EA wants "open gaming platform"

trq

trq

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
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.

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.

Basic games

Both Sky and BT offer personal video recorders that play basic games.

In the 1980s Microsoft led an initiative to create a common home computer platform, called MSX, and supported by Sony and Philips among others.

It became a popular games platform in Japan but died out due to the growth of consoles and the rise of PCs.

Games consultant Nick Parker said the long term future of gaming would most likely not lie with dedicated consoles.

But he said competition among manufacturers had driven innovation.

"Competition was required to ensure the pace of technology was maintained."

He added: "Going forward that is irrelevant. 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.

"It's basically a boiled-down PC."

But he predicted that walled gardens would still surround platforms and that an open system would not emerge.

Microsoft and Sony have positioned their consoles as all-in-one entertainment devices in recent years but both firms have struggled with non-gaming content.

Outside of the US, Microsoft has yet to strike deals with firms for meaningful video content while Sony has turned to companies like Sky after being unable to agree licensing terms with its own in-house content providers, such as Sony Pictures and MGM.

Absorb consoles

Mr Parker said he believed they were in danger of being overtaken by other companies, such as Apple, and PC technology.

"There are a lot of companies coming into the market."

With space in the living room limited, set-top boxes could yet absorb console functionality.

Mr Parker said: "Games will be provided over the net. There might not be a need for a PS4 or dedicated consoles."

With Microsoft's track record in licensing its technology to other hardware manufacturers and Sony hoping to recoup the cost of developing the Cell processor, both firms could move toward a business plan of offering their services and hardware to other manufacturers.

Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo could instead be walled garden content providers and licensors, said Mr Parker.

"There could be a Nintendo channel, a PlayStation channel and an Xbox channel on your set-top box," he added.
Click to expand...

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

Good luck with that one, guys.
 
They've always treated platforms as if they were open anyways. Licensing issues and what-not.

Also, sounds great, maybe they could of started that with the 3DO?

Wait, isnt that what the PC is?
 
Heh, the President of Silicon Knights had an editorial in the back of this months OXM saying the same thing. All I can say is there already is a platform that can do all of this if game developers wanted to. It's called the PC. And wasn't the founder of EA involved in the 3DO? Maybe the rumors a few years back of an EA console weren't so far off?
 
"It's basically a boiled-down PC."

Wait, why would I want that? I already have a PC.

How about this: put all of your games on Linux. Free and open gaming platform. Then I can benefit because it would force companies that don't open source their drivers to release drivers that aren't shit or actually release Linux drivers for their shit. /rant
 
I hope EA doesn't start their own console.

You'd have yearly versions, all of them Madden themed.

They'd actually have a shorter life span than the first batch of 360s.
 
It's not a PC folks. What they want is a unified open platform which the PC is not. We gripe about the differences between SKUs on te consoles, they've got nothing on the differences in PC hardware.

I could see one piece of hardware for all games being really good and really bad.
 
yeah, they're talking about a console with agreed upon standards. the opposite of the PC :lol:
 
[quote name='Apossum']yeah, they're talking about a console with agreed upon standards. the opposite of the PC :lol:[/quote]not agreed upon, extant.
 
So they want a collusive agreement between the companies to devise a PC/console that sucks on the level of EA's development studios?

I just skimmed the article because I didn't care that much.
 
The EAstation. Then I wouldn't be able to make my EA Ports jokes to my friends.

And PC games have standards like OpenGL, Direct3D, x86, etc. : it's the hardware that varies.
 
[quote name='daroga']not agreed upon, extant.[/QUOTE]


whoops, I worded that wrong.


so: "There could be a Nintendo channel, a PlayStation channel and an Xbox channel on your set-top box"

3rd parties will go through MS, Nintendo, and Sony to have games on their respective channels on this nefarious "set-top box?" What reason would 3rd party companies have to not develop directly for the platform. are there some licensing acrobatics involved that would somehow keep the market competitive? I'm fucking confused. :lol:
 
You know what EA could do: make their own Linux Distro specifically for running EA's PC games.

They could even release a PC built specifically to run that Linux Distro.
 
I'm actually all for one open platform. I know I know "competition". Yet, isn't there competition for DVD's? Before the HD-DVD/Blue Ray war here, you had one nice platform that all movies came out on. Yet, the movies still had to compete against each other.

How nice would it be to play MGS4, Mario Galaxy, and Halo 3 all on one console. It sounds insane, yet if you said you wanted to watch Transformers, X-Files Season 1, and the Joy Luck Club (3 things on DVD that were picked 100% at random) all on one tv, that seems perfectly normal.

