I don't care if there are 3 consoles instead of 2. Why do you care if there are 2 consoles instead of 3? Microsoft is not a danger to changing anything in the industry because of poor sales. The whole arguement has been, "more competition is better" but I have shown that the industry does great with 2 consoles. What is the big deal if Microsoft were to pull out? There would be no change as you and many other suggest.

We haven't had a pure 2 console market since the original Nintendo and the Sega Master System. Ever since then there has always been a 3rd party trying to break in, spurring competition on.

Joshd,

OF COURSE 3 consoles is better than 2. Yeah, there was competition when only 2 players were around. But the point is that now that there are 3, the competition is MORE intense with clear benefits to the consumers, most notably the fast price drops and 3 tenacious companies constantly trying to one up each other by giving us great A-class titles all the time. All of the developers with potentially great games in the making now have another place to go to get funding and help to realize their dream projects. If Sony is too busy promoting and nurturing their own projects, then they can try Microsoft or Nintendo. On top of that, it ensures that if one of the systems completely tanks, there will be another to come in and keep the competition alive. Face it: If you agree that competition is good then it is absolutely better for us in the long run to have 3 rather 2 competitors in the game.

And has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY, every one of these companies would love to crush all of the competition and then charge whatever the hell they like. There is no logical reason to somehow fear a Microsoft monopoly any more than a Sony or Nintendo one. If you're going to be giving out history lessons, then how about looking back at the era of the 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System? They dominated the market (despite there technically being 2 competitors) and it is well-documented that they engaged in price-fixing and used strong-arming tactics to ensure retailers would sell for higher prices. Their insistence on sticking with carts due to production control it gave them was another remnant from their days in a supposed 2-competitor market. If it weren't for Sega & then Sony (hmm, which would mean there was a 3 competitor market before, wouldn't it?) coming in and handing Nintendo its ass, we might still be using carts! So, once again, More competitors = GOOD. Less competitors = WORSE.

Really, if your posts were reasonable then I don't think anyone would be accusing you of being a Sony fanboy.

All I said was that if Microsoft left, nothing would change. Throughout this discussion, people have been saying that if Microsoft was gone, there would be less competition and the consumer would be worse off. I stand by my arguement that if there were only 2 consoles instead of 3, whoever those two would be, nothing would change for the consumer. Only time will tell on this, but this is were I stand and no blind criticism will sway me.

Microsoft has shown signs of trying to form a monopoly and sucessfully done so (according to the US Government). They have the funds to buy out their competitors. Nintendo and Sony have never shown signs of monopolizing (to my knowledge) and do not have the funds to buy out their competitors. If Microsoft was on top (which will never happen this generation), they could easily do a stock buy-out. What investor would want stock in Microsoft if they were #1 and you were #3? You'd make a fortune with one vote. Fortunately, Microsoft is not #1, so there is no threat to the industry.

For the record, Sony and Sega were the only 2 32-bit systems out a the time, so there were only two competitors. After Sega was killed by their own mis-planning, Nintendo came in with the N64 to even out the console universe. And I don't think Nintendo ever got their asses handed to them in any respect.

My post are very reasonable which is why some people agree with my. Just because you don't agree doesn't make my agruments unreasonable. To bring up the Fanboy talk again is very juvenile on your part.

What's the big deal if MS pulls out? Based on previous history, I wish the market leader had always been less arrogant and complacent about their position when it comes time to develop their next hardware generation. That's the single best thing about the fact that it appears the market's now large enough for 3 to survive this round.

Just a reminder for the 'Why is MS even here?' crowd. The market has never just been yielded to two competitors without a fight...

- Atari 2600 vs Odyssey 2 vs Astrocade vs Intellivision
- Atari 5200 vs Colecovision vs Vectrex (with Odyssey 3 and new Intellivison aborted, due to crash)
- NES vs SMS vs Atari 7800
- Genesis vs SNES vs TG-16
- 3DO vs Jaguar (to be new third man in)
- Saturn vs PSX vs N64
- DC vs PS2 vs Xbox vs NGC

I cannot remember a greater time in gaming history than right now. We, as consumers are benefitting from the price war slugfest that's happening right now w/ the big 3. This is capitalism at it's best!!! It's also the reason why the U.S. has the best economy on the face of the earth. It's sad though that some of you think that this is a bad thing, and you allow blind loyalty to cause you not to see the big picture of things. I don't want XBOX to fail. I don't want the PS2 to fail. I don't want Nintendo to fail. I want them all to compete so I can pay $199 w/ bundled incentives for a PS3, XBOX2, and $99 for a Nintendo GameTriangle. For those who insist on living in a narrowminded fanboy world, I feel sorry for you. Maybe someday you will finally learn.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's been plenty of examples raised to counter your rather vague points. Now you're resorting to "well that's where I stand, I don't need to address your evidence" and that's fine, but I rather think the 'blind' description might be better turned onto you in that case.

