thors1982 on 18 September 2007
| GotchayeX said: I've seen this "gamers would be better off if every console had 33% of the market" idea before, and I still don't understand it. If one console ends up with 90% of the market, then gamers need to buy one console. A three way tie might force price drops and bundles, but you still have to buy two extra systems. Yes, you want a lot of competition for hardware early on - this is what produces new features and affordable prices - and a lack of perceived competition is likely what happened to the PS3 (fortunately, there actually was a great deal of competition from the Wii). However, gamers should want two of the consoles to very quickly fail so that all third parties have no choice but to develop exclusively for just one console. A three way tie minimizes competition and profits for games - third parties aren't competing that much with games on other platforms and an exclusive can only ever reach 33% of the market. |
I agree competition is great and does create price drops an bundles.
I am not sure I want to see two systems fail early though, I don't mind buying 2 systems... its just retarded to have to buy three. I don't want to see the 360 succeed 100% even though it is my favorite system cause then we will see very little with the wii mote. And I don't want to see the Wii succeed cause then we are stuck in 480p and horrible online support.
I don't mind two succeding especailly when they are very different, however I don't want two to succeed that are basically the same system and are extremely expensive... cause then consumers loose having to buy 2 systems instead of one.
So I agree 
to a point.