I think this could work and be great for the industry. I actually think this would be great for gamers, and bad for the companies. Yet, it's the gamers that scream the most about it.
 
[quote name='lordxixor101'] I think this could work and be great for the industry. I actually think this would be great for gamers, and bad for the companies. Yet, it's the gamers that scream the most about it.[/quote]It could go either way, though. It could really encourage competition or it could make everything very bland. Things like the Wii would never come about with a model like this, nor Blu-Ray for extra storage, etc.
 
Imagine if the EAstation was the only place for people to get their Madden fix. Who would they blame when they can't get it running at 60 fps?

"Our devs are struggling with the EAstation."
 
Ok, let's pretend for a moment we could have an "open gaming platform."

Tell me - who makes it? Who owns it? Who gets all the cash on it?

Does no one realize how much of a clusterfuck that would be? Nothing would ever get done on it. If EA made it, they'd want all the profit. Which would drive away Sony and Microsoft, who are probably enjoying the profit they already get. Nintendo damn sure wouldn't play ball with the idea.

So I'm trying to figure out how this could ever possibly happen, outside of "Microsoft bought Sony and Nintendo this morning."

And even if it did - if all the legal mumbo jumbo got squared away, what happens when one of those companies wants to do something on their own? For example, motion controls. What happens with Sony wants to do them one way, and Nintendo wants to do them another? Do we have to buy a whole new set of controllers per game at that point? If someone agrees to a Wii-mote like design, does Nintendo get a percentage for every one sold? Do developers now incorporate all sorts of control styles into their games, or do they dismiss certain portions of the audience?

It doesn't make sense. And it's not anywhere close do the DVD industry, because all you do for that is put the game in and hit "play." You aren't controlling anything. Video gaming is half interface, where DVD is just a click-and-watch thing. They are not comparable mediums.

Unless there's a second crash - which, ironically enough, would come from shovelware crap from companies like Ubisoft and EA - then I can't foresee a situation where all the console manufacturers would ever agree to a unified platform.

Edit: Hmmm. Maybe that's their plan all along. They will just slowly and slowly release shittier and shitter versions of the same game, until people stop buying them because they are so shitty, and without all of that profit from EA game sales, the entire industry crashes, and EA vows to buy everyone out and make their own console.

And by "their own console," of course, I just mean...whatever they make that year, since there will be a completely new one the next year...and the next year....and the next year....
 
It would take a lot of balls for EA to bring out its own console. They would lose to much money for it ever to really happen.

It would be nice to only have to worry about getting one console for all games, but that will never happen unless some huge mergers happen.
 
[quote name='Strell']Ok, let's pretend for a moment we could have an "open gaming platform."

Tell me - who makes it? Who owns it? Who gets all the cash on it?

Does no one realize how much of a clusterfuck that would be? Nothing would ever get done on it. If EA made it, they'd want all the profit. Which would drive away Sony and Microsoft, who are probably enjoying the profit they already get. Nintendo damn sure wouldn't play ball with the idea.

So I'm trying to figure out how this could ever possibly happen, outside of "Microsoft bought Sony and Nintendo this morning."

And even if it did - if all the legal mumbo jumbo got squared away, what happens when one of those companies wants to do something on their own? For example, motion controls. What happens with Sony wants to do them one way, and Nintendo wants to do them another? Do we have to buy a whole new set of controllers per game at that point? If someone agrees to a Wii-mote like design, does Nintendo get a percentage for every one sold? Do developers now incorporate all sorts of control styles into their games, or do they dismiss certain portions of the audience?

It doesn't make sense. And it's not anywhere close do the DVD industry, because all you do for that is put the game in and hit "play." You aren't controlling anything. Video gaming is half interface, where DVD is just a click-and-watch thing. They are not comparable mediums.

Unless there's a second crash - which, ironically enough, would come from shovelware crap from companies like Ubisoft and EA - then I can't foresee a situation where all the console manufacturers would ever agree to a unified platform.

Edit: Hmmm. Maybe that's their plan all along. They will just slowly and slowly release shittier and shitter versions of the same game, until people stop buying them because they are so shitty, and without all of that profit from EA game sales, the entire industry crashes, and EA vows to buy everyone out and make their own console.

And by "their own console," of course, I just mean...whatever they make that year, since there will be a completely new one the next year...and the next year....and the next year....[/QUOTE]


Strell, first off, you make some good points.