Quote:

---

Microsoft has shown signs of trying to form a monopoly and sucessfully done so (according to the US Government). They have the funds to buy out their competitors. Nintendo and Sony have never shown signs of monopolizing (to my knowledge) and do not have the funds to buy out their competitors. If Microsoft was on top (which will never happen this generation), they could easily do a stock buy-out. What investor would want stock in Microsoft if they were #1 and you were #3? You'd make a fortune with one vote. Fortunately, Microsoft is not #1, so there is no threat to the industry.

---

Did you miss the message about Nintendo's 8-bit era? How do you think a company manages to price fix and enforce that unless they have a stanglehold on the industry? Just because they escaped being termed a monopoly at the time does not mean they didn't engage in anti-competitive practice (in point of fact, they were taken to court for this and ordered to pay out a settlement to millions of customers. Do a google or deja search on "nintendo price fixing" if you like) and wouldn't love to do so again. So yes, Nintendo HAS shown the tendency for that.

Regardless, you're missing the point that if ANY of these players were to attain a stanglehold on the industry, then the end result would be the SAME for gamers, regardless if that company did it by completely outselling its competitors or by buying them out. It'll still be one system that everyone has and that company will set its own rules. I'll go one step further and say that Sony was one step away from doing it before Microsoft stepped in. Nintendo seems resigned to taking its own direction and carving out its own small slice of the market. It's a good thing a 3rd competitor came in to pick up the slack, huh?




Uh, no. Just because the N64 was not a "32-bit" machine (meaningless designation btw) does not mean it wasn't competing with those systems! It was widely considered to be in the same generation as those systems and in direct competition with them. If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend otherwise, be my guest.

And yes, the N64 was considered a disappointment when viewed against Nintendo's past glories. If it weren't for the Pokemon phenomenon towards the end, the machine would've died out even sooner.

Quote:

---

My post are very reasonable which is why some people agree with my. Just because you don't agree doesn't make my agruments unreasonable. To bring up the Fanboy talk again is very juvenile on your part.

---

Your posts are articulate but far from reasonable. You have a tendency to steadfastly brush off any evidence to the contrary and just repeat certain mantras which is what's infuriating others. After all, there are plenty of other vocal people here with contrasting views and clear biases but they usually aren't called fanboys. The difference is that when they discuss, they actually DISCUSS. They actually address points that are brought up and truly argue about them.

Then your knowledge is flawed. Several different people in this thread have given specific examples of Sony and Nintendo engaging in anti-competitive practices. You might already know all this if you bothered to read (and more importantly, understand) these posts. I won't regurgitate them here but you can go back and re-read them for yourself.

Isn't this the same little history lesson I used to make a point several posts before you did? And you didn't even cite me in your bibliography. The nerve!

Competition has very little effect on hardware prices. Probably the only one of the three price drops that is really the result of the competition is the Gamecube price drop. The market determines the price.

Occasionally, you'll get a price war. I hope that happens with software. If software drops to $40, it's unlikely it will ever go back up.

XBox needed to do something to jumpstart its sales. They had to cut the price for reasons that had nothing to do with PS2.

PS2 needed to drop the price as well. They'd about tapped the market at $299. They needed a lower price point to attract more buyers. The timing may have been planned to take the bite out of the MS price drop. All of the consoles dropping in price at the same time prevents any of the others from stealing the spotlight in the weekly ads. Nintendo was a couple of days late to the party, though, and they might very well get overlooked in some places (not by me, though. I bought a Cube today).

In any case, the console war is really only between Microsoft and Sony. They both need to woo third parties, because neither of them have software that really sells a console. Halo is great, and so are Jak and Daxter, Twisted Metal, and GT3, but I could live without any of those games. It would drive me crazy to miss a Mario or a Zelda, though.

As for PS2 being difficult to program for, that has something to do with the C libraries or something. Apparently, developers can get more from the system if they work with the "metal" of the system, so Sony didn't support the libraries. Looking at Metal Gear and Gran Turismo, my feeling is Sony's decision paid off.

As for Gamecube, I don't really think it looks that much better, but I love the Nintendo games.

Why is it that 3 or 4 of you have decided to start making this personal and naming people fanboys? What the hell is this title fanboy anyway and what does it have to do with the conversation that was started here earlier? Those of you calling people out as fanboys have stock in MS or something? The arguements you make in between your insults aren't bad even if everyone doesn't agree with them. Would I be a fanboy because I don't like MS? Or do you have a different term for someone who likes both PS2 and Gamecube? Keep in mind that I haven't been a boy since the late 80's. I get the feeling some of you can't say the same.

Jesus F'ing Christ, I go to watch some quailty program and get bombarded. Well, I am prepared to defend my statements.

Consumers are not benefiting from competition. These price cuts would have happened anyway. As I mentioned before, Sony taped its user base at $299 and had to drop to $199 to make it available to more people, expanding its user base even more. Microsoft had to drop the price because they can't sell an X-box to anyone right now. Nintendo was the only one who was really forced to drop their price, but they didn't even have to as they would have sold the consoles anyway. Stop dreaming and wake up to reality.

ipkevin - "You're entitled to your opinion, but there's been plenty of examples raised to counter your rather vague points. Now you're resorting to "well that's where I stand, I don't need to address your evidence" and that's fine, but I rather think the 'blind' description might be better turned onto you in that case."

