It depends, a monopole by MS would be the worst thing ever.

Otherwise, a monopole is really good for gamers

I don't think game wise a monopoly would be bad but for technology advancement it would. Why spend millions and innovate when you are the clear dominant force? People will buy your console anyway so no need to change anything.

That's where competition does it's work. Sony got lazy during PS3 era thinking that people would get two jobs to buy the PS3. They lost tremendous market share for being cocky and look where this lead them... they released the PS4, they added 4 more gigs of ram and stayed competitive to the others. Now thanks to not being the market leader they had to improve, build a console that is both dev friendly and consumer friendly.

Microsoft got too confident with 360 and this lead them to making bad decisions. Now they have to work way more to stay competitive... ummm just like Sony had to do to stay competitive with PS3.

Even Nintendo, the market leader during SNES era they thought they would still reign with a console that couldn't follow technology.

Some of you should start to realise companies are not there to please you but to make money. The only reason they try to get better is so they make more money and a good fierce competition prevents them from being too comfortable so they try hard to get better... I hope there is always good competition.

MS has had a monopoly for over 30 years I guess you never heard of Windows.

There isn't a huge difference in 7 million and 5 million especially when you realize that Xbox One hasn't released in as many countries as ps4.

Basically, it gives a company power to severely limit the kinds of games that come out. Nintendo for instance didn't want violent games, so we didn't get those. Sony didn't want 2D games, so we didn't get those for a while.

7>XP>98>2000>ME>VISTA>95>8
imo
the weirdest thing is MS hates competition but constantly puts its self into competition in markets that already have an establihed leader.

Google vs Bing is such a slaughter its not even funny.

Nintendo had NES sold under contract on Brazil through Gradiente at the time and there also a lot of counterfeit hardware to run their games. And  I just gave the sole situation when domination were bad (and the other on the possibility of MS having dominated while their policies were bad)... Atari made itself a victm on its heyday, but it still had competition...

Yeah.  I see Nintendo as a monopoly because they were forcing others to stay exclusive to them.  If one console dominated now, the third parties could go to whoever they choose.  They're not forced to develop for just one company.  

Example.  The DS dominated over the PSP but there were devs that developed exclusively for the PSP over the DS because they gained more profits on the PSP.  The lack of games though wasn't because Nintendomination, it was mainly all the piracy.

And the best part is people accusing Sony using it dominance to take a short cut on developement on PS3, yet that was their boldest move... and they also think Sony picked 600,00 tag out of greed on being dominant (while losing 200,00 for each console), the arrogance part can be accepted. Arrogance isn't related to domination, as there are a lot of arrogant loser dorks. When you are dominating arrogance is seem as self-confidence, if Sony had kicked everybody again no one would say they were arrogant saying you had to have 2 jobs, they would say they were bold or daring.

And the best part is people accusing Sony using it dominance to take a short cut on developement on PS3, yet that was their boldest move... and they also think Sony picked 600,00 tag out of greed on being dominant (while losing 200,00 for each console), the arrogance part can be accepted. Arrogance isn't related to domination, as there are a lot of arrogant loser dorks. When you are dominating arrogance is seem as self-confidence, if Sony had kicked everybody again no one would say they were arrogant saying you had to have 2 jobs, they would say they were bold or daring.