Should we have a one console-only future?, Not owned by one company?

Hello there. I remember a while ago that mlubczyk from IGN made a comment saying that we should have an one console-only future where all publishers work together on a console instead of one company owning it. While I generally hate the person with a passion, due to his extreme amount of Wii *****ing, he does have an interesting point here. So with all that said, I decided to make an discussion here.

Should we have an one console-only future where all publishers must work together to make the console work as oppose to one company owning it? Post your thoughts here:

In my opinion, I think we should defindently have a one console-only future as long as mlubczyk suggestion comes to life. Companies such as Nintendo will not be judged for everything that happens with the console, but instead as a publisher. Therefore, we can treat each company fairly. On top of that, all type of games we want would be on one system, so therefore, we won't have to be muti-platoform to experience all of the genres we want.

What is your thought on this?

No. Just no. Competition drives improvements, while a competition free market tends to move at a slower pace.

This idea is basically setting up a monopoly as well. With only one console to deal with, marketing could easily ramp the prices up to a level that makes owning the consoles untenable.

You also set yourself up for the whole socialist thing with the peaceful workings. It sounds good on paper, but oh dear lord it will be a complicated and failing mess. Eventually one of those publishers will get a controlling interest in that console. Let's not forget to mention that that equality will cause other publishers to start making their own consoles for more money.

Basically the idea is not only a horrible idea, but also is pretty much against those companies' interests. It isn't going to happen.

I agree with Keisok, a one console future is not a good idea in my opinion. Competition is needed in order for console makers to acctually try to provide good service and games. If there was no one else they could quite easily provide crappy service and crappy half assed games for inflated prices because they are the only game in town. One of the main reasons why I think that the WWE has gotten so horrible is because they have no compition (TNA is not real competition) so they don't have to try. So unfortuantely I don't think a one console future is a good idea either.

This falls under the 4 I's

Improbable
Inconceviable
Impossible
Idiocy

My thoughts in case you're slow...No: Keisok said my words.

This post has been edited by WorldatWar on Nov 7 2009, 06:02 PM

I also agree on Keisok's opinion. There shouldn't be a one console-only future at all.

Because of that, I give you an F. For facepalm.



Ah yes, that joke doesn't get old.

I have to say no as well. Expsurferman stole most of what I was going to say, but yeah you give them power they stop trying. It's that simple.

Umm... what Keisok said.

...Keisok, man, you're awesome.

Just to advocate this argument further (believe me, I don't want a one console future either. However I like debate to a certain point.) , let's take this socialist feel out of the way.

Let's say that we do end up with a one console future through processes that involve three headed monkeys, rubber chickens with pulleys in the middle and a dab of a zombie apocalypse.
Now, imagine yourself as a game developer (in this example, game development is still striving for competition unlike the console wars.) and you have an awesome idea for a game. However, the console that is out right now has no way of supporting it whatsoever, and whoever is producing the console doesn't feel like doing anything to make it better, therefore reducing the quality of video games.
(Yeah, this is what we all don't like of it. I know. I'm getting to the point.)
Now, let's say everyone stops buying video games because of this. The guys that make the console either have two choices. Drop out of the video game business and no longer make money, or make a better console that will support better games to make more money.
The choice should be rather obvious. They'll have to make it better to turn some sort of profit, allowing game developers to make their better games which then pleases the gaming community, thus bringing forth the positives of whatever this mlubczyk just said.

"But Zai, you just pretty much reinstated whatever the hell Keisok just said."
No. I didn't. Keisok gave all negatives of a one console future. For the sake of debating this topic further I gave a new way to look at the one console future. If you look at it this way, there is now more of a reason to actually have to choose.

One console future
Pros:
-Game developers battle it out on one system rather than usually having a genre monopoly on another certain system.
-One console is focused on, therefore it is improved when absolutely needed.
-Consumers can buy more for one console rather than using money to get the new XCube 740 along with the other consoles.
-Familiarity will exist along with a much wider playing network online. How is this relevant? Think, Let's say I own a new console Sega puts out that has online. However let's also say that everyone else but a select few has the other consoles and doesn't like the sega... cast... thing. This would mean that I'm severely limited to playing with the very few people that bought the SegaCastThing. If this was a one console future, every player would be on the same console, therefore more online.

Cons:
-Has the chance of going socialist (sadly.)
-Improvement on the system is slow and will most likely only improve when profits are started to take a dive.
-Games can become stale after a while if the console is not improved in an ample amount of time (Like how our game console generations go at the moment; about every 2-4 years we get a new console. This apparently is a pretty nice system of doing things.)
-May be hard to do much of anything with since development and improvement of that one console will most likely be limited.


----------

That enough advocacy? Yeah, I was bored. But I just wanted to see a full argument from the OTHER side of the playing field rather than a unanimous decision.

Nice to see someone talk about the positive, even if they don't agree.

This does NOTHING but simply adds up to "This is not a good idea". So why even put all of this?

This does NOTHING but simply adds up to "This is not a good idea". So why even put all of this?

I gave pros as to why a one console future can be considered. The cons that was given by Keisok and everyone else was added onto this as well.
Again, I only look for a bit of advocacy here, because if everyone just agrees on one subject, then it's not even debate anymore. And if it's not debate, then it doesn't belong here.

Besides, can't have fun without a little bit of controversy, eh?