More Unified Console stuff, from people who actually know what they're talking about

Not to be one note here (I swear there will be more rant-filled technology stuff in here soon), but in a recent GDC-themed podcast episode of 1up Yours they talk a great deal about the Unified Console concept that has been touted by many developers as the future. Check out the podcast here.

The Unified Console - Part 2 of 2: A Difficult Solution

Previously
In part 1, we outlined the causes of the console format war and why it needs to end. We now conclude this editorial with a complex, yet necessary solution.

Unity
One box. One platform. One set of cables. One set of controllers. One, free, unified multi-player pool. Zero half-baked "multi-platform" titles. Zero micro-transactions. Zero bullshit. It sounds like a no-brainer, yet we support and promote the contrary every time we pay for a $60 console title, and this needs to end. This obviously cannot be done by an editorial in some obscure blog. The market must demand it. You must demand it.

A Hybrid Of Concepts
Consoles are an incredible pieces of hardware. PC gamers have scratched their heads as they witness smaller, underpowered boxes push graphics rivaling the best PC hardware of the same generation. This is accomplished by a very simple concept: eliminate as much performance overhead as possible. Console architecture easily achieves this in two big ways: there is no, or at most a minimal operating system operating in the background, and, most importantly, the core hardware can never change. That means that developers can tweak their engines to their heart's content without having to worry about it breaking anything when combined with some obscure video chipset and/or driver. This incredible advantage for developers must be preserved in the unified console, and will be the only closed aspect of the console model that will survive. This is because for the unified console to truly succeed, it needs to be set on open standards.

Open standards are the most attractive and the most horrific aspects of PC gaming. The beauty of it isn't difficult to realize: within reason, you can choose any brand, model, generation of hardware and mix it with whatever you want or need. You think that Logitech mouse from 1997 fits your hand better than anything out today? Okay, use it. Want to use a stick and throttle in a flight-sim and use it from generation to generation? That's fine. Not only do you get choice in the types of hardware, but the open market of different competing brands keeps the quality of these peripherals and internal hardware high in quality and low in price. You get to customize everything, and for those of us who don't want to, we can get pre-designed systems from boutique system builders, or large manufactures such as Dell and HP. There are two downsides to this: one is cost, as this hardware is not subsidized like consoles, but also this mixing and matching of hardware puts a heavy burden on game developers. The advent of well-defined 3D acceleration APIs (Application Program Interfaces) such as OpenGL and DirectX (later versions anyway) made this a little easier, but it still does not compare to the ease of having a single hardware platform. This is where the "Unified Console Consortium", or UCC as we'll refer to it, would come into play.

The Consortium
The "Unified Console Consortium", or UCC, would be the most difficult, yet most critical aspect of the unified console concept. This group would be made up of hardware companies, game developers, publishers, game critics, and esteemed individuals from both the software and hardware development world, such as Warren Spector (Deus Ex), David Jaffee, Gary Tarolli (3Dfx and NVIDIA fame), Gary Whitta, etc. This group would have to be ultimately non-profit, and would have to be elected- how is unclear, and would admittedly be difficult and political- something that the engineer who is writing this cannot even begin to fathom.

The goal of this "United Nations" of gaming hardware and software would be to develop a new gaming hardware specification every 3-6 years. Hardware manufacturers present their own specific hardware part specs with a bid for a "contract" in the next unified console spec. Similarly, upgrades and modifications in the underlying software APIs and OS would be decided along with the hardware. Ultimately, it would be a convergence of the brightest minds in the gaming and high-performance hardware industries to deliver the best spec that technology can offer. The unified console platform could also become an invaluable tool for the consortium members to work together in developing and trying new concepts, such as GPGPU, in gaming applications. The potential of this collaboration cannot be underestimated.

The Hardware
The actual hardware of the unified console would likely be typical PC components of the time, which wouldn't be too far off from the way consoles are designed today (caveats: The 360 has a triple-core Power PC CPU, and the PS3 has Cell, but that has largely not worked out in developers' favor). Sticking to typical PC architecture would keep prices down, and make software development easier. However, as it has been stated before, the hardware must adhere to the spec decided upon by the consortium.

The interesting part of this is that individual gamers could still build their own machines, using off-the-shelf parts, as long as the meet the spec. Your new console getting the equivalent of "red ring of death"? No problem, because you can easily replace the part on your own- or you can design the box to have superior cooling in the first place. Those of us who don't want to deal with custom builds could purchase a pre-manufactured and tested "console" unit that meets the spec. These could be built and sold by multiple consortium members; Microsoft, Toshiba, Sony- whoever the consortium believes can meet the spec and deliver a high-quality unit. The units would be primarily designed for living room use with standard hi-def video outputs, digital DD/DTS audio outputs, etc. There would be a consortium recommended controller standard with all default control settings mapped to this peripheral, but users would be allowed to use whatever USB/wireless (bluetooth, etc.)-capable device and map the controls by hand. And yes, mouse and keyboard would be an option.

