Denis Dyack: "Multiple Consoles Are Slowing Us Down"

There has been a lot of talk recently about the possibility of a single-platform video game industry, where all games play on one system. Silicon Knights founder Denis Dyack says this is not only "inevitable," but it's actually essential.

In speaking at the Develop Conference in Brighton, Dyack participated in a session called, "Design: Video Games as The Eighth Art," and he said the game industry must follow in the movie industry's footsteps and "adopt a universal medium." As reported by VideoGamer, Dyack had this to say:

"Because we have the three consoles we're in this really weird state. The cycle right now for movies has become pretty well established. For video games it's become hyperbolic almost. There were 300 or so games released last November. We're in a state of performance over supply. We're making more games than consumers can possibly consume. Marketing is having a disproportionate effect over the success of games because there's so many out there people are ignoring us. Sometimes it doesn't matter if your game's good or not; if you don't have that marketing support it won't happen."

To combat this, Dyack said they need a universal media outlet rather than five or six different platforms and in the end, he says "we're being slowed down by the multiple consoles." Dyack also adds that it's beginning to cost hardware developers more and more to perform research on their next game system, and publishers find it more and more difficult to make a good profit. Nowadays, it's tough to decide where your game should go, but Dyack referenced the old days when Nintendo was dominant; back then, if you made a game for the Nintendo platform, at least you were assured of "getting about 80 or 90 percent market penetration." But nowadays, "it's a real gamble."

"The market forces are eventually going to overturn, or the publishers are going to start going out of business and no-one's going to be making games, until someone stands up and says look we're going to have one universal console, it's what it has to be, we don't want three copies or three different versions of the same game, we don't want to have something special for this controller, or some special character for this downloadable platform, we just want to make our game and we want to make money from it and we want, as entertainment developers, to create our one vision. That's eventually what's going to follow because it has to."

Hey, we just want our games; doesn't matter to us where we play 'em. However, we hope Dyack realizes that if this universal platform does happen, he will effectively kill off the fanboy regime that essentially rules the Internet...we're not complaining, of course (all of them can go suck rotten eggs, as far as we're concerned), but entire sites dedicated to fanboy "journalism" and arguments/hating ('cough' N4G, Destructoid, 'cough') will disappear. ...no, wait, get that single platform in here now.

7/16/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Comments (117 posts)

Toggle Scrolling | Reload Comments

The Stig
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:05:37 AM
Reply

But surely having more than one console creates competition, and in turn creates inovation and progression in the console industry.

If there was only one console I could see the games industry progressing at a slower rate.

23 up, 1 down

Itdoesntmatter
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:24:55 AM

The flip side of that is that the multiplat games are always made in the least common denominator system and so the gamers of the superior system have to suffer.....much like all multiplats on 360 put out crappy ports to ps3....and then fanboys everywhere THINK the 360 is better and that false notion spreads like forrest-fire....

so in that sense, the games industry is already probably moving slower than it has to be

Last edited by Itdoesntmatter on 7/16/2009 11:27:59 AM

8 up, 0 down

GlavinChris
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:42:31 AM

However we will have to deal with pricing issues, if one platform rules all, they will be able to price at a place where most consumers will buy (but not all). We may see 80 buck games...

-The Glavin

8 up, 0 down

Buckeyestar
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:47:01 PM

Doesn't anybody realize that a single console would be no different than DVD, CD, or even TV? All of these are a single format yet nobody worries about "lack of competition". Having one console standard would operate the same way. The only real competition is the content.

4 up, 8 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:53:23 PM

Eeeh, sorry buck but your wrong. Yes a Bravia and a Vizio are both tv's but which one is better? *retorical question* competition forces companies to create and innovate. It's not hard to understand.

11 up, 1 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 1:57:13 PM

A universal console would hurt consumers bad. It would take out competition which would drive quality way down. The price for each console and each game would be extremely inelastic so they could put it at any price almost. Plus this would mean that Sony and Microsoft would have to play nice which I don't think would work out.

@Buckeyestar: There is product differentiation between TVs so it isn't the same thing at all. One console would destroy product differentiation and create a monopoly. Whoever "owned" this console would have too much control over the content available for it, something that the owners of DVD and Bluray lack.

I really don't see this happening any time soon or maybe even ever. Each company would have to have a very great incentive money-wise. What we may/probably will see is smaller developers/publishers going out of business which is kind of sad, but it is business. It's all part of supply and demand.

Last edited by NiteKrawler on 7/16/2009 1:58:14 PM

6 up, 0 down

NightHawk17
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:12:17 PM

Yea that is true but even if there was 1 system then developers would be competing with each other. In order to best each other in specific genres like RPG's, FPS's, Racing,Puzzles, it might actually be more competitive than now

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:43:58 PM

Nighthawk, better games come with better consoles. Without competition In the console market what reason would the monoply have to innovate new consoles? Oops, sorry NaSaH. I commented again.

1 up, 0 down

Gregory Freeman
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 4:06:16 PM

in order for this to succeed, one lucky company would retain their company and product, while the other 2 go pull a Sega and Atari... and how would this one system be established??

or if someone comes from nowhere and proclaims "My system will be the only platform in the 8th generation of gaming!" whats stopping Sony and Microsoft from saying "Ugh..... No...." and ignore them and create their respective consoles.. (Onlive anyone??)

and if the current companies were given cash, how can they out buy a company like Microsoft, and still have enough money to buy off Sony and ninty?? hell, they aren't ran by bill gates here! (lol) they'd buy them, go under due to bankruptcy, and the big 3 thank them, keep their money, and go back to what they were doing??

a big shift, and it'd have to be big, would need to occur to free up the competition for one be all/end all console to rise up from nowhere...

Last edited by Gregory Freeman on 7/17/2009 4:06:50 PM

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 8:42:14 PM

You're right. It'd cost too much money to pay off all three of them. The only way it would happen is if Wal-Mart decided to make a console. :)

1 up, 0 down

bamf
Saturday, July 18, 2009 @ 8:31:03 PM

Who would make this one universal console console? If it was asked for Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to come together to make the one console, we would never see a console again as they would never agree with each other.

I think with competition comes hardware progression. If we never had that and lets say only Nintendo produced and released a game console, how far in terms of progress in technology advamcements would we be at now? Would we still be playing on a snes, there would be no need for Nintendo to release a more powerful console if there's no competition.
Not only that, with one console, you would not please everyone and the industry would be much smaller. Arcades would probably still rule and PC gamers would laugh at the console gamer.

0 up, 0 down

Akuma07
Sunday, July 19, 2009 @ 9:38:55 AM

My friends.... i give you.....Soninsoft.

hahahahaha.

