For or Against? One Console Future

[KageMaru]

Not sure if the mods prefer this be in the Smackdown forum or not, if so feel free to move it there if you wish (not that you need my permission ). I just see that section to debate where here we can discuss topics.

Do you hope this industry leads to a one console future or do you fear the lack of competition will stall innovation?

I was going to post a paragraph that supported both sides, but I much rather read what other people think.

For me, I want a one console future, no doubt. The line that divides today's consoles is already more blurry than ever before and I see the similarities only growing in future console releases. This gen, we're seeing a longer life cycle of our console, the same should especially be true if we had only one console in the market. This would allow developers more time with the hardware instead of forcing them to reinvent the wheel right when they are hitting on all cylinders with the current hardware.

With only one console, developers could further optimize their games better than if they had to split their resources between two or three different SKUs. With better optimized games, we should have less bugs and more polish, theoretically raising the potential quality of most titles. Publishers wouldn't have to pay extra to support multiple SKUs and at the same time wouldn't be losing out on install base since anyone that would own a Sony, MS, or Ninty console would just own that one system. Competition wouldn't be an issue since developers would still be competing with each other for our attention and dollars.

On top of all this, we wouldn't have to deal with stupid console warriors throwing logic out the window for senseless allegiances. We would finally be one!

[hairlesswookiee]

I'm against the 1 console in the future. More competition= more innovation and no price gouging. Also, I prefer to see multiple attempts/interpretations of how companies will approach software/services. For example MS and Sony both have online gaming, but both have different price structures and features.

[upgrayedd]

I think you will find most people will be against a one console future... unless they are an extreme fanboy.

[Chiron]

I'd have to agree. While it seems more inconvenient on the surface (exclusive games and DLC, different pricing schemes, etc.), more choice is always better.

[Dragonyeuw]

Against. I want choice, plain and simple. No competition= no innovation.....

[sk33tr]

Against. I want choice, plain and simple. No competition= no innovation.....

couldn't agree more.

monopoly means price gouging.

[murphjp]

I'm for it its called the PC.

[upgrayedd]

I'm for it its called the PC.

That was a good one.

[Mase]

The PS2 era had little to no comp and gaming was just fine, we seen a lot of great PS2 titles and devs continued to stretch the PS2s resources. I dont know how many times I kept hearing that the console was maxed, only to see better and better games....

I dont know, I like choice and am always one to promote competition in business but who knows..... I dont mind the way things are now, I wish third party games wouldnt have such a disparity between the two consoles but the architecture is soo different it makes sense...

[chipvideo]

One console would be stale. No competition would suck for us. We need the big three to keep fighting it out to keep each side on the up and up and bring their A-game.

[rm082e]

As we have discussed on many occasions Kage, I am totally against this idea. I don't think the trade off is worth it. Games that look and run marginally better aren't worth sacrificing innovation. Just look at how far the PS3 and 360 have come since their launch - do you think either company would have done even half as much to improve the end user experience if they hadn't been in competition with each other?

Not to mention the idea of a "first party" studio goes out the window in this scenario because no one is motivated to grow the install base. All they will care about is being profitable on the hardware, and selling as many units as they can. That means MS and Sony wouldn't give those great developers giant budgets and tons of resources to make "system seller" games. They would get a better return on investment making a cheap, reliable piece of hardware and dumping all their money into marketing.

And then of course there's the online aspect. Live runs great because MS controls every aspect of it and moderates the community to keep the pool somewhat clean. If there were an industry standard console, the online features would have to be totally open. You realize that means the community would essentially mirror the PC. Is that what you really want?


If you want better graphics, frame rates, textures, etc. why not just move to PC gaming now?

[Dragonyeuw]

do you think either company would have done even half as much to improve the end user experience if they hadn't been in competition with each other?

Pretty much this.

[KageMaru]

Kind of surprised by the replies. It's great to have differences of opinions though.

For one I don't see price gouging being much of a concern. While Sony wasn't price gouging, the ps3 was expensive to make, I think we all saw what happens if a console is priced too high: people don't buy it. It would benefit almost no one, even the company manufacturing said console, to price gouge. Even if a system were to be released at $500, which is beyond my price limit for a game console, it would still be cheaper than the $1250 the early adopters had to spend this generation (assuming they opted for the high end versions).

