:O woah silogon you got 3 bubbles now nice

Like i posted above, I say the same to you.
"To suggest that Dev's will become lazy is nonsense, they still have to compete amongst each other to get your cash to buy there games. Games would in theory be better also, developing for one console instead of 3 would create games like GOW, MGS, Killzone 2 and other exclusive that look good because they were tailor made for ONE machine.
Instead of spending the additional money on multi platform development the savings in costs could go to just making a better game in general."

Edit**
Xi..... I wasn't aware that Ubisoft was being forced to make drastically better games because they don't have the added pressure of selling specific consoles.
And who would be making all the games? We have hardly any Dev's left, in a few years EA and Activision would have bought even more companies out and as we've seen with the Activision/Vivendi merger they dropped games they picked up in the merger, and it would happen again with each additional studio they acquire.

That's ill concieved.

Right now Sony, MS and nintendo all have to work harder on thier games to maximize sales of their consoles. They're not only competing for sales on their home system vs multi-platform games, they're the driving force in selling more consoles and more of their games.

First developers wouldn't have the need to compete as the console maker would already stagger the releases of the biggest games to get the most sales.

Second developers wouldn't be forced to make drastically better games because they don't have the added pressure of selling specific consoles.

third, the market would get saturated with games very quickly, meaning games would be overshadowed.

fourth, there would be no price competition, all games would be priced much higher because the console maker would have no one to compete with.

Fifth, games would come down to a publisher marketing war, moreso then a quality war, the game that gets the most advertisement would sell more irigardless of quality.

Unless the single console was developed by a third party who never makes games, and the software was priced by publisher, all games got equal attention, all software was quality controlled, otherwise the quality would go down. Look at the ammount of crap that came out for the ps2 near the end of it's lifecycle, gamers do not need more of that.

If a one console were to stagnate for to long gamers would cease supporting it, maybe even move over to pc's.
And how could a one console end up being like a pc?
Console's are standard units, where as pc's are upgradable. Mine would be very likely be different than yours, but Id bet my beating heart that my 360 or PS3 are the same as what you have.

What I meant is, okay imagine it being like the PC market except without the upgrading and etc. Once some hacker comes along, mod the system, it's going to lead to piracy like the PC which leads to lack of supports from developer. Look at the PSP in US. Eventually, the company who makes this one console will be force to make a new one. If they make a new one, gamers will be force to upgrade and eventually lead to a point where there will be many versions.

As for the operating system, we could end up having something like Vista(not a bad OS but could have been better). Now if the developer for the one console's OS have no competition, the developer really don't have a reason to improve the OS. Right now, the only thing that's really pushing MS to make a better OS is OSX (and Macs are just becoming popular in the recent years) and Linux.

Competition is good and keeps the market healthy. Look at communism, it failed for a reason. I don't consider China a true communist country.

If the author (and some commentators) were educated, hell if they were thinking logically they would realize this is IMPOSSIBLE. Im sure you have all played the game monopoly, now lets teach you the meaning of the word. Monopoly - (1). a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; (2)exclusive control or possession of something. Now you see this is illegal and would never happen because a business without competition is a business without innovation. How do you think windows got a GUI, how do you think games got sound, how do you think games started using different mediums. Now you see if there is no competition then there is no reason for the said corporation to change their design or improve it, there is no reason too because what the hell what are you guys gonna do about it. You may think you not buying a console might make a difference but open your eyes it wont. Because there are millions of mindless drones out there who will take your spot and will buy anything if it promises them entertainment. Ultimately gaming will de-volve because the said corporation will cut costs to maximize profit. Leading to the end of gaming as we know it. Now tell me its a good idea. (Oh ya and its illegal)

"The antitrust laws make it unlawful to maintain or attempt to create a monopoly through tactics that either unreasonably exclude firms from the market or significantly impair their ability to compete."

But I bet no one will read this because it might lead them to "over think" the situation.

There are two reasons to comment: one to applaud it, or two to say it is the most ignorant statement that I have heard in awhile. Now those who have thought this through are hear because of the latter.

^ I bet you think I spelled ladder wrong too eh?

To your final question I say this instead of paying for "limited" news, Id rather get the full story and base my own opinion.

"...define it please."
"Comment-a remark, observation, or criticism."

Verb: to comment
definition: to make remarks, observations, or criticisms

Good point it has lead to many "Im with a stupid" moments.