Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

EA Calls for Open Platform/Single Console for Games 188

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EA Calls for Open Platform/Single Console for Games

Comments Filter:
  • by eln ( 21727 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:23PM (#21049461)
    I want a unicorn. I bet I get my wish before you get yours, EA.
    • by Nossie ( 753694 )
      "EA Calls for Single Games Publisher for Consoles"

      There... fixed that bullshit for yah.

      The quicker EA falls apart the happier I'll be.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Zencyde ( 850968 )
      Too late, the PC was invented a while ago. ZING!
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I am not a developer but I can imagine that it would be far far easier to develop a game that has to run on 2 or 3 standard (console)platforms then on a PC.

        Every console has a fixed set of hardware. If it works on a console it simply works. No worries after that about compatiblity.
        If you design a game for the PC you have to factor in a gazillion types of hardware which seems to me a much harder job to do.
    • It will happen... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by PhoenixOne ( 674466 )

      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)

        by hedwards ( 940851 )
        No, it won't. While there is a huge incentive for game makers to have just 1 format, there is absolutely no incentive for game system manufacturers to allow that. All of the money that console makers earn is from licensing games and that sort of things, most of the time they lose money on each console.

        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)

          by mikael ( 484 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @08:08PM (#21051375)
          They should learn from the experience of MSX - the universal game console architecture. The idea was basically that everyone would share the same basic hardware architecture, but it could be extendible in terms of custom controllers and peripherals. And that's where everything went wrong - some vendors chose to have that bit more memory in their consoles that others. Some chose to support light guns, others didn't.

          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.

        • The system manufactures will fight this for as long as they can but, in the end, I think a standard format will have to win out. I don't see this happening in the next 5 years. Maybe not even 20. But it will happen.

          The system manufactures' position is becoming increasingly artificial. The hardware is using more "off-the-shelf" parts than custom chips. Even with the millions Sony dumped into R&D, its hard to see where the PS3 is much better than the XBox360; and neither look that much better than a hi

      • It will happen, just not soon (unless EA dumps a serious amount of money into it).

        Sadly, I can see it now.

        EA presents the Madden box! Plays the best NFL football video game ever made, all for the low cost of $399*. Coming this Holiday season!

        *Plus annual subscription cost of $60
  • Remember the 3DO [wikipedia.org]?
    • by ewhac ( 5844 )
      Damn. Beat me to it.

      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

      • by Surt ( 22457 )
        Not even close. Maybe in 3 more generations. There is so soo sooo much you could do better with a lot more compute power right now.
    • "They tried that and it didn't work too well. Remember the 3DO?"

      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.
  • Dear EA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scot4875 ( 542869 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:38PM (#21049713) Homepage
    Dear EA,

    Make your own, and publish games exclusively for it. Let us know how well that works out for you.

    Thanks.

    --Jeremy
    • by morari ( 1080535 )
      I wish they would! The other consoles' display areas wouldn't be cluttered with EA's crap then! :P
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Osty ( 16825 )

      Make your own, and publish games exclusively for it. Let us know how well that works out for you.

      They should ask EA founder Trip Hawkins [wikipedia.org] how well that went [wikipedia.org] ...

    • by Surt ( 22457 )
      Since they own the Madden (and all the other sports) franchises, it would probably go quite well for them.

    • by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

      Make your own, and publish games exclusively for it.
      Seems to work pretty well for Nintendo. Apple too, if you replace "games" with "operating system and programs".
  • by Sta7ic ( 819090 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:41PM (#21049769)
    Short form: homogeneous consoles => fewer console sales => less money

    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)

    by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:42PM (#21049777)
    Someone in accounting realized they could increase their profit margin if they didn't have to pay 3 teams of developers.

    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)

    by Hells ( 1166547 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:44PM (#21049801)
    It's called the PC.
    • by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @06:06PM (#21050107)
      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.
      • by morari ( 1080535 )

        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.

        • PCs would have to have a set standard for it to work.
          There is a standard, and it's called Windows.

          Love it or hate it, that's undeniably the single biggest thing Windows has going for it. Microsoft dominates because Microsoft dominates.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by bipbop ( 1144919 )
            What? No. Windows is *multiple* standards :-) At the moment, the most relevant mutually incompatible systems are XP and Vista.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
        Fine. Too many operating systems on a PC to qualify? I have another platform for you.

