Rainbird said:
Both Sony and Microsoft sold their consoles at a loss, which is pretty silly if you ask me. I would imagine that a console built this way would be fairly priced at launch and sold at a profit from the beginning. If they hadn't sold their consoles at a loss, the consoles would have been way too expensive, and they would have been punished by the market. And here, there would be even more competition in the online space, so Microsoft could be forced to lower the price of Live. Again, the internal hardware in the console is the only place we would see reduced competition (but companies could still tweak it, like add a better wireless solution or a blu-ray drive), but every other area would have increased competition. It's a small sacrifice compared to what can be gained as far as I can tell. |
It would still stifle hardware advancements, which is where game advancements come from. Taking out that competion would be silly. Why would it be priced fairyl? If its the only console on the marklet they can price as they see fit, no need to worry about people buying another console. Its not a small sacrifice, its a massive one. How would there be competition for online networks if any network could play games against the other. All you would see is online advancements also stop as everyone would go with the cheapest service. Why remove compition from companies?
