stabface said:
| dharh said:
Monopolies are bad bro. You ever taken econ 101? You should. Not only would it be a Monopoly it could potentially be a Monopsony ( dont let the sony at the end fool you, this is a real word and basically means the opposite of a Monopoly, on the demand side, where you either have only ONE buyer or you have only ONE gateway for people to buy your product ).
SONY would have a monopoly in supplying consoles to us, therefore could jack prices way high with zero competition. There would be no insentive to give us consumers the best product they could make. Instead they could make very minor updates, charge a load of money for it, and we could do nothing about it because there would be no alternative to buy from.
SONY would also have a monopsony in who could be allowed onto their console. They could charge developers _whatever_ they wanted, make whatever requirements they wanted, kickbacks, etc and there would be nothing developers could do about it because there would be no alternative console.
|
You're trying to wow us with your education when your argument has large holes in it? What about substitute platforms like pc or the ever growing mobile sector? If you're gonna use those ten dollar words then please put some thought into it. You also forgot about Nintendo.
|
I was going off his premise that Nintendo is a non-competitor and in that same vein that PCs and mobile devices are not Consoles per say. For a customer like me I only really game through SONY/MS/Nintendo. If two of them drop off then thats bad for me as a consumer and bad for developers.
Be less defensive mate. I was only sharing a word I thought was neat.
