Maybe a 1-console future isnt so crazy afterfall...

Well, the Wii is not going to 'bomb' It is a runaway hit in many countries. (not a fanboy here. It's just statistics.)

There should be multiple consoles for one simple reason: the competition. Each console has to beat out the other to be better. If only one console is made, why should they strive to make it better? In the end, monopolies are just not good for the consumer.

It would be good from the consumer's point of view if there ever was a standard format as then choosing a console would be similar to choosing a DVD player. But there's huge money to be made by whoever's format becomes the standard and I jave a feeling neither Microsoft nor Sony would like to concede or work together.bugsonglass

Dude, the problem with that is everybody would have to agree what should be the "one" console. If you mean have multiple consoles but they all play the same game, than that means you're just making consoles into PCs where instead of working to make it awesome for one platform, they have to make sure whatever system you put it into will have the game play.

Even when there is only 1 console, it will only be temporary. DVDs were once the best way to buy movies and there was almost no other competition from other formats. You could get every movie on DVD and the world was at peace. Now, a corporate war is being waged in front of the cathode ray glow of our TV sets, each one claiming to be the better format. When there is only one console left, people will already be working on the next one, and not everybody will agree on how should be.

according to dennis diac in the future there will only be one console. well when i heard this for the first time i thought it he was on crack or something. but after thinking about it, i realised, that, maybe thats not so crazy after-all. think about it, the exclusive is now a very rare breed, and whats the differance between owning the ps3 version or 360 version, and wii cant handle any game thats on either system(im talking about sheer power,im not here to bash nintendo fanboys) so you could have a system like the wii and maybe a system like the 360 and ps3 combined, because do we really need to versions of the same game. with exclusives gone for the most part, what is the point of owning one or the other. so if the wii completley bombs( which personaly i hope it does, but nothing against anybody i dont want to start a flame war) what is the point of having 2 console that have the exact same games, just combine the two and there we go. but if the wii dosnt fail we could always have 2. now i know econicly this wont ever happen just because thats how buisness works, but still all ecomics aside the idea of a 1 console future dosnt sound so crazy, anyone agree?dsman418

Competition is ALWAYS a good thing. It means cheaper prices and better hardware. Even if every single game on the 360 and PS3 were exactly the same (which actually isnt true),we still need both to keep one another in check. Just look back at the history of this industry. Just look at how arrogant Sony was leading up to the PS3's release. They claimed they could charge whatever they wanted and people would buy it.. this that the type of company you want to have total control over the industry?

Having a single unified platform would be awesome for everyone. People don't really care about the hardware itself, they care about games. All this idiotic squabbling over which console is better would finally cease to exist, and we could all focus on what's really important - games. Developers would have an easier time pitching their games to publishers since an optimal userbase is guaranteed and they wouldn't have to waste time and money into making multiple versions of the same game. Contrary to popular belief, competition wouldn't simply disappear - developers and publishers would finally put an effort into making the best game possible, that's where all the money lies anyway. As for the console manufacturers, it's not like they're making money on the hardware itself, having a unified platform would decrease costs, royalties per game would have to be split between them, but there would be more games so that would balance things out. They also wouldn't have to waste money on stupid things such as securing exclusivity. Honestly, I don't see any downside to this...apart from that it probably won't happen any time soon.

As is the case with many game industry practices, having seperate consoles is an idiotic system. It's kind of what happened with VHS and Beta and what's now happening with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. The thing is, the movie industry is not going to support two formats, Beta failed, and one of the two HD formats will fail eventually. The only reason it keeps going on in the game industry is because people are used to it, and even worse, propogate it as if it's a good thing somehow. Hopefully, they'll catch on someday.

Competition is ALWAYS a good thing. It means cheaper prices and better hardware. Even if every single game on the 360 and PS3 were exactly the same (which actually isnt true),we still need both to keep one another in check. Just look back at the history of this industry. Just look at how arrogant Sony was leading up to the PS3's release. They claimed they could charge whatever they wanted and people would buy it.. this that the type of company you want to have total control over the industry?H3LLRaiseR

I'm not sure if you are saying that a unified platform is a good thing or not because if you're saying that it's not, your arguments are working against you. A unified platform would ensure that no one company had the power to dictate any trends such as pricing. They would have to work together and keep each other in check. It didn't do the movie industry any harm. All of the studios are showing their films in the same theatres, on the same DVD players...yet the competition is still there.

