Slashdot Log In
EA Calls for Open Platform/Single Console for Games
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Oct 19, 2007 05:21 PM
from the all-about-the-bottom-line dept.
from the all-about-the-bottom-line dept.
eldavojohn writes "EA's head of international publishing made some interesting comments on what he'd like to see in the future of gaming. 'We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible.' While the rest of his comments imply that he simply meant 'one' platform instead of removing development licenses, it is an interesting concept. This is obviously a move designed to cut their development time and costs. But could this have other implications - like easier homebrew development for consoles?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There... fixed that bullshit for yah.
The quicker EA falls apart the happier I'll be.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It will happen... (Score:2, Interesting)
It will happen, just not soon (unless EA dumps a serious amount of money into it).
Not a single hardware platform, but a standard open format that games can be written in. Similar to how you can view the same web-pages on Mac, Windows, Linux, iPhone, XBox, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were to start making money on the hardware, it could happen, but it is still extremely unlikely as the amount of money to be made on a single console is just not big enough to justify the change.
Basica
Re:It will happen... (Score:4, Interesting)
Each company assumed that all the other companies would conform to the basic architecture for compatibility with their console, but that their added features would make their console, the one console system that the consumers would buy. Well, of course, with that level of incompatibility, the market just disintegrated.
The best we could hope for, would be standard programming API's, and perhaps even standard specifications for the provision and naming of assembly level vector/matrix programming instructions. Looking at the DirectX/OpenGL revision history, some companies couldn't even agree on which vector arithmetic operations to support.
Unfortunately, it is obvious that Microsoft isn't going to give up on DirectX, and that other companies aren't going to give up on OpenGL or the embedded system version of it. But everyone would have to agree on the same functions for using DMA for streaming, and all of that is going to vary according to how the console systems are designed.
Parent
They tried that and it didn't work too well. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They've been pursuing that Holy Grail for at least 15 years. Maybe the generation of consoles following the current one will be the set that's visually rich enough and fast enough that anything beyond it falls into the realm of diminishing returns.
Schwab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's hardly a useful metric considering that the 3DO's failure was a combination of a high price and next-to-zero killer apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they're also glossing over the fact that every console maker also wants this--they just want their proprietary console to be the One True Console of the generation.
Dear EA (Score:5, Interesting)
Make your own, and publish games exclusively for it. Let us know how well that works out for you.
Thanks.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They should ask EA founder Trip Hawkins [wikipedia.org] how well that went [wikipedia.org] ...
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, but no. (Score:3, Insightful)
EA's hoping that the console turns into too much of a gaming appliance, which isn't going to happen. The economics behind it are just plain shot when you take a number of products that have their unique differences, such as platform-specific games and platform-specific controllers, and attempt to homogenize them into a group that has limited differences. The asymmetric competition between the consoles is the reason why sales are quite as high as they are, since a consumer may end up purchasing a Wii and an XBox 360 if they want to play Game X and Game Y, rather than being able to purchase a generic console that will play both games and take both the wireless pad and the nunchuck.
A standard set of requirements isn't going to happen either. While Sony and Nintendo are happy to work with OpenGL, for example, it'll be a very cold day before you see Microsoft embracing modern OpenGL support alongside their DirectX baby. Each console manufacturer wants to have a share of the market based on what their console can do that others can't -- see the Wii. Some are going to go after the newest technology and play Blu-rays, others are going to have DVD remotes, some will include hard drives. The console manufacturers will not see any particular utility in adding "allows competitors to play 'our' games" to the list of requirements.
Emulation may happen, by comparison, in one fashion or another. However, the above still applies, since any game that can be run using a standard engine can also be run by their competitors.
Devs would love the idea, I'll wager. Learn the technology once and keep developing for the same, iteratively improving target. They'd love it up until the publishers stop getting paid for platform-exclusive releases.
