BeElite said:
PS2 was a great improvement over PS and it did it after PS dominated. PS3 was a massive improvement over PS2 and so on. Improvement is a natural progression even with little to no competition. So your arguning aginast PS3s price yet an extra 50/60 a month (500 for the long as gen for services) is awesome addition to your arguemnt? Wiis online sucked, PS3 was buggy and 360 cost an extra 500 for the consoles LT, just awesome right ? Last gen Devs and publisher went out of business more so then well ever with the crash being the exception, and gaming on PS2 was best 7th gen does not even come close. |
Exactly what did the PS2 do better than the PS1. It included better hardware but from there I really could not name any one feature it did better. So yes progressing is natural but it can be one dimensional if you are the only game in town. Here is what i like, Nintendo did not just go with more powerful hardware. They tried to do soemthing totally different and add new experiences. They took risk and was rewarded that gen. Maybe its ok for you to only have one option but I rather there were more than one company defining this space.
@Bolded: Not getting your point. Have not all 3 console makers improved their online services. Was this evolution or did competition make this happen??
So you are saying developer that went out of business was the result of competition between the consoles. How exactly are you drawing this conclusion??








