Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Pemalite said:
I disagree.
Competition breeds innovation and lower prices as companies are almost required to take risks and attempt to do something different or they risk becoming irrelevant.
Having less competitors means that companies can nickle and dime consumers that more heavily as there are no possible alternatives for consumers, for instance would Microsoft have launched Games with Gold if it wasn't for Sony's PSN scheme?
Would Sony have given gamers free games if it wasn't for the massive amount of free games on the PC and mobile platforms?
Would we have gotten motion controls like Kinect and Move if it wasn't for Nintendo?
Would we have gotten online-play if it wasn't for the PC and Sega?
Would we have gotten achievements if it wasn't for Microsoft?
Would the PS4 be $400 USD if it wasn't for all 3 manufacturers being very competitive last generation? Or would we have had to get yet *another* job to pay for it?
In a capitalistic environment, competition does *amazing* things for the consumer with no exceptions and I honestly do hope we see the same kinds of sales competition this round again. (Ideally, I would love for them all to be equal.)
|
Innovation and lower prices aren't always good for the consumer. Especially, in a media based industry. Furthermore, as Rol pointed out Consoles always have competitors because of the mobile and PC industries.
The second MS, Sony, or Nintendo thinks they can nickle and dime consumers, they will get obliterated by PC and Mobile, especially when PC is closing in on consoles from the price side and mobile is closing in on them from them performance side.
|
Lower prices are *always* good for the consumer.
How is paying more better?
I'm a PC gamer, there has been no negative side effects in the PC marketplace with lower prices thanks to Steams Sales, in-fact Valve have often stated that lower prices actually increases sales as more people are willing to part with their cash.
