By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why is one brand dominating a generation a bad thing?

 

Which is better?

Complete domination of one brand 56 32.37%
 
Fierce and close competition 98 56.65%
 
Ouya 17 9.83%
 
Total:171
kupomogli on 29 April 2014
DonFerrari said:
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.

I had to sell a kidney.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 29 April 2014
kupomogli said:
DonFerrari said:
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.

I had to sell a kidney.





In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Chris Hu on 29 April 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Chris Hu said:
Aerys said:
It depends, a monopole by MS would be the worst thing ever.

Otherwise, a monopole is really good for gamers


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

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.


I prefer Bing because of its rewards program I'm sure that if they where the market leader there wouldn't give away anything I never got anything from google.  Also my default site for all types of info is still yahoo (news, sports, weather, finances etc.).



Aerys on 29 April 2014
Chris Hu said:
Aerys said:
It depends, a monopole by MS would be the worst thing ever.

Otherwise, a monopole is really good for gamers


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



I guess you now understand what i'm saying.



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

Chris Hu on 29 April 2014

Piracy was and is just as big of a problem on the DS.  A lot of developers just went with the PSP because it was a more capable pice of hardware and they had a lot more storage room with the UMD's.



Around the Network
Sagemode87 on 30 April 2014
masterchief999 said:
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.

PS4 SOLD 7 million. XO SHIPPED 5 million. I'm sure you knew that though........ Anyway, MS released its console in its strongest markets. Sony has more appeal worldwide than MS does. How do you think PS3 passed 360 so much despite being outsold by so much in the US and releasing a year later. You just have to accept PlayStation is a more popular brand than Xbox. 



fatslob-:O on 30 April 2014

The greatest thing about the console market is that it's not dominated by absolute technological prowess so if a console fails it's most likely due to the fact that most people don't enjoy it or the market rejects it and not because of it's weaker hardware. This essentially means that any semi big corporation can compete in the market which is good thing. Dominance in a console market is only TEMPORARY meaning that it's possible to change places very quickly. Sometimes it is better to have dominance in this case as smaller publishers should focus on getting higher profits so excluding platforms may be a better choice than to simply port a game for smaller userbases. In addition I wouldn't mind a monopoly as long as the corporation is development driven.



DonFerrari on 30 April 2014
kupomogli said:
DonFerrari said:
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.

I had to sell a kidney.

At least you could play well with what you still had.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sethnintendo on 30 April 2014
dsp333 said:

It doesn't help the N64 was such a massive piece of shit with no games, either.

Say hello to my shit list.



Skidonti on 30 April 2014
sethnintendo said:
dsp333 said:

It doesn't help the N64 was such a massive piece of shit with no games, either.

Say hello to my shit list.

Seriously; did N64 screw his sister or something?

On topic, I think domination by one company for too long is risky. It can push out all semblance of competitors. Do you think if PS3 dominated as PS2 had that Microsoft and Nintendo would still be competing in the same fashion they're trying to today? Because gaming isn't a necessity monopolization isn't as dangerous as other industries. And there are a ton of other options to get games nowadays from your PC and mobile devices, so console domination would mean far less than it once may have to the public, should the leader's policies turn south.

Honestly it may not be terrible, but a market with good competition is probably more interesting. It's good to have a number of viable options, instead of one great option that might require you to sacrifice some consumer rights and a few smaller options with few games. In the age of online profiles, too, I think it'd be a bit harder for a monopoly to be broken once it's instated.

And things behind the scenes could be questionable, with regulation on development and distribution, and potentially the leader could charge mildly exorbitant liscensing fees for their console.