| mike_intellivision said: I think the argument that KGB made is close to how Trip Hawkins tried to sell the 3DO. That did not have a long shelf life. Why should we only one type of console? We have different types of cars. A minivan and a Ferrari have very little in common -- except both will get you from Point A to Point B burning gasoline (petrol) on four tires (tyres). A single console world as described by Squilliam might be great for many gamers, but had such a world existed, we would have no Wii. It is doubtful the market expands. It is doubtful we have motion control. Monopolies tend not to be innovative because they don't have to be. Oligopolies (which we have in most industries) tend to be innovative because it is the only way to win market share. Mike from Morgantown |
I think you have your analogies on backwards. If you want to make a car analogy the cars would be the games people played and the road would be the console to play them. Just because the roads are provided by a government monopoly doesn't mean that they aren't designed to cater to the needs of people.
When there is a monopoly in gaming, some of the very best games are produced. We have people waxing lyrical about the quantity and quality of the games produced for the PS1, PS2, SNES etc which were the monopolies of their day. Its because game developers can target the biggest market and therefore potentially get the highest return for riskier product development.
As for innovative controls such as the Wiimote. Theres nothing that says that had we had a single console existance that something like the Wiimote wouldn't have been produced. Game publishers like EA could very well ask for something like the Wiimote, third party companies can still make them and find traction -> see Guitar Hero for referrence and all console manufacturers knew that many people would simply refuse to pick up the typical console controller. Nintendo was the first to do something about it.
Tease.
