Dennis Dyack is right there should only be one console.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="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.

TyrantDragon55

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

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"][QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="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.

too_much_eslim

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

Of course it could work if done properly, but the thing is that's not how the real world works.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"]

That is why i think if Sony did the hardware, Micosoft did the online/software/interface, and Nintendo did the controller and keep their vision for innovation then one system would be awesome.TyrantDragon55

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

Agreed, also remember more console = more companies making deals to consoles = more games being made. If it wasn't for the 360, Lost Planet and Dead Rising wouldn't have existed.

if there was one console ... ye'd be paying $100 for a single game.

honestly ... ye woudlnt want this ... its a horrible idea and it would never work.

if there was one console ... ye'd be paying $100 for a single game.

honestly ... ye woudlnt want this ... its a horrible idea and it would never work.

humber_matus

[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

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][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.X_CAPCOM_X

Except without competition the hardware developer has no reason to release new andcutting edge ideas *points to the Gameboy example*.

[QUOTE="humber_matus"]

if there was one console ... ye'd be paying $100 for a single game.

honestly ... ye woudlnt want this ... its a horrible idea and it would never work.

too_much_eslim

it woudlnt kill gaming ... the hardcore gamers such as you and me would buy those over priced games ... because we love video games ... and the developer of the single system woudl knwo that ... and abuse the system ... just like many companies out there right now ... EX: microsoft and Vista.

and sorry for my seplling ... typing in the dark.

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.

Dahaka-UK

Why would they do that? It makes no sense. There is NO COMPETITION. Why spend all their time and money creating this amazing console, when they could just continue busting out the same junk over and over making boatloads in the process?Profit is made when you keep costs low.

Also, I have to disagree with this "ideal theory" even in principle. We can't just expect that a single company will be able to create what's best all on their own. It hasn't happened yet. Sony got a lot of things right with the ps2, but they didn't have Live. It took another company (competition!) to create that...andthe idea was then adopted into their next gen console. This is how advancement works. It isn't just that competition is good for us, it's good for innovation in general.

I have always thought Dyack was a really bright dude. I agree whole heartedly with him. It's never going to happen, but yeah I agree with him.Mcgreggers

No, it is an absolutely horrible idea. Innovation does not happen unless it needs to, and without competition there is no need to innovate. Do you really think Microsoft would have come up with Live if it didn't have any competition, do you think Nintendo would have bothered taking such a huge risk with the Wii if they hadn't gotten their butts handed to them 2 generations in a row?

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?

too_much_eslim

i htink 2 options low end verson like the wii for cheap ppl

and a high end wiht a higher pricetag like the PS3

the 360 dsnt fit in... its at a halfway point, it has some Wii level games and some PS3 level games... nothing less and defenetly nohting more...

then again if it was up to me id say merge the PS3 wiht a PC (extremely powerful hardware for low price)

dual blade cell

gigs of XDR ram at 3.2 GHZ

the geforce quadro/geforce 8800 gtx ultra

blu-ray disc drive

and we got a super computer ladies and gents...

[QUOTE="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.

whoisryanmack

Why would they do that? It makes no sense. There is NO COMPETITION. Why spend all their time and money creating this amazing console, when they could just continue busting out the same junk over and over making boatloads in the process?Profit is made when you keep costs low.

Also, I have to disagree with this "ideal theory" even in principle. We can't just expect that a single company will be able to create what's best all on their own. It hasn't happened yet. Sony got a lot of things right with the ps2, but they didn't have Live. It took another company (competition!) to create that...andthe idea was then adopted into their next gen console. This is how advancement works. It isn't just that competition is good for us, it's good for innovation in general.

Yes well obviously the companys will never actually do what we want and make a super console thats priced reasonably and keep making total trash that sells anyway like the Wii. I'm just tired of all this crap this gen has bought, I have a 360, PS3, and a PC.. Practically all the good games are going multiplat with the exception of a few good ones. So I'm stuck with 3 systems when it's more smart just owning the one...

