By life end:
- Wii- 100 million+
- Xbox360- 35~40 million
- PS3- 30 million
- PSP- 30~32 million ------------- FAILURE
- NDS- 85~90 million (Skeptical) - FAILURE
- NDS- 100 million+ (Optimistic) -- Success!
By life end:
You do not have to look any further than Microsoft Windows to see how the lack of competition is a bad thing for everyone. In the short term one console to rule them all would be great. Problem is why come out with something new? Why innovate or for that matter help the consumer at all? Without Sony and Microsoft there would be no Wiimote, no PS3, or even an XBOX360. In the end competition is great even if you have to make some sacrifices so that the future is bright.
In reply to Monopoly=good posts: Monopolies are almost always inherently bad for the consumer, but the video game console business is slightly different. I don't think it's an actual monopoly in the truest sense of the word. It just seems that way because of the nature of the industry. Any company with the resource to compete is free to introduce a new console every time a new generation begins. Both Sony and Microsoft are fine examples of this. Introducing one during the course of the reign of the top console is almost always destined to fail, however.
PSN ID: Kwaad
I fly this flag in victory!
First off I'm using the consortium concept as a hypotheitcal one. There is no way someone like Sony would just start one out of the blue, at least not in the immediate future. But I just want to address some of the missconceptions about the idea, and get your mind to open to other business models instead of pretending the only way a business works is the only way it's ever been done. first:
Yeah, I finally have a sig.
I'm for Sony, but I'm thankful for Microsoft and Nintendo because they will keep Sony honest. Monopolies are very bad and would only lead to crap. That being said, I think it's foolish to believe that Sony will not win this current war unless something ridiculous happens. The 360 is number one because it came out first: period. It will never be seen as a console that can sell well outside of America. The Wii is popular (now) because it's the cheapest: period. I don't even think it's supposed innovations would save it if it costed over $400. Sony massive 1st party and 3rd party support will win out, and I predict an acceleration of sales this year that will bring it within striking distance of first place by January '08. If the Blu-Ray technology tanked, then that would have been nasty, considering that is why the PS3 costs so much. But it hasn't, and soon PS3 owners will view their Blu-Ray player as a wise investment. 12
All this talk about a consortium reminds me of how the NFL works with its revenue sharing. If this business model was applied to video games, then there would be one console that everyone in the consortium would make games for and they would split the profit between everyone right down the line (profit from the console, games, assecories, internet fees... everything that it makes money on). You would never get sony, microsoft, and nintendo to agree to this... (I also don't think this is what you meant by the consortium)