GC '07 Q&A: Dyack on why 'there can only be one'

Silicon Knights president thinks there will be no winner in the current console war, and eventually one platform will rule them all.

LEIPZIG, Germany--Denis Dyack believes that "commodification" will inevitably happen to video game hardware, as it has happened to every electronic item throughout history. By commodification, the Silicon Knights founder and president means that hardware brands will disappear from the industry. Eventually, he thinks there will be a standardised machine, with different manufacturers making their own models, much like DVD players, TVs, or cameras.

Dyack speaks!

Silicon Knights president talks about Too Human.

"All technology, under any circumstance, becomes commodified," he told Games Convention Developers Conference attendees at his keynote. "This occurs whether the industry itself wants it to or not."

Dyack said that even though there are three systems on the market, it's technically a monopoly. "In today's monopolistic market, the system works really well when one console dominates," he said. "But at the moment, the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii all have market share. Now we have three, and it becomes increasingly difficult to become successful. There's no clear market leader right now. No one can win the hardware wars."

The veteran went on to handicap the contestants in the three-way struggle. "Nintendo has come out of the gate much faster than everyone anticipated, but how about longevity? The 360 is doing well in America, but not so well in Japan," he summarized. "The PS3 is off to a really slow start but they have a really good brand name... So the truth is, no one knows."

Having three different systems on the market is a nightmare for developers, says Dyack. Game designers have to pick a console and hope it will be the winner, and porting a game onto different systems leads to watered-down versions. He said, "Trying to make a game on all three systems is very challenging and I don't know many, if any, people that are doing that right now."

Dyack also thinks that the advantages of ditching the current system will yield a myriad of advantages for the consumer. He said, "We're going to see better games and they're going to be cheaper."

He also added that he, for one, would welcome the end of the "religious wars" between fans of particular systems. "I'll be glad to see the end of these kinds of religious wars because people are trying to justify the money they spent on their console," he concluded.

383 Comments

  • DanC1989

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:00 am PT

    But..teh System Warz!!?!?!11!

  • Narroo

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:01 am PT

    Hmmm, but you know, some of those commonfied items have become low quality. Is it worth the risk?

  • AnFangs_Endes

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:05 am PT

    ??? One console to rule them all? Somebody's been reading/watching to much LoTR..

  • Dolacide

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:06 am PT

    "religious wars" so true people take some things to serious, as long as 3 companies are making money doing it I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

  • Staryoshi87

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:10 am PT

    PC + Wii = Best Combo imo... I only have the 360 for its awesome exclusives really... I wouldn't mind seeing Ninty reign supreme over consoles, MS focus on PC, and Sony go back to TVs, etc... but that's just me. All of that is ignoring the various economic intrincities, though... so w/e =P

  • OremorE

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:16 am PT

    The thing is if that were to happen, then the console would be expensive and the games too. You need more than one to keep up competition and the prices going down. Only one, why bother

  • L15_eric_Wavo

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:16 am PT

    I dont think da 'One console to rule them all' scenario will happen anytime soon if at all because will previous hardware/format wars we seen the winner had one feature that persuaided millions and shamed the competitor; wereas with the console wars that is not the case

  • gillri

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:27 am PT

    what is this.....Highlander!?

  • TooCool

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:27 am PT

    Sure... just like PCs consolidated into a single operating system. Oh wait, that didn't happen.

  • rav44

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:28 am PT

    i would like for there to be only one....... sort of.

