Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Entertainment Games

Silicon Knights On Gaming Consolidation, Standardization 31

Posted by simoniker from the amalgamated-conglomerations dept.
Thanks to 1UP for their interview with Denis Dyack of GameCube developers Silicon Knights, as he discusses former product Eternal Darkness and forthcoming conversion Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. Dyack advances the theory that "...you'll see more collaborations, you're going to see a lot of mergers with developers... When they standardized the movie camera in, say, 1950, all the movie companies that told good stories became dominant, the major players that we know now... The same thing is going to happen in our industry." He further suggests that standardization of gaming hardware platform is "inevitable", saying "commoditization of technology" is coming to games, and comments: "Nintendo as a group has always emphasized the content of games, because that's where we think the value is, and we think that's what will become dominant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Silicon Knights On Gaming Consolidation, Standardization More

Silicon Knights On Gaming Consolidation, Standardization

Comments Filter:
  • A game is only as good as it's content. Therefore standardization of the underlying technology makes sense.

    Then again, if everyone ends up using the very same technology we'll have a monopoly, which is a whole different thing altogether...
    • Then again, if everyone ends up using the very same technology we'll have a monopoly, which is a whole different thing altogether.

      Not necessarily. It's what 3DO tried to do; and it's what DVD players and CD players do. In other words, you agree on a standard format and playback means -- and leave the actual hardware to anyone that wants to make it. And different companies can make different systems to cater to different markets (a more expensive version with Tivo-like features, or a cheaper bare bones ju
  • [...] content is going to become the dominant influence in the industry.

    So if I understand this correctly, he is saying that games with a good storyline will sell/be better than those with a not so good storyline. And that "in the future" other companies will "buy" the "technology" (read: license the graphical engine) and create their own games around that...
  • Bottom line is basically, "Sega had the right idea and expect Nintendo to do the same."

    In all fairness, I love Nintendo's games, but don't care much for its hardware. Microsoft has very few games I care to play, but the hardware is (grudgingly) the best. As a guy who owns all three systems solely out of the desire to play good games, I'd love to see "commoditization" of gaming hardware but don't reasonably expect to see it for quite some time. Besides... commoditization of gaming consoles would basical

    • Re:Bottom Line (Score:3, Informative)

      by DenisDyack ( 716620 )

      Bottom line is basically, "Sega had the right idea and expect Nintendo to do the same."

      Actually, I am not saying anything like this at all and I do not know what Sega was thinking nor I am recommending we do anything like they did.

      In you comments you focus on MS's hardware which ironically is exactly the opposite of what I am trying to say. I am saying that as gaming technology evolves it will become less important.

      In a nutshell I am saying in the future the hardware will not matter.

      Denis.

      • This is a very interesting theory and it seems to have merit, but as of now, the hardware makers have quite a bit of power and Sony is not about to give up its trump card of a playstation.

        Which leads me to think that it may be a long time before we see any standardization of the hardware, unless something threatens that power, such as a downturn in the gaming market in general.

        Interesting insight though!

      • Ah. I stand corrected. Thanks.
      • Do you think that at that time, several manufacturers will continue to sell competing platforms, like movie cameras are now (to use another of your examples), or that they will all build a standardized platform, like what 3DO was trying to set up?
    • Why do you think Microsoft's hardware is the best? Simply because it has the most graphic capability is not a reason - since the XBox is younger than the PS2. When it comes to analyzing who has the best hardware I think it's more important to consider what company had the best designs and foresight - rather than which company made the slimmest of profit margins on the hardware. (Likewise, Microsoft isn't exactly responsible for the speed of the chip - in fact, it's not REALLY MS hardware, all they did was p
      • When it comes to analyzing who has the best hardware I think it's more important to consider what company had the best designs and foresight - rather than which company made the slimmest of profit margins on the hardware.

        Then you'd probably be looking at Sega's DreamCast as being the best hardware, but we all know that having the 'best' hardware doesn't really mean much in terms of market share. The PS2 is probably the worst hardware of the current generation of consoles by most measurements, but has the
        • You're probably right but, as I failed to alude to, measuring hardware is pretty much a waste of time. I could release a console that has a 5 gHz chip but if programming for the damn thing is so hard and clunky that no one can get anything better than Pong-like graphics on it, that great hardware isn't doing anyone much good. Judging based on the hardware seems rather silly to me.

          I mean, the original post to which I responded stated that he didn't care for Nintendo's hardware but liked the games. The games

          • Well, by "not liking the hardware" I believe he means that he wants Nintendo to put in a CD/DVD player, harddrive, and network adapter and use full sized DVDs.

            Which Nintendo won't do because the costs of the licenses for the technology would would make the inital console price over $200. That is price point Nintendo just won't go above. (SNES, N64, and GC were all initally $199)
    • Excuse me, but Nintendo's dominance in the portable handheld market isn't because of Microsoft type tactics.

      Nintendo's dominance is because everybody else seems to only want to make portable systems that:

      1) Are gigantic in size and thus not very portable.
      2) Eat 6 AA sized batteries in under 3 hours.
      3) Have too high of a purchase price.

      And as of recently

      4) Do functions unrelated to gaming that eat up even more battery power.

      If someone were to make a portable game system that:

      1) is small and portable
      2)
    • Arguably, the XBox hardware isn't "better". It does have a bit more RAM, and it does have networking out of the box. On the other hand, the PPC chip is arguably a better and faster chip than the mobile Celeron in the XBox. The ATi grpahics chip is just as capable as the nVidia chip. Frankly, it doesn't really matter though. Each machine has its own benefits and exclusive games.

      I really just think that it's a bad idea to say "I like Nintendo's games but I don't like their hardware." Any good reason fo

  • Standards are good, but not until you get to the point where new things are not being made. If all game developers had standardized on the Atari 2600 and never left, where would we be now? There isn't the power there for most of the games we play. Likewise every ohter platform to date that sold a lot (NES, PS1, and so on come to mind, but you likely have your own favorite memory)

    SO, is the PS/2/XBOX/Gamecube hardware really where we want to be forever? Or would a next generation be a good idea? If

    • Re:Only when consoles can do everything (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DenisDyack ( 716620 ) on Thursday October 16, 2003 @11:06AM (#7230102) Homepage
      Standards are good, but not until you get to the point where new things are not being made.
      Intesterestingly, a standardation does not imply that the technology will not change/improve or progress. Take the movie camera as an example, it has improved greatly since the 1930s when the standardization occured.

      If so where do we stop?
      It will probably will probably never stop but I believe it will converge. This is the "perceptual threshold" I refer to.

      Denis.
  • "When they standardized the movie camera in, say, 1950, all the movie companies that told good stories became dominant"

    I'm not a big fan of movies from the 40's and 50's, so I don't know whether the above statement is true. Regardless, this statement represents the lynchpin of his argument. I do know that special effects have become a commodity today, and we blame them as the primary reason that we don't have good stories in movies these days. Technology has become a crutch.

    Why would it be any differe
  • I bought Eternal Darkness when it came out. I figured if Nintendo liked what they saw so much that they invested heavily in the company, it's got to be a good game.

    As a story, Eternal Darkness is great. As a game, it's terrible. Almost every puzzle is about as difficult as a game of Rock/Paper/Scissor where you opponent draws first. It's all matching red, green, and blue. Sometimes it's match the same color, sometimes it's match the color that defeats that color. Combat isn't very hard; just attack the hea

Slashdot Top Deals

The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so little to recommend it. -- Allan Sherman

Close