How’s this for a loaded topic? Are we headed toward a one console future? I’d like to think so and always have, since I reached the age of reason. Just think about it; right now video games are one of the only mediums where this type of media divide exists. Sure, as of now you can buy an eBook in Kindle, Nook, or iBook format but there is always ePub as a standard open format. Music has MP3s, and film has DVDs. All three are channels in which you consume your media of choice in one, universal form. When it comes to console video games, no such standard exists. I admit, video games are relatively new compared to the other major mediums. Because of this, I understand that, it's constantly evolving and fitting into what it will one day become. I just think that it’s about time we start to look into this topic a bit more logically.

Back when VHS and Betamax were fighting for the consumer standard there is was one thing that consumers wanted; and that was for one to die and a standard to emerge. The same happened in music and the same is happening with books (I’m fully aware that it’s still an on going issue with eBooks but then again, that is even newer than video games). Just recently, look at what happened to Blu-Ray and HD DVD. While both were on the market, sales were weak because consumers were scared to support one format over the other -they were afraid when the smoke cleared they’d be in the loser’s corner. The point is, these types of choices scared off potential customers. For another example, look at how cable companies are fighting for our business; some of them buying channels in order to offer them exclusively on their network, and others outright lying about what they offer. Have consumers benefited from this cable company war by paying lower prices? No, and in fact, its driven many people away. How about this, imagine buying a Sony TV that only plays channels 1-50 while a Samsung TV only plays channels 51-100. Wouldn’t you be outraged? Why are we so willing to accept it in our console games?

We’ve always had competing games and hardware; in video games, that’s just the way it’s been. But does that mean we can’t change it? As an industry we have to evolve. I’ve heard naysayers using the example of competition being hurt by having only one one console on the market. I never understood that; as if Halo doesn’t compete with Call of Duty on the Xbox 360 in sales, or Uncharted and Tomb Raider don’t compete on the Playstation 3 in popularity. As it stands now, most games are multi-platform and a good amount of them suffer for it. If there was only one console, Playstation 3 owners wouldn’t have gotten burned on the Orange Box, and Xbox 360 owners would have gotten a fully uncompressed Final Fantasy 13. A fully supported system standard rectifies that.

It can even make economical sense. As it stands now most companies lose money on hardware for a very long time, with R&D and console launching budgets cut, companies like Sony, Microsoft and Valve can still push their services and concentrate on making and publishing games, which is where the real money is. I’d even wager that game development cost would go down as well. No need to hire a completely different team to make Portal 2 on the Playstation 3 if there is just one console to make it for.

When all is said and done, I don’t expect this to happen anytime soon. Even though gaming is in, it’s infancy, certain things needs to be addressed in order to move forward.

Isn't it a bit unfair to compare the Betamax/VHS fights to console fights? After all, that type of conflict has existed in games for some time; first it was cartridges vs. CDs, then CDs vs. DVDs, and now DVDs vs. Blu-Ray, and physical vs. digital. You're talking about two different beasts, to a certain extent.

With a one console future who gets to make it and profit from it? If you mean they all make a version of it like TVs/DVD players with different specs....isn't that just what we have now? What about PCs isn't that just a form of "One console" and look at how many GPUs/CPUs/Mobos are out there that developers have to consider. That would just translate to consoles just by different companies, the developers would still need to bug test with all the different designs. 
 
Of course I would LOVE to have just one console that could play all my games from each different system, the problem is trying to figure out a sound way of doing that. Only option I see is all 3 of them combine and work together (haha!) to make 1 console that the profits could be split. Or you know, everyone just use PCs!

" Only option I see is all 3 of them combine and work together (haha!) to make 1 console that the profits could be split.  "

Well, I don't have all the answers figured out but I assume all companies will decide on a standard spec, and hardware OEMs will be able to make the systems themselves. Essentially making Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft simply service and software providers.

i don't think we will see that any time soon. i think they would fight over who gets to make it and things. there are just a lot of companies that work with each other. it would be a crazy simple world if that happened. there is something like that onlive. it really only gets console third party systems, as of right now. it needs to get some exclusives in there for it to become popular.

The expansion module prompted legal action from Atari, but Atari was unable to stop sales of the module because the 2600 could be reproduced with standard parts.