  • TooCool

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:31 am PT

    ...and they'd call it the "PiiS 360"

  • ---n00b_kid---

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:38 am PT

    He said, "Trying to make a game on all three systems is very challenging and I don't know many, if any, people that are doing that right now." The answer: EA, Activision, Ubisoft. They are making multiplat games with some exceptions to the rule

  • Technowolf

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:42 am PT

    OremorE: Not nessecerily, look at how PCs are now but with a smaller number of configurations, thats what he's basically talking about. The idea would be you'd have the different companies making very similar consoles that have compatable hardware and firmware. So instead of just say Sony selling PS3s you have a couple companies selling equivilants, which would push prices down (at least in theory). The other issue is how the console makers make a profit, since selling at a loss to make it up on the licensing fees from the software makers is out the window at this point. If this WERE to happen you'd probably see a spike in cost as manufacturers are forced to sell at the machines true cost and then a drop as a wave of new technical achievements dropped parts costs. The tech wars you see now would be more like the sniping matches you have between Intel and AMD or Nvida and ATI, very similar items in terms of how they run but each trying to get that little edge tech wise.

    While such standardization could push the system prices down, not sure if it would do the same for the games, since the publishing houses could just maintain their pricing schemes and rake in more dough since they can reach a bigger audience then ever before without having to reprogram a game to work on a perticular box. It WOULD lower the bar for a game to reach profitability though, so you might see more unique or inventive games as developers feel they can take more risks.

  • RikuDude

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:49 am PT

    The consoles are pretty much variations of a commodified console already. They each play games on em, and each has their personal selling variation like graphics, controls, and third party support.

  • Windblade91 posted Aug 21, 2007 6:52 am PT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Windblade91

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:52 am PT (hide)

    Consoles are like computers only designed for specific purposes the differences is on what the company puts in them.

    ex) Sony pushes for excellence and longevity
    MS...well good enuf for 5 years
    his statement is wrong. if such a thing were to happen atm only PlayStation 3 would be on the market b/c both PS and PS2 dominated....PS3 will 2 hopefully but gaming market is like computers in the sense that companies compete to get their machine in pplz hands

  • puppiemaster

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 6:59 am PT

    Does not matter how good you tell people your console is, its if people can afford to buy it.

    PS3 is no PS2, parents are not bothered about their kids have a blu-ray player in their bedroom.

    PS3 might sell the most, but only when the price is right, lets hope people have not forgotten about Sony's gaming division when that time arrives

  • football_legend

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:05 am PT

    I really hope in the future we will have 1 unified game console. And hence access to everything!

  • DSgamer64

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:08 am PT

    This really would not work well because there are so many factors that set Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony apart from eachother, especially this generation. Were Sony to build a machine in partnership with Nintendo and both companies would develop games for the single platform, would be a huge step in the right direction in some ways. I think Nintendo likes their own ideas and their innovations have paid off over the years like introducing analog controls, rumble and now the Wiimote. I dunno whether Sony would be willing to support Nintendo on the innovation front but at least they would be able to help provide a console that could do things beyond imagination. Also, both Sony and Nintendo have different approaches to online gameplay, although both are free and fairly good.

    Games will never be cheaper so long as consoles require more complex hardware, and this is where things need to change. Were consoles more PC like in terms of hardware then all developers would have to do is worry about optimization, something PC's do not have. Computer games are cheaper because they can run on a multitude of setups and will get max performance on the best machines available.

  • Lord_Artix

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:09 am PT

    But the way the system is set up now, you can get the console to fit your needs rather than be forced to get something you don't. For example, if you're a gamer on a tight budget, then you can get a Wii, whereas if you've got cash to burn or are a Sony fanboy, you can get a PS3.

  • poromenos

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:11 am PT

    i hope the game is smarter then his opinions

  • iboo01

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:13 am PT

    Yes i hope they do have just 1 UNIFIED console amongst all

  • lonelygamer360

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:15 am PT

    i dont see anything like this very soon.....

  • YukoAsho

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:17 am PT

    The reason you'll never see a single console is because someone has to take the up-front costs of investing in these machines. 3DO tried the commodified approach. The result? Consoles that were far, far more expensive than the market would bare.

  • vickissv2

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:19 am PT

    you see what happened to mainstream prowrestling when it unified. No competition (a lot of the time) = mediocre product.

