GameDaily BIZ recently received an interesting letter from Ben Hoyt, Producer at Emergent Game Technologies, who took issue with the idea of a "one-console future." We were able to track down Silicon Knights President Denis Dyack for a response to Hoyt. The first point-counterpoint letters follow below, and if both Hoyt and Dyack agree to continue the debate, we will post the next set of letters as well.

In the last week two high-profile games industry figures have expressed their belief in a "one-console future," in which game developers benefit from only having to create games for a single, unified, hardware configuration. While both Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights and Gerhard Florin of EA seem to recognize that such a scenario is unlikely in the immediate future, they also seem to believe (Dyack explicitly and Florin implicitly) that such a future is likely, if not certain.

Of course, it is unsurprising that publishers like EA (who are not affiliated with one of the consoles) and independent developers like Silicon Knights would prefer a one-console world. In that world, they can reduce their costs by avoiding the overhead involved with creating multi-platform titles and they can enjoy the added revenue/profits that would come from having the entire consumer-base as a potential market for their games.

It is worth noting that Florin and Dyack's comments are subtly yet significantly different. On the one hand, Florin espouses a world in which there is "an open, standard, platform," but notes that "we don't want one platform which is a walled garden." 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.

Dyack, on the other hand, explicitly calls for "one console for all gamers," and says nothing to imply that he sees a world in which all gaming hardware is controlled by a single company as problematic. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), both seem to completely ignore the present economics of the games industry.

In contrast to Mr. Dyack's assertion that this "unified platform" future is a given, the industry is seeing increased (not decreased) fragmentation of the market. Different consoles are catering to different types of players and individual consoles are offering multiple hardware configurations. Meanwhile, the consumer is benefiting. Console manufacturers are cutting prices earlier in console life-cycles than ever before. Much new console hardware is launched at a loss for the manufacturer. Console manufacturers are pouring their profits back into the pockets of internal and external developers in an attempt to secure the killer exclusive titles that they need in order to attract customers.

In this intensely competitive landscape, by all valid metrics, the industry is booming. Total revenues are at all-time highs. The number of developers in the industry is at an all-time high. The total number of game consumers is at an all-time high (thanks in large part to the proliferation of casual games and innovative new gameplay styles made available by disruptive, new, platforms like the Wii, DS, and mobile devices). In this competitive market, many long-time gamers are hailing the most exciting holiday game lineup in the history of the industry.

Yet Dyack claims that this situation is somehow "unhealthy" and that in a one-console future, "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." 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? 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?

I ask Mr. Dyack to either clarify his position or answer these questions. I ask him to explain how, despite all evidence to the contrary, he believes that the industry is headed in this direction. 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.

Benjamin Hoyt
Producer - Emergent Game Technologies
[Please note that my comments are my own individual opinion and are not intended, in any way, to represent Emergent Game Technologies.]

Next page: Denis Dyack responds