A Proposal for an Open Game Console Standard By Derick Eisenhardt A new generation of game consoles has just been released. Three major competitors will be battling it out for the next five years as to who will gain the greatest market share. All three companies talk about finding new ways to expand the game industry as a whole, yet everyone seems to be overlooking one of the major problems in our industry, namely that having three different consoles to choose from is one our greatest stumbling blocks. In any other industry it is apparent to content producers and consumers alike that a format war benefits no one in the long run. I propose today, to the entire videogame industry, that we come together and begin working on a standardized console format, a console standard from which multiple hardware manufacturers can release their own machines, yet all play the exact same games. We will accomplish this through a fairly strict set of hardware requirements, a common operating system, and a compatibility certification program. Some may say that a concept such as this is overly ambitious or virtually impossible, but I refuse to believe so. In the past, console hardware was evolving at too rapid a rate for a standard to make sense, but that is no longer the case. Graphics hardware in particular has recently hit a plateau so that the average gamer can not easily distinguish between the various options available. If you look at the components that make up the Xbox 360, the Playstation 3 and the Wii, they are really not so different on the inside. All three machines are based off IBM PowerPC processor architecture, and both the Wii and the 360 utilize ATI graphics cards. The Xbox 360 and the PS3 offer roughly the same amount of RAM, and with the exception of the Wii's remote, just about every controller used for the past 10 years or so have had negligible differences. Most of the hardware that makes up a modern console is almost identical to the same components found in PCs as well. To the average gamer, the only differences between a console and a PC is that they can play their games from their couch rather than from a desk, they don't have to worry about system requirements as long as they got the game for a console they own, and they don't have to deal with installation; they can just drop a disc in and begin playing. The original Xbox was basically just a PC with a closed standard set of parts and software. Yet, even with the proliferation of media center PCs and game consoles that allow you to do a lot of the same tasks you would normally do on a PC, the PC won't be going away any time soon. However, over the past decade most gamers have actively decided to stop using their PCs for gaming and simply play on consoles. If choosing a game console and games was as easy as it is to pick out a DVD player and DVD movies, the cost of entry and simplification of selection for consumers could help the game industry grow at a much faster rate than ever before. To game developers, the main difference of working on a PC game versus one for a particular console is that they can focus more on their actual game rather than trying to port it to thousands of possible hardware combinations. Another great benefit is that the developers can do much more optimization when working for a singular set of hardware, and that is why for this console standard to work, every compliant machine will need to follow a fairly rigid set of hardware specifications. Game developers will be guaranteed that if they design their games for the standard, then it will work on any certified system. Giving game developers the most freedom possible is the number one goal of this project. Since this will be an open standard, game developers will never have to sign restrictive licensing and royalty agreements like they would with the proprietary systems. This concept also creates great benefits for hardware companies. The cost and scope is just too much for anyone who isn't already a major player to take on the current console producers. Hardware manufacturers who would have never dreamt of directly competing with the likes of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo now will have a chance to get in on the action they've been missing. However, by working together on a standard console format rather than your own proprietary system does come at a cost. As while the big three can afford to sell their machines for less than it actually costs them to produce, due to software royalties and licensing, such will not be the case with this standard. Since games sold on physical media will never be restricted in the way the proprietary systems are, hardware manufacturers who release these consoles will need to charge enough on the machines to make a profit from the machine and peripherals alone. And while this will mean that consoles compliant to this standard will not be able to compete as aggressively against the proprietary machines' prices, due to the freedom given to developers and publishers they will be able to price their games cheaper than on the other machines if they so choose. So in the long run, it's a win-win situation for everyone: developers, publishers, hardware manufacturers and gamers alike. So, now you're probably wondering how I intend to pull off this dream. First off, I have already begun the steps toward forming an independent, non-profit organization to develop and maintain the standard. The Open Game Console Consortium's (OGCC) website can be found at http://www.OpenGameConsole.org. There you will find more in-depth information on our wiki and an already active discussion forum. Now I will give you a quick run down of what we have come up with so far. Do note that none of this is set in stone yet and is still very much open for discussion. First off, all consoles that wish to call themselves 100% compliant will need to submit their machines to a certification process. The OGCC will strictly maintain all of our branding and trademarks to make sure no one is trying to pass off a system that hasn't really been certified as the real thing. If a gamer purchases a certified machine, then they will be guaranteed that any game designed for the standard will play on it. Now of course, no matter how rigid we make this standard we won't actually be able to guarantee more than 