Sony handles hardware specs,
Microsoft creates easy dev tools,
Nintendo just sorta sits around and points, also in charge of peripherals.

With Sony and MS cooperating on the software side of things for the machine.

Potentially the best console ever created.
But it would fail, due to the fact that i dont think all 3 would get along very well.

0 up, 0 down

b3mike
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:11:23 AM
Reply

Umn no.....
There has always been more than one console out at a time. Why is he bringing this up like its something new?

5 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:52:52 AM

Because Too Human (a 360 exlusive BTW) sold like crap.

I'd have more respect for Dyack's words if he was developing multiplat games instead of 360 exclusives.

As a developer of an exclusive game, he is only working on ONE platform; so his words ring hollow!

17 up, 0 down

Buckeyestar
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:49:08 PM

Because the video game industry flies in the face of all other media. All CD players play all CDs, all DVD players play all DVDs, all TVs give you access to TV broadcasts. Yet not all game consoles allow you to play all games, it doesn't jive. Just because it's always been that way doesn't make it the right way.

2 up, 5 down

Oyashiro
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 1:31:42 PM

Multiple company's make DVD,CD,MP3,Blu-Ray players. One companys Blu-ray player to expensive for you? Go to its competition... Video games are a completely different medium. If we only have one system to choose from, It will only be from one company. They will have no competition, and so they will never have to drive to improve. They will also have to luxury of charging a arm and a leg and the consumers will have no other options besides not playing games anymore.

Competition is good, and pushes the industry forward.

11 up, 0 down

Dancemachine55
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 8:27:32 AM

Don't people understand that video games are an interactive medium, not an observational medium. That is why there are multiple consoles, because games are designed around a specific consoles to use its hardware to create something incredible and complex.

DVD, BluRay, CD, etc. are all passive mediums which involves it simply playing out with little interaction.

Also, Dyack, you may want to get your facts right. DVD players can't play blu ray discs, yet the premises are both similar, you watch a movie, its just one is different, much higher quality. The same thing goes with consoles, they have the same premises of playing games, but one is of different or better quality than the other, hence some developers and parties support one over the other, who knows? We may see a blu-ray exclusive someday that DVD just can't handle.

Now is it just me, or is Dyack disguising this argument as an anti-PS3 and anti-Wii argument, trying to defend the surprisingly average 360 simply because he can't be bothered trying harder to make something incredible with better hardware (PS3's storage and processing or Wii's motion controls).

Anyone here agree with me?

1 up, 0 down

Soultaker
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:14:24 AM
Reply

If there was only 1 console for all companys it wouldn't motivate the developers to make any decent games they'd just start putting out crap games for another paycheck.

4 up, 0 down

whooka
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:17:35 AM
Reply

Sounds like pinko commie/socialist crap to me!

7 up, 1 down

mackid1993
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:47:43 PM

there needs to be variety, there needs to be competition. if we had one system innovation would die.

1 up, 0 down

mackid1993
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:47:44 PM

there needs to be variety, there needs to be competition. if we had one system innovation would die.

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:32:37 AM

Agreed. The day one console rules the market is the day gaming dies. Which ever company it is can essentually charge what ever they like for the console and will have no incentive to create new and better ones. This is the stupidest comment made by anyone in the industry. Who is this guy anyway? And hasn't this been said before? Before MS entered the market and before Sega gave up? There's a need for multiple consoles to exist inorder for the games to advance. If 3rd party devs go out of buisness that's they're fault. Not sony's nintendos or MS's. What a douche bag.

10 up, 0 down

PS3addict
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:22:36 AM
Reply

OK, that makes no sense at all.
I do not want to play my PS3 games on my Wii.
I do not want to play my Wii games on my PS3.
I do want some 360 games on my PS3 though!!

They are different and fun in different ways and the only one complaining should be the end consumer because we need more than one console. If she is having issues selling games, then they need to develop thier games for all 3 systems at the same time.
If you make a game for the wii and it is good, people will buy it.
If you make a game for the PS3 and it is good, people wil buy it.
If you make a game for a 360, we hope we get a good port to the PS3 and we will buy it...

Ignorance is slowing them down. If it does slow down like she states that it will, well then;
Publishers will have to get pickier when it comes to choosing an IP to publish, and that makes developers make better games so that they can get published.
Which system to write the game for depends on the type of game, the graphics you create, the engine it runs on, and the characters that you are using if they are not original.

Yes in a perfect world there would be only one console, but where would the competition be? An exclusive title makes the competing developers work that much harder to make one of thier own that tops it.

9 up, 0 down

englishgolfer
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:27:22 AM
Reply

while we're at it he could also call for all car makers to make one type of car, phone makers need to make one type of phone (bye, bye iphone?), they should be no pc and mac debate as there is only one type of computer, they should only make.... oh you get the picture. it'll never happen.

5 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:37:38 AM

"bye bye iPhone" blasphamy!!!

4 up, 0 down

Gabriel013
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:28:06 AM
Reply

Comparing the movie industry (dvd in particular I assume) to the console market doesn't work.

A dvd player now is the same as one 5 years ago. The quality of the content is very much the same.

Each console is technically superior to the one beofre making better games a possibility.

6 up, 0 down

fluffer nutter
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:33:39 AM
Reply

@ The Stig, I completely agree. Not having competition would be a bad thing for all gamers. Sure there are pluses and minuses to having conformity but I believe that the negatives would greatly outweigh the positives.

@b3mike, The argument against your statement would be that games were much less expensive to produce in the past. Prior to HD quality video and gaming. I agree with you that there have been multiple consoles but the cost factor is what's killing off the game designers and producers.

@Soultaker, Your statements are quite correct as they go hand-in-hand with The Stig and b3mike. I wanted to reply to each of you but this seemed the easiest.

We can all agree that one single console would make it SO much easier for us to know what games to get and what not but then we would truly never know what greatness would have been born out of the exclusives. Just look at what exclusives there are coming from Nintendo, Microsoft-owned (or sided) developers and Sony's production teams. It's a sad thing as I'm sure there are many of us who have multiple consoles and wonder which ones will give us more bang for our buck. I'm constantly reading up and watching videos on games that interest me and I even pay attention to the negative reviews to see what it was that they complained about that I would probably find useful for my experiences.

I like having the Wii, DS, PSP, Xbox 360 and PS3 because I'm now entitled to choices but the market sure is flooded with shovelware so people like me have to do more "investigative" work to find the games that we won't want to turn around and sell in a day or two. I even find myself talking to other games, whether in forums, on PSN, or at the game shops and comparing "notes" to see if I may like a certain style of game.

