Avatar image for hizang
#1 Posted by Hizang (9359 posts) -

Ok so I was just wondering on your thoughts, is it better to channel all of your engery and money and effort into one console, or to channel it across more consoles?
Avatar image for sanryd
#2 Posted by Sanryd (1443 posts) -

Personally, I only play on one system, and unless you really care about exclusives, I'm not sure getting multiple platforms would be entirely worth it. This is especially true if all your friends have one console or another.

Avatar image for rockanomics
#3 Posted by Rockanomics (1187 posts) -

Well common sense says "monopolies are bad yo". I mean look at the board game, it always SEEMS like a good idea, but noone ever actually has fun playing it.

Avatar image for xyzygy
#4 Posted by xyzygy (10595 posts) -

I have all three systems but I mainly play one. It is nice for it's exclusives however - I don't know what I'd do if I didn't play Demon's Souls. It's more than one factor I guess, but the only thing you'll really be missing is a few exclusives from the other system. But there are enough games on both system to keep yourself occupied for a long, long time :)

Avatar image for flaminghobo
#5 Posted by flaminghobo (4779 posts) -

I would say no. This would mean that there is no competition and no driving force for innovation in order to get one over on that competition.

Avatar image for hitmanagent47
#6 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8553 posts) -

Channel it across different consoles and platforms (pc)

Avatar image for blackbird415
#7 Posted by blackbird415 (808 posts) -

While people have a primary system I would support multiple system to support multiple ideals. Companies have different approaches to systems.  
I tend to approach a set of new consoles with the sense that I will only purchase one. Ive only had a single console for each generation. I might change that eventually and get a ps3, 
but in the mean time im enjoying my 360 (really im enjoying my new pc). If I had to choose one electronic medium for video games it would still be the personal computer though
 @Rockanomics said:

" Well common sense says "monopolies are bad yo". I mean look at the board game, it always SEEMS like a good idea, but noone ever actually has fun playing it. "
I have fun playing it. MMUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA because im so eeevvviiiilllll :P
Avatar image for superpapergun
#8 Posted by superpapergun (104 posts) -

Imagine what kind of games developers could make if they didn't have to focus on ports.. The developer side would be awesome but the business side of it would never work.

Avatar image for thegremp
#9 Posted by TheGremp (2082 posts) -

Is that question directed at developers or consumers? 
For consumers, I'd say one console is enough, given that that console isn't a Wii.  The Wii isn't a bad thing to have, but if you have nothing but the Wii, you're gonna miss out on just about every game that's worth playing.

Avatar image for guiseppe
#10 Posted by guiseppe (2843 posts) -

No, that would take away competition, which in turn would take away motivation, which in turn would take away quality games.

Avatar image for carlthenimrod
#11 Posted by carlthenimrod (1616 posts) -

I use my 360 primarily for multi-platform/exclusives and my other consoles/PC for exclusives. But if your money is limited, I can see having one console with 20 games being a better solution then owning all the consoles and 2 games for each. So to answer your question, it depends on your situation I suppose.

Avatar image for hizang
#12 Posted by Hizang (9359 posts) -
  • @TheGremp:
    Thats debatable as people who don't own a Wii are missing some of the best games of this generation
Avatar image for skald
#13 Posted by Skald (4427 posts) -

Depends on how passionate you are about your craft. Also depends on how much cash you have. 
Above all, it's subjective.