saprano1 on 26 August 2008
| Sky Render said: Observing the end results of a process does not make one a genius; anybody can spot a simple trend. Finding the origins of the end results, on the other hand, gives one a reasonable claim to the title. Instead of seeing that console makers can never maintain market dominance for more than two generations, did you consider asking why it is that way? It's rather silly to take for granted that it will always be that way, because really, there's no reasoning behind saying "console makers can only dominate for 2 generations" beyond surface-level evidence. It is not a means, in other words, it is an end. So why did Atari get the market in the first place? How did Nintendo capture it? How did Sony take it? How did Nintendo re-claim it? Let's see if you can answer those questions beyond the "two generations max" explanation. I already have my own theories, but I'm curious to see your take. |
+1 this guy acts like its impossible to dominate 3 times in a row,i remember people saying no one can win 2 times, that cant happen.but look what sony did. im happy for nintedo but you wii fans are taking this domination thing a little to far.......relax!
