I've had this idea for a thread for quite a while now and today I've decided to present it with a poll.

What I want you guys to tell me is what kind of console generation do you prefer. A one console leader generation like the NES, PS1 and PS2 eras where most games and gamers flooded to the console that was very clearly leading the market, or rather a multiconsole generation such as the SNES/Genesis and PS3/Wii/360 generations where no console is reigning supreme over marketshare, games and gamers, even though there's always someone running faster than everyone else.

There are, obviously, advantagens and disadvantages. A one console leader generation like the PS2 era was might seem like heaven, since it has most games, they are tailored specifically to that console and you don't have to spend so much money buying consoles. If you're not fond of the company in the lead and its games though, you won't be a happy panda for at least 5 years, since the other consoles in such a generation generally get much fewer games, their quality notwithstanding however.

A multiconsole generation, on the other hand, may foster competition, but it might dilute the market as well. I believe this generation is a good example of that, with the much talked about casual and hardcore divide.

I'd like you to vote and then make a post about your preference and what positives and negatives you think your choice has. Thanks! :)

I loved how I pretty much only needed a PS2 last gen, so a clear leader.
And I don't really care whether it's Sony or Nintendo since I don't care about the 1st party all that much. Neither about the companies themselves. Not including MS because I don't see them being a clear leader in Japan, and I mostly play Japanese games.

There needs to be two systems out there much like there needs to be two mass retailers (Target and Wal-Mart).

Why?

1) Price Competition - When there are two companies the customer always wins because prices will be cheaper. If there was only one console leader then you can expect to pay higher prices if theres no alternative (legally of course).

2) More Games - Theres no guarantee that Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony would stay in the business if they left the console business. It would be nice to have every game on one system, but since that system would have every game out on the market whos to say some companies won't pull out? Over saturation could effect sales.

3) Variety - Goes along with More Games, but different consoles have different controls as well as online abilities (Example, Sony or MS vs Nintendo's online ideas. It's night and day right there.) and of course controls (Speaking of night and day, Wii Controls vs the standard 360 and PS3 controller.)

4) Oh yeah... Price. - Again, everyone thought $500 was expensive? Imagine if It's your only choice, and the price just went up to $600. This might drive more people to the PC market, but I bet a lot of people will swallow the bitter pill to keep with the consoles.

5) The Developers get screwed to - You know those things called royalties? Well one company charges less then another (honestly I don't have facts to who charges what, but I can assure you one company will pay for exclusivity or cut royalties for certain companies) well if theres only one clear cut console choice then It's obvious the fees are going to go up, and in return companies will not make as much profit and/or have to raise the game prices... again.

In conclusion: I think It's very healthy to have two consoles in the race, because we still have the PC market to go to when all else fails. I would not be dissapointed if one of the big three drop out, though I know some people will be.

Multi-console for me, its boring if one console kills the competition.

I'm surprised that multiconsole is ahead in the poll. My preference also lies with the one console leader side, as long as there are other consoles to create the much needed market balance MonstaMack explained.

I'm also not too fond of the one console market as it eliminates choice and could possibly lead to what, once again, MonstaMack said. Not even if it was Sony leading the charge. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.

Multi-console, it's the best for gamers.

Overall, I'd prefer each generation to have 1 clear console leader, and I don't much care who that leader is. I'd like to keep competition going, so I enjoy it when new consoles are released and when the underdogs bring something new to the table though.

However, from a purely consumer budget perspective, I'd much rather only have to buy 1 console each generation to play the majority of games. Having to buy more than 1 console is just far too expensive as I've found this gen. At least with the PS1/PS2 I could play nearly all the games I could possibly want to play (+ PC) without having to shell out an extra £200-300.

Well 90% of my favourite games come from the Snes and Wii generation's, so I'm gonna have to vote close competition because it forces companies to do their best to win our moneys

I admit, I miss the days where I could buy EVERYTHING for my PS2 but, to tell the truth, I love buying new electronics. I love owning multiple consoles. It's more of a hobby than anything, though.

One console is probably good for the consumer.
Multiple consoles is more fun for me.

multiconsole.

beeing a nintendo-only fan was very hard during the last two generations.