While develops and some fans talk about how nice a one console world would be there are not enough people talking about the major negative impacts that would have on the video game industry. This will be about the largest negative impact, which would be removing the need for innovation.   There are various reasons a one console world would impact innovation and the following will show a few of them.

To begin with it would impact innovation due to the lack of competition. Why innovate if you don’t have competition? The main reason for innovation is to have a leg up on competition. Without someone to compete with there would be no reason to innovate. Sure making the console even closer to the performance of a computer would be something to work towards but that’s not innovation just evolution.   Another problem with the lack of competition would be the fact that if the manufacture of the one console did in fact innovate the consumer would not see that innovation until it was necessary for the manufacture to show it, such as another console coming into the market.

The second reason is actually more a part of the first reason as it still has to do with competition but on a different note. Without competition there would be a lack of direction in which to innovate. A good example of this would be like comparing the Xbox’s online functionality to what the Dreamcast offered. Sure the Dreamcast was innovative for having internet but the Xbox’s functionality and Xbox Live were really the innovative force that pushed consoles having online connectivity into the norm.   Maybe the Dreamcast having internet had no influence on the Xbox’s design but one could argue that if Microsoft had decided to leave out internet from the Xbox that the consoles we play today would be very different in their online experience. Peripherals would be another aspect that would suffer.   Imagine if Nintendo’s Gunpei Yokoi had not altered the original D-pad and shaped it into the cross appearance it has today. We might still be playing with joysticks or a D-pad that was far less functional than the ones we have currently.

Peripherals are also tied into the third reason as to why having only one console would impact innovation. What if the one console that did become the only console had a ground breaking technology that got non-gamers involved in games but also had the side effect of making certain games less fun. The Nintendo Wii’s controller is a good example of this because while the controller does add a new level of interactivity to games it also makes certain other games tedious and no longer fun to play. It will be a long time before motion controllers are able to handle a first person shoot well and even when that does happen it is unlikely the controller will be able to be used successfully for a fighting game that has any amount of depth. The manufacture of that console would keep the controls the same since it was the reason it did so well. Why change a peripheral that gets people who usually avoid video games to purchase your console?

All of the statements above, such as talking about motion controls, were not meant to say that some of the currently innovations are bad but if it was the only choice a large portion of gamers would be unhappy. In order for gamers of all types to be pleased we need multiple consoles to be on the market so we can get what we want from our gaming experience. If tomorrow two out of the three current home consoles stopped being manufactured and supported almost no one would be happy, even among fans of the remaining console. There is more than enough room for multiple consoles on the market and it will almost definitely stay that way. The point of this was not to state what will possibly happen in the future, as the console manufactures know most of this as well, but to show a side to the subject that some may overlooked in the past. Hopefully this was insightful and informative and if not at least it was entertaining to write.