Imagine if we didn't have competition in the PC arena. Intel has AMD to thank for a lot of their recent success because AMD forced them to not be comfortable, resting on their laurels, just taking the consumers money for not excelling at more than a walking pace.

3 up, 0 down

kevinater321
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:35:34 AM
Reply

I think it is healthy to have some competition, like soultaker said that they would just put crappy games just to make a small profit. I think they should have two consoles, one for hardcore and one for casual. The wii proved that there is a huge market for those types of games but the ps3 and 360 showed that the hardcore game market is rapidly growing. What i think is happening is that people buy the wii and then they want more and move onto the ps3 or 360 and become hardcore gamers. So like i said, 2 consoles, one hardcore one casual and then let the consumer choose what console they want.

The ps3 and 360 war is just stupid. They are very similar consoles, i don't understand why they don't just blend them together. Because when i am at school and some kids are talking about a halo match i feel left out because i don't have a 360, and i am sure the people with the 360 feel the same way. And just to play a halo or gears match for another 300 or so dollars is dumb.

okay i am done my rant. :)

Last edited by kevinater321 on 7/16/2009 11:36:33 AM

0 up, 4 down

GlavinChris
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:44:47 AM

PS3 = X360. Apocolypse is near.

-The Glavin

2 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:50:03 AM

Halo sucks anyways. Your not missing out.

3 up, 2 down

kevinater321
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:57:04 AM

yeh i know it is over hyped but other games like CoD that they have tournis on 360 only, it's flippin retarded. It is not as bad now but like 2 or so years ago when i tried to play resistance with some of my friends they would say..."Whats that?". like wtf.

1 up, 0 down

anjpikapp3
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:03:18 PM

to kelvin....are you even a gamer? how can you say that the 360 is in anyway similar to the PS3?!?! the numbers are not even close...i own both PS3 and 360 and in no way can i say the 360 has held up to the PS3 (to date - past 2 years was a different story). Just like any computer (and since MS did nothing to the original xbox except give it more ram and a new graphics card) the 360 was nothing but an upgraded xBox which made it outdated with in the first year. Dont believe me...look at your computer...outdated.

As for the PS3....it was ahead of the game....only now are developers really utilizing its power.

Similar.....ha.

6 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:18:16 PM

Yea kenvin. Saying the PS3 and the 360 are similar is like saying Windows Vista is similar to Mac OSX. They're only similar cause they both operating systems like the PS3 and 360 are both consoles. The PS3 is vastly superior like Mac OSX.

6 up, 0 down

Orvisman
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 9:16:00 AM

LOL.

They are also only similar where multiplats are concerned because the devs strive for parity in their PS3/360 games.

I've asked this question before, and I'll keep asking this question.

How come developers in the last gen weren't concerned with parity among the PS2/Xbox games?

Any game that came out on both systems, whether or not it came out on the PS2 first or not, received a graphical boost on the Xbox.

Where was their cherished parity then?

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 11:15:49 AM

Kevin, you said yourself that some competition is healthy. Having one console for the hardcore crowd, and one for the casual crowd would take out that competition almost entirely. If you don't believe me, does the PS3/360 have competition from the Wii? Maybe a miniscule amount. The competition between the 360 and PS3 is what really drives the innovation and quality on both systems. The PS3/360 war may be annoying sometimes, but it's a price I'm willing to pay to keep the competition around.

0 up, 0 down

Cpt_Geez
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:44:26 AM
Reply

It will never happen.

2 up, 0 down

kevinater321
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:54:23 AM
Reply

off topic but i am going to a green day concert today!!:D :D :D

1 up, 7 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:12:46 PM

Eeeehhh.......nevermind.

9 up, 0 down

CONTRABAND
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:00:24 PM

im sorry to hear that... ... ...

6 up, 0 down

Banky A
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:04:39 PM

That's sweet man ^_^
Concerts are cool. Enjoy it.

But I have to put this out there..
I hate Greenday lol

We have no problem with you.

3 up, 0 down

Juanalf
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:03:05 PM
Reply

Bring the universal console already, I'm bored of fanboy crap.Hopefully it will be Sega that provides this console if not they could just release a console with the other three still around I just want Sega back.

3 up, 2 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:14:23 PM

Sega sucked. I'll counter your longing for one console industry with Apple should enter the market.

3 up, 5 down

Lotusflow3r
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 1:11:19 PM

to say Sega "sucks" (i presume that word is negative), is ridiculous.

They innovated and paved the way. Dreamcast was one of the most innovative consoles ever.

7 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 1:39:48 PM

Then where is the Dreamcast now? Seems the majority consumers have always prefered Sony and Nintendo over Sega. Why? Cause they make better products. Every Sega console did poorly against the competition.

6 up, 1 down

Juanalf
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:22:46 PM

Lotusflow3r hit the nail on the head.It's funny how Dreamcast motion rod was just as accurate as the wii mote and is 11 years old,but Sega didn't make a big deal out of it did they.Sega always tried to bring something new to gaming like the Sega CD or online gaming,but it would always make that system more expensive than the competition which would result in failure;Long story short Sega4life.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:14:06 PM

@JDHexen and Lotusflow3r

Sega were cool, I never had a DreamCast - and for personal reasons that actually have nothing to do with the consoles themselves, I detest the DreamCast.

However, The Sega GameGear(1991) was *far* ahead of it's time. Compared to the Nintendo P.O.S. that it was competing with at the time it was state of the art. It was the fore-runner to the PSP, it had a similar style, you gripped the unit on each side, with the D-pad on the left and AB buttons on the right - the same standard layout of a modern controller and the PSP. Good grief you could even get a TV tuner for the thing. A friend of mine had one and I 'borrowed' it long term with a couple of games. Looking back, the games were pretty crap - the best of the ones I borrowed was Wonder Boy - but the GameGear was way ahead of the GameBoy from Nintendo in so many ways.

So, Sega gets an eternal thumbs up for the GameGear itself, and possibly seeding the handheld market for the PSP so long ago.

Last edited by Highlander on 7/16/2009 3:15:16 PM

5 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:15:15 PM

Aaaaah....but the question is left unanswered. Let me ask again in another way.

If Sega was so great then why did every console they released fail to beat the competition?

Genesis vs SNES. Fail!
Saturn vs PSOne. Fail!
Dreamcast vs PS2. Fail!

Sega sucked. Get over it.

2 up, 5 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:25:17 PM

I'll put it this way, Sega pushed gaming far harder than Nintendo did. Nintendo's hardware *always* observes the limits from afar. Sega pushed those limits. I honestly believe that PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360 and PS3 would not be what they are (and have been) without Sega's role in video game console history.

