The irony of the single format dream

[Ady]

I'm still not convinced that a single format would be good, I can see it only coming about in a couple of senarios:

1) Sony win the next generation by such a big margin, and the xbox2/gc2 are such flops Nintendo & MS decide to call it a day and either license the hardware from sony (MS) or just make games for it (Nintendo). This would result in total domination from Sony, you would see with the PS4 a propritory disk format (publicly to reduce piracy) - limiting the pressing and thus the authorisation of all games to Sony. Don't forget that SCEA hate 2D, and anything "hardcore" - I'm conviced this would lead to an end of games like Ninja Gadien (at least with that difficulty level), Street fighter, Metal Slug and so on - but a growth in eyetoy based games, which are fine multiplay with non gaming friends, but not my choice for single player stuff at all. This dumbing down and even the end of certain genres is not what I want at all.

2) Sony, MS and Nintendos losses from the next generation are so bad and there is no clear leader they put aside their differences and work on a single platform. This is better, it would be more like the DVD model, and publishers would only have to meet certain basic requirements before publication. While this would result in more games initally, you would quickly see a couple of market leaders in each area, such as pro evo and FIFA for football, swallowing up all of the punters cash, leaving no room for new comers. We wouldn't see whole genres disppearing like with the option above, but you would see much less games, and possibly less innovation. Would splinter cell have done anywhere near as well as it did if it had been a PS2 exclusive? I very much doubt it, as Metal Gear has that market by the scruff of the neck.

Obviously senario 1 is much more likely to happen, still want your single format?

I never said I personally wanted the single format once in any of my posts, tankplanker. This thread was intended to be a hypothetical and entirely objective discussion of the concept.

[Moodmon]

It's all to do with the visuals. At the moment, 3D ages poorly (see some of Silicon Dreams early football games as an example). Eventually, I imagine we will reach a point where we cannot see any noticeable improvements (such as the relatively static picture quality in movies), and then maybe we will see something like a single console appear.

I think it will happen eventually, but as to what form it takes, what it can do, and who makes it I haven't the foggiest. Not that I'm at all bothered at the moment. The current situation will progress for a few more years at the very least, I reckon.

[Salsa Party Animal]

HDTV DVD would be nice, but say it came to england and we then adopt HDTV Blue Ray DVD for example. 90% of our DVDs will be fine for new TV with progressive scan and so on. It wouldn't be useless to watch.

If there is say Terminator 4 released in 2007 on DVD you can buy HDTV version, and there is no point replacing all your DVD for HDTV version as it is excellent anyway.

[tankplanker]

Legendary - it all depends on your setup, if the screen is large enough - and I'm talking about large plasmas or projectors here - dvd is good, but not always good enough, why else is there a market for 3rd party scalers.

People also see happy to pay over and over for the same product, why else do the DVD publishers get away with releasing the same basic content in new versions? Directors cuts, ultimate editions, superbit etc etc.

I suggest that you look at Microsofts attempt at HD DVD - assuming you have a high enough spec PC to do so: link

Blueray should be even better, it uses a lower compression ratio, and fingers crossed, should have lossless audio.

Ady - you can't look at the technical specs for a single format without looking at what the market would need to look like in order for it to come about as this will define what the product will look like, hence why I defined 2 different senarios.

In both cases the final product would be similar to a set top box, where the different manufactors try to generate a USP by either adding value (while the core functionality would remain identical) or going for the bottom end of the market like with Bush/Amstrad. This is excactly how the 3D0 and the Saturn licensed clones where marketed.

Another PC based standard would lead to further fragmentation - choice of components is bad for standardisation - obvious really, and developers either developing for the lowest common denominator or taking a shotgun approach and extending development time trying to code for all available platforms.

[Sketcz]

Erm... the 3DO was not the first console that attempted a single format by being manufactured by several different companies.
That was the MSX, which was also Sony's first foray into console hardware. Several companies agreed on a standard and all manufactured it. Sadly it never took off.

I do not think they will become more like PC's. For a start, I absolutely dispise PC gaming. My PC I bought after my PS, and while I can still buy new PS games and play them, my PC stopped running released games about 2 years after purchase.
The last game I could run vagually well was Deus-Ex.
That is ****ing pathetic.


Anyway, I personally am waiting for the days of a single format, since I believe whole heartedly that it will reinvigorate gaming in a big way.
So long as it stays away from:
* being like a PC (if they do converge, do not expect to see me in the next generation, I will be living in the mountains)
* the need for going online to access "off-disc-content" (surely its a modern gaming plague?)
* being forced to use connectivity to enjoy anything (like the annoying GBA connectivity)
* Having anything less than a 10 year life cycle
* Regional lockout
* Updates of any form

That and if it plays host to all types of games/genres from the obscure and independant to the mainstream and mass-marketed.

