Industry would be better off with only 2 consoles. Back in my day when it was Sega and Nintendo the 3rd companies come and go. None of them ever making a noticible impact.
When Sega left with Sony coming into the picture there wasn't enough room for Sega. Sony snuffed them out. Good job. Sega had bad business practices that's why they didn't make it. Either way things were fine. Then MS entered the fray.
Everything seemed ok, but really only because PS2 just dominated the market. Regardless of how well or bad games did on the Xbox or GC the company were making sustainable incomes of the PS2.
However things changed. What we are seeing happening is the effects of the 3 console when more equally matched. Escpecially in the core gamer area. If PS3 was the only console then MGS4 would have done much better, haze, lair... but becuase of the fracture we are seeing that the market realy can't sustain 3 companies adequtly off the core market.
The company to leave the business is the company that cannot take the affordable risk. Nintendo never makes uprofitble consoles, MS has cash to brun. Sony could have followed Nintendos path(unlikely in all retrsospect due to wanting to appeal to the core market), make a reasonable cost machine or take the risk. They took the risk and the system is proving that it's not so sustainable with a small fraction of the core market.
If we expect the HD Power generation to continue one of the companies needs to step out.
Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.