5 up, 2 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:51:27 PM

I won't disagree with that Highlander. Just seems to me Sega did somethng very wrong every generation and failed to attract enough gamers to stay afloat. I myself always prefered Nintendo and Sony over Sega.

3 up, 1 down

AntDC
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 7:49:18 AM

"Then where is the Dreamcast now? Seems the majority consumers have always prefered Sony and Nintendo over Sega. Why? Cause they make better products. Every Sega console did poorly against the competition."

So because Sony's lagging behind the competition this generation, are we assuming they suck to? And you seem to think that Sega suck because they failed when it came to sales. Since when have sales equaled quality?

It's people like you that look at the sales numbers for the 360 and then think "Hey, the Xbox is selling better, it must be the better console, I'm gonna buy me one of those!".

Last edited by AntDC on 7/17/2009 7:51:20 AM

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 10:38:35 AM

Eeeeeh when a company enters a market to make money then goes bankrupt it's safe to say they failed. The PS3 hasn't failed yet and probably won't because Sony is a much bigger and better company then Sega was. The dreamcast was only in production for 2+ Years before Sega through in the towl because of the lack of demand. There's still a demand for the PS3 and it's growing. So no it's not ok to say Sony has failed. You said that not me.

0 up, 0 down

Effi
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:17:48 PM
Reply

ok so we have one universal console.. lets call it PS360..

and we all know EU will NEVER allow monopoly, we will now have competition!

To create competition, we shall have makers of PS360 allowed to have differing physical shapes..

and different power on/off buttons...

then lets add in more competition by allowing console makers to change some hardware... like wireless/non-wireless...

how about some with larger hdd? some with an SSD?? COOL!

how about then... we have some WITHOUT HDD!?

WOWZA!

Sleek mean looking machines without HDD.. and best of all, it now has a slightly overclocked GPU to keep things running chop chop..

and how about more ram? more ram is always better...

PS360 + 6GB RAM DDR3!... always backward compatible, always better than others! <-- advertisment.

how about just adding one more drive?

PS360 + 8GB RAM DDR + Manta-Ray 1TB Power Laser Hologram Drive!

----

if that doesnt sound like what we already have.. aka PC i dunno wat does.

so fkit stick to the different consoles thanks.

btw who wants to bet even IF (caps people) they manage to get one standard console out, the games will STILL be sold at the same price.

4 up, 0 down

big6
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:20:34 PM
Reply

I completely DISAGREE with Denis Dyack, and agree with The Stig (above).
It's retarded to think that we could ever go to a single console. Competition is what drives innovation, creativity, and dares businesses to take risks on new ideas and pushing new thresholds.

Would the Wii controller ever been made, had a single-console model been adapted previously?
In a single-console model, if everything is running smooth, why change? Therefore, nothing will.

Thanks to innovations like the NES's controller, which was an improvement over the previous single-button joystick. Then further improved by the PS1's dual handle controller design (still used today because it rocks).
Thanks to innovations like the Xbox's harddrive in the console, we no longer have to worry about memory cards for gamesaves (amongst other benefits).
Thanks to the PS3's Blu-ray drive, games can be larger and grander in scale, without the limitation of storage capacity.

All these things, and many others, would be lost, if not for competition. Competition in the market forces companies to create new features or innovations that give them the edge in the marketplace.

I don't want everyone driving the exact same car, so why is this any different?

Maybe Mr. Dyack is just mad cuz 'Too Human' tanked, and he needs to vent a little...

4 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:27:29 PM

I bet Dyack is a commicrat. Jk!!!

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:19:34 PM

He does seem to be taking a communistic approach here.

1 up, 0 down

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 9:03:16 PM

Do we really want more "innovations" like that Damn WiiMote!!! lol...

HardDrives were an inevitability.

BluRay was the truest innovation of the list so far. It created a boxed HD standard. The highest available.

Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 7/16/2009 9:04:52 PM

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 10:12:15 PM

lol. I guess the best we can hope for is competition and GOOD innovations.

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 2:08:50 AM

I like the wiimote wage slave. More please!

1 up, 1 down

crawdaddy
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:21:01 PM
Reply

That is BS! The movie industry moves lots of movies because you can buy the movies for an average price of about 20.00 each, and a lot of movies for about 5.00 to 10.00 each. People can afford to buy movies. Games cost 60.00 each, and some you can get for 40.00. You can't afford to buy games as often as you would like. If games were only 20.00 you could afford to buy a lot more games that are released. Also it is what I hear said on this site often, you have to have competition in the game system industry. This guy should work for the government so he can control everything, and take away all of our choices.

4 up, 1 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:32:16 PM

Guess which political party he gives too.

1 up, 3 down

Buckeyestar
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:52:12 PM

Competition comes from content, not consoles. One console wouldn't change anything. The developers would still be trying to outdo each other and get the most sales, just as they do now except that it's harder for them with multiple consoles to take into consideration. Nobody with a DVD player needs to worry about if they bought a compatible DVD. The higher cost of games make having one common console even more necessary than in the movie industry, easier to reach a wider audience.

2 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:55:33 PM

Well, in terms of the movie industry, there are many different camera systems and editing systems available. In the end the image is projects through the same projectors. In the world of gaming that would translate to the screen, and I think we're all agreed that HDTV is the standard there. So, don't we already have what the movie industry has?

2 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 1:01:01 PM

BuckEye you have no idea what your talking about! The unique features that each console on the market brings spawned from competition with one another. I'm sorry I don't usually throw insaults but your talking nonsense. Have you read any of the posts above? I would refer you to big6's post. He makes the points that destroy your arguements. With out competing consoles we wouldnt have the PS3, 360 or the Wii. All offer unique features and abilities. Get a clue man.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/16/2009 1:12:20 PM

3 up, 1 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:04:35 PM

Buckeye, you should take a walk down a street in the ex-Soviet Union. That would probably change your mind about having any kind of universal standard. Booooooring.

0 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 12:53:24 PM
Reply

A single gaming platform has been tried, and it failed abysmally. It was called the PC and instead of a steady stable platform we had a constant churn of new CPUs, new video standards, new DOS and Windows versions, literally millions of different combinations of hardware and software all calling themselves PCs. It didn't work, ask a developer whether they want to support two or three different hardware configurations or 2-3 million. I know the answer, and so do you.

A single console specification could never work anyway. First, let's pretend someone somehow sets a hardware standard. So, who decides what it is? Who enforces the standard? How do you enforce the standard?

What if all consoles came from one company? Oosp, instant monopoly violations. What if the console makers agreed a single standard - just like they failed to do over HD-DVD and BluRay? However let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that there's a standard and MS, Sony and Nintendo all make machines to that standard. Our hypothetical standard could be based on DVD as the disc media, a PowerPC core running at 3GHz,256MB of RAM and a 500MHz GPU with 256MB of RAM.

