4 ms·

I definitely concur that the radically different architectures weren't good for developer productivity. There was a lot of crazy going on. I guess it just see

by mdasen 7y ago

I definitely concur that the radically different architectures weren't good for developer productivity. There was a lot of crazy going on. I guess it just seems like we're now wasting money on duplicate consoles. It feels like it would be better if Sony and Microsoft created a "standard" for manufacturers to build to. Zen 2 3.5GHz with a specified level of Radeon graphics and 16GB of RAM (with a bit more specifics). You could still have exclusives to your platform - Microsoft has DirectX, Xbox Live, and other exclusive software features. Developers would still want access to a platform for their games. Don't they usually lose money on the actual hardware? Nintendo is doing a slightly different thing with the Switch, but the PS4/XBONE and PS5/XBX it seems like they're just making people pay twice for the same hardware just because they've locked up some exclusives. What's the business model there? 1) Lose lots of money selling a console; 2) We'll pay to develop first-party games that we'll sell to fewer people because they're exclusive; 3) We'll pay third-parties to make their games exclusive to our platform (as compensation for the lost sales due to exclusivity); 4) charge huge licensing fees for access to the platform for non-exclusive developers. It just seems like there are a lot of money-losing (and consumer-happiness-losing) steps to get to #4. That's a lot of loss to society just to get to #4. I guess the reason why they can charge such high prices for licensing is that developers know that consumers will likely only purchase one system. If people had access to both systems on a single box, then developers could negotiate them against each other. Now, developers can't negotiate them against each other unless they want to lose out on a lot of potential customers.

ryandrake 7y ago
> It feels like it would be better if Sony and Microsoft created a "standard" for manufacturers to build to. You're talking about two companies notorious for ignoring existing APIs and standards, coming up with their own proprietary systems, using marketing and FUD to knock down and strangle existing and emerging standards, and then spending the rest of their effort locking customers into their proprietary stuff. And they're not alone. It's the standard tech company mentality: Deliberately make your product different and incompatible with everyone else and compete instead of cooperate. Best case outcome is monopoly and customer lock-in. Most likely case is no one solution gains enough traction and you end up with 15 incompatible chat apps. Worst case is you emerge from the fight as HD-DVD.
ATsch 7y ago
This is basically what the "steam machine" model was. Standardized controller, hardware specifications, OS, available from multiple vendors. It was unfortunately a bit of a flop.
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  Not really, Steam Machines were just a PCs running Linux at a time when Linux was in a far worse state for gaming than they are now (and almost all of Steam Machines produced either had weak Intel-based graphics or AMD GPUs when their drivers were still woefully broken). There was never any standard for hardware or even controller and most machines were overpriced, ugly, huge or all of that. So of course they flopped. Steam Machines should have used standardized hardware (even if it was in terms of "levels" like "entry level" or "high end level"), software and peripherals the developers could rely on and Valve should have made sure that the hardware actually fit their respective levels. But Valve never did that and while they still slowly update SteamOS, they have been long sidetracked by VR so there are low chances for them trying a second time.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    They'd have been better off defining a standard with something vaguely like a year, or pinned against a console generation as a reference point.
    - badsectoracula 7y ago
      That could help some but IMO the most important part would be to have stable drivers and standardized hardware. What sort of hardware that would be and when they'd updated it isn't that important (though i disagree about the year part - updates should be much less frequent than yearly, otherwise it defeats the purpose of having standardized anything as a year is too short of time span).
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  My impression of "steam machine" and SteamOS was that they were at least intended as a hedging strategy, at a time when Microsoft was seriously considering becoming a games distributor on Windows PCs. In that, it seems to me that Valve succeeded, in that there is now good awareness of SteamOS and Steam machines that Valve can start to refocus on should Microsoft start considering locking down on Windows apps again. I still think that with more investment, Steam machines and SteamOS can become a moderate success, but until push comes to shove it seems to me likely that Valve thinks concentrating on traditional OSes and PCs is far more lucrative, while maintaining work on Linux (see: Proton) so Steam machines and SteamOS always remains a feasible backup platform.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
nikanj 7y ago
What you're describing is a PC.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  To be fair, it’s more about the PC that itself became a gaming console. (Try buying a non-“gaming” motherboard or monitor or even RAM these days.)
  - bjoli 7y ago
    I almost got kicked out of a local HW retailer for asking "where can I find the parts for grown-ups wanting to get work done?". I did it to provoke, of course, so I probably deserved it. Even the threadripper motherboards have RGB and are branded as gaming motherboards, despite being beaten by $300 processors any day of the week for games. it makes me sad.

by mdasen 7y ago

ryandrake 7y ago

> It feels like it would be better if Sony and Microsoft created a "standard" for manufacturers to build to. You're talking about two companies notorious for ignoring existing APIs and standards, coming up with their own proprietary systems, using marketing and FUD to knock down and strangle existing and emerging standards, and then spending the rest of their effort locking customers into their proprietary stuff. And they're not alone. It's the standard tech company mentality: Deliberately make your product different and incompatible with everyone else and compete instead of cooperate. Best case outcome is monopoly and customer lock-in. Most likely case is no one solution gains enough traction and you end up with 15 incompatible chat apps. Worst case is you emerge from the fight as HD-DVD.

ATsch 7y ago

This is basically what the "steam machine" model was. Standardized controller, hardware specifications, OS, available from multiple vendors. It was unfortunately a bit of a flop.

badsectoracula 7y ago
Not really, Steam Machines were just a PCs running Linux at a time when Linux was in a far worse state for gaming than they are now (and almost all of Steam Machines produced either had weak Intel-based graphics or AMD GPUs when their drivers were still woefully broken). There was never any standard for hardware or even controller and most machines were overpriced, ugly, huge or all of that. So of course they flopped. Steam Machines should have used standardized hardware (even if it was in terms of "levels" like "entry level" or "high end level"), software and peripherals the developers could rely on and Valve should have made sure that the hardware actually fit their respective levels. But Valve never did that and while they still slowly update SteamOS, they have been long sidetracked by VR so there are low chances for them trying a second time.
- mjevans 7y ago
  They'd have been better off defining a standard with something vaguely like a year, or pinned against a console generation as a reference point.
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    That could help some but IMO the most important part would be to have stable drivers and standardized hardware. What sort of hardware that would be and when they'd updated it isn't that important (though i disagree about the year part - updates should be much less frequent than yearly, otherwise it defeats the purpose of having standardized anything as a year is too short of time span).
jhanschoo 7y ago
My impression of "steam machine" and SteamOS was that they were at least intended as a hedging strategy, at a time when Microsoft was seriously considering becoming a games distributor on Windows PCs. In that, it seems to me that Valve succeeded, in that there is now good awareness of SteamOS and Steam machines that Valve can start to refocus on should Microsoft start considering locking down on Windows apps again. I still think that with more investment, Steam machines and SteamOS can become a moderate success, but until push comes to shove it seems to me likely that Valve thinks concentrating on traditional OSes and PCs is far more lucrative, while maintaining work on Linux (see: Proton) so Steam machines and SteamOS always remains a feasible backup platform.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

nikanj 7y ago

What you're describing is a PC.

Koshkin 7y ago
To be fair, it’s more about the PC that itself became a gaming console. (Try buying a non-“gaming” motherboard or monitor or even RAM these days.)
- bjoli 7y ago
  I almost got kicked out of a local HW retailer for asking "where can I find the parts for grown-ups wanting to get work done?". I did it to provoke, of course, so I probably deserved it. Even the threadripper motherboards have RGB and are branded as gaming motherboards, despite being beaten by $300 processors any day of the week for games. it makes me sad.