One thing that keeps coming up in gaming discussions is the possibility of unifying the console market under one machine. The benefits of such a system are obvious;  developers and publishers don't have to worry about cross-platform releases, or differences in hardware; and consumers don't have to pick between several sets of hardware, or risk the possibility of choosing the “wrong” system.

But the idea is not without its problems, and they seems to outweigh the positives. The one console future seems unlikely, due to several reasons:

1. Who controls it? If it's a set of blue prints that anyone is free to make, surely they'll put upgrades in to make their version of the system more attractive to consumers, which will just get us back to where we started; several different machines with varying abilities vying for our wallets.

2. What sort of machine do you go for? Do you “do a Wii”, and make it (relatively) low-spec and affordable, or do you make an "everything and the kitchen sink", relatively expensive system, PS3-style? If you try and make a machine that appeals to everyone, then you'll end up with some awful middle-of-the-road box that doesn't really do anything well.

3. What happens when we want to upgrade? If everyone's so comfortable with the current machine, why would manufacturers risk change? If you go with upgradeable hardware, you'll end up with haves and have-nots, which, like several different consoles, splits the market place. If only a few consumers buy the upgrade, why would developers risk making a game that only a small section of the user base can play?

4. Unfortunately, PS3 and 360 players can't play, for example, Burnout Paradise or other cross-platform games together. But this isn't a problem with the hardware, but with the makers of said hardware not wanting things to work together. Think about Counter Strike: it's played by thousands of people, all with subtly different hardware, but they can still play together. There's no real reason that PS3 and 360 players can't participate in the same multiplayer experiences. This is a situation that would be fixed by the "one console", but could also be solved by current manufacturers opening up cross-platform compatibility.

5. Choice. With one machine, the consumer has no choice in what they get. With PCs you can get a low spec machine, or fork out some serious cash for a gaming beast. With consoles, you look at what each one does, and decide whether that's worth the price to you. With one machine, you have no choice, and that's bad for the consumer. And in the end, if it's bad for the consumer, it's bad for the manufacturers.

6. Costs. Current consoles are often sold at a loss, and the cost recuperated with the games. If one company makes the “one console”, what's to stop them charging the earth for it? If several do, they can't all guarantee returns on the games, and the cost of the machine goes up. Consoles are supposed to be affordable alternatives to the top end PCs. They cost you less, but you get less flexibility. The “one console” could end up being the worst of both worlds: expensive and inflexible.

7. Creativity. At the end of the day, the games are the important thing, and we all like to see new and innovative things being done. But games are a marriage of art and technology, and each drives the other forward. Eventually, there would be something that a developer wanted to do, but could not. You then get back into the upgrade problem, mentioned earlier.

Imagine if the “one console” had been made back in the 16-bit era - would we have ever seen the analogue controller if Nintendo hadn't made a new machine? Would we have had online console gaming if SEGA and Microsoft hadn't tried to push things forward with the Dreamcast and Xbox? Would we have had the shift to 3D or HD graphics? These are all things that have added greatly to the gaming experience. All are examples of creativity outside of the games themselves.

(This post is a heavily modified version of a comment I left on the Games Theory podcast website.)