Phil said:Fact is; on a single console, all developers would only have to concentrate on one single piece of hardware, reducing multi-platform targeted titles (because there wouldn't be multiple platforms) and increasing competiton among other competing developers. The end result would be better utilized hardware, period. Better utilized hardware == better value for money, and above all, because no one has to spend additional money on other hardware (let alone libraries and additional art assets), it would drive down costs further. In the end when developers have already established their libraries, engines and assets for a platform they're already getting great performance out of, they can use their time to make their software better by concentrating more on gameplay, which again equals higher quality software for all of us. Want an example? Take Jak 2 => Jak 3. Same engine, much better game thanks to them concentrating on gameplay elements.
If it were a monopoly, I am sure by now they'd have fully tapped the power of colecovision and be thinking about creating a new console. Because no one has to spend money on better hardware right?
<edit> yes its a ridiculous example, but so are all the assumptions that innovation, hardware quality, hardware advancements and prices would be in the best interests of the consumers if there was no competition.
Last edited by a moderator: