Hmm... As far as gaming hardware goes, a pseudo-monopoly (70%-90% market share) does provide one huge advantage, economies of scale.

The true advantage that brings is not on the hardware side, but rather the software side (what consumers actually care about, games! ). Having a large market allows third-party developers to take more risks on a single version of a game and not have to worry about being exclusive to the wrong platform or having to spend more money to make ports to capture enough potential consumers.

A lot of the hardware psuedo-monopolies over the years, have had some extraordinary libraries of third-party games. Examples: GameBoy, GameBoy Color, GameBoy Advance, Nintendo Entertainment System, Playstation, Playstation 2

And because it is not an absolute monopoly, the hardware prices have to stay at a (somewhat) reasonable level otherwise sales market-share will shift to another competitor.

I see this as the best outcome for consumers (i.e. gamers) as it minimizes our costs and maximizes our choices (as in less rehashes, sequels, and ports; more innovation, new IPs, and experimentation in games).

Just imagine how much more interesting this generation's library of thrid-party games would be, if one of the platforms had currently sold 140+ million consoles.

@fordy

"You realise that this was the basis behind the 3DO? Multiple electronics companies building a unified console architecture. It didn't quite sell that amount, plus it remained quite expensive despite the competition."

I know but my idea is more of a combined effort from Sony/MS/Nintendo. Not selling Licences to everyone. Just make ONE Box that has it all. In 1 version from 1 Manufacturer.

I would like to see Apple and maybe Samsung enter the Home console Market. I don't really know why i just think they are good companies.

Oh and if i was to choose which company i would want to have a monopoly i would pick Microsoft.

their wasnt that much people doing valuable things anyway, which is why Sega left the hardware biz

64DD, ill concede to that point, about them just not liking CDs. 

Online, Iwata never said our customers dont care about online? Customers do not want online games, thats what was said in Feb 2005 im staring at the damn  GI magazine as i type it. That same year xbox 360 was released, and we all know how their online went. Lets keep it real, Iwata was wrong, the 2004 statement was made a year prior to the 360 releasing, the man thought that online would not take off as it did, he was wrong. Do you honestly believe he was referring to GC in 2004?? That system was already on its way out, Iwata thought the online would be a fad other wise he would have made damn sure the WiiWare didnt suck as bad as it does

Well I am a supporter of Nintendo handhelds and Microsoft consoles so naturally I would pick Sony but there is a reason.

With the PS1, it choked the life and potential out of the Sega Saturn and N64. The PS2 did this even worse, creating a monopoly that made it near impossible for competition to thrive. Sega quit. Nintendo was forced to take a drastic route and go the Wii route. Microsoft was convinced that the only way to avoid a repeat was to launch before the PS3, even if the hardware wasn't ready.

I am a firm believer in Sony killing competition. Only with Nintendo and Microsoft taking drastic actions this gen has caused Sony to drop to last place and actually create balance and equal potential/room to grow in the industry.

On top of that, Sony has no flagship franchises on the level of Mario and Halo. Come to think of it Sony has no mascot, just a bunch of diverse (yet lacking in any meaningful sales) exclusive IPs.

Nintendo rules the casual console market and the handheld one. Microsoft rules the core console market. PC gamers still get their PCs.

Sega Rises on the 3rd Day.... or whatever the day they disbanded in 2001 lol

Aaaaaaaaaand the award for the most ignorant post of 2011 goes to sales2099! CONGRATULATIONS!

SEGA killed SEGA. The Saturn was a bitch to program for (and had a botched launch WITH a $400 pricetag) and released after two R&D and sales tragedies, SegaCD and 32x, Nintendo released very late, used expensive carts, and because of the storage limitations along with the company's constant intrusions in game development (see Duke Nukem 3D N64 vs PC for a great example), the N64 wasn't as big as it could've been. The PS1 was easy to program for, cheap to release games for, and Sony didn't intrude in your business. As a result, the Dreamcast came with a very weak and crippled SEGA backing it up, and Nintendo had their brand name annihilated. The PS1 was so varied, cheap, and appealing, that Sony went into the 6th gen with enormous hype. And much like Nintendo this gen. the PS1 opened up a whole new demographic. Market killers I tell you! KILLERS!

This gen, Sony killed their own lead with an expensive PS3 with very few games. If you think that it was MS, then... well... that's pretty funny. The 360 being the second HD console effectively saved the PS3 by giving it a constant porting effort with popular games like COD and GTAIV. Sony lacking meaningful sales in their IP's? See the sales of God of War III or GT5 then get back to me. Microsoft rules the core market? This isn't 2007-8 anymore.

If ignorance were a bannable offence, you'd be permanently banned in a second.

Competition is good for everyone, all three should stay.

I don't see any of the big 3 going the way of the dodo in terms of console manufacturing and development anytime soon, and if one of them did, some other company (most likely Apple) would step in to fill that void.

As for the everlasting wishes for SEGA to return to the arena as a console manufacturer once again, only way in hell that would ever happen is if they teamed up with another major company to do it, but I don't see any other electronics companies other than Apple eager to jump into the game console industry because the risk is far too high for them.

And lets be honest... SEGA isn't exactly what they used to be on the software side of things either, so it's definitely for the best that they are out of the hardware market.