Sorry if this is a nebulous subject line. The question is, what sort of corporate playing field is the best for the gamers? A monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly. Monopoly means compatability for all users with all games, but more competition may mean better prices, as well as more game being made. Any opinions?

Sorry if I'm a little cranky.

I'm going with "d. Capitalism" as my answer. I'm voting for less piracy on the part of consumers which will help to keep prices down and it will also help game companies spend the extra time to make a better product.

And I'm voting for less consumer hacking (particularly with online multiplayer games) which will give good games a longer shelf life and make them more profitable to make.

Duopoly, like the Genesis/Super Nintendo days. After that, monopoly and "oligopoly" are tied. I think having several impressive systems at the same time hurts all involved, but on the other hand, monopoly practices such as Nintendo in the 1980s are not exactly helpful to stores.

I think the current setup is good right now... the duopoly. There has always been a duopoly in the console industry. Atari/Nintendo, Nintendo/Sega, Sony/Nintendo...