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
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 30 April 2014
curl-6 said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
curl-6 said:

And Sony.

2wordsUlose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2w2l1JTs4

Idon'tthinkUunderstandThisGameApictureIsworthAthousandWordsAndthatvideohasover500000wordsAsecond.



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

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 30 April 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Sony is used to domination. They dominate because they understand what the gaming industry demands. Great third party and great first and second party. Give people something new every time. Thats why they always sell well. Sony excells where their competition lacks.

NIntendo lacks with third party

Microsoft lacks at first party

Sony excels at all parties, thus they are the choice even though some people go elsewhere for their games.

Vita.

You are trying so hard. :) 



fatslob-:O on 30 April 2014
RolStoppable said:

So what? We've also seen those problems with companies who weren't in a dominant position. Most recently, Microsoft with the X1 and Sony with the Vita.

One brand dominating a generation is actually a good thing, because it moves console gaming towards software competition. The higher concentration of software on one platform means that all developers have to try harder if they want to sell their games. Although the Wii has proven that this rationality does not necessarily exist among third parties.

In the end neither scenario (domination vs. competitive hardware sales) is inherently worse than the other. If you look at the hardware competition between Sony and Microsoft, it led to online multiplayer being put behind a paywall for both companies, because the competition between them forces them to subsidize their hardware by some means. Additionally, this competition eliminated the middleground of AA games which led to a lower variety of high quality games. The belief that competition always makes things cheaper and better for consumers is simply wrong.

Nevermind that one single console brand can never get absolute control as PC gaming will always co-exist. A true monopoly over all gaming is impossible to achieve, so even outrageous domination won't allow a company to dictate everything, therefore arrogance (which occurs regardless of dominating or not) will always get punished eventually.

This has to be said like a thousand times to everyone. Competition =/= Getting better products



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 30 April 2014
RolStoppable said:

So what? We've also seen those problems with companies who weren't in a dominant position. Most recently, Microsoft with the X1 and Sony with the Vita.

One brand dominating a generation is actually a good thing, because it moves console gaming towards software competition. The higher concentration of software on one platform means that all developers have to try harder if they want to sell their games. Although the Wii has proven that this rationality does not necessarily exist among third parties.

In the end neither scenario (domination vs. competitive hardware sales) is inherently worse than the other. If you look at the hardware competition between Sony and Microsoft, it led to online multiplayer being put behind a paywall for both companies, because the competition between them forces them to subsidize their hardware by some means. Additionally, this competition eliminated the middleground of AA games which led to a lower variety of high quality games. The belief that competition always makes things cheaper and better for consumers is simply wrong.

Nevermind that one single console brand can never get absolute control as PC gaming will always co-exist. A true monopoly over all gaming is impossible to achieve, so even outrageous domination won't allow a company to dictate everything, therefore arrogance (which occurs regardless of dominating or not) will always get punished eventually.

@Underline @Normal @Bolded @Italics



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

S.T.A.G.E. on 30 April 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
RolStoppable said:

So what? We've also seen those problems with companies who weren't in a dominant position. Most recently, Microsoft with the X1 and Sony with the Vita.

One brand dominating a generation is actually a good thing, because it moves console gaming towards software competition. The higher concentration of software on one platform means that all developers have to try harder if they want to sell their games. Although the Wii has proven that this rationality does not necessarily exist among third parties.

In the end neither scenario (domination vs. competitive hardware sales) is inherently worse than the other. If you look at the hardware competition between Sony and Microsoft, it led to online multiplayer being put behind a paywall for both companies, because the competition between them forces them to subsidize their hardware by some means. Additionally, this competition eliminated the middleground of AA games which led to a lower variety of high quality games. The belief that competition always makes things cheaper and better for consumers is simply wrong.

Nevermind that one single console brand can never get absolute control as PC gaming will always co-exist. A true monopoly over all gaming is impossible to achieve, so even outrageous domination won't allow a company to dictate everything, therefore arrogance (which occurs regardless of dominating or not) will always get punished eventually.

