Standardized intercommunicating backends...

[Dark Jaguar]

I've recently been thinking about the steady improvements in the online experience courtesy of MS, Sony, Valve, and the etcetera. The one thing I note is while they are great, the one fundamental weakness of these systems is their utter dependance on an existing architecture owned and operated by one company. That's in contrast to the internet as a whole, which is standardized by agreement and just sorta works with everything because everyone works to keep it that way.

This same issue comes up with all the currently used chat programs by the way. All of them are dependant on one specific architecture.

The one thing unifying all net experience is IP address right now, however I think that should be improved upon.

I've been thinking that the next big jump in the online arena is to unify all the architecture. All the current game servers will still, as with any website or other service, all operate on respective company servers and major server farms. The difference is it'll be standardized and interoperable. That is, Sony's service and MS's service will be totally invisible to the player. One would just plug in their game and all those lists would all talk to each other. This would also force Nintendo to play catch-up as a side effect :D. It would mean that I would be able to see such meta data as all my friends, what system they are currently logged into, what game they are playing, and if they are designed for it, I would be able to take my 360 copy and their PC copy and play a vs match cross-platform with no issue at all.

Basically, the creation of a "user name" would be universal. I imagine it would be akin to creating a web site address, a currently universal thing as well, which is added to a database shared across all companies. There may be a fee involved depending on how the companies go about doing this.

Thoughts on this?

[DMiller]

My thoughts are that it is a great idea that will never happen. That would require the console makers to cooperate with each other, and MS is especially going to be against it since their online experience is probably the biggest selling point of the system and one of their biggest money-makers. You could say standardization would help a lot of different markets, but in competitive markets I don't think it is always possible without the government forcing it upon companies. In this case I don't see any compelling reason for the US government to get involved.

[Dark Jaguar]

That's true actually, and my main worry is that the consumer is going to be hurt by sheer greed like this. In the long run, it is in the best interests of everyone involved, and I think decades from now it's a near certainty that it'll occur, but companies rarely look at things in the long haul, and by that I mean looking at things more than a few years down the line.

And yes, government forcing this would be downright stupid.

However I'll note one thing. Sad to say, a lot of companies are attempting to segregate the web, as in provide different online experiences the companies control instead of the universal intercompatible system we currently enjoy. They seem potential profits right now, and fail to see the big picture of why NOT doing that is in everyone's best interest, including their own. Sure they can offer unique services if they do that, but the potentially infinite services they cut off far outweigh it. (The spin the cable companies put in those commercials is crazy as well.) Sadly, government force to prevent companies from more or less destroying the internet may be required in this case.

At any rate, down the line I just can't see the segregated individually owned and operated current services staying that way forever. I can only see it slowly merging into one universal system that will be as seamless as the internet in general.