Then I would be really satisfied.

Well, I can dream cant I?

[SonicMarmite]

Way u gotta look at it is, atm we`ve got 3 formats, which get compared to vhs and betamax sometimes. Only in a far-dumber-than-that way, its like only certain good films would have been released on each of the 3, while the rest of the catalouge padded out by crap blockbusters.

People seem to be afraid of a single format in the belief it would only cause damage. This is utterly wrong without any doubt whatsoever. A few points:

1. Single format means that houses like sega would no longer split games across formats. Meaning every person who loves games, would only have to buy one format and then have access to EVERY game - not just the ones licensed to each machine.

2. This would also mean far lower costs for developers, and publishers, who currently have to spend a lot of extra money, time, and resources on each game, in order to port it over to each different format. So the minute sega have finished Monkeyball 3, instead of farting about porting it to PS2 and XBOX, they would be able to get right on with the next project.

3. The lack of innovation claim is total rubbish. If every developer is workin on the same machine, there won`t be anymore hiding crap clones on different formats. Every will game be directly head to head, which is a situation that ALWAYS causes innovation.

4. People say the hardware will be more expensive. How many people who say that, own a PS2, a GC, AND an XBOX right now? How many of these same people have bought extra pads, memory cards, etcetc for each of these machines? This is also likely to be unfounded mainly because if it is indeed some kind of licensed chipset, then there will almost certainly be ultra cheap barebones games machines, as well as all-singing, all-dancing home media systems based on the same hardware. Not to mention dozens of variations inbetween. Not to mention competing companies versions also cutting prices.

5. Can remember a particular dick going on about consoles and pads having "feel, man". Whos to say that Nintendo or Sega wouldn`t make not only their own licensed version of the single format hardware, but their own pads etc as well? And because the majority of the development costs of the hardware would be shouldered by the designer or the hardware, this would be more of a licensing deal which means much lower risk to them financially.

6. ALL games sales would be on one machine. Therefore, there would now be no risk of a developer spending a huge amount of money making a game for a new, lesser platform, and then it bombing bigtime cos the actual machine did. Spending millions of dollars on Shenmue, only for it to appear on the lowest selling format can`t have helped segas fortunes at all. This way developers would always have access to the largest audience of games buyers.

7. Because the industry would be much more streamlined for the reasons outlined above, and more stable, there is a much greater chance of wierd niche games appearing, and breaking even, than there currently is on 3 platforms. Lets say Niche Game X sold 50,000 copies on a platform that sold 10-20,000,000 units. The global amount of console units has got to be 100-150,000,000 units, which means assuming the single format sold the same amount, would mean the % of the games population that a game appeals to, is far, far larger in terms of actual units. So making niche games would be much less risky.

Could prolly list points all day, but single format is definately a good thing.

[Sketcz]

Well said Mr Marmite

[Brats]

I concur. Probably the best post in this thread by a country mile .

[Alf-Life]

Yeah, great post. The major disadvantage to all that, however, would be no more 'my console is better than yours' posts in forums.

[Ady]

An excellent pro-single format post there, SonicMarmite. And yeah, it'd kill fanboyism stone dead.

My only concern is that given how fast technology moves (and how many gamers and developers are so obsessed with flashy specs), isn't this single format machine likely to be 'upgraded' with alarming regularity?

[Brats]

But the differences between what we actually see on the screen will enter the realms of diminishing returns. Taking the Toy Story films as an example, the sequel is far more complex in its rendering than the original film, but most people can't tell a huge amount of difference between them. And certainly if it were a console, very few people would pay the price to upgrade from Toy Story performance to Toy Story 2 performance.

Also, even if someone did produce a more powerful alternative, which software publishers would support it? All publishers tend to lose money in periods of transition between consoles, so why would they to rock the boat of a single format that benefits them? Without any publisher support, a new format would die, regardless of the power.

[smellyirishman]

It would be nice alright in a perfect world(or maybe for this very reason it isnt perfect) to have one format, but firstly:

We would have no choice, this would be the best thing you could get, there would be no fanboys no one could love one machine for what it was as opposed to another and this lack of choice is always a bad thing

Secondly and more importantly , It will never happen, If sony(or any company) ruled the console world they would milk it, new consoles would be coming out every 2 years at most. A company eager for money would realise this and set up a rival company (microsoft). Notice the little circle we got going on here?!!

And thirdly if there was one format we would be ROBBED!! There would be no competition to lower prices and so we would suffer.

One format is good in an idealistic view, if everything worked out nicly it would be great, but everything would not work out nicly and we would only lose the competition that makes the industry so unique.