Correct. Which is why I never asserted anything like you have.
False, Nintendo was still in the market basically taking whatever leftovers were left that didn't jump on the PS bandwagon, meaning the industry was spread too thin for the 3rd company to stay relevant. Sega could not compete with the Deals Sony were making and even Nintendo struggled to compete at the time. One had to go.
Nintendo never competed against the Dreamcast. That is a fact.
The Nintendo 64 sales had waned when the Dreamcast launched. - And Nintendo never released the Gamecube when the Dreamcast was on the market.
Ergo. Nintendo never competed with the Dreamcast when Sega folded.
Ergo. By your logic, the industry is only able to support one company.
They already have changed the industry.
Either way, you are engaging in a logical fallacy and shifting the goal post.
You asked for "one" example of where competition has benefited Steam. - Now that's not good enough?
Come on Azzanation, you need to do better than that.
Thats up to the companies to make deals to suit. At the end of the day, MS have bangers that i no doubt would say Sony and Nintendo want. Its a safe assumption.
Let's not falsely assume, let's actually base things on evidence.
You still aren't reading my posts. How does Microsoft being a trillion dollar company have anything to do with porting software to server hardware?
And they have nothing against those installing Windows and using GP on their own Hardware.
That is a policy that can change later on as it's not officially endorsed.
When will that happen exactly? We have been promised new games for years now.
1) Nintendo had Sega as a major competitor with the Mega Drive and Genesis, it was healthy competition when it was two major platforms. Sony entered, Sega instantly struggled, there was no room for Sega to compete. Look at the history of the console market. There has always been 2 major platforms and the 3rd platform changes from company to company. You have seen it with your own eyes.
2) EGS hasn't changed the market, not the way you are thinking they did. What did EGS try to change? EGS tried to lower Steams cut on games and failed. Steam still takes 30% (With the exception of high end sales). Why does Steam need to take less cut on games? For what purpose does this benefit the consumers?
3) So you are saying Sony don't want Bethesda's big games? I would say my point is more in favor than yours.
4) MS is already making deals with other Streaming services to play Xbox games, so where is this hard porting process you continue to bring up? From what iv seen, they have signed multiple 10+ year deals with other services to play Xbox games, so where's the porting issue?
5) Assumption. You cannot run a business on assumptions.
6) Maybe when they announce and release some new games maybe...
1) I am not sure you have this one correct. When Sega removed themselves from the market on hardware there was no Nintendo system at that time
2) This is where I do not understand your stance when it comes to business decisions. EGS is not trying to lower Steams cut on games. EGS is trying to entice developers to put their games on their storefront because Epic allows the developers 88% return selling on their storefront and only take a 12% cut. This is in contrast to Valve taking 30% cut. This is a competitive tactic to gain developers and increase games on EGS storefront. Because of this Tactic, Valve must always be aware that they could lose developers support and if so will have to respond by lowering their cut. Yes, Steam still takes 30% but what you do not understand is that Epic provides another storefront for any developer who does not want to pay that price. That is what we call competition. These are very basic stuff and the fact you are defending Valve still charging 30% seems illogical. If you are a developer that is exactly what you want, more storefronts fighting for your game giving you the best chance to maximize your profits.
3) I would say that Sony absolutely do not care about Bethesda games if they could remove MS from the market. Also if MS give up their hardware, they must come to Sony on Sony terms. That puts MS at an extremely disadvantage where they would need to accept basically whatever Sony offer. Now you tell us all, exactly why would MS put themselves at the mercy of Sony for what gain. If you thought the EU hit MS with concessions, what do you believe Sony would ask for. You would have investors asking you to resign in a heartbeat.
4) Actually, MS is making deals to put ABK games on streaming platforms. ABK make PC games or we should say ABK games are on consoles and PC so no porting. Those streaming platforms are PC platforms and MS already make their games on PC and console. What MS does not do is make their games on PS or Nintendo. If GP is on PS or Nintendo system, they would either be streaming only which at this time would be a big miss or MS would need to port those games to PS and Nintendo because GP is a download service. Azz, you seem to be missing very basic stuff which is killing your arguments.
5) Totally correct, you cannot run a business on assumptions but every argument you have provided are based on assumption. You assume Sony wants MS games, You assume Sony or Nintendo will put GP on their platform. You assume MS want out of the hardware business. You assume that GP can replace MS current revenue stream. You assume XCloud is a replacement for Hardware. I mean your whole argument is based on a lot of assumptions. None of your arguments have anything in them where MS can say, Yes this will happen. It's all a gamble.
Annoucing new games and releasing new games is 2 different things. We already had a number of announcements. While I believe MS will start to get games out the door, nothing is guaranteed to be successful. MS is a long way from having enough successful games to combat Sony or Nintendo. I would say they are a generation behind, not only in games but in customer mindshare.