@Underline @Normal @Bolded @Italics


Truth. American competition hurt the integrity of consoles. 



Around the Network
curl-6 on 30 April 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
curl-6 said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
curl-6 said:

And Sony.

2wordsUlose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2w2l1JTs4

Idon'tthinkUunderstandThisGameApictureIsworthAthousandWordsAndthatvideohasover500000wordsAsecond.

I'm not playing any kind of game.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 30 April 2014
curl-6 said:

I'm not playing any kind of game.

IamTheOnlyWay2LoseIs2notPlay.



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

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 30 April 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
RolStoppable said:

So what? We've also seen those problems with companies who weren't in a dominant position. Most recently, Microsoft with the X1 and Sony with the Vita.

One brand dominating a generation is actually a good thing, because it moves console gaming towards software competition. The higher concentration of software on one platform means that all developers have to try harder if they want to sell their games. Although the Wii has proven that this rationality does not necessarily exist among third parties.

In the end neither scenario (domination vs. competitive hardware sales) is inherently worse than the other. If you look at the hardware competition between Sony and Microsoft, it led to online multiplayer being put behind a paywall for both companies, because the competition between them forces them to subsidize their hardware by some means. Additionally, this competition eliminated the middleground of AA games which led to a lower variety of high quality games. The belief that competition always makes things cheaper and better for consumers is simply wrong.

Nevermind that one single console brand can never get absolute control as PC gaming will always co-exist. A true monopoly over all gaming is impossible to achieve, so even outrageous domination won't allow a company to dictate everything, therefore arrogance (which occurs regardless of dominating or not) will always get punished eventually.

@Underline @Normal @Bolded @Italics


Truth. American competition hurt the integrity of consoles. 

Dammit STAGE, that was supposed to be the end of this thread.

A perfect ending, and you RUINED IT!



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

binary solo on 30 April 2014

It's not bad if it's domination a la Wii. But it is rather bad if it's domination a la PS2. What would have happened if PS3 had dominated like PS2? MS would probably be gone from consoles, and probably so would Nintendo. Or if Sony and Nintendo had simply swapped placed, with MS staying about the same then the result would have been similar, with only Nintendo the last man standing.

Though what that might have done is hasten the advent of the post-console era, with a lot of Onlive type operators getting started and some of them remaining viable as more gamers migrated towards that form game delivery than what happened in the 7th gen with 3 fairly successful consoles.

Sometimes with evolution you need a bit of a crisis to move things forward. With one dominant player the environment is unstable and there is a lot of scope for people to come in with radical new ideas, which to some extent Nintendo did with Wii for a temporary benefit. With 3 co-dominant, more or less, players the environment is much more steady and it's harder for radical new ideas to attract a big enough segment of the market.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

curl-6 on 30 April 2014
RolStoppable said:

So what? We've also seen those problems with companies who weren't in a dominant position. Most recently, Microsoft with the X1 and Sony with the Vita.

One brand dominating a generation is actually a good thing, because it moves console gaming towards software competition. The higher concentration of software on one platform means that all developers have to try harder if they want to sell their games. Although the Wii has proven that this rationality does not necessarily exist among third parties.

In the end neither scenario (domination vs. competitive hardware sales) is inherently worse than the other. If you look at the hardware competition between Sony and Microsoft, it led to online multiplayer being put behind a paywall for both companies, because the competition between them forces them to subsidize their hardware by some means. Additionally, this competition eliminated the middleground of AA games which led to a lower variety of high quality games. The belief that competition always makes things cheaper and better for consumers is simply wrong.

Nevermind that one single console brand can never get absolute control as PC gaming will always co-exist. A true monopoly over all gaming is impossible to achieve, so even outrageous domination won't allow a company to dictate everything, therefore arrogance (which occurs regardless of dominating or not) will always get punished eventually.

Getting punished eventually doesn't stop arrogance from happening though. Give them half a chance and companies will get lazy. If their competition is breathing down their neck they're less inclined to slack off.