I respectfully disagree. If there was no competition, PS2s would still have a sticker price of $299. Most people will agree w/ that. Only when sales dropped off drastically would prices go down or the hardware come bundled w/ a game for "percieved value".

As was already mentioned, THE SAME IS TRUE OF SONY!!! And w/o formidable competition, they will continue to do so.

What about Nintendo's recent price drop on the GBA? That's a field with no competition.

It has already been mentioned on this forum that $69 is probably what the targeted price for the GBA was from the beginning. Once sales are tapped out for the $99 price point, they lower the price to $69.

How is that different from the PS2? Perhaps their targeted price was $199, and once sales are tapped out they lowered it from $299.

Josh, I hear you man. MS doesn't enter a market to compete, they enter on a seek and destroy mission. Once they destroy the competition the consumer is left with only one option and MS strongarm tactics. I understand the guys that want competition but MS is not there to play fair and with the competition. MS is out to take over the industry because they see it as a threat to Windows pcs. As for Sony, since everyone brings them up, didn't they pretty much dominate the industry with the PS1? Did the quality go down while costs went up? Did they go out of their way to hurt consumers? Sony and MS might both want to be the cock of the block but Sony hasn't shown any signs of hurting the consumers when they are the industry leader. If you want to compare MS to a company you should compare them to companies that have had monopolies and abused them like the phone company(ATT). Sony is the market leader in almost every market they enter and they push the envelope with the technology which is very good for consumers.

Groucho, If your point is that Sony had nothing but noble intentions in lowering the price to $199, and that MS XBOX played no factor in their decision whatsoever, I don't buy it.

If you count inferior hardware, well than yes. How quickly everyone forgets the initial letdown in the PS2 hardware. Everyone from developers to comsumers were complaining how the PS2 wasn't the quantam leap over the Dreamcast that it was hyped to be. There are games to this day on the PS2 that show no better than the DC version - even though we were promised they will. Why is that????

Having never played, or seen in person for that matter, a dreamcast I can't tell you. I can tell you that the only place I have seen people complain about the PS2's hardware is in here or other msg boards where people are touting the benefits of the xbox. I give you that the xbox has the tech specs to beat the ps2. That is a given since they took pc parts and just tweaked them for the console. As for developers complaining about the PS2, I don't see it stopping them from building revolutionary games for it. VF4, GTA3, GT3, MGS2, FFX, DMC, and so many more titles that fill the shelves of stores. I do hear people in here complain about how hard it is to develop for the PS2, yet all the companies continue to do so as consumers continue to buy the PS2. I would say the marketplace is pretty satisfied with the PS2.

The marketplace "puts up" w/ the PS2 is a more accurate statement. Developers aren't stupid. While they see and vocally complain about how hard the PS2 is to program for, they know that the PS2 is their meal ticket for now w/ soaring sales for the PS2.


That is one tired argument. I won't address it.



This is a given since PS2 sells the most consoles! I'll let you in on a little secret just between me and you: If the sales numbers were reversed and XBOX by far outsold the PS2, all of those "revolutionary" games would be on the XBOX. In short, part of a developers job is to go, not where the quality is, but where the money is.

"puts up" huh? If you wanted to get away from sony and go to the xbox why not just port everything over and start making xbox exclusives so the consumers would switch? Your argument makes no sense. There is no reason to argue against the xbox having pc parts because it does. All those game are quality so you lost that argument too. Could they look better on the xbox? Sure, they might if they updated the graphics but come on, it's about gameplay not graphics. Graphics are important, but the gameplay comes first and then the graphics.

Programmers only complained about the PS2 programming when it first came out. Since then, they have gotten used to it and are finding ways to use it to its capacity. I have heard no ill words spoken about the PS2 by developers for a long time. If a programmer can't port a game to look better on the PS2 than a DC, then that is their short fallings, not Sony's.

Maybe because ports aren't going to get people to switch consoles? The only way you convince consumers to switch to a different platform is if you offer an experience (game) that they can't have on their current platform. That means exclusive games which requires a lot of risk by giving up guaranteed profits for the chance at better profits further down the road. Without monetary incentives from the console maker, publishers are unlikely to do this. Publishers don't like risk. That's why you see so little innovation in the marketplace. The fact is that if the majority of developers had their choice, they would choose to develop for Xbox and Gamecube because they are more powerful and much easier to develop for. It is the publishers that demand that the developers produce content for PS2 and it's strictly because they can make more money on the PS2 due to it's larger install base.