I thought at first maybe I should just go ahead and by 2 consoles there going to have so many exclusives for each of them.. but that doesn't seem to be the case.. The games that are actually going to be exclusive will eventually be multiplat just watch..

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="humber_matus"]

if there was one console ... ye'd be paying $100 for a single game.

honestly ... ye woudlnt want this ... its a horrible idea and it would never work.

humber_matus

it woudlnt kill gaming ... the hardcore gamers such as you and me would buy those over priced games ... because we love video games ... and the developer of the single system woudl knwo that ... and abuse the system ... just like many companies out there right now ... EX: microsoft and Vista.

and sorry for my seplling ... typing in the dark.

[QUOTE="humber_matus"][QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="humber_matus"]

if there was one console ... ye'd be paying $100 for a single game.

honestly ... ye woudlnt want this ... its a horrible idea and it would never work.

too_much_eslim

it woudlnt kill gaming ... the hardcore gamers such as you and me would buy those over priced games ... because we love video games ... and the developer of the single system woudl knwo that ... and abuse the system ... just like many companies out there right now ... EX: microsoft and Vista.

and sorry for my seplling ... typing in the dark.

N64 games were like $70, and there are people out there willing to pay $200 to play a game like Steel Battalion.

Having a monopoly on the console market, especially with microsoft in hte game is a very scary thing. competition benefits consumers. with only one console maker, they could charge high license fees (which kill the dev profits and therefore kill a lot of devs), they could charge too much for the console, they could put in cruddy tech, they could not listen to consumer complaints, they could release flawed software, they could do all kinds of things.

There should ALWAYS be at least two consoles. Personally, I think that three consoles is the sweet spot, since it encourages competition and allows each console to target a different segment of gamers.

[QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="humber_matus"]

it woudlnt kill gaming ... the hardcore gamers such as you and me would buy those over priced games ... because we love video games ... and the developer of the single system woudl knwo that ... and abuse the system ... just like many companies out there right now ... EX: microsoft and Vista.

and sorry for my seplling ... typing in the dark.

TyrantDragon55

N64 games were like $70, and there are people out there willing to pay $200 to play a game like Steel Battalion.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"][QUOTE="too_much_eslim"][QUOTE="humber_matus"]

it woudlnt kill gaming ... the hardcore gamers such as you and me would buy those over priced games ... because we love video games ... and the developer of the single system woudl knwo that ... and abuse the system ... just like many companies out there right now ... EX: microsoft and Vista.

and sorry for my seplling ... typing in the dark.

too_much_eslim

N64 games were like $70, and there are people out there willing to pay $200 to play a game like Steel Battalion.

Yep they were that expensive, it's because of how expensive cartridges were to manufacture.

"One console" = same specs for every developer, more and better games.

Having "one console" is better, and Im not talking having just one brand of console, just the same specs. If sony want to make one, microsoft or nintendo, fine...BUT everyone need to make it with the same specs.

Its like a dvd player in the sense that every dvd player "plays movies" but there are several brands.

Companies can make new periperials, controllers, etc. all working in the same console, but different brand.

Yep they were that expensive, it's because of how expensive cartridges were to manufacture.

TyrantDragon55

To add to that SNES games use to cost $70. Adjust that for today and you get exactly $100.

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

That and with one console we would still be playing the 8 bit NES. It is competiton that has driven power and graphics so far and competiton that drove Nintendo to take risks with the Wii and DS. He can have his 5 grand system for the next 20 years.

Having a monopoly on the console market, especially with microsoft in hte game is a very scary thing. competition benefits consumers. with only one console maker, they could charge high license fees (which kill the dev profits and therefore kill a lot of devs), they could charge too much for the console, they could put in cruddy tech, they could not listen to consumer complaints, they could release flawed software, they could do all kinds of things.

