PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts? EA wants open-gaming platform.




jstad
Oct 22, 2007, 04:19 PM
Rival gaming systems should make way for a single open platform, a senior executive at Electronic Arts has said.
Gerhard Florin said incompatible consoles made life harder for developers and consumers.

"We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible," said EA's head of international publishing.

He said the web and set-top boxes would grow in importance to the industry.

"We're platform agnostic and we definitely don't want to have one platform which is a walled garden," said Mr Florin.

EA currently produces games for more than 14 different gaming systems, including consoles, portable devices and PCs.

"I am not sure how long we will have dedicated consoles - but we could be talking up to 15 years," Mr Florin added.

Gaming will just require potentially a 49.99 box from Tesco made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection and a games engine inside
Nick Parker, analyst

He predicted that server-based games streamed to PCs or set-top boxes, would become increasingly important.

"You don't need an Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii - the consumer won't even realise the platform it is being played on."

Set-top boxes are becoming increasingly more powerful as they include technology to deal with High Definition TV streams and access to the internet.

Full Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7052420.stm

I personally think this is a stupid idea since it will kill off competition to innovate new hardware if one major platform prevails. I could see more of a standard SDK across multiple platforms for developers and allowing the consumer to use whichever platform they feel has the best controller/features (kind of like TiVO, pay for the features you want.) Thoughts?



zioxide
Oct 22, 2007, 04:26 PM
Competition is good.

monke
Oct 22, 2007, 05:34 PM
I like they idea behind it, but not the way they think to pull it off.

Competition is good, and I don't want ONE machine to choose from. I want to have the choice to choose which machine I want and go with that one.

One thing I would like though, is the ability to play someone online who uses another console. That way it doesn't matter which platform/machine you have, I could be playing on a PS3 against someone on an 360.

Abstract
Oct 23, 2007, 08:51 AM
Set top box.

One slot used for a graphics card, which can be user replaced in the future.
One slot for a CPU of your choice, also user replaceable.

Games can be streamed to the box, or just bought and downloaded.

Games are played on your HDTV.

Easy for EA and other game makers, with the "feel" of a gaming console.

zero2dash
Oct 23, 2007, 09:16 AM
I guess no one else sees the irony in this?

EA, a company notorious for buying out smaller companies and throwing money around for exclusives like the NFL license...wants competition to go away on the hardware front.

B-B-B-But....EA...your business practices emphatically show that you yourselves obviously want competition to go away on the software/developer end as well, since you keep buying companies and other things up so you are the sole stakeholder in franchises or sports leagues.

Perhaps someone should educate them on the "pot/kettle/black" thing. :rolleyes:

Dagless
Oct 23, 2007, 09:36 AM
Set top box.

One slot used for a graphics card, which can be user replaced in the future.
One slot for a CPU of your choice, also user replaceable.

Games can be streamed to the box, or just bought and downloaded.

Games are played on your HDTV.

Easy for EA and other game makers, with the "feel" of a gaming console.

You mean a PC?

I don't like that. I have a PC with system requirements, some games will play and some wont.
With games consoles, say I buy a Wii game - I'm guaranteed it will run on my Wii (same can't be said for 360, since some new games require the HDD add on). There is no secondary thought about what settings I should run it with. That's why I love console gaming.

And yes. For the whole "1 console" idea I also say no. What specs would it be? The current setup this generation is perfect IMO. You have the Wii at £180 or a HD console at £250. People budget and don't want to spend X amount of money on a game playing machine, which is why the Wii is selling. There's a nice little gradient that has been around since forever-
The cheaper the system the more it will sell.

Wheres the cut off point for this 1 system? Which market do you aim it at? The everyday gamer, the person who wants a PC replacement, the media centre enthusiast?

Also- WTF does this even mean
a games engine inside
Is he on about a unified game engine, where games are just mods of a giant engine? Or a video card/CPU combination?

