If the next generation went universal?

BlitzKrieg

If (and it's a big IF since no one has shown any sign of stepping down)...If the next generation of consoles ended the notion of competing consoles, no playstation, no xbox, no nintendo just an industry wide agreed minimum standard for what a eight generation console needed to be hardware wise, how would it shape out and would we benefit or not from it?


Allowing the opening of the market for other hardware companies to treat games consoles like DVD players, you would get the cheap option which would meet the minimum standard etc or you could buy that nicer more expensive model by sony which comes with its own in built wifi, a blu ray player and decent sized hard drive.


I know there are two points people will already be jumping to make:

1. The 3DO tried that and failed which I agree but I think the development


2. That's what PC's are *duh* to which I say *yes* lets openly blur the line. Allow me to go into a shop and buy any game and it will run on console or PC alike. Let me connect a usb keyboard and mouse to my console and play starcraft 2 or an FPS how it is meant to be played.


But this is a thread more about how the industry would change for better or worse if this was to happen.


First some thoughts on why this generation might be the one where this should happen.

1. the rumoured spec leaks for both the ps4 and new xbox and the released specs for the Wii U are all AMD based and while the Wii U is underpowered, the xbox and ps4 are rumoured to be quite similar. The era of vastly different hardware architecture has in my opinion ended with the PS3, not a failure in itself but the limitations of a unique hardware design proved damaging in an industry that has grown much more reliant on 3rd party developers.

2. 3rd party developers have never wielded so much power as they did this generation. They would sing joy and praise for the end of the cost of developing for multiple formats.

3. The rise of the service industry in gaming. Xbox Live, PSN, Kinect Steam etc. There has been an explosion this generation where its the service provided and the choice of controller options has grown to be as major of a factor in console choice as the games/hardware and every controller and add on today is USB based. It also has seen other major companies move into the same areas with the like of EA's origin.

4. The growing rise of digital distribution would put an end to the issue of format. Allowing the physical side to go into SD cards.

To me I'd imagine a universal console would see the big 3 or at least microsoft and Sony move into developing their OS services more. You could own a console that has xbox live and the playstation network on them They would offer essentially what you find on the current generation, online market, achievements and friends list, but unlike today, you could choose which one is on your console, or even have both. The competition will be for people to sign on to their gold/+ versions so the competition would be over who offers the better online servers, exclusive titles in each market place, games developed by first party would only allow online play with their service. DLC deals etc. This is all happening already now but with the extra headache of having to buy exclusive hardware to access one or the other, I say get rid of the hardware requirement. Allow me if I have a powerful enough PC to do this completely from my PC or to buy a cheap console model.


And that would be where the meat of the next generation would be, in OS services. Steam could actually move into consoles and operate as a direct competitor as could Onlive, EA's origin or Blizzard's battle.net. To play games all you need is any of these OS on your console to launch it. Which one you use would be completely dependent on what treats they offer if you sign up to their subscription service or use their online market.

While the rumours of the next generation going completely digital distribution worries a lot of people I'd think with a universal design I think you could see the dvd/blu ray replaced with an SD card equivalent for the cheaper models while the more expensive models will fully support online download and play. I dont think any one would go for a fully cloud service like Onlive.

Lionel Messy

A business without competition is no business at all.

BlitzKrieg

Lionel Messy wrote: »

A business without competition is no business at all.

As already said the competition can be shifted from hardware to service. Where it would be more fitting with the now much larger 3rd party software has become.

Overheal

universal, like.... some sort of Personal Computer, perhaps?

BlitzKrieg

Overheal wrote: »

universal, like.... some sort of Personal Computer, perhaps?

Somebody read the title but not the post

chrislad

Overheal wrote: »

universal, like.... some sort of Personal Computer, perhaps?

Great! Fancy a game of Halo: Reach or God of War on our Personal Computers!

:pac:

On topic, while it would be a convenience for the consumer, I think it would be a lot of work for the likes of Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc.

Those companies are large enough as it is, and I'm sure the strings that need to get pulled are enormous, can you imagine a company at 10 times the size? The right hand won't even know it has a left hand, let alone what it's doing!

Overheal

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Somebody read the title but not the post

I had read it, and it still doesnt make sense. You're basically suggesting locked down PCs that still have exclusive titles on the various DD platforms. I just really don't see the point, at all. Might as well just say, Hey someone should put out a nice prefab gaming PC, so people who don't want to buy their own without the extra work of a PC etc. can do that. I mean hell thats basically what Windows 8 is anyway. You know XBL is baked into Windows 8, yes? I spent 20 minutes yesterday making my little avatar dude.

chrislad wrote: »

Great! Fancy a game of Halo: Reach or God of War on our Personal Computers!

