CRank: 5Score: 0

Why Competition Is Bad For The Gaming Industry

In every market that exists the same rule aplies:

More competition = Better deal for consumers

That is of course excluding the gaming industry...

What we have now is what I believe to be a perfect balance, 3 consoles offering consumers a choice, preventing a monopoly and each with its own set of great games. What is also good about our current situation is that one is completely different to the other two (the wii) and sets itself apart. The 360 and PS3 have differences as well but they are not as set apart as the wii is.

When you think about the annoyance over shoddy ports from either console which causes grief to the consumer, and the annoyance of not being able to play the game you want because its on another console you can see that more competition would definetely be a bad thing.

The console market seems balanced at a equilibriam at the moment: providing a fair amount of choice for consumers whilst preventing huge game divisions between many consoles.

The next gen I fear could change this balance or if not the next gen, the one after that. This is due to the threat of companies like Apple joining the console market. Imagine having about 5 similar machines to choose from. As a gamer one is likely to desire exclusive games on each platform and if he / she does choose one is more than likely to end up playing a few shoddy ports.

So the console market is saturated enough!


The story is too old to be commented.
Telmarine3844d ago

Yes, but without competition, it's worse than with competition

Tomdc3844d ago

yes I completely agree, but what im getting at is that at the moment we are at a good balance between to much and to little competition.

LJWooly3844d ago

Interesting viewpoint, and I agree, to a certain extent. Yes, too much competition is a bad thing, but even worse is too little. You're right in saying that, as of now, we have the perfect equilibrium, too. Neither console is "failing" or is going to fail (as was the case with the Gamecube) so it's all pretty well-balanced.

We could do, however, without the Wii being as successful as it is, because it is, rather selfishly, aimed at the casual market, and, albeit only to a slight extent, is holding back the gaming industry, at least for this gen. IT's not having a detrimental effect as of yet, of course, but if Nintendo don't aim for a different demographic next generation, and continue to cater for the casual, then we've got ourselves a rather large problem.

Defectiv3_Detectiv33842d ago

The part that gets me about competition is how consoles try too hard to be the one featuring the most advanced tech, yet they don't spend enough time dev. for that tech. By the time game engines are perfected a new set of hardware comes out and those engines are rendered useless.

Just look at how many "next-gen" games come out that are just glorified "last-gen" games. Ninja Gaiden is a perfect example of this - an awesome game in its own right but a game that could have been done on XBOX1(and many would argue was already done). I think that is why you see such low scores this game along with titles that follow the pattern(although Halo3 and GTA4 seem to be the exception to the rule.)

bama3842d ago

The nes used 8 bit tech while everyone else used 16 bit, but you all paraised it. PS3 and 360 overshot the average user by being to pricey and having features no one needs (*cough*saturn*cough*). The Wii came in and disrupted the industry. And dont forget a disruptor = crummy product aimed at non-consumers. The nes was aimed at kids "non-consumers" while pcs had epic rpgs and such. And as for casual games what were duck hunt, the nes power pad, etc.? Did these games kill the industry, no the nes evolved up tiers absorbing tarditional gamers. So does the Wii. In the end the PS3 will be seen as sony's last attempt to appear relevent (aka atari jaguar) and the 360 will be none as a console that never had any strength outside of its one territory (aka sega saturn). And the Xbox was just a counter for the Playstation, Playstations threatened to rival PC gaming so microsoft went and created a console that wouldnt destroy the PS but disrupt it enough for someone else to (aka nintendo).

Defectiv3_Detectiv33842d ago

The PS3 is Sony's last attempt to stay relevant!? Playstation paved the way for modern console gaming as we know it. Sure, nintendo is argueably a more important contributor, but do you see them doing anything to push the limits of gaming now?

Nintendo may have struck gold w/ the Wii, but when people are ready for a true gaming experience they're going to get a PS3 or a 360. The attache rate for these consoles is all the evidence you'll ever need. People can only play re-hashed Nintendo games for so long.

bama3842d ago

I imagine people stayed with Atari as well, things change man get over it. Atari fanboys said the same thing. And i find it funny how everyone thinks the industry revolves around the "hardcore". News Flash: the industry doesn't give a damn about you. Newton, PS3mote? If a company relies too much on the hardcore they'll get crushed, I'm looking at you Sega. "People can only play re-hashed Nintendo games for so long." In case you haven't noticed the traditional gamer is aging. Most people who played the originals on NES and SNES don't game anymore.

Read This :
and this :
and read this first :

And Cry Mr. Hardcore

bama3842d ago (Edited 3842d ago )

Did the PS! or PS2 push gaming : yes

Did the Jaguar or the 3DO (the advanced systems of their time) : no

Gaming is based on how products effect the industry, if game companies painted sh*t in gold and only the hardcore bought it then the industry would die

Oh and as a fanboy you ignored all of my points and focused on how i said the PS3 is doomed. My point is that the NES a wayunderpowered console effected gaming allot more then the more techincal tigers of its time, do you object to this?