Is it time for one universal console to replace PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii?

The idea of a universal console isn't a new one, in fact it's bandied around, and brought up at least once in every generation. So I'm doing exactly that. Just imagine one console combining the best elements of the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii. It would be awesome, and would mean the end of the fanboy wars once and for all. But could it possibly ever happen?

The subject of having one universal console to rule them all came to my mind again after the recent E3 Expo, where nothing really happened. In fact, the only piece of big news was the fact that Final Fantasy XIII was no longer a PS3 exclusive, with Microsoft doing a deal to bring the game to the Xbox 360.

[dktxx2]

One console would be one hell of a bad idea for gamers. Think we pay to much for games now? Well if this happens, think $100 per game. Think $15 a month for online play, plus the specific games subscription fee. Say goodbye to good games and hello to Halo 2008, Halo 2009, Halo 2010, and Halo 2011. Why push technology, when you the only one who can.

[RememberThe357]

With no competition and high demand the price of a "universal" console would sky rocket. Probably something like this: http://www.alienware.com/pr... Maybe not that mush but you get the idea. Plus, you know what we have a universal console it's called a PC.

[StephanieBBB]

MC-donalds? Atleast they have the money for it...

[ThanatosDMC]

Actually, no one would buy a ridiculously expensive game you're talking about.

Im all for one console to rule them all. I just hope they dont copy the Wii when it started shoving peripherals down our throats. Remember how PS2 took control of everything and everybody was happy?

So your logic fails. They'll still have to think of how much consumers are willing to pay. So a game that much wont exist till they start need to manufacture orbs or something for a game.

[JsonHenry]

Meh... it is called a PC people. It is already here.

[Lifendz]

and I'll put aside how crazy and unlikely this is and tell you why.

I like having a choice. Last gen I was an Xbox guy. This gen I'm a PS3 guy. Each had qualities/features that attracted me to them. Were there just one console I'd basically have no choice.

2) I like that there's more in the way of hardware to choose from. True believer in the cell and blu-ray? Then you can go PS3. Like the unified RAM and strong GPU? Then you go 360. Plus I like choosing between Live and PSN.

3) I'm not a casual gamer. I'm not. I play Wii sports with my son from time to time but for the most part I'm a graphics/hardcore guy. I went out and spent a thousand bucks on a TV so I could enjoy the visuals that these 2 (PS3/360) next-gen consoles have to offer. (And I say two because my roommate owns a 360). Who's to say that with one console we wouldn't have a more scaled down console so the entry price is lower.

No thanks. I like competition. Sony and MS are a good Ying and Yang. And Nintendo is actually bringing more people to the table who may...just may...one day decide to pick up a 360 or PS3 controller and go for some "hardcore" gaming.

[Alexander Roy]

The only uni-console I can imagine ATM would be a MSFT/Sony product.
Why?
Both go into a very similar direction, I'd say. Both focus on the "hardcore" gamers and make have "some" games for the casual crowd (Lips/Singstar for example). They are essentially the counterpart to Nintendo's Wii. Both are about equal in terms of power, both with their cons and pros (I will so get flamed for this).
Why can I imagine both working together? It's the third-party games. Exclusive games that aren't made by either first or second party developers are becoming scarce on both sides (Eternal Sonata, FFXIII). It simply doesn't work out to only sell it to one audience.
What does KZ2 cost? What did MGS4 cost? I have no f'in clue, but they sure are/were expensive. You know that ONE single game already almost killed a company, due to the sheer cost? ShenMue was touted the most expensive game of all time, it even got the Guiness Record back then. We all know how many (read: how few) people bought it and what happened to the Dreamcast.
Unless MSFT and/or Sony can create a first party line up next to Nintendo's (Pokemon, Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kirby, you know the names) in terms of quantity and quality, there isn't really an economic point in making a console. That, or one of them pulls a PS2 and sells more than 120 mio. units and basically owns everyone with their market shares.
Would I be happy to see a MSFT/Sony console? You bet your ass. No problems with exclusive third party games, no dev that can't handle one console better than the other and, hopefully, no fanboy wars. Do I think it will happen? Maybe, there always is a slight chance for everything, but I won't bet on it.

