backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by Targon.. on Oct 24 at 12:40 PM


The three next-gen game consoles  (Source: punchbutton! blog)
EA wants a single, open game platform, but will probably not get it any time soon

Just one open platform would likely remove a lot of the headaches that now plague both gamers and developers, said Gerhard Florin, Electronics Arts senior executive in charge of international publishing.

"We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible," Florin said during the interview.  "We're platform agnostic and we definitely don't want to have one platform which is a walled garden."

Even though a single gaming platform would be ideal for gamers and developers, console manufacturers will not go down without a strong fight.  Both Microsoft and Sony have invested large amounts of resources to offer next-generation game consoles featuring cutting-edge technology that has previously been unavailable for consoles.  Even though the Nintendo Wii's hardware is not superior when compared to the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, it has already sold more than 9 million units and will help Nintendo generate more than $11 billion in revenue for the 2007 fiscal year.

Florin predicted server-based games and/or set-top boxes will play bigger roles if game consoles begin to fade out of the picture.  Gamers will not "need an Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii - the consumer won't even realize the platform it is being played on."  The popularity of set-top boxes continues to increase as the technology inside them becomes more powerful.  

Games consultant Nick Parker agrees that video gamers will simply need a set-box that will have a hard drive, WiFi connection and a game engine.  However, Parker does not think that a truly open system will be able to please gamers and developers.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Errr...
By ZaethDekar on 10/20/2007 9:11:44 AM , Rating: 5
Wouldn't that basically just be a gaming PC with a game pad or joy/flight stick?




RE: Errr...
By Sylar on 10/20/2007 9:15:22 AM , Rating: 5
Beat me to the punch, I was about to say the same thing. What they're asking for pretty much already exists and it's called a PC.

Maybe we should start calling the PC a STB(Set Top Box) so EA can make the connection easier.


RE: Errr...
By Chil on 10/20/2007 3:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Except for the fact that there are countless configurations for PC hardware, you would be onto something. PCs are not the answer to the problem EA has posed (whether it really is a problem is another debate). PCs would have to have a unified component system for developers to see it as an alternative to coding for three consoles.

As you can plainly see where I'm going with this, the answer to all our problems is for game devs to make their games only for Macs!


RE: Errr...
By 9nails on 10/21/2007 12:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Which Mac? Intel Mac's or PPC Mac's?


RE: Errr...
By splint on 10/21/2007 12:40:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Except for the fact that there are countless configurations for PC hardware


If only there was a layer of abstraction, a programming interface – if you will, that would allow programmers to target a broad range of hardware configurations from one unified high-level architecture. We can only dream...


RE: Errr...
By mgambrell on 10/21/2007 1:09:57 PM , Rating: 5
There are. theyre called directinput, direct3d, and opengl. This is not the problem.


RE: Errr...
By pheffern on 10/21/2007 1:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hear that 'whooosh'?


RE: Errr...
By Yawgm0th on 10/21/2007 11:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
As per the above poster, the sarcasm clearly went over your head.


RE: Errr...
By augiem on 10/22/2007 1:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever bug tested a PC game? There's a lot more picky hardware that needs special care out there than you realize.


RE: Errr...
By splint on 10/22/2007 2:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I have debugged PC game code and I’ve also coded for PS3’s cell. I assure you that I would much rather do the former and get a root canal at the same time then the later. Truth be told I did not have access to the entire PS3 since I don’t have their dev kit, but I’ve heard from little birds that Sony’s full PS3 dev kit doesn’t make things any easier at all.

Then again, I could just be full of shit and just some 15 year old fanboy. It’s hard to post credibility. :)


RE: Errr...
By Hawkido on 10/23/2007 9:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
And you think a PS3 is too expensive!?!?!?

(okay, maybe not you, but read the forums for complaints abot PS3 costs)

Plus, who are you kidding?? The Mac will never be anything but a kids toy for people too lame to think think for themselves. Really how can you innovate on a platform that dictates to you what hardware and tools you can use.