I've thought for years that the multi-platform console wars was the most stupid thing ever. I honestly can't believe it has gone on as long as it has. It looks like the rising costs of developing games on high-end consoles will finally put an end to this stupidity. I agree with Dennis Dyack. I hope developers will soon decide to support only one machine. I'm sick of buying two or three consoles just so I can play all the games I want access to. It's sheer stupidity to have 3 different consoles on the market. Please developers/publishers, end the stupidity.

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]Competition is ALWAYS a good thing. It means cheaper prices and better hardware. Even if every single game on the 360 and PS3 were exactly the same (which actually isnt true),we still need both to keep one another in check. Just look back at the history of this industry. Just look at how arrogant Sony was leading up to the PS3's release. They claimed they could charge whatever they wanted and people would buy it.. this that the type of company you want to have total control over the industry?UpInFlames

I'm not sure if you are saying that a unified platform is a good thing or not because if you're saying that it's not, your arguments are working against you. A unified platform would ensure that no one company had the power to dictate any trends such as pricing. They would have to work together and keep each other in check. It didn't do the movie industry any harm. All of the studios are showing their films in the same theatres, on the same DVD players...yet the competition is still there.

I didn't realize OP was talking about a "Unified Platform". It sounded like he wanted the others to crash and burn so then we'd just have one.

Regardless, my opinion doesn't change with respect to a Unified Platform. Its still a bad idea. It works for the movie industry because movies are almost completely independent of the hardware inside of projectors and DVD players. That isn't the case for videogames. They are extemely dependent on hardware, and are arguably their BEST when they are developed for a particular hardware setup. Just look at all the nightmare stories involving PC games.

The thing is there will be no competition with hardware.

Think about it strong competition got our consoles.

Online

3D (faster at least)

Analog Stick

Dual Analog Sticks

Hard-drives

Online

Even new cosnoles such as the DS and Wii

Competiton is good for the inustry. I mean if you think about it there will be no compeititon with hardware leaving the companies focus less on pushing their ideas and being better then the "other" guy.

The thing is there will be no competition with hardware.

Think about it strong competition got our consoles.

Online

3D (faster at least)

Analog Stick

Dual Analog Sticks

Hard-drives

Online

Even new cosnoles such as the DS and Wii

Competiton is good for the inustry. I mean if you think about it there will be no compeititon with hardware leaving the companies focus less on pushing their ideas and being better then the "other" guy.

Gunraidan

I believe the main competition belongs with the software, not with hardware. Games are what rule this industry.

Besides just because there's a single console spec doesn't mean there won't be hardware competition. In fact, with a single platform there can be many more manufacturers just like with DVD players. Don't like Microsoft's questionable hardware reliability? Buy Toshiba or Samsung's hardware instead.This will also allow for a greater variety of hardware configurations too; like DVD players, there will be some withfewer extra features that cost less, and there will be others that offer lots of extra features for a higher price. But all games will work with all versions. With many manufactures there won't be console shortages either; No more waiting months after releaseto buy a new console (Wii). Also, a single design spec doesn't mean there won't be innovation. There's nothing stopping a company from creating specialized controllers for their games like Guitar Hero, DDR, or even the Wii Remote.

There won't be less competition with a single console spec, there will be even more. This will greatly benefit devs, consumers and hardware manufacturers.

^So your saying that Nintendo still would've created the Wii if they owned the console market to themselves this whole time?

Microsoft would've pushed online as far as they did if they were the only console out?

^So your saying that Nintendo still would've created the Wii if they owned the console market to themselves this whole time?

Microsoft would've pushed online as far as they did if they were the only console out?

Gunraidan

Yes,because it would help differentiate their games from the thousands of others out there.

Xbox Live is the kind of service devs have wanted for years which is why they support it so highly compared to Sony and Nintendo's. An XBL-like service would've happened because the market (consumers) demand it.

As far as the Wii controller, Nintendo is a constant innovator. They are always looking for something new. Having a single console spec would not have stopped them from creating the motion controller because they are always looking to differentiate their products from everyone else. Look at all the stuff they released on NES back when they were the dominate console.

