Is it time for one universal console to replace PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii?
By Dave Parrack
The idea of a universal console isn’t a new one, in fact it’s bandied around, and brought up at least once in every generation. So I’m doing exactly that. Just imagine one console combining the best elements of the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii. It would be awesome, and would mean the end of the fanboy wars once and for all. But could it possibly ever happen?
The subject of having one universal console to rule them all came to my mind again after the recent E3 Expo, where nothing really happened. In fact, the only piece of big news was the fact that Final Fantasy XIII was no longer a PS3 exclusive, with Microsoft doing a deal to bring the game to the Xbox 360.
When the kernel of the idea entered my head, I immediately thought of numerous other reasons why now would be a good time to talk about the possibility of a universal console. The biggest being that all the consoles seem to be attempting to copy one another at the moment. Whether it’s Sony and Microsoft trying to grab a piece of the casual gamer market that Nintendo owns, or the Xbox Avatars that copy Wii Miis, the big three are all converging in to one already, so why not go that final step?
Just imagine one standard universal console combining the best bits of the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii. It would be capable of amazing graphics, have a Blu-ray player, a hard drive, a brilliant online service, appeal to both casual and hardcore gamers, and be a must-buy for pretty much everyone. And the best thing would be having the idea of exclusives totally done away with.
This means that you and I could play Halo, Gears Of War, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Gran Turismo, Zelda, and Mario all on one console. It means we could all get along, happily playing our favourite games with, and against each other. No more arguing over which console was best, which means we’d all have much more time to actually play the games we love.
There are several arguments against this happening, the biggest being that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would never hand over control of their technology to a third party. There is also the fact that competition would then go out of the window, meaning the motivation to push the technology, and the quality of games is lost at a stroke.
Then there’s the pricing issues, which at the moment are dictated by competition. Take that away, and this console could be sold at a very high price, and the games along with it. Where would the motivation be for a price cut when everyone is forced to pay the price being asked if they want to play any games whatsoever?
I love the idea of a universal console, and would be willing to pay a lot of money for the privilege of owning one. I’m sick of being forced to buy 3 consoles every generation, just to play the few must-have games on each system. I can’t see it ever happening, but I think it would be good for the industry, and good for the consumer, despite the cons I have listed above. What do you think?
Related:
Entry was posted
on Sunday, July 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
under
Read more entries by Dave Parrack.
Stumble It!
Tips N4G
July 27th, 2008
First
July 27th, 2008
My question is, will blorge take an aggressive stance against retarded ‘first’ posts here? (by removing them)
Back on topic however
A universal console would be cool, but as you posted there are way too many cons.
No competition for the hardware and no need to aggressively price your product.
July 27th, 2008
Will never happen because we live in a consumerist time.
July 27th, 2008
Competition is good. We all bitch and argue on here all the time, but I don’t hold it against anyone.
We are, after all, still mutual gamers.
July 27th, 2008
The idea of One Console To Rule Them All is a terrible one. It would be the death of console gaming as we know it. No progress, no innovation… gaming would stagnate and die off.
-Arvis
July 27th, 2008
They kind a do have something that is close to a universal console. The PC!
July 27th, 2008
youve got it all wrong. a universal console would NOT eliminate competition, it would force the competition to take place in the software market rather than the hardware market.
is it any wonder that, for all the ‘hardware innovation’ weve had these past 8 years that games have become more bland and cookie cutter? that games have come to rely on graphics and gimmicks rather than gameplay? im sorry, but this system isnt working, and gamers still choose to argue over which system is better rather than discuss how the industry sold us out for advertising space years ago.
gaming is the only form of media we allow to use several formats for the same product, and the only people who benefit from this are the suits in sony and msoft headquarters, most of which have never even played a game. its okay though, we can all sit here and pretend like the gamers still come first. its what the hardware makers and their shareholders expext of us.
the attitude that a universal console is a bad thing is what will bring this industry down, not the other way around. looks like we didnt learn from the last time it went belly up
July 27th, 2008
Yes it’s a superb idea, one which I have pondered many a time, any doubters that say there would be no competition etc only need look at tv’s, stereos and dvd players as an example of how to it right.
You get the same basic technology across these products and you still get competition between them, ie DVD player against DVD player.
By companies adding a few bells and whistles but sticking to the core technology little jonny knows his DVD will work on every DVD player (ignoring next gen bluray and other regions of cos).
