One console future

[Atlas Greatcreek]

What would a one console future look like? Are you for or against? If you're for, how do you think it should be realized, practically? What does the unified console look like?

Personally, I'm for a one console future. I think that the main argument used against it, the thought that competition fosters quality, only works from a hardware perspective, that is to say that only the hardware gets better through said competition. Hardware, in my opinion, is mostly an attempt to build a unified system through various parts, HDDs, flash memory and the like. The thing is that I don't think any of these areas are impacted by a console war: hard drives will still get cheaper and bigger, and processors will still get smoother and cooler thanks to the PC industry. I agree that development will be slower, but I think the Wii has shown interface to be more important than hardware. Of course hardware shouldn't be ignored, I just think we can take a step back from the cutting edge to be able to stay within friendlier price ranges.
The Wii planted in my head an idea that I myself think is rather good. Take the still somewhat dominant 360/PS3 controller design, and split it down the middle, giving you two halves. When you think about it, the nunchuck is just the left side of a Playstation controller without a D-pad. I think that this way a game designer can design games to fit various combinations of controller parts, like the Wii's nunchuck-Wiimote combo which lends itself well to the kinds of games that are out on the Wii right now. A more cerebral gamer could then swap the Wiimote for a mouse, or even the whole controller for a mouse and keyboard. As the console gets updated every, say, ten years, it gets a slight bump in hardware spec, allows for new types of controllers, and is fully backwards compatible.
The single platform allows designers to worry less about coding for different platforms and more about design. Different manufacturers can then make different specifications to different consumers, mainly concerning the size of the HDD, memory input and such. I think that in ten years time a 20 or 40 Gb hard drive will be cheap enough to include as the smallest standard to the consumer who doesn't really care about DLC or graphics-intensive games, while at the same time avoiding the Mass Effect/Lost Oddyssey "HDD optional" debacle of the 360.

So what do you think? I'd like to present the previous not inconsiderable chunk of text as a proposal: this is what I think we should do as an industry and why. Let's not concern ourselves with the how's here. Do you think my thinking is sound? Are my reasons good, but is my dream console stupid? Am I stupid? If so, then why?
Discuss, argue and dissect to your hearts content.

 

[knumpify]

I'm all for a one console future, I'm tired of having to shell out hunderds just to play a new game where producers were evil enough to not make it multi platform. Unfortunately, this is also the reason it won't happen, because selfish/evil/inconsiderate producers/sponsors want to seperate themselves from all the other industries and make you drool over their new play-thingy. If someone were to stop and cornobble all the developers that stopped and said "oh, well they made this on this console, let's try and make a blatant rip-off on our console to get a fraction of the sales and enough attention to distract our ADD marketing team" we might actually come down and realize that not only would a one console future make consumers happy, thus buying more games, but it would allow more focus on new and origional ideas, increasing the quality of games and stopping the production of five minute time wasters pumped out to keep up with the competitors...

but that's just me

 

[BranFlakes]

Top of the line gaming rig with a cut down linux distro that's designed to run emulators. Stick a quad core processor in it, top of the line graphics and sound and enough RAM to choke a donkey.

and you have... Scratch built uber console.

 

[josh797]

OK well heres my two cents. Obviously there probably there will probably never be a one console future realistically cause theres room in the market for all three, maybe more. The real question here is whether or not it would be a positive thing. As people before me have stated, competition drives innovation so with competition in the console market we get innovation in it. Without the competition we have, the wii would never be this popular, and new ideas in hardware would be nonexistent. What you are describing I think, is a PC, because it has different modules for control, and different hardware modules. The problem with a single console is that it wouldn't fit every gamer, and when making a game, not everyone would be able to use it, like if you didn't have the motion controller. I think that if we were in the old days, when the gamer demographic was a much smaller population and much more homogenous in its interests, the one console idea would have worked, but these days, different gamers are looking for different things in their console and developing for every different type of gamer would be impossible, much like making the best game in the world. Theres no such thing as a single perfect game, because not everyone wants a game to be the same thing. Not every wants a game that will be open world and you can run around and shoot things like gta. Some want to drive NASCAR cars, some want to shoot zombies in a high quality story, some want episodic games with a twist, like Sam and Max. So it is with consoles. Some want a cheap simple experience. Some want a giant selection of games, some want only a small selection of top notch games, some want free internet, some want a whole internet place, a la xbox live.

 

[monodiabloloco]

I think that the concept is great, but will never happen in the way that is implied. I feel that, eventually, console gaming will go the way of the arcade.
As tech gets better and better, the push for it to become smaller is greater and greater.
Portability is needed and is becoming key to nearly every lifestyle.
Eventually, I think we will have portable computers that can wirelessly connect to the net and each other and still fit in a pocket. When that happens, there may be different brands of PC just like now but the games will all be playable on them.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

Can't say I'm a big fan of the "one platform" future for games; different architectures do different things well, and concentrating on only one means it's either slighting some aspect of gaming or it's a compromise design. Besides, I can definitely see the cost of the One True Console bloating to horrific proportions as it crams more and more hardware in to be all things to all people.

(And that's even excluding portable gaming... imagine if that ended up being the standard.)

-- Steve

 

[Mage26]

The idea of only one console is really scary. I could see the company that owns that console dictating what games can be on it. They could limit what types of games, which developers and reject anything that isnt seen as profitable. We'll end up with a state worse than now where every game is a clone or sequel of what is popular.

