Less competition would mean more taking advantage of gamers because we don't have a choice but to take it(unless we all become PC gamers or revert back to board games lol).
Well, that's it: it will be just like PC gaming, except the console will be the lower-end PC.
PC gaming is hanging on purely because of three things that the consoles are beginning to do, but still lag behind on this gen.
1. Great Graphics (they may never catch-up to the PC, but this gen I was only tempted for one PC game: Crysis. The rest wasn't critical in terms of the differences)
2. Precision control (Mice will always beat a controller to me, period. I was hopeful with The sixaxis, but even Sony never realized it's potential, and companies that fully embraced it, Sony didn't really support. The next gen will have to beat the mouse, Move may be the key, but the gaming has to improve because right now, original AAA move gaming does NOT exist)
3. An enduring community for each game that is released. (There are ways devs can extend the life of it's online community without reverting to DLC all of the time, and once they do that, you'll see plenty of games with an enduring community)
Disaster! Its bad if one company holds the market alone.
Some argue that the nes,snes and the ps1,ps2 did great without any real competition.
Well even that look at the aftermath of those consoles, Nintendo were stubborn about adapting new technology like CDs and Sony came and saved the day. Sony were too cocky after the ps2 that they thought a 600$ console would crush the competition anyway due to it brand.
Bottom line, competition is what drives this industry forward.
The PS1 & 2, were consoles that benefited from that luxury. If you wanted the best third party exclusives (during that gen) -- you had to have both those consoles.
And there's always PC (and handheld) gaming, so a "one console monopoly", wouldn't be as dreadful as some people would believe it to be.
I dont think there will be another console generation after the next due to the speed in which gpus and ram technologies and all the other techie stuff that im not very versed in are expanding, having a console which is not upgradeable or that does not have interchangeable parts will be impossible as they will not last very long in that sort of climate. Maybe a pc that is only used for games, with no other programs to detract from the performance of the game that most pcs suffer from, i could imagine that happening.
In the REAL world of business it would be disastrous. With no competition they would have the whole industry to themselves. Competition is what drives business and NO business would ever give up their profits,advantages, secrets and everything else just to work on a single console.
Not as long as money is involved and greed is good. Also even if all the gaming companies decided to just make a single console there is no guarantee that their will be any synergy between them. They all have a way of doing business and it may not fit with everyone's long term goals. Like I learned in business, 1+1+1 could very well equal zero.A one console future is a cheap skate unreasonable fanboy dream. The PS1 and PS2 STILL had competition no matter how weak it was and it only lasted so long.Even if you were to make one console there will always be the danger of someone else challenging you for your part of the industry in the future.
All in all it's not a likely scenario. There will probably always be options with consoles. Even if in the future there was one that was aimed at casual play and another with both casual and hardcore gaming options. Still, it would be nice not to have to buy different machines in order to play exclusive games.
Hopefully motion controller free.
Legen...*wait for it*...dary!
All games on one beast machine = happiness. :D
But competition is good and certainly drives innovation.
Disaster! Its bad if one company holds the market alone.
Some argue that the nes,snes and the ps1,ps2 did great without any real competition.
Well even that look at the aftermath of those consoles, Nintendo were stubborn about adapting new technology like CDs and Sony came and saved the day.
Sony were too cocky after the ps2 that they thought a 600$ console would crush the competition anyway due to it brand.
Bottom line, competition is what drives this industry forward.
A....its a world...a world I wouldn't want to live in...
The PS1 & 2, were consoles that benefited from that luxury. If you wanted the best third party exclusives (during that gen) -- you had to have both those consoles.
And there's always PC (and handheld) gaming, so a "one console monopoly", wouldn't be as dreadful as some people would believe it to be.