How do the big 3 differentiate their system from the others? What's the incentive to make a console that's the same as everyone else's? Because technology is always advancing, any standard agreed would be out of date nearly as soon as it's set.

In that case, what's to stop a console maker from making a faster box? Or using a better optical format? Or a better GPU? In order to sell more units companies have to differentiate their products from the others. It's inevitable that companies will add features, to add value, to compete. What if someone decides to offer a console that exceeds the capability of the standard platform and - horror of horrors - makes a game that uses the extra capability. Suddenly there's a non-standard game and a non-standard platform. Now we're back to... Who enforces the standard? How do you enforce the standard? Does some pompous third party come along and forbid non-standard games?

Proposing a single hardware standard sounds great in theory, but in practice it'd be an unworkable idea.

How about a software standard? What if game makers got together and defined a virtual console environment? Such an environment would be completely virtualized - like a Java virtual machine. No developer would ever have to program the hardware directly. It would be up to each console maker to build the virtual console environment on their particular hardware, and ensure that the virtual console standard was met.

Software developers could choose whether to write games for the virtual console, or make the game exclusive to a particular hardware platform. Console makers could continue to enhance their systems and build new ones without breaking the virtual console standard. Think about it in terms of the Xbox360, PS3 and Wii all running a Java virtual machine (I'm just using Java as an example, it could be any virtual platform) with the same pseudo clock speed. Games written for the Java machine would work, unmodified, on any console. But they wouldn't be able to take advantage of anything specific that the console offered, only what the Java virtual machine provides.

Sounds great eh? Stop and think though. How long would it take for developers and gamers to tire of the limitations of such a virtual console? Not long, I'd bet. Then it would be back to business as usual, making games to take advantage of the specific platform.

Sorry for the long comment, lot's of thoughts to express. I hate the idea o a single platform for games. Apart from all the arguments about competition and innovation, I just don't see how a single console platform could work in practice.

14 up, 0 down

www
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 6:40:38 AM

Well said!

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:00:31 PM
Reply

Anyone who actually wants this universal console has obviously never taken a basic economics course.

4 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:01:27 PM
Reply

Post Script.

Everyone who wonders about a single game platform could lookup MSX for some idea of what's been tried before. If you want to see what market domination of games on a single platform looks like, I will refer you to the handheld market prior to the arrival of the PSP. It wasn't pretty.

6 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:13:51 PM
Reply

The simple fact is that this guy's statement is just incorrect. If you want to compare games to movies (a bad idea anyway) you have to take into account that there are indeed different movie platforms. Some films are aimed at and developed for massive theatrical release, others are developed to go straight to DVD and Blu Ray, some are made especially for cable and again some are made just to air on TV.

Like ports and such a theatrical release will come out on DVD at some point, or be aired on cable or television but each has it's originally intended audience at first just like games have their intended target be it multiplat or exclusive.

Too many games coming out? No, too much shovelware coming out is more like it. You need the compeition and the failure of some studios for the industry to grow and the games to get better. Monopolies help one company and screw all consumers.

Happily, I don't think it's possible unless the government mandates a single system and that will never happen. This is precisely what I expect from an MS stooge.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/16/2009 2:25:50 PM

5 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:26:16 PM

Agreed. You can tell that this guy just wants a universal platform because it will help out them out. It'll screw us over big time though. It's kind of a slap in the face of the consumer really. Does he think we are all stupid?

1 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:22:31 PM
Reply

Having only one machine would totally stunt the gaming world's growth and lead all gamers, whether casual or hardcore, right into the halls of damnation.

A few things to ponder....

With only one machine ALL the developers could sit back on their laurels by not innovating or upgrading their wares, and continually give us sub-par crapola games in the future.

All those same developers could also band together and up their price to whatever their whole game-making industry desires.
yup, even at $100 a pop for any of their games.

Last, but not least.....there wouldn't be anything you could do about it either,except stop playing video games altogether, for eternity,

It would truly be a very sad time for gamers indeed!

And as Egar Allen Poe said it best...........
"for ever more"!!!!!!

2 up, 0 down

WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 2:40:57 PM
Reply

Oh yeah one more point. If the title of this conference names Games as the 8th art, how is art assisted by saying something that in effect goes like this "We don't need photographs, painting, AND digital art, we only need one of these or an amalgam of all. We don't need poetry, novels, and short stories, someone needs to step up and say only novels will do." and on and on.

The rest of the world may not count games as an art form but I certainly do. And you don't consolidate art down to minimal mediums or it dies.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/16/2009 3:03:24 PM

4 up, 0 down

Arvis
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:03:23 PM
Reply

I've always been vigorously against a one console future, but I've been wavering in my opinion of this of late. And it took this crazy generation of gaming to do that.

See, the PS3 and 360 are two very sophisticated gaming machines. They deal in all kinds of entertainment: gaming, movies, etc. They're MACHINES. The Nintendo Wii, on the other hand, is a TOY. And there really isn't any competition for it in this new "Toy Video Game" market that it created. So, while it's happily living it's own (huge) niche, selling away, the PS3 and 360 are dividing each other's sales in a vicious war. And let's face it, there are pros and cons to owning just one of the two true gaming machines.

Now, if there were just ONE HD console that had all of the big AAA exclusive titles on it, equipped with a reliable FREE network loaded with tons of content, and was reliable and built for long gaming sessions, that machine could compete very handily with the Wii, and in fact, even beat it's sales numbers.

That being said, I know that what I described above is basically a PS3, which only got it's free network because Microsoft put an online network in their Xbox first. However, since the 360 came out first and has a loyal install base, too many people have ONLY a 360 or ONLY a PS3, and we can't play games together. I can't play Ace Combat 6 online with my friend, since I bought a PS3 (which was denied a version of AC6 for the purposes of a competitive edge in this sales war). Someone else might not be able to join his friend's Madden Franchise because he only has the PS3 version instead of the 360. This phenomenon is both annoying and dispiriting, discouraging the sales of some games. Just having ONE powerful, HD console would remedy this, and consumers could buy games secure in the knowledge that any current and future friends will all have the same "versions" of these games as them.

However, economically, I don't think the idea is feasible. There's no point in pricing something "competitively" when there is no competition to inspire said pricing strategy. And if this Uber Console is not affordable, then how will people enjoy games on it all?

Short version: there is no easy answer to this.

-Arvis

4 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:17:52 PM

You're giving these corporations too much credit in your theory. If there was just one console, quality would not stay the same as you assume. With no competition, companies become complacent. Just look at the big three in the auto industry.