Reference "Crash Different" on YouTube.com


RE: Errr...
By Oregonian2 on 10/21/2007 8:55:35 PM , Rating: 3
Naw, they said that they wanted an OPEN platform, and PC's fill that bill too (albiet you call that openness a fault).

Macs, btw? Which one? 68K processor, Power PC processor, X86 processor? At least the PC's are all x86.


RE: Errr...
By afkrotch on 10/20/2007 6:15:19 PM , Rating: 1
Ya, that's not the same thing. A set top box would be a low end piece of hardware that downloads/uploads the data needed to play the game. The servers would be the workhorses.

With majority of the world on low bandwith connections, that's not happening anytime soon. We are talking about live internet apps.


RE: Errr...
By retrospooty on 10/21/2007 10:34:43 AM , Rating: 4
"Maybe we should start calling the PC a STB(Set Top Box) so EA can make the connection easier."

That would work, except that EA games suck on the PC, terrible UI, non-intuitive and buggy as hell. They do a piss poor job of porting to PC and I wouldn't trust them with the platform.


RE: Errr...
By BladeVenom on 10/20/2007 9:41:59 AM , Rating: 2
That problems solved. So when is EA Games going to drop the other platforms and only make PC games?


RE: Errr...
By shabby on 10/20/2007 9:44:19 AM , Rating: 5
When pigs fly?


RE: Errr...
By frobizzle on 10/22/2007 2:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When pigs fly?

Or at least walk on ceioings!

Spider-pig, spider-pig,
Doing whatever a spider=pig does.
Can he swing from a web?
No, he can't, he's a pig.


RE: Errr...
By BioRebel on 10/20/2007 10:39:40 AM , Rating: 5
About they same times they start making good games.


RE: Errr...
By ebakke on 10/20/2007 12:41:10 PM , Rating: 3
If I could give you a 6 rating, I most definitely would.


RE: Errr...
By MGSsancho on 10/20/2007 3:24:33 PM , Rating: 3
werd i was thinking the same thing

+7!


RE: Errr...
By GNStudios on 10/21/2007 6:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! I vote this one "Best comment of the month".


RE: Errr...
By Blight AC on 10/22/2007 11:58:49 AM , Rating: 1
The problem for EA is they don't want the added expense of making their games work with each unique platform, and they certainly don't want to limit their market to only one platform. So, a situation where all platforms, consoles, PC etc, all work on the same code base would be nirvana for EA.. OMG, teh profit margins are joy!

I might care if EA wasn't as much of a money whore anyway, and wasn't trying to kill everything I love about gaming.


RE: Errr...
By maverick85wd on 10/20/2007 2:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
what we really need is better gamepad support... if I could link my 360 controller to my computer and just buy, for example, halo 3 for PC I would definitely prefer to play that way. They do sell the dongle to link 360 controllers to PC, but trying to use it to play Unreal Tournament or some such has proved fruitless (for me anyways). You have to buy those stupid Microsoft "PC Games" to utilize it.

I don't really care for any of the game pads I have seen that are available for PC, which is really where console systems have the biggest advantage.


RE: Errr...
RE: Errr...
By NovaPolice on 10/20/2007 4:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yep. 360 controller is explicitly supported on Windows, and I'd like to see more games support its layout as standard.

When you plug a gamepad into your PC, there's no guarantee its A or B or R or L buttons will be the same as another. You have to keymap it every time on every game, pretty much, which is a pain.

This is why Microsoft is attempting to standardize the configuration of PC gamepads - all with a certain number of buttons and a certain layout configuration - by using the 360 controller as a template. Other manufacturers should start making its layout as default - after all, when you plug in a cheap madcatz controller into your PS2, your left trigger button never registers as the select or square key, does it? Nope, works just like the dualshock. Same idea.

It's a pretty smart move and I hope it actually takes off. The standard is there now. Games and vendors just need to start supporting it. There's no reason they couldn't code them to be mouseless and fully gamepad-navigated - in fact, I got Final Fantasy online and Indy & the Emperor's Tomb working like this on my HTPC a few years back without much problem at all. Still needed the KB for chat though.


