Yea a monopoly would be great! I can't wait to pay 120 dollars for every game and 1000 for a console!
A monopoly wouldn't be bad in gaming
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[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.
again, you dont know economics. if Microsoft somehow gained a total monopoly, there would be nowhere else for people to buy their games, and sure they would probably loose some people, but there would still be tons of kids and people who love their games and would pay the extra amount. and on the developer standpoint do you not think that m$ would give their first party developers a massive advantage and either buy out or put the others out of business. there have been monopolies in the past, take a look at the standard oil trust, people were being taken advantage of all over the place and they did not do a single thing about it.
[QUOTE="LOXO7"][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.
Eddie-Vedder
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.
What are you talking about? Look at Live... Look at DLC... before the idea of charging for these things was absurd, MS is now making this common practice. Ppl pay cause theres no way around, they wouldn't loose many consumers cause there would be no alternatives. I think MS is happy where they are now. They would be even happier if they can surpass 50million unit mark on the 360. But I don't think this is ever going to happen because they charge for live. If they were the only one on the market. If they were the market. They wouldn't need to charge for Live. Will they? If they want to loose out on customers. A monopoly company would want to live long a posperus. What does it take to do that? All of these ideas I see are negitive on what would a monopoly actually do. But it wouldn't last that long if it did so it doesn't make any SENSE.
A monopoly wouldn't be bad in gaming as people say. "When" MS 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 MS 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.
LOXO7
Really, this is one naive post!
There is no such thing as a reasonable margin, companies try to make as much profit as they can, they'll try to squeeze every cent out of you if they can, that is how companies operate in a capitalist society. Basically, you'll want to sell your product for the maximum price people are willing to pay, you will not charge lower because you're a nice company! Even if prices don't raise, costs will go down to increase the profit margin, so you'll get worse games for the same price.
Monopolies are never good for the consumer.
[QUOTE="LOXO7"][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.
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.
again, you dont know economics. if Microsoft somehow gained a total monopoly, there would be nowhere else for people to buy their games, and sure they would probably loose some people, but there would still be tons of kids and people who love their games and would pay the extra amount. and on the developer standpoint do you not think that m$ would give their first party developers a massive advantage and either buy out or put the others out of business. there have been monopolies in the past, take a look at the standard oil trust, people were being taken advantage of all over the place and they did not do a single thing about it. People need oil=power. People do not need video games. Since they could go to another entertainment source.What are you talking about? Look at Live... Look at DLC... before the idea of charging for these things was absurd, MS is now making this common practice. Ppl pay cause theres no way around, they wouldn't loose many consumers cause there would be no alternatives. I think MS is happy where they are now. They would be even happier if they can surpass 50million unit mark on the 360. But I don't think this is ever going to happen because they charge for live. If they were the only one on the market. If they were the market. They wouldn't need to charge for Live. Will they? If they want to loose out on customers. A monopoly company would want to live long a posperus. What does it take to do that? All of these ideas I see are negitive on what would a monopoly actually do. But it wouldn't last that long if it did so it doesn't make any SENSE. Every company has a duty to its investors and itself to expand... Just because a company makes toys and games doesn't make them any less 'greedy' than another. If given the chance, they would charge more for the same product simply because that would equal positive growth for them. Again, video games are elastic, so they would lose a lot of customers, but they would also make a lot more money. A monopoly would just be a bad, bad situation for us, and all the workers at Sony, Nintendo and everywhere else.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="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.
LOXO7
A MS monopoly would be horrible. A Sony monopoly already happened and everything was fine.ParasomniacYou have to be kidding! 1st, there was never a Sony monopoly, they always had competition. 2nd if Sony had a monopoly the PS3 would still be $600. Is that what you want, a $600 console with crap online that was PSN? The ONLY reason the price went down was because of competition and the ONLY reason PSN started getting better was because of Xbox live. Sony did have a good hold on the markel last gen and the result was a $600 system and you think that is ok? Imagine if Sony did have a monopoly, what would the price of the console and the games be then?