The Software

When it comes to the operating system and software, there's no question that it must be open-source. This includes moving away from non-open APIs, and moving back to open APIs, such as OpenGL, or perhaps a new standard developed by the consortium. The operating system would likely best be based on a stripped-down distribution of Linux, designed with this application in mind 100%. The completely open-source nature of this would allow the community as a whole to improve on the OS and API between generational leaps. To the end-user this would all be largely invisible, and a front-end dashboard-like interface would be in place. Multiplayer would be handled on a free network, such as Valve's excellent Steam, and would utilize stand-alone servers like those found with PC games as opposed to peer-to-peer networking like in Xbox Live. This would allow for much larger and reliable gaming sessions to take place, with matchmaking handled by the Steam (or similar free equivalent) network. All of this would need to be stitched seamlessly into the OS.

An Entirely New Business Model
With the exception of Nintendo, all major console platform holders have sold hardware at a loss, and console format supporters continually trumpet the subsidized cost of console hardware. However, most of us don't think twice about purchasing two or three consoles in one hardware generation, all the while paying for $60 games due to platform licensing fees. The PS3 and 360 are almost completely redundant pieces of gaming hardware. The unified console would have gamers buy a single, non-subsidized (so it would likely be somewhat more expensive) piece of hardware, allowing them to upgrade or buy completely new hardware every 3-6 years to meet the new spec. Games would also not have platform licensing fees, and would be developed for a single platform, reducing the cost of games back down to PC gaming level. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo would primarily become software developers and publishers, while participating in the consortium as well. It is likely that this standardization would promote consumer confidence, and ultimately market growth. In the end, everyone wins.

How can this be done?
Many will claim that this "gaming utopia" would be impossible to achieve, but we have to try. The best organizational template to initially follow would be the mass-collaboration of the GNU project, and the open-source software community as a whole. Linux and open-source software is gradually eating more and more market share every day. A community of bright, motivated developers around the world will always provide a superior solution in contrast with multiple, large corporations. What ultimately needs to happen first is that the consortium must be formed, and the spec must begin to be developed. It could be a decade or more before anything concrete could be produced, but we have to start somewhere.

Spread the word. Read about graphics and computer engineering. Exchange ideas and concepts. Learn how to write code. This cannot be accomplished and sustained with the ideas of a few, but the ideas of many.

The Unified Console - Part 1 of 2: The Conundrum

The Big Three
The most dedicated members of the gaming generation are used to it. More or less platform agnostic, they purchase at least two of the current game console technology iteration designed by whoever makes up the "big three" console companies at the time. For each console, they are expected to purchase a plethora of overpriced peripherals and accessories, only to repeat it (across two to three consoles) in three to five years. In a strangely successful attempt to justify all of this, the marketing teams attempt to spin the various consoles as superior in a specific trait, whether it be online play, graphics, or waggle- we eat it up, and then ask for seconds (or thirds).

Now ask yourself- really ask yourself: Does this picture make even an ounce of sense? It is incredible to hear the bulk of the published and online gaming press discuss all three current console platforms, while occasionally throwing in a jab at how backwards, foolish, and wasteful the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray format war is. Sure, one can argue that game consoles are far more complex in function compared to video players, but not enough to warrant three platforms every three to five years (that's close to a platform per year). The gaming press, and market as a whole, needs to acknowledge that while it's generating heaps of money, today's console platform market is fundamentally broken.


Reinventing the Wheel
One can argue that the most tragic aspect of a three-console market is the adverse affect on the games we play. Whether we notice it or not, our games almost always suffer, as in order to make a profit on a title, game publishers are requiring two, sometimes three ports. Whichever console has the largest install base will typically get the coveted "lead SKU", and will likely have the best performance and visuals, but it's difficult to believe that it reached its full potential without having the complete focus of the entire development team. If you unfortunately do not have the lead-SKU platform, you almost certainly will suffer in one way or another, as evident by these 2007 examples: Madden '08 took a 50% framerate hit on the PS3, Orange Box had severe framerate issues on the PS3, and the Wii version of Guitar Hero III was so overlooked that they forgot to include stereo sound.

