Why is one brand dominating a generation a bad thing?

[Pemalite]

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Pemalite said:

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.

As a media industry, budgets are important. If competition drives prices to be so low that the companies can't operate quality will be affected and lower quality is bad for the consumer.

The PC marketplace is a different beast, its much older, and so the competition is between vendors whose operating costs are much lower then that of actual content producers.

Since PCs themselves are a neccesity as opposed to consoles, their are a lot less people on consoles. So more people at lower prices isn't necessarily applicable to consoles yet.

A popular mobile game gets exposure in the mainstream, when you have a base of hundreds of millions and you are selling a game for 1$, its just as good if not a better scenario then 100 million for a 60$ game or 1$ with a base of 100 million.

Again, low prices actually spur people to spend more.
If games are cheaper people are willing to spend more on titles that they normally wouldn't consider, thus smaller developers get more cash, there is lots of evidence of this happening in the PC space, for instance I have in-excess of 400 games on steam, no way would I buy that many games if they were all 100+ AUD, so I am supporting the market better as my finite disposable income is supporting a larger amount of developers.

People only have a finite' amount of disposable income, thus the amount of money they *can* spend on games is fixed.