Universal gaming devices

[obsolescence_is_drm]

The games industry has been around for a long time. Why do you think there is nothing like a universal standard for gaming media? An analogy would be blu ray/dvds for the movie industry. You buy a blu ray/dvd from any studio and it will work on any number of blu ray players manufactured by different companies (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony) etc.

Shouldn't the games industry be mature enough for such a model to emerge? Why is there so much market fragmentation?

 

[Joccaren]

Well, it kind of does. Its called a PC.
It can run any game if ported to it, handle any control scheme, and was the original all-in one device.

Why do exclusives still exist then?
To sell copies of consoles/handhelds, or in the case of the PC where such publishing deals don't too often exist, because the developers didn't see it as profitable to port the game to the consoles [Yeah, this happens on consoles too, but large number of console exclusives are simply to sell consoles, which really sucks].
Really, that's about it. There's no unified device because MS, Sony and Nintendo want to force everyone to buy their hardware, knowing that if they didn't it wouldn't sell near as well. Yay for competition, forcing people to buy everything only in the videogames industry -.- [Seriously, the movie industry doesn't have this. You don't need a Sony bluray player to play some movies and a HTP one or W/E to play others =/]

 

[Bellvedere]

Because there's no money in selling consoles anymore. Nintendo, Sony, and MS will all be selling their home console at a loss this generation. MS and Sony have been doing it since last gen (at least).

From my understanding the money in producing a console comes from software licenses (and sales if first party pub). With a universal device, you would effectively kill licensing (why bother to pay each of them if any device will play the game) thus consoles become non-profitable.

 

[WeepingAngels]

The games industry has been around for a long time. Why do you think there is nothing like a universal standard for gaming media? An analogy would be blu ray/dvds for the movie industry. You buy a blu ray/dvd from any studio and it will work on any number of blu ray players manufactured by different companies (Samsung, Panasonic, Sony) etc.

Shouldn't the games industry be mature enough for such a model to emerge? Why is there so much market fragmentation?

So you only want there to be a single console? You want to eliminate the competition between console makers?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the market will always have as many competitors as can be supported, i.e. if everyone stops buying all consoles except one then only one would exist.

And it's not like the movie industry has it all sorted out, you need to be aware that behind that seemingly universal availability are patents upon patents, licensing fees upon licensing fees, to cover all the currently used encoding/media methods.
For example anyone who wants to make blu-ray anything has to pay Sony a fee for them to allow it (now even MS), and if Sony decided to prevent everyone from having it they would have complete blu-ray exclusivity.

 

[gunny1993]

... Clearly you don't remember HD-DVD

 

[Saltyk]

Well, if there wasn't competition, then there would have been no reason for Microsoft to make the 180. Then, we'd have a console with an online requirement, built in DRM, pointless motion controls, useless discs, region locking, and other such nonsense. It was because the PS4 is a thing that the 180 became necessary. It'd probably be more expensive without competition, too.

Instead we had an alternative in the console market. Which allowed us a chance to have a good system. Not just the one they wanted to force on us.

 

[obsolescence_is_drm]

Well, it would seem to me that if gaming adopts a universal standard, there would be more competition among console providers (Sony, Samsung, Nintendo, etc) as well as content providers (game studios). True, there might be a patent fee to be paid to the creators of the new universal standard, which would be fair anyway for R&D efforts.

Eventually, competition and ease of consumer adoption would drive prices downward. I mean, whether it be blu ray or digital downloads, you can pretty much pick up those cheaply now.

 

[Bostur]

Because if they can get consumers to buy several almost identical microcomputers, its better for them to keep the market fragmented.

Sell a PC for running browsers and email programs, sell an OS to make the PC run, sell several XBox'es, Playstations and Nintendos for games. They are smiling all the way to the bank.

If there was a standard they could only sell one device, why would they do that?

 

[Something Amyss]

Because there's no money in selling consoles anymore. Nintendo, Sony, and MS will all be selling their home console at a loss this generation. MS and Sony have been doing it since last gen (at least).

From my understanding the money in producing a console comes from software licenses (and sales if first party pub). With a universal device, you would effectively kill licensing (why bother to pay each of them if any device will play the game) thus consoles become non-profitable.

Most consoles (of the major players) have been sold at a loss. The question is usually "how much" rather than "is there one?"

And I mean, that's great for Sony and Microsoft (licensing) but terrible for almost everybody else.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Well, it would seem to me that if gaming adopts a universal standard, there would be more competition among console providers (Sony, Samsung, Nintendo, etc) as well as content providers (game studios). True, there might be a patent fee to be paid to the creators of the new universal standard, which would be fair anyway for R&D efforts.

Eventually, competition and ease of consumer adoption would drive prices downward. I mean, whether it be blu ray or digital downloads, you can pretty much pick up those cheaply now.

So if Nintendo is building their own version of a universal game console, how would they make it stand out from Sonys' version?