Wow. I never imagined that a thread like this would exist where people actually SUPPORT this idea. Maybe there's hope for us gamers yet ...

Yeah, I had this idea years ago (when 3DO attempted it) and thought it could really be great. But now I realize that the only way it would work is if one thing happens: the PS3 must fail.

Sorry, but looking at the history of many consumer electronic products, Sony has been a consistent purveyor of doing things there way so they can make the most profit. Yes, its a very shrewd way of doing business and they have had the clout and success rate to do it. But its not really best for us.

I don't mean to let Nintendo or MS off the hook either, but I honestly can never see Sony agreeing to a standard gaming platform that each manufacturer can tweak and market as the best. Not when they can have their own!

Yes lets embrace minimal upgrades in hardware every few years. If there is only one console being made then they don't have to put forth much effort when designing the next one since everyone has to buy it. Multiple manufacturers won't do any good when they will all need to follow the same specs..... This isn't like putting together a TV. You need very specific parts in every one of those things or the the developers will have to tweak things for different manufacturers systems.... which is what we have now :|

You talk about software being where the real heart of the industry is but without the hardware to run it software is nothing more then a small expensive Frisbee. People piss and moan about Wii's graphics. If we had one platform that is where our graphics would be now. Manufacturers don't sell at a lose. The PS3 is losing money, the 360 was when it launched. Why don't we get rid of ATI and Nvidia while we are at it? Make them merge to make new graphics cards together, that will really drive gaming forward.

Regardless, my opinion doesn't change with respect to a Unified Platform. Its still a bad idea. It works for the movie industry because movies are almost completely independent of the hardware inside of projectors and DVD players. That isn't the case for videogames. They are extemely dependent on hardware, and are arguably their BEST when they are developed for a particular hardware setup. Just look at all the nightmare stories involving PC games.H3LLRaiseR

I agree that the game industry is extremely dependent on hardware, but unlike PC (which has its issues, but I think you're overblowing it), a unified console would be a closed platform with the same specs accross the board.

^So your saying that Nintendo still would've created the Wii if they owned the console market to themselves this whole time?

Microsoft would've pushed online as far as they did if they were the only console out?Gunraidan

Sorry, but I don't think you are grasping the concept of a unified platform. A unified platform would ensure that no one company (be it Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft) has the power to decide anything by itself - they would have to work together to reach an agreement. Imagine a console that has PS3's CPU and HDD, Xbox 360's online service, and Nintendo's controller - and you could play all the games on it - from Wii Sports to BioShock.

Sony has been a consistent purveyor of doing things there way so they can make the most profit.Darth_Tigris

Sony actually wanted to join with Nintendo back in the early 90's and only decided to create the PlayStation after Nintendo sent them on their way.

You talk about software being where the real heart of the industry is but without the hardware to run it software is nothing more then a small expensive Frisbee. People piss and moan about Wii's graphics. If we had one platform that is where our graphics would be now. Manufacturers don't sell at a lose. The PS3 is losing money, the 360 was when it launched. Why don't we get rid of ATI and Nvidia while we are at it? Make them merge to make new graphics cards together, that will really drive gaming forward.Harrick

No, because Nintendo wouldn't be running the show. Besides, costs would be divided and profits would be greater allowing for more investment funding. Your ATI and Nvidia example is way off since you can play the same games on both manufacturer's cards. That's exactly the kind of hardware competition that would drive a unified platform.

I cannot see this working to be honest (a one console future that is). While the gaming industry is comparable to the Movie or Music industry in the end it isnt the same thing. Far from it. People say that the companies would still compete with themselves and sure that may be true, but how much innovation would we see. I think a uniformed console would result in a uniformed sense of gaming. I dont know in my mind it just doesnt work.

So somehow magically Nintendo, Sony & Microsoft decide on a particular hardware and control scheme set-up. They all produce their own console (it all has the same hardware/control spec though). All games work on any console (so a Sony game works on a Nintendo console). Now the only way for a game to distinguish itself is through its design, so its irrelevant which console it is on, the game has to be great (or unique or have great marketing) to sell. All companies win because they get great sales, and viola. Win for all involved? However GAMING isnt a format, its like why isnt there just one operating system, because people want certain software to do certain things.

