There are two statments held as truth around gaming forums: (1) Games sale systems and (2) Competition is better for all gamers.

I believe both are not only false, but ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

1)In terms of games selling systems, like any other form of physical entertainment, HYPE sales systems. Hype can encompass alot of things (including games) but saying games are the ONLY or MAJOR reason a system sales is delousional.  Hype can encompass your marketing campaign, word of mouth, extra features, your friends having the device/system, media perception of the device or system, and of course games.  But word of mouth, friends and media perception I feel are all more important than games (ie a great number of gamers only play 2-4 games a year including Call of Duty and Madden).  To think a LARGE MAJORITY of gamers are waiting on exclusive after exclusive is crazy.  I in fact am one of those gamers waiting on exclusive after exclusive and my REAL LIFE FRIENDS who happen to have game systems are not (NONE OF THEM).  But the friends I meet through PSN and Xbox LIve pretty much ARE.

2) I'll keep this one short, the GEN with the greatest games in MY OPINION were gens that were DOMINATED.  Last Gen was the closest we ever had and the games all had gamebreaking bugs etc etc because developers were trying to get money by developing for ALL consoles (and dont forget PARITY smh).  Lastly, the PS2 DOMINATING did not make SONY or developers let up it made PS2 BETTER and allowed PS2 to HAVE MORE DIVERSE GAMING SELECTION.  The only person competition is better for is the losing consoles not EVERYONE.  The winning console will have great games regardless of if it has a close competitior.

Competition is good in the sense that a pure monopoly can lead to business practices that hurt consumers.

If there was no competition we likely would see who ever had the monopoly charging more for systems, controllers, games, online services. While I can agree a market leader is good and parity can be an issue, no competition is definitely bad. All I have to do is view cable companies in the US and how poorly run companies can get away with when there is no pressure on them.

How do you know that PS2 domination meant that the games that generation got better? In my view, 7th Gen is by far the greatest generation gaming has ever seen. We had amazing sales, lots and lots of exclusives, insanely great games in TLOU, mass effect, gears, halo, uncharted and so on.

We also had an indie scene that grew massively, awesome 2D games and cheaper games than the generations before.

Yeah, competition creates greatness and more great games for gamers.

And in my opinion the PS2 generation had better games.  Opinions are opinions and I clearly stated in OP that it was my opinion.  You stating yours wont change mine.  Like I said games 7th gen had bugs because of the potential to maximize profit but pushing out unfinished games because all three brands had large install bases.

I would point back to PS2 gen, it dominated (pretty much like major cable companies) and we didn' see any of the issues you pointed out.  The other system during 6th gen could serve as the smaller cable companys that can't really compete but are still available (going by your analogy).

If there had been no 360, then the Sony would have had little reason to improve the online components of their service.

If there had been no PS4, we'd now be playing on the original version of the Xbox One.

Yeah, competition is good for consumers.

So how do you explain PS1 and PS2 generations.  Domination didn't lead to people saying those systems suck.  Some consider them greatest consoles EVER.

I disagree on the first part, but wholeheartedly agree on the 2nd. The videogame industry did just fine before MS entered the business, and it will do just fine once they leave! The idea that Sony would have a monopoly in that case is ridiculous as well...as they still will compete with Nintendo, iOS, Android and PCs!

I agree on both, but I don't think any domination could make the diversity and games get better nowadays
. Domination is one of the many factors that made the PS2 so great and the last gen not so good game-wise. The others factors are game dev cost that exclude smaller studios and games, gamers favoring a few series of AAA games, and hardware looking more and more similar.Anyway I agree a lower level of competition on hardware doesn't have negative impact on game and studios competition.

Not for the sake of argument but for understanding.  Is there a reason you think games trump perception and word of mouth (ie HYPE).