By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Augen on 14 August 2014
Edit Thread
GotBoth said:
Augen said:
Competition is good in the sense that a pure monopoly can lead to business practices that hurt consumers.

If there was no competition we likely would see who ever had the monopoly charging more for systems, controllers, games, online services. While I can agree a market leader is good and parity can be an issue, no competition is definitely bad. All I have to do is view cable companies in the US and how poorly run companies can get away with when there is no pressure on them.

I would point back to PS2 gen, it dominated (pretty much like major cable companies) and we didn' see any of the issues you pointed out.  The other system during 6th gen could serve as the smaller cable companys that can't really compete but are still available (going by your analogy).


Really? Sony circa 2006 were very arrogant and decided to have a high end system for a premium price.  They made a system that had odd architecture that was harder to program for.

They lost a massive amount of market share. The result? The PS4. A more mid range and affordable system that was built with developer input.  Sony became a better company because they were humbled with the PS3 which was born of the arrogance of PS2 domination.

One only had to look to last year. You think Microsoft would have done a 180 if there was no challenger? They would have said "deal with it" and we would have had to deal with it with no options.  A year later the X1 is almost nothing like what was intiially revealed because the market told companies what it wanted, not the other way around which does happen in monopolies.