Here an interesting article by Next-Gen.biz about the single platform :

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9033&Itemid=2

What do you think about it ( after reading the article ) ?. Discuss

It would be bad for consumers... increased competition = lower cost.

increased competition = cluster fucked generation of gaming.

The 360 is a shotty piece of Hardware with limited Backwards Compatibility that has a limited library of genres and a fast declining stake in the market.

The PS3 is an over the top exercise in excess which has been forced to hack and slash away its features and capabilities just to be affordable sacrificing Backwards Compatibility. Not to mention the trainwreck that is Six-Axis, the mediocrity of PS-Eye and the fact that almost every third party game that is also on the 360 is better on the 360.

The Wii is a console with limited graphical power and a handicapped library suffering from lack of serious third party support and no sign of this ever being fixed.

All three consoles have serious significant problems. There is really no clear winner unless you say the Wii and even then its a bittersweet Victory I assure you.

Tell me exactly how anyone if fucking winning this generation with three consoles wrought with a meriad of problems that renders all three as bittersweet options. And with games $10 more expensive on two of the three consoles and the average console cost jumping from $200-$300 to $400-$600 this generaiton, how the hell are prices being cut? Oh a cheaper PS3? Sorry I don't think it counts when you have to gimp the console to make it affordable.

It was competition that pushed Sony and MS to build two of the biggest and most financially inflated consoles the main stream market has ever seen. The Consumers are not winning here.

The only thing competition has done for this generation is create a generation where the average consumer has to buy all three consoles just to induldge his typically modest interests in games. Franchises are splattered haphazardly across consoles with no regard for fanbase. The only thing competition is benefiting this generation are the third party developers, and even then that's debateable.

What do you call a generation where no one wins? You call it "this generation".

Im winning GGE! Im playing the best games ive ever played (excepting Goldeneye and Zelda OoT. I have a Wii and 360 and competition is forcing massive investment in new ideas and boundary pushing in story-telling and gameplay.

That article does present a convincing argument. I think it would actually help rather than hinder innovation. A small software company who can only afford to release on one platform is more likely to go with a tried and tested genre. If there's one platform like, say, DVD for film now, they can afford to take more risks because there's a larger potential audience available for their niche product.

Insane ramblings of a madman. At one point, the PS2 was exaggerated to be the equivalent of a super computer, and only cost $300. Specs for Crisis are so high, that you need to enhance your computer just to play it. The PS3 is supposed to be so powerful that once Sony unlocks it's full potential, it will actually allow you to see into the future, AND glimpse into Heaven.

All of this enhanced technology......for VIDEO GAMES. Not for curing cancer, or solving the world's energy problems. All of this technology stems from different companies trying to one-up each other for our dollar. The Snes was born because of the Sega Genesis. The PS1 was born from need to improve on the Snes. Sega's failed peripherals (their attempts to innovate beyond the SNES) paved the way.

Without competition, video games would be 10 years behind where we currently are. What would be the motivation to upgrade? Who would decide that the current gen was obsolete? What would drive innovation? How much would it cost? $600? One platform would KILL video games. I'd rather pay for more than one system and remain continually impressed, than own one console and remain in a constant state of "meh".

Hell, competition is half the fun! That's why sites like VGChartz exist! The video game industry is a unique beast. It can't conform to the rules of DVD's and CD's. And that's why one console will NEVER be a reality.

 “aggressively target the Nintendo platforms [Wii and DS] consistent with our multi-platform strategy and Nintendo’s expected growth. In 2008, we will double our offerings on the DS and the Wii, including Guitar Hero, Spider-Man, Shrek, Transformers, Call of Duty, and Tony Hawk.”

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2007/02/08/activision-doubles-wii-and-ds-games-in-2008-this-includes-new-guitar-hero-spider-man-3-shrek-3-transformers.htm

Peter Moore EA - There will be more announcements that will be, if you will, licensed intellectual property that will be, quite frankly, looking at the more casual consumer that we see as a bigger force in the business. We need to do better on the Nintendo platforms, and we intend to do that. It’s a different type of game mechanic that the Nintendo Wii consumer, in particular, can play.