2 up, 0 down

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 8:54:35 PM

@Arvis

I agree. It can get pretty muddy trying to weight the pros n cons of the issue. But you nailed it. You basically described a ps3. If it were the sole console then it might be different.

@NiteKrawler

This market is far less speculative than the auto industry. You're not as much trying to forcast the future market trends and needs of the people as you are trying to make the best kickass game possible (a ferrari, if you will, affordable to everyone).

1 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 10:17:25 PM

Not true. Gaming changes just as much, if not more, than automobiles. I think this new gaming "renaissance" says it all. The consoles also have to be made with future trends in mind. Bluray was still behind when the PS3 was released. I don't think there is a market out there that doesn't need to think about future trends. I'm not an economist or...marketing-guy(?) though, so I don't know.

P.S. We also have to give Microsoft credit for realizing the potential of online console gaming.

Last edited by NiteKrawler on 7/16/2009 10:19:11 PM

1 up, 0 down

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 10:33:52 PM

@ Night

I just said not as much trying to forecast market trends. Buying a car is a huge long term commitment. Not so much for the game industry. I know they have to do there economic thing but I don't think it is as tied to the industry as autos are.

I bet even Haze would have sold well if it were Good!
You can't say that about a Ford GT. It is better than Good but the Mustang sells like hotcakes.

Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 7/16/2009 10:34:34 PM

0 up, 0 down

tes37
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:04:24 PM
Reply

All you have to do is make a good game and you'll be successful even if there were ten consoles.

9 up, 0 down

Highlander
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:27:40 PM

True dat.

3 up, 0 down

twenty8nine
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 8:20:54 PM

Unfortunately, most developers are not making those amazing games that you speak of. A great game will sell the console. A good game will sell well if developed for all platforms.

0 up, 0 down

alnemozac
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 3:56:55 PM
Reply

This seems to me to be a case of the business forgetting why it exists in the first place, if it weren't for the CONSUMER then their product would be worthless. What Dyack is suggesting seems to me to be trying to give the power to the businesses which would mean the consumer (gamer) looses.

Yes if there was a common medium between the consoles (Bluray Disk) then the one game could be played on numerous consoles. But that cannot be confused with the console itself. This is the flaw with the TV/DVD/CD arguement, they are all on the same medium but they are experienced through different products which can give a different experience. A Bravia TV is far different from the cheap unknown brand TVs.

If there were one medium (format) that the games could be produced in then that would be great for everyone, gamers, producers (only the console companies would loose out because they would loose any ability to have exclusives). But that doesn't stop the competitive enviroment of the games industry which has seen fantastic developments over the past few years.

To put is short, the gamers should come first not the business and that is what competition brings. What Dyack is suggesting is creating a monopoly on the game industry that means gamers would have to put up or shut up.

4 up, 0 down

N a S a H
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 4:17:39 PM
Reply

Jawknee, you don't have to reply to every single comment on this page! and according to you a lot of things "suck". Don't forget to mention that it's YOUR opinion. In MY opinion, Halo DIDN'T suck and neither did Sega.

6 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:03:54 PM

Your right I don't have to but I am and I did. Also do I really need to say "In my opinion" in order for people to understand the statement was an opinion? I think everyone understood it was an opinion except you. Give PSXEXers more credit then that.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/16/2009 5:09:33 PM

4 up, 1 down

Banky A
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:08:21 PM

Booo.

2 up, 0 down

N a S a H
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:52:45 PM

Well you say it like it's a fact or something. Don't tell me to give credit to "PSXER's" when all you're doing is disagreeing with everything they say. Grow up mate.

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 8:36:39 PM

Yes your so right NaSaH. All I'm doing is disagreeing with everyone. Ok since you seem to having trouble with this. IN MY OPINION halo sucks. Happy "mate"?

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/16/2009 8:38:47 PM

3 up, 3 down

N a S a H
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 5:55:58 AM

No, you're sarcasm and lack of manners annoys me. It's also "you're so right" not "your".

0 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 10:43:15 AM

Oh so YOU'RE giving me spelling lessons now? Thanks dad!! Out of respect for the site, Ben and co I'm done talking to you. Good bye!! ;)

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/17/2009 10:50:52 AM

0 up, 0 down

Scarecrow
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 4:48:08 PM
Reply

Well if he wants let's eliminate Microsoft(a company which doesn't belong in gaming)

Let's leave Sony and Nintendo to duke it out! Nintendo and Sony have always had the most creative ways of competing against each other

ps1 VS N64 anyone!?
Gamecube VS ps2 anyone!?

Crapsoft is tainting v-games with FPSs

6 up, 1 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:06:36 PM

PSOne please. PS2 and the Gamecube is a bit harder for me to make a choice i loved em both for many different reasons although I will admit I found myself using the PS2 more.

1 up, 2 down

tes37
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:10:31 PM

If you think about it the three consoles out right now fall into three categories. So there is actually only one console. One console that's next gen, one that's last gen and one in between. There, he got his wish.

2 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:11:23 PM
Reply

@Jawknee,
I'll have to disagree with you somewhat on Sega.
This is all my opinion, but I also know I'm right about this one.......

The Genesis never sucked,

the Saturn never sucked,

and the Dreamcast certainly never sucked.

(And to this day, I still have & play all three systems).

The thing that did suck, was that Sega refused to grow a backbone.

So during the Saturn & Dreamcast era's when another system started competing with Sega systems, they would throw in the towel, just up--and-run from the fight like yellow-bellied cowards, with their tails tucked between their legs(you know, it's right where their missing balls should have been a-dangling).

IMO, both, the Saturan & the Dreamcast could have more than held their own & brought us more great games & innovations had Sega gotten up the courage to stand by their machines.

And that sealed Sega's fatal spiraling downfall from grace.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents
(and I want some change back too)LMFAO

Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/16/2009 5:14:02 PM

1 up, 0 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 5:24:30 PM

Okay...Maybe sucked is too strong a word. I know people liked Sega. I ask my self though If they were so great why did they fail? I don't know an answer expect it lacked something most consumers wanted. All of Sega's system failed to appeal to me and obviously many others or they would still be around(making consoles anyway). But I'll say this, while I thought the Dreamcast was over rated i won't deny I had fun playing Code Veronica and Marvel vs Capcom 2 on it.

1 up, 0 down

shaydey77
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 6:30:17 PM

Its quite simple why SEGA 'failed'. They had Sony's current marketing and advertising staff.