        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)

        I've gotten a solution for you. It's called WINE. It consists of open sourced libraries designed to mimic Windows libraries. In fact, it can even incorporate MS libraries like DirectX. All apps are compatible with it as long as it doesn't make any weird calls for some mysterious driver. For instance, there's a healthy community of players on WoW who use their Linux boxes, thanks to WINE.
      • Why not have every game on a LiveCD of some sort, which can connect to the net and download updated drivers as needed onto a USB stick? The USB stick data can also be downloaded and copied in case the LiveCD can't even get you on the net.
      • by hrieke ( 126185 )
        It wouldn't really matter now, would it- if EA wrote their own OS that the system boots into to play the game, and if they gave it a place to store the save games to a web site, USB drive, or read / write access to a hard disk.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )
      I love PC gaming with the keyboard/mouse, and I have had a joystick, gamepad and steering wheel over the years. Somehow, though I don't know how we could miss it we never got a 4-port controller extension and some semi-standard multiplayer controller. Even the games that we used to play two-player usually meant each of us using one half of the keyboard each. That was the single biggest failure of PC gaming in my opinion, and it happened exactly because there was noone willing to stand up and commit to it. D
    • With 3 versions of Windows, 1 Mac OS, and approximately eleventybillion Linux distributions. And it's size (If you want hardware capable of today's games) and noise (unless you shell out for a true quit case/fans) preclude it from the living room. And it just looks fantastic when using an SD display. So yeah, lets ditch the consoles already.

  • OK, so there's a certain amount of variation in the hardware configuration. :) That's what you get with open standards.

    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.
    • by TexVex ( 669445 )

      and the television is a crappy output device
      Heh. My 360 looks freaking gorgeous on my 56" 1080p DLP. It's very nice to play with the screen across the room, not right up in my face like my computer monitor.

      Oh, and my PC display looks nice hooked up to it as well.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Heh. My 360 looks freaking gorgeous on my 56" 1080p DLP. It's very nice to play with the screen across the room, not right up in my face like my computer monitor.
        Oh, and my PC display looks nice hooked up to it as well.

        Doesn't make your penis any bigger.
  • Two good things (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RichPowers ( 998637 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:49PM (#21049885)
    One: the console fanboys will have nothing to argue about. Wait, scratch that. We'd probably have posts about how UniConsole's red scheme is outselling the white scheme, but behind the jet black scheme followed. This would be followed by pages of overwrought analysis, flame wars, and someone posting goatse before the thread lock :p

    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!
  • just make a dvd/cd that can be used in any compute//console

    have it cache data files to a harddrive if possible

    done!

    • just make a dvd/cd that can be used in any compute//console

      How?

      -:sigma.SB

    • You can't even make one that will work in every computer without periodically updating the disc.

      Game consoles do this by storing updates on the hard drive. But at that point, why not just boot an OS off the hard drive to manage it?

      In short... not gonna work, even on a PC, let alone consoles. I could rant for quite awhile on why it won't work, and why it'd be a bad idea even if it would, but for now, the fact that you've even suggested the idea tells me you haven't seriously thought it through. So do the re
      • by drfrog ( 145882 )
        your word? is nothin but negative and dismissing. my research? well before you infer i have done none, maybe you should do your own and ask if i have or not.

        ive used quite a few good linux and windows based live cd's
        the topic isnt new, as much as you want to nay say it, the possibility is there.

        all work in various forms, yes some have had problems, but so have most o/s's so that is a pretty dubious argument.

        fact is a game isnt going to need all the over head a full o/s would
        one could chop out a lot of cruft
        • the topic isnt new, as much as you want to nay say it, the possibility is there.

          I know. There are even a few out there. Gentoo put out a LiveCD which had America's Army, for instance.

          And that no longer works -- the drivers don't support newer video cards. Which is fine, though annoying, for America's Army -- you can just download another one. But it sucks for a game you paid for, and it still sucks for America's Army -- why download another 700 meg livecd (or 4.3 gigabyte DVD) to patch some 5-10 megs wort

  • Sure, great idea. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @06:00PM (#21050037) Homepage Journal
    Either the "open standard" will be extremely flexible, in which case you'll have all the problems you have with PC gaming, what with random problems with devices and confusing requirements, that drives people to consoles in the first place, or the "open standard" will be inflexible, in which case, forget expecting any innovative features like the Wiimote.
    • Either the "open standard" will be extremely flexible, in which case you'll have all the problems you have with PC gaming, what with random problems with devices and confusing requirements, that drives people to consoles in the first place

      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

      • Maybe. What drove me to console gaming was being fucking sick and tired of getting new video cards every year, dealing with DRM that refused to work with my CD drive, and games that crash without the latest of 15 patches. I got fucking sick and tired of deciding to sit down for a half hour of Diablo II or Counterstrike or Unreal Tournement only to be told "Sorry...you don't get to play without an our long upgrade process!" It wasn't price that drove me to consoles. It was knowing that if I go to Best Bu
      • I don't think so.