RE: Errr...
By afkrotch on 10/20/2007 6:41:35 PM , Rating: 3
Do you really think Microsoft is attempting to standardize the configuration of gamepads, cause of keymapping issues? No. It's strictly money and marketing.

If they could standardize it, then they essentially would be able to create whatever configuration of gamepads they want and have the industry follow.

Also, PC gamers for the most part, don't care about using a gamepad on their PC. I sure as hell am not playing FPS and RTS games on a gamepad. That's just stupid. Get a console if you want that.


RE: Errr...
By Aarnando on 10/21/2007 4:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree that gamepads are inferior for FPS and RTS, but for adventure or action games like Tomb Raider or Devil May Cry I prefer a gamepad.

Whether it makes microsoft more money or not, I'd prefer to see a standardized layout for PC gamepads. I won't get angry if a company can profit by making PC gaming more convenient.


RE: Errr...
By NovaPolice on 10/22/2007 6:10:47 AM , Rating: 2
Do I really think Microsoft is attempting to standardize the configuration of gamepads, cause of keymapping issues? Yes. Alongside their profits and marketing department's benefits, this was discussed a few years back as part of the whole XNA framework deal. PC gamepads right now are based on DirectInput, but there's a newer Xinput api.

So far it's restricted to the 360 controller, but someone on Sourceforge has written PC Gamepad Support for XNA Framework, a wrapper to use other gamepads, and I think Xinput should achieve wider adoption post-Vista.

As far as playing FPS, I've been using a Model M and an MX510 for years & I'm not planning on replacing 'em anytime soon. I'm actually not fond of the 360 or consoles, and I'm kind of pissed that it screwed up Oblivion's UI.

But for some racing games, Tomb Raider-esque titles, casual console ports, even navigating the menus on something like Mediaportal - which currently supports the other semi-new standardized input device, the MCE remote, pretty nicely - it would be nice to use a standardized layout gamepad.

But that's just stupid, apparently.


RE: Errr...
By mcnabney on 10/21/2007 12:50:52 AM , Rating: 3
You may be the only person to prefer a game pad over a mouse/keyboard when playing FPS games.


RE: Errr...
By maverick85wd on 10/21/2007 3:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't, I was just trying it to see if I could get it to work as a game pad. I do prefer a game pad when playing flight games, but I didn't know I about those downloads from Microsoft. Thanks to whoever posted that link!


RE: Errr...
By slickr on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Errr...
By Targon on 10/22/2007 10:08:40 AM , Rating: 1
Consoles being slimmed down computers is a big part of why they are cheaper. They also don't have the overhead of a huge OS to slow them down and get in the way of playing games.

As for advancing the technology requirements, we have it on the PC side of things too, it's called DirectX. Many/most of the games out there today on the PC use and even require DirectX 9, not just to have it installed, but to have a video card that can do DirectX 9 on the video card. With Vista, we have DirectX 10 out with video cards that do DirectX 10 in hardware. In under a year we will see DirectX 10.1, and in another 2-4 years we will probably see DirectX 11.

But, just because the API only gets updated every year or 2(for the point releases), does not mean that the hardware should stagnate. That is why I suspect your post got modded down by some people. Those who love consoles for whatever reason look down on PCs as a viable platform for playing games.

But, these APIs are really not fully implemented by Microsoft, and it is the source of many headaches. For an API to be fully implemented, if the drivers or hardware do not provide a function, the API itself should provide that function. Applications should also have a requirement to specify what version of the API they are designed for so that advances in the API do not break older titles. If version 1 of an API calls for 16 bit values for some values and version 2 makes it 32 bit, a game designed for version 1 should not break due to the change in the API. This is why many older DirectX games look like crap when they used to look good, DirectX has evolved, and the changes have broken certain things.


RE: Errr...
By Christopher1 on 10/22/2007 1:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's the big problem today: the OS. That is the biggest 'computer killer' today: XP and Vista.