Don't kid yourself. The programmers still complain about the difficulty of developing for the PS2. Yes, they have learned how to work with the PS2 and the games have improved but the amount of effort and innovation that is required to achieve something on the PS2 is far greater than what is required for the same feature on Xbox or Gamecube. Ultimately, the extra time spent getting a certain feature on PS2 could be better spent improving other areas of a game. This is why programmers complain about PS2 development. It's time consuming and more difficult than it needs to be.

Any basic economics class will tell you that competition is the life-blood of a free market. If there is no competition, the consumer is the loser; both from lack of choices and from being under the thumb of a monopoly.

All big corporations would love to operate without competition. If you think either Sony or Microsoft has your best interests at heart (like giving you cheap video games) you're fooling yourself.
These companies are there to make money and lots of it.

Both of these multi-billion dollar companies (yes, that is calculated by over-all worth not yearly profit margin) want to have a market where they can set whatever price they please. Lowering prices is the last thing they want to do. Both consoles had their prices dropped in order to be competitive with their opposiition (notice there is no competition when you're playing by yourself)

Now, you may like to root for one or the other, but the downfall of either will only result in a loss for the consumer.

If you're going to be a fan-boy for Sony or Microsoft, just admit it.

Why is it that every time people gather to discuss this topic with intelligent posts someone will chime in with this "fanboy" crap? finbogg, your post added nothing that we haven't discussed already except that you were the first person to break out the fanboy game.

Now back to the real conversation here. Has anyone got a link where programmers are complaining about creating games for the PS2 still? I don't doubt that it is easier to program for the xbox but like Josh said, I haven't heard any rantings from programmers lately about programming on the PS2.

Correct, but who says that it would be a monopoly if Microsoft left the crowd? Sony and Nintendo would still be there. It would be just like how it was Sega and Nintendo not so long ago. I don't think anyone would argue that those were great times for video game fans. Who says that it would be a monopoly if Microsoft was on top? The US Government and all the other companies Microsoft bullied out of competition.

Yes, but Microsoft has shown to do so by killing off competition, not competing with it. If you think Microsoft is in this industry to compete, you, my friend, are the one who has been fooled.

As I said before, worth is trivial. If Microsoft had started up when Sony did, Microsoft would be worth atleast 10 times more than Sony. Net Income (not yearly profit margin) is the best way to determine overall performance.

Quote:

---

Now, you may like to root for one or the other, but the downfall of either will only result in a loss for the consumer.

If you're going to be a fan-boy for Sony or Microsoft, just admit it.

---

I disagree. If Sony and Microsoft were the only ones, there would still be competion. It has worked like this for years and years. Microsoft is the 3DO or Turbo Grafix 16, if you will, of the industry. The new-comer who is there to shake things up, and trying to kill the competition (okay, that last part only applies to Microsoft). Bring up that "fan-boy" crap only shows how confused you really are.

Sweet, lovable Sony did a precious job of tanking Dreamcast sales by overhyping the PS2 and tricking developers and consumers into thinking it would be the 2nd coming. So then the PS2 they deliever doesn't have a good game for it for a year and the hardware is barely better than Dreamcast.

Isn't this sort of tactic, a lovable, cuddly, wonderful tactic that only businesses that want to give only the best things to their consumers do?

Nobody said it would be a monopoly. It would be less competition and in your example, almost no competition. In a world where Sony and Nintendo were the only console makers there would be no real competition because Sony and Nintendo are targeting entirely different demographics. They could conceivably split the market down the middle with Sony taking the older gamers and Nintendo selling to the younger consumers. As it currently stands, Microsoft and Sony are competing for the exact same consumers thus keeping prices down.

Have you already forgotten that only a few years ago, Sony was the newcomer to the console business? They were coming in against Sega and Nintendo and as I believe someone else already mentioned, they helped put Sega out of the hardware business. Apparently that shouldn't be held against them. Are they reformed? Have they learned the error of their ways? In fact, Sony got into the hardware business after originally developing a CD add-on for the Super Nintendo only to have Nintendo turn around and screw Sony by refusing to bring it to market. So, I wouldn't say that Nintendo is above playing a little dirty when it suits their purpose. What does this all mean? As I've said repeatedly, companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as possible and if that requires playing dirty at times, they will do so. This includes Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and every other large corporation in the world. The best thing for consumers is to have more competition, not less.

