One console to rule them all?

Discussion in 'Video Games' started by Altanzitarron, Apr 8, 2008.

?

Should there be one universal Console Collaboration?

  1. Yes I'm all for that... what you said just there.

    7.7%
  2. No, just.... No.

    92.3%
  1. Altanzitarron

    Altanzitarron Tamer Of The LOLzilla

    Ok so what if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo put aside their differences, pooled their resources and made one defining console. For the sake of the arguement lets call it the NinteXstation. Other possibilities are; Playstation wii60, wii-box... arg the names not important.
    Ok so this console becomes the one and only, therefore all games play on it. They have 100% of the audience and therefore 100% of the profits all be it now there are a lot more people to split profits with. A console that could Play Mario, Metal gear and Halo. I know, it sounds nice. Imagine a console that literally had something for everyone. The fun novelty stuff of the wii, the awesome online features of the 360, the blu ray quality and great game series of playstation. It does sound pretty sweet but would this actually be a good thing?
    Now from a capitalist point of view I suppose it wouldn't be. Perhaps we only get good games due to the fact that the consoles are in constant competetion with eachother. If theres only one console then perhaps the game designers would become lazy. However the games I suppose would be in competetion with eachother to make sales but that doesn't seem as much of a big deal as an actual format competing. Also since most companies are capitalist minded another console would probably arise to compete with this collaborative console. Perhaps Sega will see an openeing to make a come back or something.....
    Flawed though the idea maybe I'd like to know what peoples thoughts are on this. I've made it a poll just to help us get some sort of figure going. So are you for this Console Collaboration or is variety the spice of life?
    Oh and I voted No, by the way. As nice an idea as it is I just can't see it working.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2008

  2. Nevyrmoore

    Nevyrmoore AKA Ass-Bandit

    No. Simply no.

    If there were only one console, then what would stop the developers using shoddy hardware? Giving the consumer a redicuously high price tag? Releasing sub-par first-party games?

    The competition is good. We should keep it.
     
  3. dDave

    dDave Guardian of the Light V.I.P.

    this is a horrible idea.

    consoles would be too expensive, most likely everyone would be forced to buy a console that supports HD. There really is no reason for it, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony can't team up legally anyway, at least I don't think they can.

    I don't prefer my consoles to cost like $900 apiece. Each company would want a huge margin of the profit and they would all be dissatisfied.
     
  4. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    They can team up legally since they are international companies. The developers though would work independently of the console. So even though all the games would be able to play on one console Nintendo would still sell there games, MS and Sony theirs.

    It will eventually happen probably in the next 10-15 years since ultimately it would be more cost effective for the three companies. Analysts at least predicted that it could happen soon because developers do not want to make games that can only be played on one console. Also dDave the console would actually be cheaper than you think. Since companies would pay less to game developers. Game developers would charge less to make a game since their wouldnt be two other systems that they would also have to develop the same game for.

    With the globalization of the market it will be inevitable. However, whenever the deal would happen there would have to be a definite winner in the console war. The winner would set the terms of such an agreement.

    I think it will happen more and more developers are not developing console exclusive games anymore.

    If it doesnt happen with the next next gen console it is possible it will happen with the following gen.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2008
  5. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    I think it would be a good idea....

    Then the real competition should be in the games! If all the companies truly came out with a solid consol, then I could see Bungie and SCEA duking it out in the game dept. Really put the Halo3 vs. COD4 race to the test!
     
  6. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    No. Competition is good for consumers.
     
  7. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    It is but at the same time the compitition would be between software developers which could lead to better games.

    However, I don't think one console to play all games is a good idea for consumers...I still think its only a matter of time before it happens.
     
  8. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    What if instead of a universal consol... it was a universal media? This way the PS3 and the Xbox could still have their own perks and entities, but gaming could be 100% cross consol?

    This way you still have the competition between consols, both systems would be trying even harder to create a better unit due to that fact that as a consumer you could play all games on either consol. So they would add perks, maybe faster load times, cleaner graphics than the other option. Something that sticks out a little better than their competitor.

    I believe if the media were universal than competition would become even more fierce between companies. Halo would be available to new audiences along with Socom and God of War. This would spur more of the "buy me buy me" marketing which forces developers to create better games.

    I realize you can get games that are available in both consols... but Im talking 1 media... No xbox format, no ps3 format, no nintendo format... just 1 format... 1 game for multiple consols. 1 price, 1 style, 1 choice of format. This way if you buy a Playstation you could take your games and put them in an Xbox and still have them work.
     
  9. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    They could put out an inferior console and the consumers would have no choice but to buy it since there are no other options available. That's why there always needs to be competition.
     
  10. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    If there was just one console then companies wouldn't be forced to continuously innovate new concepts and ideas to throw at gamers.

    Having just one console would mean it could be horrible yet we'd all have to buy it if we wanted to play anything other than PC games.

    Don't you like having the option of which console(s) to go with? An all in 1 wouldn't be as good as it sounds. Sure it's easy to imagine a console that plays Halo 3, Final Fantasy, and Mario Galaxy but think past the current generation to the next gen consoles.

    With nothing driving the developers to make a console that will outsell the competition they could slap a hard drive in a lunchbox with a single controller port and everybody would buy it because it was the ONLY option. Seeing as it would be a horrible option there would be other companies that would start their own game consoles to compete with the single console company on the market.

    Then we are back where we are now, only we had to go through an entire generation of cheaply made technology that we weren't happy with..

    I like it as it is. I don't think more than 3 major consoles can last in the market though. There haven't really ever been 4 at the same time that did well. There was N64, Sega Saturn, and Sony Playstation. That went ok. Microsoft noticed that Sega was down quite a bit and decided to jump in the game. Next we had Sega Dreamcast, Nintendo Gamecube, Sony Playstation 2 and Microsoft XBOX. Count 4 consoles? Yes.

    Obviously Sega didn't make it and we are back to three.
     

Share This Page