  • waza000

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:19 am PT

    well microsoft might end up buying everything and bill gates will rule the world
    but then, the world will break and it will be sent for repair ever month

  • coolcustomer

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:20 am PT

    Lord_Artix "But the way the system is set up now, you can get the console to fit your needs rather than be forced to get something you don't. For example, if you're a gamer on a tight budget, then you can get a Wii, whereas if you've got cash to burn or are a Sony fanboy, you can get a PS3. "

    But you can do the same thing with just one console. Take, for example, DVD players (before BluRay and HDDVD came out)--if you're on a budget, you can get the no-frills, barebones one for $80, or you can get a $400 model from a better company that has 64x fast-forward/rewind, faster load times, and better response times from the remote. Not saying at all that Wii is no-frills and barebones (it's my fave console this generation), but if all companies used the same unified console/format, it would still be possible to get a cheaper one on a budget or a more elaborate one for more money.

    Every company would benefit, too, because instead of competing with each other, they know they would ALL make a profit.

  • Warfust

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:20 am PT

    If there was only one console company, that would pretty much be the end of consoles as gaming platforms. The PC would reign supreme again, and the human interface innovation would die a horrible and rapid death.

  • metaljeff

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:22 am PT

    This guy is an idiot...comparing game machines to DVD machines is WAYYYY off base...there has never been anything like videogames before...people who go into tried and true philosophies like this are the dung of the world.

  • uberjannie

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:24 am PT

    yes, there should be one unified console!
    The PC should be it!

    OT: yes, the idea is good. like tv's and stuff like that and cameras like he said. There is always differences. And the difference is performance and specs.
    Which is basically what the console war is about.
    Its not like I would be happy with buying a new console every year because some manufacturer releases a new model with better specs, now that would totally suck!

  • Grende1

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:25 am PT

    The monkey wrench in the machine this gen is not the 360 and its surprising success. Neither is it the PS3 and its surprising lack of success. The monkey wrench is the Wii. Sony and MS took similar paths, both attempting to expand the technology of the console world, both through software and increasingly advanced tech. In fact, one could even claim that the 360 and PS3 are commodified and they have similare hardware specs and features. Sure there are slight differences and the programming architectures are quite different, but even so, the same game can be made for both systems.

    The Wii however, no offense to Nintendo fanboys, is recycled hardware with a 'new' price tag slapped on it. I'm not saying the Wii isn't fun, not at all. What I'm saying is that Nintendo, in order to make more money and offer their system at a lower price point than the competition, not only didn't push the technological envelope with the Wii, but didn't even add any tech that's less than 6 years old. 6 years is a millenium in computer tech. The Wii is just a repackaged Gamecube with a motion sensing controller that even Microsoft had for the PC 10 years ago.

    My point, however, is not to bash the Wii, but from a developer perspective, making a game for the Wii is vastly different than making a game for the 360 or PS3. GTA IV cannot be done on the Wii. Halo 3 cannot be done on the Wii. In fact, the mere advancement of gaming itself cannot be done on the Wii since the Wii is not a step forward. A gaming engine or programming techniques designed for cutting edge gaming on the PC, 360, and PS3, cannot be used on the Wii, at least without being heavily modified in the wrong direction. This makes developing games on all three consoles simultaneously much more difficult, which is why I think we've only been seeing it done by the largest companies, like EA and Ubisoft.


    On the flip side, to defend the Wii, without this decision made by Nintendo, there wouldn't be a 'cheap' alternative to console gaming that doesn't take itself as seriously as the other two. There are many consumers who just don't care about tech advancement and just want to have some simple fun, for themselves and their kids.

  • Yuck_Too

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:27 am PT

    --metaljeff --
    While he's a little extreme he does have a point.

    Look at PC's for example...used to be IBM vs. the clones. Then it was big news when a clone could claim 100% compatibility. Now everything co-exists. AMD and Intel, any hardware has become standard. Even software is crossing the boundaries between MAC and Windows.

    In another dozen years who knows what consoles will look like but so far, they are all becomming a lot more like each other then anything.

