Competition is NOT a good thing

This is what I hate about System Wars: people don't think for themselves. "Oh, of course competition is good, it means lower prices!!"

In fact, I believe that having 3-man horse race is hurting us more than it is helping us. Here are why some common assumptions about competition are dead wrong:

1. Without competition, we would get charged $800 per console!

I hear this a lot in other Blu-ray vs HD-DVD forums too. "If blu-ray won, they would charge us whatever they wanted!" Wake up, DVD didn't have any competition for years and price just kept going down. Same thing with consoles. The market has a lot of control over pricing. If there were one console, priced at $800, no one would buy it! Look at the PS3. It was priced too high, and no one bought it. Did every PS2 owner get a 360 or Wii instead? Nope, most 360 owners were XBOX owners, and Wii sells mostly to non-gamers. A lot of PS2 owners are just buying PS2s, or waiting until PS3's price drops. If there is only one console, the price would come down over time like all consumer electronics.

Still not convinced? Think about it. Why is it that the most competitive gen, the consoles are priced the highest? Doesn't make sense right?

2. We have all these great games because of many consoles!

Sega isn't in the console race anymore and we still get Sonic games. Sure, they're not as good as before, but that's more due to the developers' fault. Did Dreamcast magically make a Sonic game better? Of course not. Would Bungie just not make Halo if the XBOX didn't exist? No, they probably would have still made it for the PS2.

3. There would be no quality control! No alternatives! Imagine 360 as the only console! What if I don't want RROD?

Think about it. The reason for RROD is BECAUSE of competition. MS wanted to beat Sony by getting out its console earlier, that's why they didn't work out RROD before releasing the 360. Most problems stem from competition. If Sony wasn't worried about MS, they could have (and probably would have) delayed the PS3 until production costs came down and priced it lower.

4. We would be stuffed with unnecessary things like blu-ray!

Again, this is because of competition. If Sony wasn't rushing out the PS3 to catch up to MS, they would have waited until blu-ray was more proven of a format, and costs came down more. Sony didn't want to sell the PS3 at $599. Don't believe me? PS2 came out about 3 years after DVD players appeared. DVD was already a proven format.

Think about it this way: if there was no competition with HD DVD, Sony wouldn't even need to push blu-ray so hard. They wouldn't even need to rush it out with the PS3.

Reasons why competition is harming us:

1. To play all the good games, you have to buy all the consoles. I'm sure no one likes spending about $1000 to play all the good games whereas with one console, you'd only have to pay $200-400 in a one-console world.

2. Bad ports. With one console the developers could optimize the game for that console, and everyone who owns the game could enjoy it to its maximum potential.

3. Multiplatform. Now in order to recoup costs, most games need to be multiplat. That means a lot more time and development. If they only need to develop for one console, there's less time in development so we get our games faster, and lower production costs which means lower prices for games.

Still don't believe me? Just take a look at last gen, when the PS2 DOMINATED everything. I think we can all agree that, aside from better technology, the PS2 is easily a better console than the Wii, 360, or PS3. It was cheaper, reliable (after 1st gen with DRE), and it had the best library of any console to date. Everything I've said is reflected in the PS2. Price was not inflated, we still get tons of AAA games with a lot of variety, all on one console. Sony fixed DRE and even came out with a better, slim model. We didn't have unnecessary built-ins, just a proven format in DVD. No bad ports, and games were cheaper.

Okay, so competition does bring us a few good things. For example, if there were only one console, online probably wouldn't be as good as it is now. Also, wiimote probably would not be as popular, although it could easily be an accessory, like eye-toy. I'm not saying competition is all bad or it's the devil. I'm just saying, grow a brain. Think for yourselves. Don't automatically go "competition good!" just because everyone else is saying it. 3-console gen is really not all it's cracked up to be.

iamanehero

You've obviously never taken economics.

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]

why don't you move to china you communist because that was what a world without competition would be.

Hoobinator

You mean China the nation with year on year double digit growth rates. Or the China with the worlds second most powerful military. Or how about the China with the rapidly expanding technological, manufacturing, scientific sectors. Or how about China the nation projected to be the worlds largest economy in a not too distant future.

More ownage capitalist?? ;)

you for got the China with a booming capitalist economy, stock market, international trade, please China is only communist in name. In practice they are one of the biggest capitalists in the world. Get your facts right.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

That's what he's trying to say though, Communism would be the perfect system if we all lived in an ideal world. The problem with Communism isn't communism itself, it's human nature.

ZIMdoom

Technically though, if we all lived in an ideal world, any system would work perfectly as it should. Any system would lead to a utopia.

That's true. I guess the point we're trying to make is that communism is set up with a perfect world in mind.

Comrade Stalin greets you with pleasure.

Always nice seeing people carrying on the word of the Soviet Union.

(Btw DVD was produced by many companies, all wioth the goal too make money.. It wasn't a true monopoly, far from. Same with blu-ray.

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

That's what he's trying to say though, Communism would be the perfect system if we all lived in an ideal world. The problem with Communism isn't communism itself, it's human nature.

