Tekken Dev Wants One-Console Future

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Tekken Dev Wants One-Console Future

image

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo could team up to compete in the changing market.

Harada San, the man behind fighting game mainstay Tekken, may have based his game design career on constant, brutal competition, but he favors cooperation and collaboration in real life. Take his view on console gaming, for example. He believes that a broadening media market has made videogame consoles just one more device that can play host to a wide variety of entertainment. By pooling their resources instead of fighting over an increasingly narrow niche, San argues that Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft could create an unparalleled core gaming experience.

"People are able to not be tied down by consoles," says San. He explains that game developers used to compete only amongst themselves, but now must compete with the broader market that includes phones and tablets as well, most of which feature a fairly robust gaming component. "And it doesn't stop with phones, we have browser gaming and all these different platforms." If, on the other hand, the three biggest names in console gaming joined forces, each company could bring something unique to the table and focus on unique gaming experiences instead of competing hardware. "I think it would be interesting if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo got together just to make one console. It makes me very happy to think about all the possibilities that could occur because of that."

The big three console manufacturers are not likely to jump into bed with each other any time soon, but given the increasingly stiff competition from phones, tablets, browsers, and streaming services, they may eventually decide that cooperation is better than extinction. Twenty years ago, the idea of Sega and Nintendo teaming up was beyond anyone's wildest dreams, and yet here we are.

Source: news.com.au

Permalink

So he wants to break into PC gaming? lol

I feel like this song is relevant.

So... Ouya?

Or the Playbox U 420: cuz he got some high hopes.

Pretty bad idea. One console means less consumer choice, thus less overall satisfaction, and with no competition whatsoever, prices could soar, and consumers would essentially be at the "big three"'s mercy.
Nothing wrong with those companies working together once in a while, but the "one console" idea just spells disaster from my point of view.

increasingly narrow niche

Did I miss something? While game sales are down, I hardly think that the console market is becoming an 'increasingly narrow niche. Yes, they have to compete against new forms of gameplay. But phone games and many browser-based games are hardly replacements for an actual console. They might have some intersecting customers. But for the most part each has it's own seperate market. Most 'core' gamers might play 'casual' games as well, but that doesn't mean they play less (or at least significantly less) core-type games.

No they couldn't, any more than the Democrats and Republicans can team up on anything significant, and for the same reasons.

The reason Nintendo + Sega 'works' is that in this relationship you have a clear demarcation between The Guy in Charge (Nintendo) and The [email protected] (Sega). It's only possible because Sega and Sonic flamed out hard and lost the game, so there's no longer any competition between the two.

That idea right there is why he is a game designer and not in business. No one is going to say "sure, let me split my console revenue three ways". The weakest console maker might, because they would make more money on average, but the top dog would never consent, as their average earnings would go down.

Not to mention the control these companies like to wield over their platforms.

Kapol:

increasingly narrow niche

Did I miss something? While game sales are down, I hardly think that the console market is becoming an 'increasingly narrow niche. Yes, they have to compete against new forms of gameplay. But phone games and many browser-based games are hardly replacements for an actual console. They might have some intersecting customers. But for the most part each has it's own seperate market. Most 'core' gamers might play 'casual' games as well, but that doesn't mean they play less (or at least significantly less) core-type games.

You haven't missed anything. More units of software (read games) were shipped last year than any year prior on consoles. The rise of mobile gaming has given some the perception that consoles are less important then they historically have been but that is not true.

I've already made a few comments so I'll keep this one brief. The Escapist is just about the worst with these non-stories. All the games "journalism" (cough, cough) sites pretty much go looking for any quote they can twist all out of content and make a news story about it. Then that gets parroted by every other so called journalist on the web. All fighting for clicks and ad impressions.

Its sad.

Honestly, we just need AMD to listen to this guy. What he's proposing is essentially where consoles are headed anyway, except without crappy restrictions.

While a single console made in coalition with M$, Nintendo and Sony could rake in astronomical sales figures if it had no competition, it simply would not happen because Nintendo is too paranoid with its IP's and M$ and Sony would not be content with merely sharing the profits.

It would be nice, but it just wont happen.

Inb4 Communist comments. There will be some.

