The only problem I see with this is that what would stop the sole Console maker selling there Console for a US$1000 at launch because of no competition and games costing US100 apiece because of high license fees imposed buy the sole Console manufacturer. 

It's about software royalties, Rainbird. Each hardware manufacturer gets royalties for software published on their hardware. If they make fewer royalties off of software (by dividing it - at best - three ways) then they are automatically better off with their own hardware, even with a smalelr userbase.

You have yet to provide any indication that the userbase would be expanded by a single hardware solution.

You have yet to provide any indication that software sustainability would be increased by hardware unification, and you have similarly failed that there are less risks in creating software in an environment where it's even more difficult to differentiate yourself.

If companies make less money on the hardware and software then it doens't matter if they have a larger userbase. Would third parties prefer this solution? Sure. There's no reason that any first party would want to jump on board, though.

It provides no real benefits to gamers.

Without standardized hardware interfaces (read: controls) we don't get games of the same variety that we can get on standardized controllers.

Similarly without standardized controllers, we won't get as many games that are tailored to different control solutions (as in kiss the controller wars goodbye).

With reduced royalties per head, manufacturers with any confidence in their own ability to sell have no reason to "team up", which results in aforementioned reduced royalties.

Incompatible hardware philosophies means endless infighting concerning hardware configurations, which menas that hardware is much less specialized and much more generic.

First parties would have to pay royalties on their own software.

The idea is fantastical to the point of being untenable in that it needs us to pretend that the corporate cultures (and indeed, money-making intent) of all hardware manufacturers would change, it's necessarily limiting in the lack of a single standardized control solution, and it's undesirable in that it is provably and historically a bad move for hardware manufacturers to go third-party in that their entire software culture needs to be built around absolute control of hardware.

What you've done is constructed a fantasy that would not necessarily expand the market, would reduce profits for the stronger manufacturers and relis on doubts by the weakest manufacturers, limits the variety of experiences provided to consumers, and provides an environment in which no one in particular woudl thrive.

On the plus side, I'm sure Activision would love the idea.

I'm aware of this, I just wasn't aware that it was what you were referencing.

On the plus side, going into all this I knew manufacturers would take a big hit on profits which is the greatest hindrance to this, and you haven't actually told me anything I didn't already know when speaking of income.

I still disagree with you on the control and what is provided to the consumer, and my reasoning for that is the same as it has been throughout the thread. 

I see the competition being moved to software and online services. That's where the money will come from with this system in place, and yes, manufacturers will take a hit on profits, but that's the best I have to say on the subject for now. And I still think the market can be expanded with this, if not directly, then through controllers and software bundles (I.E. motion controls and Wii Sports-alikes like the Wii has done now, what will be next for expanding the market is beyond me).

If you subscribe to the idea of killer apps as console pushers, then the question of broadening userbase is a non-issue. There are certain individual games that prompt people to buy consoles, or buy into gaming period. Having those games available across a wider space wouldn't have significantly effected something like, say, Halo 3 or NSMBWii, or Gran Turismo 5 as it rolls around

For less compelling titles, there might be an advantage in having a universal pool to play in, but at the top of the heap, the need for software overwhelms hardware barriers.

Rainbird, you haven't provided a single compelling reason for your expectations. None of it stands up under scrutiny.

No compelling reason for hardware manufacturers, which is why I put this in the OP:

But for gamers and developers, there are compelling reasons galore, which is what this is all about.

You only need one console, you are not bound to one online service, you don't have to worry about what games you can play and who you can play them with. And developers only need to accomodate one platform with one big install base.

It's all the positives of having one totally dominant console, without drawbacks like a lack of competition and choice for the consumer.

That's what's compelling.

True, though that doesn't mean the home console space can't be grown. With a unified console, the home console could become a more compelling offer for someone who is used to playing on PC.

But overall, I huess you guys are right and there won't be a significant growth in install base from a unified console.