binary solo said:
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. |
Dammit, now I have to play ball.
PS2 era domination with PS3 is speculation at best. Any one who understands Kutaragi's design philosophy knows that the Xbox had a great influence on the aims of the PS3. Irregardless of this however, if MS wasn't able to change anything after a generation in the game, they should leave if they didn't learn from it. You either go big or you go home.
As for your last point, the market isn't unstable it just requires a different approach, do it better than the other guy or make it fresh.
| curl-6 said:
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.
|
And the market will destroy them, see gaming crash.
Pemalite said:
I disagree.
Competition breeds innovation and lower prices as companies are almost required to take risks and attempt to do something different or they risk becoming irrelevant.
Having less competitors means that companies can nickle and dime consumers that more heavily as there are no possible alternatives for consumers, for instance would Microsoft have launched Games with Gold if it wasn't for Sony's PSN scheme?
Would Sony have given gamers free games if it wasn't for the massive amount of free games on the PC and mobile platforms?
Would we have gotten motion controls like Kinect and Move if it wasn't for Nintendo?
Would we have gotten online-play if it wasn't for the PC and Sega?
Would we have gotten achievements if it wasn't for Microsoft?
Would the PS4 be $400 USD if it wasn't for all 3 manufacturers being very competitive last generation? Or would we have had to get yet *another* job to pay for it?
In a capitalistic environment, competition does *amazing* things for the consumer with no exceptions and I honestly do hope we see the same kinds of sales competition this round again. (Ideally, I would love for them all to be equal.)
|
Innovation and lower prices aren't always good for the consumer. Especially, in a media based industry. Furthermore, as Rol pointed out Consoles always have competitors because of the mobile and PC industries.
The second MS, Sony, or Nintendo thinks they can nickle and dime consumers, they will get obliterated by PC and Mobile, especially when PC is closing in on consoles from the price side and mobile is closing in on them from them performance side.