I'd like to start this from the vantage point that I don't care about all the problems behind it. All the big companies do is spew the ideas of what is best for them is really best for everyone. My idea is, I don't care who gets the money (let them all come out with a console but let the games be played on any one of them). That would obviously be a big stumbling block. I liken this to imagining if the Tigers can get ARod. I'd love it. Now, the owners of the Detroit Tigers won't pay for his contract, it's still nice to dream.


I disagree about interface being a big deal though. Really, if you cut out the Wii and the N64, are the interfaces really that different? Saying that the interface is half the game isn't quite right. Games are multiplatform all the time, and often it's money that stops games from jumping platforms more than anything else (Halo 3 would play on a PS3 just as Resistacne would play on the 360, just isn't going to happen though because of licenses).

So, no, you won't need special controllers for most games. The generic controller will work fine. Sure, you could have some additional controlers out, but for the most part, you really wouldn't need them.
 
Maybe the problem lies in EA putting versions of every game on dead platforms? Does Madden really need an 08 version on the GBA? C'mon EA, use some common sense.
 
It wouldn't be a universal platform anyway. In a competitive market like that the only thing that distinguishes products are brand bells and whistles. The Sony manufactured Gamemostation would let you use Memory Stick Trios, the MS manufactured Gameostation would let you make custom soundtracks with your ZunE360, and the Nintendo Gameostation would fire Marios and Unicorn farts at you, and make you run two miles on a balance mat to power it up.

The point is, companies would find a way to distinguish themselves just enough to make it about as complicated as it is now without taking away from the universal format/programming libraries.
 
[quote name='lordxixor101'] My idea is, I don't care who gets the money (let them all come out with a console but let the games be played on any one of them). [/quote]

What would be the point of that? Three consoles that pretty much all do the same thing?

We already had that. It was called the PS2/Xbox/GC era. In fact I'd say the only true difference between the three at that time (outside of exclusives) was XBL, since that was (and is) a pretty integral part of the Xbox platform. You could split it further, but the point was that you had three consoles largely close to each other in terms of raw power such that a third party (like EA) could easily move the same game between all of them.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter that you "don't care who gets the money," because - again - that is the biggest hurdle standing in the way of this so-called uberplatform.

I disagree about interface being a big deal though. Really, if you cut out the Wii and the N64, are the interfaces really that different? Saying that the interface is half the game isn't quite right. Games are multiplatform all the time...
Click to expand...

Lots of things to argue here.

First, Miyamoto has said multiple times that the worries about the interface with each iteration of hardware. The evolution of controllers is one of the backbones of this entire industry. If it wasn't, we'd be stuck with those horrible Atari joystick things that were HORRID.

New controllers help both facilitate new experiences, as well as open the door to new things to do with them. The Katamari designer (and I don't know his name offhand) said that he didn't think the Wii's interface was required, because he felt that existing controllers can still be used in unique ways ("existing" meaning dual sticks). And he has a point, because Katamari is a good example of that. I haven't played it, but I hear Skate is largely the same way - it puts existing tech to good, innovative use.

The Wii's interface either has untapped potential or not. I don't know. But I'm not really worried about that. I'm just saying that interface has almost everything to do with gaming. Hell, that's what gaming is - an interface to things happening on the screen.

Just because there's something of an agreed-to standard at the moment (four face buttons, 1-2 shoulder buttons, a dpad, and two sticks) doesn't mean that someone can't think of something new/better/different.

And games being multiplatform isn't evidence of controllers being insignificant. It's evidence that third parties want to reach as many consumers as possible, and are willing to negotiate different systems/code infrastructures/interfaces to do so. In fact, different controllers hinder multiplatform gaming. SSX is a good example, in such that the PS2/Xbox versions had one more button available to them than the GC.

So, no, you won't need special controllers for most games. The generic controller will work fine. Sure, you could have some additional controlers out, but for the most part, you really wouldn't need them.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much I believe this, because we have absolutely no way to validate it or not. What I do know is that whenever a new console comes out, there's a new controller. Even Sony has made somewhat significant changes from the PS1 -> PS3, despite that the overall look of the controller wouldn't reflect that.

Interface is one of the main driving forces behind this entire industry. It always will be. And it's one of the few things a LOT of veterans will actively disagree about. So to tell me a controller could be that universal gives me some doubt, because hardware designers all have different ideas about it.

Point being that a universal platform would be extremely difficult to consoldate on money matters alone, to say nothing of what happens after all of that.

And I think someone pointed this out earlier, but the PC is as close to an open gaming platform as we have, but it's not the same manner EA would like. They want one video card, one keyboard, one physics card, one motherboard, etc etc etc.