  • frankeyser

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:27 am PT

    hmm perhaps he has never heard of the pc... a machine that plays games from all different comnaies and is made by different developers...

  • llidianStormage

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:30 am PT

    frankeyser, he means for the average joe we all know about pc games but will the average joe spend 1,000's of dollars just to get his/her pc upgraded to play these not so great pc games becuase they have utilzes high end graphics.

  • okassar

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:33 am PT

    In a way,I see how that would be nice(you get all the good games from all the developers),but it's just not going to happen.In the next-gen,even the current one,a console might come on top by an overwhelming margine,but that doesn't mean the other consoles won't win and the other companies won't get moolah out of the business.Therefore,no company that sees benifit in making a console would suddenly give up and noone has the authority to stop them from making one.Anyway,if there is a monopoly and no competition what-so-ever,the company with the dominating console will take more money out of gamer's pockets than before.Who says that with a unified console,a whole genre might be deleted to?For now,3 consoles is a good amount,each one satisfying a different audience.

  • SRDET

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:34 am PT

    in reply to frankeyser

    he's talking about consoles only. since PCs can do more than just play video games, that aspect nullifies it from the subject. besides, he's talking about CONSOLE wars, as such, only consoles matter.

    and i kind of agree with what he said. i mean, every DVD player uses the same discs, every CD player, all the media devices we have today use the same formats from system to system. the only exception is the Ipod using itunes. itunes downloaded material only works on an iPod, but you can convert other media to this type. so its not a total cut off from everything else.

    given that the competitive nature of this media field is partly what drives it, it'd be interesting to see one dominant platform. however, i don't know that i will happen. none of the current competitors have any intention of backing down. so i wouldn't look for any resolutions that way.

  • emerald101

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:35 am PT

    He might have a point but this is what actually makes them fun. Fanboys get the sick pleasure of defending the games console they have. The reason fanboys argue over which one is better is because its the only console they have and they payed for it. U might aswell defend the only thing u have????....or not

  • shattapinks

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:35 am PT

    Good point n00b-kid cause when I read that part of the article the first company that came to mind is EA. They put their sports games on literally all consoles, so the statement "Trying to make a game on all three systems is very challenging and I don't know many, if any, people that are doing that right now." is absolute rubbish. Just to add to your comment n00b...check Konami and Capcom. They're pretty much developing their popular franchises for all the different consoles. Winning Eleven or Devil May Cry anyone?

  • BigC43

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:37 am PT

    I don't know why, but I really like console gaming better than PC. I use to be a big PC gamer, but I transitioned and I'm not going back, except maybe for Hellgate: London...

  • DonutTrooper

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:38 am PT

    I think this guy has seen Lord of the Rings one too many times.

  • mike360xoxo

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:45 am PT

    2 will fall, one will rise.

  • deadkingdg

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:50 am PT

    I'll stop gaming when there's going to be a single one console, since it won't be as fun anymore. What pushes each companies to give features and make great games is the competition. It then turns into a game of ping pong as companies react to the move of the others with their own tricks. So in the end, it's great for us gamers. The gaming world needs competition!

  • tomadonxl

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:52 am PT

    The closest things we had to one ruling console was PS1 and PS2. I don't think its gonna happen this time because the 3 systems are too different. It would be nice to have Mario Kart, God of War,and Halo on 1 system.But to me I wouldn't feel right playin those games on anything but their original consoles. At least this 1 console would stop fanboys from missin out on good games because its not on their FAVORED console. This would be good for 3rd parties though.

  • chandlerr_360

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:55 am PT

    It is the only logical solution. I mean look at Sony right now, there have been many rumours of them not making another game console, and Nintendo is falling technically behind. My guess is Microsoft will be the one console, Unless possibly Mac enter's the market...which I am sure is bound to happen.