However. I think the 360 and PS3 are too similar, they're both media centres and have the ability to play next gen video media. A 2 console market would be my preference, be it Wii and 360 or Wii and PS3. History hasn't been kind to the "3rd console", the dreamcast fell miserably and the GC had terrible performance in US, whilst the Xbox 1 had a similar reaction in Japan.

Jasonbot
Oct 23, 2007, 09:48 AM
If we had a single platform we'd either have no competition, a boring one sided product that cannot get input from other places and improve, or consoles become like PC's boasting better specs than their competition and costs skyrocket. Alternatively we don't get variety, everyone likes wii for the gameplay not the graphics and so on..

twoodcc
Oct 23, 2007, 10:18 AM
there's something about the xboxs and playstations that i like.

kkat69
Oct 23, 2007, 10:29 AM
One word..... Monopoly,

To put this in persepctive imagine for a brief second (since it's all I can tolerate thinking of this example) that Dell decided that there are to many brands of PC's on the market (including Apple) and in one years time all the pc's are now Dells. Dell is the sole manufacturer of the PC now. You do what Dell wants. Staggering thought isn't it?

Let's say Nintendo stepped up to the plate and said we have the solution, everyone will own a Nintendo NetBox. Now all gaming companies pay nintendo fees for development of the games, we pay Nintendo to buy the box, we pay nintendo for the online net usage (dubbed Nintendo-Live) now Nintendo comes up with a revolutionary technology dubbed Nin-Ray which will replace Blue-Ray since Sony doesn't have the PS3 to fall back on.

See where this will go? Competition is good. It's healthy, it's what drives the consumer market. Look at all the fuss people are making over the iPhone? iPhone made for One cell provider and people are going irate over it. They don't want to be locked to AT&T, so what makes you think everyone wants to be locked under one console making company.

Besides this sounds to much like what a PC is for.

Antares
Oct 23, 2007, 10:30 AM
In the immortal words of the Great Sheep Lord: "B-a-a-a-a-ad Idea."

It would kill innovation on the system front as everyone would have to conform to one standard and nobody would have the opportunity to try something radical....or "different." Be it system, control and/or design-wise. Sounds like a dumbed down PC to me. Why not get rid of consoles, then, and only play our games on PCs?

Dagless
Oct 23, 2007, 10:55 AM
Thing is though, the Amiga was a dumbed down PC in the years where PC's cost a face and a leg. They were successful until they refused to go with the times and just died.

Since computers are so cheap now such a machine isn't needed.

MacRumorUser
Oct 23, 2007, 11:41 AM
EA want a monopoly full stop.

Besides if EA cared so much why are their games more expensive, and intrensically region locked (on the 360 anyway) compared to other developers including M$.

We want an open platform, but can't even give 360 users a region free game :rolleyes:

EA x $$ = BS

ChrisK018
Oct 23, 2007, 11:54 AM
As an earlier poster alluded to, there are so many different kinds of games and gamers that a "one box fits all" system would be impossible. I can't imagine that any gamer, except maybe the most casual of casual, would be into this idea.

It makes sense for EA of course, since they only seem to put out mass market games; that are just trying to keep down the overhead. Theoretically I suppose if there was just one system it would allow programmers and coders the chance to maximize the awesomeness of games, but come on. That never happens.

Judging by the Blu-ray HD DVD format war, it does not appear that any of the big players in the electronics industry would be keen on a one console idea any way.

miniConvert
Oct 23, 2007, 11:57 AM
There should be different, competing platforms IMHO - it's the only way to ensure innovation remains plentiful. Ok, so one platform may win out - but then I'm sure new ones will come along as time goes by.

The current number of platforms is also acceptable at the moment. A company specialising in games shouldn't have anything to grumble about.

GFLPraxis
Oct 23, 2007, 01:36 PM
Set top box.

One slot used for a graphics card, which can be user replaced in the future.
One slot for a CPU of your choice, also user replaceable.

Games can be streamed to the box, or just bought and downloaded.

Games are played on your HDTV.

Easy for EA and other game makers, with the "feel" of a gaming console.