We have those, but they are called consoles, and they clearly are not open.
 
At first I though why would they give a shit... As long as people keep buying their garbage. Then again, yeah they'd get more money for their shit if it was open gaming platform. Either way the gamer is taking it in the ass. Nice...

What did I say before? yeah... just the beginning people, just the beginning...

[quote name='Strell']I hope EA doesn't start their own console.[/quote]
They do and I'll be headed over to their HQ with a rocket launcher...
 
[quote name='Strell']What would be the point of that? The evolution of controllers is one of the backbones of this entire industry. If it wasn't, we'd be stuck with those horrible Atari joystick things that were HORRID.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, the original atari joystick was awesome. Everything they did after that was crap (atari7800,5200,colecovision,intellivision)


As far as controllers are concerned, on a "open platform" console, manufacturers could simply sell their software with their own controller. interfaces for each individual game or series of games would be the norm. This is basically what is done now anyway with games like Guitar hero, DDR, donkey konga, singstars, etc. In this scenario, the games are the focus of innovation instead of resources being squandered to develop 3 seperate game boxes avery 5 years.

Plug-in modules could contain extra video processors, memory, or additional components that plug into the basic box. The console itself becomes merely the "engine" that runs a program and delivers it to the TV - like a cable box.

I don't see anything wrong wth this type of content delivery. It could work. I just don't see it happening. EA making an "open" box isn't going to stop anyone else from making whatever they want to make for the market. And no one can stop me from buying what ever I choose.

Now, if EA decided to make a deal with Comcast to develop this type of Box that comes standard with cable service, that's a whole new story. It would guarantee an instant mass userbase and could take over a large marketshare overnight. This is what I thought MS was going to do with their next generation years ago but it obviously didn't come to fruition.
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']I'm actually all for one open platform. I know I know "competition". Yet, isn't there competition for DVD's? Before the HD-DVD/Blue Ray war here, you had one nice platform that all movies came out on. Yet, the movies still had to compete against each other.

How nice would it be to play MGS4, Mario Galaxy, and Halo 3 all on one console. It sounds insane, yet if you said you wanted to watch Transformers, X-Files Season 1, and the Joy Luck Club (3 things on DVD that were picked 100% at random) all on one tv, that seems perfectly normal.

I think this could work and be great for the industry. I actually think this would be great for gamers, and bad for the companies. Yet, it's the gamers that scream the most about it.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it will happen because of Nintendo, Sony, and MS receiving royalties from games developed on their console. I don't see any of them rolling over for this. The closest you'll get to something like this is if we see another Indrema. Now this would be hugely beneficial to the smaller gaming companies: If you can remember how low the licensing cost was to make a commercial game on it. I mean if it's true that MS makes 50% off every XBLA game sold I imagine this would be quite welcome.
 
oldphantom.jpg
 
The way I see it, right now the situation is ideal. You have 2 major players and one smaller, niche player. Nintendo provides the low priced, but still high quality experience, Microsoft provides the High Defintion, online experience, and Sony provides the ultra high end multimedia device that also functions to keep microsoft competitive. Each one fills their target demographic, and sells accordingly.

Obviously PS3 is going to sell the least because it's going after the highest end consumers with its price and feature set. The question remains to be answered if that route is a viable one and if developers will put up with lower sales on the higher end system.
 
[quote name='jer7583']The way I see it, right now the situation is ideal. You have 2 major players and one smaller, niche player. Nintendo provides the low priced, but still high quality experience, Microsoft provides the High Defintion, online experience, and Sony provides the ultra high end multimedia device that also functions to keep microsoft competitive. Each one fills their target demographic, and sells accordingly.

Obviously PS3 is going to sell the least because it's going after the highest end consumers with its price and feature set. The question remains to be answered if that route is a viable one and if developers will put up with lower sales on the higher end system.[/QUOTE]

It would be nice if smaller devs. would try to make an Indrema. For low cost, innovative, riskier games I see this as an ideal solution. Also just if you're a very small dev. it's a great concept. Actually following through with this would really expand the game market in general, creating a thriving active underground. I say this because while one exists at present it is truly lacking compared to it's corporate cousins in quality offerings. I mean we have more compelling independent filmmakers, music artists, but it's very lacking in gaming because of the cost.
 
[quote name='dastly75']
oldphantom.jpg
[/quote]

Everyone knows the Phantom is the open platform console.

I've never heard of this "PC" everyone is talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top