TyrantDragon55

Technically though, if we all lived in an ideal world, any system would work perfectly as it should. Any system would lead to a utopia.

That's true. I guess the point we're trying to make is that communism is set up with a perfect world in mind.

Also if any you actually read the writings of Marx, one of the smartest people in the 20th century, you would know that true communism cannot and does not exist today. For true communism to exist capitalism has to collapse. Communism is nothing more than the evolution of human society. According to Marx we are in the capitalist era of our evolution. When capitalism collapses, and it will because by nature capitalism can't sustain itself eventually you run out of things to exploit, then communism will rise. The problem with the soviet union was they were trying to put the cart before the horse. Rushing into something that wasn't ready to happen. So it failed misurabley. This is why China, a supposed communist country, is far from communist in practice.

Personally I agree with Marx their will be a time for communism. The time is just not now. But eventually when capitalism collapses the next progression would be a communal society. It will not be a utopia nothing ever will be but it would be the best option in keeping human civilization together. The thing is you can't force communism it has to kinda happen. This is why countries like vietnam, cuba, etc. etc. are poor and china is not even a real communist country. Its just not that time yet.

I didn't even bother reading your argument because in a free market system competition is always good. It is what drives technologies and prices. End of story.

Spin it any way you want with your personal observations, competition is what made the console race so awesome now and it is what makes game developers constantly try to make a bigger and better game.

im not reading all that TC. the gist seems to be though that, in the console market, comprtition is actually costing us more.

and ure right..i agree. with exclusives and all that jazz, if u want to play all the best games in a agen then ull need all 3 consoles, the 2 handhelds and a good PC. it costs an absolute fortune.

and at the mo it feels like a cartel. the cost fo consoles, PC parts and games have all gone up. games are also getting shorter. how exactly are consumers benefiting in the current climate?

short answer...were not. were getting screwed.

however (yes there is one of those) thats not to say competiton is bad on principal and a monoply is a terrible terrible thing to have as companies get sloppy and start doing ethically questionable things. an open console standard, where consoles are like DVD players and anyone can make a console would quickly sort this situation out. there would be all sorts of consoles of all flavours, and the consumer will only ever need to buy the one that suits them.

it will never ever ever happen though, ninty, sony and MS will do everythign in their power to ensure that this market remains a 3 horse race and wil also ensure that there consoles arent compatible with each other. form a business perspective its just better for them to fight in a 3 horse race.

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]

That still dosent explain how he's bad for captalism because Im still able to buy the stuff I have always bought.

And socialist healthcare isnt for EVERYONE I want a choice in who I want to take care of me not some govt run agency iin which the heath care is mediocre at best. Plus it raises taxes and thats something I really dont need right now.

dsmccracken

You are misinformed, you can still choose your doctor (like here in Canada), and it doesn't result in mediocre care (again, like here in Canada). You are correct about taxes, but then the trade off is that when my grandma had cancer, it didn't bleed the family dry.

But let's save this talk for the off-topic forum and get back to the matter at hand.

Also if any you actually read the writings of Marx, one of the smartest people in the 20th century, you would know that true communism cannot and does not exist today. For true communism to exist capitalism has to collapse. Communism is nothing more than the evolution of human society. According to Marx we are in the capitalist era of our evolution. When capitalism collapses, and it will because by nature capitalism can't sustain itself eventually you run out of things to exploit, then communism will rise. The problem with the soviet union was they were trying to put the cart before the horse. Rushing into something that wasn't ready to happen. So it failed misurabley. This is why China, a supposed communist country, is far from communist in practice.

Personally I agree with Marx their will be a time for communism. The time is just not now. But eventually when capitalism collapses the next progression would be a communal society. It will not be a utopia nothing ever will be but it would be the best option in keeping human civilization together. The thing is you can't force communism it has to kinda happen. This is why countries like vietnam, cuba, etc. etc. are poor and china is not even a real communist country. Its just not that time yet.

NFJSupreme

Oh I can't stand that communist bulls*. Yeah, let's make a perfect human race! Like nobody have tried that before! Can you name one single communist nation that didn't have to kill millions to do the "revolution"? Can you name one single communist nation that wasn't ruled by a tyrant? Just to remember you how "humanists" they are. They really care so much about the human being... :roll: Enforcing utopical visions over people, as you say like to say, FTL. Please, stop making use of all the benefits of capitalism. At least, have coherence.MagnuzGuerra

If you knew anything about history and communism, you would know that Karl Marx himself is not a communist and his theory has not been used in practice, but variations have been used as a basis for it. What's more, there is no clear evidence that the original Communist theory intended bloody revolution. You can have a revolution without bloodshed. Ever heard of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

And even if this revolution was not empty of bloodshed, it would have been bloodshed caused by a Democratic group. Such an event has occurred numerous times since Democracy was first dreamed up. It is not confined to Communism. In order for a Monarchy to change to a Democracy, a degree of revolution is required. It was the fear of unrest and revolution that caused many European nations to adopt a Constitutional Monarchy instead of just keeping the Monarchy's power absolute.

