http://criminalcrackdown.blogspot.com/2008/01/all-for-one.aspx

I' ve mentioned this before, it' s a pipe dream but a unified platform would kickass.

I agree. It would mean we could all play exclusives!

I used to think a unified platform was a great idea, but I' ve totally changed my viewpoint on it. There are too many glaring flaws to make it a good thing, or even functional.

Having a unified platform, in the sense that there would be a unifying standard for game performance, and a unified software performance specification would certainly be a bad thing. Some of the best looking games of our generation have come from developers exploiting specific hardware strengths in their respective consoles. With few exceptions, multiplatform games rarely look and play identically on their different consoles, and the ones that do aren' t amazing looking.

Having a unified platform, in the sense that there is one standard game console that all games play on is an even worse idea. The lack of strong competition would bring about an iPod syndrome in the games industry. They almost certainly wouldn' t have a total monopoly on the industry, but would have enough to charge exorbitant amounts of money for their average products, with people coughing up the cash left & right. Not a good thing.

On top of that, if there' s no competition, why do they need to fight to make a superior product?

Do you want WiFi? Too bad, we don' t feel like putting it in.

Do you want format support for media playback? Meh, we' ll get around to it... eventually.

Want better graphics? Wait for UniBox 4.

It sounds good in theory, but then again, so does Russian Socialism.

Well, I read the guys original post and some of the responses and I must say, I see few advantage to having a unified console. The only thing that would be good about a unified system is the absence of programming to the lowest common demominator. That' s kind of being dealt with now, though, with the big software corporations assimilating smaller ones, and having different teams working on different systems.

Of course this will NEVER happen, because someone always comes along and says, " you know, they should have *this* in the system, and they should do this *that* way instead" . Then a new system is born. I think it' s inevitable.

hai
unified platform gives me lulz
kthxbai

The main draw to a unified platform for me would be so that big electronics companies like Panasonic and Samsung and the like could mass produce gaming platforms as if they were DVD players or toasters. Everything would become very very cheap, and everyone would have one.

But the standard of equipment would be so low and generic it wouldn' t be worth having for people like us, only the type of people who buy Wii' s for Christmas.

For the rest of us, the console race is the perfect balance. And PCs fill in any gaps.

I don' t want everyone to have a game system. I' m tired of dealing with the lowest common intellectual denominator online as it is.

Ah but Jaffe does. It' d make him more money for no extra work.

ORIGINAL: choupolo

Ah but Jaffe does. It' d make him more money for no extra work.

Exactly .. The only real reason developers want a unified platform is so that they can have a larger audience and make more money without having to port to multiple platforms . I don' t blame them , but a unified platform will probably never happen unless of course a couple of makers pull out of the industry . The only company that might pullout might be M$ and that too seems unlikely now ..

The biggest problem with consoles is that there are too many of them. Consoles are like media formats, you only want one. Right now we' re actually seeing development for games being pushed back and in some cases cancelled because the install base of individual consoles is too small. With less consoles comes more games with bigger budgets.

If you had Nintendo, Sony and MS all supporting one console things would be far better. Assuming that they all subsidized the initial cost, we could have a console worth a lot more sold for a lot less. The cost would even be cost reduced at a faster rate since more people would adopt the machine.

If I could implement this I would have support for three types of controllers...

Like I said it' s a pipe dream. The console manufacturers have no intention of doing what' s best for us, or the game publishers. There' s no question about it though, if the console in question would be of good quality it would bring gaming from the gutter to the big leagues.

Don' t even think about giving me this no competition monopoly bullshit. The competition is with PC and themselves. Every generation has to best itself techologically and stay competitive price wise to support a large enough user base in order to sell more games.

History is filled with many examples of where too much competition hurts everyone. Gaming consoles is one of the best examples. Having Sony MS and Nintendo work on one console instead of divide resources on three would have the potential of creating a better machine than all three invididual consoles combined. That' s common sense.

The three consoles together cost roughly a 1000$, I' m talking about a console worth 800$, sold initially for 500$ and 250$ after two years. That would be feasible if there was only one on the market. Console manufacturers scramble to lower prices (except Nintendo) to expand user base. When you only have one console and the market this would be a far easier task.

The one thing that keeps a unified console from becoming a reality, is that all the companies have different philosophies about how to grow the industry.With Microsoft they believe online is the future. Sony is banking on Blu-ray ftw. Nintendo is strictly all about the games, and making them more accessible to a larger audience. Who' s right? Well, it' s up to each individual to decide.

