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 said:
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!


Thats fine, but American business kind of ruined it. Once Sony started following MS its been getting progressively worse.



Around the Network
Chris Hu said:
dsp333 said:
Chris Hu said:
As much as I didn't really care for the N64 or the Saturn the PS1 really didn't completely dominated the industry. You could say that they completely controlled 3rd party publishers but that is only due to the fact that a lot of 3rd party games for the Saturn didn't get released outside of Japan.


Doubling the nearest competitor is already ridiculous dominatation.

The PS1 TRIPPLED the nearest competitor. It doesn't help the N64 was such a massive piece of shit with no games, either.

Well the PS2 was a lot more dominant then the PS1.  I agree with you on the games on N64 when your best selling game is a launch title and your top 20 are all first party that is never a good sign. 

The N64's top 20 games were not all first party, they were published by Nintendo by not all developed by them. Two were Star Wars developed by Lucas Arts and some made by Rare like Goldeneye and Banjo Kazooie.Also just Mario 64 because was a launch game doesn't make it bad since that game is that good.



 

Man, multi quoting sure is tiring, or maybe cause its 3:00 am, ah whatevs. fck it i'm triple posting

Pemalite said:

Lower prices are *always* good for the consumer.
How is paying more better?

I'm a PC gamer, there has been no negative side effects in the PC marketplace with lower prices thanks to Steams Sales, in-fact Valve have often stated that lower prices actually increases sales as more people are willing to part with their cash.

As a media industry, budgets are important. If competition drives prices to be so low that the companies can't operate quality will be affected and lower quality is bad for the consumer.

The PC marketplace is a different beast, its much older, and so the competition is between vendors whose operating costs are much lower then that of actual content producers.

Since PCs themselves are a neccesity as opposed to consoles, their are a lot less people on consoles. So more people at lower prices isn't necessarily applicable to consoles yet.

A popular mobile game gets exposure in the mainstream, when you have a base of hundreds of millions and you are selling a game for 1$, its just as good if not a better scenario then 100 million for a 60$ game or 1$ with a base of 100 million.



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

curl-6 said:

Not sure I get your point here. You're saying that they survive only by using their second chance to correct their arrogance?

Sony's big enough that their other divisions tanked them, while they repaired the damage (by kicking out Kutaragi). Any pre-nes console also fits the bill.

The PS3's entire life up to the PS4's design and launch has been repairing the damage caused by their arrogance. If PS was an entity (assuming they arent THQed), like Sega was, they would be making games for the Wii U today.

With regards to the 3DS, that early pricecut saved its ass, at least Nintendo was wise enough to act on their arrogance before it was too late. 



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. said:

Thats fine, but American business kind of ruined it. Once Sony started following MS its been getting progressively worse.

You don't even care do you?!

I'm going to sleep goddammit.



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

Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Pemalite said:

Lower prices are *always* good for the consumer.
How is paying more better?

I'm a PC gamer, there has been no negative side effects in the PC marketplace with lower prices thanks to Steams Sales, in-fact Valve have often stated that lower prices actually increases sales as more people are willing to part with their cash.

As a media industry, budgets are important. If competition drives prices to be so low that the companies can't operate quality will be affected and lower quality is bad for the consumer.

The PC marketplace is a different beast, its much older, and so the competition is between vendors whose operating costs are much lower then that of actual content producers.

Since PCs themselves are a neccesity as opposed to consoles, their are a lot less people on consoles. So more people at lower prices isn't necessarily applicable to consoles yet.

A popular mobile game gets exposure in the mainstream, when you have a base of hundreds of millions and you are selling a game for 1$, its just as good if not a better scenario then 100 million for a 60$ game or 1$ with a base of 100 million.


Again, low prices actually spur people to spend more.
If games are cheaper people are willing to spend more on titles that they normally wouldn't consider, thus smaller developers get more cash, there is lots of evidence of this happening in the PC space, for instance I have in-excess of 400 games on steam, no way would I buy that many games if they were all 100+ AUD, so I am supporting the market better as my finite disposable income is supporting a larger amount of developers.

People only have a finite' amount of disposable income, thus the amount of money they *can* spend on games is fixed.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

In concept it isnt bad, it just depends on whose dominating and what they do with the power that comes with it.
From history we know that every time Sony dominates, a lot of the industry gets to benefit from its success. They act like industry leaders when they are industry leaders. Nintendo didnt do that with the wii, it just didnt cover enough of the industry to be respected as an industry leader.



it is bad because lets face it we all have controller preferences. Unless they start making 3-4 shapes that we all like a monopoly would be terrible.

Also DRM would flood in.

Sure back in the day a dominant console didn't matter too much, but that was when tech was also basic and games were plug and play.



 

 

PS1 and PS2 dominations were like the best generations of gaming. Not only quality titles on the dominant platform but also very excellent games on the other platforms. (n64, saturn, dreamcast, gamecube)



There is no reason to repeat the PS3 / 360 era; those consoles became mirror images of one another and forced people to own multiple consoles that did the same thing. Likewise, the PS 4 vs XBO thing is also an artificial dilemma, there is no reason to own two of the same. 

MS invested in a selfish strategy: licensing games whenever it benefited them, instead of building studios and gaining gamers' trust. It didn't prove that popular. Nothing would be affected if MS withdrew from console gaming and put their remaining IPs on the PC.

Even if it's just the PS4 (and the hope of a new nintendo system) console gaming can still benefit by borrowing elements from PC gaming. That's where we got competitive online gaming from.