After reading, agree or not? | |||
| Agree | 28 | 34.57% | |
| Do not | 30 | 37.04% | |
| I didn't read. Derpa derp... | 9 | 11.11% | |
| Death to the gaming industry! | 13 | 16.05% | |
| Total: | 80 | ||
I'm not sure on this, it's good for at least one thing though. No more arguing fanboys!
Xbox Series, PS5 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)
'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin
Prediction: Switch 2 will outsell the PS5 by 2030
LOL so you want the successful companies to prop up the unsuccessful ones...
| Captain_Tom said: LOL so you want the successful companies to prop up the unsuccessful ones... |
But all three companies are successful in their own ways?
| Captain_Tom said: LOL so you want the successful companies to prop up the unsuccessful ones... |
Are you kidding me? If there is one thing that is certain about the gaming industry, it is that every year we have a different company that is succeeding the most. You just ASSUME that the playstation 4 is going to continue selling the way it is? Are you kidding? The Wii U didn't continue to sell that great after 6 months. Who would have guessed that the 3ds could have this massive of a turnaround; the Vita was declared the gen 8 handheld winner before it even landed because of how bad the 3ds was doing, then came the games and the 3ds soared in massive comeback style. In a year, the Wii U could have a better 2015 than the ps4 and xboxone, and in 2016 the xboxone may have the better year. Every year is different and the ps4 could bomb still (it has like 5-6 years more of life that it could still mess up in).
Each company has been successful at different points and that pattern will only continue.
| Egann said: There are several MAJOR reason I'll disagree. 1. This is called a monopoly. Or actually a cartel, but it would be the same thing. So yeah, that one console is going to now launch at $600 or $700 purely because it can. Companies do not naturally offer products at loss unless there's substantial competition in the market, so the modern "sell the console at a minor loss and make it back later via software" approach would go right out the window. And, see #2: the higher price would probably not be completely unjustified. The higher cost would then drive gamers to PC gaming because you can get a middle-end PC gaming rig for $700-$800, and Steam is notably cheaper and more convenient than the console used game market. The second reason is that it will have smaller consoles built into it. If the big three colluded to make a console, you can bet that each company would put about $100 of hardware which would probably never see use beyond their own first party material. Individually for each company this makes perfect sense; they're carving a niche out of the hardware. It just doesn't help the consumer because they're now buying $100-200 of hardware they may never use. 3. Small developers will have a much harder time getting attention. It's just one of those things, but competition goes down as the market size decreases, so a small developer (like Atlus or Mistwalker) can actually take shelter on only one console, and still get attention because they aren't trying to expose their products to the whole ocean. In a one-console world, they HAVE to promote everywhere. There isn't an ideal solution to the console wars. As a consumer, of course I want to buy one device and have it play EVERYTHING, but I can also see that causing problems on the business side. |
1. No. You said it yourself: It would drive people to PC gaming, and console companies know that. Consoles aren't a necessity, they're a luxury product and people will not pay just anything. Also, third parties would pressure the console companies to lower the price. Prices would be higher but not that much, I doubt. Everyone would be against console companies in this situation.
2. It would happen in the peripheral market, not the console itself. Console companies aren't stupid, like I said. Of course agreeing about which parts to put in would be a huge problem... Powerful and expensive or weak and cheap? How powerful? How expensive is acceptable?
3. True. Not a huge setback, though.
| Carl2291 said: This would be great. Microsoft works on the console itself. Sony work on an innovative new way to play. Nintendo work on the networking side of things. |
The perfect console. Red ring of desperation, same controller and hours of updates.
Let Nintendo do the release schedule and we are ready.
Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever
Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe
Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor
Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile
| Carl2291 said: This would be great. Microsoft works on the console itself. Sony work on an innovative new way to play. Nintendo work on the networking side of things. |
You're joking right?
Dulfite said:
|
Wrong. Microsoft is massively in debt and relies on the non-Xbox branches of its businesses to keep it afloat.
When did I mention Playstation btw? (Defensive much?) If anything Sony would rely on Nintendo's massive cash reserves to make up for its stupid decisions. Is that ok with you?
Correct term is oligopoly, though the console industry already falls under this type of form. This idea would only make it worst.
Current gaming platforms - Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Wii U, New 3DS, PC
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
