Why is a dominant console bad for gamers? please explain

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (4615 posts) -

ok i have been hearing mostly lems spouting complete nonsense about how sales parity between x1 and ps4 is necessary because 'competition is good' crap. allow me to educate u fools, sales parity is not necessary at all and is in fact detrimental for gamers. lets have a look at the dominant consoles of previous gens

snes - was it a bad thing it dominated? did gamers suffer?

ps1 - did sony not cater to gamers? did they not continue to create good games even though they were crushing the competition?

ps2 - same story as ps1

now lets have a look at m$ consoles

xbox - needed market penetration, invested in studios, created very powerful console, lots of exclusives

x360 - sold well and because they where on equal grounds for once they abandoned the core gamer because people were buying the console anyway. wat exclusives did m$ release in the last 3 years besides the rehashes forza/gears/halo?

now to summarise, ps4 destroying x1 is good for u moronic lems because m$ will be forced to price cut, invest in 1st party studios because moneyhatting will get extremely expensive in the future. whether sony dominates or not history has shown us they continue to release great games.

#2 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

#3 Posted by lundy86_4 (43405 posts) -

You seem to be confused with regards to correlation and causation.

#4 Posted by farrell2k (6073 posts) -

It is not. The PS1 dominated its gen and had some of the best games for any console. Competition exists between publishers. Hardware doesn't matter.

#5 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (4615 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

this is the type lem i was talking about, did ps3 not deliver great games? sony completely dominated with ps1/ps2 and still released great games. m$ 1 gen they had success and abandoned the core after few years.

#6 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25692 posts) -

Competition is good! Look at Xbox 360 + PS3

No wait

Competition is unnecessary! Look at PS1 and PS2

Um. I dunno. Maybe you're right.

#7 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@muffin2020 said:

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

this is the type lem i was talking about, did ps3 not deliver great games? sony completely dominated with ps1/ps2 and still released great games. m$ 1 gen they had success and abandoned the core after few years.

In the last few years the PS3 dominated the 360 with games. However compare that with how badly they started next to the 360.

In other words to complete with the 360 the PS3 had to have better software.

Now we are in reverse the PS4 is dominating the 720 so MS will have to compete by making stellar game or it will go the way of the WiiU.

#8 Edited by TheEroica (13520 posts) -

TC just wrote what I've been saying for months, if not years, only kinda rudely :P

Ps4 is where it is because Sony got bitch slapped hard with ps3... Being the fail company for a Gen will most certainly inspire aggressive change among those companies that are suffering... Good thing for gamers indeed.

#9 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (4615 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

@ghostwarrior786:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@muffin2020 said:

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

this is the type lem i was talking about, did ps3 not deliver great games? sony completely dominated with ps1/ps2 and still released great games. m$ 1 gen they had success and abandoned the core after few years.

In the last few years the PS3 dominated the 360 with games. However compare that with how badly they started next to the 360.

In other words to complete with the 360 the PS3 had to have better software.

Now we are in reverse the PS4 is dominating the 720 so MS will have to compete by making stellar game or it will go the way of the WiiU.

so im right? haha thats what your saying? sony consoles never launch with great must have games just look at ps2 launch lineup. sony deliver on the games front whether they dominate or not, m$ will be content with selling well and forgetting about gamers if x1 sells well.

#10 Posted by mariokart64fan (19491 posts) -

wiiu is picking up steam so wait til the launch hype dies down to see where ps4 is at , also note wiiu outsold xbox one so its already where wiiu is at , in fact its dropping below wiiu , and will continue to do so because theres not a steady stream of games coming any time soon , that are exclusive to it wiiu has a steady stream of games coming, and out now so , wiiu can only go up from here

#11 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (2416 posts) -

If Sony was dominant then we wouldnt have great online gaming.

Microsoft gave:

Achievements

Trial Games

Friends Lists and voice chat

Matchmaking

A single ID

Gamerscore competition

Firmware updates

Downloadable content (DLC)

Pay to play

Community

Digital Distribution

Kinect

High-Definition Graphics(first HD CONSOLE)

So think agian. If Sony was dominant then we would have Wii online, no stats, no matchmaking, DLC, and stuff like that. Microsoft forced Sony to change everything. Remember PS3 came out without any store, no party chat or anything like that??? Microsoft changed gaming.

#12 Edited by j2zon2591 (2239 posts) -

Hard to say since we can't really travel/experiment with other realities/dimensions.

Maybe there would have been more games/faster gameplay breakthroughs/genre evolution/outside gaming features if PS1 and PS2 had more competition.

or maybe it wouldn't.