[AlterEgo]

Phuck no

[Real Gambler]

"and brought up at least once in every generation."

This guy is such a goof. People talk about this about once every 3 months, not once every generation.

And no, we don't want that to happen.

Controller for $150 each?
Hard drives for $400?
Online for $20 a month?

Like we needed another opinion in NEWS4GAMERS, particularly a very redundant and stupid opinion!

[metalhead]

Just because there is one console does not make games more expensive, hell it would make some cheaper because it would make it a lot easier for developers to make the games. They wouldnt need to know three different kinds of programming language for one game. This is why devs want a one console future. It would be easier just think about it. I am not trying to insult your opinion but Im just giving you my point of view.

[ThanatosDMC]

Stop talking about M$'s 360! You should go to the open zone!

(see what i did there?)

[ASSASSYN 36o]

Stupid idea. Imagine one car company, or one game devloper. Won't happen because it couldn't work.

[RememberThe357]

Good analogy! You get bubbles!

[Reibooi]

Wont happen and if it ever did happen then some new upstart company would make a new rival thus starting another console war. It's pointless for many reason prices will sky rocket and games will most likely end up being far more dull for many reasons. Despite what Denis Dyack and the EA prez thinks a One console future is a bad thing for the industry not a good thing.

[TheColbertinator]

The most powerful company in the history of videogames unveils Dreamcast 2.

"This time We'll Get It Right"

[iamtehpwn]

Like back in the N64-PS1 days.
Gaming was better because of it.

[zapass]

and that's why we can just trash the 360, let m$ focus on what they're almost good at: Office 2010 for DirectX13. (recycling a 360 as a toaster is perfect)

then we're left with Nindildo: universal entertainment for the ladies
and finally PS3: the true universal console xD

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Competition is good

[cyclindk]

We need more consoles!!! :) Like, seven more...

[Hellsvacancy]

Competion is GOOD it means u always hav 2 try that bit harder 2 make your product better than the competion

EDIT - Sorry i just read your comment again and it made sense

[Sir_Ken_Kutaragi]

Yeah Competition is good;) I love watching other Consoles DIE!!! ;-D
i.e...
xBox 1
N64(i got one tho)
GameCube
DreamCast
Saturn
xBox 360(SOON) ;-D

ALL KILLED by PlayStations!!! ;-D

[Fox01]

I hope next-gen it would be hardware vs hardware and not software vs software. I hate the idea of exclusives because I can't afford to buy all the consoles in the market.

Nintendo should die though, or atleast stop making systems and just start selling their games on the Playstation/Xbox. I grew up with Nintendo,u they let meown so far.

[Sitdown]

The article itself reveals how dumb the idea is....First to quote the article "I love the idea of a universal console, and would be willing to pay a lot of money for the privilege of owning one. I’m sick of being forced to buy 3 consoles every generation, just to play the few must-have games on each system." So the person would be okay spending $1500 on a universal console, rather than paying less and getting all three?

But moving on, Second, it said imagine the best elements of the ps3, 360, and the wii. Remove all them and have a single console.......how then do you determine what the best elements are?........do you really want to give that much control to a company? How can you dislike the Microsoft Monopoly, but then ask for a universal console monopoly?

[redsymphony]

no competition equals no inovation no thanks give me all 3 sony vs M$ nintendo vs themselves lol i love it wouldn't want it any other way

[Galvanise]

Sony design the hardware

Microsoft manage the online (but for free)

Nintendo come up with Wacky control schemes as an alternative option to a standard hardcore controller. . .

Yes.

[ThanatosDMC]

Why bother when Sony's almost there to perfect everything?

You're kidding about M$ right? Who'd want to get charged extra for useless lag?

Nintendo, for one game you need a different peripheral for the console.

[ToastyMcNibbles]

it would pretty rape to have one ultimate console...but to be honest these little "console wars" is fun

[SoulessSnake]

definitely i want a universal system, u save time and money and all access to all the games, no more esclusives

[Lumbo]

The idea was stupid in the past,
Is stupid now
And will always be stupid in future because the main reason for innovation and progress is competition, not unity.

