Friday, April 20, 2007

Do We Really Need More Than One Console?

Just for the heck of it, I'd like to see us play a little Devil's advocate for a while, and really think about the whole multi-console thing.

Are we really better off having more than on console out there at a time, or is it in our best interests to have a single console? I know it's hard, but forget about what we've been spoon fed all of these years about how competition is the greatest thing ever, and how it fosters an environment of new ideas as one company continually does it's best to 1up it's competitors. I'm talking more down the lines of how it affects you on a personal level.

If there were only a single console out there, the industry would not be as complicated as it is now. You could walk into a store, and pretty much pick up the hot new game you were looking for, and not have to worry about such things as how it stacks up against the same title on other game consoles, or if the version you have has extra content that the others don't. You wouldn't have to worry any more about spending hundreds of dollars on a rival console, just to get your hands on a couple of first party titles that you'll likely breeze through in a couple of days or weeks anyway. Best of all, you could pretty much guarantee that developers would support it. What other choice would they have?

This would put an end to fanboyism, and would bridge the divide between gamers that grows wider each generation. I dare to say that having one console might actually strengthen the gaming community (from a certain perspective). This, of course, brings up its own set of possible questions and potential problems, such as who would get to be the dominant console maker? Why stop there? Who's to say that we only need one game developer? The list goes on and on.

No comments: