by [name redacted]

Part thirteen of my ongoing culture column; originally published by Next Generation, under the title “The Road to a Universal Platform”. Now, despite my wittering most of these title and spin changes have a minor effect on the article. This one was… regrettable, though, as the article sort of makes the opposite point: though a universal format may be our inevitable destination, the notion is terribly premature. And yet because of the title and the spin, most people jerked their knees in response without actually reading the article. Oh well. Here it all is, as originally framed.

David Jaffe recently came under some criticism for a few statements to consumer website 1UP about his future visions of the game industry. The big headline, repeated across the Internet for a day or two, was “Ten years from now there will be one console”. It was an unguarded comment, following his own nostalgia for the days of rampant console exclusivity. Jaffe expressed annoyance at the current standard of cross-platform development, and wondered if it was coming to the point where the only distinguishing factor from one console to the next would be its first-party software. From there he made the leap that this small distinction might not be enough justification for multiple consoles – therefore, he figured, perhaps we’re on a road to a single universal platform.

There was much tittering in the aisles; a few people made comparisons to Trip Hawkins’ dreams for the 3D0 – a console standard that, much like a VCR or other piece of home electronics, would be licensed out to any manufacturer with the initiative. In fact, that comparison is pretty appropriate in that both Trip and Mr. Jaffe have the same reasonable – and actually rather clever – idea, with the same understandable flaw.

The most essential problem is that unlike film or music, videogames have yet to come unto their own. Before anything resembling standardization is appropriate, there are still tremendous problems in interface, design theory, and craftsmanship to address – none of which, I feel it safe to predict, will be solved any time soon, given that at the moment no one seems to have a clue what to do about them. The difference between the Wii and the Xbox 360 should give a taste of how far we have to go before we’re ready to settle.

On the other hand, neither Jaffe nor Hawkins is barking mad – or even all that foolish. They’ve just missed the mark a little. They’re right that the current form of competition is inane, and not terribly constructive – yet what we need now isn’t to limit ideas; it’s to promote discussion. Rather than focus on a universal format – the effect of which would be to stifle evolution and growth – the focus should be on industry-wide cooperation.

What the industry really needs is a videogame standards commission – a body headed by a rotating board of representatives nominated from all areas of the industry (focusing, of course, on actual game designers – of all sizes, from Electronic Arts to Treasure). This body would be charged with maintaining a detailed yet flexible long-term plan for progressive development of the medium. The board would assay in accordance with a constitution of irrefutable primary standards and ideals. Consensus would be the rule; no decision would be final without open debate, then full agreement of the board.

Despite the name, the end result of this commission would not necessarily be a universal format; especially in the short term, the board may well decide that the industry’s best interest is in pursuing split paths that carry or suggest equal potential. The goal in this case would be to ensure that each proposal receives as much support as required to refine it to such a point that it stands as an acceptable representative of some key aspect of the board’s guiding principles. Different manufacturers would agree to different development paths, depending on their market and audience goals. All manufacturers would receive input and guaranteed and appropriate support from member developers.

Likewise, with everyone’s ideas out in the open, it will be that much easier for third parties to understand and develop to the strengths of the hardware in question – as well as to offer input and voice concerns ahead of time.

Of course, business and cooperation are hardly milk and Ovaltine, particularly in a business as secretive and proprietary as the game industry. From what I can see the only way such a body could conceivably be formed is by appealing to the idealism of visionary designers and executives across the spectrum – your Satoru Iwatas and Ken Kutaragis, and Will Wrights and David Jaffes. The Game Developers Conference and other gatherings already embody some of the spirit of this proposal.

Even on the business end, though, we’ve lately been seeing far more cooperation than one might expect – even from Japanese companies. Witness Capcom and SNK’s cross pollination, to their mutual benefit, and Nintendo’s co-development with companies as diverse as Sega and Namco and Capcom. Is it such a big step for the three hardware manufacturers to form a coalition for the betterment of all? The bigger step would be ceding authority to an outside body on matters directly affecting business. Still, if representatives from all three manufacturers are given a seat…

Honestly, at its current rate I don’t know how much further the industry can go unless we do all band together and start watching out for our best interests as a community – a community based around a living, growing thing that needs nurturing and foresight. If we get ourselves in gear, then maybe in ten years we’ll be in a place to make some deliberate, educated decisions about our collective future – which may, yes, include a standardized format. Cliché as it might be, a united front is a strong front – and we’ve got a hell of a lot to offer the world.