Aren't you in fact more or less disagreeing with Phil rather than agreeing with him? He's not arguing against an equialised marketshare. What he's saying is that he doesn't want only multi-platform titles to exist within that environment - he wants individual games that stretch the boundaries of each and every console that exists. He wants multiple consoles fighting for their market share as it's what leads to innovation and technological progress.
At least, that's what I though he meant, which seems to be not what you're saying.
My point was that most people prefer a PS2, Xbox, GC situation vs. a 33/33/33 situation. Phil’s point about optimisation does not really go against that from my point of view. Multiplatform development breeds inefficiencies and laziness in delivering an end-user experience, EA is a perfect example.
SPM said:
There is a big difference between people buying one of three systems and people having to buy one system because that is all there is with viable games. I don't see Microsoft as having a market share problem because of it's cash reserve. Nintendo and to a lesser extent Sony may be more of a worry.
I wasn’t proposing that people want a monopoly. The PS2 generation has one console where most people can be fully satisfied with the selection of greats games available, if they aren’t they can go and buy a Xbox or GC to satisfy the niche need they desire. People have a choice of buying a PS2 or not because the other two consoles have a selection of great franchises they could enjoy.
There is no de facto standard, no hidden costs. Most people don’t feel they’re really missing out if they select one console, the people that don't feel that way fill such a small fraction of the market that they are essentially never going to be satisfied without sacrificing for the majority.
Furthermore Sony does not overtly behave like a monopolist. They react to their competitors in the market and are not holding the industry back in any real way, pushing technology, game design and encouraging growth. I would say this generation was almost the perfect situation for the consumer.
SPM said:
As for Sony gaining a monopoly in a competitive marketplace - I don't think Sony will ever be good enough to manage it. When it comes to danger of one company monopolising the market, the real danger comes from the companies that are able to cheat to put competitors out of business - and one thing you can be sure of is that all businesses will cheat it they can. That is why Microsoft is the one to watch - because it doesn't have to comply with the laws of economics like the other two.
I don’t think anyone is seriously going to get away with “cheating†in this industry. As an economics graduate, I’m not sure I follow what you mean by complying with the laws of economics.
Microsoft have had their number called in all three major markets by all the major regulatory bodies, governments and international organisations. They walk on thin ice, they are not going to get away with any cheating. Sony’s biggest problem seems to be execution, they have the systems in place to stay market leader for many years but a series of catastrophic failures in the executive branch is hurting them. Nintendo’s only problem is their overwhelming corporate greed. Once they are on top Nintendo is utterly ruthless at squeezing the margins to get every last drop of value often to the detriment of future stability.
My overriding belief is that monopolies only tend to arise due to the failure of a selection of firms or the market as a whole. The last major entertainment monopoly created is the iPod, which was as much due to the utter incompetence of the CE majors as it was due to Jobs’ brilliance in spotting the gaping door left open to him.
Monopolies don’t arise thanks to the strength of the product alone, that is only half the picture, the other half is due to the failure of others (competing firms, the market as a whole or regulatory bodies) to react.