What essentially is happening here is that the fundamental hardware advantages of the gaming console model are evaporating. It doesn't take a degree in computer science or electrical engineering to realize that if developers can focus on developing for one set of hardware, characteristic performance tweaks, tricks, and workarounds present themselves. They also do not have to incorporate any overhead-causing "compatibility code" to work with more than one GPU type, more than one CPU speed, and different overall system architectures. However, with the current pack of consoles in today's market, this advantage has been shot to hell. The frequency of exclusive releases is dropping dramatically as we see publishers demanding cross platform SKUs for virtually all new titles... which ultimately result in varying quality. If one takes a look at the system-level differences between the PS3 and the Xbox 360 they will see a distinct contrast. The PS3 placed all of its bets on Blu-Ray and the extreme CPU power of Cell, while having relatively weak GPU (from the NVIDIA Geforce 7 family) and relatively inferior system/graphics memory, while the 360 lies in the complete opposite camp with bets placed on a common 3-core PowerPC CPU, but the most advanced GPU at the time (ATI's last GPU before today's DX10 line), plus a good hefty amount of memory - and in Q4 of 2007 it appears this bet has paid off. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it's the GPU and memory that has caused the 360 to have superior versions of multi-platform titles. While the 360 might be slightly easier to develop for (as it still closely resembles PC architecture), it will almost always be the lead-SKU of the title that will take full advantage of one platform and not another. Instead, it has been the extreme differences in the system designs that have caused the non-lead SKUs to suffer. The development studios simply do not have the resources to completely re-engineer their engines for multiple platforms.


Fenced In... with Razor Wire
Now that virtually all new releases will be hitting more than one console, one would begin to believe that whichever console you purchase matters a bit less. However, more problems are then presented. Do you want consistent, integrated, but expensive multiplayer capability, or would you rather have a relatively open, free service with dedicated servers, but sometimes with some networking issues. How about cutting edge graphics, or a new form of control? Slick Blu-ray support or horrific DVD playback? You get the idea. Bottom line is that you can't have it all. Yes, if you have the money you can purchase every bit of hardware, but you obviously can't play one game concurrently on all three systems . Regardless of what platform you choose, there will be aspects in the title that would have been superior had it been played on one of the competing platforms.

Making matters worse, some platform holders are flippantly taking advantage of not only their current market lead, but also the fact that consoles are intrinsically closed off, walled gardens. The best example of this has been the abhorrent advent of "micro transactions". Charging gamers everywhere for 128x128 JPEGS, GUI themes, and map packs is now commonplace. Microsoft, the biggest offender, employed the use of a non 1:1 online currency- a ridiculously impudent marketing strategy. At first, the average gamer may not mind their fenced in playground. However, it eventually wears on most, but only after they have contributed to an investment so large that they cannot even begin to comprehend secession.


Next time- Part 2
In Part 2 of this editorial, we will take a potentially surprising look at what it would take for the world to (you guessed it) adopt a single, unified gaming console platform, while preserving the critically important aspects of variety and competition.

Anatomy of a Fanboy

There's no denying it- we've all been guilty of being a "fanboy" (or "fangirl") of a certain product, service, or even politician/party. We tout this product/person/company as the second coming of Jesus without ever truly investigating the competition, or the actual thing/person/company themselves. It must be a default human reaction to act this way. After all, it makes us feel safe when everything is "right", and all of the time and money you've invested hasn't gone to waste. Problem is, 99.9% of the time, this fact isn't true. That's when the self-imposed ignorance kicks in. After all, buyer's remorse in today's society is a pretty crappy feeling.

The plan was to dig up a good example of "fanboyism", but knowing the internet, a commenter in the "Microsoft Games Division (XBOX) and Your Wallet" editorial has already left us with some low-hanging fruit:

LMFAO

No I think the service is just fine and this guy is to yound to know any better. Dude just ask you mommy or get a job.

OWN you later

At first it's difficult to notice the poster's argument, but after wading through the grammar (who knows, maybe that was the idea) we can see that this poster believes that the opposing argument of Microsoft's Xbox Live service being too expensive can be offset by a job or a mother. Okay, fair enough. But notice how the poster doesn't make any point to back up the value of the service. No true argument of the object or company in question ever takes place. It is far easier to tell yourself "yeah, things are alright" without ever actually thinking about it. Are you being ripped off? Duped into thinking what you're paying for is worth it? God I hope not! And in the context of the case above, there is no right answer. Yes, paying $50 for that service could be worth it to you. The problem occurs when you come to that conclusion instantly for the sake of your emotional well-being that is detrimental to yourself- more specifically your wallet. The argument here is that he who obeys the quite psychologically-intelligent marketing departments of large companies is the one who is truly "owned".

Fanboys in the technology space are an annoyance, and they can even shift market trends (often for the worse), but in other areas of society. And while this isn't the focus of this blog, this needs to be discussed. Not necessarily referred to as fanboys, but posses almost identical behavior, it is those who unwittingly align themselves to a political party due to one or two beliefs, instead of the whole, who are the most guilty. Even worse are those who support (or damn) a candidate without actually looking at their voting record. The danger here of course is people making votes completely uninformed. Just like the tech fanboy makes his vote with his dollar without doing any research, the political fanboy spends very little time evaluating options (scarily enough, studies have shown that many people vote on looks), and then elects a person into office that goes against the majority of their beliefs.

