You know, for a while there I thought the whole "One console future" concept was a load of horse carp, but now that I've heard in-depth conversations on the matter, I'm starting to kind of believe in it.

I mean, like it or not, at the end of every console generation only the system that sold the most really matters anyway. Sure the other two have dedicated fans, but at the end of the race all that matters is sales numbers.

If we can eliminate this race, think of how much of that effort can be spent on making great games for a single console. This would also eliminate console exclusive games, which I think is a good thing for everyone.

Not only that, if competition between console makers were to disappear and only one console were to be produced, think of how much the competition between the developers would increase. I think this would literally jump start the games industry as developers could no longer use their platform of choice to make a name for themselves. They could no longer use a brand name to back sales of their games.

They'd have to prove their games were worth something by making good games. As the old saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.

At the same time though, competition is what keeps a business healthy and I worry that if the market were to head into a one console future we may never see a real leap forward on the hardware side of things. However, that point starts to become a little less significant when you factor in the rate of technological advancement. Eventually gaming consoles are going to get to a point graphically where the jump from one hardware generation to the next is nearly impossible to notice. Should we come to this point, the hardware developers will be forced to innovate in other areas -- game play, artificial intelligence, story telling, online functionality, etc.

Sure it's a bit far-fetched and probably a little unrealistic of a concept, but it's fun to sit and think about what just may come to fruition in the years ahead for gaming.

What do you guys think?

---

the only thing that scares me about a one console future is how competitive the pricing of the console will be

the only thing that scares me about a one console future is how competitive the pricing of the console will be

What do you mean?

Pricing of the systems or of the games?

---

the only thing that scares me about a one console future is how competitive the pricing of the console will be

What do you mean?

Pricing of the systems or of the games?

console

Enough with the quotes, Jesus.

Anyway, I don't think it'll be too bad. I mean, time has shown over and over again that consumers won't pay high prices for a system (lololo $600 PS3).

I think that the market will determine the sweet spot for a price point and I honestly hope that Microsoft leads the charge. I don't think Sony or Nintendo are capable of pulling something like this off.

---

pc
i think if done right pc would be the best single platform.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

We're talking about consoles here. PC gaming has traditionally been an open platform allowing user mods and stuff like that.

I'm talking about a closed system much like (While I despise the comparison) iPod + iTunes, where a system, in this case presumably the next Xbox is the only means of playing content you buy from one provider, aka Microsoft.

Now I'm not saying that digital distribution will be the way this is handled should it go down, because I think disc-based media is still very valid in today's market, but I think it will be something along those lines. Developers will pitch game ideas to Microsoft for license much like they do now, only if they don't get approved they just don't make a game as there would be no other system to publish it on.

Sounds a bit stifling and it has the opportunity to become a monopoly, but I still think if a developer wanted to make a game that bad they'd go back to the drawing board and come back with a better game and a better presentation to prove that they want to make this game and put it into people's hands.

---

This is an awful idea. Competition is good for everyone. I never want to see this.

no i think pc has the potential to do something like this (not going to happen for sure though)

microsoft and some other people would have to establish some sort of like, ok, you need to have the game run good on this rig for the next two years or so. make some sort of standard current gaming pc that someone can go out and buy and be able to play the latest games, do alot more things like bfh to combat piracy, almost every computer is hooked up to the internet so it would help digital distribution get going faster than i bet it would on consoles.

dude i've been thinking about this madly for the past few weeks.

^Isn't that the XBOX360?

This is an awful idea. Competition is good for everyone. I never want to see this.

Exactly. But I don't think competition between hardware makers is as relevant now as it used to be.

Previously the three or so consoles available at the same time were very different in their functions and approach to gaming.

While the approaches of the current 3 systems are certainly varied, I still think there is no need for the PS3 and 360 to be competing. They are targeting the same audience and one console is doing a much better job of appeasing that audience than the other.

My whole point is that by removing the focused competition between hardware makers you then place the larger part of it on the developers which will only lead to better games.

At this point I'm perfectly happy with where hardware is at technically. I don't think visuals or framerates are going to get much better from here on out, so naturally I don't think there needs to be competition between two high-end machines, aka the PS3 and 360.