Its frustrating how people assume that everybody has to have the same form of government. No offence to some of the Americans on this board, who are intelligent people, but many criticising Communism are Americans that automatically think everyone should hold their ideals. I don't agree with what Saddam Hussain did to the Kurds, but those were human rights abuses. Had he not harmed his own people, should there have been an Iraq War? No. Not even with Nuclear Weapons. Because perhaps many people are happy even with systems of government that seem strange to us, or even antiquated, such as Absolute Monarchy. There are many places, especially in the Middle East, where Monarchs have substantial power still over their subjetcs. But you know what? People are happy.

[QUOTE="MagnuzGuerra"]Oh I can't stand that communist bulls*. Yeah, let's make a perfect human race! Like nobody have tried that before! Can you name one single communist nation that didn't have to kill millions to do the "revolution"? Can you name one single communist nation that wasn't ruled by a tyrant? Just to remember you how "humanists" they are. They really care so much about the human being... :roll: Enforcing utopical visions over people, as you say like to say, FTL. Please, stop making use of all the benefits of capitalism. At least, have coherence.Quofan

If you knew anything about history and communism, you would know that Karl Marx himself is not a communist and his theory has not been used in practice, but variations have been used as a basis for it. What's more, there is no clear evidence that the original Communist theory intended bloody revolution. You can have a revolution without bloodshed. Ever heard of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

And even if this revolution was not empty of bloodshed, it would have been bloodshed caused by a Democratic group. Such an event has occurred numerous times since Democracy was first dreamed up. It is not confined to Communism. In order for a Monarchy to change to a Democracy, a degree of revolution is required. It was the fear of unrest and revolution that caused many European nations to adopt a Constitutional Monarchy instead of just keeping the Monarchy's power absolute.

Its frustrating how people assume that everybody has to have the same form of government. No offence to some of the Americans on this board, who are intelligent people, but many criticising Communism are Americans that automatically think everyone should hold their ideals. I don't agree with what Saddam Hussain did to the Kurds, but those were human rights abuses. Had he not harmed his own people, should there have been an Iraq War? No. Not even with Nuclear Weapons. Because perhaps many people are happy even with systems of government that seem strange to us, or even antiquated, such as Absolute Monarchy. There are many places, especially in the Middle East, where Monarchs have substantial power still over their subjetcs. But you know what? People are happy.

Not arguing with you here. Some would say socialism has its points, also. I mean, do not Scandanavian countries have pretty high standards of living? Nothing's perfect, and there are pros and cons to each system. The trick is to decide which is the best for your situation. Americans are by nature a little distrusting of central power, so a capitalist system, which involves less government influence than most, seems the most comfortable. That's us.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="TMontana1004"]I really wish their wasn't any competition. Then there would be no fanboyism and everyone would get to enjoy the same games and same console features.TMontana1004

just like 1984.

How much were the current consoles then and how much did it cost for them to be manufactured?

This is what I hate about System Wars: people don't think for themselves. "Oh, of course competition is good, it means lower prices!!"

In fact, I believe that having 3-man horse race is hurting us more than it is helping us. Here are why some common assumptions about competition are dead wrong:

1. Without competition, we would get charged $800 per console!

I hear this a lot in other Blu-ray vs HD-DVD forums too. "If blu-ray won, they would charge us whatever they wanted!" Wake up, DVD didn't have any competition for years and price just kept going down. Same thing with consoles. The market has a lot of control over pricing. If there were one console, priced at $800, no one would buy it! Look at the PS3. It was priced too high, and no one bought it. Did every PS2 owner get a 360 or Wii instead? Nope, most 360 owners were XBOX owners, and Wii sells mostly to non-gamers. A lot of PS2 owners are just buying PS2s, or waiting until PS3's price drops. If there is only one console, the price would come down over time like all consumer electronics.

Still not convinced? Think about it. Why is it that the most competitive gen, the consoles are priced the highest? Doesn't make sense right?

2. We have all these great games because of many consoles!

Sega isn't in the console race anymore and we still get Sonic games. Sure, they're not as good as before, but that's more due to the developers' fault. Did Dreamcast magically make a Sonic game better? Of course not. Would Bungie just not make Halo if the XBOX didn't exist? No, they probably would have still made it for the PS2.

3. There would be no quality control! No alternatives! Imagine 360 as the only console! What if I don't want RROD?

Think about it. The reason for RROD is BECAUSE of competition. MS wanted to beat Sony by getting out its console earlier, that's why they didn't work out RROD before releasing the 360. Most problems stem from competition. If Sony wasn't worried about MS, they could have (and probably would have) delayed the PS3 until production costs came down and priced it lower.

4. We would be stuffed with unnecessary things like blu-ray!

Again, this is because of competition. If Sony wasn't rushing out the PS3 to catch up to MS, they would have waited until blu-ray was more proven of a format, and costs came down more. Sony didn't want to sell the PS3 at $599. Don't believe me? PS2 came out about 3 years after DVD players appeared. DVD was already a proven format.

