One-Console Future Debate - Round 2

Is the video game industry inevitably headed towards a one-console future? Ben Hoyt of Emergent and Denis Dyack of Silicon Knights square off once again.

[jack who]

what Debate?

[Armyless]

-

[JsonHenry]

Yes, the industry will end up with just "one" console. That "console" is going to be the home computer.

It is going to happen. Just wait and see.

[freakyzeeky]

Good God! That controller has more buttons than the Jaguar!

[Capt CHAOS]

it's called a gaming PC, if you want that, go get a gaming PC..

otherwise, leave the console world to it's own. There's room for both ways of marketing and delivering games and entertainment. Each has it's own advantage.

[DeadlyFire]

The Consoles are really gaming PCs if you look at the way they are heading to in the next few generations. Look at last generation with PS2, Xbox, Gamecube and the long list of features we got with them including online play, and DVD playback.

Now look at this generation of consoles with PS3, X360, and Wii. We get the same as well as Blu-Ray/HD-DVD playback, web browsing, movies on demand, game mods(UT3 is first, but likely others will follow), Keyboard & mouse support(PS3 only), and many other features coming down the pipeline for X360, PS3, and Wii over next few years. It is likely the next set of consoles will look more like cheap PCs than consoles.

[Ravenator529]

Sure, one console would end "fanboyism" as we know it. But that is the only "positive" that would come from having "one" future console.

On the consumer end, this would be a very very bad thing!!

One console would mean that we would have no "choice". Having no choice means that we would have to succumb to the pricing and business models of "one" particular company.

So in turn what would keep a company from charging anything that they want for their console and the games that are used on their console?

NOTHING! Because competition would be non-existent.

You all better hope that this never happens.

Remember, competition sustains a healty market.

[AIZEN SOZUKE]

who needs it if theres a ps3 supercomputer that has movie graphics and wont max out, leave it

[Maddens Raiders]

doesn't happen. If it does, it will effectively end any new gaming for me.

[Silver360]

One console would lead to stagnation of video games. Remember the console is a closed system it can't add memory or graphics cards. We would be stuck with whatever is decided for us and new consoles would be closer to 10 years apart. Would Sony have released the PS3 if the 360 didn't come out in 2005? Hell naw!!!! Sony is still making good money on the PS2. And the PS2 is as close to a one console system as I want to come. It gave Sony way too much power. And games were crappy in the beginning, it wasn't until the gamecube and xbox game out that the PS2 games really started to kick butt. Competition is good. As much as this flame war between the 360 and the PS3 gets on my nerves it drives developers to produce better games.

[Seriously]

It will never happen now but I don't remember a single console being a bad thing when I was growing up.

Atari & Nintendo had NO real competitors in the U.S. When Nintendo hit, it was, no matter what the ONLY console and it brought around some of the best franchises of all time. We didn't play video games, we played Nintendo and that sh*t was fun. We didn't b*tch about games, we just huddled around that sucker and played until our eyes bled, lol.

What once worked probably wouldn't in todays market but don't talk like it would be the end of gaming. We did just fine at first with single consoles.