Why is one brand dominating a generation a bad thing?

[Pemalite]

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Pemalite said:

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.

It can happen in the PC space because its suited for that. PCs are a neccesity, they aren't bought solely for gaming to the extent that consoles are. If consoles were cheaper more people would buy them, but make them too cheap and the market would need to grow to an unreasonable size just to break even. A fiscal issues would lead to its cancellation just like Sega and their dreamcast.

Consoles are trying out the FTP model, free to play with no price limit on microtransactions, and yet this isn't frequently the case.  The console space cannot yet support what the pc space can, Steam doesn't have to worry about connecting your PC to the internet, or making sure your hardware allows you to plays games, (basically all the stuff Nintendo, MS, and Sony does), they just have to worry about being a better value then Origin.

Much lower operating cost, much less hassle.

Clearly if price was enough, the Ouya would be dominating right now because people can chose to spend a whole bunch of their disposable income on it.

Just because PC gaming and Console gaming are related and interdependent, doesn't mean they are so interchangable that what works on PC will fly on Consoles, where DRM on the former is basically accepted because of the digital nature of games and the provided concessions (cheap prices, family sharing, etc) and on the latter is seen as one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

The cost of the hardware compared to the software has no real correllation to a developers profits.
A developer releasing a game on Steam has the same costs associated to it when compared to releasing a game on console.
I.E. Publisher takes a cut, then Valve/Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo take a cut on the game and all the DLC.
However big AAA titles are typically $10 cheaper and if you don't get at-least a 20% discount on the games full price on top of it, then you're doing it wrong as a PC gamer.

Valve however just didn't have to waste billions on building the hardware, Microsoft had already done the hard work on the software layer front.

The console space can support the PC's model of lower prices, it would simply mean that the yearly releases of Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Battlefield will get less profit, probably make up for it in volume and the smaller developers will have more chance to thrive.