ils411 said:
Dusk said:
My point about Atari is that it dominated, everyone was able to release as much crap as they felt like and the market crashed. Yes, my family did own an Atari.
Discounting what I said doesn't make it go away lol.
BTW, you missed owning a 3DO :P
I'm surprised you would prefer quantity over quality. That's likely the most anti consumer and anti gamer stance I have seen yet.
|
Atari dominated a market that was siginifcantly smaller than the current market. this time around, the market is now worth billions of dollars. the ps1 and ps2 both had shovelwares as a majority of its line up but still reached over 100m units sold each. both dominated the market.
the wii also had a craptastic amount of games that were well, crap. too bad the nintendo fans were focused on nintendo games. hence, craptastic 3rd party support from the better developers. not to mention the vast majority of wii owners were "me too" crowd. say what you want about how gang busters it sold, truth of the matter is that most gamers bought the ps360 irregardless if they were casual gamers or hardcore gamers or inbetween.
nope, no 3DO coz it didn't come over where i lived.
quantity produces quality. the ps1 and ps2 game library will prove that. more games, more choices = better for everyone. whats anti consumer about that? you want a few games by a select few giant publishers and developers? which would relate to less choices, and less options. that is anti-consumerism...
if any of the xbone, wiiu or ps4 completely dominates massively, that dominant console will get most if not all of the games. again, as i said, developing a game for one platform which has a ridiculous share of the market ensures the game developer and publisher that that game will release to a market large enough to support that game even on one console. no matter how you look at it, it will always be cheaper to release a game on one console alone. no one can spin that around.
bottom line
1 console to develop for = less cost and less time = more games can be made = more choices for gamers = more consoles can be sold = larger user base = potential for lower priced games = lower development cost = potential for small and medium developers to once again enter the market = best scenario for gamers.
this is the truth and no spining or arguing can or will change this.
competition in the gaming market is only good for determining which console should dominate, after which, the dominant console must completly crush the competition in order for gamers to have the best and most games moving forward, since lets face it, game development is only going to get more expensive.
|