OT- I think choice is definitely needed so I'm kinda against it and that's why I cheered when I heard that Valve's taking Linux seriously as a gaming platform (and proving Linux is very capable: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/). Not a bad idea, just that I would like choice when offered.

Captcha- do unto others

Exactly NOT my preference.

I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Yeah, great idea. In fact, with one console, we can portion out the $ to each developer in order to, well, like Obama said, "share the wealth".

Bolshevism!!

I like the idea of a single console brand for the same reasons I like the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD being over (even if I was rooting for the losing side). But the Blu-Ray technology can be licensed out to any company that wants to make a compatible device. The same would absolutely have to happen with game consoles. And, if anti-trust laws still have any weight anymore, it's also the only way this team-up would be legal.

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Damn right, you know when you see Nintendo's seal of quality on a game it has to be great.
image
Wait let me zoom out on that...

Mygaffer:

You haven't missed anything. More units of software (read games) were shipped last year than any year prior on consoles. The rise of mobile gaming has given some the perception that consoles are less important then they historically have been but that is not true.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Though I think overall console software sales has declined a bit based on various financial problems (though that might be because of the cost of producing games rather then how much they sell). But yea, I would hardly say it's in any way a 'niche' market overall to begin with.

Of course, that line likely didn't mean that much. It just seemed like it was trying to make it out as though the consoles are fading out when they really aren't.

Oh ho...

The idea of just one console is not good. Competition (in theory) is suppose to drive down prices on goods, which is good for us the consumer. If the big three were to join forces, there would have to be some major shift in the Videogame market to either cause such a unity, or to compensate for said unity.

If not, there would have to be something in place to prevent such a union from fucking us in the ass, cause considering who we are talking about, that is a possibility (the fucking over the consumer, not the union between them, they hate each other enough to make that impossible, at least for now...)

Monopolies!

It is the best for everyone! :D

List of things that will happen about the same time we see a long-term one-console market: Cubs win the world series; Israel and Palestine make nice, hug, and work things out peacefully; Rule 34 comes to an end.

The only way we'll get to a one-console future is if the governments of the world all fall and the new One World Order dictates a single console, or if two drop out of the market and leave only one standing. And even if two drop out, what is there to stand in the way of a new competitor jumping in and making it a two-console market again?

Sony already almost teamed up with Nintendo and got burned, which is why they're in the market in the first place. Both Sony and Microsoft have different visions for their consoles than Nintendo has for theirs - Sony and Microsoft view their consoles as means to an end of taking over home entertainment, Nintendo is a game company that's focused on machines without a great deal of unnecessary features. Then you have Microsoft's expensive Xbox Live vs. the largely free Nintendo system and whatever Sony's got going for them. And that's just a start of what problems you'd have to get past.

The idea of all three coming to an agreement on a single console that works for all three is a pipe dream, nothing more. And even if they could work out the differences, the one-console market would only work until a fourth party decided they wanted to get in on the competition and introduce a second console, at which point you'd be back to square one.

Like oldtaku said, the Sega and Nintendo comparison is a very poor analogy. Sega was out of the console market and downgraded to a 3rd party company for years before they made a game that combined their respective mascots. Wouldn't have happened if Sega was still making consoles in addition to games.

sethisjimmy:
Pretty bad idea. One console means less consumer choice, thus less overall satisfaction, and with no competition whatsoever, prices could soar, and consumers would essentially be at the "big three"'s mercy.
Nothing wrong with those companies working together once in a while, but the "one console" idea just spells disaster from my point of view.

They fix the prices anyway. It's $60 per game, regardless of content. Many consumers have to buy more than one console to get all the games that they like.

What about a single console that anyone can make games for? The console makers make the console and the game makers make games for it independently. This way there will be true competition.

See, I've been saying this forever.

I'm sorry, but the idea that somehow having three different consoles to buy is making video games better is just complete and utter bullshit.

That's like saying there's less creativity in movies because we only have Blu-ray for our fancy HD viewings. It just doesn't even begin to make sense in any way, and I don't understand why everyone seems to just assume it's true of video games when it clearly isn't true of any other medium.

Rednog:

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Damn right, you know when you see Nintendo's seal of quality on a game it has to be great.
image
Wait let me zoom out on that...

All right, all right, but come on. They have a better track record than Sony or Microsoft with their Fallouts and such.

