Dennis Dyack is right there should only be one console.

We all know gaming is an expensive hobby. Buying all the consoles with all the accesories needed will set you back at least $1500.

The problem here not everybody is able to afford all these systems and thus end up missing out on awesome games. There shouldn't be a hardware competition. The only the competition should be between software(games). many people say why should I spend money on another console when I can use that money to buy more games for my system. It has nothing to do with fanboyism, but just being a smart consumer.

The only drawback by having only one system is that more than likely the system would probably cost more than what the PS3 cost. I would say around $800. I say this because you would not and should not haveto buy a new console every 5-6 years. You are going to want the best technology of today and the future.

Also having all the games on one system benefits the developers. There will not be delays due to development being behind for another system. there will not be a split in resources and every game can be optimized. Then the developers will have access to every gamer possible. Its look like a win-win-win situation.

I would love to play all my favorite games from every system on just one system.

What are you guys take on it?

i read the topic title

i read the berlin wall of text

and then thought of Capitilism and how it works so well

How good do you think that one console would be when it competes against nothing? And they could set whatever prices they want and there'd be no alternatives. Competition is very healthy.Zeliard9

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]How good do you think that one console would be when it competes against nothing? And they could set whatever prices they want and there'd be no alternatives. Competition is very healthy.too_much_eslim

Exactly. One standard system with the same specs that play any game from any developer.

More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.Brmarlin

If there was only 1 console why would it cost more? The majority wouldn't buy it? Just like majority of gamers are not buying a PS3, I'm sure the company that ever did make this 1 console would learn from the PS3's mistake.. I guess gamers wouldn't have a choice but to buy it cause there would be only 1 console... or they could just take up a new hobby..

As for compatition there isnt much of that going on as it is now.. It's just XBOX360 dominating in games, and Wii dominating in sales, and PS3 being suicidal.

it would never work in the real world thoughpintabear49blue

[QUOTE="Brmarlin"]More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.too_much_eslim

No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

If there was only 1 console why would it cost more? The majority wouldn't buy it? Just like majority of gamers are not buying a PS3, I'm sure the company that ever did make this 1 console would learn from the PS3's mistake.. I guess gamers wouldn't have a choice but to buy it cause there would be only 1 console... or they could just take up a new hobby..

As for compatition there isnt much of that going on as it is now.. It's just XBOX360 dominating in games, and Wii dominating in sales, and PS3 being suicidal.

Dahaka-UK

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="Brmarlin"]More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.Brmarlin

No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

I agree the competition should be between publishers trying for the best games, not systems as it can end up causing more harm than good when one decides to disrupt the foundations. I don't agree that there should be a single platform, but I think the industry would be better with just two. I prefered the days when it was basically Nintendo vs SEGA.tomarlyn

One console would be great but in our world it probably would never happen.

Competition between consoles does not benifit us until one slumps and drops price to compete then we just buy another console.

At the same time if their were only one console then any price would probably be respectable for consumers.

the person who said its in the devs to compete is exactly right. I really believe a situation like this would really benefit games so much. We would more the likely see longer waits for our games but the amount of games on one console would be huge and if they had to compete with each other under a microscope like this we would probably see more AAA then 4.5's

We can buy our wii,360,ps3 but we buy them for the games....or at least I do anyway.

Think about this. If their were only one console the price would be high yes but not out of control like some people would think.

Pc gaming is just as easy to get into with all the same perks and controllers if you prefer.

A console maker would know this and have to compete with that.

In the end though there will be one or a few people on here that will still believe its better to play killzone on playstation and halo on xbox in stead of one console to hold them all.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="Brmarlin"]More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.Brmarlin

No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

How will they stay the same with 1 console? I'm sure if they bought 1 console out every 10 years the next console would be better over that time period.. When a console comes out it's stuck with that same hardware for the rest of it's life span, the power is there already to use for the developers to make games.. Now where does the compatation come in from then on? When a console is released? It's all in the games.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="Brmarlin"]More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.Brmarlin

No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

I think that is the worse idea EVER!

There have always been many console choices, and there should always be. Let the consumer decide what he wants.

What if Nintendo was the only console maker this gen, and decided not to go for the high end, and so we end up with Wii. While many kids and old folks like it (and a few in between), I would not play video games if that was my only choice.

