DEAD_ORIGINAL said:
Soundwave said:
You're statement is kind of a contradiction though. Look at Sega of today ... they're a shell of a company.
There was too much competetion for them to stay in the business.
Over competetion is actually not a good thing, what it means in the game business is a very good company is going to get pushed out no matter what they do. People will only buy a certain amount of consoles and handhelds per generation.
Nintendo needs to protect themselves and stay ahead of the curve, which they're not nearly as poorly managed as Sega, if the handheld erosion does not stop (and I'm not sure it will, if kids are choosing a tablet over a 3DS at age 7, I don't think they'll magically switch at age 9/10/11/12).
More competetion is better IMO is actually one of those statements in the game business that's actually false. If Nintendo is basically forced to dismantle itself because of over competetion, to me that's not good for the gamer. And for what? Microsoft and Apple maybe get a little richer but they don't need the game business anyway.
|
Had sega stuck with dreamcast maybe they wouldnt be in the situation they are now we need 3 companies plus nintendo games suit nintendo controllers.
|
Sega could've done everything right with the Dreamcast, they poured their heart and soul into that console, and people still wouldn't have bought it because they were hellbent on getting a PS2. That's all there was to it.
A console is not like a soda brand where one day you can try Pepsi and the next day maybe you have a Coke or Sprite.
People buy generally one console and that's their console for 5 years. A minority buy two consoles. Very few have more than that.
In said scenario a perfectly good company can be forced out of the industry. You only need two good competitors to have healthy competetion in the market, three-four is unsustainble over time IMO.