99.99% compatibility, as even with standards such as DVD you still occasionally find a movie that won't work on a certain model of player. But we aim to make our certification so rigorous that the chance of that happening is negligible. Since it will cost money to conduct this testing process, a reasonably small fee will be required for certification, and this means we may need to set up a sister for-profit company. In this case, the OGCC would retain all legal rights to trademarks and such, then license them to the certification company to sub-license to the company's machines that have been certified. This also brings to note that if a company changes any aspect of their machine, it will need to be re-certified as a separate product. In the case that the sister company does not meet the needs and goals of the OGCC, a replacement can be created since all the intellectual property still belongs to the OGCC. This sort of checks and balances system will help prevent any possible corruption organizationally once money is involved. In addition to certification, this sister company would also run the digital distribution service we have planned for the systems. The OGCC will develop all the software needed to make it happen and the sister company would handle all fees and transactions as well as hosting. There's also a good chance we may consider going public, or at least partially public, with the sister company so that hardware manufacturers who hold stock in it can potentially make a little profit off the games sold through the digital distribution service. This company will help pool together resources for advertising and could also potentially employ key developers of the software we will need to create and maintain. The digital distribution service will be a very important key to making this console a success. Since this standard will present game developers with an open development platform, it will be much more attractive to independent and smaller companies than the proprietary systems. By selling their games through the digital distribution service rather than on physical media, the cost and difficulty of small developers bringing a product to market will be considerably less than with the big three's machines. Now of course traditional physical media will also be an option, and thanks to the BluRay and HD-DVD format war, we will probably just stick with regular, dual-layer DVDs. As while games released on DVD will not be required to be certified, any games released via the digital distribution store (including demos) will be tested to ensure they meet a certain quality level. The software that powers our digital distribution service will be open source software. This will greatly speed its development, help ensure security, and make sure all the companies participating in the project are playing fairly together. The operating system and all other original software will also be open source. We will build our OS on top of readily available and mature GNU/Linux components, so it will already be a familiar platform for many developers. To ensure compatibility between machines, they will all be required to use the same core OS. Manufacturers may choose to add additional functionality to their machines to differentiate their product from others, but as far as game developers are concerned, every machine will have the same operating system. At some point over the course of the next few months the components and features of the OS will need to be locked down permanently. For the sake of compatibility, the only upgrades allowed to the core OS will be bug and security fixes that do not change the functionality nor performance of the system. On top of the OS, the OGCC will develop a common graphical user environment that all consoles will use. We're calling it the "HomeUI" as it is what the user will see when he or she presses the Home button on their controller or start their console up without a disc in it. From here the user will be able to access additional functionality and settings on their system. This component of the systems will probably be fairly basic at launch; however, since the HomeUI and OS are considered separate, we can offer all sorts of upgrades to it in the future and not hinder compatibility for the games. Some features for the HomeUI we are already considering are a web browser, video player, music jukebox, picture viewer/slideshow, and maybe even DVR functionality. Of course there will also be a simple file management system for media files and game saves as well as a configuration center. We will also most likely offer a simple social tool that allows users to track their world rankings and scores as well as send each other messages and eventually maybe even offer things like the ability for voice/video chat down the road. However, a lot of that is far away as we need to focus on the necessities of making this console standard a reality for now. The HomeUI and user profile system could possibly also be integrated with the digital distribution service. This offers the potential for very interesting things like allowing a user to temporarily download a game they have purchased at home to their friend's machine while they are logged into that system. Now this of course brings up the issue of DRM. This issue is still sketchy at the moment to be honest. As while the need to discourage piracy from happening is very much a valid concern, most modern DRM schemes tend to punish valid users and just make things difficult for everyone. This issue will have to be heavily discussed before a direction is decided upon. My thoughts on the issue are to link each copy with a user ID, but this could easily present problems for gamers without internet connections. One thing is for sure though: once a gamer has purchased a game, whether it be on a disc or through the digital distribution service, it needs to be very easy for them to use the game on more than one console in the case of having to replace a machine or owning multiple consoles. More information on all this software can be found on the wiki and our forums, so now to discuss hardware. I, along with the input from our buregening community, have created an initial rough draft that should offer an optimal cost to performance ratio. Once again, this will be open to discussion and may become completely different before the standard is finalized. I have chosen off-the-shelf PC parts as they are readily available to any manufacturer, and I have based many of my decisions based on retail and OEM prices in hopes that hardware manufacturers will be able to get much better deals and be able to charge about the same price I am estimating, while still making a decent profit. The current draft would cost just under $500 for someone to buy the parts individually through retail.