I blame accounting (Score:3, Insightful)
Rumours that this same accountant found that the sweet spot of sales was 850 copies at $77.10 each have, as yet, been unconfirmed.
We already have one (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We already have one (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
And what OS are you running? I bet it's not linux or os x since there aren't very many games out for those because they're different platforms. Yet they're still PCs.
Last time I checked, Macs aren't PCs.
You're right though. PCs would have to have a set standard for it to work. As it is now, it's probably even more hectic than developing for consoles since you have to take into account the various possible hardware configurations. Still, I'd generally rather see and play games on my PC than a console.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's called meatspace.
Card-battle game? Sell cards.
Strategy game? Print it on cardboard and sell plastic or metal game pieces.
Puzzle game? Sell puzzle pieces.
Want a first-person shooter? Sell guns. (Respawning limited by player's faith.)
Third-person shooter? Add VR goggles and a tethered floating camera to follow you.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There is one, it's called the PC. (Score:2, Troll)
OK, so there's a certain amount of variation in the hardware configuration.
Personally I think consoles mostly suck for playing games on. The controller is a crappy input device and the television is a crappy output device. The reason they're such a hit with the public is that they're 0.5 to 0.1 times the price of a PC, and the reason for THAT is -- aha -- they're not open-standard.
Two good things (Score:3, Interesting)
Two: EA believes that in THE FUTURE, gamers might play on Nintendo "channels" and Sony "channels" through some universal console. Doubtful, but I hope virtual console offerings are expanded across the board. Digital distribution is relatively cheap and EA, Nintendo, etc. could sell games for years or even decades after release. Maybe a Steam-like system that allows me to transfer games from console to console with guaranteed compatibility?
As it stands, there are hundreds of games that are effectively lost to time for no good reason. Consoles come and go, games stop being manufactured, and eager players either have to buy rehashes (and the required hardware), expensive used copies, or resort to emulation (which doesn't always work, especially with PS1 games). With digital distribution there's no reason why classic games, which aren't inherently scarce, have to be so difficult to find. Plus digital distribution will help bankrupt the assholes at Gamestop...assuming Comcast doesn't throttle your game downloads!
1991 called... (Score:2)
easy solution: live cds (Score:2)
have it cache data files to a harddrive if possible
done!
Re: (Score:2)
How?
-:sigma.SB
Sure, great idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think what drives people to consoles is that the price:performance ratio at entry is better because consoles are heavily subsidized (very narrow margin, or actually sold at a loss) which gets made up for on the tail end by the cut of game sales the console makers demand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get a console over a PC for a couple of reasons. Cost isn't one of them.
1.) Developers mess with my DLLs. Sometimes this breaks other programs I'm already using. I've had a few programs die this way. I use my PC for other things besides gaming, and I need them to work.
2.) With consoles up to this point (and I think it could change now that they have HD choice) it's been simple to figure out what works on my machine. If it says ps2 on the box, it works in my launch day ps2. Even if
Well, duh. (Score:2)
Of course you do, your business is selling entertainment (including console) software.
OTOH, the people whose business is selling development licenses to entertainment software platforms (that is, console makers) don't want that, and you whining and stomping your feet about it isn't going to g
Certainly possible... (Score:2)
The two major games consoles run MIPS and ARM. But there's no good reason for that other than simple wealth of development talent for those two processors - Gameboy has always run ARM (since moving away from the 6502 in the Gameboy Advance) and Playstation ran MIPS so the PSP runs MIPS. It is always a wrestle to get your entire development community to switch processors. No ga
Re:Certainly possible... (Score:4, Informative)
The original Game Boy didn't use the 6502 processor, it used the Sharp x80 processor.. sort-of a Z80 without the coolness factor of the bazillion registers the Zilog chip had, while still having a lot of the useful instructions Zilog added to the i8080 instruction set.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Gameboy has always run ARM (since moving away from the 6502 in the Gameboy Advance)
What 6502? Game Boy and Game Boy Color used a Sharp CPU based loosely on Intel 8080 and Zilog Z80. The NES and Super NES used the 6502 architecture.
