Do you want a Sony monopoly on gaming?

Worked out pretty well during the PS1 and PS2 gens, so yeah I am okay with it.

Neither of those eras were monopolies, especially not the PS1 generation.

Sells numbers say differently as does my memory.

@charizard1605 said:

@Suppaman100 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Telekill said:

I voted yes just to piss you off, but no, there shouldn't be any company that has a monopoly on any industry.

I just don't want Microsoft to succeed anymore. I'm sick of their crap.

I am curious as to why you think so, especially given all of Microsoft's contributions to gaming within the last decade.

Unified online services, achievements, digital distribution, modern development environments for game developers, easy to develop console hardware- these are all positive contributions Microsoft has made to gaming within the last decade.

Lol most of your points were not only MS's contribution but was achieved by groups, companies,... working together. You give them way too much credit.

But I'll give you achievements though, lol.

And the sh*t they brought to gaming vastly outweigh the positive things they did.

PS2 had a staggering market share. PS1 was very strong as well. Neither were a monopoly at all.

If it was the only option that one of the big 3 had to, then yes.

But in reality I wouldn't mind Nintendo getting their act together.

A monopoly implies no viable alternative. The Nintendo 64 (and Sega Saturn in Japan) were viable alternatives to the PlayStation, and the Xbox and Gamecube were viable alternatives to the PlayStation 2, although not to the same level; PlayStation 2 probably comes closest to a monopoly since the NES era (which was also not a monopoly)

What other companies worked together for these ideas in the console market apart from Microsoft? These ideas, as they exist today, are all thanks to Microsoft. Microsoft's success because of these factors woke Sony's slow ass up, and caused them to be as awesome as they are with the PS4, or we would have gotten another self indulgent bloated machine like the PS3 again.

lol, what?

True monopolies in the past have always resulted in the consumer, other companies or developers(in the gaming industry) getting screwed over.Examples of this are Rockefeller's oil monopoly and whatever monopoly nintendo had in the nes era.

@ConanTheStoner said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Suppaman100 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Telekill said:

I voted yes just to piss you off, but no, there shouldn't be any company that has a monopoly on any industry.

I just don't want Microsoft to succeed anymore. I'm sick of their crap.

I am curious as to why you think so, especially given all of Microsoft's contributions to gaming within the last decade.

Unified online services, achievements, digital distribution, modern development environments for game developers, easy to develop console hardware- these are all positive contributions Microsoft has made to gaming within the last decade.

Might I add that without MS, Playstation brand wouldn't be nearly as great as it is now.

Speculation is speculation, for all we know Playstation brand might have been better if MS never came.

I am sure if Sega never left console gaming development they would have fully realized Online gaming and made it competitive like they started (not MS) with Sega net; but sega would have also been far more focused on exclusive games making sony and nintendo work harder for the status they now claim as gaming companys.

@casharmy said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Suppaman100 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Telekill said:

I voted yes just to piss you off, but no, there shouldn't be any company that has a monopoly on any industry.

I just don't want Microsoft to succeed anymore. I'm sick of their crap.

I am curious as to why you think so, especially given all of Microsoft's contributions to gaming within the last decade.

Unified online services, achievements, digital distribution, modern development environments for game developers, easy to develop console hardware- these are all positive contributions Microsoft has made to gaming within the last decade.

Might I add that without MS, Playstation brand wouldn't be nearly as great as it is now.

Speculation is speculation, for all we know Playstation brand might have been better if MS never came.

I am sure if Sega never left console gaming development they would have fully realized Online gaming and made it competitive like they started (not MS) with Sega net; but sega would have also been far more focused on exclusive games making sony and nintendo work harder for the status they now claim as gaming companys.

But Sega didn't do it. Microsoft did. Therefore Sega does not get the credit. Microsoft does.

Sure. Your Sega speculation sounds great and it might have been that way.

But we know for a fact that MS lit a fire under Sonys ass that made them get their shit together with online, compete with hardware strength and take their 1st party studios very seriously. This was all very evident last gen, no speculation about it.

Now this gen Sony has (for the first time ever) gone with a fairly standard hardware approach. Sony responds to MS very well and they're better off for it.

@casharmy said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Suppaman100 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Telekill said:

I voted yes just to piss you off, but no, there shouldn't be any company that has a monopoly on any industry.

I just don't want Microsoft to succeed anymore. I'm sick of their crap.

I am curious as to why you think so, especially given all of Microsoft's contributions to gaming within the last decade.

Unified online services, achievements, digital distribution, modern development environments for game developers, easy to develop console hardware- these are all positive contributions Microsoft has made to gaming within the last decade.

Might I add that without MS, Playstation brand wouldn't be nearly as great as it is now.

Speculation is speculation, for all we know Playstation brand might have been better if MS never came.

