Would you want a 1 console generation?

This being system wars, people are constantly debating and discussing the pros and cons for each system, but I always thought it would be great if in the next gen of systems, there was only one main system to choose from. Just imagine if Sony and Microsoft (i'm excluding nintendo and the wii because it's a different beast altogether) teamed together to make one incredible console. This way, the online community would be hugely expanded and everyone would be able to play every game with anyone. Also this would help game devs because they could develop a game for only one system, but have a much larger install base. This would help them to make more money and make a higher quality game. I think that this would be GREAT but i highly doubt this will happen. Tell me your opinion.

This being system wars, people are constantly debating and discussing the pros and cons for each system, but I always thought it would be great if in the next gen of systems, there was only one main system to choose from. Just imagine if Sony and Microsoft (i'm excluding nintendo and the wii because it's a different beast altogether) teamed together to make one incredible console. This way, the online community would be hugely expanded and everyone would be able to play every game with anyone. Also this would help game devs because they could develop a game for only one system, but have a much larger install base. This would help them to make more money and make a higher quality game. I think that this would be GREAT but i highly doubt this will happen. Tell me your opinion.

jasong1011

At first it would seem great and everyone would be happy because everything is unified and games are of higher quality. However, after a while things would become stale and the technology we once drooled over would seem pretty dated. Since there would be no competition, there would be no reason for real innovation and keeping up with the times in terms of hardware technology from the console maker.

Take the PS3 for instance, when it came out at the end of 2006 it was a technological beast, by today's standards it's merely average, and by 2016 (10 year life cycle) an everyday smart phone will probably be more powerful.

Using the PS3 as an example, I don't think many gamers would want to play 2006 tech in 2016, especially when gaming computers by that time would be light years ahead. We need progress to keep things fresh, if there is no competition then there is very little progress. All in all, I do not want a single unified console.

Nah, gimme multiple consoles. I like to see System Wars erupt, every once in a while.

I wouldn't mind having just one console for one generation. It would still have competition and that's the PC.

No,competition is healthy for the consumer and needed for industry growth.

one of the central laws of business

competition is good for the consumer...

it forces better games, better prices, better consoles...

its good no matter what industry ur in.

Nooo, competition is essential to a high-quality gaming industry... If either Microsoft or Sony had been the only console manufacturer this gen, they would have been able to get away with $600 prices or insane failure rates.Funkyhamster

Ps3 cost more than 800$ to make.

Personally I'd love a two console generation, but if one was vastly superior to the other then it'd be far too easily to monopolize the industry.

Three is good, one would be terrible.

[QUOTE="Funkyhamster"]Nooo, competition is essential to a high-quality gaming industry... If either Microsoft or Sony had been the only console manufacturer this gen, they would have been able to get away with $600 prices or insane failure rates.SragentThom

Ps3 cost more than 800$ to make.

heck no

Yeah it is better to make just competition with make the best games...no need for 3 different consoles.

This is a one console gen for me. As a PC gamer, only one console interest me and that is the PS3. The 360 breaks to much and has no games for me and the wii, well lets just say I consider the Wii a last gen console and just leave it at that.

[QUOTE="Funkyhamster"]Nooo, competition is essential to a high-quality gaming industry... If either Microsoft or Sony had been the only console manufacturer this gen, they would have been able to get away with $600 prices or insane failure rates.SragentThom

Ps3 cost more than 800$ to make.

There already is such a system, only it is not owned by any monopoly. It's called the PC.

Then there'd be no fun on System Wars.siLVURcross

Absolutely not. Having competition is what drives the companies to do better and out-do each other. If it turns into a monopoly, there would be no reason to innovate or come up with anything fresh since customers have nothing else to turn to.

At first it would seem great and everyone would be happy because everything is unified and games are of higher quality. However, after a while things would become stale and the technology we once drooled over would seem pretty dated. Since there would be no competition, there would be no reason for real innovation and keeping up with the times in terms of hardware technology from the console maker.

Take the PS3 for instance, when it came out at the end of 2006 it was a technological beast, by today's standards it's merely average, and by 2016 (10 year life cycle) an everyday smart phone will probably be more powerful.

Using the PS3 as an example, I don't think many gamers would want to play 2006 tech in 2016, especially when gaming computers by that time would be light years ahead. We need progress to keep things fresh, if there is no competition then there is very little progress. All in all, I do not want a single unified console.

karasill

Nailed with the fourth post. After all, competition is healthy.