Think about it this way: if there was no competition with HD DVD, Sony wouldn't even need to push blu-ray so hard. They wouldn't even need to rush it out with the PS3.

Reasons why competition is harming us:

1. To play all the good games, you have to buy all the consoles. I'm sure no one likes spending about $1000 to play all the good games whereas with one console, you'd only have to pay $200-400 in a one-console world.

2. Bad ports. With one console the developers could optimize the game for that console, and everyone who owns the game could enjoy it to its maximum potential.

3. Multiplatform. Now in order to recoup costs, most games need to be multiplat. That means a lot more time and development. If they only need to develop for one console, there's less time in development so we get our games faster, and lower production costs which means lower prices for games.

Still don't believe me? Just take a look at last gen, when the PS2 DOMINATED everything. I think we can all agree that, aside from better technology, the PS2 is easily a better console than the Wii, 360, or PS3. It was cheaper, reliable (after 1st gen with DRE), and it had the best library of any console to date. Everything I've said is reflected in the PS2. Price was not inflated, we still get tons of AAA games with a lot of variety, all on one console. Sony fixed DRE and even came out with a better, slim model. We didn't have unnecessary built-ins, just a proven format in DVD. No bad ports, and games were cheaper.

Okay, so competition does bring us a few good things. For example, if there were only one console, online probably wouldn't be as good as it is now. Also, wiimote probably would not be as popular, although it could easily be an accessory, like eye-toy. I'm not saying competition is all bad or it's the devil. I'm just saying, grow a brain. Think for yourselves. Don't automatically go "competition good!" just because everyone else is saying it. 3-console gen is really not all it's cracked up to be.

iamanehero

To quickly comment:

1) DVD did have competition, it was called VHS and it was the dominate format in North American households. The VCR's where around the 99.99-199.99 pricepoint and DVD players and media did not start to surpass VHS till the stand alone DVD player price was = or > the cost of a stand alone VCR.

But to take that example a step further, when Sony walked away from the BETA MAX format VCR's and media did not move in terms of price for years because there was no need to. As someone who was a consumer in the late 80's what it cost to buy a movie on VHS back then, I remember buying used VHS's movies for 50 bucks from video stores, I can only imagine what they paid.

To relate it to video games, you need to find a period where there was little competition. Lets use the period after Sega tripped over its own laces with the Genesis/CD/32X situation, and shortly after the Saturn was turfed, it was pretty well Sony (a console rookie) and Nintendo. Does anyone remember what Zelda OOT cost the day it came out? I recall paying 129.99, which is why PS1 was such an easy sell for me because I paid 49.99 for Resident Evil and 59.99 for FFVII.

Nintendo had the market to themselves and concerned themselves more with stoping piracy then cost effective end product, and example of not having to be greatly concerned with a competitor. Nintendo did start dropping prices after a year of Sony cleaning their clock, but still a worth example.

2) Define "great game"? You use the Sega example and say that Sonic's are still available now, but then you state they are not as good. What is Sega's vested interest in making a stellar Sonic game? In the past it was to move more consoles the quality of a game directly helped to push their own hardware. Now that its mass marketed for every consoles as long as its out and it has the Sonic name on it across three platforms it will still sell well.

I have found over the last two years that the overal quality, innovation and detail in games has increased. The need to have that wildy popular title isn't just a bonus. Like it or not Halo and the hype around it has raised the bar for the FPS genre much like Final Fantasy VII did for RPG's in the PS era, and Forza raised the bar and what is to be expected from the next GT game, and that game will raise the bar as to what is to be expected from the next Forza game.

Look at Madden, EA owns the NFL licence. How have Maddens been since the 2K games stopped being made? Graphically better but hardly the leaps and bounds I saw in the early 00's.

3) While the rush was on, and that may have lead to the RROD in a competition free envionment I would imagine that console manufactures would have a similar time table of releasing new consoles, to be able to get a few hundred bucks more out of the average gamer every few years.

The difference is had it just been Microsoft, and there was an RROD issue would they have given the end customer a 3 year warrenty? I doubt it.

PS2 was an unstoppable selling force, and I myself had two DRE units over the course of five years. Sony offered to repair the unit at a cost that was higher then just buying a core console at Best Buy once I factored in Shipping and Handling.

The 8-12 week waiting period was also not so wonderful, I would imagine that would be the norm if there was one console manufacturer.

All consoles companies screw up, its how they recover when they stumble that is most interesting and I very much doubt I would have three times the warrenty then I have on any other electronic I have bought as I do on my 360 if not for Sony and Nintendo being in the market place.

4) Chicken or Egg?

How much longer would the HD-DVD Vs. Blu-Ray war raged on had the PS3 not given the Blu-Ray camp a huge lead in players?

Would Blu-Ray have even won?

And if no one was buying players (and clearly from Blu-Ray stand alone player sales aside from the PS3 people were not) how much time would it have taken for prices to come down?

