Jaffe floats the idea of a single standard for consoles

by Nick Doerr { Jan 11th 2008 at 8:00PM }

David Jaffe is an outspoken man -- one not afraid to voice his opinions, concerns, qualms, and superstitions (really?) over the interweb highway. In a recent update to his blog, he argues for a "single standard" console -- that's not to say one console to rule them all, but a single standard upon which all developers could work on. We're probably crazy for suggesting it, but if all future consoles used the Cell Processor as the basic standard, it could help developers ease into making games play similarly across consoles. Assuming there's more than one and assuming any company would go multiplatform across similarly build consoles. Messy, no?

Our friends at Joystiq seem to have offered their own ideas on the subject, and they're not bad if you assume Jaffe means a single console (which he originally seemed to, but in his edit he ~~changed his mind~~ clarified). A single standard is a little different, but really, the two would meet at some point. Who knows if it would work. If it did -- wouldn't we just have one automobile company? Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Tags: david-jaffe

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

NYGreatestZ7 @ Jan 11th 2008 8:40PM

traitor he has a nintendo chain at least he doesn't have a xbox one :)...... i hope?

Vagrant Dead @ Jan 11th 2008 9:11PM

Ummm No Stalin may have liked this idea but I dont...

tomas_sharp @ Jan 11th 2008 9:23PM

Hmm correct me if im wrong..... but doesn't my PC do the same thing?

Carlton @ Jan 12th 2008 8:16AM

Yes, and Microsoft owns the standard. This means they have an effective monopoly on the computer game industry. That's why PC gamers are forced to use a POS like Windows instead of Linux or Mac OSX, and why Bill Gates is richer than God.
That is why Vagrant's comment about Stalin is a valid one.
A universal standard would benefit no one but developers.

John @ Jan 11th 2008 9:32PM

I don't really like this, I see competitiveness and innovation bowing to the standard. This can happen in about 6-7 years when any computer is so fast and powerful that the playing field is level. If we had a standard now, it would be controlled by the most powerful, so we'd all be playing broken x360's instead of the superior ps3. That superiority has taken off, per developers' increasingly gushy comments ("we only used 48%! etc)

John @ Jan 11th 2008 9:34PM

I meant controlled by the most powerful people in the industry-- which means NOT the most powerful console-- people with tremendous power will always cut back somewhere (hence RROD's and a console that will bow out gracelessly in 2008)

recon @ Jan 11th 2008 10:08PM

isn't the point of console manufacturers is to develop a system that advocates "next-gen" gameplay to us the consumers? Wouldn't this mean to be uninhibited by someone elses standards? Isn't this why we have the genesis/nintendo over atari, 3DO over Jaguar(i could be wrong just throwing that in there), Dreamcast over Sega Saturn, PS1 over nintendo 64, PS2 over xbox and perhaps the PS3 over 360? Without the push of these hardware devices, would we be seeing, not just intense graphics, but AI that react and play against you better? to be able to multitask operations, like personal in-game music added to some game you purchased or in game chat or interactions with other peripherals? Being able to innovate, produce and mass-market a system thats better than the last has given us the best we'd could hope for in gaming. Perhaps with one type of console, these innovations may vary well have been stunted. Just think with every console, There was always that one game house who developed a game that pushed that particular system to its limits. If there's one thing about human nature, we always want to see "how far can we go". Granted, maybe we can do this with one multi-console standard, but the rate at how fast we move to that "next-gen" will be a lot slower than today.

And one more thing. Why do i want a console that plays like the another console? They whole point of me buying this console over that console, is because it's better than the other. I believe in its capabilities in being the best. This is what every boy and girl says and feels when they save their money or tell mom and dad what new game system they want. whats wrong with this dude?

recon @ Jan 11th 2008 10:10PM

isnt the point of console manufacturers is to develop a system that advocates "next-gen" gameplay to us the consumers? Wouldnt this mean to be uninhibited by someone elses standards? Isn't this why we have the genesis/nintendo over atari, 3DO over Jaguar, Dreamcast over Sega Saturn, PS1 over nintendo 64, PS2 over xbox and perhaps the PS3 over 360? Without the push of these hardware devices, would we be seeing, not just intense graphics, but AI that react and play against you better? to be able to multitask operations, like personal in-game music added to some game you purchased or in game chat or interactions with other peripherals? Being able to innovate, produce and mass-market a system thats better than the last has given us the best we'd could hope for in gaming. Perhaps with one type of console, these innovations may vary well have been stunted. Just think with every console, There was always that one game house who developed a game that pushed that particular system to its limits. If there's one thing about human nature, we always want to see "how far can we go". Granted, maybe we can do this with one multi-console standard, but the rate at how fast we move to that "next-gen" will be a lot slower than today.