 

[Tazzman]

Only one reason: Money. The idea of multiple consoles is that we, the consumer, plough our money into the company which offers us the most so that they can put the money they earn into developing a bigger and better product while the competition slowly withers away and either comes back with a better product or goes bankrupt and its place in the market is taken up by a company with better ideas (Or sometimes worse ideas). Instead console developers are more conservative than anything and have left next gen sounding very mediocre. But at least if there?s competition I can choose which product will suit me best whereas if there was only one console I'd get stuck with whatever the developers dish out. So as a consumer I couldn't really see the benefits of a universal standard.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Well, it would seem to me that if gaming adopts a universal standard, there would be more competition among console providers (Sony, Samsung, Nintendo, etc) as well as content providers (game studios). True, there might be a patent fee to be paid to the creators of the new universal standard, which would be fair anyway for R&D efforts.

Eventually, competition and ease of consumer adoption would drive prices downward. I mean, whether it be blu ray or digital downloads, you can pretty much pick up those cheaply now.

So if Nintendo is building their own version of a universal game console, how would they make it stand out from Sonys' version?

Same as everyone else. Better quality construction, better price, better appearance, better energy profile. Advanced features, like screenshots, a controller you can calibrate and configure in case its broken or you only have four fingers, just kidding that one. But I do wonder why there are not laws that require games to be accessible like wheelchair ramps.

...but no features that make gaming better on Nintendos' console? No thanks, I prefer it the way it is now where different consoles have different features that benefit gaming and that includes exclusive games. Please don't argue that Nintendo should be required by law to put Mario and Zelda on the competitions consoles.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

An analogy would be blu ray/dvds for the movie industry. You buy a blu ray/dvd from any studio and it will work on any number of blu ray players manufactured by different companies

Because it doesn't take much to play a video. You can do it on anything. As much as it infuriates the "hardcore gamers" processing power matters. You also have to factor in price. Sure they could make a console with the power of an Nvidia Titan but not a lot of people would want to spend that much money. You thus have to find a balance between specs, price, and features. Therefore we have options with pc being the closest thing to universal platform. Except its only universal if you only want to use Windows and install whatever drm client the publishers demand

 

[Bad Jim]

Well, it would seem to me that if gaming adopts a universal standard, there would be more competition among console providers (Sony, Samsung, Nintendo, etc) as well as content providers (game studios). True, there might be a patent fee to be paid to the creators of the new universal standard, which would be fair anyway for R&D efforts.

Eventually, competition and ease of consumer adoption would drive prices downward. I mean, whether it be blu ray or digital downloads, you can pretty much pick up those cheaply now.

The 3DO console attempted to do just that. The design was licensed to Panasonic, Sanyo and GoldStar, among others, who manufactured it. Unfortunately, it still cost $700, in 1993. Partly that's because the device was maybe a little too powerful, but partly because their whole business plan revolved around charging for the console, rather than game royalties.

 

[Doom972]

There's the PC. It's an open platform and anyone can make games for it. Every house has one, though most don't have a dedicated graphics card.

This is the closest thing we have for a universal gaming device at the moment. With the console makers hording exclusives, I doubt we'll see it reaching its potential as a universal gaming device any time soon.

 

[Adamantium93]

Well, it would seem to me that if gaming adopts a universal standard, there would be more competition among console providers (Sony, Samsung, Nintendo, etc) as well as content providers (game studios). True, there might be a patent fee to be paid to the creators of the new universal standard, which would be fair anyway for R&D efforts.

Eventually, competition and ease of consumer adoption would drive prices downward. I mean, whether it be blu ray or digital downloads, you can pretty much pick up those cheaply now.

So if Nintendo is building their own version of a universal game console, how would they make it stand out from Sonys' version?

Same as everyone else. Better quality construction, better price, better appearance, better energy profile. Advanced features, like screenshots, a controller you can calibrate and configure in case its broken or you only have four fingers, just kidding that one. But I do wonder why there are not laws that require games to be accessible like wheelchair ramps.

...but no features that make gaming better on Nintendos' console? No thanks, I prefer it the way it is now where different consoles have different features that benefit gaming and that includes exclusive games. Please don't argue that Nintendo should be required by law to put Mario and Zelda on the competitions consoles.

If I want to get the most recent Zelda or Mario, I have to buy the horridly designed Wii U or else I can't play those games. How exactly is that consumer-friendly?

If I want to watch Spiderman 2 I don't have to put it in a DVD player made by Sony.

If there was a universal system, Nintendo would actually have to make their consoles good, or at least economically sound for the bargain buyers.

Basically, you're arguing for Nintendo to have the freedom to make poorly conceived and poorly optimized product because they know people will buy it to play the games.

There is also precedent for this. A long time ago, Nintendo (that's NES) Games had a chip in them that the system would recognize. If the chip was not present, the console refused to play the game. Another company (I forgot who but I don't have time to look it up again) began manufacturing products with a false chip that tricked the system into playing their games. Nintendo sued them but the court ruled that Nintendo was in the wrong by providing unfair barriers to the video game market.