The reason we are seeing 349.99 stand alone Blu-Ray players now is because so many readers are being built because of the PS3. Had Sony waited for the prices to come down,

Considering >10% of North American homes have an HDTV and > 1% have a 1080P TV we would have been waiting for a VERY long time had Sony waited for the market to establish when it was time to buy Blu-Ray.

You then make the comment about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray fighting being bad for business?

Walk into your local Best Buy, because its a standard promotion across North America, see that 2 for 50 Blu-Ray wall. Why was it a 2 for 40 Blu-Ray and HD-DVD wall three months ago? Its the same movies but they are not five bucks more? Why?

Because Blu-Ray doesn't need to compete on disc price anymore.

"Still don't believe me? Just take a look at last gen, when the PS2 DOMINATED everything. I think we can all agree that, aside from better technology, the PS2 is easily a better console than the Wii, 360, or PS3. It was cheaper, reliable (after 1st gen with DRE),"

As for the above Doozy,

Did you buy a PS2 at launch? 449.99CDN in 2000.

It got cheaper, but it took a LONG time till it hit that 199.99 pricepoint, as for more reliable. That is a matter of opinion I went through two PS2's and I have had my third for nearly four years with no issue, but some folks are on 360 number 3 and I am still on my launch 360 pro without issue.

I would argue that the PS2 would have hit that 199.99 pricepoint a lot faster had Xbox or GC been more of a factor early on in terms of sales, but because they lacked competition they were able to take their time with price drops and bundles. They were also able to charge the end customer for a; multitap, hard drive, memory card, network adapter etc.

[QUOTE="MagnuzGuerra"]Oh I can't stand that communist bulls*. Yeah, let's make a perfect human race! Like nobody have tried that before! Can you name one single communist nation that didn't have to kill millions to do the "revolution"? Can you name one single communist nation that wasn't ruled by a tyrant? Just to remember you how "humanists" they are. They really care so much about the human being... :roll: Enforcing utopical visions over people, as you say like to say, FTL. Please, stop making use of all the benefits of capitalism. At least, have coherence.Quofan

If you knew anything about history and communism, you would know that Karl Marx himself is not a communist and his theory has not been used in practice, but variations have been used as a basis for it.

What's more, there is no clear evidence that the original Communist theory intended bloody revolution. You can have a revolution without bloodshed. Ever heard of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

Quofan

No offence to some of the Americans on this board, who are intelligent people, but many criticising Communism are Americans that automatically think everyone should hold their ideals.

Quofan

TC is wrong. Competition is awesome, PS3 wouldn't have had many price drops so soon if it were not for competition; keeps the industry at high quality; keeps game prices down, etc... I could go on, but you get the point.

EuroMafia

Uhmmm....game prices have been going UP.

why don't you move to china you communist because that was what a world without competition would be.

The competition is what drives anything forward, from weapons (cold war) to toys if there was no competition the market would be at a standstill.

Jacobistheman

Nintendo in 1985 was a bastard - you want that to happen again?

And their hubris lead them to make stupid mistakes with the N64 hardware. Sony KILLED them with the PS1. Sony actually improved the game industry by offering mature content and titles.

So, competition IS a good thing, provided game makers learn something.

Demetri_OS

N64 dominated PS1

[QUOTE="EuroMafia"]

TC is wrong. Competition is awesome, PS3 wouldn't have had many price drops so soon if it were not for competition; keeps the industry at high quality; keeps game prices down, etc... I could go on, but you get the point.

ZIMdoom

Uhmmm....game prices have been going UP.

N64 games were nearly and in some cases surpassed the hundred dollar mark,

Realistically the "new" title costs anywhere from 49.99 - 69.99 and has been around that mark for nearly three gaming generations,

I've got some ideas for illogical thread topics that might generate as many responses as this one.

Sound doesn't enhance gaming at all.

PC's should NOT be used for gaming EVER.

Story doesn't matter in an RPG.

These will be grand.

[QUOTE="Demetri_OS"]

Nintendo in 1985 was a bastard - you want that to happen again?

And their hubris lead them to make stupid mistakes with the N64 hardware. Sony KILLED them with the PS1. Sony actually improved the game industry by offering mature content and titles.

So, competition IS a good thing, provided game makers learn something.

krunkfu2

N64 dominated PS1

In what country? Micronasia?

so you want it to go back to the NES days, when there's only 1 real choice, where the company rules with an iron fist, making completely arbitrary rules, charging what ever they want?

That would kill the industry. Competition is what drives capitalism

[QUOTE="Demetri_OS"]

Nintendo in 1985 was a bastard - you want that to happen again?

And their hubris lead them to make stupid mistakes with the N64 hardware. Sony KILLED them with the PS1. Sony actually improved the game industry by offering mature content and titles.

So, competition IS a good thing, provided game makers learn something.

krunkfu2

N64 dominated PS1

N64 games were nearly and in some cases surpassed the hundred dollar mark,

Realistically the "new" title costs anywhere from 49.99 - 69.99 and has been around that mark for nearly three gaming generations,

cosmostein77

Games are going up in price because development costs are going up. Why? Because consoles have to keep racing to have the graphical upperhand.

