This week for Would You Rather we have a question in response to something we experience (and some participate in) everyday, the console war.
With companies merging to create larger studios, hardware manufactuers losing billions of dollars to maintain market awareness by undercutting consoles and exclusive games staying out of some hands because of our system selections where does it end? Are we heading into a one console future? Probably not. Or maybe. Well, it isn't our idea to judge -- it's yours! So this week we wonder, would you prefer a one console future and enjoy all games or do you crave the smell of napalm in the morning in this, the console war? Discuss.
Feel free to share the reasons for your vote in the comments. We'll share the results of the poll during the next edition of Would You Rather ... which hits X3F every Wednesday.
Last weeks WUR results can be find after the jump!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
6-25-2008 @ 5:45PM
pandlcg said...
It's not that i enjoy the arguing, it's that i think competition is good for the industry and ultimately for gamers.
Without competition companies wouldn't be forced to push the envelope and develop better products.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:01PM
Muffin_man said...
I'm exactly the same. This is a ridiculous WYR edition. Competition is a good thing, it lowers console prices and provides more consumer choice. If there was only one console in the future then that company could exploit consumers.
Just look at what EA are doing, they buy smaller companies and merge them into their own company. We all know how much EA over-price their content and screw over customers, just imagine what it would be like if EA was the only gaming company out there.
What a ridiculous poll.
6-26-2008 @ 6:22PM
Caleb Frost said...
agreed, while a ton of money is wasted on trying to gain market share, ultimately the competition drives the console makers to add more abilities and produce better games
6-25-2008 @ 10:17PM
Sean said...
Totally agree...
Would the Wii exist without competition? No. They would not have felt the need to radically change the nature of gaming becasue they couldn't keep up graphically and still make gobs of money.
Would the PS3 still be $600? Yes, without Microsoft breathing down their necks, Sony would not be dropping the price and adding features so quickly, if at all.
Would Microsoft have developed all of the online features for the 360? No. I doubt they would have felt the need to really work on Xbox live as much as they have.
This competition is the best thing for consumers. You get to choose between three great consoles that offer really different expereinces.
6-26-2008 @ 12:48AM
Flakundenga said...
Yeah, that's exactly why I voted to keep multiple consoles. Competiton=quality!!!! NO MONOPOLIES SVP!!!!
6-26-2008 @ 6:50AM
Boff said...
Competition isn't just a good thing, it's ESSENTIAL to drive the industry forward.
I can't believe how the poll is so close!
6-25-2008 @ 5:49PM
jim said...
man this is a hard one.. more consoles means more competition but 1 console could mean all the great games without having to shell out 300+ multiple times.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 5:50PM
Peff said...
I picked more than one due to having people have a preference. if someone hates the controller or something for the 360, they can take the PS3 or the Wii. and if there is one console, people are stuck with one, and if they dont like it, they dont buy the system and therefore dont enjoy the goodness that are video games.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 8:42PM
blueGrassTubb said...
Your comment is well taken, but I imagine that the 3rd party peripheral market would explode, and there would be choice. I, like some others, HATE the PS3 controller (actually any PS controller), and would likely not game at all if I HAD to use that controller.
The real reason why I would still support competition is for the.. competition. If there were but one console, there would be no reason to keep pushing the boundaries on gaming. Gamers would have to either suck it up or game on a PC.
6-25-2008 @ 5:53PM
Bluemanrule said...
In a competitive market, differentiation is based on several factors; core competency, competitive advantage, value-added services (for services) and features (for goods). As pontificated before on several other boards, the lack of a competitive hardware marketplace will ulitmately result in decreased innovation and could lead to the biggest demise of the gaming industry since the early 80s.
Besides, I
Reply
6-26-2008 @ 9:34AM
sldtrap said...
Are you my Econ teacher?? :-)
I'm joking, but I agree with your rant.
6-25-2008 @ 5:57PM
DBoyFlex said...
I agree with the first, competition drives quality, usually.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 5:58PM
Bluemanrule said...
continued from before...
Besides I love my 360. Although past performance is not indicative of future results, it's normally a good yard stick.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:04PM
Etchasketchist said...
If the One Console is the Wii, no thanks.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:06PM
bigjrussell said...
Monopolies are never good. Necessity is no longer the mother of invention, competition is.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:07PM
The Mighty Ant said...
With only 1 console we would be at the mercy of just one entity...with only 1 console the one entity would be a monopoly...with monopoly you have a great board game but there would be no DLC...
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:08PM
sifer2400 said...
lol yea any intellgent gamer would easily pick more than one console other wise we the consumers have to pay up the nose
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:10PM
Trogdor said...
Free market capitalism FTW. Fanboy wars FTL.
Reply
6-25-2008 @ 6:11PM
BerNasty said...
I think one console is the better move. the innovation is still possible with only one console, seeing that people "usually" will not buy games that completely blow. Or maybe I am giving to much respect to the average consumer, I mean 50 cents game did do extremely well.
In terms of the controller people prefer, with one console; companies would be able to hone in on making controllers that are perfect for the consumer. who says that you only need one controller? As long as the connection is not proprietary, the possibilities are endless. I long for the day when I can buy the controller that i feel is most adequate for my gaming needs without them being craptastic, like some of the other third party peripherals i have seen. This would also spur competition and innovation in terms of what type of controller the consumer really wants.
Reply
6-26-2008 @ 6:46AM
Boff said...
If there was only 1 console, people would have to buy it if they wanted to play games, regardless of whether they liked the console/controller/whatever.
You wouldn't have a choice. Simple as that. Now if company X made the only console in the world that everyone HAD to buy, why would they need to innovate? Just churn out a slightly faster or different coloured model each year and that's it.
Very bad for us gamers.