Anyone here think the 360 will outsell the PS3 3:1 in NA?

[rocketpig]

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.

Inversely, it forces most third parties to go completely multi-platform with their properties. While you might not get every first party offering with one console, you will be getting the majority of third party apps.

Having one company hold 90% of the market is never good for consumers. It allows for bullying, high prices, lackluster support (why bother keepipng up? they already have the market), and a myriad of other problems. In short, it promotes laziness by the company holding the vast majority of the market.