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.

Competition right now "innovates" by copying the industry leader. Pretty sure the industry leader continues coming up with interesting ideas in a one console world and I think we're fine without the knockoffs. This is a creative field, if you think competition goes away in a one console world you're a damn idiot. If you think innovation goes away in a one console world, damn idiot. Games are still competing with each other. Its like suggesting movies are devoid of innovation because there aren't 3 DVD derivatives fighting it out. What did the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle bring us? Jack shit. In a one console world, individual devs are actually competing with more devs so the product quality could be even higher. Epic Games doesn't have to worry about directly competing with Naughty Dog right now and maybe if they were directly competing GOW3 wouldn't look so phoned in and derivative.

Yeah I know shit sucks.

A one console world would be bad because then consoles would be incredibly expensive.
Oh, wait. That just means people would play pc more.
ONE CONSOLE WORLD SOUNDS LIKE MY KINDA PLACE!

" A one console world would be bad because then consoles would be incredibly expensive. Oh, wait. That just means people would play pc more. ONE CONSOLE WORLD SOUNDS LIKE MY KINDA PLACE! "

" Competition right now "innovates" by copying the industry leader. Pretty sure the industry leader continues coming up with interesting ideas in a one console world and I think we're fine without the knockoffs. This is a creative field, if you think competition goes away in a one console world you're a damn idiot. If you think innovation goes away in a one console world, damn idiot. Games are still competing with each other. Its like suggesting movies are devoid of innovation because there aren't 3 DVD derivatives fighting it out. What did the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle bring us? Jack shit. In a one console world, individual devs are actually competing with more devs so the product quality could be even higher. Epic Games doesn't have to worry about directly competing with Naughty Dog right now and maybe if they were directly competing GOW3 wouldn't look so phoned in and derivative. "

" @ryanwho said:

" Competition right now "innovates" by copying the industry leader. Pretty sure the industry leader continues coming up with interesting ideas in a one console world and I think we're fine without the knockoffs. This is a creative field, if you think competition goes away in a one console world you're a damn idiot. If you think innovation goes away in a one console world, damn idiot. Games are still competing with each other. Its like suggesting movies are devoid of innovation because there aren't 3 DVD derivatives fighting it out. What did the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle bring us? Jack shit. In a one console world, individual devs are actually competing with more devs so the product quality could be even higher. Epic Games doesn't have to worry about directly competing with Naughty Dog right now and maybe if they were directly competing GOW3 wouldn't look so phoned in and derivative. "

Actualy, with one console, and no hardware competition, we'd be playing NES games right now.  Graphics and gameplay in games depend on the hardware. PC graphics evolved through competition between Nvidia and ATI.  So you're full of baloney. Movies are not games. "

I thank everyone that gave constructive criticism.  I know from the article it doesn't sound like it probably but that was just my opinion, not what I think is fact. I may believe some parts of it more than other parts but it is still just my opinion. I'm glad to see that some do agree with a portion of it though. I've been thinking about that for a while and decided to finally put my thoughts into writing.

" @TwoLines said:

" @ryanwho said:

" Competition right now "innovates" by copying the industry leader. Pretty sure the industry leader continues coming up with interesting ideas in a one console world and I think we're fine without the knockoffs. This is a creative field, if you think competition goes away in a one console world you're a damn idiot. If you think innovation goes away in a one console world, damn idiot. Games are still competing with each other. Its like suggesting movies are devoid of innovation because there aren't 3 DVD derivatives fighting it out. What did the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle bring us? Jack shit. In a one console world, individual devs are actually competing with more devs so the product quality could be even higher. Epic Games doesn't have to worry about directly competing with Naughty Dog right now and maybe if they were directly competing GOW3 wouldn't look so phoned in and derivative. "

Actualy, with one console, and no hardware competition, we'd be playing NES games right now.  Graphics and gameplay in games depend on the hardware. PC graphics evolved through competition between Nvidia and ATI.  So you're full of baloney. Movies are not games. "

Although quite a stretch with the NES analogy, I agree with this.  As much as people like to ride off graphics power as a minor feature nowadays, the potential power of a console always gives a console an advantage over the current competition.  Of course it is up to the developers of consoles themselves to make those consoles easy to migrate to in terms of making games as fast and as easily as possible.  The PS3 was a good example of slow developer adoption, as they had to learn how to program for the Cell properly before taking advantage of all the available cores.  A one-console world will stall the progress of graphics more often than with multiple-consoles, as no developer can surpass the limitation of the console's graphics power until a successor arrives.  Just becase you as an individual may like the idea of halting the progress of more photo-realistic graphics, it doesn't mean that you should force that preference on others enthusiastic about better graphics.  Graphics have a symbiotic relationship with gameplay - the more graphics-intensive scenes you can perform on a console, the more flexibility a developer has in making their games as they intended, and frees their ability to express themselves in their games just a little more.  As an example, I would not play Mass Effect 2 if it was on the NES.  To me, the acting played a large role in that game, and it would not be conveyed well without the great facial animations that current game graphics can give us.  Text just will not do. "

There won't be console competition anymore, but who cares? As long as the game developers are competing, we get quality games.
 