However, the Wii does sort of throw a wrench into this whole scheme yet at the same time reinforces the basic concepts behind it. The Wii has proven that a significant difference in design can result in a huge profit margin, but also proves that not everyone is dissatisfied with current technology amongst gaming hardware. I mean really, 10 million people don't just settle for last-gen graphics for no reason.

At the same time though the Wii has proven to be a breeding ground for bad games because Nintendo isn't really doing the best job it could at monitoring what is allowed to be published for their system.

Again, I think that increased competition among developers would eradicate this problem as natural competition would push them to make better games. Not necessarily more hardcore games because what is considered "good" is purely subjective, but just a higher pedigree of games in general.

Do I really think this could work out with the sort of market structure the world is embracing? No, not really. Free market economies are far too wide spread for something like this to truly happen, but even so, I like talking about it and what something like this might bring to the table.

---

I find this to be a lot like communism. Great in theory, absolutely god-awful in execution.

I find this to be a lot like communism. Great in theory, absolutely god-awful in execution.

Ha ha ha, maybe so. But I still think it's worth considering.

I honestly foresee gaming heading in this general direction anyhow what with the increased production costs involved in making games and when a developer has to spread resources across multiple platforms I could understand why an idea like this might be appealing to them.

Even if there is no one console future, I do foresee there being some sort of standard enacted to help regulate the industry.

Video games are still a relatively new form of media and as such they still have a lot of kinks to work out.

Personally I'm excited to see where things head after the current generation of consoles has passed.

---

well commies did invent tetris right

dude I'm going to get my post from random thoughts and post it here
brad thats how it looks to me aswell, starts as socialism with good intention and ends in communism

well yeah but what if the socialist console is like cuba and does it right

tief'd from random thoughts: ps took a while to write so that it made sense: pss ok:

roan, nice post. got me thinkn
but I can't say I believe in it.(don't take this as outright counter-point or anything)

Competition, you mention in your second last paragraph, is exactly why. I just don't see how Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft (or other corporations to come) would withdraw from this profitable market (unless they were in the red or something). Nothing drives innovation like competition.

Socialism is great on paper but in real life works for a while and then loses steam. So an uber platform would work great in principle, but all it takes is some heavy handed complacency that comes across as dictatorship and some one will want to do it better.

I too am thinking that graphics are pretty soon aproaching their plateau, but factors such as how interactive, how open ended, physics, interfaces, ergonomics and "game play, artificial intelligence, story telling, online functionality" will (are) all become(ing) more important. As the the saying goes, "jack of all trades, master of none". no one machine would be able to excell in all the above for a reasonable amount of money in the near future. in additition, were it truely the only machine, the hardware market is monopolized, so why even strive for excellence?

the factors mentioned above are important to the different genres too. Depending on the audience and exprience the devs want to create justifies choice of more than one console.

hope that was somewhat cohesive

sam, money is involved and its international in this case.
: ( sadface

sam, money is involved and its international in this case.
: ( sadface

well at least all the fanboys wouldn't be so damn annoying anymore

sam, money is involved and its international in this case.
: ( sadface

well at least all the fanboys wouldn't be so damn annoying anymore

Ha ha ha, yes, this would definitely be another pro to this idea. lol

---

^ Canada is socialist.

^ Canada is socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_soc..._countries

That's a list of countries that have declared themselves to be socialist. Not countries who have primarily socialist policies.

Also, I'm a socialist. It's when the commy retards get involved that carp gets carp up. :[

but wikipedia is always right about everything since it can be edited by anyone anywhere

tell me, how much do you know about the canadian government

also, fyi, the liberal party of canada isn't left wing, they're right centrist, and the conservative party of canada is farther to the right, the NDP is too far left to be centrist, the green party is kind of floating in it's own little balloon doing weird carp (seriously, hippy-carp environmental/international policies and seriously conservative social policies? what?) and the PQ/Bloc is the NDP but french and they hate everybody not from quebec (though if it wasn't for the whole seperatist/only running in quebec thing I'd vote for them)