau at some point. I don't expect us to get to that point for at least another 20 years, but some day we will reach a point where computers are rendering images with a level of detail that makes them indistinguishable from real life. Processing power will someday surpass that required by whatever AI routines we throw at it. This doesn't mean the games themselves will have no room for improvement. Programmers can always make a better AI, experiment with new genres, or even develop new input methods. So yes, even after the hardware tops out, video games will continue to evolve and improve.

I mean, CG effects don't look real, and I don't think they'll ever look as real as a stuntman doing the scene.

Someday they will, but not with the way we render things now.

And I also don't think that it would be the death of the gaming industry.

I don't think it will be the death of the gaming industry, either, just the death of consoles. I totally see the industry continuing to thrive, just with commercial prefab PCs which combine the functions of current PCs with gaming systems, communication, music and video (among a number of other things).