But it's not just EA. Activision, Take-Two and especially Ubisoft are all on board and in full waggle mode. I guess this really does mean no Gamecube-like drought. Let's just hope these aren't "fourth string" teams porting the next great Wii game.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/ea/ea-playing-catch-up-on-wii-250757.php

Not flaming, just saying we should't paint things in such broad strokes. 3rd party support is obviously at least showing signs of getting better, if not looking dowright nice for 08, on the Wii, compared to 07.

Rock Band is just the first game being released on the Wii due to sales. Not bad for an underpowered Nintendo console with weird controls and a couple of little smiling Japanese guys touring the world showing it to everybody.

Also, the Wii stole Monster Hunter 3 from being a PS3 exclusive to a Wii exclusive. That's pretty big business right there. I'd say we're one big Wii game away from this stigma being gone forever.

Iwata tells gamespot something very important:

I'll also mention that according to last December's top 100 games data from the NPD Group, Wii titles are outselling Xbox 360 titles, and only five of the 20 Wii titles on the list were created by Nintendo, with the remaining 15 from third-party developers. But even with those numbers there, that isn't the impression you get. It feels like it takes a bit of time for popular perception to catch up to the actual sales figures.

Smart guy, that Iwata. 

Alot of us are telling outselves that we're winning. Ps3 fanboys are telling themselves they're winning. Wii fanboys are telling themselves they're winning. 360 fanboys are telling themselves they're winning.

I see no new Ideas outside of the Wii's motion controls, just refinements to old ideas and sequels to the same old games. The only real massive investment this generation being made is the one being made in graphics. Aside from Graphics and online capabilities, there's nothing these games are doing this generation that weren't done the last.

And @ Zenfolder

We've been hearing crap like that since the Wii wowed the world with its success but as of late the biggest third party titles are else where. And the promised support from third party developers has been little more than awkward attempts at trying to figure out what the Wii demographic wants instead of the games we want that they're giving everyone else.

Guitar Hero? We already have it. Spider-Man? Because that's a great game franchise to have. Transformers? Is that a joke? Shrek? Oh boy Shrek! Movie Games are the best! Call of Duty? We didn't Get 4 and 3 was a joke. Tony Hawk? Oh boy, who care about DMC4, RE5 or COD4, we're getting Tony Hawk.

sounds to me like he's describing a PC... but oh well....

Let's look at a few points that jump out at me;

"Even in a world with a single platform, there would be room for alternatives that cater to specialists tastes; 99% of cars conform to a pretty narrow range of attributes but there is still a market for way-out automobiles for certain tastes and budgets."

99% of cars conform to a narrow range of specs if you completely abstract it. Engine, 4 wheels, etc.. but when you get down to it, cars are barely identical. Different sized engines, multitude of wheels with different profiles, etc...

"Even then, the default platform would, at some point, need to be updated suggesting some form of transitional fragmentation, advanced versions of games that work with the advanced format and the older format,"

"This is why the single platform would require some form of inherent upgrade-ability both in software and hardware terms."

All these multiple specs cause headache for programmers because now they need to test their stuff on a plethora of hardware. One of the arguments for console gaming is the fact that it is a standardised platform. If we start allowing upgrades, we will end up with the exact same problems we see with PC games.

"But it is certainly possible and, given that you and I might not be thinking about buying a more advanced console than the ones we have for another decade, it doesn’t seem so far-fetched to suggest that technological progression in game hardware is slowing down;"

So he is after a system that is progressively upgradable, in 10 year increments? Even if I was to take his side that tech progression is slowing down (which I feel is WAY off base), 10 years is an exteremely long time in technology.

"An open platform with an installed base of billions would be better than the situation we currently have; with the proviso that progression is built into the plan"

So this open console suddenly increases the gamer market, quite significantly? Just because ever set-top box designer could add this to their setup, they aren't going to. This increases the cost and there are a significantly large amound of people out there who do not want a console. Even if we assume that this was mandatory, just because people have it in their houses doesn't mean they will use that feature.

---

This basically describes what we have with PCs now, except for the fact there aren't 'revision points'. While one day we 'may' end up with realtively unified architecture (as consoles progress closer and closer to PCs) you aren't going to end up with a completely unified specification.