You laugh as if this isn't technically feasible, or enjoyable. Yet I've played Space Marine, Darksiders, Skyrim, Halo, Mass Effect, Dead Space, Super Meat Boy, Red Faction, Prince of Persia, and a host of others on the PC using an Xbox 360 controller, and you know what, it's exactly like playing it on an Xbox, but with much better graphics. So I don't quite understand the punchline. You can't even pull the Couch vs. Deskchair argument out, wireless peripherals have been more than functional for years now. Console gamers have been using them for years without complaint. If you so desire it's a real easy prospect to link your PC up to your TV (which itself can also be done wirelessly these days..) grab your wireless controller and have at it.

Helix

the generation after the coming one will be exactly like this

it'll all be pc based, with players signing up for the cloud service of their choice

smart tvs, bluray players, home theatre systems etc will all come with the service apps available out of the box

calex71

Interesting concept, well more than a concept I think as others have said it will be a reality before long, I'd say within 5 years maybe. Wasn't there a thread a while back on a steam box ?

Could see it going the route of the smart phone model perhaps, where each company has their own implementation of android or a proprietary one like apple but where games work regardless of the hardware across the platform.

This kind of thing could be rolled out now , it's now next gen nor is a new model as it's not that far removed from the media center under the tv systems or the later blue ray stuff that had been around for years. The problem lies with uptake and agreement on a standard which I could never see the big 3 current gen console makers agreeing on which opens the for the likes of apple or steam or google to muscle in and dominate leaving the others as relics of the past so to speak.

That said I think we a ways off current full time gamers adopting something like that full time as opposed to the casual ones...... or are we? Normally I'd be the first to cry over my xbox controller having to be wrestled out of my cold dead hand and my physical disc's but my attitude towards this has softened significantly lately to a point where I'm very open minded and actively reading on the latest delivery methods and enviously eyeing up some of the higher end smart tv's

Helix

the hardware companies don't even need to be on board really. everything will be streaming from high end pc farms, so consoles themselves will be dead. there'll be no need for any kind of box at all really. all that'd need to be agreed on is a universal controller interface standard, which would most likely be bluetooth, and an accepted controller layout (not necessarily style, but number of buttons, motion control etc.)

once that's done the app on your smart tv/pc would be relatively straightforward - you log in, pick from the games, renting or buying as you see fit, and start playing immediately. ive been convinced for years now that the next generation of consoles will likely be the last one we ever see, and im getting more sure of it every passing month tbh

we're not too far away from a point where EVERYTHING is streamed in terms of entertainment

ScumLord

The only reasons for not doing this is financial. They make more money the way things are and have no intention of sharing profits. They may well be forced into it down the road as hardware moves towards cloud based systems essentially making all hardware exactly the same but you can be sure they'll fight all that tooth and nail.

richymcdermott

I expect consoles will be replaced by a universal box like apple tv box , there use to be a difference with playing a console or pc but this generation consoles are trying to hard to be pc there is no differences anymore.
I believe Its going to happen , there be nothing left for the big 3 than just be like sega and make games, we will have this universal box hook up to your tv and internet router and you be streaming movies, and games on it .
Apple by accident have crawled there way leading the casual game market and if they wanted to get a big foot in , consoles could be gone

BlitzKrieg

ScumLord wrote: »

The only reasons for not doing this is financial. They make more money the way things are and have no intention of sharing profits. They may well be forced into it down the road as hardware moves towards cloud based systems essentially making all hardware exactly the same but you can be sure they'll fight all that tooth and nail.

Actually the reason I was thinking this is because financially this would possibly suit sony and microsoft more then persisting on isolated hardware platforms.

Putting out new consoles puts them both at a lost and they rely on high software sales to make up for it.

When each console in each generation was incredibly unique this model made sense. The difference between an N64 and a playstation is blatant and the PS2 had a huge hardware element with it doubling as a DVD player.

But this last generation the hardware aspect proved to be hindrance more then the unique selling point that sony hoped for. With cell being a difficult system for 3rd party developers initially and blu ray not being the core sell factor as dvd was with the ps2.

That and the rumours of the next generation having all 3 consoles being quite similar under the hood, with them all being AMD and Radeon systems, the real selling points for each console is going to be peripheral and software based. There is no unique sony hardware on the horizon and Microsoft are not a hardware company, Nintendo have all but already moved out of unique hardware and are already focusing on their peripheral/software support as the cornerstone to not just the upcoming wii u but the previous Wii.