I also question the lack of innovation argument. IMO we saw little innovation this generation in terms of hardware, instead we saw companies just trying to match each other's bullet points for what their console offer. Especially when looking at just the ps3 and 360, considering how close the two are in performance and features, who is to say that the differences between future consoles won't be even closer? Besides, natural evolution and innovation will still be necessary or the market will have little incentive to move on to the next generation of hardware.

The way I see it, the focus and competition would be moved where this industry should matter: the software. Who wouldn't want Mario, God of War, and Halo on the same console?

I think you will find most people will be against a one console future... unless they are an extreme fanboy.

So David Jaffe and Dennis Dyak are extreme fanboys? I'm sorry but this comment makes no sense to me at all. Fanboys would have nothing to gain from a one console future.

As we have discussed on many occasions Kage, I am totally against this idea. I don't think the trade off is worth it. Games that look and run marginally better aren't worth sacrificing innovation. Just look at how far the PS3 and 360 have come since their launch - do you think either company would have done even half as much to improve the end user experience if they hadn't been in competition with each other?

The main improvements I see this gen was MS improving the hardware while Sony improving PSN. True both have added features and improved the OS, but who is to say that this wouldn't have happened without the other player? I know that question can be twisted the other way around, but in the end it's not certain that without each other we wouldn't still see the video marketplace, game marketplace, etc.

Not to mention the idea of a "first party" studio goes out the window in this scenario because no one is motivated to grow the install base. All they will care about is being profitable on the hardware, and selling as many units as they can. That means MS and Sony wouldn't give those great developers giant budgets and tons of resources to make "system seller" games. They would get a better return on investment making a cheap, reliable piece of hardware and dumping all their money into marketing.

They would be directly competing with every other publisher and game in the market, if that isn't incentive to invest in and produce high quality games, I don't know what is. Driving the grow the install base would benefit every company producing software for this one platform.

As for making a cheap reliable piece of hardware, well I don't really see all 3 making the hardware (will touch on that later) but with the possibility that we may be hitting the tech wall within the next generation or two, there is a chance that we will see a bunch of Wii-type upgrades regardless if we have one or three consoles in the market.

And then of course there's the online aspect. Live runs great because MS controls every aspect of it and moderates the community to keep the pool somewhat clean. If there were an industry standard console, the online features would have to be totally open. You realize that means the community would essentially mirror the PC. Is that what you really want?


If you want better graphics, frame rates, textures, etc. why not just move to PC gaming now?

I see you here and I never said a one console future wouldn't have it's difficulties or speed bumps. I'm also sure the possibility of this scenario being close to none, but if Sony made the hardware, MS provided the tools and Live, and Nintendo just went to software I see a wonderful collaboration of each companies strength producing one awesome console.

Also it's not about better graphics and etc. It's about a shift that could benefit the game industry as a whole. With all the counter points of innovation, price gouging, and so on, I think the market itself would keep all of that under control or the consumers just won't buy into it. Maybe what I want is a pipe dream, but I know I'm not the only one who thinks it will happen at some point in time.

[Snadinator]

I'm against the 1 console in the future. More competition= more innovation and no price gouging. Also, I prefer to see multiple attempts/interpretations of how companies will approach software/services. For example MS and Sony both have online gaming, but both have different price structures and features.

DVD is one architecture and it did not prevent competition, in fact it improves competition. If consoles had a determined architecture, you'd see Samsung, Panasonic, Pioneer and cheap Chinese brands jump in.

It would also be in the interest of developpers as they would have one architecture to develop for and also in the interest of retailers so they wouldn't have to stock the same game for 3 different consoles.

It needs to happen.

[Pyrochaos]

Of course developers want a one console future, it's easier and cheaper for them to make games that way.

Consumers, on the other hand, should absolutely not want that. Plus even if there was a monopoly on consoles, there would always be another electronics company would would want a piece of that pie. If MS dropped out, Panasonic or Samsung or someone would jump in. If MS and Sony Dropped out, Sega would most likely come back in (we can dream).