It's about time to realize that NO OS needs to be 6 GB in size (now, admittedly a good 2/3's of that is drivers).


RE: Errr...
By Targon on 10/22/2007 4:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
This goes back to the whole concept of layering the operating system and letting the user decide what components should be installed. Windows without all the extra features really isn't all that bad, the problem is that Microsoft puts in drivers for so many devices and installs them so things are "plug and play". To be honest, it would be nice if users were forced to keep their OS CD/DVD around and available so that if things break they know where everything is, but that is another topic.

Now, should DirectX support really be a function of driver support, or should the drivers themselves be very basic with a layer on top of the drivers that provides the API support? Or should there be another level of abstraction where acceleration is handled(by the sound or video processor manufacturer)? In an ideal world, the hardware has it's own language, the drivers speak that language, and then there would be an API to driver layer that would allow all applications to be written for a pure API, without the need to have all these hardware specific tweaks and features.

Microsoft COULD very easily just put in the pure API, the driver to API layer(that the video card and sound card manufacturers provide) would tell the API what features are supported by the hardware, and then talk to the drivers. Nice, neat, and those with low end video cards COULD still get all the eye candy the API could handle, though the framerates might be too low to make it playable. Faster processors could compensate for this to an extent though.

And for the record, it IS possible to disable a lot of the bloat in Windows XP and Vista, but at the risk of breaking other functionality.


RE: Errr...
By Targon on 10/22/2007 9:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is not about the hardware as much as it is about the APIs that are out there. What EA wants is a true API that handles EVERYTHING, from sound to graphics that is not bound to a specific operating system. Such an API would even eliminate certain hardware requirements, because if the hardware in the system can't do something, the API will handle it and provide that function with full software emulation for what the hardware is lacking.

To date, no API handles this fully. We NEED video cards that can handle DirectX 9 on the hardware level, because the DirectX API doesn't fill in when video cards only handle DirectX 7 or 8 in hardware. This sort of issue is what EA wants SOMEONE to fix.

The problem with implementing such a thing is that you have too many players out there that would not want such a thing, because then any flaws or limitations in their products would be shown. Right now, the PS3 is seen as having the most powerful console for example, but the cost and other issues keep it from dominating. The Xbox 360 is a decent console overall. The Wii is really pretty weak when it comes to "power", yet because of the controller and games for it, as well as price, it sells well.

Now, Apple would do well with such an API, because then all games and such would work on a Mac, and the OS doesn't get in the way. But, the consoles sell because each console has their own set of games that people want to play, not because one is necessarily more powerful than the others.

I honestly would also love to see a good API developed that was platform independent, because that would mean that the great games designed for a console could also run on a PC(with the appropriate controller). This would also allow good PC games to run on a console with the appropriate controller(s). Stick a keyboard on a console, or a console controller on a PC, and bingo, you are good to go.


One World Console
By JonM on 10/20/2007 9:24:15 AM , Rating: 3
A one world video game console is the sign of the apocalypse, isn't it?

EA is already working on being *the* singular game publisher. So it's no surprise that this idea is on their minds. That and the fact that it would save them loads of resources to only have to developer games for a single platform.




RE: One World Console
By ZaethDekar on 10/20/2007 9:28:40 AM , Rating: 2
One Console to rule them all, One Console to find them, One Console to bring them all and in the darkness bind them


RE: One World Console
By OblivionMage on 10/20/2007 11:03:36 AM , Rating: 2
Video game platform monopoly...wow...sometimes I wonder about EA...Especially with that whole, "Video games are boring people to death", uhm no shit YOUR video games bore people to death, they are mass produced, low quality, glitchy, boring, and have ridiculously priced 'expansion packs'


RE: One World Console
By ZaethDekar on 10/20/2007 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 3
and on the other side it could be the most breath taking graphics for a game however the story is about how you and your cat crossed the street then tripped on the curb and had to go home. 20 minute gameplay and no replayability so you buy, finish it, sell.