Or let's say thatSony was the only choice. Since they want to get blu-ray in peoples homes, and they now have zero competition, they decide to release the PS3. Only now they don't need to lose money on it, they can charge whatever they want. So instead of $600, it is now $800. The only way to play a console is now to spend a grand after an extra controller, a game, and sales tax. Again, I would not be a console gamer.

[QUOTE="Brmarlin"]

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="Brmarlin"]More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.Dahaka-UK

No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

How will they stay the same with 1 console? I'm sure if they bought 1 console out every 10 years the next console would be better over that time period.. When a console comes out it's stuck with that same hardware for the rest of it's life span, the power is there already to use for the developers to make games.. Now where does the compatation come in from then on? When a console is released? It's all in the games.

Devs will eventually grow tired of the limitations and stop trying.

[QUOTE="Brmarlin"]

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="Brmarlin"]More competition is good with the industry - if there's just one console, they can make it suck and we will be stuck with it for a long time. Denis Dyack may be good at what he does, but he is definately NOT right about this. Just my opinion, but there are too many flaws with that idea.tomarlyn

No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

Hence the required equilibrium...

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"][QUOTE="Brmarlin"]

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"]No, it should be with both. You aren't going to be able to have certain types of games competing without consoles competing as well - the more power a console has, the more game developers will be able to use it, hypothetically. And if just the games are competing, then the consoles will stay the same. If just the consoles are, then games will grow stagnant. It requires equilibrium.

Brmarlin

How will they stay the same with 1 console? I'm sure if they bought 1 console out every 10 years the next console would be better over that time period.. When a console comes out it's stuck with that same hardware for the rest of it's life span, the power is there already to use for the developers to make games.. Now where does the compatation come in from then on? When a console is released? It's all in the games.

Devs will eventually grow tired of the limitations and stop trying.

It's also aboutgiving the consumer choice, perfectly exemplified by the PS3/360 and the wii. Not all consoles go for the same market and develop consoles based upon their own philosophy for gaming. For example, the expense required in producing an 'all in one' consoletrying to be all things for all people would negate Nintendo's philosophy of cheaper, more affordable gaming.

Choice is always a good thing

I think that is the worse idea EVER!

There have always been many console choices, and there should always be. Let the consumer decide what he wants.

What if Nintendo was the only console maker this gen, and decided not to go for the high end, and so we end up with Wii. While many kids and old folks like it (and a few in between), I would not play video games if that was my only choice.

Or let's say thatSony was the only choice. Since they want to get blu-ray in peoples homes, and they now have zero competition, they decide to release the PS3. Only now they don't need to lose money on it, they can charge whatever they want. So instead of $600, it is now $800. The only way to play a console is now to spend a grand after an extra controller, a game, and sales tax. Again, I would not be a console gamer.

TBoogy

I'm sure if there was only 1 console, and where not talking about this gen maybe the next one or the distant feature.. they'd have no choice but to put all your favorite games on that one console cause where else would they go? PC perhaps? They wouldn't just appeal to 1 market like nintendo is doing now, they would appeal to all gamers. Otherwise they'd lose out on a lot of money, also they'd lose out a lot of money overpricing there console and games.. It would just be suicide like the PS3, overpricing things.

The console doesn't need to compete. The developers should.too_much_eslim

Well then there wouldn't be Nintendo experimenting with gaming with the Wii and DS, or Microsoft pushing consoles to be more of a PC-Like Expereince with XBL. Or there wouldn't be SONY offering better storage mediums.

Competition is good, unfortunately one day what you are saying will happen since it's inevitable that the PC will take all or that one company will have a complete iron fist over the console market.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"] The console doesn't need to compete. The developers should.Gunraidan

Well then there wouldn't be Nintendo experimenting with gaming with the Wii and DS, or Microsoft pushing consoles to be more of a PC-Like Expereince with XBL. Or there wouldn't be SONY offering better storage mediums.

Competition is good, unfortunately one day what you are saying will happen since it's inevitable that the PC will take all or that one company will have a complete iron fist over the console market.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"] The console doesn't need to compete. The developers should.Gunraidan

Well then there wouldn't be Nintendo experimenting with gaming with the Wii and DS, or Microsoft pushing consoles to be more of a PC-Like Expereince with XBL. Or there wouldn't be SONY offering better storage mediums.