There should ALWAYS be at least two consoles. Personally, I think that three consoles is the sweet spot, since it encourages competition and allows each console to target a different segment of gamers.

osirisomeomi

/Thread

You win, no further arguments allowed! This case is closed and your logic cannot be beat!

hmmm Dennis Dyack, same guy who keeps blaming others coz he sucks at developing games like Too Human, 1st he was getting used to UE3 so thats why too human didnt look good, then at E3 05 (or was it 06) too human was horribly broken both graphics and gameplay wise and he said "we werent suppose to show this" so basically he meant that they accidentally showed there game on worlds biggest video game exhibition, then he blames epic for providing bad engine even though other devs have used the same engine and have made great looking games....the game still doesnt look good even after this long, that guy is another Mark Rein....both guys keep changing lol

Relax everything will belong to Nintendo's soon enoughaxt113

:roll:

What can anybody say to this guy........Just leaves you in utter speachlessness.

[QUOTE="axt113"]Relax everything will belong to Nintendo's soon enoughDeathIsARight

:roll:

What can anybody say to this guy........Just leaves you in utter speachlessness.

Follow the money, its all going into nintendo's pockets while Sony and MS lose money by the truckload

[QUOTE="DeathIsARight"]

[QUOTE="axt113"]Relax everything will belong to Nintendo's soon enoughaxt113

:roll:

What can anybody say to this guy........Just leaves you in utter speachlessness.

Follow the money, its all going into nintendo's pockets while Sony and MS lose money by the truckload

:roll:

Don't you have Wii Sports to play with? And Halo 3 kicked the batbutt outta of all systems. There is room for 3 and all are not going anywhere, deal with it!

[QUOTE="axt113"][QUOTE="DeathIsARight"]

[QUOTE="axt113"]Relax everything will belong to Nintendo's soon enoughDeathIsARight

:roll:

What can anybody say to this guy........Just leaves you in utter speachlessness.

Follow the money, its all going into nintendo's pockets while Sony and MS lose money by the truckload

:roll:

Don't you have Wii Sports to play with? And Halo 3 kicked the batbutt outta of all systems. There is room for 3 and all are not going anywhere, deal with it!

Sorry dude one game isn't going to save the 360, it'll keep it up for a few weeks and then fall off, they need more than just an FPS with a guy in a suit

Bullcrap, we would be poorly served indeed by having only one system. Consolidation has not served any other industry that it has taken place in (especially in the longrun) and thats a fact.Runningflame570

You guys need to have an imagination and be optimistic. we know in reality it will not, but it is quite possible to be a good thing.too_much_eslim

Its not, standardizing console development to some degree has some possible positives (BTW, thanks on being the only guys to use DirectX in the console space MS), but standardizing around a single console is a poor idea in theory and in practice.

Bullcrap, we would be poorly served indeed by having only one system. Consolidation has not served any other industry that it has taken place in (especially in the longrun) and thats a fact.Runningflame570

Where being poorly served as we are now.. Didn't you know?

[QUOTE="Runningflame570"]Bullcrap, we would be poorly served indeed by having only one system. Consolidation has not served any other industry that it has taken place in (especially in the longrun) and thats a fact.Dahaka-UK

Where being poorly served as we are now.. Didn't you know?

You need a 360

Where being poorly served as we are now? Didn't you know?

Dahaka-UK

Yes, compared to last gen this generation has been a disappointment so far, but imagine a system standardized like the Wii or with the failure rate of the 360, or the cost of the PS3 and you can see why it would still be a bad idea.

[QUOTE="Dahaka-UK"]

[QUOTE="Runningflame570"]Bullcrap, we would be poorly served indeed by having only one system. Consolidation has not served any other industry that it has taken place in (especially in the longrun) and thats a fact.whoisryanmack

Where being poorly served as we are now.. Didn't you know?

You need a 360

No.. all I'm seeing is shooters.. and a couple of lackluster RPGs..