I would like to see your examples which can predict what will happen in the future. Anything said about what will happen in the future is a prediction based on past experiences, but a prediction none-the-less. That is where I stand because there is no one in the world who can show evidence of what is going to happen.

As for Price Fixing, I would like you to find me a PS2 or X-box for less than $199. I'm not talking about a few cents or maybe even a dollar, and I'm not talking about coupons. Find me a store where I can purchase both of these for less than $199. You can't because they are price fixed. Price fixing always exist, deal with it.

The Saturn was gone by the time N64 came out, so no, I don't consider them to have even been in competition. Sales of N64 may not have been as good as their previous systems, but to think that they were bad in any sense is rediculous.

Well, I'll tell you what, list out your so-called evidence, and I'll gladly shoot down every one with conflicting evidence. Does that sound good to you?

Tamrok - To my knowledge, Microsoft is the only company of the three to be formally charged with creating a monopoly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Price fixing is everywhere, deal.

What a bunch of horse puckey. If you are still repeating the same thing this far into the argument, I would recommend anyone engaging in this argument with Josh to stop unless you are masochistic and enjoy arguing with brick walls.

How's that crystal ball doing Josh?

The bottom line is this, right now, it's more possible than ever before to own all the big systems. We should be a fan of all of them, and hope for exclusives on each one. The best way to be a gamer is to own multiple systems, otherwise these circular arguments will never end.

Best quote I've ever seen! You should teach economics at Harvard! You obviously know something that all these stock market analysts and nobel prize winning economists don't. You could re-write the textbooks and change college curriculums nationwide!

I lost the crystal ball, maybe you know where it is :D . I don't fold on my arguements, so yes, I will repeat until you finally understand.

I would like to that those who have shown support for what I am saying including S}{ammer, ScandalUMD, and Groucho (hey, you weren't against me). For those of you against me, just remember that you are siding with people who are quick to shout "Fanboy" and ipkevin who initially claimed that the article was writen to be anti-Microsoft (let me guess, by a "Fanboy" right?).

I stand by what I have said, and will defend everything I said. If you have evidence against be, present it in a mature way (try not saying "Fanboy" or try to degrade my statements) and I will answer them. Don't waste my time arguing the future. I mearly said that in the past only 2 have survived, and that is the only hint at what might happen in the future.

List out our evidence? What have we been doing for the last 30 posts? Writing gibberish? Are you able to read the English language? Several of us have meticulously spelled out our arguments with specific evidence to back it up. In response, you go on a rant and fail to use any real evidence to support your conclusions (your opinions and presumptions do not count as evidence). Then, you have the gall to call us out and ask for our 'so-called' evidence so you can refute it. Well, the evidence is all there in our preceding posts. Feel free to go back and read them and 'shoot down' every one. I can hardly wait...

Sorry to let you in on this secret, but not everyone can afford to purchase every system. You ever consider that?

In the video game industry right now, this is true. I thought that it was implied that we were discussing the video game industry, but I guess I will have to spell everything out for you from now on. Wouldn't want you getting confused.

Isn't it about time we start talk of a new DVDTalk console...we can take them all down!

Oh, dear lord. There is no way you're for real. Look, find out what price fixing means in the context of anti-competitive behaviour and especially how the issue applies to the videogame industry (not just what you've arbitrarily decided it to mean) and then get back to me.

Once you do, then go find out exactly how the goverment handled Nintendo's price fixing so that we the consumers wouldn't just have to give up and 'deal with it'. Though that's a surprising attitude from a person who one post ago was such a crusader against monopolies and all that that entails. I guess when it's not Microsoft doing it then it's okay?




Saturn Release date: 1995
N64 Release date: 1996

In which reality do you live where they stopped making games for the Saturn in 1996?

Quote:

---

Well, I'll tell you what, list out your so-called evidence, and I'll gladly shoot down every one with conflicting evidence. Does that sound good to you?

---

:rolleyes:

Try actually reading any of the dozens of posts in this thread and go for it. Hope your evidence will be better than it's been so far!

Now you're embarrassing yourself. It's time to wrap it up josh2012. [thinking to self]You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him think.[/thinking to self]

josh2012, statements like this is the reason you're branded a "fanboy", that spews forth "unreasonable" arguments. This is where you lost all credibility in my book.

So, you are claiming that (only in the video game market) competition does not benefit consumers. Is that your argument? And the evidence you have that proves this theory is what, exactly? Yes, please do spell it out for me in excruciating detail because I can already tell that I'm going to have trouble grasping your concept. I truly do hate being confused...

Well in Japan, more PSXs are being purchased than X-boxes. I would say that is credible.

I don't know if it is only in the video game industry, but yes, competition does not benefit consumers.