Denis Dyack has been waxing lyrical about his vision of a 'one-console' future. Here in part two of our special feature (aka excuse to schedule this post and knock off early for the bank holiday), Al Warmington lays out the reasons why it's a bloody terrible idea and should be shunned at all costs:

There's a bloody good reason why developers and publishers are behind a single unified console concept: both parties stand to gain a lot more financially if there is just a single platform. Publishers want to reach as large an install base as possible and that is difficult in the current console climate given that there are three very different machines out there all taking up different spaces in console land. Developers also want it because conforming to the wishes of the publishers means dedicating more valuable resources to adapting games for multiple platforms rather than focussing on making the core game itself even better.

But there's an equally good reason for having distinct closed platforms: it gives the platform owners - the console manufacturers - the ability to control exactly what content appears on the system. They can decide how games should work, they can determine the quality and content of the titles they allow onto their systems and ensure that they conform to standard methods of interface. If we throw that open to a single unified platform, we consumers are going to lose most if not all of the things that make games consoles gaming the easy-to-use, highly accessible devices they currently are.

The idea that eliminating competing consoles will eliminate all the hardware competition in console space strikes me as pretty naive too. In fact it will only make things worse. There's no doubt that a lot of casual gamers will be happy with just one bog standard box to waste away ten minutes of an evening on Bejewelled 8 or whatever, but the fact is that even half-serious gamers want to get the most out of their systems. That's part of the reason for the dangerous levels of fanboyism surrounding every console out there - people want to think that they've got the best.

Where that desire exists, there will always be companies prepared to sell products and services to satisfy it. Transform the console platform into an open standard and soon you'll be able to buy bigger and better hard drives for extra storage, faster processors for speedier loading times and better graphics options to improve the visuals. Then there'll be means to ensure your console has the edge at online multiplayer, and providers of premium rate multiplayer services to prevent cheating and/or provide a level playing field for players.

Then there's the interface options. A mouse and keyboard is pretty much the best control method around, but it totally lacks the sofa-friendly convenience of a control pad. Control pads are in turn less accessible than, say, a Wii remote design, although they are better for standard gameplay models, which 18 months of Wii shovelware has well and truly taught us.

Suppose you could ever persuade the Sonys, Microsofts and Nintendos of this world to hang up their spurs and allow a single platform in to take their place, we'd only find them turning to manufacturing peripherals, add-ons or accessories. And more would enter the fray too, only serving to making the situation more confusing.

In the end, all the financial gain to be garnered from a wider install base will be offset by the increased complexity of a single open platform. This isn't just a theory - you can already see it happening because there is currently a system in place that benefits from an absolutely vast install base, operates with any number of hardware peripherals and contains a huge range of internal configurations: it's called a PC.

PC gaming is currently struggling under the sheer weight of the diversity within it. Yet it's not even a fully open system, seeing as it is mostly controlled by Microsoft which provides the vast majority of operating systems, and yet publishers are starting to turn away from it simply because it's becoming a bloody nightmare to tailor games to suit the near infinite number of different PC setups. These range from PCs that that are little more than a glorified paper weight to those that would make a sports car blush - and the gap is getting wider all the time.

Dyack is right in the sense that a monopoly within console space would be extremely bad. But the way things currently stand, it looks ever more likely that there is space enough for the three manufacturers to survive with their own not insignificant share of the market. It might never reach a perfect 33.3 : 33.3 : 33.3 split, but it will probably be close enough.

At the same time, the intense competition between them is driving technology forward. We're approaching the 1st anniversary of the PS3 in Europe, but just look at how many changes it has undergone in terms of its firmware alone. Take away that competition and it will all grind to pretty uninspiring halt. Well, it won't really. Within a week of a standard platform opening up and we'll be back to bickering about whether it is better to buy Sony's add-on for additional movie playback options it entails or the Microsoft one for the improved online support.

Came straight to this page? Visit www.pspsps.tv for all the latest news.