Sowing seeds in the IT-biz

So I was reading a bit about Intels “Larrabee”. The newest info that Intel has released + the SIGGRAPH-papers have been doing the rounds around forums all over the world. Now, even though I my understandings about CPU/GPU architecture is “somewhat” limited, I still do understand some of the basics.

Well, after reading about Larrabee, it made me think about possibilities with this kind of “processor” on a console. Well, at first my thoughts of Larrabee was that it was a CPU with GPU capabilities and in a way it is so, but it seems that this is Intels solution to compete in the high-end GPU market against Nvidia and AMD/ATI. So the more I read about it, the more it seemed that it was a “GPGPU” and maybe not the CPU I was thinking it was. My question for the more knowledgable guys out there, how good would Larrabee with general purpose stuff, like using it for office, web-browsing and such, being an in of order processor and all? I have read some more about it and it seems that it will manage to do general purpose stuff to, is this correct?

Well, being in this train of thought, with Larrabees and consoles, I came to think about the future. In a way, it must “suck” to be a console-manufacturer. Sony and Microsoft makes these machines that pushes the home electronic boundries and puts lots of advanced technologies at a “cheap” price. The business model is that these companies sell the machine at a loss but “recoup” the money by software/peripherals and service (online) sales.

But my question is, why does these 3 companies have to dictate what kind of hardware that comes out? Granted, I assume that these companies talk with game developers to see what they “want” and what they hope for in coming hardware but I think its time that this way of releasing hardware changes. Hardware is an expensive necessity to play software, let the software “dictate” the hardware then. Let the games companies be a part of the console making process. My aim here is, why not create a consortium with companies such as EA, Activision, UBI, Microsoft and of course, Sony and Nintendo. I guess that these japanese companies want to do it “alone” in the future too, especially Nintendo because they have a business model that works for them.

I think that MS is the one company that is in the best position to propose something like this. MS develops great software and services, and with Xbox and Xbox360, they have created good hardware too.

But, for the next battle, why not share the expenses with this consortium for a hardware that let´s the developers have so much power to play with, that only their visions and fantasies will be the limit.

I am a great advocate for One Console Future (OCF for future reference). The problem has been the business model. People say that without competition, technology will not be pushed and prices of hardware will be expensive. I say, not necessarly. It also depends on what kind of life-cycle these product can/will have. One idea can be that for each contract, hardware makers such as Nvidia, Intel, IBM, AMD/ATi etc, “fights” to make the best hardware possible from a price/tech-standpoint. The best solution provided from this companies, will be used for the console, all decided by the consortium. Now that the hardware components is decided, there can still be variations of this hardware. The basic model can perhaps only play game and the higher end the you come to, the more features the machine will be able to do. So the highest end model could be “a PC” with all the functionality of a PC. Lower end models can maybe have DVR capabilities only etc etc.

So there can be different SKUs, provided by the likes of Samsung, LG, Philips etc. This way, there is still price competition but the different is with features. The higher end you get, the more features you will have.

I think it´s time that to change how the videogames business operates, especially the hardware makers. There are new times and with new technology, software and services, consoles of today can do so much more than to just play games. So we have to create a new business model in order to makes this work properly.

Also, the issue with the PC-gaming segment. It is mentioned very often in forums like Neogaf, that the PC-gaming segment is dying. Comments made by developers say that their software has been pirated “from hell and back” and therefore, the revenues and profit of software sales in the PC-segment is lower than in the console-segment. More and more developers are choosing the console-segment as their primary focus because there is where the money is. I think it´s time to put these two segments together. Like I said earlier, with every new console that gets release, the more and more they start to be like PCs in functionality. Microsoft, who has the Xbox and Windows platform, is in the best position to, together with partners, to join these two segments together. How can this be done?

Well, enter the Larrabee-like processors and the whole consortium idea. Together, these partners can release a hardware so powerful, that developers only need to think about making software to it because they will have access to “the whole market” or “a majority of the market”. The hardware should be opened enough to connect peripherals a la PC but maybe that there can be some form of “approval needed” from the consortium. I imagine a machine with something like maybe, let us say for arguments say, a 32 + 32 core solution or more as CPU/GPU with a genereous amount of RAM and these kinds of things in order for the machine to last the projected/desired life cycle in order to get back the investment. (Remember also that this is a shared cost by the consortium members).

Having a machine like this, it will let developers focus on the software, maybe it can be easier to implement and release peripherals as “motion sensitive” controllers with disrupting so much of the market, and so on.

This is the basic thought and I think that MS is the one that has to take the initiative of this. MS, supporting two gaming platforms, needs to combine these two because the PC segment only excels in graphical prowess against the consoles. Sure, with the latest hardware you can have the highest resolution and settings but you are only aiming for a small piece of the PC-market by making a game with that awesome graphics fidelity. Business wise, it is harder and harder to recoup that investment due to piracy. And besides, does the extra resolution and higher AF/AA settings make the game funnier/better? I mean, comparing to their HD-console counterparts?

There are still lots of questionmarks with this whole idea and I would be happy to read feedback and see where Im way off or if I hit the spot with some comments.

Let´s see what can come out of this.