Not only that it would certainly effect quality of Hardware and Software. I would rarther not see any of the big players go down. Although at one point i thought Sony was going down they hung on and prospered its a good market and like MS proved its one that you can still push into.learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
antifanboyftw
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.LOXO7Why wouldn't they raise prices? When there is competition, people will go to your competitors if they think your product is too expensive (see what happened to the PS3)
And not needing to lower the prices would be a bad thing.
Your post doesn't show how a monopol could be good. It just shows you don't understand any form of economics.
[QUOTE="antifanboyftw"]this. TC should do his research before making a threadlearn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
toast_burner
See the Ma Bell breakup 25 years ago and tell me what happened to phone prices.
It all depends on who is running the monopoly if it would be better or not.
You obivously know nothing about economy. Competition LOWERS prices, and monopoly RAISES them, not the other way around.
Hanass
Totally agree.
Why wouldn't they raise prices? When there is competition, people will go to your competitors if they think your product is too expensive (see what happened to the PS3)[QUOTE="LOXO7"]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.BuryMe
And not needing to lower the prices would be a bad thing.
Your post doesn't show how a monopol could be good. It just shows you don't understand any form of economics.
Why wouldn't they? Because they lose buyers. The PS3 reduced it's price because no one bought it yes. But don't you think it would be the same if it were a monopoly company? Not needing to lower the prices would be a bad thing if the price was very high. If it were at $600 for a console no one would buy, $500 more people but still not enough, $300 is said by analysts to be the sweet spot for console gaming price. If it stays at $300. All the time I wouldn't mind, untill it breaks. Which then WE decide if we want to pay again for another one or not. I wanted to get across that we the customer decides on how the market is. But if we blindly pay for things that could be lower. There is no hope that things will change.What are you talking about? Look at Live... Look at DLC... before the idea of charging for these things was absurd, MS is now making this common practice. Ppl pay cause theres no way around, they wouldn't loose many consumers cause there would be no alternatives. I think MS is happy where they are now. They would be even happier if they can surpass 50million unit mark on the 360. But I don't think this is ever going to happen because they charge for live. If they were the only one on the market. If they were the market. They wouldn't need to charge for Live. Will they? If they want to loose out on customers. A monopoly company would want to live long a posperus. What does it take to do that? All of these ideas I see are negitive on what would a monopoly actually do. But it wouldn't last that long if it did so it doesn't make any SENSE. wow, you are truly naive. microsoft is never content to just stay where they are now. they have no reason to charge for live right now, they do it because they get extra money. and the "they need to pay for the service" argument fails because sony has psn for free and the running of live is pocket change to microsoft, they loose billions a year with bing yet they keep it up. if they had a monopoly, do you ever think there would be a xbox720, no, they would keep the x360 until its costs too much to manufacture the old tech, there is no market reason to improve the console for gaming if there is no competition. you seem to have a very gracious opinion of microsoft, they dont give a **** about the consumer as long as they get money, if they destroy gaming completly, oh well, there goes a tiny, tiny, portion of their income that they would barely notice. the live off of windows and office, everything else is expendable to microsoft. so what if they loose tons of consumers because they raise prices, they dont really care, they just get their extra money. So let me put it this way. Microsoft is Not charitable, they are not a nice butterfly in your stomachs company. they will screw you over any chance they get and not have a second thought about it. the care about money and only money.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="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.
LOXO7
Why wouldn't they raise prices? When there is competition, people will go to your competitors if they think your product is too expensive (see what happened to the PS3)[QUOTE="BuryMe"]
[QUOTE="LOXO7"]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.LOXO7
And not needing to lower the prices would be a bad thing.
Your post doesn't show how a monopol could be good. It just shows you don't understand any form of economics.
