Thoughts About a "One-Console Future" for Video Games

I think this is an extreme case that would not occur if there was a standard for consoles. It is likely that if a PS3-esque machine was decided as the format for all video game systems, it wouldn't have been manufactured until it was easier/cheaper to produce (no rush to put the system out there). You can imagine the PS3 launching maybe 6 months later, when costs were probably close to half of what they were are launch IIRC. Of course, this all assumes that no other company could produce a PS3-esque system cheaper than what Sony could. Probably not a safe assumption.

If there was enough of a market for ~$1000 video game systems (like there were for $1000 HD movie players), they could possibly still launch at those prices, but I don't think there is much of market there.

I don't think these advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially if the "unique" features of the 2 consoles could be combined. For example, we could have a 360/PS3 with a Wiimote controller. Metroid Prime with next-gen graphics, COD4 with PC-esque controls, MLB 08 with a Wiimote, etc.

That would kill interest in games for consumers? This generation is a bit unusual because of the Wii, but using last-gen as an example, the variety and options that the PS2, Xbox and GC offered didn't really impact that much IMO. They all had minor differences, but in the grand scheme of the things, they were pretty much the same system with different gaming libraries (these libraries being the main reason for getting another console IMO). And I think this is more or less the case in most of the previous generations.

As I said, the Wii definitely offers variety in the console market this generation. You would possibly miss out on this kind of thing with only one console (of course, come next-gen, the variety could be gone again).

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by variety and options.

The extra competition you have among other publishers could be offset by the larger userbase of such a console. Selling 50K on a system with 2M units wouldn't necessarily be better than selling 100K on a system with 10M units.

Perhaps some smaller publishers will end up struggling (some may deserve it?), but I'd rather have the extra competition among software developers. It is kind of obvious in some genres that some publishers are profiting due to a lack of competition (say Take Two with their baseball games). Besides, it will be tough on small publishers regardless of what happens IMO. Rising development costs are making sure of that, especially for publishers that wish to develop for multiple consoles.

BTW, consider that there could be more games on store shelves. You wouldn't have to have 3 shelves for each type of console, even though some games show up on each shelf (say Madden). This could help out some of the smaller publishers in a way. Of course, by the time this all happens, we'll probably be transitioning to digital downloads for most/all games (or already there).

Hmm...maybe it wouldn't have all the options (maybe no PS3 Linux, no Wii channels, no MSN chatting, possibly no free online, etc.), but I think it could it have most of the major ones that people would really care about.

This would be difficult, but I think if they can do it in other industries, it could be done here too. Sony and Microsoft will probably end up launching different download services, but I think they could work it into a single console somehow. They could probably keep both and let consumers decide which one to use...or perhaps deciding which one should live would be a better way of describing it.

Yeah, that's true. They're a big player in the market today, but it would be difficult to give them much power in a committee or something (outside of being a large software publisher). That's why I said they're the strange one.

I do think that if Nintendo went software-only, they wouldn't necessarily end up with the same fate as Sega (unless they decided to make horrible decisions as well). But they obviously wouldn't give up making money on consoles AND software.

This would obviously be a concern, but if done right, I don't see how this would really differ from say Blu-ray players. You certainly would have video game systems that are much more capable than others. But when it comes to playing games, they should all work the same or roughly the same. The default dummy version may not have WiFi or SD memory card slots, but it should play all games just fine, just like the high-end systems. I suppose some features we have now could be lost with these low-end consoles, but I wouldn't really care too much about it.

I'm assuming that the only difference in features are minor features. If these systems could have different specs (faster processors, more RAM, Blu-ray instead of DVD for games, an offline-only system, etc.), then we have a problem. I would hope that this wouldn't be the case, but I suppose it could be difficult to agree on this (Is every system required to have a CPU from IBM? Or do they just have to be "similar"?).

True. But I don't think this console would last for 5-6 years like "normal consoles." It could possibly be around 10 years, which might make it easier to transition from generation.



Additionally, I'd like to reiterate that even though I am sort of pointing out how this could be possible and beneficial, I certainly don't think it is likely anytime soon (due to many of the reasons already given). I think when EA mentioned that they wanted a one-console future, they mentioned it would probably not be possible for up to 15 years or so. That's a long time. I'm assuming that by that time, the industry will be (much?) bigger, probably with a lot more casual gamers than there are now. I've kind of thrown this around already, but it could be possible that some new players entered the console market or that some may have even left the market. I'm assuming you guys can see where I'm going. I think most people would agree (myself included) that the way the market is today with the big 3, it is unrealistic to expect such a thing. But I wouldn't rule it out in the future, although I'm thinking it could always be a bit of a longshot depending on how things turn out.