Subtle Point.....
By yodataco on 10/22/2007 11:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
I think there is a subtle point that is being overlooked here. It seems EA wants a unified platform to go towards the idea of a "thin client". That being the case, all of the powerhouse work would not be in your living room. Instead it would be in EA's server farms. Thus, EA could convert from a "software vendor" into a "service vendor".

This has been the goal of almost every game publisher in the business ever since the popularity of Everquest began. The "subscription model" that every game developer / publisher wants to go to is going to make me sick. If EA had it's way with this unified platform thin client we'd all be paying upwards of $30-$50 per month just to get the privelage of having one. Then we'd pay for each game to "download it". Then we'd pay for each game per month to play it. Then we'd be forced to make "micro transactions" for better in-game stuff!

I'm all for companies making money, but this is getting rediculous. The whole point of this want for a unified arcethecture isn't for EA to have an easier time "porting". That part is just a side effect. The main reason is so that they can BLEED US DRY EVERY MONTH!




RE: Subtle Point.....
By Targon on 10/22/2007 11:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
EA just wants a unified API that they can write code for, so that they can make ONE version of a game and have it work on any platform. One version that would work on the PC, Mac, and any console out there really is the dream of any software developer. With such a thing, it would mean that all the MMOs out there would be playable from a console, not just a PC. Exclusive titles would be a thing of the past unless they are keyed to a certain feature not available from other companies.


RE: Subtle Point.....
By yodataco on 10/22/2007 11:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the paragraph that started with
quote:
Florin predicted server-based games and/or set-top boxes will play bigger roles if game consoles begin to fade out of the picture
? EA would like nothing more that to sit back an watch as the money flows in from every gamer at $15 per month. Think abou the ammount of $ Blizzard makes from World of Warcraft alone per month. Imagine if every EA game was subscription based across all "platforms". I'm just waiting for the Madden MMO! For only $60 to buy the game & $15 per month you can play online as your favorite obscure NFL player!


RE: Subtle Point.....
By Christopher1 on 10/22/2007 1:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I saw how much a subscription for WoW cost for a year. $300 dollars..... sorry, not getting my money!

Blizzard needs to realize that people do not want subscription based services, they want ONE TIME BUY services. Maybe they'll be willing to buy an expansion, a la Everquest, but not monthly subscriptions to play online like Everquest and WoW have.


RE: Subtle Point.....
By Targon on 10/24/2007 12:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I caught it, but the real key is that EA being a software company wants to be able to make ONE version of a game without needing to be concerned about what platform that game will run on. This means that a set top box, game console, PC, Mac, or a UNIX/Linux workstation would all have the ability to run the same exact version of a game. A set-top box would simply be locked down to running only one title, but if the title is written with this unified API in mind, it means that the version on the set-top box and the PC would work together. No special versions needed depending on what hardware or OS the customer has or wants.

This is somewhat different from the desire to make more and more games be subscription based. A big factor there will be if the subscription fees are deserved if the developer does not improve content significantly. If it was anything like the original EverQuest, the lack of work to older content would mean the developer does NOT deserve as much money as a company like Turbine that provides new content for free on a fairly regular basis as a part of the subscription fees.


Fat chance EA!
By Silverel on 10/20/2007 9:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
One unified console, with what hardware? Figure out that dilemma, put it on a 4 socket board with an Intel, AMD, PowerPC processor, toss in a Cyrix while you're at it. Along with an nVidia and ATI video card in SLIxfire, an 8 drive raid, and about 20 controller plugs backwards compatible all the way back to Atari. Then let the devs build the OS to run it as an opensource project. :)

There's so many problems to this, it's not even funny. The huge upside would be the big three MS, Sony, and Nintendo/Sega making that much better games, instead of trying to sell paperweights. Haven't consoles always been the big bank buster for their respective companies? Something along the lines of a loss near 50-100$ but "well make it up in game sale!" being the catch phrase there?