Why wouldn't they? Because they lose buyers. The PS3 reduced it's price because no one bought it yes. But don't you think it would be the same if it were a monopoly company? Not needing to lower the prices would be a bad thing if the price was very high. If it were at $600 for a console no one would buy, $500 more people but still not enough, $300 is said by analysts to be the sweet spot for console gaming price. If it stays at $300. All the time I wouldn't mind, untill it breaks. Which then WE decide if we want to pay again for another one or not. I wanted to get across that we the customer decides on how the market is. But if we blindly pay for things that could be lower. There is no hope that things will change.No. The PSe wouldn't have had a price cut nearly as quickly if they didn't have any competition. If the PS3 was the only console, it would have sold much better at $600 because there was no alternative for any one.The only, and I mean ONLY reason the PS3 is less than $500 now is because sony was losing marketshare to Microsoft and Nintendo. In essence, it was competition that made them drop the price, not a lack of consumers.
wow, you are truly naive. microsoft is never content to just stay where they are now. they have no reason to charge for live right now, they do it because they get extra money. and the "they need to pay for the service" argument fails because sony has psn for free and the running of live is pocket change to microsoft, they loose billions a year with bing yet they keep it up. if they had a monopoly, do you ever think there would be a xbox720, no, they would keep the x360 until its costs too much to manufacture the old tech, there is no market reason to improve the console for gaming if there is no competition. you seem to have a very gracious opinion of microsoft, they dont give a **** about the consumer as long as they get money, if they destroy gaming completly, oh well, there goes a tiny, tiny, portion of their income that they would barely notice. the live off of windows and office, everything else is expendable to microsoft. so what if they loose tons of consumers because they raise prices, they dont really care, they just get their extra money. So let me put it this way. Microsoft is Not charitable, they are not a nice butterfly in your stomachs company. they will screw you over any chance they get and not have a second thought about it. the care about money and only money.ferret-gamerI changed my example from MS to Acompany, because I felt that haters of MS wouldn't like it x2 the effect. Regardless of the company. I like how MS does stuff though. They are pushing boundries like charging for their service. They are feeling out what they can and cannot do. Good for them. This isn't the way they get to 100 million consoles sold though. Competition has to keep goods at a competitive price. Monopolies dont. So this could make the prices skyrocket or lower then which they are today at the competitive price. They do care what the consumer thinks if they don't buy.
No. The PSe wouldn't have had a price cut nearly as quickly if they didn't have any competition. If the PS3 was the only console, it would have sold much better at $600 because there was no alternative for any one.You think that gamers are week and have no opinion too. Is there no way that you think that a monopoly in gaming would have lower prices than it has now? People don't need to have gaming as an oulet for entertainment so the prices wouldn't be as high as people think. My opinion of course.The only, and I mean ONLY reason the PS3 is less than $500 now is because sony was losing marketshare to Microsoft and Nintendo. In essence, it was competition that made them drop the price, not a lack of consumers.
BuryMe
Problem is they won't have to listen to consumers as much. As there are suddenly many more consumers.
So they could raise the price, and hold back development and innovation of gaming.
Also the consumer doesn't have much of a mind, she is easily manipulated by marketing. (avatar, mw2,) The marketing even shapes their opinions of the products. If You have good marketing then the people will like it more for buying it.
Perfect example of of monopoly is the Madden series....$60 rehash every year with $10 DLCs
Anyways, without competetion (360), Ps3 would be $500 at the least right now. Why do you think its $299 now? Did they want to lose money on every ps3 they sold so they can be nice? Hell no. They were never catching up to the 360 at the pace before the slim release. Plus XBL basically forced Sony to make PSN better. Without XBL, PSN would be crap...
No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.
Puckhog04
This is false... a monopoly by a hardware company would still force developers to have to make games that stand out since shovelware or average games will be easily brushed aside by better games on the console. The competition of game making would still be there, the only thing that would be gone is hardware competition.