We would NEVER have seen something like the Wii or Microsofts XBL on a unified console, just because I dont believe that in the real world all big three could ever agree to do things just one way. Microsoft pushed XBL, Nintendo came up with the Wii control scheme, if they were a single entity this would never happen. There would be very little inovation and very incremental upgrades... or even little to no transition. You talk about formats, VHS as an example, how long was that around for... 20 years? Imagine gaming hardware didnt advance for 20 years... no thank. I think maybe in a perfect world this would work but this is never going to happen in our lifetime I dont think... it just doesnt make sense for anybody to do this...

Let's face it, the game industry isn't exactly brimming with innovation as it is. Xbox Live? It's an online service, not the second coming. It came about 10 years late as it is, it would've happened regardless, it's not innovation, it's simple evolution. VHS and DVD being around for a long time is simply due to the flow of the movie industry, obviously the game industry moves much faster and the hardware would reflect that.

It would be good from the consumer's point of view if there ever was a standard format as then choosing a console would be similar to choosing a DVD player. But there's huge money to be made by whoever's format becomes the standard and I jave a feeling neither Microsoft nor Sony would like to concede or work together.bugsonglass

It would be good only if the standard would be open to everyone which will never happen with MS or Nintendo. The DVD standard is good because all companies can make DVD players and disc. So you have a standard and concurrence at the same time. Standard is good only if the technology is shared (read sold).

Saying 3rd party companies should support one console only is stupid imo. Why 3rd party companies would help building a monopoly ? Why 3rd party companies would help Sony, Nintendo or MS get lot of money. Windows and its technologyis a proof that no competition is extremely bad. Do you think we would be where we are today without Sega, Sony and MS competition to Nintendo? I don't think so. Why people think that MS or Sony would do a better job than Nintendo as the monopoly holder isbeyond understandment for me.

The ball is not in the hands of the 3rd party companies but the first party companies. Sony, Nintendo and MS should partner to create a standard and split the royalty fees between the 3. This will never happen don't even dream about it.

Windows and its technologyis a proof that no competition is extremely bad.LaP

I didn't know that the Mac OS, Linux, Unix, and other operating systems didn't exist.... New one on me!

[QUOTE="LaP"]

Windows and its technologyis a proof that no competition is extremely bad.Angry_Beaver

I didn't know that the Mac OS, Linux, Unix, and other operating systems didn't exist.... New one on me!

You actually consider 5% market share competition :| Vista already has more market share that all OS you listed added together.

Having a single unified platform would be awesome for everyone. People don't really care about the hardware itself, they care about games. All this idiotic squabbling over which console is better would finally cease to exist, and we could all focus on what's really important - games. Developers would have an easier time pitching their games to publishers since an optimal userbase is guaranteed and they wouldn't have to waste time and money into making multiple versions of the same game. Contrary to popular belief, competition wouldn't simply disappear - developers and publishers would finally put an effort into making the best game possible, that's where all the money lies anyway. As for the console manufacturers, it's not like they're making money on the hardware itself, having a unified platform would decrease costs, royalties per game would have to be split between them, but there would be more games so that would balance things out. They also wouldn't have to waste money on stupid things such as securing exclusivity. Honestly, I don't see any downside to this...apart from that it probably won't happen any time soon.

As is the case with many game industry practices, having seperate consoles is an idiotic system. It's kind of what happened with VHS and Beta and what's now happening with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. The thing is, the movie industry is not going to support two formats, Beta failed, and one of the two HD formats will fail eventually. The only reason it keeps going on in the game industry is because people are used to it, and even worse, propogate it as if it's a good thing somehow. Hopefully, they'll catch on someday.

UpInFlames

I've been saying this since the PS2 came out. Totally agree.

[QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"][QUOTE="LaP"]

Windows and its technologyis a proof that no competition is extremely bad.LaP

I didn't know that the Mac OS, Linux, Unix, and other operating systems didn't exist.... New one on me!

You actually consider 5% market share competition :| Vista already has more market share that all OS you listed added together.

"No competition" is qualitatively different from "a little competition".