[Voiceofreason]

let me give you some examples. Take the automobile industry. They still compete with each other yet every car made by any company that gets sold in the US has to meet certain standards. The TV industry has certain standards and yet they still manage to compete.one unified format for gaming would not lead to the end of competition. Thats really all that is need here. One unified standard for each company to make. Then it just becomes a choice of choosing the console that has the added features, look, price that you want. Just because they are required to have certain compliance with how and what types of software they play hardly means they will no longer compete for sales.

[Bebedora]

are met in the electronic industry as well. What is the difference between a unified structure for memory allocation and a unified way of using wheels?

Your basic flaw is that you are taliking about low layered stuff that do exist within electronics, as in motorcar industry.

Personally, the analogy of cars and electronics, has ALWAYS failed someehere. Now it was about what layer of field we were talking about.

[v1c1ous]

if there was only ps3, the pricetag could still be near $600

if there was only 360, no hdd whatsoever and pay for small things like themes

if there was only wii, you could say goodbye to playing online with your buddies without jumping through hoops just to get to the login screen.

[Jokerlike]

It would never work because certain people are greedy.

[Ps3Fanboy777]

I dont have enough money to keep buying 3 consoles. Truthfully I dont want all 3 I just want the games they have. I think theyd make more money in the long run. Games would be great, never having to worry about another platform, everyone would get the chance to play games. Software would go up. Reasons go on.

[chrisnick]

who makes money from that exactly?

[RAM MAGNUMS]

its a ps3!
it just doesn't have mario, halo or gears but it has & does everything better.
Use common sense children. There'd be only one hybrid & that's a ps3!

[DarkSniper]

PLAYSTATION®3 is the universal console. There's no need to even migrate to other platforms when you're an owner of a PS3. With tons of first party exclusives and amazing third party titles, PLAYSTATION®3 is the console to buy if you're looking to have a complete gaming library.

The true benefit is that Sony will be supporting this universal console for at least 10 years. Consumers are guaranteed a decade of gaming fufillment.

Only one console can truly satisfy the gamer's needs. PLAYSTATION®3

$niper

[TheTimeDoctor]

damn communist

[Aclay]

A Universal console is a stupid idea.

Competition makes for better games and better systems. If there was a Universal console, there probably wouldn't be price drops for YEARS.... heck, there probably wouldn't be a price drop at all on a Universal Console because it would be the only console.

[Bazookajoe_83]

Would it be more of a ps3/360 or the wii. Because if it went the way of the wii i would have to find another hobby..

[chrisnick]

wii3fixme and the ps3.....2 systems of "equal" power and reliability.

[itsalive]

and have all consoles support it. Take for example the almighty PC. How many different CPU and graphics architecture do they now have, yet they can run just about any game written to the ubiquitous DirectX and MS OS API. Stop the silliness about one HARDWARE architecture, build a new gaming SOFTWARE layer, use it and leave the rest the hell alone. SONY is already using OPENGL (an OPEN and widely available/accessible STANDARD).... have MS and NINTY use it next..... Hardware manufacturers are then free to build what they want at whatever price levels and choice is retained. They just have to build and support the gaming SOFTWARE layer.

[Fux4Bux]

It's called a PC.

[Mr Fancy Pants]

one console? that never gonna happen! so stop the crap already!

[BlackCountryBob]

Daft article that really should be confined to the blog section as it is opinion rather than news (and not even opinion from a well known and respected journo or figure in the biz).

Anyway, the one console future would be a terrible future for ordinary gamers. I have no problem with MS and Sony coming together and deciding amongst themselves to make development easier in the multi platform future by defining some simple specs they will each give the next gen of consoles (eg; both the 720 and PS4 will have 2gb RAM, a hard drive as standard, HDMI 1.3 and will display at 1080p as default with scaling abilities; these few minimum specs would give each console a solid base for MP development but gives enough scope for difference to give each console specific pros and cons in terms of online, design, processor etc) but the idea of one console is dumb.

