A monopoly wouldn't be bad in gaming

A monopoly wouldn't be bad in gaming as people say. "When" ACompany controls the gaming industry. Why would they raise prices? They don't need to, because they are the only one. Nor do they need to lower their prices as in system price cuts. They could raise the price, but I see many people saying, "gaming is a want not a need." So if people hold true to this we don't need to worry because Acompany would lower the price to a reasonable margin. Perhaps lower than what we see now. The price wouldn't be skyrocketing so long as people don't pay. I would love to see gamers unite and form one successful boycot and see if we can change something.

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines,drugs,computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly overideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty."

http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

They have the intire book right there because they think intellectual monopoly (patents and copyrights)is wrong and it hinders growth of innovation and creativity.

Geez... I really don't know where to start. So much flaming material!!

learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.

The reason a monopoly would be bad would be because a company would have every reason to raise the price and no reason to lower it (no competition to force it back down so they can raise it to please investors).

What some gamers really want is for the console to become commoditized. That is, for a specific and open standard to be released for a console design that any company can manufacture (think DVD players--any company can make one, and as long as they stick to the specs, just about any DVD can work in them).

Geez... I really don't know where to start. So much flaming material!!

GreenGoblin2099

i agree learn the rules of economics competition is good

You obivously know nothing about economy. Competition LOWERS prices, and monopoly RAISES them, not the other way around.

enjoy your $600+ console with a $100+ per year tag to play online.

learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.

antifanboyftw

A MS monopoly would be horrible. A Sony monopoly already happened and everything was fine.Parasomniac

The reason a monopoly would be bad would be because a company would have every reason to raise the price and no reason to lower it (no competition to force it back down so they can raise it to please investors).

What some gamers really want is for the console to become commoditized. That is, for a specific and open standard to be released for a console design that any company can manufacture (think DVD players--any company can make one, and as long as they stick to the specs, just about any DVD can work in them).

[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]A MS monopoly would be horrible. A Sony monopoly already happened and everything was fine.toast_burner

learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.

No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.

This is so bad, this doesn't deserve a facepalm. A monopoly would make prices skyrocket and gaming would die.

Take a good look at activision son. Is that REALLY what you want for this industry?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"][QUOTE="antifanboyftw"]

learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.

LOXO7

Are you sure you'd want a monopoly where the RRoD is king?? MS wouldn't have to even fix it because if it breaks, you'd either have to pay them to fix it or buy a new 360.

With competition, they know if they did that people would be running for the PS3 or the Wii.

PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE TC AN ECONOMIC'S BOOK!!

No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.

Puckhog04

Sol let me get this right...you want ms to have a monopoly on the gaming market???

I'm not gonna say anything further for risk of being modded

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.

LOXO7

Developers working as a SINGLE COMPANY not struggeling to make anything good, new or innovative. Wouldn't release patches to fix gamebreaking bugs, wouldn't even bother to polish up games. We was already shown back in 1983 by (ironically) activision that a monopoly in this industry would only kill the industry and make people lose interest

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="toast_burner"] this. TC should do his research before making a threadGreenGoblin2099

Are you sure you'd want a monopoly where the RRoD is king?? MS wouldn't have to even fix it because if it breaks, you'd either have to pay them to fix it or buy a new 360.

With competition, they know if they did that people would be running for the PS3 or the Wii.

PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE TC AN ECONOMIC'S BOOK!!

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.

DoomZaW

Developers working as a SINGLE COMPANY not struggeling to make anything good, new or innovative. Wouldn't release patches to fix gamebreaking bugs, wouldn't even bother to polish up games. We was already shown back in 1983 by (ironically) activision that a monopoly in this industry would only kill the industry and make people lose interest

[QUOTE="GreenGoblin2099"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Allright I see it. Wii makes motion control. Sells 2x competition. Competition copies. Copies, Copies, Copies... this is good because every year the prices gets lower. So buying everything brand new is pointless because if it's in competition it will get lower. You are wasting your money. And competition laughs at you.LOXO7

Are you sure you'd want a monopoly where the RRoD is king?? MS wouldn't have to even fix it because if it breaks, you'd either have to pay them to fix it or buy a new 360.

With competition, they know if they did that people would be running for the PS3 or the Wii.

PLEASE SOMEONE GIVE TC AN ECONOMIC'S BOOK!!

I only mentioned MS because that'sthe companyyou picked, but what I said could apply to ANY gaming company, not just MS.

And I'm not saying gaming is a need, never even implied that, but that's the behaviour of monopolies. Need or no need.

Again, get a book.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] But there would still be many developers.

LOXO7

Developers working as a SINGLE COMPANY not struggeling to make anything good, new or innovative. Wouldn't release patches to fix gamebreaking bugs, wouldn't even bother to polish up games. We was already shown back in 1983 by (ironically) activision that a monopoly in this industry would only kill the industry and make people lose interest

But what your suggesting is that we should hit it over the head with a hammer, until it has the IQ of a infant again

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] But there would still be many developers.

LOXO7

Developers working as a SINGLE COMPANY not struggeling to make anything good, new or innovative. Wouldn't release patches to fix gamebreaking bugs, wouldn't even bother to polish up games. We was already shown back in 1983 by (ironically) activision that a monopoly in this industry would only kill the industry and make people lose interest

In 1983 Activision-atari had fatally crippled the most rapid growing industry on earth, exactly by doing what i mentioned: Releasing the same **** over and over and over again. We are already seeing the same pattern now, 2 (possibly 3) developers all working on their own call of duty game, an ungodly amount of crappy music titles that haven't changed one bit ever since the first guitar hero.