Who knows.

#13 Edited by edidili (3449 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

did ps3 not deliver great games?

I can count them with one hand and they came years later, after Sony realized they couldn't get away with a sloppy showing. Sony was forced to catch up the second half of the gen with dropping the price of the console, working on their services and PSN and investing on exclusives. The first half they were arrogant, they thought they had the marketshare in their hand anyway.

Pretty much what happened to MS. They had a great start because they had steep competition from a more recognized brand, they delivered in price, exclusives and services the first half then when they thought they nailed it they became lazy and kinda ignored 360 the second half.

PS4 too is pretty much Sony's response to MS. They couldn't make the same mistake again, they didn't knew what MS had in store so they prepared for the worse. Price is cheap, they knew their old controller wouldn't cut it anymore, they had to add value to PSN+ to compete with live. While MS came in this like they already won or something. They thought they were alone, they could get rid of used games as if there wasn't anywhere else their consumers would go. Then they reversed it all and it was exactly because of the competition that they ignored in the beginning.

#14 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (4615 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife: read the topic next time and stop cpy/pasting the same sh%t in every thread

#15 Edited by mems_1224 (47128 posts) -

Could you imagine if the 360 was never released and we were just stuck with the PS3?? Holy shit, that sounds like a nightmare.

#16 Posted by lostrib (36919 posts) -

One system dominating is not necessarily bad, it's when people think that MS and Nintendo should drop out of the console business and thus leave Sony without competition that's bad

#17 Edited by Jankarcop (9501 posts) -

It would be beneficial to gamers.

1. No exclusive deals bullshit. 100% of all games on 1 system.

2. Bigger communities, all gamers on one system.

2. Focus on the GAMES, not system selling gimmicks.

PC already benefits from some of these facets as it has no company system competition.

Whenever the industry has seen one overly dominant console, that console gets a golden age (PS1/2) and more games than anything seen before it.

#18 Edited by CrumUnderMe (195 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

It would be beneficial to gamers.

1. No exclusive deals bullshit. 100% of all games on 1 system.

2. Bigger communities, all gamers on one system.

2. Focus on the GAMES, not system selling gimmicks.

PC already benefits from some of these facets as it has no company system competition.

Whenever the industry has seen one overly dominant console, that console gets a golden age (PS1/2) and more games than anything seen before it.

pc gamers can benefit from a shower.

#19 Posted by Devil-Itachi (4375 posts) -

I think the Genesis and N64 were real solid competition in their respective generations. The only real dominate systems were the NES and PS2, though i'm sure someone would argue otherwise :/

#20 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

As lostrib said, dominance isn't bad. A monopoly is

#21 Posted by bbkkristian (14952 posts) -

Competition inspires innovation.

#22 Edited by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (178 posts) -

I'll go even further and point out that due to heavy competition both MS and Sony didn't get much profits during last gen.

And that resulted in very 2 weak next gen consoles.

Console gaming has become so expensive there's no room for 3 companies competing with each other.

#23 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (2416 posts) -

@Jankarcop said:

It would be beneficial to gamers.

1. No exclusive deals bullshit. 100% of all games on 1 system.

2. Bigger communities, all gamers on one system.

2. Focus on the GAMES, not system selling gimmicks.

PC already benefits from some of these facets as it has no company system competition.

Whenever the industry has seen one overly dominant console, that console gets a golden age (PS1/2) and more games than anything seen before it.

And it would be game console without ONLINE GAMING!!!

#24 Edited by NFJSupreme (5371 posts) -

competition is always better for the consumer. Take your commie bullshit and shove it up your ass.

#25 Posted by BattlefieldFan3 (341 posts) -

@NFJSupreme said:

competition is always better for the consumer. Take your commie bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Competition does not imply sales parity.

Microsoft made a vastly inferior machine, so they deserve to have their asses handed to them by SONY. That's the very meaning of competition.

Having equal sales would imply equal outcome, which would imply that we were living in a "commie" society.

#26 Posted by nintendoboy16 (26697 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

ok i have been hearing mostly lems spouting complete nonsense about how sales parity between x1 and ps4 is necessary because 'competition is good' crap. allow me to educate u fools, sales parity is not necessary at all and is in fact detrimental for gamers. lets have a look at the dominant consoles of previous gens

snes - was it a bad thing it dominated? did gamers suffer?

ps1 - did sony not cater to gamers? did they not continue to create good games even though they were crushing the competition?

ps2 - same story as ps1

now lets have a look at m$ consoles

xbox - needed market penetration, invested in studios, created very powerful console, lots of exclusives

x360 - sold well and because they where on equal grounds for once they abandoned the core gamer because people were buying the console anyway. wat exclusives did m$ release in the last 3 years besides the rehashes forza/gears/halo?

now to summarise, ps4 destroying x1 is good for u moronic lems because m$ will be forced to price cut, invest in 1st party studios because moneyhatting will get extremely expensive in the future. whether sony dominates or not history has shown us they continue to release great games.

