Hoyt refutes Dyack’s “One Console Future” arguments

There’s been plenty of talk coming from the movers and shakers of the gaming business about a possible “One Console Future” where one universal platform would apply, and all developers would be placed on the same playing field as far as gaming consoles are concerned.

Electronic Arts executive Gerhard Florin and Silicon Knights President Dennis Dyack were both quoted expressing their favor for the idea, with Dyack implying that the One Console Future is imminent and “everyone would win” in such a scenario. Not everyone, however, was convinced.

Ben Hoyt, a producer at game tools company Emergent, had a particularly different take on the subject. He says that both Florin and Dyack failed to consider some basic realities of the industry.

Hoyt argues that “Florin’s vision of a ‘box…made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection, and a games engine inside,’ conjures eerie images of the aptly-named Phantom Game Console” and “fails to address fundamental technical realities relating to local versus server-based games. Nor does he address the exciting diversification of gameplay experiences enabled by today’s variety of gaming hardware options.”

Moving on to Dyack’s case, there are two points that Hoyt strongly disagrees with. First is Dyack’s belief that the competition of today’s gaming platforms create an “unhealthy” industry; second is his assertion where he described a one-console industry as a place where “everyone would win.”

“I’m afraid that I fail to see how, in a world where our industry is dominated by a single, monopolistic, console manufacturer, ‘everyone would win,'” says Hoyt. He went on to raise some points:

What incentive would this console manufacturer have to fund AAA exclusive titles when all titles would be exclusives? Why would they launch new hardware at a loss when anyone who wanted to play console video games would be forced to purchase one of their systems? How much would they charge independent publishers and developers for the right to release games on their platform?

He continues “perhaps most importantly, what incentive would this monolithic industry entity have to absorb the cost of releasing exciting new hardware configurations every five years? Why not 10? Or never?”

“Finally, I ask him to explain how his vision for a ‘unified platform’ game industry would avoid the classic, Econ 101, pitfalls of a monopoly, in which the only ‘winner’ is the monopolist,” concludes Hoyt.

GamesIndustry.biz says they’re waiting for a Dyack response to Hoyt’s rebuttals. If he does answer, we’ll update you in a hurry. For now, let’s hear what you think about a “one console future.”

There’s been plenty of talk coming from the movers and shakers of the gaming business about a possible “One Console Future” where one universal platform would apply, and all developers would be placed on the same playing field as far as gaming consoles are concerned.

Electronic Arts executive Gerhard Florin and Silicon Knights President Dennis Dyack were both quoted expressing their favor for the idea, with Dyack implying that the One Console Future is imminent and “everyone would win” in such a scenario. Not everyone, however, was convinced.

Ben Hoyt, a producer at game tools company Emergent, had a particularly different take on the subject. He says that both Florin and Dyack failed to consider some basic realities of the industry.

Hoyt argues that “Florin’s vision of a ‘box…made in China with a hard drive, a wi-fi connection, and a games engine inside,’ conjures eerie images of the aptly-named Phantom Game Console” and “fails to address fundamental technical realities relating to local versus server-based games. Nor does he address the exciting diversification of gameplay experiences enabled by today’s variety of gaming hardware options.”

Moving on to Dyack’s case, there are two points that Hoyt strongly disagrees with. First is Dyack’s belief that the competition of today’s gaming platforms create an “unhealthy” industry; second is his assertion where he described a one-console industry as a place where “everyone would win.”

“I’m afraid that I fail to see how, in a world where our industry is dominated by a single, monopolistic, console manufacturer, ‘everyone would win,'” says Hoyt. He went on to raise some points:

What incentive would this console manufacturer have to fund AAA exclusive titles when all titles would be exclusives? Why would they launch new hardware at a loss when anyone who wanted to play console video games would be forced to purchase one of their systems? How much would they charge independent publishers and developers for the right to release games on their platform?

He continues “perhaps most importantly, what incentive would this monolithic industry entity have to absorb the cost of releasing exciting new hardware configurations every five years? Why not 10? Or never?”

“Finally, I ask him to explain how his vision for a ‘unified platform’ game industry would avoid the classic, Econ 101, pitfalls of a monopoly, in which the only ‘winner’ is the monopolist,” concludes Hoyt.

GamesIndustry.biz says they’re waiting for a Dyack response to Hoyt’s rebuttals. If he does answer, we’ll update you in a hurry. For now, let’s hear what you think about a “one console future.”