Are console wars good for gaming?

[wraggster]

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?

[antoine]

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

[klisejo]

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

[ACID]

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

[Basil Zero]

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

[muffinman]

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

[sko, TheLogicalGamer]

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

[Shiaoran]

'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.

[basilb]

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.

[ACID]

Yet Nintendo gives us the best prices and cool inovations.