There is a reason the videogame industry is becoming more concentrated (less competition) instead of more and more competitiong popping up to make better games.

so you want it to go back to the NES days, when there's only 1 real choice, where the company rules with an iron fist, making completely arbitrary rules, charging what ever they want?

That would kill the industry. Competition is what drives capitalism

BuryMe

SEGA Master System? Hello? There has never been "only 1 real choice". That is just rewriting history.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

so you want it to go back to the NES days, when there's only 1 real choice, where the company rules with an iron fist, making completely arbitrary rules, charging what ever they want?

That would kill the industry. Competition is what drives capitalism

ZIMdoom

SEGA Master System? Hello? There has never been "only 1 real choice". That is just rewriting history.

...so many people have no idea what competition is, or monoply or any thing....

there is a BIG difference between healthy monoply, and healthy competition....what we have now in the industry? is unhealthy competition...what we had before was unhealthy sony monoply, and we still have unhealthy EA monoply *exclusive use of every thing NFL comes to mind*

The only way for healthy competition to occure is for the companies to actually have morals, and you rarely get that with big corporations...it happens some times but rarely.
I wont add any thing to the rest of the conversation but remember nothing is black and white, every thing is grey and there is such a thing as a healthy competition and healthy monoply.

This is what I hate about System Wars: people don't think for themselves. "Oh, of course competition is good, it means lower prices!!"

In fact, I believe that having 3-man horse race is hurting us more than it is helping us. Here are why some common assumptions about competition are dead wrong:

1. Without competition, we would get charged $800 per console!

I hear this a lot in other Blu-ray vs HD-DVD forums too. "If blu-ray won, they would charge us whatever they wanted!" Wake up, DVD didn't have any competition for years and price just kept going down. Same thing with consoles. The market has a lot of control over pricing. If there were one console, priced at $800, no one would buy it! Look at the PS3. It was priced too high, and no one bought it. Did every PS2 owner get a 360 or Wii instead? Nope, most 360 owners were XBOX owners, and Wii sells mostly to non-gamers. A lot of PS2 owners are just buying PS2s, or waiting until PS3's price drops. If there is only one console, the price would come down over time like all consumer electronics.

Still not convinced? Think about it. Why is it that the most competitive gen, the consoles are priced the highest? Doesn't make sense right?

2. We have all these great games because of many consoles!

Sega isn't in the console race anymore and we still get Sonic games. Sure, they're not as good as before, but that's more due to the developers' fault. Did Dreamcast magically make a Sonic game better? Of course not. Would Bungie just not make Halo if the XBOX didn't exist? No, they probably would have still made it for the PS2.

3. There would be no quality control! No alternatives! Imagine 360 as the only console! What if I don't want RROD?

Think about it. The reason for RROD is BECAUSE of competition. MS wanted to beat Sony by getting out its console earlier, that's why they didn't work out RROD before releasing the 360. Most problems stem from competition. If Sony wasn't worried about MS, they could have (and probably would have) delayed the PS3 until production costs came down and priced it lower.

4. We would be stuffed with unnecessary things like blu-ray!

Again, this is because of competition. If Sony wasn't rushing out the PS3 to catch up to MS, they would have waited until blu-ray was more proven of a format, and costs came down more. Sony didn't want to sell the PS3 at $599. Don't believe me? PS2 came out about 3 years after DVD players appeared. DVD was already a proven format.

Think about it this way: if there was no competition with HD DVD, Sony wouldn't even need to push blu-ray so hard. They wouldn't even need to rush it out with the PS3.

Reasons why competition is harming us:

1. To play all the good games, you have to buy all the consoles. I'm sure no one likes spending about $1000 to play all the good games whereas with one console, you'd only have to pay $200-400 in a one-console world.

2. Bad ports. With one console the developers could optimize the game for that console, and everyone who owns the game could enjoy it to its maximum potential.

3. Multiplatform. Now in order to recoup costs, most games need to be multiplat. That means a lot more time and development. If they only need to develop for one console, there's less time in development so we get our games faster, and lower production costs which means lower prices for games.

Still don't believe me? Just take a look at last gen, when the PS2 DOMINATED everything. I think we can all agree that, aside from better technology, the PS2 is easily a better console than the Wii, 360, or PS3. It was cheaper, reliable (after 1st gen with DRE), and it had the best library of any console to date. Everything I've said is reflected in the PS2. Price was not inflated, we still get tons of AAA games with a lot of variety, all on one console. Sony fixed DRE and even came out with a better, slim model. We didn't have unnecessary built-ins, just a proven format in DVD. No bad ports, and games were cheaper.

