So a Sony gaming monopoly is ok, but a Microsoft Monopoly is not?

Now, granted, NO monopoly is good, unless its made by Milton Bradley, but I keep hearing of this mythological, presumed monopoly that would happen if Microsoft beat Sony this gen (which they will). Was there not a monopoly last gen when Sony ps2 sold over 115 mil and GC and XBox sold under 25 mil each? A little bit of hypocrisy there, perhaps?

 Now the next thing I say might shock some, and I hesitate to say it, but even IF MS got a monopoly on videogaming, "buying up franchises with their greedy hands" as some say, I wouldn't care as much than if Sony did or Nintendo did. Part of my reason would be because its American (stupid reason, I know, but don't care) and secondly because even in the PC industry MS monopoly does not affect their drive to improve products and for the most part, people are generally happy with their OS and software. They did bring alot ot gaming even in their first foray, and they've improved on it exponentially this gen, so why would it be so evil even IF it happened.Sony had a virtual monopoly on the gaming market share and what did they do with it? Launched a console for 600 bucks and used lies to sell it.

I'm just sayin...let's stop the hypocrisy guys. 

It's just business.

People that don't understand that will whine. Monopolies aren't legal, but a company getting as close to a monopoly as possible without actually being considered a monopoly is ideal for a business.

It's just business.

People that don't understand that will whine. Monopolies aren't legal, but a company getting as close to a monopoly as possible without actually being considered a monopoly is ideal for a business.

Puckhog04

A Sony monopoly is better than a Microsoft monopoly because unlike Microsoft, Sony hasn't already taken over the computer software industry. But Sony never had monopoly anyway the last two gens so it really doesnt matter.Truth-slayer

 Having virtually 60 percent of the market share over TWO competitors is as close to a virtual monopoly as one would get in this industry.

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

It's just business.

People that don't understand that will whine. Monopolies aren't legal, but a company getting as close to a monopoly as possible without actually being considered a monopoly is ideal for a business.

lowe0

Well, i more or less meant the latter of what you said in your post.

Now, granted, NO monopoly is good, unless its made by Milton Bradley, but I keep hearing of this mythological, presumed monopoly that would happen if Microsoft beat Sony this gen (which they will). Was there not a monopoly last gen when Sony ps2 sold over 115 mil and GC and XBox sold under 25 mil each? A little bit of hypocrisy there, perhaps?

 Now the next thing I say might shock some, and I hesitate to say it, but even IF MS got a monopoly on videogaming, "buying up franchises with their greedy hands" as some say, I wouldn't care as much than if Sony did or Nintendo did. Part of my reason would be because its American (stupid reason, I know, but don't care) and secondly because even in the PC industry MS monopoly does not affect their drive to improve products and for the most part, people are generally happy with their OS and software. They did bring alot ot gaming even in their first foray, and they've improved on it exponentially this gen, so why would it be so evil even IF it happened.Sony had a virtual monopoly on the gaming market share and what did they do with it? Launched a console for 600 bucks and used lies to sell it.

I'm just sayin...let's stop the hypocrisy guys. 

shsonline

nintendo has always been there and microsolfs xbox held its own so NO, bo company yet has monopolysed the gaming industry yet...

Now, granted, NO monopoly is good, unless its made by Milton Bradley, but I keep hearing of this mythological, presumed monopoly that would happen if Microsoft beat Sony this gen (which they will). Was there not a monopoly last gen when Sony ps2 sold over 115 mil and GC and XBox sold under 25 mil each? A little bit of hypocrisy there, perhaps?

Now the next thing I say might shock some, and I hesitate to say it, but even IF MS got a monopoly on videogaming, "buying up franchises with their greedy hands" as some say, I wouldn't care as much than if Sony did or Nintendo did. Part of my reason would be because its American (stupid reason, I know, but don't care) and secondly because even in the PC industry MS monopoly does not affect their drive to improve products and for the most part, people are generally happy with their OS and software. They did bring alot ot gaming even in their first foray, and they've improved on it exponentially this gen, so why would it be so evil even IF it happened.Sony had a virtual monopoly on the gaming market share and what did they do with it? Launched a console for 600 bucks and used lies to sell it.

