Since consoles are so closed in and monopolistic and the console manufacturers seem intent on creating consoles cut from the same cloth as each other, there really isn't any need to have more than one console manufacturer or console standard. Its wasteful for people to own more than one console and its wasteful for publishers and developers to create games for more than one standard. Furthermore its becoming more important that a single winning format is found because the competing consoles will probably never network with each other and the competing online standards will contunue to drive a wedge between people, making it more difficult for friends to play and communicate with each other.

For several generations consoles have had pretty much identical controller schemes. This generation is different, fine but once a standard is found which makes everybody happy it will become identical in execution at least again. Sony doesn't make games on competing consoles and neither does Nintendo, but thats the least of the concerns here. I really don't care which one decides they want it badly enough or finally executes a crushing blow on the others I just want simplicity, so people can go into a retail store and buy games from one rack and retailers don't have to offer the same titles on 2-4 competing platforms at once.

The alphabetical order of suckyness goes Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony. I don't care if you love two and hate one or love all three they don't have an ordained place on the market and since consoles are monopolistic in nature there will be only one winning format in the end. Its natural for the other losing manufacturers to be kicked to the curb by the market and the previous generation was the perfect example. Add network play into the mix and you've got the possibility that one of the console manufacturers will aquire enough of a lead to make the others irrelevant and stay irrelevant due to how the network effects of online play would keep other companies from competing.

So you're saying the single console model is necessarily better, even if there's no particular incentive to attempt to improve on a given controller method?

Which is to say - you'd be okay with a Dual Shock 4?

Dual Shock 4? You mean a SNES pad with analogs on it?

Theres always an incentive to improve on the controller method. Even the Sixaxis is an improved dual shock and Sony was coming from a monopolistic position.

Esssentially once the market is unified under a single control scheme again theres no need for competing consoles especially now that online play is completely non interoperative and becoming more important at the same time.

That is completely different to how I see it.

Step 1 - a console maker becomes dominant

Step 2 - The other console makers get kicked to the curb, dust themselves off and produce their best work ever

Step 3 - These console makers then become dominant

It happened to Atari, Nintendo, Sony, and it's sure as hell going to happen to Nintendo again one day (probably not for a couple of generations)

Competition breeds innovation

*shudders*

Anyways, i still don't know why people want this, less competition, incentive, and a gaming monopoly, thank god it'll probably never happen

Sony made a Sixaxis because Nintendo made a Wii remote. Sony made a DualShock because Nintendo made a SNES controller and a Nintendo 64 controller and Sony wanted to see what their babies would look like.

So competition makes Nintendo want to innovate control schemes, and competition makes Sony want to catch up.

The only thing you really need is online networking integration so that you can play COD7 online with no matter whether you have a PS4, your buddy has a X720 and your cousin has a Wii2.

You have computers with different OSs operating in the market at the moment with different software standards. No reason consoles should be collapsed to one provider which would be more monopolistic than anything in the past.

Without competition, who's to say that the only gaming company wouldn't become slobbish in its practice? Let's give a made up name- say Zeebo. If the Zeebo were the only console, there would be no reason for it to ever drop price in order to promote sales figures. There would be less innovation due to no competition. They would rake in the money and eventually the gaming would decline.

Competition is essential for all things- it's how humans are. I r starting to think squilliam may be a communist :p!!

We already have the PC.

Ever since the 80's analysts have predicting and saying PC would kill consoles, it's one of the reasons why no one besides Nintendo was motivated to come out with a console after Atari crashed.

There's a reason why this idea doesn't work. People still want dedicated gaming platforms, they want integration of hardware and software development. Super Mario 64 would have never been possible without integration of hardware and software development. Same goes for Wii Sports, Nintendogs, Super Mario Bros. and to a degree Sonic.

People still want unique experiences that flourish from dedicated gaming platforms, and that's why videogame consoles have not been replaced by PCs for gaming, even though everybody has adopted a PC also, the videogame console is still a valuable model for development of quality content.