Add one more vote to the “we’d be better off with a single video game console than with multiple ones.” Colin Campbell over at Next-Gen.biz (and who also hosts a video game podcast that treats its audience like adults… that’s rare) used up several column inches to defend the idea that a single, open video game platform would be better for everyone than the competing ones we have now. Everyone but Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, who all have designs on your living room. The theory here is that third-party publishers have to devote unnecessary resources to develop the same game on multiple platforms. Wouldn’t the game itself be better served if the devs were to devote their resources to developing one definitive version of the game? Retailers have to split shelf space for PS3/360/Wii when they could use that space for something better, like a better, wider variety of software? (How long do games stay on the shelves these days?)
This is all done with a nod to competition. Yes, we’re here today with th3 PS3/360/Wii because hardware manufacturers have continued to innovate. But if someone could could up with a system that’s sufficiently open and sufficiently upgradable, either via software or hardware, you’d be able to evolve with technology.
… which sounds a lot like the PC, which, I read every day, is dying a slow death.
If nothing else, a single console would do away with needless fanboyism.
EDITOR’S VIEW: The Single Platform Cometh [Next Gen]