No, that defeats the whole point of a console; standardized hardware means no special requirements, you know your game is going to work, and also developers can optimize for that exact set of hardware.


Also- WTF does this even mean
Quote:
a games engine inside

That was said by an analyst, not EA. Analysts have manage to prove themselves thoroughly stupid; I mean, a $50 box? This guy doesn't understand the mechanics of the industry.

Jovian9
Oct 23, 2007, 01:59 PM
I think EA needs to worry about making games that aren't terrible before they worry about this issue. :cool:

kkat69
Oct 23, 2007, 02:40 PM
...Ok, so one platform may win out

That's part of the natural selection process. Sure, eventually one system may win out and all resturants will eventually be Taco Bells. That's a process that history has proven (even and especially with technology) that you do not mess with. Case and point, the more you push people to use Windows, the more they'll lean towards Linux, etc. (Most recent) you push people to one cell carrier and they'll find ways to unlock your phone to use with others.

Let nature ergo human nature naturally select the dominant console system. It very well might be down to 2 systems. The casual system and the hard core system but don't try to preconceive the system.


I think EA needs to worry about making games that aren't terrible before they worry about this issue. :cool:

AAAAAAAAAAAAMMMEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!
Hallalujah, can I get a witness!!!!

Antares
Oct 23, 2007, 03:02 PM
I think EA needs to worry about making games that aren't terrible before they worry about this issue. :cool:

Well, EA says they're making games for 14 platforms. Isn't that why they're arguing this? Without outright saying it, aren't they essentially saying that their games suck because they have to make games for so many platforms?

GFLPraxis
Oct 23, 2007, 03:06 PM
I think EA needs to worry about making games that aren't terrible before they worry about this issue. :cool:

I find it so sad that EA's crap sells so well, too.

kkat69
Oct 23, 2007, 03:08 PM
I find it so sad that EA's crap sells so well, too.

It's like a drug man... BF2142, if I don't play that buggy game I start having withdraws. My wife and kids start hearing "Alright men, we have enemy forces" in the middle of the night and I'm sitting in the living room in the dark shaking like a crack addict. They ask me "Daddy are you ok?" and I yell out, "MEDIC!" and they say "Mommy daddy's scaring us!" and I reply "I could use some supplies" so the wife brings me my computer, and I respond with "Cheers"

GFLPraxis
Oct 23, 2007, 03:52 PM
Haha, well, BF2142 isn't known for being crap. But EA does put out a lot of generic, crappy titles, as well as constantly rehash stuff (Madden anyone?).

Oneness
Oct 23, 2007, 04:43 PM
Let's see,
EA wants a single platform so that they can maximize their profits.

I want EA to put creativity, artistry and ingenuity before profit.

MacRumorUser
Oct 23, 2007, 04:55 PM
I want EA to put creativity, artistry and ingenuity before profit.

Unfortunetly EA didn't become the biggest and most profitable publisher by doing that.

And those software houses that did put those things first ended up making classic games that sold 'really' badly at retail.

Beyond Good & Evil, Farrenheit (Indigo Prophecy), Ico, Rez, Killer 7 and many many more all were relative failures at retail. Is it any wonder we have to wave goodbye to teams like Clover Studios ?

We hate EA for making the same crap each year, but the truth is it's our own fault.

You want better games, you want quality.... Then don't buy the same churned / recycled and served up again crap - pure and simple.

Reward software houses who make these original and daring IP's with your wallet.

GFLPraxis
Oct 23, 2007, 05:13 PM
We hate EA for making the same crap each year, but the truth is it's our own fault.

You want better games, you want quality.... Then don't buy the same churned / recycled and served up again crap - pure and simple.

Reward software houses who make these original and daring IP's with your wallet.
Or perhaps it's the fault of the gaming masses who blindly buy the latest heavily marketed title no matter how much it sucks. I know I've bought a few of those Clover games myself; but Joe Blow doesn't.

It's the same reason that movies that suck but have a famous franchise attached always make far more money than really good films from smaller studios or indies.