Sony will want to stay in the hardware business, but being able to bring their console production in line with their dvd player production would be appealling and the playstation library is probably now with the exception of nintendo the strongest list of exclusive titles over the last 3 generations that would be a strong basis for focusing playstation as an Operating system over being hardware.

I had read it, and it still doesnt make sense. You're basically suggesting locked down PCs that still have exclusive titles on the various DD platforms. I just really don't see the point, at all. Might as well just say, Hey someone should put out a nice prefab gaming PC, so people who don't want to buy their own without the extra work of a PC etc. can do that. I mean hell thats basically what Windows 8 is anyway. You know XBL is baked into Windows 8, yes? I spent 20 minutes yesterday making my little avatar dude.

Yes I knew xbl is baked into windows 8 I mentioned that in the OP. And honestly from how this generation went and the rumours of the next consoles are pretty much a prefab gaming PC already. What I am discussing is actually having the industry recognise a standard and removing the boundaries of hardware. And we have exclusive titles on various DD platforms already (half life series on steam, starcraft on battle.net and ME3 on Origin) so having microsoft and sony at least moving into this same field and saving themselves a tonne of costs from hardware just seems logical to me.

Varik

Putting out a game ( or any product) puts developers at a initial loss until it sells and recoups this as well but with consoles likely to being using more standard parts rather than new complex proprietary ones we'll see manufacturers profiting per console rather than making things worse until much later revisions, changes due to scale, of production or high software sales.

As long as development cost don't get out of hand and considering the current/last generation will be the last to have any unique hardware this is likely.

ScumLord

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Actually the reason I was thinking this is because financially this would possibly suit sony and microsoft more then persisting on isolated hardware platforms.

Putting out new consoles puts them both at a lost and they rely on high software sales to make up for it.

Putting out new consoles just makes them more money. People buy new consoles and new games. I'm actually surprised how stagnant the consoles market has been for the past few years.

Microsoft are not a hardware company,

Microsoft may not make as much hardware as Sony but what hardware they do make and associate themselves with is fairly decent.

Microsoft are setting themselves up nicely for the next round in computing. I don't know why they haven't already integrated xbox and gaming for windows? With the direction they're going with windows phone integrating with xbox live they could easily turn the lot into one seamless online gaming hub without losing the console (people will still want it's simplicity or they could even turn it into a consumer PC lite for accessing Microsoft content) and possibly tightening their control over PC gaming while expanding onto the mobile market.

Overheal

calex71 wrote: »

Interesting concept, well more than a concept I think as others have said it will be a reality before long, I'd say within 5 years maybe. Wasn't there a thread a while back on a steam box ?

Could see it going the route of the smart phone model perhaps, where each company has their own implementation of android or a proprietary one like apple but where games work regardless of the hardware across the platform.

But we're not talking about phones or tablets. I sell those things all day. Those are built using very specialized parts to fit in your pocket or in your hand, work with a touch interface and be thinner than a notepad. You can't just buy tablet parts off the shelf and build your own. You can't even really do that with a Laptop (well - you can, just that nobody does, because the concept of doing so is a bit pants). It's painfully easy to do with computers, up to the point where you can turn off your PC, swap out the processor, reboot, and it's going to run with barely a complaint (other than to say "Windows detected new hardware. ~~~Huzzah!~~~")

Android is an OS made for devices/hardware which users can not themselves easily fabricate using a standard set of parts; it's Kernel is designed to take advantage of Mobile hardware, namely Nvidia Tegra processors [and to handle all the DRM involved in connecting your Phone, 3G and 4G devices to proprietary GSM and CDMA networks...], and Windows Mobile is designed for ARM, and iOS for the line of Samsung A5 and A5X chips, etc. (where Windows, Linux and Mac are designed at the Kernel level to work at the assembly level with Intel and AMD processors. Run around your windows installation files for a moment and see how much bloat you have in there, with about a hundred folders listed for various AMD and Intel instruction sets, only a fraction of which your particular PC utilizes - but its what gives the OS it's universal versatility). Oh and there are free OSs too: Linux, and google when they aren't making Android, also make google Chrome OS.

I just don't see why a console requires Special Hardware, like a Tablet or a Phone. Again, I don't get how this isn't just thinly veiled thread entitled "why consoles need to become PCs". I can plug a Kinect into my PC. And a Controller. Look: a "console"! The fact that a PC can emulate every console that has ever been known to exist (and this current gen will be no exception, given time) should be your clear indicator. You know whats ironic about that? Your PC is more backwards compatible to PSX games than your PS2. Burn.

I'm begging for someone to correct me and make me sound foolish about this, because it would be nice to see what the hell you are all talking about. All I see is a discussion about a PC with a fancy name associated with it.