[QUOTE="LOXO7"]I think MS is happy where they are now. They would be even happier if they can surpass 50million unit mark on the 360. But I don't think this is ever going to happen because they charge for live. If they were the only one on the market. If they were the market. They wouldn't need to charge for Live. Will they? If they want to loose out on customers. A monopoly company would want to live long a posperus. What does it take to do that? All of these ideas I see are negitive on what would a monopoly actually do. But it wouldn't last that long if it did so it doesn't make any SENSE. wow, you are truly naive. microsoft is never content to just stay where they are now. they have no reason to charge for live right now, they do it because they get extra money. and the "they need to pay for the service" argument fails because sony has psn for free and the running of live is pocket change to microsoft, they loose billions a year with bing yet they keep it up. if they had a monopoly, do you ever think there would be a xbox720, no, they would keep the x360 until its costs too much to manufacture the old tech, there is no market reason to improve the console for gaming if there is no competition. you seem to have a very gracious opinion of microsoft, they dont give a **** about the consumer as long as they get money, if they destroy gaming completly, oh well, there goes a tiny, tiny, portion of their income that they would barely notice. the live off of windows and office, everything else is expendable to microsoft. so what if they loose tons of consumers because they raise prices, they dont really care, they just get their extra money. So let me put it this way. Microsoft is Not charitable, they are not a nice butterfly in your stomachs company. they will screw you over any chance they get and not have a second thought about it. the care about money and only money.[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] What are you talking about? Look at Live... Look at DLC... before the idea of charging for these things was absurd, MS is now making this common practice. Ppl pay cause theres no way around, they wouldn't loose many consumers cause there would be no alternatives.ferret-gamer
Wow, quite a rant there. By the way, do you have your computer running on a Windows OS? Because if you do, it would confirm your hypocrisy..
Yeah listen to this guy... please kid take a basic economic class... I'm doing an economics Major in University. Nothing good comes out of a monopoly for the consumer lol... only for the people who control the monopoly!!!learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
antifanboyftw
[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]
No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.
Espada12
This is false... a monopoly by a hardware company would still force developers to have to make games that stand out since shovelware or average games will be easily brushed aside by better games on the console. The competition of game making would still be there, the only thing that would be gone is hardware competition.
Games won't be able to exploit newer tech, and hardware innovations -- such as achievements or motion controls or anything -- would be pretty much nonexistent. There would be no need to bring the industry to the next level. So yes, indirectly, worse hardware = worse games.
No you got it dead wrong. More like why would they lower prices. Where else are you going to get a gaming experience? Why do you think Sony, MS, and even Nintendo have price drops on their systems? Because there's no competition?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.
LOXO7
[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="Puckhog04"]
No competition = Worse games. Pretty simple really. Anyone with any basic economic sense knows this. TC fails.
WAIW
This is false... a monopoly by a hardware company would still force developers to have to make games that stand out since shovelware or average games will be easily brushed aside by better games on the console. The competition of game making would still be there, the only thing that would be gone is hardware competition.
Games won't be able to exploit newer tech, and hardware innovations -- such as achievements or motion controls or anything -- would be pretty much nonexistent. There would be no need to bring the industry to the next level. So yes, indirectly, worse hardware = worse games.That could be said, but not using new tech doesn't actually make the game worse, it makes the hardware worse but the games running on said hardware don't actually get worse, since there's no other thing to compare the games to also makes it wrong per say to say the games would get worse.
Games won't be able to exploit newer tech, and hardware innovations -- such as achievements or motion controls or anything -- would be pretty much nonexistent. There would be no need to bring the industry to the next level. So yes, indirectly, worse hardware = worse games.[QUOTE="WAIW"][QUOTE="Espada12"]
This is false... a monopoly by a hardware company would still force developers to have to make games that stand out since shovelware or average games will be easily brushed aside by better games on the console. The competition of game making would still be there, the only thing that would be gone is hardware competition.
Espada12
That could be said, but not using new tech doesn't actually make the game worse, it makes the hardware worse but the games running on said hardware don't actually get worse, since there's no other thing to compare the games to also makes it wrong per say to say the games would get worse.
