this make's alot of sence and sadly youtube is better at documentary than History.
I disagree that this outcome could be the best, for exactly the reason he stated: I feel it's because they're all competing for our attention that this was the worst outcome. With these companies all competing and trying to make money, what we get is practically the same console from two different companies that were release at the same time, in the same shitty, blocky format with the same shitty stock apps and stuff like that. Nintendo seems to be the only one willing to try anything new and unique, but because they aren't mainstream and popular, they lose out. If Microsoft had been kicked out, we might have companies trying to make genuinely good gaming consoles instead of companies trying to outsell eachother. Not to mention Developers wouldn't need to port their games as much, possibly resulting in a better standard for games than the buggy, rushed messes we've mostly gotten this gen.
There's [I]always [/I]been more than 2 consoles. Especially more than "1 innovative one and 1 standard one"
You don't want microsoft or sony to corner the traditional console games market.
Just like you didn't want nintendo or sega to. When sega died off it left a vacuum and microsoft came in.
Sony's publicly-stated reason for making the Cell hard to develop for was so that developers had to master it, meaning new developments and game breakthroughs over the lifespan of the system.
The downside of this is that they were setting themselves up to suck for several years, and they did.
I find it funny that now both MS & Sony utilize well-known x86 hardware to attract devs to stay afloat/compete.
Goes to show that sometimes competition is required for survival.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
