tokilamockingbrd said:
dasnook said:
That's not how competition works, competition is not sales parity or being close in sales..... Competition means consumers pick the better product. Also PS4 is not in a bubble, ther eis always constant competition from various sources for entertainment dollars, mobile, other areas. This "Sales need to be close for competition" is a really bad argument. Didn't hurt the ps2... Competition is not always good either, it brought us Paid online multiplayer.
|
Competition is good, but that does not mean it needs to be close competition. Just enough to prevent a monopoly. A 60% market share would be perfectly health, the 80% the PS2 had actually had negative consequences for devs with the PS3(difficulty to develop for) and gamers ( high entry cost, few games 1st half of last gen)
Sony's "lack" of competition in the PS2 era is what led them to be arrogant with the PS3 (launching at 600) they thought they would walk away with it no matter what. The tight competition from last gen led them to produce an excellant machine at a reasonable price with the PS4. MS thought they owned NA so they did all the pre 180 BS... soon as the PS4 presented itself as a competitor for the NA market they had to backtrack.
|
Disagree, that was Crazy kens over engineering the box, had zero to do with ps2's dominance as that was his vision all along. Ps3 would have been the same had ps2 not been as dominant.