I imagine that the only one-console scenario would be where PC reigns as the primary gaming console, and you buy different controllers for it. In that case, I bet games would actually get -better-.

One should take into account the vast numbers of nerds and tinkerers who constantly innovate their chosen field by simply being excited about pushing boundaries. Competition is definitely a factor in todays market, but what we (the consumers) get to see is what the companies (the suits, if you will) believe will make money, not what the developers nessicarily(sp?) want to produce.
As a young shithead I shared a flat with a programmer who used to work on the Anarchy Online series. After a while he quit his job, and while searching for greener pastures he decided to code his own graphics engine. Not because of competition, but because he wanted to see what he could come up with. While he is my favorite programmer in the world and a good friend, he is not uniqe. Most of his peers share his drive for innovation.
 
Another point is the Linux operating system. While some devs defenitely are into it because they want to give Microsoft a run for their money, there's countless people out there coding away in their spare time, just for fun. Curiosity and the human need to explore is what (I believe) is pushing boundaries and moving us into the future, not merely a drive to "win" in some sort of competition.
 
I don't believe that we would be stuck with a NES-level of graphics if there was merely one console on the market, because devs and hackers would continue to push things forward and make stuff better. Just as artists strive to make their next painting or composition better - or at least different - from their previous efforts, so does developers. Code is another form of art, and relies heavily on the programmers creativity.
 
In fact, sometimes competition stalls innovation, with all the companies leapfrogging each other in small increments as to not miss a single potential market. Just observe how bland and "safe" a large percentage of the games and their respective controllers are today. Everything is brown, and every one needs their own version of the motion controlled, casual gamer crap. Not to innovate, but to merely make piles and piles of money for their shareholders.
 
But as our world today is profit driven, competition is a factor in progress. I just don't believe it's the only factor. 
 
I'm not arguing for a world of one console. I'm just not agreeing with the prevailing opinion in this thread. 

I think some people here are confusing console competition and video game competition. With the way consoles have become full on entertainment systems these days, the two are very different things. I think multiple consoles definitely does benefit everyone in the long run. Competition increases innovation in every case, including this one.

Point me in the direction of any innovation that has come directly from a multi console system. Sometimes I don't think people know what innovation means beyond being a buzzword to sell products. The idea that the industry would be completely stagnant without Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft going head to head is ridiculous.

" Point me in the direction of any innovation that has come directly from a multi console system. Sometimes I don't think people know what innovation means beyond being a buzzword to sell products. The idea that the industry would be completely stagnant without Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft going head to head is ridiculous. "

I would like to think that developers would keep that competition alive. I mean they all seem like bros. Of course they would try to one up each other. Like who would actually get Jeff Bridges first? 
 
I think a one console world would be awesome. Developers would try new things and not have to worry about exclusives and timed releases and ports and typical PR bullshit.. 
 
Just imagine what these guys could do when they could work outside of the boundaries of what the video game industry has going on now.  
 
Now in the real world, whoever was in control of this one console (Bobby Kotick of course, I mean who the fuck else right?) would probably have this shit on lock down solely to make them as much money as possible. Developers would probably be in a shittier position than they are now with hours and pay and all that other controversial stuff we hear about. Forced to make scheduled releases of the same dribble just to appease the masses. 
 
I think one console would give the business end of the industry way too much power and that would just eventually bring the end of video games forever when no one wants to buy that shitty console that only plays Tony Hawk games. 
 
See, that's when the PC makes it's triumphant return.

" @HandsomeDead said:

" Point me in the direction of any innovation that has come directly from a multi console system. Sometimes I don't think people know what innovation means beyond being a buzzword to sell products. The idea that the industry would be completely stagnant without Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft going head to head is ridiculous. "

Literally everything each company has created was designed to be better than the competition and therefore sell more. How is that not the case?  Achievements are a fantastic example. The introduction of Xbox Live back in the day as well. Motion control obviously was a very successful innovation. Explain why I'm wrong. "

" @JJWeatherman said:

" @HandsomeDead said:

" Point me in the direction of any innovation that has come directly from a multi console system. Sometimes I don't think people know what innovation means beyond being a buzzword to sell products. The idea that the industry would be completely stagnant without Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft going head to head is ridiculous. "

Literally everything each company has created was designed to be better than the competition and therefore sell more. How is that not the case?  Achievements are a fantastic example. The introduction of Xbox Live back in the day as well. Motion control obviously was a very successful innovation. Explain why I'm wrong. "

That's not innovation. That's iteration. Just developing things bigger and better is a standard part of how all technology works. If there was one console, that too would be replaced after a cycle, maybe not the standard 5 or so years we've got accustomed to, but it would still move on simply because everyone else does.  Besides the motion controls which appeared because Nintendo were getting crushed and are now infecting everyone else, I don't see how any of the others could be attributed to the multi console system. How was the development of achievements related to anything Sony or Nintendo were doing? All that happens is something becomes a hit on one console then the developers scramble to make it work on all consoles, see Move and Kinect in relation to the Wiimote and Sony's terrible trophy system with Achievements. "