Ever since the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were announced, fanboys have been present. People coming up with the most ridiculous comments to defend “their†console even they are both amazing consoles. Now what if Sony and Microsoft decided to head into the next generation working together?
This would first of all eliminate all these fanboy wars and debates over which console is better. This would also allow for an “ultimate†console. Sony could do the hardware, Microsoft could manage the online services, and they could both join together to enhance the software lineup. This would allow for 360 and PS3 gamers to join together and be gamers again. But could this lead to something negative as well?
If this were to happen, there would be a few negative effects. First of all, there would not really be any competition unless Nintendo decided to go after the hardcore next generation. Although this is possible, I expect Nintendo to keep doing what they do. Now without competition, what would force the companies and developers to work hard? What would drive them to go to the next level? For example, without Xbox Live, do you think the PlayStation Network would be where it is today? Sony had to be influenced to add the in-game xmb and trophies. One other negative occurrence could be the decisions. Sony and Microsoft have their own strategies and they would need to work out a way to work together. For example, Sony prefers to have a free online service, while Microsoft does not. They also have their own ways of getting their games. Even though this would take some time to work out, it would be very rewarding for the gamers.
So would you want a one console generation? Please leave a comment explaining why and remember that I am not including the Wii as it appeals to a different crowd.
![New Games [May 13-19 2013]: Metro: Last Light, Dust 514](http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Metro-Last-Light-170x100.jpg)
![New Games [May 6-12 2013]: Fatal Frame 2, Pinball FX 2](http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Qube-Against-the-Qlock-170x100.jpg)
![New Game Releases [April 29-May 5 2013]: Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, Fez](http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Far-Cry-3-Blood-Dragon-170x100.jpg)
![New Game Releases [April 22-28 2013]: Dead Island: Riptide, Star Trek](http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Star-Trek-2013-game-170x100.jpg)
![New Game Releases [April 15-21 2013]: Injustice, Papo & Yo](http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Injustice-Gods-Among-Us-170x100.jpg)
![New Game Releases [April 8-14 2013]: Guacamelee!, Age of Wushu](http://www.thebitbag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Guacamelee-170x100.jpg)
In theory, a one console generation would let games shine and make game creators compete on a level playing field. The best dev teams would stand out from the pack. No game would suffer from the bad port syndrome since all the work would focus on the content and not finding ways to adapt ideas to another platform . In the real world, the lack of competition would either make that particular console less powerful or too expensive. That same lack of competition could also have adverse effects on innovation. Some games that make waves as console exclusives would “drown” in a sea of sequels and shovelware. I think that a compromise between a “1 console future” and the current “3 home console present”. The best way I think might be possible would be this: -All three major platform companies should agree on a specific architecture that would be shared for all consoles of that generation(CPU-GPU-RAM-Disc Format). Once that is settled, then those same companies should work really hard to find interesting ways to make their version of that architecture the one that is the most appealing to consumers. Each company would keeps its exclusives and have to make them really stand out. The “same architecture/different systems” scenario would make the companies share R&D costs at first, help them drive down costs because of mass production of similar parts needed for all consoles, make multi-platform games equal on all platforms, etc.
Trying to imagine Sony and Microsoft working together on a Single Console is almost a scary thought for me. If it wasn’t for competition, Killzone 2 might not have been as much of a technical achievement and Naughty Dog might not be pushing the PS3 even MORE with Uncharted 2. If it wasn’t for competition in the gaming industry prices might not be as low as they are. Competition always keeps developers on their toes and always thinking of new ideas/ ways to push gaming forward, and no competition would eliminate that. The worse thing that could happen with a Single Console in my opinion is an oversaturation of low quality games/lazy developers…. I mean, just look at the Wii’s game Library. There’s so few quality Wii games on the Market and most 3rd party devs release shovelware on the Wii. If there was a Console Competing directly with the Wii, I bet there would be more quality 3rd party Wii games. If there was a console competing directly against the Wii, I bet that Nintendo wouldn’t be still selling the Wii at $249 and it would be cheaper…. actually I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wii goes this ENTIRE generation without a price drop. The same things that I mentioned about the Wii, could happen if a single console from Sony or Microsoft was ever released and I wouldn’t like that. Anyways, Next Generation I want to see a separate console from Microsoft and a separate console from Sony. Competition only makes things better.
if you want both microsoft and sony to pull out of the games industry then this is the way to do it. if you look at pass history, case in point is the 3DO console which had cutting edge stuff and was manufactured by loads of companys yet a complete failure. the PS1 turned up and kicked it ass right out of town. I can imagine as MS&Sony playing fair and lazy, then someone like LG or Samsung might just coming along one day and wipe the floor clean.
Since when was the Wii appealing to a different crowd? Gaming controllers have been changing for years, just recently they’ve stopped innovating with them (think N64, Dreamcast, Atari, 3DO, etc…) Then with games like MadWorld and The Conduit coming soon, and Reggie Fils Aime of Nintendo saying in Forbes that they plan to enhance the online features, I doubt this is a console catering to anything specific. The other thing is this wouldn’t be as much of a benefit to gamers as you think, it would actually cause a market turn down only because it would turn something into demand into a niche market. Alike DVDs, CDs, etc… And regarding stopping fanboy arguments, that also wouldn’t be a good thing. If someones willing to argue in favor of a product, that means they’re obviously doing something good, if they aren’t then well that product is bound to fail at some point.
In terms of saving money, I would like it. The lack of competition I think would hurt the industry really bad though. One perk would be that we wouldn’t see any fanboy crap anymore. Overall, I think we need to have at least two consoles on the market at all times. It’s a good idea, but for the sake of the industry, and innovation there must be competition.
This is what I have been saying for 10 years!! Multiple consoles sux! Video game consoles should be like DVD players or TV. Does anyone in this forum have multiple dvd players? Of course not! If you have a TV in your room, you have 1 dvd player, thats it. So, wheres the real battle? In the movie industry! They have to compete to produce good quality movies, regardless of the dvd player the final consumer is going to use to play the movie. I own an Xbox 360 and Im sad I cant play Killzone 2, MGS 4 and LittleBigPlanet just because I dont have a PS3. And I know some of you will say “just buy a PS3 cheap bastard”. Well I say I am the guy who buy s games, I should be the one to decide which console I want to have. I say we all should be able to buy whatever game we want and play it in whatever console we want. And a single console would help us to do just that. I totally agree on the idea. But lets face it, we are light-years away from that.
Excluding Nintendo like you did is not only arrogant, but it left a negative impact on your idea. 1.) Wii appeals to core gamers (not casual would be the best definition) and former non-gamers. There is a great enough software library to keep anyone busy. I don’t care about the shovelware, so I disregard it. I didn’t want to bother with No More Heroes, so I disregarded that, too. Just because the Wii doesn’t appeal to you as a gamer doesn’t mean that it solely appeals to non-gamers. 2.) Even if it did appeal to only non-gamers, your point is still weak. It doesn’t matter who likes the new console Nintendo will put out, it would still directly compete with the Sony+Microsoft console in every aspect. The Wii is simply too big of a console to disregard it as a console or that it isn’t competing directly with Sony and Microsoft, as it takes away a little bit of Microsoft’s and Sony’s shares of the market. As for the idea, I think it’s not good. Competition is what’s making the industry move as quickly as it is: graphics, new ways to play, etc. If a video game console became a TV, I don’t think quality would go forward as quickly.