SNES didn't fully dominate. Genesis/MegaDrive had a superior holding in Europe.

#27 Posted by Newhopes (4554 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@muffin2020 said:

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

this is the type lem i was talking about, did ps3 not deliver great games? sony completely dominated with ps1/ps2 and still released great games. m$ 1 gen they had success and abandoned the core after few years.

And this proves how stupid the average cow is, Sony got complacent and expected people to keep buying whatever they shoved out then the PS3 came and they screwed up so badly it cost them a large part of the market share,billions in losses and basically allowed MS to get a foothold.

#28 Posted by NFJSupreme (5371 posts) -

@BattlefieldFan3 said:

@NFJSupreme said:

competition is always better for the consumer. Take your commie bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Competition does not imply sales parity.

Microsoft made a vastly inferior machine, so they deserve to have their asses handed to them by SONY. That's the very meaning of competition.

Having equal sales would imply equal outcome, which would imply that we were living in a "commie" society.

inferior to you. Others prefer all that other stuff they are doing. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean other don't either. I could care less about sales. That is only for the nerds here to argue over. Both consoles have their place in the market and there needs to be two or three consoles to choose from or you will be left with one shitty machine, paying stupid prices, and not getting all that gaming has to offer. Also when Sony copies TV TV TV you will be happy that the Xbone existed.

#29 Posted by j_assassin (905 posts) -

sony playstation dominating is a good thing, m$ console dominating is bad bad bad

#30 Edited by clone01 (24737 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@muffin2020 said:

@ghostwarrior786:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@muffin2020 said:

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

this is the type lem i was talking about, did ps3 not deliver great games? sony completely dominated with ps1/ps2 and still released great games. m$ 1 gen they had success and abandoned the core after few years.

In the last few years the PS3 dominated the 360 with games. However compare that with how badly they started next to the 360.

In other words to complete with the 360 the PS3 had to have better software.

Now we are in reverse the PS4 is dominating the 720 so MS will have to compete by making stellar game or it will go the way of the WiiU.

so im right? haha thats what your saying? sony consoles never launch with great must have games just look at ps2 launch lineup. sony deliver on the games front whether they dominate or not, m$ will be content with selling well and forgetting about gamers if x1 sells well.

If we all just agree with you, will you stop posting?

#31 Edited by Boddicker (2730 posts) -

@edidili said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

did ps3 not deliver great games?

I can count them with one hand and they came years later, after Sony realized they couldn't get away with a sloppy showing. Sony was forced to catch up the second half of the gen with dropping the price of the console, working on their services and PSN and investing on exclusives. The first half they were arrogant, they thought they had the marketshare in their hand anyway.

Pretty much what happened to MS. They had a great start because they had steep competition from a more recognized brand, they delivered in price, exclusives and services the first half then when they thought they nailed it they became lazy and kinda ignored 360 the second half.

PS4 too is pretty much Sony's response to MS. They couldn't make the same mistake again, they didn't knew what MS had in store so they prepared for the worse. Price is cheap, they knew their old controller wouldn't cut it anymore, they had to add value to PSN+ to compete with live. While MS came in this like they already won or something. They thought they were alone, they could get rid of used games as if there wasn't anywhere else their consumers would go. Then they reversed it all and it was exactly because of the competition that they ignored in the beginning.

Well said.

#32 Edited by Shielder7 (5152 posts) -

Why is a dominant console bad for gamers? For the same reason why any Monopoly is bad for Consumers.

#33 Edited by Jag85 (4470 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

ok i have been hearing mostly lems spouting complete nonsense about how sales parity between x1 and ps4 is necessary because 'competition is good' crap. allow me to educate u fools, sales parity is not necessary at all and is in fact detrimental for gamers. lets have a look at the dominant consoles of previous gens

snes - was it a bad thing it dominated? did gamers suffer?

ps1 - did sony not cater to gamers? did they not continue to create good games even though they were crushing the competition?

ps2 - same story as ps1

now lets have a look at m$ consoles

xbox - needed market penetration, invested in studios, created very powerful console, lots of exclusives

x360 - sold well and because they where on equal grounds for once they abandoned the core gamer because people were buying the console anyway. wat exclusives did m$ release in the last 3 years besides the rehashes forza/gears/halo?

now to summarise, ps4 destroying x1 is good for u moronic lems because m$ will be forced to price cut, invest in 1st party studios because moneyhatting will get extremely expensive in the future. whether sony dominates or not history has shown us they continue to release great games.

