Why is one brand dominating a generation a bad thing?

[DonFerrari]

Chris Hu said:

DonFerrari said:
Domination isn't the same as monopoly... and at least in PS and PS2 case the developers were free to dev for other plats if they wanted and the system and games were cheap enough. Maybe if the company were trying real monopoly and control that would be a bad thing (like in the early days of NES and some of MS tentatives).

NES pretty much had a monopoly throughout the generation the only markets they didn't dominate is the ones that they didn't choose to get into much because they thought those wouldn't generate much profits for them (South America and other small markets at that time).  But the Atari 2600 actually was bit more dominat when they first started since there where no third party pusblishers yet.  As far as having control over 3rd parties no one will ever be as dominant as Nintendo was during the NES era not only could they tell them what games to make for their system they also controlled how many copies could be made of each game since they manufactured all the cartriges.

Nintendo had NES sold under contract on Brazil through Gradiente at the time and there also a lot of counterfeit hardware to run their games. And  I just gave the sole situation when domination were bad (and the other on the possibility of MS having dominated while their policies were bad)... Atari made itself a victm on its heyday, but it still had competition...