Okay, so competition does bring us a few good things. For example, if there were only one console, online probably wouldn't be as good as it is now. Also, wiimote probably would not be as popular, although it could easily be an accessory, like eye-toy. I'm not saying competition is all bad or it's the devil. I'm just saying, grow a brain. Think for yourselves. Don't automatically go "competition good!" just because everyone else is saying it. 3-console gen is really not all it's cracked up to be.

iamanehero

You pretty much ruined your entire argument by saying DVD had no competition. Its not the actual medium that was important, but the manufacturers of the players and the various movie studios who released movies. Its actually much like video games are now. The different hardware manufactureres of DVD players, such as Panasonic, Samsung and Toshiba would be much like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft in the video game market. Movie distributors such as Sony, WB, Fox, MGM, Universal, and Dreamworks would be like EA, Ubisoft, Activion, Capcom and Konami.

[QUOTE="cosmostein77"]N64 games were nearly and in some cases surpassed the hundred dollar mark,

Realistically the "new" title costs anywhere from 49.99 - 69.99 and has been around that mark for nearly three gaming generations,

ZIMdoom

Games are going up in price because development costs are going up. Why? Because consoles have to keep racing to have the graphical upperhand.

There is a reason the videogame industry is becoming more concentrated (less competition) instead of more and more competitiong popping up to make better games.

Man people has some really messed up concepts here.

A unified specification wouldn't necessarely limit manufacturers from going outside the box. It would provide a common ground for most developers that don't want to scratch the to metal to squeeze every bit of performance from the hardware. If you want to build on top of the specs and add a coffee maker and then sell coffee for that coffee maker or license other producers to sell coffee for you're platform you can(and it will also be able to play games).

Man people has some really messed up concepts here.

A unified specification wouldn't necessarely limit manufacturers from going outside the box. It would provide a common ground for most developers that don't want to scratch the to metal to squeeze every bit of performance from the hardware. If you want to build on top of the specs and add a coffee maker and then sell coffee for that coffee maker or license other producers to sell coffee for you're platform you can(and it will also be able to play games).

lordxymor

Competition is a good thing man. If it werent for competition, there'd be no innovation. Imagine if we were still playing games on cartridges, there was no online gaming, or no new motion control. You dont have to buy every console, because there are many great exclusives on all of 'em. A one console future is a bad one, and leaving innovation up to one company on one console is a bad idea.

why don't you move to china you communist because that was what a world without competition would be.

The competition is what drives anything forward, from weapons (cold war) to toys if there was no competition the market would be at a standstill.

Jacobistheman

Listen, don't be an ignorant American.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]

That's what he's trying to say though, Communism would be the perfect system if we all lived in an ideal world. The problem with Communism isn't communism itself, it's human nature.

MagnuzGuerra

What, like Democracy was the dream of some guy or possibly several guys about 3000-4000 years ago in Greece?

Your argument there applies to Democracy too. Its just a matter of whether you view some changes as progress or not. The communist ideal has existed for a long time, much longer than Marx and Engles and the Communist Manifesto, but not as long as Democracy.

Also if any you actually read the writings of Marx, one of the smartest people in the 20th century, you would know that true communism cannot and does not exist today. For true communism to exist capitalism has to collapse. Communism is nothing more than the evolution of human society. According to Marx we are in the capitalist era of our evolution. When capitalism collapses, and it will because by nature capitalism can't sustain itself eventually you run out of things to exploit, then communism will rise. The problem with the soviet union was they were trying to put the cart before the horse. Rushing into something that wasn't ready to happen. So it failed misurabley. This is why China, a supposed communist country, is far from communist in practice.

Personally I agree with Marx their will be a time for communism. The time is just not now. But eventually when capitalism collapses the next progression would be a communal society. It will not be a utopia nothing ever will be but it would be the best option in keeping human civilization together. The thing is you can't force communism it has to kinda happen. This is why countries like vietnam, cuba, etc. etc. are poor and china is not even a real communist country. Its just not that time yet.

NFJSupreme

To a certain extent I agree. The only problem is that even in ancient times we have relied on some sense of material culture. People are inherently very selfish and people would be unlikely to give up their material possessions without some massive event occuring. But, we cant read the future.

People wrongly quote examples of the Soviet Union as why nationalisation, state ownership and a regulated market are bad things, but you can never be sure. There were actually times when the Soviet economy was doing better than the Western world. A leader's capability to deal with these situations has to be taken into account as well.

[QUOTE="Quofan"]

[QUOTE="MagnuzGuerra"]Oh I can't stand that communist bulls*. Yeah, let's make a perfect human race! Like nobody have tried that before! Can you name one single communist nation that didn't have to kill millions to do the "revolution"? Can you name one single communist nation that wasn't ruled by a tyrant? Just to remember you how "humanists" they are. They really care so much about the human being... :roll: Enforcing utopical visions over people, as you say like to say, FTL. Please, stop making use of all the benefits of capitalism. At least, have coherence.MagnuzGuerra

If you knew anything about history and communism, you would know that Karl Marx himself is not a communist and his theory has not been used in practice, but variations have been used as a basis for it.

What's more, there is no clear evidence that the original Communist theory intended bloody revolution. You can have a revolution without bloodshed. Ever heard of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

Quofan

No offence to some of the Americans on this board, who are intelligent people, but many criticising Communism are Americans that automatically think everyone should hold their ideals.