Well, they wouldn't get much better, which is also bad.[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="WAIW"] Games won't be able to exploit newer tech, and hardware innovations -- such as achievements or motion controls or anything -- would be pretty much nonexistent. There would be no need to bring the industry to the next level. So yes, indirectly, worse hardware = worse games.WAIW
That could be said, but not using new tech doesn't actually make the game worse, it makes the hardware worse but the games running on said hardware don't actually get worse, since there's no other thing to compare the games to also makes it wrong per say to say the games would get worse.
Well, they wouldn't get much better, which is also bad.I agree, your point could have been gaming wouldn't evolve which is true and that would suck.
Well, they wouldn't get much better, which is also bad.[QUOTE="WAIW"][QUOTE="Espada12"]
That could be said, but not using new tech doesn't actually make the game worse, it makes the hardware worse but the games running on said hardware don't actually get worse, since there's no other thing to compare the games to also makes it wrong per say to say the games would get worse.
Espada12
I agree, your point could have been gaming wouldn't evolve which is true and that would suck.
My train of thought was that since standards are raised over time, a 2008 game in 2011 would feel "worse." But you're right, it isn't any worse, it's just not any better.Three major companies in the gaming industry today is hardly competition. Every new game introduced is not reduced of a price because of the "competition" $60 is the launch price. Not $55 or $50. Is a multiplat game retailed for a less price on Sony then MS's? Nope. I've concluded that people now are paying too much for videogames and thier systems. We don't have the competition that everyone talks about. If we do then 3 compaines is... a small competition with small reductions of prices.Perfect example of of monopoly is the Madden series....$60 rehash every year with $10 DLCs
Anyways, without competetion (360), Ps3 would be $500 at the least right now. Why do you think its $299 now? Did they want to lose money on every ps3 they sold so they can be nice? Hell no. They were never catching up to the 360 at the pace before the slim release. Plus XBL basically forced Sony to make PSN better. Without XBL, PSN would be crap...
Modern_Unit
wow, you are truly naive. microsoft is never content to just stay where they are now. they have no reason to charge for live right now, they do it because they get extra money. and the "they need to pay for the service" argument fails because sony has psn for free and the running of live is pocket change to microsoft, they loose billions a year with bing yet they keep it up. if they had a monopoly, do you ever think there would be a xbox720, no, they would keep the x360 until its costs too much to manufacture the old tech, there is no market reason to improve the console for gaming if there is no competition. you seem to have a very gracious opinion of microsoft, they dont give a **** about the consumer as long as they get money, if they destroy gaming completly, oh well, there goes a tiny, tiny, portion of their income that they would barely notice. the live off of windows and office, everything else is expendable to microsoft. so what if they loose tons of consumers because they raise prices, they dont really care, they just get their extra money. So let me put it this way. Microsoft is Not charitable, they are not a nice butterfly in your stomachs company. they will screw you over any chance they get and not have a second thought about it. the care about money and only money.[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] I think MS is happy where they are now. They would be even happier if they can surpass 50million unit mark on the 360. But I don't think this is ever going to happen because they charge for live. If they were the only one on the market. If they were the market. They wouldn't need to charge for Live. Will they? If they want to loose out on customers. A monopoly company would want to live long a posperus. What does it take to do that? All of these ideas I see are negitive on what would a monopoly actually do. But it wouldn't last that long if it did so it doesn't make any SENSE.
Modern_Unit
Wow, quite a rant there. By the way, do you have your computer running on a Windows OS? Because if you do, it would confirm your hypocrisy..