Of course, that takes away a large discussion point here.

 

Hmm...yeah, I think you're probably right that this wouldn't result in consoles dropping in prices quicker than what we have now. I'd like to think that the average cost to buy a console (at least the low-end ones) would drop similar to the price drops we have now though. Perhaps competition wouldn't be as great, but I think it would still be there in some acceptable form (I think we should still end up with this one console being cheaper than buying 3 or more). Plus, I suppose for some people, the extra features would help out a lot. If they want to promote growth, it would be nice if they ran promotions similar to what HD DVD and Blu-ray did (maybe 3 free games and/or maybe accessories?).

True, that could be a problem. I think this setup could empower the software developers, so maybe they could help to make sure everything works out (assuming they're on the same page).

Yeah, they probably will continue to work on this idea for future products. It seems like it would be tough to implement, but it would be interesting to see if it was possible, let alone useful.

 

I think they're breaking even on both models, or are pretty close right now (might even have a slight profit on the 80GB SKU). Haven't paid attention to cost reduction news in a while.

I think if they waited ~6 months later, they could have gone from producing the Cell CPU @ 90nm to producing them @ 65nm like they are now (probably would have limited amount of consoles though). Blu-ray components would have been MUCH cheaper as well, even 6 months after launch (IIRC, diodes dropped to ~$8 around April of last year). Maybe it would be closer to ~9 months (and/or 40% less costs instead of 50%), but you get the idea.

 

Don't think I necessarily agree that a system's library will always get an identity. Sure, some systems have been labeled (GC had "kiddy" games, Xbox has only shooters/sports games, etc.). But I don't really think the PS1 and PS2 had these sorts of labels, unless you want to count "has all sorts of awesome games" as an identity (though I'll admit they were both a bit lacking in the FPS department). Some types of games were certainly more popular than others, but I think games of all types were successful enough to allow similar games to be made (and be successful). Of course, the PS1 and PS2 didn't have the market completely to themselves, but it probably wasn't too far from being the case.

I think this seems like a more attractive option only due to the Wii's other features. It seems great that for $250, you can buy a system that differs from both last-gen consoles and the other current consoles on the market. However, if this were to happen in the future, chances are that this system wouldn't really differentiate itself outside of its price point, which would put it in a bad spot (why not pay less for something almost as good, or pay extra for something much better?).

If the rest of the industry is in favor of the idea of a SuperConsole, Nintendo would (or should) follow. They would definitely be one of the hardest companies to convince, but it wouldn't be hard to convince them to go along with the idea if everyone else was already in favor (if nothing else, chances are that if all other developers were in favor of the idea, at least the developers working for Nintendo would also be in favor).

SuperConsole probably won't have the same sort of business model as consoles do today as far as adoption goes. Publishers worrying about small userbases are worried because this generation of consoles could be over in 2-3 years. For the SuperConsole, there would probably still be another 8 years or so (IMO anyway). It would probably be similar to adoption for DVD and Blu-ray (it may take 3-5 years to go "mainstream").

I think something will have to change in the industry to maximize the good that publishers could get from this model (although I think it is important that the industry changes regardless). This model should help to cut down development costs by quite a bit, but it doesn't really solve another problem. Any games that came out early on may not sell well later on in the generation. I don't know exactly how they compare, but I'm sure some of the early DVD/Blu-ray movies would sell more than some of these early games later on down the line (all else equal of course). If nothing else, movie studios can benefit from re-releases, which are a little harder to do with games (some publishers are trying this idea though, not sure how successful they've been). A somewhat separate issue, but I think it is important that the industry try to figure out (acceptable) ways to extend the sales window of a game rather than limiting sales to basically the first month or so (some games are exceptions of course, but this should be closer to movies).

I don't know if it would be that difficult to agree on at least a general idea of what the hardware should be like. The market will pretty much give them a good idea of where to go. Obviously, they can't go 10 years with a PS2-esque system (in terms of hardware), and then be able to really persuade people to switch to a GC-esque hardware for another 10 years. Doing that will cause the new format to fail, similar to say LaserDisc. This would lead to something that provides enough of a difference with what is out there today, but obviously something that isn't too state-of-the-art in order to maximize sales/profits.