"I'm tired of being forced to buy 3 consoles every generation to play the best games". No-one is forcing you mate, its a choice!

[Bebedora]

What would it be without competition?

Go make another planar economy, will you, STALIN

....cheers

[sandip787]

dont be dumb.

[red5ive]

i'm pretty sure dozens of gamers have already stated this, but i think this would be a bad idea. the convenience would be there, but that's giving away a lot of good things that would involve multiple platforms. competitive pricing for the different companies would be lost. also, choice will be lost. one won't have the same preference as everybody else. there are specific aspects of each system that makes them unique and cater to the preferences of their buyers. if one system had them all, then we'd be talking about pricing again. i'm pretty much repeating what others are saying, but it's true ya?

[watashi hideo kojima]

still universal platforms will have new generations so you will have buy them every 6 -8 year or something.

[Voiceofreason]

Tho only thing I cant understand is why so many people feel it is a bad thing. Some say it would take away competition and dev's would get lazy. First off it is not a competition between the 360 version of GTA4 and the PS3 version of GTA4. So even if that game got released on just one console it wouldnt suffer like many claim. Also dev's would still have to compete with other dev's for gamers money. It's not like they would all suddenly go " Oh we only have one to worry about now lets not even try to make a good game anymore." I always look at PC when this comes up because it would be very much like the PC is now if we just had one console. All the doom and gloom you guys predict just isnt there. Lots of differnt manufacturers are making PC's today and yet the games made for Pc will run on any of those machines as long as they specs are high enough. PC makers still compete with each other even though they have a unified format. I Think most people disagree simple because they do not fully understand what people are suggesting. They are not saying that 1 company makes the one and only console on the market. What they want is similar to a TV now. Lots of companies make TV's, but they are all able to show the same programming when you get them home.

[Bebedora]

The hardware isn't set in stone on the PC, hence more manufacturers. Much like ATI and nVidia and iNtel and AMD.

Before you start and spout about the same on a console...

There is ONLY one controller on a unified platform. May it be Sony, Ninty, MS OR another different one. Nvm it will be very strictly controlled by the owner of the platform. And...money talks, not necessarily quality and innovation.

Example: Sony gets the control and stays very conservative with cell and RSX. Just makes some adjustments here and there to make it more powerful the next GEN. Why? Because it makes the best ROI for the shareholders and the company.

[Voiceofreason]

Certain things aren't but some things are. Like if I buy a game for the PC will it be compatible with every one of those companies products? Yes if its within the specs of the game. No matter what company makes a 3d graphics card it will pretty much work with any PC. The only thing you would need to do is get every dev to stick to a set spec for their games and only change it every 5 years or so. Just because there are many doesn't make it a bad thing and you clearly showed no example of it being bad. Every system that ever came out had more than one controller you could buy for it. Again I really do not see the point of even bringing that up. Just because I can choose from 15 different ones on the PC is hardly a negative

[Bebedora]

the pc is much more OPEN than a console will ever be. There is no hardware company controlling it, right?

Your arguments about the PC is valid, but you don't get my POV - HARDWARE

[Axe99]

It would be very, very dangerous to allow one console - for a little while, we'd have unified specs and obviously people able to focus more on third parties, but over the longer term, we'd be faced with the issue that has affected _every_ other industry where there has been a monopoly. Unlike TVs, consoles are changing significantly over time - even more so, with the new firmware. Further, to use the TV example, if it was only one manufacturer, it's likely HD would have taken longer to come about and initially been far more expensive. Competition generates creativity, as the console-makers vy to out-do each other. Indeed, if it wasn't for competition, we likely wouldn't have had the Xbox in the first place, and their wouldn't have been the pressure on Microsoft to have a top-notch service in Live. Nor would there have been the pressure to get a number of high-quality first-party studios and allow them to really go to town on the PS3 to create the likes of Uncharted, or Home. Compare the level of innovation in the console market over the last ten years, to that in innovation in the Microsoft Office range of software (which I've been using professionally over that period, and which is still buggy and far too limited given what it says it should do) and you've got an example of why competition is good, and monopolies (or close enough) is bad. We get better tech and features, and a wider range of games, sooner and cheaper - if you're in doubt, read up on the history of monopolies, the history of the Soviet Union, the Cuban economy or basic economics, and it'll give you a good idea of why we don't want a single console. As an economist and a gamer, I can understand why the idea of a single console is appealing, as was the idea of communism, but in practice, given the nature of markets and humanity, a monopoly (which is what it would be - unless no-one wants the features or specs of consoles to change again, ever) leads to higher prices, less innovation and lower levels of quality.

