Are console wars good for gaming?

article via Joystiq

A Gameworld Network opinion piece explores the implications of console wars which Wikipedia defines as "periods of intense competition for market share between video game console manufacturers." The author blames the obvious, competition, as the downfall for such beloved consoles like the Dreamcast, least he forgets the failures of the competitor (Sega in this case).

Excerpt here: "Does good competition offset the loss of great companies? Did videogames become better when the Dreamcast surrendered?... The console war brings with it great competition, which has created some of the best consoles around. But the console war has also had its share of casualties - some of which were some of the best consoles around. And that is why I think the console war, despite all of its good intentions, is not good for gaming."

Competition: It's a cruel world, folks.

Got any views about the Console Wars?

compagny make their own war of price of curse its for us because we buy cheaper things its sweet

competition is always a good think. However the pitfalls of picking a doomed system can suck.

Its great if not we would still be stuck with the colecovision. LOL

competition is good, however when they dish in high prices, it could be bad....

competition is always a good thing it weeds out the crap and leaves the good.... or the guy with the most money

competion is a good thing, it pushes companies to make better consoles but with higher prices, but not for the Wii!

'War' = good
Monopoly = bad

Imagine if Sony was the ONLY video game company. Would you pay $1000+ for a PSP? $100 for a game?
Like I said, 'war' is good.

if there wasn't console war, they'd be no-one to say the Halo series is a bunch of over-hyped derivative fps games.

Yet Nintendo gives us the best prices and cool inovations.

Competition is good for the reason Shiaoran said:
no Monopolies. :)

Competition killed the Dreamcast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SSaxdude

Competition killed the Dreamcast.

---

True, but that's because it came out too early. Sega could be huge right now if they had released later...

Sega killed Dreamcast.
If they didn't had disposed of Saturn too soon, thus releasing Dreamcast too soon. BUT Dreamcast is still used by many. THEY said that Dreamcast was dead. They could still be one of the great console makers, and there would surely be a 7G Sega console in the works or already released.
I doubt that Microsoft will say that 360 is dead one year from now just because it was released one year before the other consoles.

How could other companies have killed Dreamcast? What it didn't had that others do?
I've yet to see a cooler memory card than VMU.
No console can take some of Dreamcast's merits. Dreamcast was the first console to go online. Dreamcast was the first 128bit console.
Just to say a couple.

I give many props to Dreamcast too, Shiaran.

Sega is the reason EA's Madden is so good. the 2K series had equal gameplay, better online play, and better commentators. plus it was 20 bucks... b4 them, 989's original Gameday for the PSOne made EA scrap Madden for a year... the punx... competition is always good, no matter what it is. it makes companies and individuals get off they azz and put in work. its the reason why they cram alot of features in games and consoles. and cars and tvs, etc for that matter.

da relic

SEega hasn't released anything worth playing since the death of dreamcast. MS filled the void and we were back to a three way battle with little rest. nintendo's all who's left for me. other than some psp homebrew and psp apps, i only play my dslite these days. a new pc i built over xmas rid me of any x360 cravings (pc oblivion), and my PS2, GCN, and xbox haven't even been turned on in months (my saturn and dc are really dusty).

How about if we think in terms of software wars, not console. Everyone agrees that it's not the console that wins the battle, but the software. That is why war is good. The console manufacturers need the software to sell the console. We talk about how the companies take losses on the hardware, and make it back on the software. The Dreamcast was a revolutionary system. But where was the "One" title that sold the system? I guess I would say Soul Calibur. But I don't think one fighting game will get the job done. The consoles have to be cutting edge so that the developers have the best hardware to develop, and run their software. That is why war is great. It keeps us all with new technology and better graphics, and better games. Well, sometimes better games anyhow.

Competition is good, but when it goes too far it becomes bad especially if they lose sight of their objectives, where i come from, gaming consoles are only going in one direction, getting more and more expensive. If the competition becomes too intense and all of the companies start bring in the 'big guns' which would of course burn a bigger hole in a consumer's pocket, the product becomes less affordable. When sales go down or are bad to begin with, prices also go down to reduce losses. Their competitors are then forced to lower their prices as well in order to follow the prices to remain attractive to the public. Competition to the extent of obliteration is definitely bad, the gaming industry is more or less one of the largest industries in the world. Could u imagine the impact of a company like Sony or Microsoft being closed down? i don't mean any offence but the Cold War was due to intense competition and look where that got them...

I would say competition is good for gaming in some ways, because companies then strive to bring out better and better games...It's bad in the sense that maybe a pretty new system isn't exploited as much as it should be and all of the sudden, rival companies decide to release technology that's leaps and bounds ahead of that system, making gamers in general abandon it and go with the more tech-savvy console. *Cough*Cough*dreamcastsonyplaystation*Cough*Cough*
In my opinion, it's pretty sweet though, when a hot game gets released for everybody to enjoy on all consoles, but with a few variants on each console....Take Soulcalibur II as an example. Same game, few variants, and there's still competition to see what console can put out the best of this game. In my opinion, the GC creamed all other consoles in that particular game.

I see the console wars as good for the console makers, as long as they aren't sega. I think that with the focus on moving unts and software, the selection of games offered suffers. Small games get squeezed out. I think the console makers tend to go with safe sequels and movie/TV licensed crap games, cuz no matter how bad they are, folks will buy them. I know this has been the case sence the NES, but with the exploding video game scene of the past years, it has truly gotten out of hand. Now huge teams make games focused on graphics, licenses and sound. Soulless chaff sans gameplay.
Lowest common denominator,shit floats, think EA.

When i think of cosole wars i think of the war Sony lost years ago; VHS vs Beta. Beta was a better format, smaller, better sound, better picture. Even though it had the better format, Sony lost that war, badly, but seemed to have learned quite well that an inferior product has nothing to do with how well it will succeed; marketing,advertising and placement are what win these wars, not quality of the product or the games.

For me, console wars always turn out badly, as i tend to like innovation and that ain't popular and won't sell in Amurika. but more people are gaming so i'd say these wars are good for gaming by increasing the number of gamers via adds and product placement and licenses, but gameplay suffers as smaller,influential games don't get published or even attempted.

Me? I'm off to buy Madden '09 and Tomb Raider 7. Maybe i'll buy me a NASCAR game too. EA rules dude !! Nah, i think i need a little metal slug on my neo-geo. sigh