And one more thing. Why do i want a console that plays like the another console? They whole point of me buying this console over that console, is because it's better than the other. I believe in its capabilities in being the best. This is what every boy and girl says and feels when they save their money or tell mom and dad what new game system they want. whats wrong with this dude?

Dehshizknight @ Jan 11th 2008 11:10PM

If it weren't for competition, we wouldn't be living the luxuries of gaming that we have today. You know, since the other consoles are the driving force of the other console's trying to get ahead.

Darren Tilley @ Jan 11th 2008 11:38PM

Seriously, whoever thinks that we are going to have one single standard needs to just give up the analyst game and take a job at McDonalds. Hardware companies can't even agree on what kind of disk to put movies on. What makes you think that Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are going to get together and agree on some standardized platform?

Exactly how is this going to happen? Think real logically about it and try and come up with a way that it could happen. How is it going to be enforced? These companies are already hard at work, building their next consoles. None of them are going to take a phonecall from their competitor and seriously consider the idea of collaborating. That's just a pipe dream.. And to me, that would be a nightmare.

Gaming machines have always competed against each other by pushing specs up with each generation. Or by pushing innovation in other ways. Sometimes they succeed. Other times they simple fail so miserably that it can destroy a company. Putting all your eggs in one basket could destroy the industry if the market doesn't find the product appealing, since none of the companies would have another system to rush out the door as a backup plan.

In conclusion. This idea is stoopid.

JaseH @ Jan 12th 2008 3:49AM

Sega & Nintendo were major enemies for years, and look at them now.

Collaberating.

So anything can happen. People would have laughed at you and pointed a finger if you told them Sega was to make games for Nintendo by 2007 onwards.

*Shrugs*

Darren Tilley @ Jan 12th 2008 11:47AM

When Sega dropped out of the Hardware game, others came in with their own ideas to fill the gap left by their departure.

There's always someone who thinks it could be done differently, so if the big three collaborated unsuccessfully, another company could easily step into the mix with a more appealing system.

The whole thing would be too much of a risk for either company to consider it seriously.

http://kotaku.com/344084/xbla-goldeneye-was-real-nearly-done-now-dead

Read that and then try and tell me how those same companies are going to figure out a single standard that will satisfy each of their target audiences without issue.

jango fett @ Jan 12th 2008 6:35AM

dave... dont sell out by publishing titles on msoft's console...dont...thats all im saying.

Laurens Holst @ Jan 12th 2008 9:13AM

Well it’s not a new idea… the MSX computers (that were popular in Japan, Europe and South America in the 80s) were a standard that was manufactured by a lot of companies, such as Sony, Philips, Canon, Panasonic, Yamaha, and many others.

And today’s PCs are also based on several hardware standards.

So it’s not a bad idea per se, but at the same time I wouldn’t really care much for it, the non-standardised console market has worked pretty well for consumers too.

~Grauw

bamf @ Jan 12th 2008 10:58AM

@jaseH
Are you aware that Sega are no longer a hardware manufacture?
Sega are a software company and will make games for any console they see fit. If Sega was still in the game of making console Seag would not be working with Nintendo and stay as enemies. Even though they're not enemies in the first place, just competitors.

JaseH @ Jan 13th 2008 2:51AM

@bamf

Yes, I was. Clearly, did you not read?

"People would have laughed at you and pointed a finger if you told them Sega was to make --- games --- for Nintendo by 2007 onwards."

Have a nice day.

JaseH @ Jan 13th 2008 2:53AM

@bamf Yes, I was. Clearly, did you not read?

"People would have laughed at you and pointed a finger if you toldthem Sega was to make --- games --- for Nintendo by 2007 onwards."

Have a nice day.

