tsogud said:
If the console industry is dominated by 3 companies and little chance for others to break into then is it really a competition? More like the competition is bleak. We're seeing this everywhere these days, where like 1 to 3 companies control an entire industry and people think that's "good competition" or good for the average consumer. It's not. It's a shame that even if a big name like Sega wanted to enter the console space it'd be incredibly difficult. |
It's always been the case in the video game industry though. The consumer has always had a choice, and the least successful offerings die off.
2nd Generation
Atari
Mattell
Coleco
Magnavox
3rd Generation
Nintendo
Sega
Atari
4th Generation
Nintendo
Sega
NEC/Hudson Soft
Phillips
5th Generation
Sony
Nintendo
Sega
3DO/Panasonic/Sanyo/GoldStar
6th Generation
Sony
Microsoft
Nintendo
Sega
7th Generation
Nintendo
Sony
Microsoft
8th Generation
Sony
Microsoft
Nintendo
9th Generation
Nintendo
Sony
Microsoft
I only listed hardware developers that managed over 1 million units sold, so Fairchild (Channel F), SNK (NeoGeo), Commodore (AmigaCD32), and some others didn't make the cut. Point being, the market has shown that it can support 3 different hardware and software libraries simultaneously. Whenever there has been a 4th competitor though, the lowest success of the 4 typically ends up leaving the market due to not enough return on investment to sustain another generation.
So, there is room for another entrant to put hardware into the market. It would have to be a company with a lot of money to invest into marketing and support for their console the way Sony and Microsoft were able to do. And, it would have to be someone who could handle the losses of likely going a generation without being profitable. Microsoft survived the losses they incurred breaking into the market with the XBox, and the further losses from the 360's RROD. Sony survived seeing the entirety of its PlayStation + PS2 profits combined being wiped out by the losses the PS3 incurred. Nintendo survived a few quarters of losses during the Wii U gen. So, it's less likely that a startup company, or a tiny staffed operation skating by on crowdfunding and licensing like Atari or Intellivision, would ever be able to carve out a worth while niche in the market. But, it's not impossible that someone could do it.
Anyway, 3 hardware platforms + PC is hardly "bad" for the average consumer. As shown, its that way because of how consumers have voted with their wallets since video game consoles were incepted. Better that way, than have the market under the total monopoly of a singular hardware as I've actually seen some users on this site advocate for over the years. A singular hardware vision would render a lack of need for experimentation or innovation, which fortunately, the home console market is not suffering from at the moment.
