This whole monopoly argument can be seen both ways. Many game devs actually would prefer to make games for only one console. This would save them so much more money, and allow more games, better optimized games, and just all around more innovative and fun games. Although, at the same time, only one console would limit the innovation of what they could do with it. After it is released, they couldn't add anything majorly innovative without changing the main hardware or offering a plethora of attachments.
Either way, I think 2 choices would be better than 3. One for the more hardcore, and one more for the casual. (Kind of like how it was before Xbox) Being an Xbox 360 and PS3 owner, I'd probably prefer it if Microsoft became the only hard core console. It would lead to a lot better games, better hardware for cheaper, and services like Live would probably see a great decrease in cost because it would have many more subscribers and other revenue sources. A single console (or 1 for each major class of gamer) could go either way, but I think for the most part, it's where we will be eventually and I think it would be better for the majority of people involved.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
