GotBoth said:
taggartaa said:
GotBoth said:
Augen said:
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. |
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).
|
The reason the games for the ps2 were so diverse is because of all the competition within the ps2 platform (many developers competing to get the sales). Once you release a console, you can't really increase the price of it, that wouldn't make much sense to the consumer. The ps2 domination gave birth to the ps3 launch, an overpriced, late to market console (in the end the ps3 did fine because of price drops and constant support from Sony first party studios which was all brought on by competative pressure from the 360).
What is causing games to be more stagnant today is not compettition, it's development costs. Consumers demand state of the art visuals, physical effects, and open world scenarios. That is difficult and therefore expensive to make. The more expensive something is to make, the less risk the business is willing to take.
|
These arguments about overpriced PS3 don't work. first, because when iPhone got hot the price of not only thier phones increased but ALL phones and people still by iPhones when they don't have to (same with iPads). second, because PSs have always been premium priced and introduce new tech to gaming (dvd, bluray etc) and have never been the cheapest console because of this. So they have always been overpriced with regards to competition PS3 just lost because it was late to game ($500/$600 PS3 vs. $400 Xbox lauched on the same day PS3 would have won)
|
But the PS3, after a year on the market (and a year late) due to slow sales also had a price drop. Sony has already stated that price drops for the PS4 will be less frequent than last gen.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/fun.games/07/09/sony.price.reut/
Besides the Dreamcast, I gamed only on the PS1, and PS2, previous gens, and it took me awhile to move on from the PS2. I did not buy a xbox360 at launch, I waited for the PS3 to drop. After I saw the price, and the games (they looked the same as the 360, which was cheaper) I went with a Xbox360, I eventually bought a Wii, (Resident Evil 4 was amazing) I eventually bought the PS3, and a bunch of exclusives.
I really liked Sony consoles alot, the PS3 with Ken's statement about getting a second job to own it, really put me off. I was in the military, at the time,and being deployed yearly, I made alot of tax free money. But I still did not buy it until almost 4 years later.
I think with MS intro into this gen they also put people off, where they will not see sales pick up, and match the PS4 in terms of monthly sales until the mid point of it's life too. Which is a shame, it is a well thought out system. Even Steve Jobs felt the next barrier in Tv would be voice controls ala Back to the Future 2 tv.
Sony has garnered alot of good faith back towards the end of the PS3's life, and carrying it into this generation. Hopefully MS can do the same. Competition is good, and important for us as consumers. What would pricing on PS now look like without someone like MS, and Nintendo constantly fighting them?
