BioWare CEO reiterates old EA wish for one unified console

[Mamoulian War]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01...ied-console.ars

 

just copy/paste from my post in offtopic forums in Bioware forums... now I see that Bioware was trully EAten

 

After reading this, i realy do not know what to say... Unified (monopolistic) console system is just a nightmare for any customer... No competition was always bad for customers in every aspect of life... One manufacturer = no need to compete with different prices, different content, different hardware capabilities...

 

All i see behind this is greed... Another reason for me to not purchased anything from EA, because with that i would be funding this sick vision...

 

If you do not know what a monopolistic provider is able to do to his consumer, just google for russia, EU and gas...

 

Was nice, while it lasted, that article just means no more Bioware games for me, which makes me very very sad

 

Westwood

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I try to respect EA with games like Dead Space, which really is great, but they're just plain evil.

[Hurlshort]

Uh, what? How is it evil to not want to have to go through three or four development cycles for the same game in order to get it out to all the platforms?

 

And the PC/Windows OS hasn't had any competition since the Amiga died. Has it really caused a degradation in the quality of PC games available?

[Tale]

Thank you, Hurl!

 

I hate console wars so much. It's so senseless. Competing over brand recognition of hardware and tying that to the software instead of just the software competing with other software.

 

Hardware vs hardware is alright, but when the software is tied to it, then it's no longer about the quality of the hardware itself, but about what software companies you can sign with.

[Pidesco]

Yeah, but the PC is an open platform while what EA is talking about here is a console, which is a closed system.

[Morgoth]

Well, from a developer point of view, this certainly would bring a lot of advantages in development. Not so sure however how this could benefit the customer.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Often, a unified format is a very good thing for the consumer. Just imagine if there had been 3-4 different kinds of tv's that werent compatible with eachothers channels. Or if you needed a sony stereo to play records from Sony BMG and so on.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that with the console system we have today, were you need permission from the console company to release games for that console, the freedom of creation would go down the drain. Like if one company had owned the patents for books, and the only books you could get were american teenage adventure books. A scary thought.

[Mamoulian War]

Well, from a developer point of view, this certainly would bring a lot of advantages in development. Not so sure however how this could benefit the customer.

 

Yes a lot of benefit to developers... If it is a closed system it means, the manufacturer can issue licences to developers who want to develop for it... The easiest way to make ****loads of profit is to give away the license only to selected few publishers, which in the end would mean lack of games on the market which would lead into skyrocketing their prices...

[Tale]

Yeah, but the PC is an open platform while what EA is talking about here is a console, which is a closed system.

Not really. Considering that consoles have been released previously as standards with various manufacturers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Saturn#Saturn_models

 

A properly standardized console would be no more "closed" than a DVD player.

[alanschu]

Don't let that spoil everyone's fun though.

[Morgoth]

Well, from a developer point of view, this certainly would bring a lot of advantages in development. Not so sure however how this could benefit the customer.

 

Yes a lot of benefit to developers... If it is a closed system it means, the manufacturer can issue licences to developers who want to develop for it... The easiest way to make ****loads of profit is to give away the license only to selected few publishers, which in the end would mean lack of games on the market which would lead into skyrocketing their prices...

With advantage, I actually meant programming for the hardware. Also, silly "exclusives" would stop as well.

 

Something I wanna see for the Next-gen consoles (~2012) is an optional Internet Store, some equivalent for Steam where I can buy full version over the internet and download them. But of course they'd have to be cheaper than retail copies, otherwise there's no point for paying the same price.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Morgoth

[Tale]

Something I wanna see for the Next-gen consoles (~2012) is an optional Internet Store, some equivalent of Steam where I can buy full version over the internet and download them. But of course they'd have to be cheaper than retail copies, otherwise there's no point for paying the same price.

Very little chance of this happening. This is the quickest way to get retail chains to stop stocking your product.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Tale

[alanschu]

Well, from a developer point of view, this certainly would bring a lot of advantages in development. Not so sure however how this could benefit the customer.

 

Yes a lot of benefit to developers... If it is a closed system it means, the manufacturer can issue licences to developers who want to develop for it... The easiest way to make ****loads of profit is to give away the license only to selected few publishers, which in the end would mean lack of games on the market which would lead into skyrocketing their prices...

 

 

I doubt prices really change at all. They haven't for 20 years.

 

Regardless, if this happens, I am betting you'll see a resurgence in PC gaming.

[Mamoulian War]

It happened already with PS3, Wii and Xbox360... new games cost 10 USD or 10 EUR more than new games on PS2, Gamecube and PC... The same prices are only for PC games... and with unified gaming platform we do not speak about PC games but about console games...

[Hurlshort]

It happened already with PS3, Wii and Xbox360... new games cost 10 USD or 10 EUR more than new games on PS2, Gamecube and PC... The same prices are only for PC games... and with unified gaming platform we do not speak about PC games but about console games...

 

That isn't new, games came out on the N64 for $60. The difference is people have been buying in huge numbers, so publishers haven't had any reason to drop back to the mainstay. Still, a $10 hike over the last 20 years isn't really all that much.

[Tale]

I remember trying to buy Mario Kart 64. Funcoland wanted $80 for it.

