[Golden Legacy]

An idea that I'm curious about. Is the video game industry ready to introduce "open" consoles into the market?

Let's first explain how the market is now. There are the three major console manufacturers - Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony. Each of their current consoles, Wii, 360, and PS3, as well as all the consoles before them, are "closed" - only Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony themselves can produce them. Only games that are "compatible" with the consoles can work, and the consoles themselves come in only the same SKUs and types that the console manufacturers produce them in.

Make sense? If not, then the best example of being "open" is your computer. How many different vendors are out there? How many different specs are there? How many different ways are there to customize it?

Regardless of how different your PCs are, the different specs, customizations, the manufacturer etc. they ALL play back the same software, they all function with the same programs.

It's not just limited to PCs - DVD players, MP3 players, stereos, etc. all of it is open and available for any manufacturers to produce, and they all function with the same media formats that they are built for, no matter who you buy it from and how different they are.

Look at that, and then consider just how "limited" the options are in buying a Wii - there's only "one" Wii available, and only from Nintendo. Same with the PS3 and 360 (different bundles of them don't count either, because they are still the exact same system, just with different accessories, and they are still from only ONE company). That's the state our video game industry is in, with the big three having an effective monopoly on the market!

With that said (sorry for the long intro), do you think that it would be wise to "open up" the market? Have different manufacturers produce different consoles? Imagine having many different options if you go to the store to buy a "Wii system", and no matter how different you get it or what company made it, it plays Wii games, the system is simply available to be openly produced by other companies.

[Split Infinity]

There doesn't seem much point to developing an 'open' console when the PC already exists, when you think about it.

[Someone Else]

(posted while Split was posting) Well, that's sort of what PC gaming is for. Customizability, hell even the games are customizable.

Anyway, for the record, there are different PS3s available with different "sizes" of the hard drive but it's still not "open".

The nice thing about console gaming is that the games are designed with only one kind of system and specs in mind. That way, game quality isn't jumpy and all around the place like it is in PC gaming and the user will never need to personally optimize a game for the best experience. It's way easier on the developer, and the user.

[PDM]

Split Infinity, on Mar 24 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

There doesn't seem much point to developing an 'open' console when the PC already exists, when you think about it.

QFT

[Eugine]

And also, it'll be hard for all the gaming companies to reach a consensus since everyone has a different opinion on how the gaming market should progress.

[Split Infinity]

And plus you could potentially get a whole bunch of crappy games, whereas with a closed console everything gets run past the first-party.

[Eugine]

Well, that is arguable.

Wouldn't programming be easier and cheaper since they'll basically have to work with one language, thus leading to better games?

[Split Infinity]

Your point confuses me.

[Someone Else]

.eugine, on Mar 24 2008, 09:24 PM, said:

Wouldn't programming be easier and cheaper since they'll basically have to work with one language, thus leading to better games?

Wait, what do you mean by that? There's only one system specs to work with, thus developers can maximize with that hardware?

[Eugine]

Well, if there's only one system, wouldn't there be one language?

[Someone Else]

Don't know what you mean by language.

[Split Infinity]

Programming language.

[Toasty]

.eugine, on Mar 24 2008, 09:24 PM, said:

Well, that is arguable.

Wouldn't programming be easier and cheaper since they'll basically have to work with one language, thus leading to better games?

Pretty much all games run on the same language from what I understand, They're just slightly different versions that will only work on the consoles they were meant for. It's kind of like Linux/Ubuntu/etc. There's a bunch of different versions specialized for different things. Correct me if I'm wrong on that Max, because I'm pretty sure you know it better than I do.

Anyway, having the systems open in the way PC's are open is stupid and pointless imo. PC's have that market already. What SHOULD be done, is to still have the consoles designed the way they are now, as single integrated computer-on-a-board's. Basically, all the components soldered together, no sockets or slots or whatnot. That's how the hardware should be done. It should be left the way it is.

What should be done as far as the software/firmware/etc. is for each system to have their own OS like they have now. They all have a main menu where you can access everything, BUT, they should be more open source. The companies should embrace homebrew games and apps, but integrate a sort of code checker to identifiy pirated copies of games that would be fairly easy to use in systems set up like this.

The pluses and minuses of a setup are like this:

Software:

Minus: Being more open source means being more vulnerable to attacks by viruses, or worse, massive amounts of spam. Also, it would be easier for the user to accidentally eff up their system and lose all of their data. Baiscally, everything that makes normal people hate PC's will be found in consoles.

Plus: The real bonus will be for the more technologically inclined, or people who know enough to run the homebrew apps/games without screwing something up.


Hardware:

Minus: Big thing here, no overclocking/upgrading/etc. Basically, once your system is no longer supported, there's no way to even bring it remotely back up to speed. With PC's, there's always ways to keep up with the software demands. Overclocking, and upgrading are ways to do that. If you can't get you PC to run faster and it's still lagging behind, then you can upgrade it, or (more likely) if your system is out of date and it'd be a waste of money to upgrade, you buy/build a new one. With consoles, you can't do that. Heck, every now and then they'll even drop support for one of the previous generations due to hardware complications. The DS dropped support for GBC games. The GC dropped support for N64 games. With PC's, there's always ways to run old software (albeit some games just won't run properly on a fast computer), so there's no worries about losing support for old games.

Plus: This is one thing that makes consoles so much more easier to use for most people. You don't have to worry about replacing brolen parts or anything like that. If it fails, you send it in and get a new one, and there's no loss of data (usually). Having a definitive list of specs to work with makes developing games LOADS easier. Now worrying about what's in the guts of most computers, no worrying about the game working well with one GPU brand and not so well with another. And there's no worrying about which part will work with what. Things are a lot simpler.



Overall, having "open" systems isn't a bad thing if it's done JUST right. Too open and you'll have gaming PC's on your hands. Not open enough and it's just wasted effort.