Dyack Predicts A One Console Future

At his GCDC lecture, Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack presented his case that with an unsustainable current business model, a 'one console future' was not just possible, but probable as early as the 'next round of hardware' -- describing how the shift would be good for both creators and consumers.

In today's monopolistic model, three proprietary hardware manufacturers have gone in three different directions: the PS3 with its Cell processor, the Xbox 360 with its 3 CPUs and Xbox Live, and the Wii, with its 'socialized interface hardware.'

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Dr Pepper3987d ago (Edited 3987d ago )

And what happens when the competition is totally erased and the "one console" company takes advantage of the consumers? With no other systems available, they can make the hardware, accessories, games etc. as expensive as they want, since the person buying it has no other choices.

And then what happens when they start having very different views on certain situations? They split into two companies and another console is formed later and we have started all over again.

Edit: "way too many games," according to Dyack. I found this pretty funny. Better too many games than too little, at least in my opinion.

QuackPot3987d ago (Edited 3987d ago )

Ps1 & Ps2

Nobody was screwed by Sony's dominance. Over whelmingling happy gamers and huge selection of games.

Microsoft came into the game console industry NOT so that it can form an alliance with Sony, Ninetendo etc to make a standard console but to dominate it and make a lot of money. They are prepared to take huge losses to achieve this(eg the xbox and likely the xbox 360 if they abandon it as well for an xbox 720).

Each of the three main console makers are out to make money and want to maintain control of their business.

The best way for there to be a single console now would be a winner in the console war - Playstation or Xbox. I'm excluding Wii as it's not next gen.

If you know anything about Microsoft's monopoly and practises with Windows on the PC over the last 20 years, you'd be a fool to want Microsoft to win the console war.

Damn. If Micorsoft never entered this industry, a lower specd & cheaper Ps3 would most likely be dominating the market now as well as Halo and Gears be running on it. But that's what if.

Let the war continue. I hope this generation finally gives us a clear winner so a certain manufacturer will finally get out of the industry and focus on what it does best - Games development.

Kholinar3987d ago (Edited 3987d ago )

I love ducks, so I'm all for your username.

Let me say though, that while Microsoft has been bad with a monopoly, I haven't seen that Sony's been better even without a monopoly.

Rootkits, Atrac, memorystick, etc. are all examples of Sony trying to lock people into their products and protect their interests above those of consumers. They may be getting better after all of this (Bluray is fairly open) but a monopoly could be a nightmare. I'm not sure they've learned yet. Microsoft has been more open lately too, and I wouldn't trust them if they paid me several billion.

I'm not sure I'd feel safe with any of these companies in charge.

On the other hand, what this guy is saying just sounds like destroying consoles and going on to pc's to me. I really like custom gaming hardware instead. With this you'd be upgrading videocards and drivers would cause instability, etc. Viruses/worms would become that much more prevalent cause you'd be using a standardized architecture...

tplarkin73986d ago

Denis is comparing it to cell phone technology and VCRs. So, it won't be a single company controlling and profiting from a console. It will be many companies making their own consoles to a single specification. This reminds me of IBM PC "compatible" computers.

There was a day when IBM was the sole manufacturer of PCs. There were many "brands" of computers, such as Tandy, Texas Instruments, and Apple. They all competed for market dominance. Guess who won the PC war? Microsoft.

Compaq was the first compatible computer and thus started the "unification" of hardware for computers. Perhaps the unified console will be the PC? If they make the PC smaller and as simple as a console, then it may happen.

Gizmo_Logix3986d ago


Sony never had a monopoly in any market. Even during the PS2 days (65%). That's far from the 90% that Microsoft has in the operating system market. Just wanted to point that out.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3986d ago
d3l33t3987d ago

this is horse $hit. There is no way, and if there was a possible way that only one console would be released, it would be horrible for games. As a gamer, I like choice. In games, AND in consoles.

QuackPot3987d ago (Edited 3987d ago )

Halo, Gears, Bioshock, Forza etc can all be written and optimized for the Ps3.

Likewise LBP, HS, R&C etc for xbox 360.

Games developers are always in competition with one another. The consoles only get involved when publishers/developers make their games exlusive to a particular console.

I say get rid of exclusives altogether.

Let the Hardware stand on its own merits and not have exclusive games being the main reason to buy it.

bluegoblin3987d ago

it should be called nintendo.

SwiderMan3987d ago

This coming from the developer of Too Human, which was original a PSX game?

Get working on your nearly 10-year old game. It's starting to make Duke Nukem Forever look good.

ItsDubC3987d ago

While his theory about commodification makes sense, I just don't see it happening in the realm of console technology. Some have said the same thing about the PC market and we all know that PCs come in different formfactors, configurations, and brands.

The reason I think his theory falls short is that Nintendo is already taking advantage of and correcting the characteristics of the industry that he points to as the eventual causes for commodification.

In keeping w/ familiar yet older hardware specs this generation, Nintendo has effectively given 3rd-parties breathing room when it comes to developing games. Lower development costs for Wii games means developers are exposed to less risk and more profit potential. The same is true for DS development.

Also, because Nintendo has profitted from every Wii sold from the beginning, there is less pressure to put the burden of recouping hardware costs on 3rd-parties, which is something Dyack also outlined.

Avid gamers may scoff at casual games, but sales of those casual games will keep devs in business by helping to make up for big-budget flops and by helping to fund the next big-budget hit.

Kholinar3987d ago

Well said.

Nintendo has made some colossal mistakes in past gens. They seem to be learning a bit.

Show all comments (38)
The story is too old to be commented.