 

[eggdog14]

I'd like a console with the PS3's power and the XBOX 360's interface and controller, dashboard, marketplace, LIVE, etc... That way, you wouldn't have to buy two different consoles to get the games you want.

I'm all for a single console as well. The developers could then focus on the games as opposed to boosting their own console in the market. In fact, with my limited knowledge of economics, i'd assume it would be mutually beneficial, as players are far more likely to buy a single, universal console rather than multiple consoles for the sole purpose of getting exclusive games.

Also, the dramatic difference in cross-platform games is really unfortunate. Virtually every game that has been ported to the PS3 from another console has suffered from graphical deficiencies and development delays due to the difficult workflow. With a single, well designed console system, it could be designed to improve workflow and lead to more, well-polished games.

EDIT2: in response to the point below (i didn't want to post again) a one console future would indeed probably consist of multiple conpanies developing. Think of DVDs, there is a single format, but you'll have many companies making the machines, think Toshiba, Devon, Sony, all make DVD players.

As such, as indi's can make DVD's a single console would encourage indi developers, as the approval process would most likely get easier.

EDIT: Cool113011, too digress, the PS3 is not the platform we'd want universalized concerning "power." The internal design is as far from intuitive-programmability as possible, most likely, were a single console to arise, it would need as simple a processor as possible, probably intel, for the same reason apple switched from cell-processing (PS3) to multi-core.

PS:

Also, an additional perk of a single console would eliminate stupid fanboy arguments which are the bane of EVERY gaming-related forum since the beginning of time.

 

[AerodynamicHair]

The one console idea is interesting but, as previously stated, it would probably stifle innovation in hardware by destroying competition. However, we could be talking about a game standard.

Instead of having one console, we have an open standard for video games that can be utilized by anyone and a standards committee which accepts and rejects revisions for new versions of the standard. So Johnny could have a Toshiba Gamebox, and Ryan could have a Sony Gamebox, both being able to play Gamebox games which are coded to utilize the equipment stated in the standard.

In other words, a DVD player for games. Anyone can build it, but they all can play the same games.

Our standards committee would be made up of companies who are building or who are interested in building Gameboxes. They would suggest and vote for new specifications for Gamebox Standard 2.0, including more powerful processors, higher amounts of video memory, and a cooler to keep your Coke chilly cold.

Games would no longer be labeled "For Gamecube" or "For Xbox" but rather "Gamebox STD 1.0" or "Compatible with Gamebox Standard 2.0, 1.0, and 1.5."

With this kind of model and a standards committee in charge of what the new console will do, the abilities of the console will match the desires of the game makers.

Now the feasibility and reality of this scheme is probably pretty questionable, since I've just been making it up as I go along, but I hope you enjoy considering/ripping it apart.

 

[Easykill]

If it could work, Aerodynamic, it would be awesome.

 

[Surggical_Scar]

I sincerely doubt there'll be only one console. Competition is the lifeblood of Capitalism, and unless we all suddenly become Communist overnight, I doubt that will change.

As for buying out the competition? I really don't think any one organisation could own the whole market, because someone would inevitably just start another business and put out a competing model.

 

[Alphavillain]

Ideal future console would be a little red eye like HAL in "2001". No wires, no controller, arranges your washing rota...but doesn't try to kill off your crew by shutting them out of the spaceship. Obviously. "Hello Dave".

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

As for buying out the competition? I really don't think any one organisation could own the whole market, because someone would inevitably just start another business and put out a competing model.

Which would then get bought out by the monolith before it becomes a threat. Microsoft managed it for years, and still has a huge monopoly over other companies.

And they've had to pay massive fines for it due to anti-trust laws.

 

[Facey McFace]

Also one console, i think, would be great.
No more of these console wars, no more "lol omg y u go xbox bill gaets wants 2 taek over teh werlds!1!!!" etc.

 

[Jumplion]

Technicaly we already have a one-console type machine: a computer (off of Attack of the Show)

I don't really want a one console future, who would the fanboys yell at if Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft either made the one console or all pitched in to make the console together? Or if none of them helped make it?

But seriously, the main reason i don't want a One console is for the competition. I like the feeling i get when i get an exclusive game for my console and think "Man, those Xboys are gonna miss out," or something similar to it.

It's what drives the whole gaming community, to make a better game then the other companies, otherwise we'd have another Video Game crash, and we don't want that again.

The other side of me does want a one console, as it would be cheaper for me and everyone else, and i'm not made of money.

 

[MaraN88]

Personally i'd love to play games like gears of war, lost planet etc. optimized for the wii control.. After playing C.O.D 3 on the wii I can't play with the xbox control.
I don't believe in the one console part but what I'd like to see is a law forcing game developers to make their games available on all consoles.. (we all know it wont happen but lemme dream here!! ) It would result in more action based games for the wii and more games for PS3 so you grafic crazed people can have your fun to! Ps3 and wii get Xbox online community and feauters of course and Xbox dies. The end.

 

[[HD]Rob Inglis]

I don't believe this kind of monopoly is possible, as there are too many willing companies, besides, I think that would be, as I have said, a monopoly which causes economic problems. So it's unlikely, if you didn't catch that from the rest of the reading.