The forums have been raging on and on about a unified HD format. HD DVD/Blu Ray, blah blah blah. And the general consensus is that its better to have a unified format.

 Let's replace HD DVD and Blu Ray with Videogame Consoles and major movie studios with 3rd party developers.

 Why is a 2/3 party system acceptible in the Videogame world but not in the movie world? This is even accepted in the Car world. If have a mitsubishi, but I'm not forced to buy mitsubishi branded gas that only works for Mitsubishis and not Toyotas. I can go and put whatever the hell gas I want.

 Wouldn't it be great to buy a copy of MGS4 and then not have to worry about what system you have at home? Just as long as it runs, why should you care about brand loyalty?

 People are worried about monopolies, but I'm not talking about monopolies. I'm talking about a unified hardware platform, much in the way that the DVD has a unified hardware platform.

 There can still be competition among companies-- i.e. Sony DVD players vs. JVC DVD players vs. Panasonic DVD players, etc. but all the companies players can all run the same DVD. And it is up to the consumer to pay extra if they want extra bells and whistles.

 Likewise, what if Xbox, PS3 and Wii all played the same games and you didn't have to worry about a "wii version" or an "Xbox version" or a "PS3 version" because all the games would work across all the systems? There would still be a lot of competition because each company would want consumers to buy THEIR system. But just like in the DVD market right now, if the consumers want extra bells and whistles, then they can go ahead and buy a system that is more expensive and has more features.

Might as well wish for Mac/Windows/Linux merging for all the good it does. Universal peace and an end to suffering would be good while you're at it.

That'd be part of the problem, there's no agreement on what if a unified hardware platform should be for video games. Video games platforms are more complex than movies or music players because of the interaction. It’s not just a playback of something that’s been recorded it’s something you control directly and there’s no agreed single set-up for hardware that does that.

Just look at all the arguments on Wii Vs. The HD Consoles Vs. PC Vs. The Wonderswan or whatever. In a lot of ways video games as a media is still finding it’s voice.

@That Guy: We already have this it is called a PC.

Ok let's look at the PC. Pretty much everyone has conformed to the same hardware formats. Every box has a motherboard, RAM, Hard Drive, etc. Even Apple has conformed to the de facto standard of the Computer.

Windows? There's a driver standard there. DirectX. and/or OpenGL. If Microsoft wasn't such a beotch, DirectX would be used across all platforms. It doesn't matter what kind of Videocard you have anymore-- as long as it conforms to DirectX then it should run fine.

So now can't videogames be different? There's nothing really special about the hardware of the Wii, Xbox or PS3. The way I see it, the only real difference is the button configuration. If all three console makers decided to agree on where buttons should go and some kind of universal dev kit, everything should be kosher.

Obviously the Wii has a crazy controller, but I can easily see Xbox and PS3 merging. Really its just A B X Y vs. square circle X and triangle, right?

The whole idea of console makers agreeing on where buttons go is unnecessary. They would only need to agree on the number, where they are could be up to the manufacturers and all games could be like PC games where players can custom map the controls. Or if devs are to lazy the OS of the console could remamp buttons in the settings, even save configuations by game.

Yet, I see the idea as silly and financially stupid. Such a choice would only be a race to the bottom. Just look at the PC world many vendors are just scraping by because in order to get their systems, wich, thanks to the unified configurations and OS, are pretty much all the same, sold they have to sell at very small profit margins.

What are you talking about? Very small margins? Last I checked the PS3 was selling at a LOSS. So was the Xbox (though i hear they're breaking even or even making a small profit now). If the hardware sold at a small profit margin, that would be different. In fact that's what Wii does!

By agreeing on a unified system, it takes the emphasis off the hardware and more emphasis on the Software, i.e. THE GAMES. That's where all the money is made nowadays, unified systems or not. However, with a unified standard, it would be cheaper for software developers to make games, since they only have to conform to one system. In turn, if Sony wanted to release their own game, their market wouldn't just be limited to their proprietory PS3, but instead people would be able to buy their games for their generic PSWii60's.


By turning the hardware into a commodity (i.e. something common like toothpaste or tomato sauce), then it opens it up for the consumers to have a freedom of choice-- they are not locked into buying one system with just one set of games!

Just like with movies, people don't want to have to buy an HDDVD system to watch Transformers, and then have to own a Blu Ray player to watch Spiderman. In fact, I would argue that if you only had to buy one system, you would have more money to buy more MOVIES. Likewise, instead of owning a Xbox to play Halo, then a PS3 to play Gran Turismo and then a Wii to play Zelda, a person would be able to own a unified merged system and have more money to buy more Games. More games = more profit.

When I was talking about small profit margins I was talking about PC vendors (dell, compaq, etc.) It is fortuidous that that it was not clear enough because you actually made a good point NOT to go to a standard. That is right now the consoles are quite powerful and they are able to be sold at anything less than the 3-8 hundred dollars it takes to assemble them because of the fact that by not having a unified structure the manufaturers are able to charge a liscensing fee.

In other words in order for a manufacturer to make a profit off the hardware we will be sold systems that are at a higher price than the ones we are seeing now.

Open GL is available on more platforms than DirectX or Direct 3D
DirectX or Direct 3D is a microsoft product available only on microsoft OSes including a hacked variant of it on the Xbox - MS would prefer people to learn Direct 3D rather than Open GL this so thay cant port or write softwae for other operating systems.

Open-GL is available on  MS windows (XP and Vista) all unix (solaris ,hpux, aix ,tru64, linux),vms? Mac ,etc. and a variant of it on the PS3, basically it's supported on a huge range of devices and OS's
used for both games and other visualisation products.

They are pretty much capable of the same thing - that is giving a consistant way to provide 3d geometry and rendering ,and porting one to the other probably is not a huge difficulty.

Older games consoles like Wii or Ps2 i think they use direct hardware access - anyone clarify this ?

Anyway multiport games are pretty easy to do if middleware engine is supported by multiple platforms ie Unreal engine on PC , PS3 or X360 , Phys X on Ps3 PC and X360 (this is physics though) to really do really cutting edge stuff can require more effort however. Depending on the platform they may run faster or slower or use more software or hardware etc.