What I am discussing is actually having the industry recognise a standard and removing the boundaries of hardware

Heh, that's up to the publishers more than the console developers.

In PC space there are standards, like DirectX. You do have differentiators like PhysX but the cool thing about that (much as I loathe it, and dont buy into it) is that the PC has basically 2 different flavors of gaming platform: in CPU space you have Intel or AMD, and in GPU space you have Nvidia and AMD Radeon. The industry does recognize those standards, and the system builders do recognize they have tangible options in customization. The great thing though, is I only need to buy the Game once, and the same files will run on AMD, Intel, or Nvidia. Actually the only differentiator there is OS compatibility. Next hurdle?

If the publishers really wanted they could just develop for the PC hardware, since it's all scalable: your games are pretty indiscriminate about which Intel Processor you use, for instance, since each new processor is just a build up from the last. Theres your other standard, and its been recognized for decades.

Frankly what the whole console equation boils down to one thing: Piracy. Publishers bank huge on this concept, that because say, PS3's cel processor would be hard to emulate readily, you can't just download their game and have at it (uh, yeah) so it forces gamers to go the "legit" route. Same thing with Xbox, I don't think I've really ever tried or heard of anyone managing to just pop God of War into the PC and have it run properly. Or a Wii game. Yet.

The only thing really keeping gaming consoles around is that safety blanket that gamers wont pirate your crap, and (I'll use Call of Duty here) script kiddies won't install god damn wall hacks and spoil your **** because you decided dropping dedicated server support was a stroke of genius (it was a stroke of something..). So they have some things right there, but not others, in that it still forces kind of a sticky situation where you will get console exclusives and then you have people buying multiple consoles and all that other crap. In an ideal world, nobody would steal and we'd all have PCs right from the Go.

/ranting

Dyr

Hold on if you had universal platforms would the thumby bears not just get whacked by the glorious PC gaming master race online?

Grumpypants

The thing with the consoles is that the manufacturers have a dedicated platform and they charge third party developers to release games on those platforms. This is why they sell at a loss to gain market share.

Helix

Grumpypants wrote: »

The thing with the consoles is that the manufacturers have a dedicated platform and they charge third party developers to release games on those platforms. This is why they sell at a loss to gain market share.

swap console with "online service" and it's the same though. they'd probably make more money that way in fact, and both sony and microsoft should have very few problems offering psn and xbox live cloud solutions as smart apps for tvs in 7 years time

hooradiation

Overheal wrote: »

The only thing really keeping gaming consoles around is that safety blanket that gamers wont pirate your crap,

And the shittonne of money and market share they have.

Overheal wrote: »

In an ideal world, nobody would steal and we'd all have PCs right from the Go.

Well, you're half-right.

Grumpypants

Helix wrote: »

swap console with "online service" and it's the same though. they'd probably make more money that way in fact, and both sony and microsoft should have very few problems offering psn and xbox live cloud solutions as smart apps for tvs in 7 years time

I can see a time when you buy a Sony TV and you get a Controller with it to use their built in Cloud gaming service. Similar to the internet enabled TV being sold now.

hooradiation

Grumpypants wrote: »

I can see a time when you buy a Sony TV and you get a Controller with it to use their built in Cloud gaming service. Similar to the internet enabled TV being sold now.

I would be ok with this.

Or at least a generic "GameBox" device I could hook into whatever existing setup I had.

kickarykee

It would have advantages and disadvantages but generally I think the competition would just shift from who sells the most consoles to who sells the most games as it did with Sega when they stopped producing their own hardware.
I don't think it would too great, though... competition keeps things fresh and if there was only one console each generation companies wouldn't have to come up with cooler stuff than the others all the time and thus things would become pretty boring I guess.
I'd rather go on buying two or three systems each generation than getting one ****ty one.

richymcdermott

kickarykee wrote: »

It would have advantages and disadvantages but generally I think the competition would just shift from who sells the most consoles to who sells the most games as it did with Sega when they stopped producing their own hardware.
I don't think it would too great, though... competition keeps things fresh and if there was only one console each generation companies wouldn't have to come up with cooler stuff than the others all the time and thus things would become pretty boring I guess.
I'd rather go on buying two or three systems each generation than getting one ****ty one.

why would you want to buy all systems than just have a universal console that has all games from all systems ?
the game experience isnt going to change and quite frankly it be better than having one platform being held down by another just cause one less capable of shelling more power. also i much rather prefer to ever own one system than have to keep shelling out 300 plus quid to upgrade it and re start the gaming library and can just enjoy playing games with my friends all on one system.

johnny_ultimate

Overheal wrote: »

Frankly what the whole console equation boils down to one thing: Piracy. Publishers bank huge on this concept, that because say, PS3's cel processor would be hard to emulate readily, you can't just download their game and have at it (uh, yeah) so it forces gamers to go the "legit" route. Same thing with Xbox, I don't think I've really ever tried or heard of anyone managing to just pop God of War into the PC and have it run properly. Or a Wii game. Yet.