Dagless
Oct 23, 2007, 05:42 PM
It's also the reason why the godly terrible Halo 3 is going to outsell something as genius and well designed as the Orange Box collection.

2nyRiggz
Oct 23, 2007, 05:48 PM
^Thats how it is....the good games don't sell but the average game clean house...consumers are sheeps.

EA just want to be cheap and only have to dev for one system whiles making all the cash they can....lazy bastards.

3 consoles is good enough for me thank you.


Bless

kkat69
Oct 23, 2007, 05:57 PM
Unfortunetly EA didn't become the biggest and most profitable publisher by doing that.

And those software houses that did put those things first ended up making classic games that sold 'really' badly at retail.



Well they took Westwood studios and totally ramped up C&C. But C&C was one of those exceptions that DID sell really well and would have continued to sell really well. EA took them out and Kane left (although I don't remember it being related but that's one for google) But alas he's back. Don't get me wrong, EA is like the Microsoft of games. They like something, they try to buy it.

pcypert
Oct 23, 2007, 11:38 PM
I'm for it. If there was one console box with a lifecycle of 5 years there'd be no more stupid PS3 vs Xbox 360 threads. No more ring of death threads. No more Wii is a PS2 with waggle threads. People wouldn't need to justify their purchases to complete strangers through making fun of said strangers' choices for a gaming console. Heck, people would have time to PLAY their video games rather than just chat about them.

Plus the software companies could truly optimize for one system and then we'd have competition based on gameplay....not on pushing the graphics, etc. Games would be judged by playability and innovation. If you have crappily ported controls...it's your own fault as everyone else is coding for the same system.

They could still make both styles of gameplay. Just because it's a powerful machine doesn't mean folks can't write cutesy platformers. You could have all levels of games...from Xbox Live type mini games to full blown disk games. Could still have full, feature rich games, and appeal to the masses.

The company that constructed could operate at a loss-leader on the hardware as more people would be buying it and then a small portion of games comes back to hardware. So maybe direct downloads of games and the money they were losing to packaging and what not goes to the hardware pool. It would be a nice system. Get back to the games and not have to worry so much about the console. If you game you can play whatever quality game comes out.

The only people who would suffer are folks who make mediocre games for smaller systems. Those companies right now get their half a games bought because there's limited selection on certain consoles so their crap rises to the top. Wouldn't happen if the pool was deeper.

Motley
Oct 24, 2007, 11:38 AM
And that one set top box will be.... The :apple: Pippen!!!!

MacRumorUser
Oct 24, 2007, 02:59 PM
It's also the reason why the godly terrible Halo 3 is going to outsell something as genius and well designed as the Orange Box collection.

You do know that EA are the ones publishing OrangeBox on PS3 & 360 before you posted that yeah? ;)

Vidd
Oct 24, 2007, 03:49 PM
It'd be just like buying a PC JUST to play games and if it does more than that, how is it a games console?

The thing about console gaming that makes it so much better than gaming on a PC is that:

A console will last for longer than a PC in terms of gaming.
I buy the disc, insert it and play it.
No driver troubles.
No system requirements.Why would you want to give that up?

Dagless
Oct 24, 2007, 04:50 PM
System requirements are changing though. Some 360 games require the HDD.

But yea a standard set of specs is pretty much the biggest factor of buying a games system over a gaming PC. As I said before there is no second thought or worry if the game will run, I went through drastic measures (even trying Vista) just to get EP2 and co. working on my PC. I don't like that side of gaming.

pcypert
Oct 24, 2007, 11:02 PM
Man I remember the days of Half Life and Quake II online. Dang did it suck bad. Want to jump online for a quick match...update maps, characters, etc...this was the beginning days of high speed too...just ruined any kind of gameplay. Have loved consoles since...

Paul

Vidd
Oct 25, 2007, 03:46 AM
System requirements are changing though. Some 360 games require the HDD.

Actually I knew that but as that can be a one time purchase and AFAIK Microsoft discouraged developers doing that, I didn't bother to mention it.