Monopolys are very bad. It gives who ever is in control full power to raise prices and give crappy qulity products and you cant do anything about it.

Monopolys are very bad. It gives who ever is in control full power to raise prices and give crappy qulity products and you cant do anything about it.

finalfantasy94

Monopolys are very bad. It gives who ever is in control full power to raise prices and give crappy qulity products and you cant do anything about it.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="finalfantasy94"]

Monopolys are very bad. It gives who ever is in control full power to raise prices and give crappy qulity products and you cant do anything about it.

toast_burner

Exacly and noboly wants that. Hell a monopoly on any form of entertainment would just suck.

competition is good, getting lazy is bad, see the videogame crash and Nintendo gamecubedarkspineslayer

I don't know where to start with thar post

In 1983 Activision-atari had fatally crippled the most rapid growing industry on earth, exactly by doing what i mentioned: Releasing the same **** over and over and over again. We are already seeing the same pattern now, 2 (possibly 3) developers all working on their own call of duty game, an ungodly amount of crappy music titles that haven't changed one bit ever since the first guitar hero.

DoomZaW

You have an idea what a monopoly would look like today by looking at the history. That's not what it atomaticly is going to be. In my senerio the devs would be competiting. But also that is not what it could be. They could release crap apon crap and this would lose tons of consumers if they didn't change. That's what I was thinking today. With all of the fps looking and music games playing the same. But they sell well. So they make more. Untill that well is tapped out. That's competition at it's best right, that's what we see? I think it ridiculous that people confirm a monopoly to always being a bad thing. I don't know way you keep saying that monopoly would be like what Activision did. Wouldn't you think that they would learn not to do it that way? I don't know. I'm just trying to be different then everyone else in saying a monoploy wouldn't be a bad thing in the gaming industry.

you dont understand economic. if ms had a monopoly, the would not need to raise prices, but they sure would want to and nothing would stop them, do you honestly think a company that is commonly call evil for its business practices would not try to squeeze every last penny from the gaming market and they would care less if they killed gaming in the process as long as they got their money.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

In 1983 Activision-atari had fatally crippled the most rapid growing industry on earth, exactly by doing what i mentioned: Releasing the same **** over and over and over again. We are already seeing the same pattern now, 2 (possibly 3) developers all working on their own call of duty game, an ungodly amount of crappy music titles that haven't changed one bit ever since the first guitar hero.

LOXO7

You have an idea what a monopoly would look like today by looking at the history. That's not what it atomaticly is going to be. In my senerio the devs would be competiting. But also that is not what it could be. They could release crap apon crap and this would lose tons of consumers if they didn't change. That's what I was thinking today. With all of the fps looking and music games playing the same. But they sell well. So they make more. Untill that well is tapped out. That's competition at it's best right, that's what we see? I think it ridiculous that people confirm a monopoly to always being a bad thing. I don't know way you keep saying that monopoly would be like what Activision did. Wouldn't you think that they would learn not to do it that way? I don't know. I'm just trying to be different then everyone else in saying a monoploy wouldn't be a bad thing in the gaming industry.

Wow MS would milk us so hard I'd have no other choice then to quit gaming, look at how hard they milk and overprice and they aren't even dominating anything. Imagine no competition? Wow... Live would double in price, DLC would be more expensive and more common, there would NEVER be free content,... The thought freaks me out.

A monopoly of an online service like Steam wouldn't be bad, because as soon as they start doing something that people don't like a competitor would sprout up and people would flock to it.

you dont understand economic. if ms had a monopoly, the would not need to raise prices, but they sure would want to and nothing would stop them, do you honestly think a company that is commonly call evil for its business practices would not try to squeeze every last penny from the gaming market and they would care less if they killed gaming in the process as long as they got their money.

ferret-gamer

The consumers would stop them from raising prices. Each time they raise a price they loose consumers. So they could have everything at a low price and competition could still be flurishing with the developers.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

you dont understand economic. if ms had a monopoly, the would not need to raise prices, but they sure would want to and nothing would stop them, do you honestly think a company that is commonly call evil for its business practices would not try to squeeze every last penny from the gaming market and they would care less if they killed gaming in the process as long as they got their money.

LOXO7

The consumers would stop them from raising prices. Each time they raise a price they loose consumers. So they could have everything at a low price and competition could still be flurishing with the developers.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

In 1983 Activision-atari had fatally crippled the most rapid growing industry on earth, exactly by doing what i mentioned: Releasing the same **** over and over and over again. We are already seeing the same pattern now, 2 (possibly 3) developers all working on their own call of duty game, an ungodly amount of crappy music titles that haven't changed one bit ever since the first guitar hero.

HuusAsking

You have an idea what a monopoly would look like today by looking at the history. That's not what it atomaticly is going to be. In my senerio the devs would be competiting. But also that is not what it could be. They could release crap apon crap and this would lose tons of consumers if they didn't change. That's what I was thinking today. With all of the fps looking and music games playing the same. But they sell well. So they make more. Untill that well is tapped out. That's competition at it's best right, that's what we see? I think it ridiculous that people confirm a monopoly to always being a bad thing. I don't know way you keep saying that monopoly would be like what Activision did. Wouldn't you think that they would learn not to do it that way? I don't know. I'm just trying to be different then everyone else in saying a monoploy wouldn't be a bad thing in the gaming industry.

"When" MS controls the gaming industry. Why would they raise prices? They don't need to, because they are the only one. LOXO7

No monopoly is good. Ever....competition always benefits the consumer.