Ed Barton, Screen Digest:

On whether the industry will develop a standardized gaming platform: Firstly, there is a huge amount of brand equity, in some cases built over decades, tied up in existing platforms, which the owners do not want to relinquish. The existing manufacturers generate licensing fees from third parties, and it is difficult to see them moving away from this model. Also, proprietary consoles have proven to be capable vehicles for promoting the manufacturer's other commercial interests, whether it be high-definition video or broadband delivery of content.

In addition, all manufacturers and publishers would have to agree on a hardware spec, and, given the technical differences between consoles in this generation, it would be spectacularly hard [to achieve].

It's worth remembering 3DO. Its demise tells us that all the major players must be involved in backing any such "one platform": The absence of Nintendo, Sony and Sega from the [3DO] consortium meant that serious competition was an inevitability.

On how independent developers would not benefit in a market with a single gaming platform: For a start, there would be less work available as multi-platform development would be cut. The issue then becomes whether selling more copies of a game on one platform console compensates for less work being available in general.

It's also worthwhile considering the priorities of a global multi-platform publisher like EA. EA wants open platforms, whether these be hardware- or online-based, enabling it to offer its content to as many customers as possible [and] as cheaply as possible. Currently, EA deals with a multiplicity of different, proprietary delivery channels and devices, which lowers the margin when compared to channels EA does not have to pay a toll to.

On the PC already being the de facto standardized gaming platform: Despite various initiatives, [like] Games for Windows, PC gaming is a long, long way from being standardized. It is generally the cutting edge which drives industry growth, enabling publishers to charge premium prices for the latest titles.

A potentially interesting candidate is the "set top box." Already some STB's are capable of basic games playing via a remote control. Given manufacturers' recent moves with cable providers and the addition of IPTV and PVR functionality to their consoles, the trend is towards some form of convergence. Perhaps a glimpse of a potential one [gaming] platform future can be gleaned by speculating on how this market will develop. A non-proprietary version becomes a very interesting delivery channel, if it offers access to an installed base of millions of households. But existing hardware manufacturers would be motivated to offer more capable proprietary consoles and to stay near the leading edge of gaming in general.