We probably would miss out on the ability of certain companies that could really put together a powerful system for an affordable price. I think this wouldn't really be that big of a deal though, especially as we get more and more powerful (and more complicated) hardware. As long as the standard console provides a big enough jump over previous consoles, I don't think people would be bothered with the fact that they could be buying a system that offers 5%-10% better visuals.

Depends on how the committee wants things to go. Chances are that development kits (and development tools) would be more advanced and would go out much sooner for this SuperConsole than consoles today (imagine my PS3 example earlier, where it launches 6-9 months later to allow for a profitable system). If the committee thinks it is important to launch with Gears, Halo, GT, etc., they can certainly hold back on the release of the system until some/all of these games are ready (or almost ready).

Of course, if they plan on adoption being slow at first, it may not be that important to go all out at launch (although some these things should definitely be out within a few years).

Literally priced like the PS3 at launch ($500-$600), or insanely priced in a way that sort of compares to the PS3 (maybe $1200-$1600? I don't know). The first isn't really a problem IMO, but if the second is what you meant (and that was the low-end price for the console, high-end versions going for $2000 or whatever), then obviously there could be a problem. It would probably result in a failed format or something, probably similar to what would happen if Blu-ray players launched at $2000 or something like that.

How is this a problem if there are multiple manufacturers for the hardware? This would be one of the great benefits to a SuperConsole IMO. As it is now, if you love 360 games but hate the hardware failures, you're stuck unless MS can fix it. In this model, you could just buy a system from Toshiba, Samsung, Sony, etc., and you'd still be able to play all the games you'd want to play (including the games you already own).

Wow, is this really a problem? I wasn't aware that there were people frightened by the Wiimote. I could see people not wanting to use it for some games (fighting games, maybe RPGs, etc.), but I thought that was what the classic controller was for. I'm sure a similar approach would be taken if this was that big of an issue.

Unless this affects a lot of people (which would probably make the format fail), I don't think this is that big of a deal. You can't satisfy everybody, but hopefully you can make most of them happy.

BTW, I don't plan to take this approach with my paper. I'll probably take a neutral approach that just tries to explain in depth how things currently work and how things would have to work for this to happen.

I'll think I'll have to borrow the SuperConsole term though.

There will definitely be a ton of issues to work out. This won't be something that happens overnight, it will take a lot of time and work before this sort of direction would be accepted by all major parties. I tend to think that if these companies can work together in other industries, it should certainly be possible to do it in this industry. Is it likely? No, at least certainly not in the foreseeable future. But I think it is a possibility, probably one that becomes more and more likely as time goes on.

It will take a lot, but I think it probably would be better for the industry.

I just don't see consumers being limited all that much. I don't really think people will be affected by fewer options on the console level, and I don't think the gaming libraries will be negatively impacted (in terms of variety). We may have to agree to disagree on the latter, but I just don't think this would result in smaller publishers struggling more than they are now (actually think they'd probably do better) nor do I think we'll end up with mostly just shooters and sports games (well...not really any more than we have now, even w/o such a system).

 

I thought about that, but I don't really think the two situations are the same. The Wii might not be the highest priority for some publishers, but they still support it (EA, T2, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, etc.). And as it continues to sell like crazy, it will probably become a higher priority for these publishers.

In my scenario, Nintendo would literally have no support. They'd make the hardware and they'd make the software. Now, the Wii and Nintendo's software have done unbelievably well, so they may have actually been able to launch a system and support it by themselves. Whether they would do that w/o the hindsight we have now is the question, especially if it would be near impossible to gain support from other companies regardless of how successful they were. And as I mentioned, if every other developer somehow bought into the idea of a SuperConsole, I would think the developers at Nintendo would feel the same.

Of course, it is definitely possible (and more likely?) that other companies would possibly be unsure about this sort of future as well, and they could certainly work with Nintendo. In this case, we would have a format war of sorts, sort of like the HD format war actually (most of the industry was in one direction, but a few major players were in another, and other major players were indecisive).

Yeah, it definitely isn't a safe assumption, probably similar to a lot of assumptions I've made. I think there could be some things that would be similar for every developer, but it is hard to say for sure, especially without any Japanese developers chiming in on this issue (I think only Western developers have commented on this idea?).

It is going to be 10+ pages, so it's going to be a bit long (may have to break it up into multiple posts). Of course, I guess it wouldn't be any different than reading through some of these discussions.

Of course, if I post it here, then I'd actually have to put a lot more effort into the paper than I was planning to put into it.