July 27th, 2008
Competition always produce better and more reliable (although this is not the case with 360) products. As consumer, I’d like to be able to choose. The only problem we have right now is fanboyism- people need to respect other’s rights to choose.
July 27th, 2008
There actually is such a console already. It’s called a PC. Anyone can develop games for it, and anyone can manufacture the hardware. If you want a universal console, buy a PC.
If the idea is to get Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to put out a single console … what would be their motivation? The production cost of the machine would require that it be priced pretty high.
What percentage of the people who bought Wiis would have bought this multi-platform console if they had had the opportunity?
If you want a console that will play PS3, Wii and Xbox360 games, you can already have it. There is a slight disadvantage that the console is actually housed in three separate pieces of hardware, but the option is certainly there if you want it.
I don’t understand the benefit being suggested.
Let me put this another way…
If the dream console that you are imagining were to be real, what would stop some other company from putting out a separate console with its own exclusive content?
July 27th, 2008
@ Orlandpark 77: Are you a fucken retard??? Why do idiots like you always say “first” all the time a new article comes up!? My goodness, it’s annoying. GROW UP!!!
…..but um anyways, I think a universal console could come close to reality. By far I think 3 consoles is absurd and ridiculous. But to make matters even worse, having 20gb, 40gb, 60gb, and 80gb SKUS is even more ridiculous!! Can we just have one video gaming console that everyone can enjoy please????
If not one, can we at least just have 2, and no more than 2??? With that being said, I think Nintendo should team up with Sega, and combat the Microsoft Xbox and Playstation 3.
The only reason why I haven’t purchased a Nintendo Wii yet is because the games are too kiddish for me. I’m more of the hardcore type of video game player. And for casual video game players, just find something better to do!
Obviously you’re not a true video gamer, so why should game developers waste time, effort, and money for individuals who rarely play video games, huh!????? It makes no fucken sense to me.
That’s like Long John Silvers trying to advertise to White Castle consumers. They will RARELY go there, let alone purchase any food from Long John Silvers!!!
……Anyways, it was just a thought. But maybe there could be one console that brings the food to the table.
Who knows……..
July 27th, 2008
Oh DAVE PARRACK wouldn’t that make you redundant, reporting on the faubles of each console and stirring arguments and people like Kev into aggressive arguments on here?. on the flip side, why not make a crap universal console with all the crap bits of this gen, such as RROD, long delays and a childish image?
July 27th, 2008
That sounds like an awesome console Bourne, how do you come up with these ideas. Have to make it really expensive too mind, and make sure none of the features are included. Expensive add-ons are a must.
July 27th, 2008
This article is so stupid it will never happen it will ruin the gaming industry. PS3 is the closes you gonna get to that dream.
July 27th, 2008
“This article is so stupid it will never happen it will ruin the gaming industry. PS3 is the closes you gonna get to that dream.”
There’s always one clown in the bunch. I fail to see how the platform with the least amount of games offers the closest thing to having just one console. A fanboys mind does not thrive on logic but rather bong resin.
July 27th, 2008
If you’re willing to pay a whole lot of money for an all in one console, then why not simply buy all three? Sure it’s convenient to have an all in one box, but some of us have strict preferences that we wouldn’t want in one box. I would never pay to play online. Having PSN is nice because I casually play online and I don’t care for any of the additional community features of LIVE. I don’t use friend’s list or anything unless it happens to be someone I personally know that I would like to play with. In any case, so long as Sony Microsoft and Nintendo are still making first party games you will never see a one console future that does everything. The console war, particularly between Microsoft and Sony is much bigger than gaming itself and also has to do with furthering movie and digital download services and in MS’s case, the promotion of Windows and their software standards. Add to the fact that the overwhelming majority of casual consumers at large don’t really give a damn that one or two cool looking games are exclusive to another console. They’d be satisfied with whatever’s being offered on theirs that they don’t mind missing out on a couple of games.