What should be taken away from this is the following: we all get buyer's remorse sometimes, but instead of blindly supporting the product/company and fooling yourself into thinking you made the right choice only because you've already committed, try the following:

1. Take the product back.

2. Complain to the company. Let them know. You'd be surprised what a firmware update can fix. If it's policy, that may be a little tougher.

3. Give it away. You won't have to look at it anymore, and your buddy might actually enjoy it.

4. Get over it, and try and enjoy the product the best you can. What NOT to do is trick yourself into thinking that said "bad" thing is actually "good". Your subconscious will only become more disappointed as you invest more into said thing.

5. Or, maybe you actually do like it! And if so, good for you for making the right choice. However, should you happen to wander onto any random form of communication, whether it be the water cooler at work or an internet forum, do not back said thing without any true argument- unless you have a hunch that maybe their mom can pay for it.

Team Fortress 2 Birthday Easter Egg?

Apparently this is officially turned on December 22nd and August 24th of every year, which are each considered as the birthday of the original Team Fortress. However, a certain server out there found a way to turn it on artificially. Everyone has a little hat, and when blown up they turn into confetti and presents. There are also sounds of people clapping and cheering, and blowing kazoos. Enjoy the screenshots.

Microsoft Games Division (XBOX) and Your Wallet

Pointing out Microsoft's flaws has been low hanging fruit to grumpy geeks everywhere for almost a couple decades now, and it doesn't look like Microsoft (or the grumpy geeks) will change any time soon with the complete technical and marketing folly that Vista has been. Despite this, it is Microsoft's relatively young games division has rapidly become the worst of the bunch. The first Xbox was a test bed for their Xbox Live! multiplayer service, and it was far beyond anything that had been on a console at that point. It was a unique feature at the time, and users had to pay a premium for it. It was a relatively simple service, that was relatively ad-free and reliable.

Today, Microsoft has the Xbox 360 and it is difficult to argue that it hasn't been a success. It took about six months before we saw decent games, but they did arrive, and the titles coming out today are both plentiful and relatively high in quality. The games are now roughly $10 more, but gamers everywhere timidly accepted the claim that games simply cost more to develop these days. But the real coup was Microsoft's marketing of the revamped Xbox Live. Somehow, in SOME way, they were able to convince average Joe console gamer that it was OK- that it was worth it- to pay $50 for an online service- a service that is entirely peer to peer after the match is started. This results in quite a number of serious issues, such as unbalanced play (whoever is the host has a 0 ping), very limited player counts, and overall lag. This is simply not right, and it is sad that so many gamers happily fork over the cash to fuel the fire that is the Gold Subscription model of Xbox Live.

To make matters worse, a recent post by Xbox Live's Major Nelson demonstrated that they weren't done. Free demos are now going to be delayed for Xbox Live silver members. The most interesting aspect of this story is that they attempted to spin it into sounding like an advantage for the Gold members, and not surprisingly a huge number of gamers ate this up with a grin from ear to ear. It is this group of gamers- a group of people that have a mindless and unwavering loyalty- that will cause Microsoft's marking department to get bonus checks a bit larger than usual this year. As easy as it is to hate Microsoft's gaming department, it is difficult to consider them anything other than genius.

The nickel and diming doesn't end there, however. Microsoft still charges a fee for your avatar (a little JPEG), "themes" (wallpaper for your Xbox GUI), and even a fee to modify your username. What's worse is their insistence for the end-user to pay for downloadble content, such as small packs of expansion maps. It started with horse armor, but now it has become ridiculous. Not only should this be free, as it has been standard since online gaming really caught on with the PC, but it also segments the player base. In other words- both those who DO buy the maps, and those who DON'T get SCREWED when a fewer amount (or no amount) of people use this multiplayer content. Some content has been ad supported, but further attempts have been squashed as free content from one publisher (Epic) obviously makes the rest (Ubisoft) look bad.

The games already went up by $10. The volumes have been incredibly high. The service is STILL peer to peer. Enough is enough. The solution to all this would be the following:

1. Remove the tiered service. One tier, one price: $0.00. Support the service with ads (which is going on already, despite the fact that gold members are paying for it).

2. Support ALL DLC with ads. Segmenting the player base doesn't do anyone any good. It has been proven time and time again that multiplayer games with longevity have SALES with longevity. Epic knows this, but Microsoft refuses to believe it.

3. Treat your customers with some respect and dignity, instead of cattle lined up for slaughter.

But what ultimately has to happen is the player base needs to wake up. The problem is that the majority of them are either too young or too new to online gaming to know any better. Do not support nickel and diming, and eventually they will stop. However, if you continue to blindly hand over your cash, they will take it every time- and then ask for more.