Competition is great. It's driving innovation in our industry.

Playstation was a monopoly and Sony abused it's standing by releasing a $600 trojan containing a new disc format.

If there was no 360 the PS3 would be a pretty ordinary console feature wise. And it would probably still priced around $500.

Besides, what's so bad about Windows? Do you really think Microsoft has hurt the computer industry?

Actually I can agree with you. Microsoft is doing an excellent job. Sony is doing what they can to stay alive, Sony went wrong when they released the PS3 without any software to back up the price tag. If MGS4 was to release around the time of the PS3 launch, all would been good. I'm proud of Microsoft they prove to me that they will do anything to get there business going. If it requires to establish close relationships with publishers *coughs money coughs* then they do what they got to do. Microsoft went from a non-JRPG to a JRPG favorite.

I got to hand to them. From the achievements to their exclusives to their Xbox Live. Its a freaking awesome experience!!!

Sorry if there wasn't enough paragraphs I'm typing this from my blackberry!

Well said I bet Sony wont release another $600.00 console next gen.  Ms has the worst brand name and req compared to playstation and Nintendo its kind of funny buyt MS is the underdog.  They have a great startegy and done well.  I will continue to support them but the key for all is competation it helps us all

hmm.... let me think about this for a second... done.

This isn't the sony forum. If I wanted to report every sony fanboy saying "x360 is suxorz lololol11!!!" in the sony forum, Almost every one of them would be gone.

im actually the other way round, i use my 360 as a hd-dvd player and only play the odd game that i find in the 2 for £20 range. in fact i dont even bother with the 360 exclusives as i get more enjoyment out of ps3 exclusives.

il be getting resistance 2 this week, then a few weeks later socom then onto killzone........what a good time to be a ps3 owner.

2009 releases are looking thin on my hd-dvd player, but on ps3 there looking great

On topic though:



Competition can be good, and bad.

One case in point: The wii. Nintendo releases trash casual games, and experiences we have all done before because the market eats them all up because of the brand name :

(sonic AND mario? OMG!)
(mario baseball..)
( Even their upcoming line of re-released gamecube titles....)


The person who wins the competition gets off easy, if they want to, that is.
I think we can all thank sony they didn't do so the last two gens.

well, you have to save money on 360 games, I mean, you are still probably paying off your ps3

Not to mention blu-ray disc prices, good lord! I'm suprised you have a 360 at  all!

When Sony killed Sega life carried on

When Microsoft kill Sony life will STILL carry on

Besides, before sony came along there was only Sega and Nintendo and everything was fine

Everything will remain fine if it comes down to just Nintendo and microsoft

Bottom line____________________

Sony and nintendo dont deserve to make consoles.This gen they both tried to steal from the consumer.

Atleast microsoft offered something this gen that was worth the purchase.

Nintendo treating its wii like the ipod and throwing crap games at consumers.

Sony pushing a movie format and launching a console at a insane price.

Microsoft had rrod issues but atleast they offered a free 3 year warrenty.

Im sorry but i would be glad if sony was gone out the console industry and if sega was still around i would be very happy. my ps3 broke tonight and im a little upset :(

How would Microsoft act as a Monopoly in the gaming console market?

You can already see how different console powers would act as a monopoly because the already have their own monopolies. The platform holders such as Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony all have their own specific monopolies within their respective Wii, DS, PSP, Xbox and Playstation families. Microsoft is unique in that it really has two monopolies at the same level in the HD realm so they give a clearer picture about how they will act.

Direct3d Monopoly.

Microsoft works with AMD, Nvidia and Intel to develop the specifications of direct X whilst working with content providers, giving them what they want in terms of technical help and tools. So this relationship looks like this:

Consumers >< Developers >< Microsoft >< Intel/AMD/Nvidia >< Developers

In effect Microsoft doesn't deal directly with consumers but they help developers and tool manufacturers directly. They are the middleman in this relationship, the facilitator really. >< represents a two way relationship between them. All you have to do is listen to their presentations and see how they act to see how this is true.

Xbox Monopoly.

We have seen time and again how one of Microsofts key goals/strategies is to work directly with developers and publishers and this mirrors their Direct3d Mononopy where they have almost complete power. So its doubtful they will change it if they gained market dominance. They are actually concerned about the performance and success of third parties on their platform.

This relationship is really multi-level, and only Microsoft deals with hardware manufacturers themselves.

So on the top level it looks like this Microsoft >< Hardware manufactures/designers.

The next level looks like this Consumers >< Microsoft >< Developers/Publishers >< Consumers

Because in this relationship they have two distinct set of stake-holders who are the most important. Consumers and Developers/Publishers. So they would in effect develop their hardware around what they percieve the Consumers wish for and they what Developers want in terms of delivering great content that people wish to buy. Obviously even a monopoly has to satisfy its consumers and I doubt that will change. People may hate Windows because its expensive, but they rarely lay the complaint that its useless to their needs.

Complaints about monopolies

The two complaints people make about monopolies are these:

1. The taking of monopolistic rents, aka more than a fair profit.

2. Absolute dominance and control stiffling innovation.

With complaint number 1: Every company from Nintendo to Microsoft is guilty of this, Nintendo is using its monopoly as we speak to garner incredible profits. So this is not a complaint you could lay directly at Microsofts feet to say we want someone else to hold the monopoly more than you.

With complaint number 2: We can see from Microsofts actions where they hold complete power, they also wield it fairly by working with other companies and setting standards rather than dictating. For example in the Direct 3d specification Microsoft holds the chairmans vote: Only used as a tie breaker not to dictate the direction the hardware moves.

Should you be afraid of a monopoly?

There are reasons to be distrustful and there are reasons why its best one standard is held. Look at the Blu Ray/DVD monopolies. The companies involved set the standard, they reap the profits but everyone benifits in the end from consumers, to movie studios to retailers. One could argue that the benifits of a monopoly in certain industries justifies the "economic rent" or monopolistic profits taken by one company. In the games industry, having a single dominant platform simplifies the industry and the consumers benifit in the end as much as the platform holder. Many people said that the PS1/PS2 days had some of the best games and this has a lot to do with the unification of the platform.

So should you be afraid of a Microsoft monopoly? No, not unless a Nintendo or Sony monopoly terrifies you as well. Microsoft has proved that they can work with developers and consumers and even under their power they still allow innovation to thrive.