For an explanation of how and why these parts were chosen, see the hardware specs page on the wiki. As while some of these parts are pretty well standardized, quite a few are going to have to be vendor specific for compatibility's sake. We will be attempting to get these companies on board with the project; however, once again, our final spec may consist of a completely different line-up. Also, in the case that one of these parts goes out of production before a standard 2.0 is released a few years down the road, we will find the most compatible component replacement and upgrade to a 1.1 spec. Game developers will be encouraged to continue using the 1.0 spec as a guideline to maintain compatibility with older systems, and games released via the digital distribution service will be strictly required to do so. If all goes well, we'd like to say that we won't move to a new version of the standard for a minimum of 5 years, and a maximum of 10, but we'll just have to see how everything goes. For the controllers, we will probably be using either Bluetooth or Certified Wireless USB to offer wireless as well as standard USB 2.0 cables for wired controllers. We will most likely stick with a more traditional controller scheme as the standard controller; however; peripherals of any sort will be feasible. The Wii's unique controller setup has complicated this area a bit, and we are investigating our options there for any aspect of that style controller we could use. Although, with the patent situation surrounding that controller, it will most likely not have much influence on our standard controller. Of course, if someone wanted to release a peripheral with similar functionality, that would be up to them. Much more discussion will be going on before we lock this spec down as well. In addition to the hard drive, users will be able to save their games to just about any drive that can connect via a USB 2.0 port. Some manufacturers may choose to include additional ports for Compact Flash or SD cards, but it will not be part of the minimum spec. Things like this will offer manufacturers multiple avenues from which they can diversify their version of the console from their competition. As while one manufacturer may go for the bare minimum to keep cost down, another may choose to add in additional card reader support, a larger hard drive and other additional features. The look and shape of the console is also left completely up to the manufacturer. Now to be realistic, while we believe whole heartedly in this project, we also realize that we face incredible odds in trying to compete with the major three, well established console companies. It is most likely that at the launch of the first couple of consoles the only game developers we'll really have on board will be from the small, independent and homebrew crowd. This will be a slow building process, but in time as more consoles are sold the benefits of an open, standardized game console format will become more apparent. Giving developers a truly free console to develop for and allowing multiple manufacturers to release consoles rather than the oligopoly that rules over the industry currently gives us an edge that proprietary systems will never be able to truly compete against. While we're playing devil's advocate though, I'm sure some are saying things like, "How is this going to be any more successful than the 3DO or Indreama?" or "Is this just another Phantom?" The 3DO was a similar idea in that it was going to allow multiple manufactures to release the same consoles; however, it was a very closed platform. If you wanted to make a 3DO compatible system you would have to license proprietary chips and software from Matsushita, and by having an open standard, with open source software and off-the-shelf PC components the barrier to entry will be much simpler and less restrictive. Indreama was once going to create a Linux based console with an open development environment; however, it was only going to be made by a single company; it wasn't a standard. And the Phantom was never really going to be a console in the truest sense anyway; it was going to just be a Windows based PC with a digital download service to play general purpose PC games that weren't optimized specifically for it. Hopefully this proposal has given you a decent understanding of the concept of this project and the goals of the newly formed Open Game Console Consortium. I came up with the concept of this project almost two years ago now and have been working out many of these questions and details before I went public with my proposal. A company named Gamix actually beat me to the punch by announcing similar plans about a year or so ago, but it would seem they never followed through with it. From what I saw of it, it seems Gamix wasn't quite as focused a project and the Gamix company behind it seemed to be more interested in being in control rather than opening up to a community and working as a group like we are attempting to do. But of course, if anyone from Gamix would like to join the OGCC, we would be more than happy to have you. If you would like to contribute, we are in need of help in all areas! If you are a Linux developer, we need help designing our distro. If you are a game developer we need your input on what would make this platform the most appealing to you as well as some games of course. If you are a hardware manufacturer, we need your help deciding on the optimal hardware spec to go with. Things are just getting started so if you feel you have something to offer, even if just your opinion, please join our forums and help us get the ball rolling. We currently plan on finalizing our specs and having an alpha release of our operating system available within the next 3 months. You can take a look at our roadmap and various other info on our wiki. Thank you for your time... |