Analysts: One Console? No Freakin' Way!
A few weeks back, EA Exec Gerhard Florin expressed his company's hope for a single, standard platform for consumers, rather than the multiple systems each with different architecture that we have now. It's an idea that has popped up now and then, mostly from game makers and publishers who would stand to save a ton of money if the console wars ended today. This week, Gamasutra asked four industry analysts -- Ed Barton of Screen Digest, Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities, Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies and Billy Pidgeon of IDC -- their opinions, presenting the following three questions:
- Do you think it's possible that the video games industry will create a standardized (development or hardware) platform in the future?
- How would independent developers not benefit in a market with a single gaming platform?
- Isn't PC gaming already the "one gaming platform" standard? Or is this analogy not quite right?
Not surprisingly, all four pretty much answered with, "No way, Jose." They countered that the competition between consoles is ultimately good for consumers, promotes innovation in the industry, and allows companies to promote their other interests, such as Nintendo's handheld systems or Sony's Blu-Ray. The last analyst, Bajarin, sums up the hopes of execs like Florin and seems sympathetic, but "hope(s) that we also get those jetpacks we've all been waiting for." My favorite quote is a little bit of pith from Michael Pachter:
The fact is, as long as Sony and Nintendo are alive and kicking, one platform will never happen. If there was one platform, the manufacturer would have all of the leverage, unless it offered open architecture. Not likely. Nintendo and Sony [would] both insist upon a proprietary standard. Microsoft has a proprietary online business. It sounds wonderful, but so does world peace.Analyze This: Will There Ever Be One Console To Rule Them All? [Gamasutra]
Dawdle
Posted to Miscellany on 18 November 2007
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: analysts, ps3, wii, xbox 360
Awesome picture, by the by. I'm actually glad that there isn't one universal console. Sure, I'll have to spend more money to get all the games I want to play, but at least that means better games are coming out since they'll have to compete with other systems' exclusives.
The only time I use my PC for gaming is for MMOs (keyboard support, yay!) and time-wasting flash games. I prefer consoles for everything else since my TV set-up is better, and I like the feel of a controller in my hands. :) Who knows? That could change if I got a better computer!
Photoshop frenzy there :D :D
Laughable.
To any business, a monopoly is better than competition as you reap maximum profit and control the situation. EA wants this because as mentioned, the risk is low - for the business.
For the consumer, it's bad news. Lack of competition means less innovation, lack of progress techincally and creatively. There won't be any price wars driving down prices and there will be no choice.
Yeah...I've been closely following that whole debate and EA just sounds like a boastful little child who "RPs like a noob". If they REALLY want just one platform to develop for, EA could easily do that...sure they'll miss out on some profit a bit by not releasing Madden 20XX on every system (but honestly, more of us would be relieved than having to deal with that sight every single year). Like June and MME said, competition will push the game industry much further than a unified system, especially since 1st party publishers are responsible for a healthy portion of the top sellers (even if Sony could be in better shape about stabilizing their 1st party supplies like they did in their first generation but even then they were still more of a 3rd party success story).