        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
    • ...or you can imagine a situation where console still contain very weird innovations, but still provide a simple common layer.

      Games are either manufacturer-exclusive and exploit all special bells-and-whistles (original new controller, clever usage of the steam coprocessors or whatever) or games target a special set of API and hardware capabilities that exist across all major player.

      The concept is somewhat similar to what currently happens with some developing toolset that let developers cross compile softwa
      • You'd base a console on a bytecode interpreter!?
        • You'd base a console on a bytecode interpreter!?

          Not the whole console. Not as in "Java bytecode interpreter".

          I suggest that all consoles should, among other, export a standard bytecode or script interpreter and standard 3D API, as a target for homebrew and indie developper.
          Something that could be easily targeted whatever the console is.

          Bytecode or some other script language have a couple of benefits :

          - Not dependent on Processor ISA : this generation happens to use PowerPC and derivative. But it wasn't the

  • 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.'

    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

  • The three top-end games consoles currently run PowerPC processors - a change from the last generation where it was x86, PPC and MIPS.

    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
    • by faedle ( 114018 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @06:20PM (#21050293) Homepage Journal
      Point of order:

      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.
      • by NekoXP ( 67564 )
        Oops. I got it mixed up with the NES.. and SNES for that matter. Well, keeping your systems the same chip makes sense, up to a point (the N64 was MIPS - same as Playstation, I think that helped some development like the port of Wipeout 2097 etc.)
    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      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

  • by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @06:04PM (#21050083)
    Yeah right. EA doesn't care about open platforms. All they care about is the latter part of the thread's subject: single console.

    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.
  • by diamondmagic ( 877411 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @06:07PM (#21050125) Homepage
    First of all, I assume the Personal Computer does not count, because a console only has one hardware configuration (but that is what the operating system is for). The standardized game console they talk about wouldn't turn out to be too different then the PC, I can imagine, not evolving much except in minimum requirements.
    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.
    • 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.

      You know you don't need a completely separate console for that, right? The only reason the Wiimote needs a Wii is because Nintendo hasn't licensed it for the PC, Xbox 360, or PS3.

      The PS2 has the EyeToy, the SNES had the Lightgun -- all by basically letting people develop accessories. Why should a standard console be any different?

  • Gee, I wonder why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordZardoz ( 155141 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @06:12PM (#21050201)
    A common platform for console games really only benefits companies the size of EA, and to a lesser extent, 3rd party multi platform publishers of any size. It would cut down on development costs.

    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
  • From the point of view of development cost, the value of a standard platform is proportional to how long it remains the standard to develop for. On the other hand, from a hard-core gamer's perspective, the value is inversely proportional to its longevity since no significant hardware advances will occur until a new platform is developed.

  • ... jesus christ. What EA should maybe do is make deals with PC companies and create a PC platform specifically for games, and share the costs of hardware development and deployment all around... good luck on that though!
  • Middleware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShakaUVM ( 157947 ) on Friday October 19, 2007 @07:06PM (#21050819) Homepage Journal
    You don't need one console. You need one target platform. You have have 5 different consoles, or 50, and still write to a single common platform. It's called middleware. The middleware vendor figures out all the idiosynchracies of the different consoles, and then writes an API which sits above it. The game developer (EA or whoever) pays a license to the middleware developer, and then writes to the middleare API, and things more or less work like magic on all the different consoles. All you have to do to 'port' it to a new console, or the PC, is really deal with the input issues. A Wii is not the same as an XBox360, but when a friend of mine did the port of "Cars" to the Wii, it was really just a matter of revising the input routines, and some other tweaking.
    • But then you end up writing to the lowest common denominator. That's not good.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        It is great if you are the lowest common denominator.
        You have the advantage. Why pay more to play the same game. One big reason why the PS3 isn't doing all that well.
      • But then you end up writing to the lowest common denominator. That's not good.

        Have you ever played a PC game? There's graphics detail options that you can turn up or down. Let's say you're writing Vice City using middleware (which it was). You know the capability of the Xbox is X, the PS2 is Y, and the PC is all over the place. You set LOD settings, view distance, texture detail settings, etc., that best match X and Y, and you give the players the options to set their own on the PC.

