No.... I have not read every post in this thread (Only the first) and no I will not. So stick with me when I say this. It could have been said before but here it goes. I originally was gonna say that with multiple consoles it pushes companies to do new and innovative things, but that seems covered already so I'll continue to point number two. With just one console, sure you don't have to shell out tons of money for multiple consoles, but it does mean that you have just one company pulling all the strings on prices for the console and games and a lot of what will allowed to be played on their console. It's like having a monopoly. Competition pushes companies (Except Sony with early PS3 prices) to keep prices lower so that its more appealing for people to buy. With just one company and one console for gaming, they could charge us $1000 for a console and people will pay it, because they want to play their games and with no competition for someone to buy, they don't have to lower their prices, cause people, no matter how much you say they won't, will pay that much money just to have a console to play games on. And games is even crazier to think about. At some points I can be buying somewhere from 5 to 10 games a month (Mainly when a lot of games that look appealing are coming out) But if there was one console, they could charge $100 or more for games alone and that builds up, very fast. With games coming out on multiple systems it means that companies will keep their prices as low as they can, while still making a big enough profit, to make you buy that game for their console. And I know that mainly new games are $60 right, now, but there is still possibility for future notable differences in prices for games on different consoles.
Thats just my view and I don't think I really made too much sense ever, but maybe if you actually read it, you might see the point I was trying to get across.