_____________________________________
JaseH.

Tony @ Jan 12th 2008 11:32AM

With no competition the technology that drives the game software's potential will stagnate. Competing console manufacturers push the evolution of gaming software as much as video card manufacturers for PC.

Is the platform holder going to one day say 'Oh, this console is old hat now, lets bring out a new one that runs better games' if the old one is the only one? No...they'd need competition from a more technologically advanced console to break their comfort zone.

Bob @ Jan 12th 2008 11:40AM

Firstly, the MSX 'standard' wasn't really that standard, as more companies added extra bits and bobs to their machines, so they became less 'standard'. Which is more or less exactly the same with modern PCs, except that the consumer can trick put his PC any way he sees fit.

Secondly, if we're talking about 'standards' in console terms, then there is a 'standard'. PS3, Xbox360 and the Wii all use PowerPC derived chips. Code developed for one machine shouldn't be that hard to translate to another. That's about as close as you'll get to a standard in the console world.

But who want's to live in a world where everything is the same? We're not in 1984 or the Soviet Bloc, for cryin' out loud. Choice is good. Stop whinging and go and make some cool games, you fool.

BTitty @ Jan 13th 2008 8:24PM

Not a big fan of standards, what use is it to compete in the hardware arena at that point. I also don't agree that MS has the "standard in gaming," just the standard OS which means there is no use in making a Mac game(look at how long it took devs to use the PS3 with a small base).

From my view there shouldn't be consoles period. We have the ability for one computer to be powerful enough to run,remotely, games on the TV, while someone uses the internet at a monitor. Then MS, Nintendoo, and Sony can make games, specific controllers for their games, and web portals for gaming. PC hardware keeps up at its pace with some "standards" so multiple OS's can run the same game. Its all in the realm of possible.

Laurens Holst @ Jan 13th 2008 7:01PM

Not standard? Well I don’t really know what you’re talking about there… Pretty much all MSX1 games and software work on all MSX1 computers and up. Although some might have higher memory requirements than your machine equipped, or use a certain sound chip, but you could always buy a memory or sound cartridge.

Don’t mistake companies adding their own ‘unique’ features to their computers to differentiate them from the rest (like e.g. Yamaha’s CX-5M music computer) for being non-standard.

davedrastic @ Jan 13th 2008 8:53AM

Sounds to me like a call to the likes of LG, Toshiba and Samsung to step in and make a standardized PC gaming machine. I think people say that the 360 is very similar to PC gaming, but come on it's made by Microsoft - i'd guess that the other guys are more adept at making lower cost, mass produced silver and grey boxes.

Basically a stripped down PC with a decent but cheap graphics card, cos otherwise you might as well just get a PC (or notebook), which has support far greater than the likes of the more restricted MSX could have got.

But it seems a strange approach because surely there will always be more than one player in this multi-billion dollar industry - both Microsoft and Sony jumped into the industry not that long ago. Plenty of console manufacturers have jumped in and out of the industry.

In fact it quite clearly shows Jaffe's laziness. It's quite possible to make games for multi-platforms, but boo hoo it means more work to be done.

Bloody developers, who do they think they are.

Starfire @ Jan 13th 2008 8:15PM

It sounds nice for everyone- just get one console and all the games will work, just write for one console and everyone can play the game. But, it forgets the risk that someone's going to try and dominate the system (i.e. Microsoft) and there'll be 'market research' to determine just what types of games will sell, so there'll only be a few surviving genres, as ones which would have otherwise survived could lose their niche. Of course, with a larger install base, more 'niche' games could be viable.

This will probably happen some day, with blue-ray drives, motion-sensitive controllers and whatever comes after the Cell, but for now the hardware is too unsettled for any standard to win. The Wii shows how something unexpected (true motion-sensing) can be really popular, the 360 that there are no short-cuts to high technology (keeps breaking down) and the PS3 that the best tech still needs software (coming with the promised games and the victory of Blu-Ray).

Maybe one day the competition will be just in software, or in varieties of the same, licensed hardware. It's been tried before and has yet to work- and looking at the sad state of Windows, you have to wonder if it's a good idea, or just a recipe for laziness (as many here say). In the mean time just do what I did- get the PS3-Wii and enjoy amazing variety!