I am sure if Sega never left console gaming development they would have fully realized Online gaming and made in competitive like they started (not MS) with Sega net; but sega would have also been far more focused on exclusive games making sony and nintendo work harder for the status they now claim as gaming companys.

Highly doubtful given the PS3 launch. It was a direct result of Sony's domination from the PS1 and PS2 gens. Sony has proven time and time again that they will do whatever they want when they go pretty much unchallenged.

That would be the worst thing ever. We wouldn't have half the things we have now if it weren't for the other companies innovating and making Sony push forward. Xbox live is the reason psn is where its at. The dual shock exists because of what Nintendo did during the n64 era.

Gaming would go stagnant I'd any company has a monopoly because there is no reason to spend money on R&D when Pele have no options.

Console gaming is already going down as is. Sony having a monopoly would be the final nail in the coffin.

All one has to do is look at the PS3. Sony didn't care about 3rd party developers, they thought their loyal fanbase were idiots who would buy a system with no games (which to be honest, they actually are, but Sony didn't need to come out and straight-up insult their fanbase), and their entire system was just a huge mess of shoddy features and poor functionality because they didn't think they had to try.

Sony changed their entire design philosophy after MS slapped them around all gen.

If cows like how the PS4 turned out then they like competition.

You don't get it. Sony pushed hard to make their first Playstation what it is because of the strong poitions Nintendo and Sega held in the market before them (SNES and Genesis). They had competition before entering which created the direction for their business strategy. And this continued into their following generation with PS2 because they never forget their competition.

And when two gens of success lead to complacency just look at how much market position they lost. As Treedoor posted above, the PS4 and it's new direction from previous iterations is a result of experience from the PS3.

If it weren't for Microsoft and Sony we wouldn't have realized that motion controls are a cheap gimmick.

If it weren't for Microsoft and Sony, maybe motion controls would have evolved into something more than just a cheap gimmick, and would have had a chance to legitimately advance interactivity within video games?

@charizard1605: Last time Sony realized they dominated the gaming landscape, they released a 600$ ps3 with very few quality titles for years. Since this is system wars, I'll round that out for all companies.

Nintendo were selling Wii's like they were free HIV cures from 2007-2008, and they responded with releasing almost no hardcore titles for years, instead giving us Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit, and Wii Music.

Microsoft after Xbox 360 -- Xbox One's unveiling. I don't need to explain that further.

Companies have shown that even having a leads to very bad results for consumers, so I wouldn't want to see what a monopoly would look like.

Nope.

Anyone actually wanting a monopoly is an idiot

My motion-controlled mouse is pretty awesome.

I blame the hordes of close-minded gamers that shunned all forms of motion control, and dismissed them as being garbage. I would have loved to see what Wii-style motion controls could have done for gaming if the technology was allowed to advance before being written off.

The PS1 and PS2 eras were basically a monopoly for Sony and they went very very well. So yeah, why not? Unless they make the same $599 US dolla mistake, I dont see why not, really

@charizard1605

"I'm just curious: the way Sony fans, more than any other other fan group, talks, it appears as if they actually want a Sony monopoly on video gaming- all forms and facets of video gaming.

Is this right? Do you all actually love Sony so much that you want a monopoly? Sounds to me like you care more about PlayStation than gaming if that is the case."

well I have a few irks with your claim,

and I am willing to be corrected on this if you can prove me wrong.....

But didn't most lemmings make numerous threads about how sony is going bankrupt,

and may have to sell ofeverything, while everyone leaves sony?

honestly I have yet to see the "Microsoft is going out of gaming thread"

but I could just as easily pull up a @me3x12 thread or a @FreedomFreeLife to refute your claim,

lemmings are easily the most vocal group about monopoly

No but I do like the way Sony is being run right now. They seem to be listening to what gamers want, and they are taking the initiative with things such as Now and the Morpheus (even though given their financial situation they're huge gambles that could endanger the brand). I never want any monopoly in any market but that being said I want Sony to be very successful for their current efforts. I also tend to enjoy their 1st party output the most.

Well that would certainly be an interesting sight to behold.

that's like asking me if I want charizard to have a monopoly on the forums

I would want that. Only unbiased, open-minded people would be allowed in. That would be awesome, clear out all the morons.

no way. no competition means they would get lazy and there would be no back and forth between companies forcing them to try to one up one another. which means no more progress.

I have said the same thing at ign. They seem to be the only faction that will not be happy until only Sony makes consoles. It is one of the reasons they are hated so much. They have the lead horse and come across so insecure, its really funny to a psychology student. I like things the way they are. Plenty of choices and different experiences.

No monopoly. I just want Sony to be number one and kick major ass like the PS1 and PS2 did. Those were the glory days of gaming. Gaming is at it's best when Sony is on top. Sony does NOT rest on it's laurels when they were number one. They kept on releasing AAA game after AAA game. They support their systems.