[alanschu]

It happened already with PS3, Wii and Xbox360... new games cost 10 USD or 10 EUR more than new games on PS2, Gamecube and PC... The same prices are only for PC games... and with unified gaming platform we do not speak about PC games but about console games...

 

 

It was the same deal back for the original NES games. As well as the SNES games. As well as the N64 games. As well as the PSX games.

 

 

EDIT: I know Tale. Street Fighter 2 Turbo for the SNES was $70 here when it was released. For a 12 year old that was a lot of money. Still worth it though!!!

Edited January 28, 2009 by alanschu

[Pidesco]

Hopefully, when digital sales make ordinary retailers superfluous, game prices will go down appropriately.

[Mamoulian War]

It happened already with PS3, Wii and Xbox360... new games cost 10 USD or 10 EUR more than new games on PS2, Gamecube and PC... The same prices are only for PC games... and with unified gaming platform we do not speak about PC games but about console games...

 

That isn't new, games came out on the N64 for $60. The difference is people have been buying in huge numbers, so publishers haven't had any reason to drop back to the mainstay. Still, a $10 hike over the last 20 years isn't really all that much.

 

Yes $10 is not much but imagine one crazy thing

 

The manufacturer of said unified system would be Microsoft...

 

All what he needs to do to make PC as gaming platform obsolete is to release new operating system that is not compatible with Windows and does not put anything like DirectX in it or make something into kernel that forbid calls into graphics cards (something very close to this is in PS3 atm... you can install Linux into PS3, but you are unable to use the graphic system of PS3 with it), i bet at some point something like OpenGL would be developed for it, but it could last long time...

 

Now imagine Microsoft would give away only licenses to EA, Activision and Atari for example... All other developers would not be granted a license for the system, and because of the new operating system without ability of using graphics for anything else than Aero, they would be screwed. Now that 3 companies with granted license would not have anyone as a direct competitor and they could make with games and price whatever they want

 

Crazy idea right??? Most of the sane people thought that Communism was crazy idea aswell, and we all know how half of the world ended up in 20th century

[Dark Wastl]

Now imagine Microsoft would give away only licenses to EA, Activision and Atari for example... All other developers would not be granted a license for the system, and because of the new operating system without ability of using graphics for anything else than Aero, they would be screwed. Now that 3 companies with granted license would not have anyone as a direct competitor and they could make with games and price whatever they want

 

Crazy idea right??? Most of the sane people thought that Communism was crazy idea aswell, and we all know how half of the world ended up in 20th century

 

Not really possible, Microsoft is pretty much a monopolist, they try this and the fines they will have to pay are beyond what they can think of. Microsoft is already getting into trouble for having the Internet Explorer being included in their OSs. Try to completely take over the market like you suggest, and the company would be history a short time later.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Dark Wastl

[taks]

If you do not know what a monopolistic provider is able to do to his consumer, just google for russia, EU and gas...

a quick read makes me think you are mis-interpreting what they are talking about... not a monopolistic provider, but a standard platform with (potentially) multiple providers. this is not unheard of.

 

taks

[Mamoulian War]

If you do not know what a monopolistic provider is able to do to his consumer, just google for russia, EU and gas...

a quick read makes me think you are mis-interpreting what they are talking about... not a monopolistic provider, but a standard platform with (potentially) multiple providers. this is not unheard of.

 

taks

 

That is consumer's wish If the thingie would be realy open platform with lot of providers it could be good, but from Corporate point of view the biggest cash flows in your pocket, when you are the only provider of said service

 

and there is still one thing in the article...

 

You're seeing it on some PC titles now like the flash-based games that are arguably an example of that, where you're playing a game that's displayed and rendered and you interact with it on your machine but it may be running somewhere else. It's an interesting idea in the future.

 

That would mean, from that day on, all games would be handled like MMO's are handled now... All they need to do is make imaginary cut through your cable (disable your account) and you and your awesome console are screwed

Edited January 28, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[Hurlshort]

I'm having trouble following these posts. Maybe I need to take more LSD or something.

[kirottu]

I'm having trouble following these posts. Maybe I need to take more LSD or something.

 

I too didn

[Gromnir]

If you do not know what a monopolistic provider is able to do to his consumer, just google for russia, EU and gas...

a quick read makes me think you are mis-interpreting what they are talking about... not a monopolistic provider, but a standard platform with (potentially) multiple providers. this is not unheard of.

 

taks

 

That is consumer's wish If the thingie would be realy open platform with lot of providers it could be good, but from Corporate point of view the biggest cash flows in your pocket, when you are the only provider of said service

 

and there is still one thing in the article...

 

You're seeing it on some PC titles now like the flash-based games that are arguably an example of that, where you're playing a game that's displayed and rendered and you interact with it on your machine but it may be running somewhere else. It's an interesting idea in the future.

 

That would mean, from that day on, all games would be handled like MMO's are handled now... All they need to do is make imaginary cut through your cable (disable your account) and you and your awesome console are screwed

 

 

the illuminati's killed jfk and big foot is really a govt. created super soldier project test critter that has occasionally gotten loose.

 

...

 

what, Gromnir thought we were sharing crack pot conspiracy theories in this thread?

 

HA! Good Fun!