Competition is good, unfortunately one day what you are saying will happen since it's inevitable that the PC will take all or that one company will have a complete iron fist over the console market.

Nintendo didn't need to experiment with gaming cause it was already good how is was, it's actually worser now than it was the last gens... but my opinion doesn't matter..

Anyway why wouldn't they add these features in this one console, cause if they didn't who would buy it? If this new console didn't have these features, it would just be a boring paperweight that plays games. Everyone would buy a PC then.. cause theres nothing better. Compatition is not needed cause the companys who make these consoles should already know if it's a boring overpriced paperweight it wont sell..

Nintendo didn't need to experiment with gaming cause it was already good how is was, it's actually worser now than it was the last gens... but my opinion doesn't matter..

Dahaka-UK

That isn't opinion that's a fact. :P Well being serious I do agree that gaming has taken a huge fall in quality after then turn of the millenium.

Anyway why wouldn't they add these features in this one console, cause if they didn't who would buy it? If this new console didn't have these features, it would just be a boring paperweight that plays games. Everyone would buy a PC then.. cause theres nothing better. Compatition is not needed cause the companys who make these consoles should already know if it's a boring overpriced paperweight it wont sell..

Dahaka-UK

That is such a horrible idea it's not even funny. Seriously, having more than 1 more than one product is what pushes companies to be more innovative. What incentive would there be to create faster, more powerful systems if there was only 1? We would still be stuck playing 8-bit games had other companies not emerged to challenge Nintendo and pushed it to develop a newer system. elblanquito_81

Making money would be there incentive.. to create a better console. Not the fact that they need to achieve better than the other console. Sony makes there console better than all the rest and look what happens it doesn't sell.

True back then when we where in 8 bit genre and nobody came along to challenge whoever.. Gaming wouldn't be stuck however.. it would of upgraded slowly and painly and still be a childs toy. But gaming is a big business now, if there was 1 console all of a sudden they would make it so it appeals to everyone and has top notch graphics and everything and all the featurs everybody wants.

If there was only 1 console why would it cost more? The majority wouldn't buy it? Just like majority of gamers are not buying a PS3, I'm sure the company that ever did make this 1 console would learn from the PS3's mistake.. I guess gamers wouldn't have a choice but to buy it cause there would be only 1 console... or they could just take up a new hobby..

As for compatition there isnt much of that going on as it is now.. It's just XBOX360 dominating in games, and Wii dominating in sales, and PS3 being suicidal.

Dahaka-UK

If there was only one console available then people would have no choice but to buy it regarless of price.The reason why the PS3 isn't selling is because there are 2 OTHER consoles available that provide(depending on the player) a better gaming expirience for a lesser price.So why would you buy a very expensive console system when you could buy another console that cost less and offers more?I dont know who this Dennis Dyack is but he sounds like a commie to me.

One console would be horrible and it would ruin gaming.......

There would be no quality assurance and people would flood the market with complete trash. It would be the early 1980s all over again (when the videogame market almost died forever).

One console would dumb and it would ruin gaming.......

There would be no quality assurance and people would flood the market with complete trash. It would be the early 1980s all over again (when the videogame market almost died forever).

MikeE21286

[QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

One console would dumb and it would ruin gaming.......

There would be no quality assurance and people would flood the market with complete trash. It would be the early 1980s all over again (when the videogame market almost died forever).

too_much_eslim

Why you quoted me and gave that response I have no idea.........

Cost wouldn't be the only problem, no competition means no real reason to develope cutting edge games.TyrantDragon55

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="MikeE21286"]

One console would dumb and it would ruin gaming.......

There would be no quality assurance and people would flood the market with complete trash. It would be the early 1980s all over again (when the videogame market almost died forever).

MikeE21286

Why you quoted me with that response I have no idea.........

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]Cost wouldn't be the only problem, no competition means no real reason to develope cutting edge games.too_much_eslim

I mean from first party studios, hardware would never go anywhere either though. If you need an example, just look at Nintendo and all of the different gameboy incarnations.

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]

If there was only 1 console why would it cost more? The majority wouldn't buy it? Just like majority of gamers are not buying a PS3, I'm sure the company that ever did make this 1 console would learn from the PS3's mistake.. I guess gamers wouldn't have a choice but to buy it cause there would be only 1 console... or they could just take up a new hobby..

