Why is one brand dominating a generation a bad thing?

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

Pemalite said:

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

From a developer's standpoint yeah. But software developers aren't responsible for hardware in the PC space. That's why console can't support the PC's model yet. The loss leader model won't be satisfied by the PC model of not having to worry about it.

8th gen is basically midtier from the start and still selling on the loss leader model. I doubt console mafuacturering can be supported by the PC model.

Steam OS is a perfect example, if Sony or MS made gamingOSes rather than gaming consoles, then it would work but these wouldn't be convential consoels anyway

Of course they can, they can simply stop selling the consoles at a loss, which we are seeing this generation.

On the contrary, Nintendo is selling there console at a loss for basically the first time ever, and as for Sony and MS their consoles are at their smallest loss but considering shipping, storage, and R&D fees the console are still a loss intially.

We are already hearing complaints about how next gen isn't powerful enough, if these consoles sold for profit they would barely be improvements on last gen. With PC and Mobile gaming closing in on consoles from both sides, there is no wai consoles could survive like that. Not physical consoles any way. Somebody is going to have to pay for the hardware investment. 

You say its as easy as stopping the loss leader model, but that means more expensive consoles (the 600$ ps3 was sold at a 200$ loss, but at 800$ you could easily spend that money on a PC that will have more utility and power) or even weaker consoles, which mobile also threatens, cause its growing more powerful a lot faster than consoles can.