12th February 2014, 8:02 PM
Issues like that can be solved with an open standard. No one would argue that there should be 3 or 4 competing "internets", because an open standard allows all the same innovation and pressure for the standard to grow. The actual computer hardware of the system isn't any barrier to innovating games, they're all pretty much identical at this point, except for specs (some have more RAM). As it stands, any company that wants to go "multiconsole" needs to code and test for 2 or 3 different systems, plus the PC version (and perhaps even mobile versions).
If the industry got together they could come up with a standardized console (similar to the open wifi protocols). Every 6 or so years, they would revise and update the standard, including requirements for backwards compatibility. There would always be room for innovative controllers, and because the standard would be "open", the console itself would also need to be "open". Part of the standard could define protocols for online game networks, so that they would all need to be able to "talk" to each other without issue and without bias, just like the telephony networks and internet standards currently do. Now THAT would be competition, with a system that has the potential to go to a number of competing online stores all at once, and no matter which console you bought, no matter which
There is nothing preventing this except industry inertia. Everyone is too afraid of losing out if they changed the status quo. Nintendo could have a lot to gain. Even if no one bought their particular variation of their console, they might not even need to worry about that so much and let OTHER companies take that "loss leader" hit, (I think at this point Nintendo's basically now forced to sell hardware at a loss if they are to keep up), while THEY focus on selling their unique controllers. As someone having a console that would play their newest games would be a given (since that standard would be the "only game in town", aside from a PC), they could instead focus all their energies on developing controllers for the system (that's been their focus for years anyway), and selling those AS THOUGH they were a new platform (instead of the Wii U, which was Nintendo selling the average consumer a console AS THOUGH it was just a new controller). They would line store shelves with the new controllers, right next to the stands full of the systems they worked with. The controller's where all the innovation happens anyway, so even losing control of how the hardware is specced won't hurt Nintendo's ability to innovate at all. Heck, they could pack in a game to sell those controllers.
Meanwhile, the console itself would have access to Nintendo's store. Along with an open standard console, it would have an open standard marketplace. It would just have one "market" program, but that program would have access to all manner of games, just by clicking on any "registered" companies that take someone's fancy.
I just saved consoles. Where's my golden parachute?
If the industry got together they could come up with a standardized console (similar to the open wifi protocols). Every 6 or so years, they would revise and update the standard, including requirements for backwards compatibility. There would always be room for innovative controllers, and because the standard would be "open", the console itself would also need to be "open". Part of the standard could define protocols for online game networks, so that they would all need to be able to "talk" to each other without issue and without bias, just like the telephony networks and internet standards currently do. Now THAT would be competition, with a system that has the potential to go to a number of competing online stores all at once, and no matter which console you bought, no matter which
There is nothing preventing this except industry inertia. Everyone is too afraid of losing out if they changed the status quo. Nintendo could have a lot to gain. Even if no one bought their particular variation of their console, they might not even need to worry about that so much and let OTHER companies take that "loss leader" hit, (I think at this point Nintendo's basically now forced to sell hardware at a loss if they are to keep up), while THEY focus on selling their unique controllers. As someone having a console that would play their newest games would be a given (since that standard would be the "only game in town", aside from a PC), they could instead focus all their energies on developing controllers for the system (that's been their focus for years anyway), and selling those AS THOUGH they were a new platform (instead of the Wii U, which was Nintendo selling the average consumer a console AS THOUGH it was just a new controller). They would line store shelves with the new controllers, right next to the stands full of the systems they worked with. The controller's where all the innovation happens anyway, so even losing control of how the hardware is specced won't hurt Nintendo's ability to innovate at all. Heck, they could pack in a game to sell those controllers.
Meanwhile, the console itself would have access to Nintendo's store. Along with an open standard console, it would have an open standard marketplace. It would just have one "market" program, but that program would have access to all manner of games, just by clicking on any "registered" companies that take someone's fancy.
I just saved consoles. Where's my golden parachute?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)