Who ever said it "is" what makes the industry better? Don't shift the goal posts. It can be competition and "a host of other things". I didn't say it is only competition that makes the industry better, nor did your OP.

But honestly, do you need a "study" to tell you competition is a good thing? I cannot imagine being a consumer and not knowing something so basic and fundamental.

Also no offense but the "non-forum gamers" you know sound pretty stupid, and who cares if they want all the games on their one console.

All those are points on top of a high price.  No exclusives that really showed why you should pay either price over a 400 dollar 360.  360 multiplats performing better than the more expensive system.  It matter not if its 500 or 600, it was still more expensive then the competition.  You had the Wii at 300 hundred with the innovative mind share at the time and you had the 360 pop out games that played better at less money (exactly what we see today but opposite).

The key is that as it is today, unless the tech made games look and run better, gamers really did not care if it was using a Blu-ray drive, had 4 USB ports, PS2 backward compat and other crap.  The perceived value is the same as what we see with the X1.  Gamers do not care how much other crap you throw within a console as long as the end result is better games.

If there was any true leason Sony learned from the PS3 is that start with the hardware that make games look and perfrom great on your system first, then worry about that other stuff later.  For first adopters and momentum, games are still the motivation factor in purchases and a solid price.

PS2 was a great improvement over PS and it did it after PS dominated.  PS3 was a massive improvement over PS2 and so on.  Improvement is a natural progression even with little to no competition.  

So your arguning aginast PS3s price yet an extra 50/60 a month (500 for the long as gen for services) is awesome addition to your arguemnt?

Wiis online sucked, PS3 was buggy and 360 cost an extra 500 for the consoles LT, just awesome right ?

Last gen Devs and publisher went out of business more so then well ever with the crash being the exception, and gaming on PS2 was best 7th gen does not even come close.  

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.

Gamers would not care about 500 600 if the PS3 launched first and had the games, but late release and pain in the ass development screwed it the most.  Gave 360 time to build a lead a library and with beaing one year its quality software came mosh sooner. 

PS3 fist year out sold 360s, so argue price all you want but sales show even at double it sold more the 360 and sold it with competition on the marlet.  Whiel 360 had the market to its self.  

How exactly did the PS3 catch up to the 360.  Was it the multiple price drops.  Was it the removal of all of the initial components within the PS3 when it wasn't selling so good so Sony could drop the price.  Was it Sony retooling the PS3 to build it cheaper, so Sony could drop the price again.

Things do not have to play out the same as last gen but to ignore obvious facts last gen seems to be short sighted.  You sound like the people who were claim the PS3 was dead during those rough years for the PS3.  Sony made many price drops to get the PS3 to a price where consumers preceived the value as acceptable.  It only takes one screw up to turn momentum.  If not for the RROD with the 360 who knows what this gen would have looked like.  Nothing is set and this gen there will be plenty of opportunities for each company to make either smart or dumb moves.

How exactly did the PS3 catch up to the 360.  Was it the multiple price drops.  Was it the removal of all of the initial components within the PS3 when it wasn't selling so good so Sony could drop the price.  Was it Sony retooling the PS3 to build it cheaper, so Sony could drop the price again.

Things do not have to play out the same as last gen but to ignore obvious facts last gen seems to be short sighted.  You sound like the people who were claim the PS3 was dead during those rough years for the PS3.  Sony made many price drops to get the PS3 to a price where consumers preceived the value as acceptable.  It only takes one screw up to turn momentum.  If not for the RROD with the 360 who knows what this gen would have looked like.  Nothing is set and this gen there will be plenty of opportunities for each company to make either smart or dumb moves.