Universe of
Unique Content
---------------------
--Composite list of best films
--My favorite films
Vegetarian Stuff
--Veggies in films
Video Games
--Unisystem Page
---------------------
Homepage
Patrickhat's Home
Patrickhat@yahoo.com
---------------------
2. 8-bit erra--Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), Sega Master System
3. 16-bit erra--Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Turborgraphix 16
4. 32-bit erra--Sony Playstation, Nintendo 64, Sega Saturn
5. 128-bit erra--Sony Playstation 2, Nintendo Gamecube, Microsoft Xbox, Sega Dreamcast
The proposition for a single system (a unisystem, if you will) is that current hardware manufacturers (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) would come together with other electronics companies to decide on a standard hardware model for each succeeding generation. Each manufactorer would then be able to market their own version based on this standard. All versions would play the same games as long as they are in the same generation of of hardware. In short, it's what the movie and music industries have been doing for years. The only difference is that the video game industries would have to change formats about every five years--if they follow the pattern of what has been done in the past. The movie and music industries usually get to stick to a format for at least ten years--VHS was the dominant video medium for over ten years and the CD format has been popular for well over a decade and has been around for over twenty years. But technology in the video game industry moves faster and it is usually preferable to have new systems about every five years. Perhaps if system manufacturers didn't have to try to out do each other with competing types of hardware it wouldn't be necessary to upgrade to new hardware every five years. But hardware progression in the video game industry has always occured and it would likely occur in the future since many consumers desire the best looking and sounding games possible.
Just like DVD and CD player manufacturers make models with unique features manufacturers of the unisystem would be free to make unique models of their hardware that sport different features such as--
--different video connections. Some systems could come with just a bare-bones composite connections while others could include S-video and component video connections.
--harddrives for saving large amounts of game data
--modems and broadband connections for those who want to play games online
--DVD video capability so movies can be watched on the gaming system. This is, of course, if suceeding video game systems support the DVD format or whatever formats the movie industry may use in the future.
All manufacturers would have to agree on the same controller configurations for each generation of system--meaning that all the controllers would have to have the same number of directional pads and buttons. However, manufacturers would be free to configure the button and pad placements anyway they wished. It would also have to be insured that controllers from every manufacturer would be able to work on the systems from other manufacturers.
Manufacturers would also have to agree on a same name to call each succeeding generation of system. Sony got it right by calling each of their systems a Playstation then just adding a number relative to what model it is. This leads to less consumer confusion and greater brand recognition. Manufacturers should decide on one name and have a number proceding the name to differentiate different generations of hardware while still maintaining consumer recognition.
Speaking of Sony you may be wondering why an official unisystem is even necessary since, currently, the Playstation 2 is by far the most popular console on the market--usually outselling the Xbox and Gamecube by at least 4-to-1 ratioes in every country. The reason is that no matter how much one system dominates the market other manufacturers are not going to stop releasing systems. This is because of licensing fees which game publishers must pay to system manufacturers in order to release games on their system. Usually it is certain percentage of each copy of every game released on a system. This is where system manufacturers make most of their money. Little money is made in selling hardware, many times money is lost, but manufacturers can still make a nice profit through these licensing fees, even if the installed base of their system is lower than the competition. But the tough question is, if a unisystem were created, how would licensing fees be handled?
Before this question can be answered we must look at another monitary necessity of creating a unisystem--how would royality fees be handled between system manufacturers? These are fees manufacturers have to pay to each other for using each other's technology in creating their own models of electronic devices. Not only would mulitiple manufacturers have to agree on what technololgies to use in the unisystem but many times agreeing on a technology would not be in a companys' best interest. Many times companies would end up creating similair, competative technologies. And it would, of course, make sense for these companies to vote for including their own technology or the technology of allied companies to insure that the greater share of profits would go to them.
When companies can't get along it leads to format wars like what is currently happening between the two high resolution audio formats. Most companies back the DVD Audio technolgy but Sony supports its own Super Audio CD (SACD) format. It is likely that only one format will prevail and whoever is on the loosing end will have to pay royality fees for using the other's technology. And if format wars were to develope during the creation of the unisystem, well, that would kind of defeat the purpose.
So the question is, how will manufacturers decide who gets money from licesing and royality fees and how much? A fair solution would be to use percentages and have them be equal, whether they are liscensing fees or royality fees because both fees deal with the use of the same technologies. Whether the technology is hardware or software based all of them work together to create a functioning game system. It would be up to the those who create these technologies to decide, togher, what technolgies are used and how large of a precentage each company would receive for each unit of hardware or software produced.
Getting away from legal formalities let's move onto the specific reasons why a unisystem would be a positive thing--
It would be good for consumers
The movie and music industries both have one format (excepting time when formats are in transition) but video games do not. Movies and music are both considered mainstream forms of entertainment but video games are not--anything to this connection? Defenately. Consumers would be frustrated if certain videos could only be played on certain DVD players or CDs only on certain CD players but this is exactely how the video game industry works. Gamecube games can only be played on Gamecube systems, Playstation 2 games on Playstation 2 systems etc. Furthermore many titles are found only one one of these systems. Having major video game francises available only on one game system forces gamers to buy multiple systems or do without some of the best games. If all games were available on one system it would likely help the video game industry earn mainstream acceptence.
It would be good for business
If consumers had only to buy one system they would have more money to spend on games. In the video game industry most of the money is made on the software sales not hardware sales. If consumers had more money to spend on games that's more money game developers could be earning.
Furthermore, currently game developers are forced to port their software onto multiple systems if they want to reach the widest possible audeince. If there were only one system developers could allocate more time and resources towards making new games. They would also be making more money on each game because there would be a greater number of consumers to buy each title since all of them would own, esentially, the same system.
It would encourage creativity
Creativity is of course present in video games just like every work of art but in order to earn money and make a profit it's often necessary to stick with the kinds of games marketers known consumers will buy. Many times this leads to half-hearted sequels and copycat games that do not innovate. With one system this wouldn't stop (it sure hasn't stopped with movies or music). However, as mentioned above, if everyone owned the same system, there would be a larger number of people to buy each game. This would make it less of a risk to be creative and veir away from mainstream trends since the potential audience for every game would be larger.
It would do away with company loyalty
Being a Nintendo fan I would miss rooting for my favorite company in the system wars. However ther're better ways to spend a life than worrying about in life. Also many loyalists are immature brats who flame forums when others don't support their views so doing away with them would be a good thing.