If the PS3, XBox and Wii all run a PPC and all have OpenGL-capable graphics chips, isn't the only difference here the media capability - DVD, Blu-Ray, and Gamecube/Matsushita discs?
That, and the number of threads they can run without bringing the frame rate way down, and the number of textures they can have in memory without bringing the frame rate way down, and the supported OpenGL extensions, and the input, and the audio, and the operating system calls (the console APIs certainly aren't POSIX), and the digital signature requirements, e
So EA's going to port their games to Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux has been available for a long time, large games (e.g. Unreal, Doom, Wolfenstein, formerly America's Army) have been available for it for quite some time. And yet they havn't ported shit over.
What about innovation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Innovative features would go away. I shouldn't have to cite examples, but I know Nintendo has been on the innovative path, you would have never seen a pointer in a game controller or a touch screen on a portable, it would be the standard controller and buttons galore, not much else.
Having multiple consoles allows us the power of choice. Standards do not drive the console industry, competition does.
Gee, I wonder why? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there is no way that this will happen, at least not voluntarily. Doing this would effectively kill all but one of the platform manufacturers. Nintendo is not likely to do this. Too much history, and institutional pride. Also, even when they do not excel or lead the market, they are always profitable. Why share the golden goose?
Sony would probably not go for this either, despite the current difficulties with the PS3. The last time they tried to collaborate with another console manufacturer, they got burned by Nintendo. And they did do pretty damn good with the PS1 and PS2. And finally, assuming they do not self destruct from bleeding money and need to spin off or shutter their game development, they are playing for the long term. The PS3 is a good strategy to push Bluray along, and I have no doubt that it will work out for that if nothing else.
Microsoft may go for this. They are primarily a software house. If EA's plan did come about, I would bet that the side that works with Microsoft would dominate. Game developers just love their development tools. Having worked with Wii, Xbox360, and PS3 dev hardware, I can say that Microsoft's dev gear is the best.
Still, I just do not see this happening. Unless EA decides to boot strap the damn thing into existence, it will just not happen.
END COMMUNICATION
It doesn't turn out to be that useful (Score:2)
It's called the PC... (Score:2)
Middleware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have the advantage. Why pay more to play the same game. One big reason why the PS3 isn't doing all that well.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You make a good point, but it is flawed.
Consoles are dedicated video game machines, and as such are much more affordable [bestbuy.com] than fully functioning computers [bestbuy.com]. So once people buy their hot new video game console they have more cash left over for games.
Oh, wait a minute, it seems that the cheapest PS3 on the market is more expensive than a desktop computer+flatscreen monitor combo...
Re: (Score:2)
You were saying?
Not true (Score:5, Informative)
No, not really. The Dreamcast died when Sega was in it's last days as a hardware vendor. They could or would not properly advertise or support the system. Plus, once the rumors were out that the Dreamcast was dead, it was for all practical purposes dead. Rumors are like that in the gaming industry. Pirating was not a large phenomenon until after it was pretty clear the Dreamcast was dead.
In my opinion, the Dreamcast began to die the day that Sony ran it's successful campaign that convinced people the PS2 was the future of gaming not the Dreamcast. Sega did nothing to counter that feeling, either, because after the wildly successful 9/9/99 launch, they basically did very little to push the console.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Close. Sega was in financial trouble. In order to really see profit from the DC, they needed to sell another 10 million units. Unfortunately, they didn't have anywhere close to amount of money they needed to actually build those 10 million systems. They were forced to give up.
Re: (Score:2)
EA wants to eliminate competition and the huge black eye that they got programming for the PS3 (others don't have this problem, EA... complacency perhaps?) Bah... EA's not the same as it was back in the old days... it's an IP hoarding monster that spews out crappy games, or buys good ones and screws them up to the point they are exactly like the original crappy IP