As for compatition there isnt much of that going on as it is now.. It's just XBOX360 dominating in games, and Wii dominating in sales, and PS3 being suicidal.

Rockman999

If there was only one console available then people would have no choice but to buy it regarless of price.The reason why the PS3 isn't selling is because there are 2 OTHER consoles available that provide(depending on the player) a better gaming expirience for a lesser price.So why would you buy a very expensive console system when you could buy another console that cost less and offers more?I dont know who this Dennis Dyack is but he sounds like a commie to me.

Yeah all true but sony arent exactly doing anything to improve the PS3 and make it better than the rest, there just basically standing there waiting for something to happen. While 360 dominates both Wii/PS3 in games maybe not in sales there tied with the Wii arent they? but Wii is chasing after a totally different market, 360 is all hardcore and semi casual. So we've got 2 consoles winning over the other console?

Wheres the competition if one side is already winning? And I say 1 console because it's basically Wii60 vs PS3, Wii is more of a mini console, it's not in the same legue as the 360. IMO.. There doesn't seem to be any competition between Wii and 360 at all.. unless microsoft want some of the none gamer pie. The only competition I see is in the game, all developer want to do is make the next HALO3/Gears Killer so they can make a wad of cash.

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]That is such a horrible idea it's not even funny. Seriously, having more than 1 more than one product is what pushes companies to be more innovative. What incentive would there be to create faster, more powerful systems if there was only 1? We would still be stuck playing 8-bit games had other companies not emerged to challenge Nintendo and pushed it to develop a newer system. Dahaka-UK

Making money would be there incentive.. to create a better console. Not the fact that they need to achieve better than the other console. Sony makes there console better than all the rest and look what happens it doesn't sell.

True back then when we where in 8 bit genre and nobody came along to challenge whoever.. Gaming wouldn't be stuck however.. it would of upgraded slowly and painly and still be a childs toy. But gaming is a big business now, if there was 1 console all of a sudden they would make it so it appeals to everyone and has top notch graphics and everything and all the featurs everybody wants.

Alsoabout your last point, it goes back to what you said about the PS3. Sure there could be 1 console with the most amazing graphics and all the features everyone wants from all 3 current systems, but that would also make it ridiculously expensive making it a hard sell for many to want to pick up.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]Cost wouldn't be the only problem, no competition means no real reason to develope cutting edge games.TyrantDragon55

I mean from first party studios, hardware would never go anywhere either though. If you need an example, just look at Nintendo and all of the different gameboy incarnations.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]Cost wouldn't be the only problem, no competition means no real reason to develope cutting edge games.too_much_eslim

I mean from first party studios, hardware would never go anywhere either though. If you need an example, just look at Nintendo and all of the different gameboy incarnations.

Except they wouldn't, because without competition there is no reason to.

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]

[QUOTE="elblanquito_81"]That is such a horrible idea it's not even funny. Seriously, having more than 1 more than one product is what pushes companies to be more innovative. What incentive would there be to create faster, more powerful systems if there was only 1? We would still be stuck playing 8-bit games had other companies not emerged to challenge Nintendo and pushed it to develop a newer system. elblanquito_81

Making money would be there incentive.. to create a better console. Not the fact that they need to achieve better than the other console. Sony makes there console better than all the rest and look what happens it doesn't sell.

True back then when we where in 8 bit genre and nobody came along to challenge whoever.. Gaming wouldn't be stuck however.. it would of upgraded slowly and painly and still be a childs toy. But gaming is a big business now, if there was 1 console all of a sudden they would make it so it appeals to everyone and has top notch graphics and everything and all the featurs everybody wants.

Alsoabout your last point, it goes back to what you said about the PS3. Sure there could be 1 console with the most amazing graphics and all the features everyone wants from all 3 current systems, but that would also make it ridiculously expensive making it a hard sell for many to want to pick up.

If they took a risk and priced it cheap, it could sell billions and they would make money all in good time.. maybe.. but none of the companys would have the guts to do that. I was thinking maybe all 3 companys could like combine there forces and make the ultimate gaming console... That would be much better than we've got now like but your right it would cost too much to develop... Imagine Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft all made the one console and shared the money, no other idiot company would challenge them.