However i dont think SEGA sucked at all. the SEGA Megadrive was my first console.

and EVERYONE knows there isnt a cooler original character than sonic.
(Obv nintys will disagree but their wrong!!ha)

Last edited by shaydey77 on 7/16/2009 6:31:13 PM

2 up, 2 down

pspmonkey
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 6:46:45 PM
Reply

mario is better then sonic

Last edited by pspmonkey on 7/16/2009 6:47:28 PM

2 up, 2 down

Jawknee
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 6:53:09 PM

Kirby is better than Sonic. Lol

1 up, 2 down

Juanalf
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:55:43 PM

If by better you meant more overplayed then yes,you hit the nail on the mushroom.

0 up, 0 down

AntDC
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 8:11:11 AM

Crash is better then... ah nevermind.

0 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:31:02 PM
Reply

@Jawknee,
Genesis was a much better console than the SNES at the time. It also stuck around for a quite a while & had a ton of games. I have 149 games for it in my collection so far & I belive I've only scratched the surface.

The same could have happened again with both the Saturn & Dreamcast getting better during their times, but like I said before, for whatever insane reason I can't fathom, Sega just upped & ran from the competition both time. And since the developers saw Sega running instead of supporting their own machines, the developers had no choice but to run from the Saturn & DC too.

BTW, I'm not sure if any of these below were also on other machines too(I doubt it, but I don't have the time to check through my collections), but if they were system exclusive, then here's a just a wee scant few mixed genre type of games you could've missed having some fun with during that time.

Genesis:
Vector-man 1 & 2
The "Strike" series, Desert, Jungle, etc
Streets of Rage
PTO
Burning Force
Zombies Ate My Neighbors

Saturn:
Panzar Dragoon 1 & 2
MK3
Mr. Bones
Heir of Zendor

Dreamcast:
Zombie Revenge
Crazy Taxi 1 & 2
Who Wants To Beat Up A Millionaire
Hidden & Dangerous
Wetrix
Blue Stinger

And there were these 3 Dreamcast games below, which were innovative for their time.....

Sega Bass Fisherman & fishing rod controller

Seaman w/ controller microphone

Alien Front "Online" & controller microphone. w/online 4vs4-Mult-player, & "real-time voice chat".

Also if I remember right, Dreamcast was the 1st gaming system that you could go online with, & had a discs that would turn it into a web browser(which I also have).
I also have a few of Sega's Dreamcast keyboards for the browser, but since I never did any kind of online at the time, I can't tell you if the browser & all of it's accessories worked very well or now.

And if my memory still serves me just 1/2 as well as it used to, the Dreamcast was also the first with big bad-ass "200" block memory cards.

Also, another innovative idea that Sega came up with for the Dreamcast, was it's own little mini-Dreamcast AKA/ the Visual Memory Unit(VMU).
The VMU actually plugged into the DC controller itself(and that's why it was so frigging huge, bulky, and fugly looking, sort of like a overgrown pregnant federation star-ship symbol).

The VMU was about the same size as the 200 block memory card, but it was sooooo way, way, way, much more than that.......

1. it was a 200 block memory card
2. it was a mini-console in which you could play self-contained VMU games.
3. It would display a game's secret information to you during game-play.
4.You could download, and even modify, characters from your Dreamcast game.
5. You could save your Dreamcast game files on it.
6.And you could also plug your VMU into your buddy's VMU & swap files with him.

The VMU had a "real" 1 inch by 1 and a 1/2 inch screen with 4 buttons, a 4-way directional pad, and 3 modes, File, Game, and Sleep modes. It also had a small speaker for sound. On a side note, I believe the VMU was also one of the 1st gadgets to use ever Lithium batteries(replaceable)inside it too.

BTW, a few years back, I happened to be in Gamestop the day they were bringing out & selling off all their leftover DC stock. I wound up buying out the 17 VMU's they had left, along with the last 2 DS keyboards too.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/16/2009 7:36:19 PM

3 up, 0 down

dveisalive
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 7:34:11 PM
Reply

It should be The Big N and Sony to form one console if it ever happen. Thanks to Nintendo Playstation was Born. Microsoft should focus on PC only. I you ask me Sony and Nintendo are the most creative driven forces in entertainment, gameplay, and innovation.

3 up, 1 down

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 8:26:51 PM
Reply

At this point in time I'd actually support one console. It is almost impossible if there were a single console for the hardware to downgrade. So imagine an advanced machine that ideally supported both ps3 and xbox controllers.

The hardest part for a gamer is the cost of its games. I still haven't played Uncharted!!! If the market were universal and maybe downloadable then the sales bottleneck would be squarely on the developers. To be a success you would force them to make better games because all competition is on the devs. They can focus on one great version.

If it were all downloadable these guys would cut out the middleman and create a nice healthy environment. Im all 'bout the games.

Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 7/16/2009 8:31:04 PM

1 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 8:43:40 PM

@WageSlaves,
Just my opinion but I think you're wrong there.

If there were only 1 console, I think that we'd either have to stop gaming altogether, or learn to enjoy feeling like a raped ape after we were bent over the cash registers.

And besides, nobody on this site would be able to tell each other apart after that, because we'd all have to change our usernames to "Wage Slaves" too.
LOL

2 up, 0 down

Wage SLAVES
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 9:26:04 PM

@ BikerSaint

Im assuming your talkin about the hardware price? If you are then I'd have to agree.

BTW
Dreamcast was FAAR ahead of its time! Amazing console.

Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 7/16/2009 9:27:17 PM

3 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 8:32:08 PM
Reply

@Jawknee

Even though I still feel 100% about the
"main" reason Sega failed, here's some other intresting points of views that most probably helped to cause the fast-forward of Sega's Dreamcast premature demise.

Did Dreamcast Fail Because it was Ahead of its Time?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/dreamcast-failed-leaving-lasting-impression/

Why the Dreamcast Failed
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1572800/why_the_dreamcast_failed.html

Here's 2 very interesting videos by Sega's own people on what happened to the DC.

The History of Dreamcast (Pt.1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3NfgF08EQE

The History of Dreamcast (Pt.2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e27kjhZXQqE

BTW, on a related side note........

7 Gaming Systems that Were Epic Failures
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/satire-toms-hardware-news-reviews,7883.html

The 6 Most Retarded Gaming Consoles Ever Released
http://www.cracked.com/article_16824_6-most-retarded-gaming-consoles-ever-released.html

2 up, 0 down

BikerSaint
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 10:20:10 PM
Reply

@Wage SLAVES,
Sorry, I should've clarified, I meant both, the console itself & the games.
I'm sure some exclusive developers would wind having up shutting down because of no money to re-tool themselves.
And then, since there's only 1 machine to make games for, maybe the remaining, well-positioned game developers will follow suit of the console maker, by getting greedy $$$ signs, and jacking us up too.