RE: Fat chance EA!
By ZaethDekar on 10/20/2007 10:22:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Nick Parker said, "Competition was required to ensure the pace of technology was maintained." and "It's basically a boiled-down PC."


Also in the article it says there could be a playstation, Microsoft and Nintendo Channel. So basically, we have to get all the major corporations to agree on a game engine.

However if there may be channel's for game companies... then whats to say you just won't get a cracked game? Granted then controllers will cost 60 bucks to add new innovative features.


RE: Fat chance EA!
By murphyslabrat on 10/20/2007 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest problem with a unified console is that there would be little profit for the big three. Currently, the majority of profit for a platform comes from game licensing agreements, The Playstation 3 being a prime example: money is lost on the hardware, and that is not even counting the development costs. Yet, they are still profiting on the platform due to the licensing for Playstation 3 games.

While their game division is a very small portion of the complete company (~10%), for them to switch to a common platform would significantly reduce their gaming division revenues. This would result in higher priced systems (nnnNOOOOOoooo!), or them withdrawing from competition.

Personally, I think that for those wanting a "universal console", money spent on designing small form-factor HTPC cases/systems would be well spent. If EA became a PC-only developer, but spent the money previously allocated for cross-platform development on case/OEM system distribution, they would gain revenue. I have no idea of the relative costs, but I do know that if there were any cheap-and-decent SFF cases (~$50), I would snap one up in a minute.


RE: Fat chance EA!
By afkrotch on 10/20/2007 6:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Nintendo has been making money off the Wii console since day 1. Microsoft started making money off their console like 3 months after release. Sony still nets a loss.


RE: Fat chance EA!
By RubberJohnny on 10/21/2007 11:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting that Microsoft started making money so early on, have you got a link to back that up? also does it include the billion they have outlayed to fix their "issues"?


You will be assimilated
By fifolo on 10/20/2007 11:39:28 AM , Rating: 5
"Book publishers want single written language."




RE: You will be assimilated
By sweetsauce on 10/20/2007 3:43:04 PM , Rating: 4
In a related story, the gap has asked that all fat americans lose some weight, so that they can mass produce one size clothing. This will revolutionize clothing as we know it.


weird
By semo on 10/20/2007 10:16:38 AM , Rating: 4
just read 2 headlines for today on dt and for some reason i thought it was funny.
quote:
Chinese Astronauts Want Communism in Space
quote:
Electronic Arts Wants Single Game Platform

i don't even know why.

and i bet ea wants a single platform not to make better games but to spend less on porting and more on sequels, i.e. for profit.




RE: weird
By seamonkey79 on 10/20/2007 10:25:58 AM , Rating: 1
It really is a shame this is all about the bottom line, isn't it? I mean, it's like companies were in business to make money or something...


RE: weird
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2007 7:47:22 PM , Rating: 3
We get it. We all know that businesses are there to make money, but how much and at what cost? I mean, these companies are already making BILLIONS of dollars. Do they really need the few million more? NO. They aren't going to turn around and spend it on development like they should. The big ups in the company just pocket the money, basically. If all the employees got a cut of the companies profits instead of a set salary then them wanting to make more money would be all right with everyone. Since it's basically only the higher ups getting all the profits then there isn't really any reason for them to get more money on top of the millions they already have.

If you just ignore my last paragraph you are still left with junk. I mean, one console? They'd basically just do what EA does now. Sell you a "new" console every year that basically just has a different paint job. The price would never go down and you'd never get anything new. The game companies would also start to die, except EA, Microsoft, and perhaps Nintendo. Yea, tons of variety there. You either get crap, Halo, or kiddie stuff. It's not that they don't make good games, but it'd be a serious lack of variety.


Good news for Id Software
By Hakuryu on 10/20/2007 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
When John Carmack was talking about the new Id Tech 5 Engine, he said that one set of source code could be used that would compile code for the 360, PS3, and the PC. No seperate developers needed to port games to another platform - the Engine does all the work.

Ever since I heard that, I've been wishing Id had stock so I could buy up as much of it as possible. The fancy graphics, and bells and whistles of that engine are nothing compared to this multi-platform code compile.