Competition breeds innovation.

Doubt they'd want to do that. Giving up exclusive IPs (can't have with same specs) as well as the fact that if their consoles arent unique ysyd have to have more competitive prices. I also agree with the dude above, your analogies don't exactly apply here.

Stupid idea, only hurts the consumer.

Not going to happen. 

" With a one console future who gets to make it and profit from it? If you mean they all make a version of it like TVs/DVD players with different specs....isn't that just what we have now? What about PCs isn't that just a form of "One console" and look at how many GPUs/CPUs/Mobos are out there that developers have to consider. That would just translate to consoles just by different companies, the developers would still need to bug test with all the different designs.  Of course I would LOVE to have just one console that could play all my games from each different system, the problem is trying to figure out a sound way of doing that. Only option I see is all 3 of them combine and work together (haha!) to make 1 console that the profits could be split. Or you know, everyone just use PCs! "

If I understand you correctly, you do not want a single console perse but you want a standardised platform on which multiple companies can build their own console and compete. Definately interesting in theory...

First, you need to convince developers to switch to OpenGL or some new open API.  An open console with an open API is entirely possible.

" Stupid idea, only hurts the consumer. "

" Not going to happen.  "

I think it's kinda unfair to compare platforms to the format wars. I think it should be thought of as, for example, action movies vs psychological thrillers. Some people like the one, some people like the other; however, it will never become "standardised". I doubt any company from the big 3 would let the others just create a monopoly.
 
It's like cars. I like Porsche, you like Ferrarri. Neither of them will die anytime soon because there's simply no need for it.

" @teh_pwnzorer: Yeah, and the MSX is still around today, and is a powerhouse to be reckoned with.                                           "

" @StriderNo9: What if the only console was the Wii? Competition breeds innovation. If consumers don't have a choice, then there's little financial reason for the manufacturers to improve their product. That's why it's so important. "

Didn't read your post man, but let me just say; one console future makes sense to everyone except Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.  And because of that, it's never gonna happen.  We are better off hoping for a NO console future, where everything is run off our PCs.  That would cut licensing costs and create an open platform that EVERYONE could work with.  But again, that's not that likely to happen either.

For the same reasons the mobile phone market has competitors making different phones is because the it forces them to improve their product. Gaming can benefit from this as well. All three consoles are all vastly different pieces of technology, creating more varieties of games and giving us more to play. I would much rather live in a world where the Big 3 has to struggle to survive than where any one of them has an iron grip on our wallets and plans to suck us dry because we depend on them.

"I’ve heard naysayers using the example of competition being hurt by only having one console on the market. I never understood that, as if Halo doesn’t compete with Call of Duty on the Xbox 360 in sales, or Uncharted and Tomb Raider don’t compete on the Playstation 3 in popularity."
 
You don't understand it because it's not about the software, but hardware. The same would go with only a single producer of graphics cards for the PC. If there were only one company making the hardware, there would be less pressure to make the next generation of cards. We have the video cards we do today because of the intense competition between Nvidia and ATI (and now Intel). If there were only one console maker, there would be less pressure on the console creator to add new features. The Xbox 360 and PS3 have both come a long way since their introduction. If there hadn't been competition between Microsoft and Sony (and, yes, Nintendo), we wouldn't see many new features on the consoles. Both companies try to one-up the other in features, and they keep each other honest. Otherwise they'd release their consoles and that would be that.
 
In the end, it's good for PS3 fans that there is an Xbox 360, and vice versa. So long as both companies compete, we're all getting better consoles and better features. I think this aspect alone is enough to justify having multiple consoles. Yes, I know it increases the cost of game development, and saddles us with console exclusives. But as costs increase, exclusives have become more rare. I think we'll have multiple consoles for the foreseeable future, that we'll see fewer exclusives, and that this will be good for all gamers.
 
If you want a choice between manufacturers and a more flexible setup, there is already PC gaming. I think it's best if the two styles stay separate.

" @teh_pwnzorer: No, I looked it up on GiantBomb. Didn't seem that interesting.  "

" @Doctorchimp: because PC games sell only marginally better than XBLA and PSN games.  No publisher is going to sink a huge amount of money into a PC only game that isn't an MMO.  More platforms equals more money.  It's all about business baby. "

A one-anything future is a dystopian nightmare.

