SPECIAL REPORT: Competition between Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo pushes industry forward, say devs
In an article published on Developmag.com today a number of leading UK developers have put paid to suggestions that the industry should move to a single-format platform.
Following on from comments made by EA's Gerhard Florin and Silicon Knights' Denis Dyack, amongst others, advocating such a future for the industry, reps from UK independent studios and technology firms have sounded off on the issue. And they aren't convinced.
According to Frontier's David Braben, "our industry would stagnate" if a single format was introduced.
He adds: "The reason development is hard is because the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are pushing at the edge of technology. We are having to learn new techniques, and deal with vastly richer data sets to meet the expectations created by these machines.
Yes, it would be be easier if the two machines ran the same code. Yes, it would be easier if we didn't need to get manufacturer approvals. But this is short sighted: it removes the incentive for Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo or whoever to spend the billions investing in another generation in the future."
Advertisement
The piece comes to the conclusion that it's the very competition between formats which drives forward games development.
Comments NaturalMotion's CEO Torsten Reil: "It's hard to see how performance will continue to increase at the current pace without competing companies pushing the limits.
"And contrary to what some people think: we will require performance increases for some time to allow the medium to live up to its potential. Casual games are only part of what games can deliver."
The feature in full can be read here.
This issue very much depends on the mindset of the person being asked the question.
In general most technically minded people would rather have new machines to battle with as it keeps them busy and pushes them forward, this is equally tue with hish end artists (to a point).
However for long term IP value, game designers and artists in general this is not the case.
On a straightforward financal level, the Amiga not still being the Number 1 machine over the last 14 years has cost me personally approximately £4-5 million in royalties on Sensible Soccer, Cannon Fodder etc., that would doubtless have still been pouring in otherwise (you only have to look at film, muisc and books to know that classics keep on selling unless the hardware platform is in people's attics).
On a creative level machine change is also extremely frustrating for designers and artists. New machines mean poor tools and programmers still getting to grips with new technology, long into the cycle of the game when design should be the focus. In the current commercial climate on high end platforms where a team is still on it's first or second game on that platform proper design work within a stable physical world, running at a consistent frame rate is normally limited to just 5-15% of the development time before the QA and translation process kicks in and shuts out the designers input for fear of destabalising the build.
This very often results in functional but dull games, with no spark and little longevity. However on a stable machine with mature tools and programmers on their 4th or 5th game on that mahcine the position is reversed and the stable technical environment allows designers much more easily to come ot the fore and express themselves. It also helps artists who find that less of their work is experimental and wasted. Really from my perspective after 22 years of new machines I do get just a little bit bored with them..... I would rather have had 22 years of building a classic franchise such as the Bond Films.... but the only peple who have realy succeeded at that over 20 years are Nintendo with their Mario products (and that is only because they control the hardware as well)
Well we would expect a dinosaur like Jon Hare to say that, wouldn't we? Although Casual Games have their place (and Sensi was a casual game) the industry has always been driven by technical innovation, and the marketing dollars that that innovation can help justify.
Should we still be using VHS tapes instead of BluRay?
Sorry you're bored, Jon, maybe it's time to retire gracefully. Oh wait, you're at an outsourcing firm? Guess you already have.
Because it takes time and one hell of a lot of money to come up with a single standard, you can bet your **** that nobody will want to revise it in the usual 5-6 years.
Expecting hardware development to simply plateau for 10-15 years whilst the PC industry continues its current trend of gradual growth throughout the year with the likelihood of a discontinuity every 12 months or so is naive at best. Who knows what technology we will have 5 years from now. Online came as something of a surprise when Xbox brought it to the forum - what might be the next paradigm shift? Can proponents of the "unified console standard" really justify holding back development of newer technologies because they find it a bit tough getting games to work on different architectures?