        There's still platform di
    • The only effective difference between your scheme and a standard hardware platform would be that the former would have lower performance. If ultimatly everybody is limited to the same set of capabilities, there's no value of having a middle layer written by a "middle-man".

      If a generic API worked worked perfectly (and in practice, they seldom do) it would be purely a legacy strategy that allowed game developers to write games that target "worst of breed" in each functional category out of a collection of tar
      • If ultimatly everybody is limited to the same set of capabilities, there's no value of having a middle layer written by a "middle-man".

        There is a value. It's the same reason we use DirectX or OpenGL -- an API hides away the dirty details of a specific hardware platform. If they can optimize the middleware (which they might be able to do a better job than you, depending), then there's no real penalty to it.

        it would be purely a legacy strategy that allowed game developers to write games that target "worst of
    • Developers, yes. Middleware means you can and will have ports to all consoles.

      But users still have the choice between the Xbox 360 for its exclusives, the PS3 for its raw power (unless the 360 is enough), or the Wii for the Wiimote. And once they have one of these, they lose all the benefits of any of the others. Were they to switch, they'd still have games that only work on one.

      So, simplest example: Say you buy an Xbox 360 and a Wii, which seems the sanest choice (vs a PS3, which might still cost as much a
    • As a real world example of why this is a bad idea: FFXI. Its cross platform nature (PS2, 360, PC) means it is stuck with the limitations of PS2 hardware. This has far reaching effects, mostly with the graphic capabilities but also many issues with memory constraints.
      • Oh, I'm not saying it's a good idea, necessarily. Oblivion drove me crazy with its sized-for-a-TV UI.

        But that was just a case of the developer not taking the time necessary to do platform specific interfaces correct, which are really the only thing you need to do when writing to different platforms.

        Nothing drives me more insane than when they try to map a console controller directly to mouse and keyboard.
  • If this one "open" platform is controlled by Sony, Micro$oft, Nintendo, etc or any organization one of them can monopolize... no thanks.
  • And I'm still calling for a gold-plated toilet, but that just ain't in the cards.
  • One console (Score:2, Insightful)

    If we had a single console, people would make "mistakes" putting it together, and you'd occasionally have to swap to another model to play a game not supported on yours. (Sega CD BIOS and Lunar for an example of what can happen) Given MS and Java, I wouldn't want them designing one of these.

    3 companies currently have a taste for the money involved with being the console provider. Which is going to willingly give it up? Whether your game rocks or tanks, you pay them for the privledge of releasing it for
  • Please stop bitching about missing the boat with the Wii, and work on the console. Thats what this announcement was really about. One platform wouldn't involve them watching Nintendo from the sidelines as they make money hand over fist one cheaper to develop games. Even after all of that, they are again trying to say the 360, or PS3 will dominate, yet the numbers sure as hell say otherwise.
    • by Shados ( 741919 )
      I agree. The tech (and thus, gaming) world is filled with self fulling prophecies, and for once, with the Wii, that wasn't completly the case... so EA is annoyed, and want to make their own prophecy. If they'd just shut up and develop GOOD games for the Wii, they could make a bundle too.
  • One way for EA's vision of one console to come to fruition would be for one console maker to establish a monopoly-esque dominant position. Once one console has 90%+ of the market, the other console makers have three choices: 1) Jump on the bandwagon to make a better version of that platform - thus establishing the standard 2) Join forces to make a united platform console that developers and consumers like better than the monopoly console 3) roll over and die.

    ... ok 4) They could sue - monopolies alway
  • We have this. It is called Java. And the performance just screams.
    http://www.java.com/en/games/ [java.com]

    It is Java http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language) [wikipedia.org] , so by design it will work on any modern console. My Wii w/Opera and Java, my Mac, my Vista box, or my Suse box.

    Personally, I like the Flash ones better;
    http://www.addictinggames.com/whackyourex.html [addictinggames.com]

    (Note, sarcasm implied)
  • It's already on the market, and most game producers are already developing on that platform. They're called PCs. PCs are cheap, and are -everywhere-. There are more PCs that are 2-years old or younger than all of the game systems that have ever been produced combined. The 'standard' PC architecture is constantly climbing in its capabilities, so any PC game produced today, even if it requires 'top-of-the-line' hardware will be usable by most PC owners within a year or maybe two, and again, we're talking
  • I believe that's called a computer.

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...