" @haggis: I disagree. Right now, what's inside an XBox 360? It's an ATI card right? Well I am sure there was competition between other card markers to be the card used in the Xbox 360, one of them one out in the end because it provided what MS needed and had a price they could afford. With Sony making their own graphic card, I believe, it leaves other card manufactures to make money off PC purchases, so it's mostly business as usual for them. And I am totally okay with the services competing, I don't mind paying for Xbox Live services so I can get Netflix or whatever service I want, as long as I can still play the same games as everyone. That's a bit more complicated but I still think it can work. Multiple services options on the same console for services, not games.  "

No, because they could then charge the consumer any amount of money they wanted for their services.

" @teh_pwnzorer: Now you're just being an ass. We're on a video game website, so I decided to look it up on this site, and I didn't find it interesting. How the hell does that make me ignorant? Sorry that I didn't want to take the time to look it up on Wikipedia (which I did after to whined about it, you ass). If anything, that makes me lazy, not ignorant.  "

Nintendo will never ever go for it.  There will always be at least 2.

" @StriderNo9:  First off there already is a standard...the PC.  Second you have software and hardware completely ass backwards. The actual films being on DVD and blu ray are the games and whether it's shot using a specific HD camera or using the latest 3D animation or CGI tech is the console. You have to make that distinction.  Games are too hardware reliant to ever benefit from a one console system. Do you realize certain games come out that are pushing technology as hard as they can so you need new technology to experience? Much like films who push out bleeding edge tech. Aren't you the same guy who said that portable gaming is the future too? "

Monopoly is never a good option....

Nope. 
 
Not going to happen anytime soon. 
 
A one console future entails that there will be different hardware specs depending on the price, much like PCs. And let's be honest, it's not easy keeping up with the constant upgrades PCs need already. 
 
What console was it that had multiple companies making hardware for it? Well, it's pretty much one of the most forgettable consoles that have been ever created. It was too confusing for consumers who just wanted to pick-up and play. 
 
And while R&D costs aren't recovered easily, even Sony with it's initial problems with the PS3 is now making money rather than losing it with every hardware they sell. I doubt that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would quit when there's still room for all three companies to make money on hardware.

Some people have made some interesting comments, but then again like everywhere else on the internet, some people just made blanket statements about competition, and others make comments about it never being a good idea to have one standard anything, ignoring the fact that things like TVs are already one standard, sure you can get them in different sizes and different features but they all play the same shows, the same with Blu-Ray, different players may have different features but they all play the same disks, or MP3 players all have different interfaces and features but they all play the same music (now).  
 
Now imagine if Nintendo, Sony, or whoever could sell you their console, along with all their features, services, and in their interface (competition). The only thing that would be standardized is the games and that is where the competition would stem from.

One console would be a console that is boring, uncreative, and expensive as fuck.

And to everyone mentioning the MSX, keep in mind, the standardized hardware was NOT the reason it "failed". There were a few more, one of them being a company called Nintendo. That's like saying The Dreamcast failed because it had internet capabilities, so having internet capabilities is bad for consoles. No, DC failed for many reason, being internet enabled was not one of them.

" @jayjonesjunior: Explain, how it hurts us. Are you hurt by TV standards? Please explain your part.  "

Hardware manufacturers wouldn't be willing to take a hit on the hardware side of things if that was the case. How much would the PS3 have cost if that were the case? It launched at $599.99 and they were losing money on it.

" Some people have made some interesting comments, but then again like everywhere else on the internet, some people just made blanket statements about competition, and others make comments about it never being a good idea to have one standard anything, ignoring the fact that things like TVs are already one standard, sure you can get them in different sizes and different features but they all play the same shows, the same with Blu-Ray, different players may have different features but they all play the same disks, or MP3 players all have different interfaces and features but they all play the same music (now).   Now imagine if Nintendo, Sony, or whoever could sell you their console, along with all their features, services, and in their interface (competition). The only thing that would be standardized is the games and that is where the competition would stem from. "

3DO attempted to do just that. We all know how that went.