From what I heard Rare was already in trouble before Microsoft bought them.

Rare isn't destroyed or else why are they still here.

Actually Bungie mishandled themselves or else Destiny wouldn't have been a huge disappointment.

Great idea.

MS could make a system(s) that focusses on graphics, singleplayer, online services and 3rd party games. Nintendo could make a console designed around portability, local multiplayer and their unrivalled 1st party games.

Nintendo lacks third party games,Xbox lacks exclusives games ,so IMO they should definitely team up to fulfill each others need and they are very clever business corporations unlike Sony/PlayStation.

Looks like the brainwashing of the console makers works like a charm.

Nothing of what you said is actually happening on current open platforms. If we have one open software platform everyone is free to do what they want. People can make their own fork of the platform and offer their own apps and features. Games will all be made for the same platform and will of course be scalable like they already are on PC. Everyone can buy the hardware they want and all games will be running on it depending on the specs.

Competition will be at their highest because it isn't made easy by locking games behind a plastic box that nobody wants.I mean look what the current awesome competition has made.

One platform that is so dominant that it can just lock online features behind a paywall and arbitrarily increase that price by 20% because they are SO scared of the competition.
Then we have the platform that just launched but features hardware that barely outperforms 2010 hardware with the worst online system on the market. Also they just made a previously free service paid. Looks like they're REALLY scared of the "competition".

Then we have have a platform that is drifting out of relevance and its only chance is acquiring games and paying money just so that other people cannot play those games. Great bonus for consumers because of "competition".

Yeah, people are really profiting from this so called "competition".

Shit like that won't fly on an open platform because there consumers have actual choice and that is the actual thing that scares companies. Because when there is choice, there is competition. In the current console market there is zero choice.

Look at PC and look at android. Free platforms that people make money with despite all games being available to everyone on that platform. There is choice in hardware, choice in game configurations, choice in peripherals, choice in software modifications. That industry thrives because it's welcoming to both consumers and creators without locking anyone out. And because it's so open, there is actual incentives to create good software.

1 big release each month only for 1st party is definetly too much, you would have a platform where people would only buy 1st party or where 1st and 3rd party titles would have to fight off each other. That would definetly be not sustainable. Let alone Ps4 is already so much supported that Sony decided rationalize and cut down their sheer number of 1st party studios.

On the contrary on Xbox MS could just continue to release their periodic Halo and Forza title and Nintendo would be more than enough to cover the rest, also they could work on more ambitious titles since they wouldn't have to pour resources to fill the gaps in the release schedule (since they would have 3rd parties for that).

We can't afford to lose the competition between Sony and MS. So, if a Nintendo/MS partnership results in hardware that direcly competes with PS, but has Nintendo IP, then I think it would be great. If it gave us less powerful Halo, and gimmick controllers, I think it would be terrible for the industry.

I agree with most of this.  However, the big downside to "open" platforms is that the cost of hardware will go way up, as it must be sold at a profit.  

A unified platform would be financially a great soultion for gamers but it would have its downsides too.

One main problem is, who decides the standards of a unified platform? Not just graphical standards, also service standards, interface standards etc. ?

What if I don't like the standards proposed on the unified paltform? I wouldn't have any other choice to go with as an alternative.

Take VR for example, who gets to decide which is the best standard between Oculus, Vive or PS VR? By having multiple choices I can go with the solution I like the most. On a unified platform I would be stuck with just one. Alternatively you could have multiple standards supported at the same time, but in that case you still wouldn't be able to enjoy every game you want on a single setup.

Another thing to consider. Right now games are mostly more affordable on PC but developers take this into account to when they determine the budget of their games. In fact biggest multuplaform releases get prioritied on consoles beacuse publishers know they can have bigger margins on console versions.

If suddently PCs had to become the only avaliable platform, publishers would fight hard to get their margins up or they would seek alternative ways to monetize. Probably every big publisher would open its own closed store like EA Origins or Uplay.

Would be a good idea, but i don't see Nintendo doing it cause they care about selling hardware.