| Sky Render said: Even in your scenario, the least expensive system still wins. What constitutes utility varies from person to person, but the overall experience tends to be the largest source of utility for most. In other words, the more fun is had, the more utility is gained. To that end, superior gameplay and immersive controls would result in more utility than more content or better visuals. So, let's come up with some arbitrary numbers weighted according to an "average" consumer's interests... PS3 Overall Utility = 500 (200 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 100 content) 360 Overall Utility = 450 (150 graphics, 100 gameplay, 100 controls, 200 content) Wii Overall Utility = 600 (100 graphics, 200 gameplay, 200 controls, 100 content) PS3 price = $500 Utility = 1 per $1 360 price = $300 Utility = 1.5 per $1 Wii price = $250 Utility = 2.4 per $1 Of course, the breakdown would be different for a self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamer, but they don't make up the market majority by any stretch of the imagination. |
Good post. At least someone's taken economics or something along that lines.
Bold part: What if we really really stretched it?
Yeah, if every console got every game... then the games probably wouldn't be as good. And the consoles wouldn't try as hard to differentiate, because they'd get every game anyway. That's why it's the way it is. 360 gets DLC for GTA4 because they want to be different, and have something different to sell. If the PS3 (and Wii for that matter) got GTA4 and the DLC, then not only would Microsoft probably not pay 50 million to get it (why would they pay for something everyone else will get?), but we probably wouldn't see the DLC on any of them. It wouldn't destroy the industry... but it wouldn't be as healthy and it wouldn't move forward as fast as it is now.