Can't we all just get along? Xbox is technically and graphically superior to PS2. PS2 has a larger library and more developers. Both Microsoft and Sony are out for one thing and it is not to please the consumer nor is it to make the best damn gaming system out there, they are in it to make money. None of the big three have and nice or philanthropic intent with anything they do. The want to make a profit. In terms of succeeding, no of the big three are going to drop. Microsoft is not making a profit right now, but with them pushing tech to the extreme maybe (hopefully) they will. Sony has pretty much locked up most popular system, I know some will argue but simple sales figures bare that out. The console world is much more interesting with three players. As far as buyouts from microsoft I don't think we will ever see that happen. Finally, I don't think the reason microsoft threw its hat in the ring was to "protect" the windows desktop market (read that somewhere in this thread)I think they saw an opportunity for profit and went for it. This is of course, only my opinion.

This is your first warning Lewsiv. If you want to stay on this forum & not be expelled you must always bash Microsoft. Fair comments like yours will not be tolerated on this forum.

It's obvious who here is against competition. And I think the term "fanboy" does apply here. Sony is the market leader. If you have a PS2, that's great. Sony will for years to come continue to be a great console and a market leader. But that's not good enough for the Sony loyalists on this board. You want no competition. You want MS to fold up and go away. If your ideas were the norm in everyday life, how many of you would have jobs? Or have a choice of what kind of car you drove, or the jeans you wear? Once again, COMPETITION IS GOOD! And stop it w/ the "Nintendo is enough competition..." w/o MS crap. Many don't consider Nintendo to be competition because they seem to target completely different demographics than the Sony PS2. I think it's accurate to say that the price wars that we are seeing right now is between Sony and MS. I wouldn't even doubt it if either MS or Sony concerned themselves too much w/ what Nintendo is doing being that they, like Sega (hardware), at times, seem to shoot themselves in the foot. Personally, I hope that there continues to be 3 console developers. It'll be good for the economy, good for consumers, good for josh2012, and good for s}{ammer (whether they realize it of not).

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

For as long as I can remember, there have only been two major consoles at one point in time. Starting with 8-bit you had Sega (Master System) against Nintendo (NES). 16-bit had Sega (Genesis) against Nintendo (SNES). This is were thinks started to get interesting. Nintendo contracted Sony to make them a CD drive for the SNES to compete with the failed Sega CD. They never brought it to market. Sony took all the research they had done and put out their own console. 32-bit had Sony (PlayStation) against Sega (Saturn). Sega doomed themselves by developing the Saturn for 2-D graphics while Sony did 3-D. Gamers went towards the 3-D games and that combined with the release of FFXII buried the Saturn. Nintendo stepped in with the N64 to compete.

What has this little history leason taught us? For the longest time, there were only 2 major console makers in the industry and everything has been fine. Games have always been $50 and consoles are not overpriced. The industry does fine with only 2 consoles; no price increases, no lack of quality games. Now you throw in Microsoft who has shown themselves as ruthless by entering industries and monopolizing them.

Everyone keeps complaining that competition is good, but you fail to see that it has been good with only 2 companies. History has show that when a third company is present (your Turbo Grafix 16, 3DO, Jaguar, etc) some one loses. I don't want to see Microsoft die off like the fore-mentioned systems, but I also do not want to see Microsoft ruin the video game industry with their monopolizing tactics.

So I ask again: why do you need 3 systems to compete, when the industry was doing great with only 2 systems competing for so many years?

I pose a question too. Since both you and I agree that Sony appears here to stay, and will continue to be the market leader for the foreseeable future regardless of what MS does, and since the fact that 3 consoles on the market affect nothing w/ your ability to enjoy your PS2 and its great library of games, why do you care if there are 3 consoles instead of 2? No one's gonna stand between you and your ability to enjoy your PS2. MS's existance in the videogame market thus far has changed very little to absolutely nothing for even the hardest of the hardcore PS2 loyalists. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?