Good idea, never gonna happen. A console designed by Nintendo using Microsoft hardware and with Sony quality control would be pretty much ideal, put together Nintendo's creativity and Microsoft's technical specs then have Sony make sure it doesn't explode for no apparent reason. Also one of the other two should be under contract to punch Microsoft in the face if they mention the words "subscription fee".

DVS BSTrD:
So... Ouya?

No, thats the No-future Console

Hah, Ouya burn.

Easton Dark:

Rednog:

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Damn right, you know when you see Nintendo's seal of quality on a game it has to be great.
image
Wait let me zoom out on that...

All right, all right, but come on. They have a better track record than Sony or Microsoft with their Fallouts and such.

Right, cause they've never tried something that advanced or amazing. I'll remind you, there wasn't a single crash-prone game in existence on the Ps2.

Come to think of it, there weren't that many famously bad games on the Ps2 either. Stuff like Aquaman or Kabuki Warriors was all on the Gamecube and Xbox. In fact, Sony stopped a lot of crap getting through.

well that's fitting for the dev since I've always felt fighting games were of a one-aspect of gaming sorta deal.

Foolproof:
Right, cause they've never tried something that advanced or amazing. I'll remind you, there wasn't a single crash-prone game in existence on the Ps2.

Come to think of it, there weren't that many famously bad games on the Ps2 either. Stuff like Aquaman or Kabuki Warriors was all on the Gamecube and Xbox. In fact, Sony stopped a lot of crap getting through.

Sony has not continued that tradition, sadly. I wish they had. Nintendo still does a great job at it, so I go with them.

Rednog:

Easton Dark:
I'd love it. Microsoft handles online and interface, Sony handles the hardware, and Nintendo handles game certification (Notice how games on the Wii run so well so reliably?) and the gimmicks.

If it wasn't for the monopoly and customer abuse to follow that I'd be all for it.

Damn right, you know when you see Nintendo's seal of quality on a game it has to be great.
image
Wait let me zoom out on that...

Bahahaha. Best joke I've seen all day.

Easton Dark:

Foolproof:
Right, cause they've never tried something that advanced or amazing. I'll remind you, there wasn't a single crash-prone game in existence on the Ps2.

Come to think of it, there weren't that many famously bad games on the Ps2 either. Stuff like Aquaman or Kabuki Warriors was all on the Gamecube and Xbox. In fact, Sony stopped a lot of crap getting through.

Sony has not continued that tradition, sadly. I wish they had. Nintendo still does a great job at it, so I go with them.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Sony stopped a lot of crap getting through....that Nintendo approved the shit out of. Say hello to fucking Ninjabread Man.

You wouldn't expect a game this tiny and insubstantial to also be this buggy, but damned if they didn't pull it off - at least Bethesdas buggy games are actually worth playing.

worldfest:
Yeah, great idea. In fact, with one console, we can portion out the $ to each developer in order to, well, like Obama said, "share the wealth".

When did he ever, in his life, say that? No, not words you think are synomymous with those words, those exact words.

Legendsmith:
Honestly, we just need AMD to listen to this guy. What he's proposing is essentially where consoles are headed anyway, except without crappy restrictions.

Why would you want to spend $1000 (er, that's about £640, thanks Google) on a "hardware limited" AMD box? You could build yourself a cracking, unlimited PC for that. Hell, you could buy ready made that was fairly decent. I really don't understand why everyone is so ready to sign over control of the platform they use to a corporation.

It's called an Omni-Tool.

Get to making them.

I'm still surprised that people see consoles as something radically different from PCs, tablets and smartphones.

They're all pretty much exactly the same thing except for the OS running on it. They all have CPUs from exactly the same small number of manufacturers, they all have motherboards from exactly the same small number of manufacturers etc.

Physically speaking they're pretty much just different sized versions of each other. There might be a few very, very minor pieces of hardware unique to each device but all of those are ancillary, they don't form part of the core of the machine, and thus can easily be attached to any other device. Just like we can attach headsets to PCs and essentially use them as phones.

These guys don't need to work together on yet another closed platform that attempts an arbitrary link between software and hardware that does not actually exist. These guys need to start making open platforms.

They don't need to work with each other. They need to work with the hardware manufacturers to create their software (because that's all they're creating, the hardware is not made by them) that can run on any strong enough piece of hardware.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.