People are talking about the future.

And - to be honest - I cannot figure out why they are saying what they are saying.

Developers and publishing companies are gazing into the bright lights of the future and seeing a single gaming system atop a Grecian pedastal. From a developer standpoint, this desire actually makes a lot of sense. Multiple consoles tend to restrict both the advancement of technology and creativity.

Video games are costing more and more to make and they are requiring larger and larger teams of developers, designers, and artists to make them. In order to get a decent return on their investment, more and more game developing houses are breaking away from the shackles of exclusivity agreements and going multi-platform. However, this “software polygamy” brings with it another problem. Developers must always cater to the lowest denominator when it comes to system specs. A game that is intended to be released on the Wii, XBox 360 and PS3 will have to cater to the graphical capabilities of the Wii because it is the ‘weakest’ of the three. As a result, developers hands are frequently tied when it comes to trying out interesting new features in gameplay.

Take - for example - Portal. This is a game that would have never functioned on the Wii. The processing power just is not present. However, the XBox 360 could handle it (as could the PS3 and PC). So, they catered (roughly) to the lowest common denominator (the 360) and went from there. Portal could have likely done a lot more if they had designed it for an extremely high-end PC. But then the return on that product would have been low (because who has the money to own and operate a supercomputer these days).

In addition to these technological restrictions, multi-platform can reduce creativity. You can not explore the stories, atmopsheres, and types of gameplay on multiple systems that you would have the freedom for on a single powerful system. Not to mention the fact that some consoles cater to the lowest common denominator of age (kiddies beg parents to buy games). As a result, some developers may get stuck working in a developing house that is constantly making the next ‘Donald Duck’ game for the Nintendo DS, or the next movie tie-in. Now, this is unavoidable. Someone has to make these games. Developers should be thankful that they actually have a job.

And - for publishers - I can obviously understand the desire to consolidate. Look at EA. It struts around like Kirby and enhales everything. EA is slowly engulfing more and more of the individual developers and publishers that comprise the gaming industry. Soon it is going to be something like EA-Consolidated Publishing that produces every game in existence.

But that is neither here nor there.

The group that a single console future affects is, obviously, the consumer. Imagine if the Sony PS3 was the only console on the market right now. Then we would have to deal with this. And that is just bad news. Plus, they do not even have to try anymore. Why would anyone make quality video games if the consumer has no alternative? Why would they provided their products at a reasonable price if there is no alternative? If the PS3 was the only system on the market, smaller developers would die out (they would not have the operating to create a Playstation 3 game).

And - eventually - the gaming development industry would become this “old boys club” where an unenthusiastic developer community would recycle the same engine over and over and make uncreative games. It would be a monopoly. And I think gaming would suffer from that more than it does from developers having to develop from the lowest common denominator or (if they’re ballsy enough) choose which system to get behind.

Where do you think the future will take us on this issue?