July 27th, 2008
It would be very, very dangerous to allow one console - for a little while, we’d have unified specs and obviously people able to focus more on third parties, but over the longer term, we’d be faced with the issue that has affected _every_ other industry where there has been a monopoly. Unlike TVs, consoles are changing significantly over time - even more so, with the new firmware. Further, to use the TV example, if it was only one manufacturer, it’s likely HD would have taken longer to come about and initially been far more expensive. Competition generates creativity, as the console-makers vy to out-do each other. Indeed, if it wasn’t for competition, we likely wouldn’t have had the Xbox in the first place, and their wouldn’t have been the pressure on Microsoft to have a top-notch service in Live. Nor would there have been the pressure to get a number of high-quality first-party studios and allow them to really go to town on the PS3 to create the likes of Uncharted, or Home. Compare the level of innovation in the console market over the last ten years, to that in innovation in the Microsoft Office range of software (which I’ve been using professionally over that period, and which is still buggy and far too limited given what it says it should do) and you’ve got an example of why competition is good, and monopolies (or close enough) is bad. We get better tech and features, and a wider range of games, sooner and cheaper - if you’re in doubt, read up on the history of monopolies, the history of the Soviet Union, the Cuban economy or basic economics, and it’ll give you a good idea of why we don’t want a single console. As an economist and a gamer, I can understand why the idea of a single console is appealing, as was the idea of communism, but in practice, given the nature of markets and humanity, a monopoly (which is what it would be - unless no-one wants the features or specs of consoles to change again, ever) leads to higher prices, less innovation and lower levels of quality.
July 27th, 2008
whats the point?…you named what the universal console would have, and the ps3 has ALL of them….
July 27th, 2008
Stupid. Would stiffle innovation (after all, what you describe IS essentially a PC) and developers are LEAVING PC gaming in droves. Besides, this universal console would easily cost as much as all 3 current consoles combined (or more), thus forcing ALL into the high end and thus killing the market. Stupid Dave, just plain stupid.
July 27th, 2008
Whilst a lot of people may think this is a stupid idea; it’s really not. Hardware is a huge expense to MS, Sony and Nintendo, not to mention the on going hardware support. These company’s make their money by licensing; removing the gamble on hardware is an ideal solution.
Microsoft is already looking at licensing their technology to hardware venders for direct integration into TV’s.
July 27th, 2008
Hey why don’t you assholes STFU and get off of DAVE’S cock, you losers!!!! FUCK YOU!!!! The universal console would be a GREAT IDEA!!!! SO PISS OFF!!!!
Man, what stink hole do these shits crawl out from!!???!?!????? Hmmph, hey Dave never mind those FUCKS! Your idea is great, and I totally agree!
July 28th, 2008
His idea sucks just like all his article screw him.
July 28th, 2008
A fashionable lady Ivan? Wow what a fashionable lady. Give me a kiss man! LMAO, screw you! His idea does NOT suck! It’s original. Please if you have nothing nice to say, STFU!!!!!! Thank you
PS: Thats why he’s the writer, and you’re the fanboy raging unnecessary war in here
July 28th, 2008
you mean another monopoly, like windows…
where they overprice, deliver crappy products, do wathever they want, sell whatever they want, foget innovation, and just keep taking our meney for nothing…
nahhh, thx…
July 28th, 2008
i think its definately worth serious thought.
I actually quite like the idea. As long as they did it right and properly. But what are the chances of that ever happening?
As bourne said we’d end up with a console that has three sets of problems, instead of just one per console
July 28th, 2008
Personally keep it seperated but merge the online play.
July 28th, 2008
Cad’s idea is the best one yet. That would be fun!
July 28th, 2008
it would be best for everyone if they did move to one console. the predictions of “no competition” is typical b.s….
it would be better for developers, better for gamers, and better for retailers.
i really think it’s just a matter of time.
July 28th, 2008
Kev without competition gaming would be worse. Competition keeps things fresh.
July 28th, 2008
Kev, CAD is completely right.
Nothing gets pushed hard if there is no competition. We would all be fighting with sticks still if there had not been a war.
July 28th, 2008
the ONLY thing “pushing” gaming are the developers. NOT competition, especially given the fact most games are multiplat.
a single console will drop prices, ensure profits, and create a more stability.
i say, Yes. The days of $400 launch prices and $60 would be a thing of the past…
July 28th, 2008
Kev if there was one console it wouldn’t give you a chance to argue with us…whether thats good or bad is neither here nor there i guess. But hey i doubt microoft and sony would want to “share” profits or team up especially as the sony dude (forgot his name) suggested he’d rather die than have a Microsoft exclusive (yes he’s hypocritical but this isn’t the point i’m making) the point being i doubt they’d ever team up.
July 29th, 2008
bourne - agreed. sony and ms won’t team up. ms can drive sony out of the market at current pace negating the need for sony. the wildcard being Apple. too quiet….