If you think about it, there's no reason they couldn't have us all over a barrel without the stiff competition that's in place that helps keep their prices lower.

Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/16/2009 10:22:26 PM

1 up, 0 down

eLLeJuss
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 10:25:18 PM
Reply

THE FUTURE = PLAYBOXSTATION X

pwnt

1 up, 1 down

Alienange
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 10:41:17 PM
Reply

First, Dyack has grossly underestimated the world's ability to consume games.

Second, you've got to be an absolute mental retard to not see the difference between gaming and the movies.

Third, the market's going to overturn or no ones going to be making games? Tell that to the fat bastard at Activision.

2 up, 0 down

Ricochet
Thursday, July 16, 2009 @ 11:21:53 PM
Reply

The author of those comments likened video games akin to movies. I on the other hand believe that video games are more akin to novels/books. This is because anyone can sit down and watch what's produced by a camera but just as books, you need to know how TO READ before you can understand it likewise you need to know how to use A CONTROLLER to play a video game. I guess that's why we're having a plethora of sh*tty movies this generation as Hollywood have no competition from other countries. You can only do so much innovation from Special Effects and Sequels.

Video games unlike the movie industry, we have seen for ourselves revolutionary games popping up quarterly if not yearly. The transition is just so unbelievable and with a smaller fanbase than the movie fanbase, games are raking in more cash than their movie counterparts (I heard GTA4 received more than Titanic).

"First, Dyack has grossly underestimated the world's ability to consume games. "

I totally agree with this statement. Going to work, I bring a PSP or an NDS, most of the games are finished while travelling by trains or buses everyday going to work and back home. Back home we've got the consoles, with AAA titles coming once in a few months can be finished off within a few weeks.

To wrap up, here is a comment by Ben Dutka on Dyack.

"Dyack also adds that it's beginning to cost hardware developers more and more to perform research on their next game system, and publishers find it more and more difficult to make a good profit."

Keyword here is "good profit". Wow, I mean Halo 3 and Gears of War made good profit over 5M copies compared to Uncharted with over 2M copies but that didn't stop them from wowing us by revealing Uncharted 2 in E3. Of course profit is important but to some developers their games come first before profit. Creators of ICO and SOTC are the best examples, they just made enough to break-even or gain small profit from their MASTERPIECES, but that didn't stop them from creating "The Last Guardian".

Typical business-like minded man who cares more about the cash than delivering with a quality product. Just imagine Atari without Nintendo as the competition...........

Last edited by Ricochet on 7/16/2009 11:22:33 PM

2 up, 0 down

bridgera
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 10:38:44 AM

Actually, come to think of it, I haven't seen many good new movies recently. I see tons and tons of remakes, I see very few new movies.

If standardizing a console makes games suck as much as movies do now, I'm all against a universal console.

0 up, 0 down

___________
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 3:28:31 AM
Reply

if multiple systems are slowing you down.
than why not drop one or two, you may not make as much money in sales but that fixes the problem dont it?
i really dont understand when people complain about something and do absolutely nothing to fix it.
if its bugging you that much to complain about it do something about it.
only problem in a 1 game console thingy is theres no competition.
you think M$ are so cheap because they want to be.
if we had a 1 console game.
1 system features would stop being invented, they system would stay the same no new "fads".
thats the only reason consoles are comming up with new ideas, so they can compete with their competitors.
2 the price would be through the roof because they would be able to charge what ever they want for it.
3 there will always be games on PCs, games on PCs will always be better because of the upgradeable hardware and lets face it FPS are meant to be played with a keyboard and mouse not a controller.
so people would just switch to a PC if the console got to expensive.
i dont see a 1 console ever happening and if it does its a bad thing not a good one.

1 up, 0 down

OriginalSin
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 3:53:03 AM
Reply

Well as long as that one console is a Sony it's fine by me...

But even if it does come to that having a universal console, Sony will still have their machine there(contradictory I know) and make only exclusives for their machine.... F**** awesome if you ask me. PS owners will be like the Bentley's in a race full of FIAT's (no offence to FIAT owner thou...)

2 up, 0 down

SkantDragon
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 1:29:01 PM
Reply

Clearly, the video game industry should be changed to be exactly like the movie industry. Because, of course, the movie industry is very healthy, promotes greater creativity through its utter lack of sequels and remakes, and never ever pumps out one bad movie after another.

Oh wait.

2 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 2:52:18 PM

Is that sarcasm I smell? :)

1 up, 0 down

Arvis
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 3:02:12 PM

"Smell?" We're swimming in the stuff! :D

-Arvis

1 up, 0 down

twenty8nine
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 8:23:07 PM
Reply

If they ever did go to one platform, it would have to be something like PC. Something that a lot of people have already and they wouldn't have to buy another dedicated machine.

0 up, 0 down

NiteKrawler
Friday, July 17, 2009 @ 8:44:18 PM

PC gaming is too expensive for a lot of people. Me included.

0 up, 0 down

Xbox_Killer
Saturday, July 18, 2009 @ 12:15:32 AM

Why would they pick PC you know how much piracy is on that system?

They should stop making games for the PC.

1 up, 1 down

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Playstation 3

Playstation 4

PSP

Playstation Vita

Playstation 2

Playstation

Other

PSX Extreme

Site Stats

Denis Dyack: "Multiple Consoles Are Slowing Us Down"

Comments (117 posts)

Leave a Comment

Latest Updates

Popular Cheats

Recent Reviews

Recent Previews

Popular Sections

Extras

Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories cheats	PSP
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas cheats	PS2
Kung Fu Panda cheats	PS3
Dead Nation cheats	PS3
LEGO Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures cheats	PS3
LittleBigPlanet cheats	PS3
MediEvil Resurrection cheats	PSP
The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon cheats	PS3
G-Police 2: Weapons of Justice cheats	PS1
Duke Nukem Forever cheats	PS3

Grid 2 review	PS3
The Last Of Us review	PS3
Remember Me review	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger review	PS3
Fuse review	PS3
Resident Evil: Revelations review	PS3
Metro: Last Light review	PS3
Zombie Tycoon II: Brainhov's Revenge review	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon review	PS3
Star Trek: The Video Game review	PS3

South Park: The Stick of Truth preview	PS3
Murdered: Soul Suspect preview	PS3
The Bureau: XCOM Declassified preview	PS3
Time and Eternity preview	PS3
Ride to Hell: Retribution preview	PS3
Call of Juarez: Gunslinger preview	PS3
Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon preview	PS3
Spartacus Legends preview	PS3
Payday 2 preview	PS3
DUST 514 preview	PS3