Basic economic theory demonstrates that when firms have to compete for customers, it leads to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, greater variety, and more innovation but here comes azzanation telling us competition doesn't matter.
321,988 
I think it's important that they still make something called xbox. Mabey having a xbox like box like alexa has a box or something.
BiON!@
Azzanation said:
You are clouded by the notion of Competition is better. There is always a catch when companies play around with pricing. Companies find other ways to make you pay them back for their discounted prices. Nothing is for free. They literally all locked up Multiplayer behind a paywall, that was Competition that did that, not a monopoly. Competition does not equal better games, and to debunk your points on pricing, look at the industry today. We have price increases across the board, in a industry with Competition. Companies will price hike regardless. Because they know when one does it, they all follow to push the agenda The industry is better when we move away from exclusive boxes and focus on open platforms. Exactly how PCs and the mobile marker work. We have literally seen more bad things happen when it comes to competition than we have seen with gains. |
It looks to me like you are conflating 'competition is good' = 'nothing bad can happen during competition'.
Would Sony and Nintendo have thought of locking multiplayer behind a paywall if Microsoft hadn't come up with the idea first?
Maybe. Maybe not. But if Xbox had monopoly of the industry, we wouldn't even have had 1-2 generations of free online play at all.
And no games would be playable offline without a DRM check. We would be forced to use the Kinect. Etc.
The price of games went up as a result of the cost of developing games skyrocketing.
Last edited by Hiku - on 05 February 2024
Azzanation said:
You are clouded by the notion of Competition is better. There is always a catch when companies play around with pricing. Companies find other ways to make you pay them back for their discounted prices. Nothing is for free. They literally all locked up Multiplayer behind a paywall, that was Competition that did that, not a monopoly. Competition does not equal better games, and to debunk your points on pricing, look at the industry today. We have price increases across the board, in a industry with Competition. Companies will price hike regardless. Because they know when one does it, they all follow to push the agenda The industry is better when we move away from exclusive boxes and focus on open platforms. Exactly how PCs and the mobile marker work. We have literally seen more bad things happen when it comes to competition than we have seen with gains. |
You keep only mention the small negative stuff competition brought but completely ignore all the great thing competition has brought to the industry, competition brought far more positives than negatives.
If Nintendo didn't release the revolutionary NES controller with a D-Pad and A & B buttons, we'd still be playing games on a worse joystick type controller. Other competitors like Sega & Sony copied many of Nintendo's control schemes to keep up, improving the industry as a whole. The whole reason why Sonic exists is cause of Mario, and many games were influenced heavily off one another in positive ways. Many developers were inspired by games like Mario 64 & Zelda OOT for how well they handled 3D games and used concepts from those games to keep up and improve their games, only possible with extra competition and more options to be inspired by. Games like Doom, Goldeneye, Halo all contributed to an improvement towards FPS. The GC & Xbox controllers was inspired by the PS1 two handlebar design. Online gaming improved heavily because Sony looked directly at how well their competitor Microsoft was doing with Xbox Live and implemented many of their features on their system. It's just basic economics, more competition drives innovation and provides more and better options for the consumer cause everyone is trying to 1-up each other, it's not even a subjective matter whether or not more competition is better.
| zeldaring said: Basic economic theory demonstrates that when firms have to compete for customers, it leads to lower prices, higher quality goods and services, greater variety, and more innovation but here comes azzanation telling us competition doesn't matter. |
Steam says hello.
javi741 said:
You keep only mention the small negative stuff competition brought but completely ignore all the great thing competition has brought to the industry, competition brought far more positives than negatives. If Nintendo didn't release the revolutionary NES controller with a D-Pad and A & B buttons, we'd still be playing games on a worse joystick type controller. Other competitors like Sega & Sony copied many of Nintendo's control schemes to keep up, improving the industry as a whole. The whole reason why Sonic exists is cause of Mario, and many games were influenced heavily off one another in positive ways. Many developers were inspired by games like Mario 64 & Zelda OOT for how well they handled 3D games and used concepts from those games to keep up and improve their games, only possible with extra competition and more options to be inspired by. Games like Doom, Goldeneye, Halo all contributed to an improvement towards FPS. The GC & Xbox controllers was inspired by the PS1 two handlebar design. Online gaming improved heavily because Sony looked directly at how well their competitor Microsoft was doing with Xbox Live and implemented many of their features on their system. It's just basic economics, more competition drives innovation and provides more and better options for the consumer cause everyone is trying to 1-up each other, it's not even a subjective matter whether or not more competition is better. |
You pretend these innovations are only exclusive to 1st party companies competing. All Companies will continue to innovate the industry, regardless if they have a console or not. Companies what to make money and those that see the opportunities will take them.
Last edited by Azzanation - on 06 February 2024
Azzanation said:
Steam says hello. |
I think steam is competing with playstation and Xbox. Would love to see steam make a dedicated home console though.
zeldaring said:
I think steam is competing with playstation and Xbox. Would love to see steam make a dedicated home console though. |
Steam is living proof that you don't need competition to run an industry well. Steam since its release back in 2004, has grown to offer the best value in gaming and is the biggest platform for gaming outside of the mobile market. Think about this for a second, in the console industry, Competition is the reason you have to pay for online. It was also Competition that raised console prices this gen.
JRPGfan said:
|
Naahhhh people claiming Xbox will leave the console market at least since X1 second or third year in the market.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
Azzanation said:
If you want the competitive advantage of competition than you need to support it otherwise, the competition will get up and leave like we have seen since the beginning. So many gamers were upset that Sega left the hardware market, the very same people that wouldnt buy a Sega product. It makes zero sense. No company in their right mind will compete just to make you happy while spending billions. Xbox have witnessed how bias the industry is towards them. Give them reasons to stay that actually benefit them, otherwise like we are seeing with the rumours, will get up and leave. They dont care what Sony does, they can survive without them aswell, so weather Sony does right by you isnt MS, Xbox or Phils responsibility. If you choose not to support them, dont expect them to support you either. Its the Sega situation all over again. Lets not forget, MS own the brands that make Sony the most amount of money, so if anything, its Sony that needs MS because those Shareholders dont want to lose that CoD money. |
I think you're gossly misrepresenting what I said. I never stated nor implied that a company needs to appease me, only that the existence of competition has a benefit for me as a consumer. So, it is irrelevant whether I would've bought a Series X or not. Me choosing not to buy one is not a mistake on my part, it's quite literally a mistake on Microsoft's.
So, you seem to be mistaken that ppl should've supported MS (you directly say this about me), when the reality is that the onus was on MS to court me as a consumer. It's clearer now more than ever just what a poor job MS did on that front. When it comes to hardware, software, marketing: they just simply haven't done a good enough job in any of these departments this generation.
MS will of course survive in this theoretical where they drop hardware. They don't need hardware per se since they have strong brands. They'll sell their games on PS consoles and both them and Sony win on that front.
But that's neither here nor there, because that isn't my concern, but rather how much growth exists when they don't have their own platform to feed people into that subscription. It remains to be seen what MS will do, but we'll find out soon it seems.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
