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.