I don' t believe that a unified console would necessarily be good, anyway. Who' s to say that the prices would be cheaper? Who' s to say that hardware revisions wouldn' t take three times as long (new console every 12 years!? No thanks!)? Who' s to say that the specs on the machines wouldn' t be like the Wii instead of going for power, like the other guys? More games? Doubt it! Better games? REALLY doubt it!

Just seems like people want to imagine that it would be SOO great, when there probably would be too many compromises to consider it " better" .

How could you say the games wouldn' t be better? There would be more competition, all the games would be on the same platform. The Install base would be much higher along with the budgets.

Imagine what it would be like if there were six consoles. It wouldn' t make things better, things would be worse. If you had more consoles Developers would have to spend even more resources to make multiplatform games, and the budgets for exclusive titles would be much smaller. It works on a continuum and three isn' t the sweet spot, one is.

Another advantage is that there would be more shelve space at retail as they wouldn' t have to hold the same game for multiple platforms.

The thing is, you said there are three different philosophies. Fair enough but none of them conflict with eachother. It' s pretty obvious that Blu-ray will win the format war so eventually BD will be in future consoles anyways. There' s is no reason a console made by all three can' t support Live. The only reason Nintendo and Sony haven' t done the same type of thing is because they didn' t have the resources. As for Nintendo, just because they went a different route this generation doesn' t mean they will take the same path everytime. Who knows if it will work twice?

I doubt the machine would only see a refresh every 12 years, it' s in their best intrest to have the hardware comparable with PC.

Lets say Nintendo absolutely does not want to invest in high spec hardware, which would have more to do with their in house development team not being able to keep up than anything else. I' d still be happy to see MS and Sony join forces and leave Nintendo to do their own thing.

Obviously this won' t happen, like Majik said before MS joined the console business to slow Sony down more than anything else. MS certainly doesn' t want to help Sony.

Obviously this won' t happen, like Majik said before MS joined the console business to slow Sony down more than anything else. The certainly don' t want to help them.

But you have to look at the reasons for that. If they could make a deal where Sony agreed to keep out of the PC software market, Sony built the hardware for the console, and MS built the OS for the console, I think all parties would be pretty happy with the result.

And could you imagine the BC on a console between the 2? Every PS2, 360, and PS3 game, plus the xbox 1' s BC list? That would create a library in the Thousands on launch, with god knows how many classic must own games.

But you have to look at the reasons for that. If they could make a deal where Sony agreed to keep out of the PC software market, Sony built the hardware for the console, and MS built the OS for the console, I think all parties would be pretty happy with the result.

That' s a good point.

But as Chee Saw said, how can they decide on a single philosophy for the console. The console cant have everything and please everyone. The obvious way is to just cater for the majority.

You wanted 3 controllers agent, thats just the start of diversification again. Someone doesn' t like the controller they' ll invent another, then devs have to take it into account. Someone doesn' t like the layout/style of a certain menu, too bland, too colourful, too simple, too complex. You start to diversify until each persons console is totally different, or you ban diversification altogether.

If the one console is to stay one console, you have to force a standard on everyone, and that standard is likely to please only the casual majority.

Even though the 3 consoles are different versions of the same thing, they strike a balance between standardisation and choice. As they say, 3 is the magic number.

There is no difference in philosophy between Sony and MS that couldnt be worked out. Sony wants Blu Ray, MS wants LIVE. I dont see how those 2 things conflict with eachother.

The nature of consoles wouldn' t allow it to work.

The closest thing they can get to " unified" is just having 2 consoles.

Gather a few mega corporations behind 1 console, and a few others behind another, and go to war. Kind of like HD DVD Vs Bluray, the market is kind of saturated with 3 consoles, I think 2 is always best.

Its not just Live and BR though. Its the every other thing, down to the style of the menus, the look and function of the console, the feel and function of the controller, etc.

The main issue is the overall complexity of the system. If you' re going to make one machine for everyone, it has to be simple enough for everyone to use. So for people like us it would just be frustrating.

socialism = fail, competition = win

But as Chee Saw said, how can they decide on a single philosophy for the console. The console cant have everything and please everyone.

Yes they can. At least in the ways that matter. The benefit of higher specs and less division are worth the small sacrifices. Or even just MS ans Sony would still be better. Maybe Nintendo doesn' t have the capacity for this type of cooperation. So lets say Sony and MS join to make one console.

Traits of a Sony/MS console:
-High end specs (lets call the best they would do seperatly medium spec)
-Sony style casing
-MS menu functionality with Sony style
-Live service
-All Sony and MS platform games
-BD Rom drive
-Standard HDD
-Support for Sony and MS controller or a new one entirely that doesn' t suck
-Larger marketplace
-Two versions, one with BC to 360 and PS3 games, the other without BC.