[Axe99]

One single console would eliminate rampant fanboyism, something which is nowhere near as prevalent in other industries, so it wouldn't be all bad ;). As an aside, the argument above is why, despite being a Sony fanboy (not for any other reason than I think it's a better piece of kit with games I'd rather play) I want the 360 and Wii to succeed as well. I won't purchase them myself (they've got great games, but I don't have enough time to play all the PS3 games I want to - if I won lotto, this would change!), but as long as they're on the market and also successful, then Sony will be pressured to continue to innovate and imitate, as all three do. I have competition to thank for Trophies, 360 owners have competition to thank for Lips, Wii owners have competition to thank for online Mario Kart.

[Bebedora]

would never make PSN this good without competition from XBL. For sure.

Besides from that, it ain't even good, I give credit for XBL here. PSN has a lot to go for it, but PSN store (EU) is pee poor.

[UnasFortuna]

I personally like the innovation that the "console" wars provide and if that means dealing with a few fanbois... so be it and I personally can ignore anyone...so... bring them on. On topic though... this will never happen in our lifetimes. Would PSN be free without LIVE to contend with??? I highly doubt it. Would either console have included technology in a console that pushes the limits of what developers can provide at current if they weren't competing?? I doubt it. On a software standpoint... developers would adapt very well as they always do; however, if there was only one console I would assume that they would reach their peak much faster as far as pushing a console to its limits. Competition is good for the general public. Luckily I can afford all three consoles... so I am not too bothered by the friendly competition and am reaping all the benefits.

[SolidSnake93]

In short no...

[Meresin]

Monopoly = bad. Competition = good.

Why do these stupid articles keep getting approved?

[ReBurn]

No kidding. As if anyone could even enforce a "single console" rule to begin with.

[psgamer]

I'd much rather have a universal network where I can play COD4 on my ps3 with my friend who has a 360 (I only have a ps3 and a wii...). I know it won't happen but IMO with a universal console we wouldn't see new ideas...

[UnasFortuna]

Now that's an idea (Universal Gaming Network Cross Platform). Not including the PC of course. Humm....

[Tyrael]

One console, to rule them all...

Good hypothetical, bad realistically. And I'd hate to have to go to Mordor to get customer service. Those Orcs have bad breath

[GameDev]

children can dream can't they?

[n00bzRtehgey]

Yes. The 720.

[Cyber Gamer]

there will all ways be more then 1 game console because every one wants to make money and in the long run if the ps is still hear after 15 years and xbox is gone EA will come up with there very own console or the other way round for that matter

[crippler666]

If they mean by that one programming language, but allowing all 3 companies, infact any company to develop their own version of the console (so aslong as it has a Motherboard/CPU, Graphics Card, Memory, Ram and HDD it would), then that could work. Software companies would be in competition for sales.

You could own your console from Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony and be able to play any game on the 3. Hardware companies would still be able to develop hardware components as long as they were compatible that made the hardware run faster and smoother.

But it isn't gonna happen. No way in hell are they gonna work together to get one standard set, yet alone risking the sales they may lose to the competition, playing Halo on a PS3 or Mario on a 360 or God of War on Wii?? The companies know they can lose big time so it will never be worth the risk.

[SL1M DADDY]

Why would anybody waste time writing about something that has been hashed out dozens of times before. Yes, this topic has been around around for generations and is talked about each time a new set of "next-gen" consoles come out but haven't we already read these articles a few months back? Remember the EA console rumor? Come on, do we need to waste more time on the silly subject of a one console world that will NEVER happen? I think not.