A monopoly wouldn't be bad in gaming

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

You need to learn about economy to understand that a monopoly in anything is horrendous.

RadecSupreme

haha, I wont even argue with you because you seem to think a monopoly is beneficial in anyway.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"]Well im not sure how it works in the US but we have regulators to ensure monopolies dont overcharge, however if they were left to their own devices they probably wouldnt improve consumer welfare. However saying monopoly is always unfavorable is wrong. Another example is with water companies because of the sheer scale of it having a monopoly is the best thing to acquire these economies of scale which drive down cost and its the only practical way to do things. Im not trying to spin anything or what, a monopoly is not always unfavorable.

Read Huusasking second to last post about natural monopolies.

yoyo462001

Exaclty, however a regulated monopoly is a special circumstance (regulations have been set in place explicitly because of the short comings of the monopoly). You won't find any benefits that an unbound monopoly has over a competitive market (strictly speaking).

Horrible thing to do.

You do realise competition is needed to lower prices for better performance between companies. A monopoly would only make things worse. It would mean higher prices of products, software, ect.

Competition benefits us, as buyers. There would also be no room for improvement and no advancement in the gaming world. You should take a class known as economics, because this idea its horrific.

[QUOTE="hoola"]

[QUOTE="93soccer"]I'm gonna guess you/person the article is from doesn't know what a monopoly is. Say hypotehtically(sorry spelled it wrong I think) I own a chocolate company and I'm the only one in the world now since the other company went bankrupt last month. If last month I was selling my chocolate for $3 since I was in competition, now that I am alone, I can charge whatever I want. I can charge $500 and get away with it because I'm the only source of chocolate for the people and they have to buy my product regardless of the price. Same thing in the gaming industry. If it became a monopoly, the company could charge whatever it wants to increase it's profit because it knows people would buy it since they dont have a choiceyoyo462001

Would you pay $500 for a chocolate bar? Would you pay $1000 for a console and $200 for a game? No and No and No? that is what i thought. They CAN NOT charge whatever they want for games if they want to continue being a profitable company. if they DID charge that amount for games then a competitor would enter the industry and COMPETE with them by offering a similar product for lower prices.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"]Well im not sure how it works in the US but we have regulators to ensure monopolies dont overcharge, however if they were left to their own devices they probably wouldnt improve consumer welfare. However saying monopoly is always unfavorable is wrong. Another example is with water companies because of the sheer scale of it having a monopoly is the best thing to acquire these economies of scale which drive down cost and its the only practical way to do things. Im not trying to spin anything or what, a monopoly is not always unfavorable.

Read Huusasking second to last post about natural monopolies.

yoyo462001

Exaclty, however a regulated monopoly is a special circumstance (regulations have been set in place explicitly because of the short comings of the monopoly). You won't find any benefits that an unbound monopoly has over a competitive market (strictly speaking).

Why would a monopoly have to research or develop new things?

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="hoola"]

Would you pay $500 for a chocolate bar? Would you pay $1000 for a console and $200 for a game? No and No and No? that is what i thought. They CAN NOT charge whatever they want for games if they want to continue being a profitable company. if they DID charge that amount for games then a competitor would enter the industry and COMPETE with them by offering a similar product for lower prices.

tok1879

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"][QUOTE="skektek"]

Exaclty, however a regulated monopoly is a special circumstance (regulations have been set in place explicitly because of the short comings of the monopoly). You won't find any benefits that an unbound monopoly has over a competitive market (strictly speaking).

Burning-Sludge

Why would a monopoly have to research or develop new things?

Monopolies are great for say .. drug companies, where they use their supernormal profits to invest in research and development, which leads to breakthrough medical treatment and saves millions of lives. Monopolies usually produce at lower costs, technically they can have lower prices too, but monoplies 9/10 are profit maximisers. What this would mean for the gaming industry is this - restricted output (less consoles on the shelves) and higher prices. Monopolies essentially ignore demand and produce a certain level of output to justify steep prices.

That's not a remotely desirable situation.

EDIT - I'm liking the amount of economic students in system wars

I disagree full heartedly. They wouldn't lower prices or anything. They don't keep prices up for competition?? That's a rediculous claim.

[QUOTE="Burning-Sludge"]

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"] Benefit of pure monopoly over perfectly competitive market: Because monopolies can gain super normal profit they can reinvest profits into research and development little economies of scale are gained in a perfectly competitive market thus Long run average costs are not driven down Sometimes its just not practical to have more than one firm ie natural monopolies. Here are 3 benefits, obviously ive argued extremes of both but the point should still stand. competition is nearly always good i dont think anyone disputes that but saying their are no benefits of a monopolistic market structure is being ignorant of the fundamentals of a monopoly structured market.yoyo462001

Why would a monopoly have to research or develop new things?