Colin Campbell converts to the apostatic belief that the single games platform is a historical inevitability.

I’ve always argued against the notion of a single games platform, for two reasons. First that it could never happen; the hardware big boys wouldn’t wear it. Second that, even if such a thing were possible, on balance, it would not be a good thing for the consumer.

Now I’ve changed my mind on both; with a few caveats.

You’ll be relieved to hear that, even as a recent convert, I’m not completely evangelical about this stuff. I have my doubts. I certainly won’t be bounding up and down the halls of GDC asking bemused strangers if they’ve “heard the good news”.

I still see the other side of the argument. But I do believe it is probable that a single platform will one day emerge and that such a thing would, on balance, be good for consumers and good for the game industry.

moscallout It is entirely wasteful to be developing, marketing and manufacturing the exact same product for two systems./moscallout

From trawling the forums and the blogs, my rough estimate is that about 80 percent of people who care about this sort of thing disagree with me. But since we are talking about an event that has not yet happened we’ll all have to just wait and see who has the right of it.

In the meantime, let the debate continue.

From an industry point of view, the benefits of multiple platforms are not greater than the drawbacks (I’m talking here about competing consoles, not multiple types of games devices, such as mobiles, toys etc.). It is entirely wasteful to be developing, marketing and manufacturing the exact same product for two systems that, for all intents and purposes, are pretty much the same while being entirely incompatible.

It’s no coincidence that the most strident views about this subject – from developers and publishers – come out in favor of a single platform. Making games for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 confers no benefit on the maker. It would be easier and cheaper to make just one version, especially if that one version didn’t carry a hefty licensing fee payable to the manufacturer.

For consumers, multiple platforms offer choice. However, they also offer non-choice. If you are an Xbox 360 owner who would like to play Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune or Metal Gear Solid 4, you must pay $400 for a PS3; even though you already own a product that does pretty much the same job. If we take it as gospel that software is more important than hardware, it’s a bad deal to offer hardware choice at the expense of software choice.

Consumers are aware of the schism between games consoles and this does not, in their eyes, offer any benefits when they choose which console to buy or, indeed, to buy one at all.

Retailers, at present, must also divide their stores into sections devoted to different platforms. Again, in a business that depends on margins and eliminating waste, this is a wasteful system.