I remember the industry before and after. Before MS joined the party, the biggest games on the planet were mostly Japanese games. After? Not so much. MS changed gaming into a dude bro, no scope, Halo,GOW,COD shit fest. Instead of MGS and DMC, we're fed COD, Halo, Titanfall...it never ends. Japanese games don't sell like they use to and it's because of MS impact on the industry imo. I watched the sea change. It happened.

Yes yes, lets give sony even less incentive to do anything. Remember how horrible the first two years of the ps3 were? What woke sony up? The fact that their console was selling like shit because there was a better alternative. Last gen sony showed that competition is desperately needed, and giving them a monopoly would ensure mediocracy for everyone.

Look at the freaking state of the ps4. It is a disgrace. Their tagline might as well be, well at least it's not as terrible as the xbox one. You shouldn't accept mediocracy just because the competition is worse. The fact that the ps4 is selling so well should be viewed with disdain not glee. It is just encouraging future mediocrity.

Because all the customers would be in one place and not split across two!  that's the whole point in the OP!

You have to gimp your game to run on the lowest machine right now.  You have to go multiplat to make the money.  One machine having most of the market (like the PS1 and PS2 did) helps those who make the games.

I know it's hard for people to get their heads round that choice is not always actually good for you, I realise it's a hard concept (most of the reason I kicked this off).

One machine domination would end up with a standised formate which would result in better looking games, and bigger risks for new IP's being a far less risk for a publisher.  You would get more variaty in games.

these days game scost so much, and more and more games will end up being the same gray brown marine shooter because thats what publishers will throw money at.

Don't you think the fact the companies like Capcom and Konami have left many of their series in the dust, like Mega Man or Silent Hill? Or that companies such as Square Enix are treating customers to mobile cash grabs instead of ports of games on consoles or handhelds? Japanese companies have only themselves to blame for the state of their industry. Did the 360 and the CoD effect have an impact, sure but it's silly to say they're the main reason.

Also some of the biggest games in the world are still Japanese, it's all about running your company right.

I want better games, not the same old shit every year.  For all three to do well, and graphics to be as high as they are costs will stay sky high.  high costs mean publishers will only throw money at low risk IP's.  With everyone using one system, costs come down and we get better games.

I said I liked Nintendo, but if their games are so good, why are people buying COD and not Mario?

Also not to state the obvious but Sony is not the financial beast it was in the 90s/early 00s. If MS left, there is no way Ninty would allow Sony to dominate the 3rd party market. all of a sudden, you would see the shift in Ninty's approach to becoming aggressive again, since their dollars can go toe to toe with Sony, but MS is the bully Nintendo wants no part of in a money war. Ninty does not want to fight for "a third" of the multiplat war, esp. w/MS involved (see gamecube results) but if its down to 50/50 again, vs. Sony, you bet yourazz Ninty would bring back the power.

Now you say it's a joke, but gave a link to prove your point and said I may be a bit too young to remember. Right, that was totally obvious that you were joking. I actually thought you were joking 'til you called me a bit too young. 

Anyway back on topic: I disagree. Competition is better for the gamers.

alright,.. you guys have all gone crazy and are completely obfuscating the heart of this arugment.  allow me to elucidate the situation.

there are TWO, count them, TWO complete seperate and competing angles to the situation.

1. The first party platform.

A monopoly (or just a very large marketshare) in first party platforms does BAD things to the first party platforms. 

it can lead to third parties being taken advantage of as was seen by nintendo in the snes era.  it can also lead to the consumer being taken advantage of as was seen by sony's arrogance to think they could push a $600 blu ray player onto gamers and MS's arrogance to think they could mandate an online check-in DRM system.  or it can lead to stagnation...  nintendo innovated with the wii because they needed to do something to turn their fortunes around.  ms innovated with their online service when they needed to distinquish themselves upon entering the market.  sony innovated with ps+ when it needed to turn it's sinking ship of a ps3 around.

COMPETITION IS GOOD FOR 1ST PARTY PLATFORMS

2. The third party developers.

Fragmentation caused by a lot of competitation in first party platforms does BAD things to third party developers.

Going from 1 platform to 2 platforms DOUBLES the quality assurance process which is an expensive compenent of software developement.  going from 2 to 4 redoubles that cost again.   too many platforms and your budget will completely disappear or your budget will bloat to unreasonable proprotions to where costs cannot be recouperated.  All else equal,.. 4M sales from an exclusive release is MORE PROFITABLE than 1M sales spread across 4 platforms (xbox, playstation, wiiU, PC).

TOO MUCH COMPETITION IS BAD FOR 3RD PARTY DEVELOPERS.

i have gather terabytes of data and spend the last few years mining that data creating complex models and algorithums to determine how much competition maximizes the amount of pleasure that can be extracted from the video games industry.   

3.   exactly 3.

No.

Without MS, Sony would not have had to do its best to develop the PS4.
Its the competition that has forced Sony to try to launch the best console they could create.
This is a fact.

MS only backed down om restrictions on cd usage (second hand usage) and 24h online requirements ONLY because they were forced to because Sony did not follow them in this because of the gaming community pressure.
Without competition MS would have sticked with those plans.
And without MS, big chance Sony would have already forced some of its own plans on the industry.

These things arent hard to understand.

So no.

I think I've condenced my point quite well now.

"I want better games, not the same old shit every year.  For all three to do well, and graphics to be as high as they are costs will stay sky high.  high costs mean publishers will only throw money at low risk IP's like COD and Battlefield.  With everyone using one system, costs come down and we get better games."

That's the statment I want people to pick holes in.