"hardware differences will not only become less important, but lose their value altogether," he said. "Just like a DVD or a camera," that's when I stopped listening.

He's not talking about one console coming out on top; he's talking about the consoles becoming compatible with one another, like Dell, HP, IBM, and so on.

Not happening. Ever. EVER.

Well put. It is, however, a utopian vision for developers. Look at that list: Dyack is dreaming of a time when a game he releases can be released to 100 percent market share at a lower production cost per game. Instead, of, oh, just as an example, releasing a game to 40 percent market share with enormous developmental issues supposedly related to graphics engine multi-platform design. Again, just an example.

*plop* What?

He uses cell phones as a comparison? In the time it's taken me to reply 13 new cell phones have been released and 32 more have just become obsolete (including mine).

One console? To paraphrase a famous research analyst based in, um, Middle-Earth:

One console to rule them all
One console to find them
one console to bring customers all
and in monopoly darkness bind them

...whoops, it seems some plucky hobbit gamers and a consortium of code wizards tossed this devplan into the fires of Mt. Doom. We now return you to your regular programming...

Agree here.  Not only would we have the Wiimote i doubt we'd have the PS3, or 360.  We'd probably have a lower powered product.

3 systems is about right as it's enough to drive innovation and take up enough so that one system can't throw such a beatdown on another that the other goes out of buisness. (Even the gamecube made money right?)

Plus 3 is just the right amount for me to get all three... and that's all that really matters right? (Other then making sure innovation, lower prices and better technology in general happen.)

I wish there would be more than 3 consoles out there because as most people here said: Competition drives innovation. Why would a company that produces the only gaming console out there make quick price cuts, produce good games and provide quality service when there is nobody their customers can go to. Even with one console dominating gamers always have a choice of what console they want to get.

My best example would EBGames merging with Gamestop, as most people have been saying that nowadays gamestop is providing crap customer service, overcharges for used games and pay cents for used games in great condition. I am very pleased to find out that a PlaynTrade store opened near my house, because they have lower prices, better promotions, video game tournaments with cash and game prizes(brawl, gears of war, guitar hero etc.) and most importantly they dont ask me if i want to preorder the dam games every f*ing visit.

Agree with most posts here. Anything where there is so much money to be made will always have lots of competition.

Biggest chance is if MS decide to pull out - spin off a special division that works with Nintendo (as some form of co-op) - although no real reason why Ninty would say yes. This could overwhelm Sony who may be forced to join them.

If MS join Sony, they might be big enough to share the market with Ninty.

I can dream up various scenarios - imagine SquareEnix joining Apple - exclusive titles on their console only. 

I would like to see Apple enter the video game console market. It would be an interesting venture.

In two or three generations it could happen. But I don't think industry giants would go for it, EA, Ubisoft, THQ, benefit from having multiple platforms. If the platform fails, then they would be screwed. Plus Nintendo and Sony would never sign on, and they are too big of a players. MS might as long as they get to brand it, and own the rights, but Nintendo is never getting out of the Hardware business, that is what they do.