KBG29 said: Snip.

I'm not going to bother to reply to everything, because I realise there is no way I can change your mind.

However, answer me this, why would Nintendo give up on one of their biggest strengths, being an integrated hardware and software company, add the fact that they make profit from hardware and royalty fees, for this move? Because I can't think of how they would benefit from this.

And I don't believe this would get rid of consumer confusion, rather it would increase it, because there could be about a dozen variations each with different functions.

And there already exists a platform like the one you are describing, it's called a PC.

I disagree that the lack of competition would eliminate innovation.
Console manufacturers have to fight against disinterest, too.
If there would be a single console in next gen, it would be still required to cut the price, release good games, and even update the hardware.
If they wouldn't, most consumers would simply refuse to buy it when it starts to suck. Video gaming is just an option, not a need. People could always play on PC, (even if PC gaming would be dead, it would be easy to resurrect it), or start looking for other entertainments. Finally, even other console manufacturers could break into the market, since after a long dominance, that console would be so outdated, that they could EASILY beat it.


I think, if there would be a single console manufacturer, it would realize these trends before the end, and try to innovate, release new consoles, add new controllers, and make better games.

Piracy must be fought by one company not a committee

DirectX even killed the open standards on PC

Alterego-X said: I disagree that the lack of competition would eliminate innovation. Console manufacturers have to fight against disinterest, too. If there would be a single console in next gen, it would be still required to cut the price, release good games, and even update the hardware. If they wouldn't, most consumers would simply refuse to buy it when it starts to suck. Video gaming is just an option, not a need. People could always play on PC, (even if PC gaming would be dead, it would be easy to resurrect it), or start looking for other entertainments. Finally, even other console manufacturers could break into the market, since after a long dominance, that console would be so outdated, that they could EASILY beat it. I think, if there would be a single console manufacturer, it would realize these trends before the end, and try to innovate, release new consoles, add new controllers, and make better games.

I disagree.

Without competition, why would a game system suddenly start to suck?  Why don't we all buy SNES games anymore?  Because the SNES started to magically suck on its own?  Or because the SNES started not looking as good as a competing product?

Film and music and every other art form seem to stay interesting without hardware improvements.  Picasso didn't start to suck when digital imaging happened.

The Ghost of RubangB said: I disagree. Without competition, why would a game system suddenly start to suck?  Why don't we all buy SNES games anymore?  Because the SNES started to magically suck on its own?  Or because the SNES started not looking as good as a competing product?

So you believe, that in this scenario, if the publishers would keep releasing sequels for the same game, with the same graphics, that would be basically expansion packs for new levels and missions, people would keep buying them until the end of the world as we know it? 

Also, in this case, why did ANY of Sony, Nintendo, and Sega release the next, 3D generation, that caused a drastic increase in production costs? They could have agreed to stay in that generation's technologiacel level for an eternity, and make much more money, while competiting about other differences, like gameplay.

But it is not just the competition that made them release a new console. Generally, after 3 years, a console's sales start to decline. It is a rule. In this generation, basically every company said that they hope this generation will last longer. they WANT it to last longer. But it is not depending on them. The gamers will get bored, and they must release a new experience, to recreate the interest.

The Ghost of RubangB said: Film and music and every other art form seem to stay interesting without hardware improvements.  Picasso didn't start to suck when digital imaging happened.

Actually, originally I wasn't talking about graphical improvements, but gameplay, and, by an extension, controls. I believe that the graphical quality reached the "good enough" level this generation, and it will be other forms of innovation that will be relevant in the next generation. Technically, Picasso himself didn't start to suck, and SMB 3 didn't start to suck either, but both 2D platformers, AND cubism got outdated. Even the arts show this, while they are less hardware driven than gaming, but the content itself must innovate. Cubism, just like renessaince, baroque, realism, surrealism, all got outdated, for some reason. The same with music, and films. 

i was afraid you might say that the pc should be the only console

yay gaming monopoly!

(a) This won't fly

Microsoft won't support it because it won't have proprietary software in it

Sony won't support it, because it won't have a proprietary Sony storage solution in it

Nintendo will have to make it, by default.

(b) Oh look, they already have

I didnt think u'd have this awkward opinion Squilliam, even if some of your argumentation makes sense (BTW, funny how your OP post reminded me of Rock_on_2008's 'state of the nation declarations'... heh, I miss those).

No, I don't think "there will be only one winning format in the end" as you say.

The console market is huge. I estimate 270 million consoles sold in this gen, split between 3 manufacturors. There's plenty of living room for three market actors for years to come.

We NEED competition.