SNES - The only region that dominated was Japan. In Europe, it was the Sega Mega Drive that dominated. And in North America, it was almost a tie between the SNES and Genesis, with the Genesis having a slight edge there. Overall, the SNES had the edge worldwide, mainly because of its dominance in Japan.

PS1 - Sure it dominated, but the Saturn and N64 were also important for the evolution of the gaming industry. The N64 and Saturn popularized analog stick controls, and the N64 also popularized force-feedback vibrations, for example.

PS2 - Again, sure it dominated, but the Dreamcast, GameCube and Xbox were also important for the evolution of the gaming industry. The Dreamcast and Xbox popularized online gaming on consoles, the Dreamcast popularized analog shoulder buttons, and the GameCube popularized wireless controllers, for example.

And finally, there's already a unified platform out there: the PC. If all the console manufacturers just produced a single unified console, it wouldn't be any different to the PC, so is there even any point to it?

#34 Edited by glez13 (8827 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@ghostwarrior786 said:

ok i have been hearing mostly lems spouting complete nonsense about how sales parity between x1 and ps4 is necessary because 'competition is good' crap. allow me to educate u fools, sales parity is not necessary at all and is in fact detrimental for gamers. lets have a look at the dominant consoles of previous gens

snes - was it a bad thing it dominated? did gamers suffer?

ps1 - did sony not cater to gamers? did they not continue to create good games even though they were crushing the competition?

ps2 - same story as ps1

now lets have a look at m$ consoles

xbox - needed market penetration, invested in studios, created very powerful console, lots of exclusives

x360 - sold well and because they where on equal grounds for once they abandoned the core gamer because people were buying the console anyway. wat exclusives did m$ release in the last 3 years besides the rehashes forza/gears/halo?

now to summarise, ps4 destroying x1 is good for u moronic lems because m$ will be forced to price cut, invest in 1st party studios because moneyhatting will get extremely expensive in the future. whether sony dominates or not history has shown us they continue to release great games.

SNES didn't fully dominate. Genesis/MegaDrive had a superior holding in Europe.

I think the Genesis dominated the whole gen. The SNES only surpassed it after the next gen had already started.Even when the Genesis sold poorly in the years prior to the SNES release, those numbers gave them the extra edge to stay on top even in the best years of the SNES.

#35 Posted by charizard1605 (57634 posts) -

The PS2's absolute market dominance is what led to the PS3 and its fucked up launch and what followed. Competition from Xbox 360 and Wii is what led to the PS3 we have today, and the PS4, which is such a great console.

In the lack of meaningful competition, you end up with a monopoly. If you studied even a basic level of economics, you know why monopolies are bad.

#36 Posted by FragTycoon (6430 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife said:

If Sony was dominant then we wouldnt have great online gaming.

Microsoft gave:

Achievements

Trial Games

Friends Lists and voice chat

Matchmaking

A single ID

Gamerscore competition

Firmware updates

Downloadable content (DLC)

Pay to play

Community

Digital Distribution

Kinect

High-Definition Graphics(first HD CONSOLE)

So think agian. If Sony was dominant then we would have Wii online, no stats, no matchmaking, DLC, and stuff like that. Microsoft forced Sony to change everything. Remember PS3 came out without any store, no party chat or anything like that??? Microsoft changed gaming.

Do lems realize when they parrot this bull it just shows how ignorant they are to what was available on other consoles?

#37 Edited by cainetao11 (17544 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786 said:

@muffin2020 said:

Well you've kind of answered your own question. The PS1 and 2 where so successful that they did not feel the need to try on the PS3 at the launch and had to spend the entire generation playing catch up.

this is the type lem i was talking about, did ps3 not deliver great games? sony completely dominated with ps1/ps2 and still released great games. m$ 1 gen they had success and abandoned the core after few years.

This is the type of person I don't understand. They, being MS, have a different strategy in this industry. I don't get what's hard to understand. They see Sony making games and still billions in debt. Heaven forbid a company not want to do that. So they go with less. I don't buy just exclusives so it works for me. I don't understand why, other than a fanboy ego stroke, you care if one console dominates.

#38 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (7096 posts) -

@ghostwarrior786: right you are. But I see it the other way around. The game industry will be better is Sony closes.