[QUOTE="Angry_Beaver"][QUOTE="LaP"]

Windows and its technologyis a proof that no competition is extremely bad.LaP

I didn't know that the Mac OS, Linux, Unix, and other operating systems didn't exist.... New one on me!

You actually consider 5% market share competition :| Vista already has more market share that all OS you listed added together.

who's fault is that? Maybe they should market their product better. I'd bet most people don't even know the others exist.

[QUOTE="Harrick"]You talk about software being where the real heart of the industry is but without the hardware to run it software is nothing more then a small expensive Frisbee. People piss and moan about Wii's graphics. If we had one platform that is where our graphics would be now. Manufacturers don't sell at a lose. The PS3 is losing money, the 360 was when it launched. Why don't we get rid of ATI and Nvidia while we are at it? Make them merge to make new graphics cards together, that will really drive gaming forward.UpInFlames

No, because Nintendo wouldn't be running the show. Besides, costs would be divided and profits would be greater allowing for more investment funding. Your ATI and Nvidia example is way off since you can play the same games on both manufacturer's cards. That's exactly the kind of hardware competition that would drive a unified platform.

Nintendo isn't running the show? Who is? How do we come to this conclusion for this new platform? Who calls the shots and sets the standard specs? That aside is any company anywhere going to sell hardware at a lose? Not unless they can make it up in the licensing of software. Who gets these license fees? Are they equally divided among all manufacturers? Do Nvidia and ATI share profits off every game sold where a PC uses thier card?

Then who determines how often we need new consoles, and how much of a hardware upgrade will constitute a generational leap. If they can't make money on software the hardware companies have to make it off the console so either prices will spike to compensate or quality will drop. The Nintendo example isn't to point out that Nintendo will run the show, it's pointing out they are the only ones out of the box making hardware profits. That will be required in a one console world....

With ATI and Nvidia yes they run all games, it's a flawed example, however will we run into a situation where games are optimized for one console manufacturers hardware? Then how do we choose? Isn't that just a boiled down version of the way things are now?

I can't see this happening. I think Microsoft is confident enough in their position and ability to bring up the developer tools, efficieny, next gen, that they will go it alone. Unless Sony totally caves to them or something. The non-gaming revenue is going to be even bigger next gen - IPTV, downloaded movies/tv/music/games, etc. Not to mention those meat hooks into all the media companies. How would they share that? Letting anyone license and produce hardware would work.....but I can't see them hammering out who owns the OS (MS would take nothing less than 100%) & how much of the licensing for hardware & games.

Nintendo is kind of irrelevant. They are really a niche market at this point, with the Wii.

[QUOTE="H3LLRaiseR"]Regardless, my opinion doesn't change with respect to a Unified Platform. Its still a bad idea. It works for the movie industry because movies are almost completely independent of the hardware inside of projectors and DVD players. That isn't the case for videogames. They are extemely dependent on hardware, and are arguably their BEST when they are developed for a particular hardware setup. Just look at all the nightmare stories involving PC games.UpInFlames

I agree that the game industry is extremely dependent on hardware, but unlike PC (which has its issues, but I think you're overblowing it), a unified console would be a closed platform with the same specs accross the board.

As a long time PC gamer, I've had to deal with my fair share of issues that required patches or workarounds. If a unified console would be a closed system with the same specs, then how are all these future hardware companies suppose to convince people to buy theirs over another? Even DVD players use a wide variety pf parts and brands.

If the big three can somehow put aside their differences and combine their funds and tech, the one-console-future could become a reality, and anyone who tries to make a console to compete with them would be crushed. But does anyone really think N, MS and Sony are about to ally? :lol:Sandro909

I don't believe they could do it that way if they wanted. Definitely not in America due to Monopoly laws.

Dude, having one console seems cool on the surface, but what is stopping another company from putting out a better system that will play different games? Nintendo had like 95% of the marketshare back with the NES. If you wanted to play games, that is basically what you got. That is, until the Sega Genesis came out. Unless you convince EVERYBODY that the "one" system is the best possible way to do things forever, new hardware manufacturers will show up, and the games that play on it WON'T be compatible with the old stuff.

as consumers we should always have a choice and its healthy for competition in terms of pricing and quality.

i think there will end up being 2 nintendo and microsoft

Because ps3 SUCKS