  • JackBurton

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:55 am PT

    As someone who has witnessed the birth of almost every console created, I agree that 3 major players is 1 too many from a developers and a gamer's viewpoint. Generally speaking, if you port the same game to 3 consoles, it will ulitmately suck (or at least be subpar) on one of the 3 ported versions.

    I've never been a fan of ANY Nintendo console, ever, so i say let them go away and back to what they do best: making gimmicky, soccer-mom friendly, FisherPrice-esque games which are as far from realistic as possible. I wouldnt own a Wii if you gave it to me, supplied the games for it, and paid me $1K monthly to play it exclusively. In fact, somewhere in my closet is a still "NIB" N64 which i received for XMas back in the day, and it has never been opened or used once. Like AMD & Intel; ATI & Nvidia, two major players is all that is necessary in the modern world of gaming tech.

    I dont expect anyone to agree with me, but that's my "2 cents" on this subject.

  • Tenshin

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 7:56 am PT

    For God's sake, man. I think that 100 different game engines running in real time are a bit more complicated than a single video codec! Besides, there's no denying it, the way things are right now you get better game experiences in the closed format of consoles than in the open-ended pc.

  • Binarynova

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 8:00 am PT

    What Dyack talks about here is extremely idealistic. I remember almost 20 years ago when my dad told me that one day Nintendo and Sega would merge to become one company. As the 8 year old fan boy I was I laughed and said that Nintendo would never team up with Sega.

    Sega is gone now, but as Dyack says, the console wars are worse than ever. But I'm pretty sure that if commodification was going to happen it would have already. I highly doubt that this process should have taken 20 years if it was going to happen.

    At the end of the day, I think it would be great to just have one console machine that played console games made by all developers. Even if that idea is so blatantly like a PC that it's not funny. But good luck getting Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft to drop out of the hardware race.

    Deadkingdg: You're confusing the software war with the hardware war. Even with only one machine to play them on, software companies will still have to make better and better games to compete with other software makers. Competition will still exist, so the new idea would be good for gamers as well (if not better).

  • Sepewrath

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 8:00 am PT

    Is this guy insane, he said "By commodification, the Too Human developer means that hardware brands will disappear from the industry, and there will be a standardised machine, with different manufacturers making their own models, in the same way as DVD players, TVs, or cameras."

    isn't Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft different brands making thier own versions of a device. It just seems different because each machine has different features, unlike most camera's and such. But the point is they are all simply gaming devices, made by different manafactuers.

    Also it seems that devs would have loved to see two of the consoles fail, so that they can only concern themselves with one. Well since at least two of them are not failing, they should hire more staff, and shake of the laziness so that they can cover a wider spectrum of development.

  • henry4th

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 8:02 am PT

    "as it has happened to every electronic item throughout history"

    Hello, PC VS MAC?

    Besides this PC vs MAC joke, everything Dyack said was BS. He didn't think this through whatsoever.

    The difference between gaming console and ANY OTHER electronics is that, only sony, microsoft and Nintendo currently can make the consoles, nobody else can. PCs were made by many many manufactures. So while there's only one standard on PC, dvd players, manufactures cmopete to bring down the cost.

    Unlike the PC ( or DVD or whatever), in the console world, if only one remained, only one manufacture has the power to produce it. And it's bad. VERY BAD. The consumers won't get any benefits from this move.

  • nickythenewt21

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 8:03 am PT

    That's not gonna happen, buddy. Keep dreaming. Although, that is kinda what the companies are doing now. Making their own version of the perfect game system.

advertisement

Related Content

Matches based on text similarity.

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Too Human Boxshot
Too Human

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    1,297 of 79,297
    (down by 15)
    X360 Rank:
    216 of 1,940
    Highest Rank:
    1 in 2008
    Tracking:
    7,794 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    4,521 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    467
  • Number of Players:

    1 Player, 4 Online Online Modes: Cooperative

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. too human
    2. silicon knights
    3. sci-fi
    4. xbox 360
    5. action
  • Teen Rating Description

    Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close

Related Games

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs