Dusk said:
Why would that happen? They makers have already taken much of the risk out of game development by throwing money at the publishers and studios. Just because it's on a single console instead of 2 or 3 won't make any difference, there is still the chance of it not selling. So the money hatting will not stop because it works well for the publishers and studios. If MS keeps throwing money at studios and publishers then they will keep getting the games because it makes little difference to the publisher or studio how successful it is because it's already paid for. Playstation already gets almost all multiplats and the like without the extreme dominance (which they already have) so very little is likely going to change. Every game has to compete against the other games so the risks are still there just as much as before, only now with a dominant console it gives the dominant the ability to screw over the consumer more. Just like almost every other monopoly, and the reason many laws are in place to stop monopolies. |
A. Not all developers are tossed a bag of money by MS, NIntendo or Sony (wait, does nintendo even moneyhat?) and moneyhatting is done mostly to get outright exclusivity, timed exclusivity or exclusive content. Developers and Publishers are out to make money. getting money to cover development cost just to break even is not what I would call "paid for". your argument on moneyhatting is weak and irrelevant.
B. If a car had 4 standard wheels, then I took out the two front tires and replaced them with round pices of wood, would it still run just the same? No it will not. any game developer only has so many good talent that if they are working on two or three versions of a game either one version gets the best team of talent or these talents are split up into teams thus resulting in diminishing returns.
C. It has happened before. Look at the PS1 and the PS2 era. both dominated and crushed the competition that both got exclusive games without spending a dime. with a single dominant console with the mass majority of the market share, games flurished. just look at how much shovelware the ps1 and the ps2 and even the wii got. tons and tons of shovelware. why? total domination allowed for game developers to only focus on one platform and not have to work about picking the "right" console to support. with just one uber dominant console, they can just go with the flow and make games for the playstation.
D. it isnt sony's falt that nintendo and ms sucked balls with all the stupid mistakes they made on the wii u and the xbone. so, no, there is no monopoly breaking law here.
One only needs to look at the PS1 and PS2 era to realize that total domination of a console in a generation is best for the gamers...not the industry mind you, but to gamers. that one dominating console gets all the games coz thats where everyone is playing.
Some would argue that the Wii dominated like no ones business and yet it got crapy third party support. that is true, but one only needs to look at who actually bought the wii. the wii was eaten up by casuals and a bunch of non gaming people who just wanted to "party". the true games who bought the wii were actually the minority of the entire wii population.
no lets look at the ps360. both HD consoles when combined soled more games than the wii. so, why bother with the wii?
honestly, i dont really care which console dominates, I may be a sony fanboy but i jump ship so often that its not funny. I go where the games are and if its on the xone, i'll jump on a boner, if its on the U, then lets have a wiipad party.
bottom line, total domination ensures that that dominant console gets all of the games which is good for gamers. i could care less if the other losers belly up, as long as i get my game on.
