By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
irstupid on 27 February 2014
Edit Thread
stabface said:
dharh said:
only777 said:

Wait, what?!

Yes, I beleive that a three console race ends up being bad for gamers, and that it would be best for everyone if Microsoft would leave.

Why?

Right now console gamers are split across two systems, Xbox and PlayStation.  If this was just Playstation, then studios could take bigger risks with new ideas and new IP's when everyone is all using the same hardware to play on (i.e it lowers costs at the studios end).

But what about Nintendo?

As much as I love 'em let's be honest, Nintendo have had no real presence in the home console market since the N64.  Sure Wii sold a lot of units, but mainly to people who bought it as a one off to play Wii Sports (i.e, your nan), and now those people have moved on to Candy Crush.  However, Sony should have some competition so they don't have a total monoply plus there are enough gamers who will buy two systems as well as die hard Nintendo fans to keep them in the market with a profitable but outside share.

Say that again.

I think a Future where Sony dominate, MS leave and Nintendo are a profitable minority is best for everyone.  Studios can take bigger risks as pretty much everyone has the same machine, so as gamers we probably end up with a better selection of games.  Although if this ever did happen I very much doubt Nintendo would actually survive, but I would like to see them contine as they do add a lot of gameplay inovations.  However I think not only have the people spoken, but Sony do make better consoles then anyone else.

But by this logic, wouldn't it be better if it was only Nintnedo?

Probaby, but let's be at least a little bit realistic here.  Nintendo is out of the console race, and gamers haven't accepted them since 1996.  The console wars are going to claim another brand in this generation and it is not going to be Sony.  Out of Xbox and Nintendo, I wouldn't miss Xbox.


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.

Wow us with his education?  Lol

Econ 101 is the the first class one would take in college.  Pretty sure every major is required to take at least econ 101 as a general.

Also one should have learned about monopoly's in high school.  pretty sure we learned about how they are bad and stuff in social studies back in like 10th grade.  Talked about the train industry and stuff.  

Ignore his Monopsony word.  Everyone knows monopolies are bad, and never good for any industry.  Hell the most hated industrys are because they are monopolies.