I wonder if EA has heard about this, or they are just so greedy they would rather have only 1 platform instead of licensing the Tech 5 engine.




RE: Good news for Id Software
By afkrotch on 10/20/2007 6:50:25 PM , Rating: 1
John Carmack is a tool and his games suck ass. Should have died out with Doom a long time ago.


RE: Good news for Id Software
By Aarnando on 10/21/2007 4:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Did John Carmack run over your puppy?


By damncrackmonkey on 10/21/2007 10:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
wow! you mean it can compile for 3 (THREE!) platforms? i wonder when the gcc guys will reach a milestone like that...


But EA, you already do so little...
By Cogman on 10/20/2007 9:52:58 AM , Rating: 3
So, they are complaining that it is too hard to make a game for all these consoles. But what they are really saying is they don't want to reopen the source code for EA Sports 2002 games and do some, you know, actual game development.

EA is notorious for the "2007 Edition which includes more obscure players you've never heard of but basically same engine you grown to love (or hate)".

EA, Learn to actually release new GOOD games rather then old ones with minor tweaks, then maybe I will listen to your lazy complaints about having to actually develop for a changing world.




By Silverel on 10/20/2007 11:09:28 AM , Rating: 2
What they could do, is make their own console. The EABox '08 coming next December! Re-skin it every year packaged with a new (re-)release, maybe drop in a few new pieces, and have a drastic overhaul every 5 years or so. If they could make it a tiny bit profitable to actually sell a console, they'd be in for some money. Sport junkies would be able to buy a new version of it every year!

Get all of your sports developers to resign from making games on the big three. Make all your games for your dedicated sports box, and call it a day. Get some physX involved for that added touch of realism even. You could re-design a console strictly dedicated to realistic sports games, and allow the big 3 to port em over (for a small astronomical fee) if they feel like it.

I think a nice touch that would make it interesting, would be to have all the player stats from every game played, in a database that can get called up by any game. Have it update on a weekly basis, and voila! You only have to release a new physical product when the graphics can be drastically updated. On top of that, you could charge subscription fees for these updates, and a small chunk at the start of each "new" season!

Considering that EA actually came out and said something like this, I think we may see an EAsport Box in the coming years. If they base it loosely on my proposition, I want some royalties!


Monopoly??
By Screwballl on 10/20/2007 3:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is called a monopoly..
EA is working on a monopoly for the game publishers
MS is working on a monopoly for the OS
since EA and MS are so buddy-buddy, lets make the MS console this single console, make HD-DVD the required format and make all games be required to publish through EA for it to make it to this one console. This way MS and EA have the market by the balls and you like it because you have no other choice (except the PC which isn't a real gaming machine according to EA).

quote:
A fat stomach never breeds fine thoughts. St Jerome




RE: Monopoly??
By SharkManEXR on 10/20/2007 10:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
i totally agree, its a monopoly wanting a monopoly; I guess they just dont understand how competition (usually) makes things better.


EA Linux it's in the code!
By knowom on 10/20/2007 4:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
"We want an open, standard platform which is much easier than having five which are not compatible" Sounds a awful lot like Linux to me now if only there were as custom Linux OS designed and built solely for multimedia entertainment or gaming with hard and games to go with it designed and configured to go along side it. It's not a bad idea by any means, but the likely hood of it happening is very slim of course, but maybe someday EA will have the cash flow to create such a "dream" system.




RE: EA Linux it's in the code!
By afkrotch on 10/21/2007 6:11:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, nothing like having an open standard platform that the majority of ppl don't care about. Not only that, looking at things, majority of ppl don't care about OpenGL either.

The likeliness of having a standard gaming platform is slim. Having *nix running it is even slimmer.


PC Equivalent of PS3, 360
By mles1551 on 10/20/2007 4:13:56 PM , Rating: 2

How much would it cost to buy a gaming PC system that can provide equivalent performance to the PS3 or 360?