Quofan

Im not saying Communism is good, and my whole point was that Ive never been part of a communist nation, therefore I don't think I, or anyone else has who has, has a right to criticise it. As in don't knock it if you haven't tried it. And yes, there is a different between utopian communism and the political system, but its is the utopian version I am defending here.

Regardless, it is not up to America or Britain or anyone else to decide who should rule in other countries, only the citizens can decide that. Whether they actually have the chance to do that, or whether a nation is so corrupt to prevent that is another matter however.

My whole point is that most people on this forum are American, many of whom have misconceptions, biases due to the Cold War era. I want to set that straight.

Freedom of choice !!!!! Monopoly kills that freedom therefore competition is good... I want to have 3 or more consoles with exclusives, different features, diff specs, diff looks, different in everyway, so I see which one is best suited for my personal tastes...

So yes COMPETITION IS ALWAYS GOOD !!

[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="cosmostein77"]N64 games were nearly and in some cases surpassed the hundred dollar mark,

Realistically the "new" title costs anywhere from 49.99 - 69.99 and has been around that mark for nearly three gaming generations,

HuusAsking

Games are going up in price because development costs are going up. Why? Because consoles have to keep racing to have the graphical upperhand.

There is a reason the videogame industry is becoming more concentrated (less competition) instead of more and more competitiong popping up to make better games.

I have no clue what you just said. Are you agreeing with me that development costs are the reason for the prices going up, or are you blaming BR? If the prior, then that isn't exclusively Sony's fault as MS also has higher dev costs with every new console. If you are arguing the latter... last I checked in my local stores, PS3 games on BR are the same price as 360 games on DVD.

Most of what you wrote defies most concepts of modern economics, as well as makes many glaring mistakes in terms of consumer electronics and the economics behind them. Forgive me for not replying to the entire post, as it would take forever to correct what appears to be two pages of text.

However, note that unless you can prove in a logistical and formal manner... competition will always be good for the consumer. As it promotes forward movement in terms of reduced end costs, quality, innovation, etc.

Most of what you wrote defies most concepts of modern economics, as well as makes many glaring mistakes in terms of consumer electronics and the economics behind them. Forgive me for not replying to the entire post, as it would take forever to correct what appears to be two pages of text.

However, note that unless you can prove in a logistical and formal manner... competition will always be good for the consumer. As it promotes forward movement in terms of reduced end costs, quality, innovation, etc.

rimnet00

Im not saying Communism is good, and my whole point was that Ive never been part of a communist nation, therefore I don't think I, or anyone else has who has, has a right to criticise it.

Quofan

As in don't knock it if you haven't tried it. And yes, there is a different between utopian communism and the political system, but its is the utopian version I am defending here.

Quofan

Regardless, it is not up to America or Britain or anyone else to decide who should rule in other countries, only the citizens can decide that. Whether they actually have the chance to do that, or whether a nation is so corrupt to prevent that is another matter however.

My whole point is that most people on this forum are American, many of whom have misconceptions, biases due to the Cold War era. I want to set that straight.

Quofan

[QUOTE="Quofan"]

Regardless, it is not up to America or Britain or anyone else to decide who should rule in other countries, only the citizens can decide that. Whether they actually have the chance to do that, or whether a nation is so corrupt to prevent that is another matter however.

My whole point is that most people on this forum are American, many of whom have misconceptions, biases due to the Cold War era. I want to set that straight.

MagnuzGuerra

Good reply. I think people really need to understand that the society we currently live in is far better than all the others that have come before us.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]

Thing was, it was Sony's assurance that games wouldn't top $50 (except for multi-disc games) in the PS1 generation that put us into the situation we're in now. Back then, it was a genius move, since pressing CDs was a lot cheaper than making ROM chips. And in the PS2 generation, pressing DVDs wasn't that much more expensive. But now, we're reaching a point where the development costs have risen so much that they alone can't be readily made up with a $50 price point.ZIMdoom

I have no clue what you just said. Are you agreeing with me that development costs are the reason for the prices going up, or are you blaming BR? If the prior, then that isn't exclusively Sony's fault as MS also has higher dev costs with every new console. If you are arguing the latter... last I checked in my local stores, PS3 games on BR are the same price as 360 games on DVD.

Nintendo in 1985 was a bastard - you want that to happen again?

And their hubris lead them to make stupid mistakes with the N64 hardware. Sony KILLED them with the PS1. Sony actually improved the game industry by offering mature content and titles.

So, competition IS a good thing, provided game makers learn something.

Demetri_OS

Nintendo, is the main reason you have consoles to discuss and *war over* after the whole Atari / quarter arcade crash. Nintendo revitalized the home console and did this by ensuring the quality of games with there Nintendo quality emblem on every game. If it didn't have the emblem you didn't buy it! And Sony's direct competition wasn't Nintendo per-say but the multitude of consoles like the CD32 and 3DO, it was these systems that tried to hard and just didn't get the market and to go along with the theme of this forum Charged to much that enabled the PS1 To Dominate at half the price! http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=3DO