I'm just sayin...let's stop the hypocrisy guys.

shsonline

You have to remember one thing. If it benefits cows its OK!But if it does  not benefit cows then it is "teh SUX!"

Isn't it an oligopoly? I could be wrong. Econ 101 was a while ago.terrellpakeman

The only company that was close to a monopoly was Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft won't ever be monopolies since there is too much competition. The only people complaining about Microsoft becoming a monopoly in the console industry are whining communist.Tokaithegreat

People are generally happy with MS's OS and software because they're not introduced to alternatives. If everyone ate steak exclusively at Casual Joe's, well, nobody would be complaining that steak at Casual Joe's is mediocre. Furthermore, sales, although obviously correlated with, do not directly translate into marketshare. Some of the previous posters are correct: the only time in the VG market there was a near monopoly was the reign of the NES (post 1986), a system that commanded more than 90% of the marketshare. Indeed, their behavior towards developers and retailers was far more reminiscent of a company with a monopoly than that of Sony's during last gen. Bottom line: No company will gain any monopoly in the VG business.Tristam22

Fair enough. Just wanted to shed light on the hypocrisy of "teh MS videogame monopoly" false risk. 

Not in the NES era. Sega had the Master system at the time and most people to this day don't know what the master system is. During the NES era Nintendo owned 95% of the market and threatened publishers by pulling their licenses if they didn't stay exclusive to the NES.

Dont u have to buy companies out to start a monopoly?

"didn't sega have good market share back then?"

 

Not in the NES era. Sega had the Master system at the time and most people to this day don't know what the master system is. During the NES era Nintendo owned 95% of the market and threatened publishers by pulling their licenses if they didn't stay exclusive to the NES.

Tokaithegreat

Now that sounds like a company trying to start a monopoly.

Yeah..your topic title is misinformed. Sony never had a monoply, and I've never seen a cow on this forum wishing for one.shungokustasu

So you've only been posting here for five minutes then? Do you know how many cows I've seen in my past year and a half I wasted on this forum that wished for everything nonSony to just die out so Sony could "rule forever"? Cows hate console competition almost as much as sheep hate handheld competition. They never said the term "monopoly", but they obviously wanted one in their blind stupidity.

A Sony monopoly is better than a Microsoft monopoly because unlike Microsoft, Sony hasn't already taken over the computer software industry. But Sony never had monopoly anyway the last two gens so it really doesnt matter.Truth-slayer

Dont u have to buy companies out to start a monopoly?

-Sir-Poof-

yup

We saw a glimpse of what Sony would do if they became a monopoly (with the PS3): they would try and make gaming more expensive. No monopoly would be good; even if Nintendo became the monopoly I would give up gaming, and that's saying somethingMass_Effect

Right....... Sony monopolize the gaming by buying out Sega, Nintendo, Square-Enix huh?

Who is the one buying out game developers? Who was the one that was trying to buy Nintendo again? Thats right, Microsoft. They're starting to do what they did with their WINDOWS product to the video game community, XBOX fanboys.

Wait what? Sony was playing monopoly these past 2 years? Huh? Last time I checked, Microsoft was trying to buy Nintendo. Sony was just dominating with their own products without using Microsoft's dirty tactics.Mr_BillGates

Wow, I did not expect someone names Mr BillGates to argue against the topic...good to know you are not a blinded fanboy.

if anyone knows why n one wants a MS monopoly then the answer is below: Windows-Y2J-

Pretty much summed up my reasons why I wouldn't want it as a monopoly, pretty effectively too.  

Right....... Sony monopolize the gaming by buying out Sega, Nintendo, Square-Enix huh?

Who is the one buying out game developers? Who was the one that was trying to buy Nintendo again? Thats right, Microsoft. They're starting to do what they did with their WINDOWS product to the video game community, XBOX fanboys.

redneckdouglas

[QUOTE="redneckdouglas"]

Right....... Sony monopolize the gaming by buying out Sega, Nintendo, Square-Enix huh?

Who is the one buying out game developers? Who was the one that was trying to buy Nintendo again? Thats right, Microsoft. They're starting to do what they did with their WINDOWS product to the video game community, XBOX fanboys.

Kekira