erm, how would that make me a hypocrite, im not saying that windows is worthless and should not be used, i am saying microsoft only cares about money. and for your information i have both ubuntu and windows partitions, i only use windows for games, ubuntu for everything elseThree major companies in the gaming industry today is hardly competition. Every new game introduced is not reduced of a price because of the "competition" $60 is the launch price. Not $55 or $50. Is a multiplat game retailed for a less price on Sony then MS's? Nope. I've concluded that people now are paying too much for videogames and thier systems. We don't have the competition that everyone talks about. If we do then 3 compaines is... a small competition with small reductions of prices. It's funny you say that, because Wii games are actually $50, and a lot of games release at cheaper prices, such as the new Banjo and Wipeout HD. Software's a different beast than hardware anyway. These devs need to make a profit; even at $60, a lot of good companies are going under. And, in fact, we've had a lot more than 3 MAJOR companies, it's just that many of them have been competed out of the industry, such as SEGA and their famed Dreamcast last decade. We only consider the big 3 because of their quality, which competition spawned in the first place.[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]
Perfect example of of monopoly is the Madden series....$60 rehash every year with $10 DLCs
Anyways, without competetion (360), Ps3 would be $500 at the least right now. Why do you think its $299 now? Did they want to lose money on every ps3 they sold so they can be nice? Hell no. They were never catching up to the 360 at the pace before the slim release. Plus XBL basically forced Sony to make PSN better. Without XBL, PSN would be crap...
LOXO7
[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Three major companies in the gaming industry today is hardly competition. Every new game introduced is not reduced of a price because of the "competition" $60 is the launch price. Not $55 or $50. Is a multiplat game retailed for a less price on Sony then MS's? Nope. I've concluded that people now are paying too much for videogames and thier systems. We don't have the competition that everyone talks about. If we do then 3 compaines is... a small competition with small reductions of prices. It's funny you say that, because Wii games are actually $50, and a lot of games release at cheaper prices, such as the new Banjo and Wipeout HD. Software's a different beast than hardware anyway. These devs need to make a profit; even at $60, a lot of good companies are going under. And, in fact, we've had a lot more than 3 MAJOR companies, it's just that many of them have been competed out of the industry, such as SEGA and their famed Dreamcast last decade. We only consider the big 3 because of their quality, which competition spawned in the first place.[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]
Perfect example of of monopoly is the Madden series....$60 rehash every year with $10 DLCs
Anyways, without competetion (360), Ps3 would be $500 at the least right now. Why do you think its $299 now? Did they want to lose money on every ps3 they sold so they can be nice? Hell no. They were never catching up to the 360 at the pace before the slim release. Plus XBL basically forced Sony to make PSN better. Without XBL, PSN would be crap...
WAIW
Sega is one not a lot.All console gaming has beenthree companies. PC gaming market is a much better example of benifits of competition than console. Vavle is selling games bellow $10. And they're are many manufacturers of PC hardware. Not OS though as you can see how much they cost.And about the devs not making profit at $60 should say something about the decisions that dev has made.
Edit: Oh the idea behind Wii's $50 price tag on games is that it doesn't have as good graphics. It seems that is the reason not competition. We gamers make excuses for the compaines we pay to. This is stupid.
Three major companies in the gaming industry today is hardly competition. Every new game introduced is not reduced of a price because of the "competition" $60 is the launch price. Not $55 or $50. Is a multiplat game retailed for a less price on Sony then MS's? Nope. I've concluded that people now are paying too much for videogames and thier systems. We don't have the competition that everyone talks about. If we do then 3 compaines is... a small competition with small reductions of prices.[QUOTE="Modern_Unit"]
Perfect example of of monopoly is the Madden series....$60 rehash every year with $10 DLCs
Anyways, without competetion (360), Ps3 would be $500 at the least right now. Why do you think its $299 now? Did they want to lose money on every ps3 they sold so they can be nice? Hell no. They were never catching up to the 360 at the pace before the slim release. Plus XBL basically forced Sony to make PSN better. Without XBL, PSN would be crap...
LOXO7
You seem to forget that the retailers set prices for games
The middle man is the problem
a monopoly is the equivelant to a girl holding a guy by the balls for her own pleasing.Putting it bluntly aftera few drinks at the pub.