Nintendo on top shows they don't care and they gave up on the wii 3 years into the system. Same with M$. M$ only supports it's consoles for the first couple years and then they cut off support for them way too early.

This. Besides, there are too many great non-Sony exclusives, would never happen.

Absolutely not, I don't want any company to have a monopoly on gaming.

@Suppaman100: lol, that "great Sony" from ps1 and 2 became the ego inflated Sony that said, "we decide when next gen starts", "people will get two jobs to afford a ps3", "rumble is so last gen", "4D and 120fps" and of course a $600 console. No, especially that Sony, that was so full of themselves and so needed to be brought back to earth. Thank you Wii/360. Nobody should be in total control because human beings have proven they cannot be trusted with power.

If anything MS needs to gtfo and let the two titans (Nintendo and Sony) go at it.

Coolyfett is in somewhat of an agreement with Solid Max. Monopolies are never good, One that is needed is for PlayStation to be the Majority and Nintendo to be the Minority of gaming. Coolyfett loves gaming, but unfortunately due to his career and family doesn't have as much time to play. Sometimes he just doesn't have the energy to pick up a dual shock at all. Coolyfett is also not a fan of collecting video games & collecting consoles. Some gamers are into that, but not Coolyfett. Teasing Nintendo fans is fun for a long list of reasons & seeing Nintendo fans rage out on the internet is the funniest thing and brings joy to Coolyfetts heart. Joy in a mans heart adds years to a mans life. The more Nintendo rage, the more joy for Coolyfett, the longer Coolyfett may live. PlayStation is the best gaming brand, Nintendo is the funniest gaming brand. Everything serves a purpose.

@charizard1605: "But Sega didn't do it. Microsoft did. Therefore Sega does not get the credit. Microsoft does". Those are dirty words to people who are so ready to forgive some companies there transgressions, but crucify MS for theirs. I agree with you. They have brought the things you mention to gaming, and deserve the credit. They all have pluses and negatives, as we as human beings have them. But some feel they know good from bad from a place of superiority, almost as if they are free from fault in life.

I don't condone monopolies of any kind, but to say the gaming industry decremented when Sony was calling the shot its flat out asinine.

Char is raging that is for sure lol, but lets give Char his props, dude does go in pretty hard for Nintendo. Coolyfett doesnt see how, but yea, the kid Char goes in tough for Nintendo. Him and that 500 guy with the Link avatar.

No I don't want Sony to have a monopoly, however I do wish Microsoft would go away a die so someone else can have a better go at it.

Beautiful

God no. Sony are a good company, but look where they got with decent competition... We now have a usable online, with the greatness of PS+. Without the 360, PSN may have remained what it was at the beginning of the generation... A nightmare.

tee hee hee

Nintendo had six years to prove the worth of motion controls. It's clear that they were never more than a means to lure in casuals.

bububububbububub it was Microsofts fault SOny never ever ever ever ever ever did anything wrong until Microsoft started you know selling games and making money and shit then Sony just had to follow somehow.

Jesus christ Sheen's are horribly stupid.

A monopoly? No.

A market leading Sony? Yes, please. E.g. PS1 / PS2

No but I would be perfectly fine if Microsoft dropped out of the big three.

@ConanTheStoner said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Suppaman100 said:

@charizard1605 said:

@Telekill said:

I voted yes just to piss you off, but no, there shouldn't be any company that has a monopoly on any industry.

I just don't want Microsoft to succeed anymore. I'm sick of their crap.

I am curious as to why you think so, especially given all of Microsoft's contributions to gaming within the last decade.

Unified online services, achievements, digital distribution, modern development environments for game developers, easy to develop console hardware- these are all positive contributions Microsoft has made to gaming within the last decade.

Might I add that without MS, Playstation brand wouldn't be nearly as great as it is now.

Sorry to butt in but I have an opinion I'd like to share. It's true Microsoft has moved the industry forward. However, they have also introduced several very anti consumer practices. Some of which Sony has adopted.

Nintendo on the other hand has pretty much ignored Microsoft's advancements. they still have crappy online, and saves and games are tied to hardware not accounts. Their system's don't act very well as media hubs like the 360, X1, Ps4 or Ps3, their hardware isn't the most powerful either. But I also like nintendo best out of the three. Because they focus on the things that matter most to me. Fun local multiplayer games. Games that are complete upon release and don't cut stuff out only to be made into DLC later.

If Nintendo and Sony were fighting it out instead of Microsoft and Sony. I think I would like the gaming industry a lot better then where it is now.

If Sony had a monopoly on the console market, you would see a vast increase in PC gaming.

Nah. It was bad during the Original Xbox days. Those days are long gone for Sony. I like it the way it is where the games library is mostly the same.