The only thing really keeping gaming consoles around is that safety blanket that gamers wont pirate your crap, and (I'll use Call of Duty here) script kiddies won't install god damn wall hacks and spoil your **** because you decided dropping dedicated server support was a stroke of genius (it was a stroke of something..). So they have some things right there, but not others, in that it still forces kind of a sticky situation where you will get console exclusives and then you have people buying multiple consoles and all that other crap. In an ideal world, nobody would steal and we'd all have PCs right from the Go.

/ranting

You know, while you're entitled to your format preferences, you really need to realise that most people actually like consoles, for a wide variety of reasons. Because they're a box that'll play every game for the format from the off, and will do for at least half a decade. That there's no need to even worry about compatibility, because it isn't an issue. That the social aspect - 'my friend has a 360, therefore...' - is persuasive. That many couldn't care less about dedicated servers, because they spend so little time in multiplayer. That they have a small tonne of format exclusive games that makes them all stand out as individuals. That we don't give a crap about what graphic chip we have, because graphics are not the be all and end all. That Nintendo exist. That we like a bit of healthy competition. That they can peacefully (theoretically) co-exist with PCs. That split-screen is a joy. That a multi-format gamer (PC, handheld, console, mobile) is the happiest gamer.

A militantly pro-PC stance seems to me as short-sighted as a militantly pro-console stance, and it's frustrating seeing it pulled out everytime a discussion of this ilk is raised (very frequently). Piracy is not the only reason (it is one reason) consoles exist. The fact that console games sell several million more copies than PC equivalents is for a whole range of factors, and to suggest it's more simplistic than that is itself a simplistic argument.

A hypothetical ideal world where there was but one format and everyone embraced it in a great utopian harmony would be super for a plethora of reasons too, not least of which would be that it would halt the repetitive arguments and faction wars of this kind. But in the commercial and technical reality of now, a multi-format world exists, and it provides less headaches to just accept that.

Overheal

5 years of format compatibility, and then the next thing comes out, and your old games won't run on it. The social aspect is going to be a null point, with XBL coming to PC you're able to interact with gamers from either platform.

That we don't give a crap about what graphic chip we have, because graphics are not the be all and end all.

Ok. My stance doesn't rely on that in the foggiest. Since any company can put out a prefab PC (and they do.) optimize it for gaming and sell it to a novice, most users have never seen the inside of their desktops. Doesn't mean the game software will be less likely to run. How well it runs is up to what edition you have. That's all.

The only time you have me beat is LAN. Yes LAN happens a lot with PC, but how easy is it to go spend the weekened at your friend's, bring 4 xbox consoles, 4 copies of Halo and 16 controllers with 128 bottles of beer? Not that very many people are that deranged. And saying that, we LAN-party'd C&C Generals quite a lot in College. And Sins. and a few other things.

Again I think all we're talking about here are LAN-box PCs, optimized for gaming with an OS like Windows 8 that makes it easy to fire up in the evenings, grab a controller and play.

I think maybe you're looking for not just a "DirectX11 Compatible" type of standard (which, yeah ok) but more of an Energy Star certified type of thing. Like, you'd want companies to be able to slap a sticker on their Gaming PCs that says something like "Games for Windows Live - 2012" Which means it meets the requirements for that calendar year. Gamer goes to buy the Sims and it's easy to read "Games for Windows Live 2012 or later" and be able to know their Game PC will run it without throwing a hissy.

kickarykee

richymcdermott wrote: »

why would you want to buy all systems than just have a universal console that has all games from all systems ?
the game experience isnt going to change and quite frankly it be better than having one platform being held down by another just cause one less capable of shelling more power. also i much rather prefer to ever own one system than have to keep shelling out 300 plus quid to upgrade it and re start the gaming library and can just enjoy playing games with my friends all on one system.

Like I just said, I believe that with only one system on the market innovation would more or less stop or evolve way slower cause no one would care how well the system actually is since people will buy it for the new games that come out anyway. With multiple systems to go, each company bringing one out (read Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo) needs to give its very best to make it a really great deal which in turn makes the consoles better. Why give 100% to make it awesome if you're 100% sure people will get it, anyway cause there's no other? No one would do that.

If you don't like one of the systems now, just don't get it - most games are multi-system titles, anyway ...