You need to learn about economy to understand that a monopoly in anything is horrendous.
they always say that, but look at like phone or power companies as soon as the competition came in they all just kept jacking the prices up. one puts the price up so do the others. I would be great if you have one system and all games work on it, there is no benefit in need 2-3 systems to play every game.learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
antifanboyftw
learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
they always say that, but look at like phone or power companies as soon as the competition came in they all just kept jacking the prices up. one puts the price up so do the others. I would be great if you have one system and all games work on it, there is no benefit in need 2-3 systems to play every game. are you kidding? with phone companies (at least where I live) they keep giving us more features for free. but what happens is, competition lowers prices and at the same time, motivates the company to produce higher quality products. This is how they attract more customers that go to them intead of the competition.[QUOTE="antifanboyftw"]they always say that, but look at like phone or power companies as soon as the competition came in they all just kept jacking the prices up. one puts the price up so do the others. I would be great if you have one system and all games work on it, there is no benefit in need 2-3 systems to play every game.learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
imprezawrx500
Well for power companies it could be getting more expensive whatever they are selling
As for the phone companies I have never seen them jack up prices, they are going down and adding more features here
You have to be kidding! 1st, there was never a Sony monopoly, they always had competition. 2nd if Sony had a monopoly the PS3 would still be $600. Is that what you want, a $600 console with crap online that was PSN? The ONLY reason the price went down was because of competition and the ONLY reason PSN started getting better was because of Xbox live. Sony did have a good hold on the markel last gen and the result was a $600 system and you think that is ok? Imagine if Sony did have a monopoly, what would the price of the console and the games be then? I agree with 80% of what you wrote, but i'm also sure that a M$ monopoly would be much worse than a Sony one.[QUOTE="Parasomniac"]A MS monopoly would be horrible. A Sony monopoly already happened and everything was fine.T-Aldous
It would be bad. Really bad. You know how MS charges so much for WiFi adapters and HDDs? It would be much worse. Controllers would cost more, game quality would dip with games that would once have been AAA exclusives. Online would require a large sum of cash (atleast $50 a month) and the PS3 would be around $400 or more right now. Plus, if Nintendo took over, we'd be playing all that casual crap. If there was a monopoly on gaming, I would stop gaming.
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] I think MS is happy where they are now. They would be even happier if they can surpass 50million unit mark on the 360. But I don't think this is ever going to happen because they charge for live. If they were the only one on the market. If they were the market. They wouldn't need to charge for Live. Will they? If they want to loose out on customers. A monopoly company would want to live long a posperus. What does it take to do that? All of these ideas I see are negitive on what would a monopoly actually do. But it wouldn't last that long if it did so it doesn't make any SENSE.
wow, you are truly naive. microsoft is never content to just stay where they are now. they have no reason to charge for live right now, they do it because they get extra money. and the "they need to pay for the service" argument fails because sony has psn for free and the running of live is pocket change to microsoft, they loose billions a year with bing yet they keep it up. if they had a monopoly, do you ever think there would be a xbox720, no, they would keep the x360 until its costs too much to manufacture the old tech, there is no market reason to improve the console for gaming if there is no competition. you seem to have a very gracious opinion of microsoft, they dont give a **** about the consumer as long as they get money, if they destroy gaming completly, oh well, there goes a tiny, tiny, portion of their income that they would barely notice. the live off of windows and office, everything else is expendable to microsoft. so what if they loose tons of consumers because they raise prices, they dont really care, they just get their extra money. So let me put it this way. Microsoft is Not charitable, they are not a nice butterfly in your stomachs company. they will screw you over any chance they get and not have a second thought about it. the care about money and only money.Wow, quite a rant there. By the way, do you have your computer running on a Windows OS? Because if you do, it would confirm your hypocrisy..
You do realise that computers usually come with the windows OS, right? I fail to see the hypocrisy.learn basic economics. there would be no benefit in removing competition.
they always say that, but look at like phone or power companies as soon as the competition came in they all just kept jacking the prices up. one puts the price up so do the others. I would be great if you have one system and all games work on it, there is no benefit in need 2-3 systems to play every game. And in what dimension do you reside? I'ld like to know because from where i'm from phone prices are actually sinking(though it took too long).Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment