would there still be a console war? I think yes because people are going to say they got the better version or their version was cheaper because they got it on a cheaper console? I think it won't be as severe though. More people who own different consoles would get along though.

Yeah I also thought off that or if all the games came on the same software(disc or whatever) and could be used in any system.

There would still be a console war though between who can sell more of their consoles it would also be easier for other companies to jump into the video games market.

You describe a case of perfect competition. Which is actually not good in the entertainment medium, as it means that all products ultimately end up being equivalent. In perfect (or rather, near-perfect) markets, no one manufacturer is favored over any other, as none have anything compelling over the other; that's precisely what you describe. The only way that could possibly end up differently is if the consoles were still not equal, in which case the least expensive would win due to the natural consumer drive to maximize utility per dollar spent.

If every console in the same gen got every game ...........................

The more expensive ones would be wiped out instantly.

Ok lets say each console had different features.
Ps3-best graphics
360- additional content and superior online
Wii- controls and overall gameplay

Would there still be a console war?

This generation yes, because games would play very differently on Wii vs 360/PS3 (but 360 would be toast with neither Blu-ray or exclusives to offer).

Last generation... probably not. GC probably would have won easily since it was cheapest (and better graphics than PS2 to boot!)

Even in your scenario, the least expensive system still wins. What constitutes utility varies from person to person, but the overall experience tends to be the largest source of utility for most. In other words, the more fun is had, the more utility is gained. To that end, superior gameplay and immersive controls would result in more utility than more content or better visuals. So, let's come up with some arbitrary numbers weighted according to an "average" consumer's interests...

PS3 Overall Utility = 500 (200 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 100 content)
360 Overall Utility = 450 (150 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 200 content)
Wii Overall Utility = 600 (100 graphics, 200 gameplay, 200 controls, 100 content)

PS3 price = $500 Utility = 1 per $1
360 price = $300 Utility = 1.5 per $1
Wii price = $250 Utility = 2.4 per $1

Of course, the breakdown would be different for a self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamer, but they don't make up the market majority by any stretch of the imagination.

^^In that case, no, there wouldn't be much of a 'war' per se, like there is now. All games would be one format.

It's just like with movies. Sure, we recently saw Blu-Ray and HD-DVD beat the crap out of each other. But have we ever felt there was a 'war' going on between manufacturers of good ol' DVD players? People on a budget go for the $99 impulse-buy version that doesn't take up much space and . People with exorbitant amounts of extra cash go for the $499 one deluxe model with fast read speeds and high durability.

Everybody wins on both sides.

There wouldn't be much of a console war in that situation, no. But then there'd also be less innovation and fewer attempts to create better and/or cheaper products. Really, the industry would stagnate, and if Nintendo delaying the SNES and continuing to get games on the NES until the mid-90's isn't proof of the industry hitting a standstill when there's no competition, nothing is.

^^ET on atari begs to differ.