One Console Future: Part II, Future
In Part I, we looked at the past history of the gaming industry. This brief look showed that the industry, disregarding a single slump, is following a standard industry lifecycle. In this article, business theory and principle will be used to look at the information presented and try to analyze any possible trends regarding convergence into a single console.
The thought of a single console per generation is very intriguing, both to producers and consumers. Imagine only having to buy a single console to play every game that comes out. Developers would likely benefit from the fact that there would be only one platform to design for: instead of juggling multi-platform games or porting from one to another, the game could be made once and played by all home consoles.
If there was to be one single development platform, it would have to meet the needs of the majority of all video game consumers. The following is a list of five attributes that I consider to be of high importance regarding a console:
1. Full utilization of the most current storage medium
The console would need to use the most current widely accepted storage medium. For the past two generations, DVD has been this storage medium. In G6/G7, a full 57% couldn’t play DVDs out of the box. Given the low cost and high popularity of DVDs, it is unacceptable for a console not to be capable of playing them. Any console should use and play the most current medium; DVDs this generation, Bluray or HD-DVD next generation, whichever happens to win the HD war.
2. Wireless controls that are highly expandable
Wireless technology has progressed to the point that there is absolutely no reason for controllers to require wires. Additionally, with removal of the physical linkage limitations comes the removal of arbitrary limits on how many controls there can be. A designer shouldn’t have to consider the maximum number of controls a console can have when designing. The number of controls should be limited by the game itself, not the console. Game creators should have the option of creating anything from a two player fighting game to a full-on 10 player basketball game. The only physical limitations are output size and processing power; designers should base number of player positions available on this and not on control limitations.
3. Built-in storage
The days of memory cards are over. There is no reason why a console can’t have built in flash or hard-drive space to save games. Downloadable content has proven to be both in demand and feasible; this all but requires ample local storage space. Based on hardware prices, this should be easy to include. Extra points if the storage is available remotely, but this isn’t a complete necessity.
4. Centralized online capabilities
LIVE and PSN have shown the importance of strong centralized online capabilities. The ability to have a friends list, see what others are doing, and ping them (or be pinged by them) for games are all things that should be simple to implement and add tons of product value. PC has ruled online multiplayer for so long due to the ease of online matchmaking and communication; LIVE and PSN have competed by streamlining the process. Any new console must have a capable online network.
5. Peripheral expandability
With the introduction of Bluetooth and USB, the limits on peripherals for consoles have been removed. Cameras, motion sensors, microphones, and any other of the assortments of items available have opened new doors for developers. The more limitations on hardware that are removed, the more freedom developers and designers have in terms of what they can create. The inclusion of expandability technologies is critical to any new console.
With these requirements in mind, a few more important questions arise…
Noticeably absent from the above list are any specifications dealing with actual performance: processing power, memory, etc. These specifications, while important, are somewhat arbitrary and tied into the next question: who would make it? This is where the one console future truly becomes muddied. There are two scenarios:
A. One company pushes everyone else and builds it themselves
or
B. A unified platform is developed
I’ll address scenario A first as it is the simplest. There is almost no way that any single company could ever push everyone else out of the market. The gaming market is has already eclipsed many forms of traditional entertainment in terms of money spent. Unless a single company can concurrently create extremely high barriers to entry while pushing everyone else out, there will always be companies looking to tap into this growing market. Go to any toy or electronic store and you will see not only the big three consoles, but also a plethora of small-time consoles that are trying to get a piece of the market. In short, a single hardware company will never take over the gaming industry.
Scenario B has a lot more questions, but is also the scenario that could theoretically be implemented. The biggest question regarding scenario B is the decision on the specified requirements of the platform. This would have to be done by committee and involve representatives from all the major companies in the industry. This is likely the biggest stumbling block with scenario B: getting companies to agree not only on a single set of specifications, but agree as a large enough block that it would be useful. Any unified platform would be successful only if there was a large group that supported it; any dissent or outside competition from a major competitor could severely limit the effectiveness of a unified platform
Assuming that a single set of specifications could be reached, then what? For the sake of this article, let’s assume that the companies all got together and formed the One Console Future (OCF) joint venture. They decide that OCF will require the five items listed above; additional specifications include the equivalent of 6 GHz processing power, 2 GHz for graphics, 1 gigabyte of system memory, 512 megabytes of graphical memory, and 20 gigabytes of storage space. In addition, standard system architecture will be implemented. Any company who was involved in the OCF venture (in terms of both human and monetary resources) would have license to build around this platform and use the OCF marketing materials.
How would this work out for console makers? They would have the option to build any sort of project as long as the base requirements were met. Sony, following in the steps of PS3, may create the Playstation OCF which would have the base specs in addition to 80 gigabytes of memory, wireless and wired networking, and a sub-section beyond the base OCF network where gamers could video chat. Another company may make a completely barebones package including only the bare minimum but sell it for half the price of the Sony version. Regardless of any periphery additions, all consoles would play the same games.
The idea of a one console future is something that could be examined much more deeply, taking up pages and volumes in terms of theory and conjecture. For now, the best we can say is that while it is possible, it is unlikely based on current competition and business situations. Only time will tell if the OCF venture will ever exist.