July 29th, 2008
Amstrad have been quiet too…. too quiet…
July 29th, 2008
“Hey look, it’s Raph!
Yeah, a little TOO Raph…”
July 29th, 2008
Kev, but WHY are developers pushing gaming? BECAUSE of competition. they aren’t being paid to make something worse than what else is on the market.
Kev, games being multiplat is a reason why competition DOES push. We are talking about console development, not game development.
If PS3 and 360 only had multiplat games, that would be the ultimate incentive to push the technology, to get people to buy their console. Since the games would be the same.
July 30th, 2008
royzy - developers are pushing gaming because they are artists (even kojima stated this). do you think cliffy b sits around and says “i have to make this game beautiful because of competing games”? hell no. he makes a game beautiful because it’s his name on the box and in the credits.
console developments moves forward as all things tech move forward. Moore’s law, etc…
July 30th, 2008
@harry:
As have Commodore and Atari but what’s the point?
@Future:
“His idea does NOT suck! It’s original.” Well THAT’s a novel comment! Apparently you didn’t even READ THE FIRST SENTENCE of the article??? I highly doubt that it’s DAVE PARRACK who brings it up “at least once in every generation.”
July 30th, 2008
granted that is true Kev, things do move forward regardless and developers are artists at work, especially kojima who tries incredibly hard. But I’m (and the article is) talking about the consoles themselves, where a lot of the development is undeniably about being a better performer than your rival. And using each other to ‘copy’ (couldn’t think of a better word, but you know what I mean) is a way of keeping up and making sure you offer everything the others do. No company thinks of everything on it’s own.
July 30th, 2008
royzy - that’s sony’s problem too. they designed the ps3 trying to be “better” than the 360’s hardware, when the 360 was simply designed to handle coding more efficiently thus giving developers more flexibility and resources. they didn’t design it trying to be “better” than anyone since the ps3’s hardware wasn’t finalized until after the 360 launched.
July 30th, 2008
Kev,
If there weren’t competing consoles, we’d all still be playing cartridge-based games and would have no online gaming at all. Striving to make the CONSOLE more capable means that we get GAMES that take advantage of the capability.
-Arvis
July 30th, 2008
Developers of the 360 have already confirmed that they were to rushed by Microsoft to finish the 360, to get it out before the PS3. You know, their ‘competitor’. So even before release, 360 was affected by potential competition. Bringing ‘next-gen’ to consumers quicker than anyone else. Then, as you said, Sony were probably like ‘fuck, umm umm, let’s put THIS in, that’ll be the winner’. Nintendo clearly looked at the market before making their departure from ‘hardcore’.
Product design always involves heavy analysis of competition, but I’m you already knew that.
July 31st, 2008
arvis - you make way too many assumptions. i guess you never heard of moore’s law. technology moves forward. competition or not.
July 31st, 2008
Kev,
Competition moves it forward faster.
-Arvis
July 31st, 2008
arvis - can you link the part of moore’s law where it states competition is why technology moves forward at such a fast pace? thanks. i haven’t seen it…. anywhere.
July 31st, 2008
arvis - seriously tho; i do agree competition drives a lot of innovation, but it’s not as critical as many think it is.
it’s funny tho; ps3 fanboys had no problem when sony tried to corner the market with the ps2, but suddenly it’s a SIN because some think ms is trying to do this. (even tho they have never stated this).
July 31st, 2008
Kev,
I can’t post a link to common sense. But I can post a link to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
Microsoft has a history of monopolization. It’s the endgame of all their business ventures.
As for Moore’s Law, all I’m saying is that any idiot can look at the history of consoles and realize that we would not have had an SNES when we did were it not for Sega working on the Genesis.
-Arvis
August 1st, 2008
@ DavidB……I want you to start living as a gay woman.
August 3rd, 2008
arvis - no. the natural order of formats and costs would have moved consoles into the areas of disks eventually. heck even ninty moved that way. again, you’re assuming….
who cares about ms’ history? again, why were yoiu not worring about sony when they tried to monopolize with the ps2 and again with bluray?
oh that’s right…because you have an unnatural hatred for all things ms (and prolly american).
oh well…
August 3rd, 2008
these pretsels are making me thirsty !
August 12th, 2008
here’s a good idea. good for sony, good for ms.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10007014-17.html