Price after all is always a large component in system sales.




RE: PC Equivalent of PS3, 360
By afkrotch on 10/20/2007 7:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
I priced out a cheap quad-core system (Q6600) with 320 meg 8800GTS, blu-ray drive, 80 gig hdd, and 2 gigs memory. Comes out to $1226.92.

Swap blu-ray drive for DVD-ROM (game machine to match console, so no DVD+-RW), swap 80 gig hdd to 160 gig hdd (didn't have 120 gig) and the prices comes to $795.92.

Left out the OS, keyboard, and mouse. Cause they can make a custom OS for the game box and have it strictly gamepad. By no means would this machine be the same size as a console. The video card alone is almost the length of an Xbox 360.


Outsourcing
By Samus on 10/20/2007 5:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't they just outsource 'porting' code to other consoles so it isn't their headache?

Profits will still exist because of the larger portfolio.




RE: Outsourcing
By afkrotch on 10/20/2007 7:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
You figured another company would have already made like a "porting" code engine or something. Dump PS3 code in here, out comes Xbox 360 code. Dump Xbox 360 code in, out comes PS3 code.

Course I can't imagine something like that being easy to create. Definitely a market for it though. I'm sure EA would pay like $22 mil a year to use it. That or buy out the company for a couple billion.


Sounds familiar
By enhizer on 10/22/2007 7:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
EA wanting a single open platform sounds mighty familiar.. like something from 15 years ago. Remember 3DO anyone? And if I remember correctly, EA was 3DO's biggest investor.




RE: Sounds familiar
By werepossum on 10/23/2007 5:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
There will be only one gaming platform as soon as the PC-based Phantom console is released. It'll be so orgasmawhamic that all other gaming platforms will be forced to implement hardware compatibility just to survive.

Yup, any minute now...

Wait for it...


Terrific for EA!!
By thecoolnessrune on 10/20/2007 9:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
Now all they have to do is reprocess the same sports game one time every year instead of 3 separate respins!




Why is there so much hatred...
By Aarnando on 10/20/2007 1:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
Regardless of what EA's motives are for preferring a single game platform, I would love to see it happen. I'd love to play games from all 3 platforms of the current generation, but I don't want to spend the money to acquire all 3 systems. I'm not a huge fan of EA, but I am a fan playing games. If someone can make it easier (and cheaper) for me to play all the games I want to play, then I'm all for it.




the communist console theory!
By nerdye on 10/20/2007 10:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
if set top box performance where the answer as a one unified gaming experience, how on earth would it achieve high end gaming performance? Whats in your cable box that you use for digital cable right now, maybe you could play half life one on it. And how on earth would a set top box go about upgrades, every 5 years with a cheap 300$ box they would upgrade you from a Pentium e with an underpowered 7600gt to whatever is really cheap in the future? Sounds like the communist console to me. It will never happen. Capitalism gives us great hardware, keep it coming!




Set top box my @ss
By Kyanzes on 10/22/2007 5:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
1., Go with virtualization. We have powerful PCs, make use of the computing power.

2., If not virtualization, then what's keeping them from making a very own gaming-OS that would boot from DVD and games would start like on consoles?




Sounds like...
By Spivonious on 10/22/2007 8:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
...the Sega Channel. Anyone remember that? I remember it had an exclusive minivan racing game that was tons of fun.




Which is easier?
By just4U on 10/22/2007 12:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ok,

From what i understand it's been a major headache for developers over the years trying to build games around a PC that has litterally thousands of different configurations.

I'd think, that it would be much easier to develop games based on a console (regardless of weather there are 3-5 different ones out there) then it ever would for a pc.

Or am I missing something?




Java?!?
By erikstarcher on 10/22/2007 4:44:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like what they want is a Java-like programing language. It doesn't mater what platform it is played on, just as long as it has the proper base software installed on it. This than could be made to work on a PC, MAC or Linux computer with the software running on it, or a dedicated gaming box with firmware. No installs, just insert the game disk and play away.




"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki