Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
RolStoppable said:
So what? We've also seen those problems with companies who weren't in a dominant position. Most recently, Microsoft with the X1 and Sony with the Vita.
One brand dominating a generation is actually a good thing, because it moves console gaming towards software competition. The higher concentration of software on one platform means that all developers have to try harder if they want to sell their games. Although the Wii has proven that this rationality does not necessarily exist among third parties.
In the end neither scenario (domination vs. competitive hardware sales) is inherently worse than the other. If you look at the hardware competition between Sony and Microsoft, it led to online multiplayer being put behind a paywall for both companies, because the competition between them forces them to subsidize their hardware by some means. Additionally, this competition eliminated the middleground of AA games which led to a lower variety of high quality games. The belief that competition always makes things cheaper and better for consumers is simply wrong.
Nevermind that one single console brand can never get absolute control as PC gaming will always co-exist. A true monopoly over all gaming is impossible to achieve, so even outrageous domination won't allow a company to dictate everything, therefore arrogance (which occurs regardless of dominating or not) will always get punished eventually.
|
@Underline @Normal @Bolded @Italics
|
Truth. American competition hurt the integrity of consoles.
|
Dammit STAGE, that was supposed to be the end of this thread.
A perfect ending, and you RUINED IT!
|
Thats fine, but American business kind of ruined it. Once Sony started following MS its been getting progressively worse.
