Market Competition, Winners, Losers, Market Landscape and all that jazz... *spawn*

Discussion in 'Console Industry' started by Cyan, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. Cyan

    Cyan orange
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    8,866
    Likes Received:
    2,495
  2. RudeCurve

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
  4. Scott_Arm

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    13,754
    Likes Received:
    4,565
    Are you trying to argue that competition is bad for a market?
     
  5. Rangers

    Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    12,506
    Likes Received:
    1,313
    Huh, look what I just saw on FB :lol:

    [​IMG]

    I'm 99.99% sure Major Nelson already tweeted something like this a few weeks ago that people took note of. Inside joke among MS execs, or maybe Halo 5 ARG incoming? Not that I care.
     
  6. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    No, that like a lot of people he is confusing the results of competition with its absence. Competition doesn’t benefit consumers if it can't produce winners and losers.
     
  7. rokkerkory

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    103
    Competition has always benefited consumers in the videogame industry
     
  8. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,693
    Likes Received:
    6,709
    Location:
    London, UK
    Competition isn't about winners and losers, it's about a free market giving consumers choice :yep2:

    The market split between Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony is irrelevant, it's the number of options their presence in the market gives buyers.
     
  9. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    Because of the fear of losing, and the rewards from winning.

    Options alone don't benefit anyone. Buyers benefit when companies attempt to differentiate their product in order to gain a sales advantage. The byproduct of that is a sales disparity. A sales disparity is the natural and expected result and does not equate to a "lack of competition".
     
  10. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,693
    Likes Received:
    6,709
    Location:
    London, UK
    Buyers benefit when competition drives prices down. No competition means far less incentive to lower prices.

    That's why there is so much anti-competition legislation. To help preserve a free market.
     
  11. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    Who said anything about no competition? There is competition and we are currently reaping the rewards. Artificially propping up companies that can't produce products people really want is the opposite of competition.
     
  12. Scott_Arm

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    13,754
    Likes Received:
    4,565
    Who is artificially propping up anyone in the console business?
     
  13. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,693
    Likes Received:
    6,709
    Location:
    London, UK
    I agree, but you asserted "Competition doesn’t benefit consumers if it can't produce winners and losers." As I said before this isn't the definition of competition, winners and losers (market divides) aren't the goal, the point of a free market (competition) is to benefit the buyer - the consumer in the console space.

    By your own words, if Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony each held 33.3% of the console market, there were be no winners or losers and therefore no competition(!) :nope:

    Where is this happening? :???:
     
  14. Brad Grenz

    Brad Grenz Philosopher & Poet
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Oregon
    Winning parties and losing parties are an inevitable result of competition. There is no way to separate that concept from the definition. A business has a totally different interest than a consumer. Consumers benefit from competition, but businesses compete to benefit themselves in the form of monetary gain.

    Such a situation is so improbable in the natural course of competition it would almost certainly be the result of collusion or other types of market manipulation, in which case I'd be right.

    Implicitly, every time someone says "I hope the Xbox One starts selling better because we need competition!" No one should be opposed to breakaway successes. It usually means lots of very satisfied users and a company well rewarded for creating something lots of people thought was a good value.
     
  15. Shifty Geezer

    Shifty Geezer uber-Troll!
    Moderator Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    42,194
    Likes Received:
    13,699
    Location:
    Under my bridge
    Not always. Competition can push down quality and decrease QOL for consumers when they're the employees of the same companies and have to work longer hours for lower pay due to competition.

    That's obviously a big, big topic not for this forum, but I consider it as important to balance out that common generalisation as to address common technical misconceptions like 'best console'. Competition is no more intrinsically 'good' for people than deferred rendering is 'good' for games. Every choice in life has upsides and downsides and none should be ignored. If there was only one console platform, there'd be negatives and positives, just as there are negatives and positives to having multiple players.
     
  16. Prophecy2k

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    378
    Location:
    The land that time forgot
    Competition should push up quality, not push it down, as the products or services on a market that are the most successfull are those who can provide the highest level of quality for the lowest price. Sure that impacts the employees of a business, but from a consumer perspective it's immaterial.

    Consumers who are also the employees of businesses in competition DO benefit as consumers, given the ability to choose between a great product or service, or an inferior competitor. Sure the nature of their employer's competition does not benefit them as employees, but then that is a separate issue, becuase then the issue is no longer competition but what ethical and corporate policies are put in place within an organisation to govern that. Those are things which can be positive or negative for the employees, whether the business that employs them is competing aggressively in a healthy market or is holding the market in a monopoly choke hold.

    I disagree with this. Companies competing in a market for the same consumer dollars is always better for the end consumer, than a market in which one particular corporate entity holds the entire market consumerbase hostage. Pragmatically, the kinds of dodgy, shady, nickel-and-diming malpractices that many different organisations have been exposed of, only goes to prove how important true competition between companies is in ensuring consumers don't end up getting the shaft from organisation that have grown too big for their britches.
     
  17. RancidLunchmeat

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,059
    Likes Received:
    642
    Location:
    In your closet

    Heheheh... I love it when the Sony fanboys come in to the MS threads and start to play. It's so fun. Especially when they aren't just trolls, but they really put a lot of thought and effort into it because they are actively trying to change people's opinions. Brad does it the best on this forum, I love it.

    To his point: Yes, 100% consumers gain from competition, businesses hate competition and they'd rather have a monopoly. Umm... So what? Why are you trying to do a deep dive into economics in what is a very simple situation? We know you love Sony and now you are somehow trying to make the argument that console gaming would be better off without MS being in the game.

    Sure, that's better for Sony. It's better for that business. But is it better for the consumer? No, and you've admitted as much. So why are you going down this road?

    Yet, you didn't feel that way a few years ago when Nintendo was a breakaway success with the Wii, did you? And that was truly a breakaway success. The PS4 outselling the Xb0x isn't a breakaway success. The Xb0x is still selling enough to it's established base that it is still in the game. Even if the PS4 outsells the Xb0x 4:1 as long as that :1 is of a large enough magnitude to make 3rd party games profitable then it doesn't matter. And with the systems so close in architecture as they are, there's no reason a developer who makes a PS4 game won't make that same game for the Xb0x - albeit with lower resolution or whatever because the Xb0x is a crippled piece of crap.

    Again, in terms of this discussion - which was a 3rd party developer saying that it's better to have competition - of course! They want to sell their games to as many end users as possible and the market is better for them with more competition. If there's only the PS4 to sell their games to, they might have to conform to whatever crazy restrictions and requirements that Sony puts on them. But if there's a PS4 and an Xb0x, they can release one game across both consoles and if Sony wants to put extra restrictions on them, they can just ignore them and say "screw you, this is our game. play it or don't". And if Sony blocks their game, then it becomes and Xb0x exclusive.
     
  18. MrFox

    MrFox Deludedly Fantastic
    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    Messages:
    6,100
    Likes Received:
    5,222
    Basic flaws of capitalism.

    Competition doesn't really solve the problems once a company is big enough to use predatory practices, buy competitors, and sue for trivial patents that they bought using their billions in profits, but it's invariably worse under a monopoly. Workers are paid as low as they can. Product quality is also as low as they can. Profit is, sadly, the measure of success in American society, and it's necessarily paid for by the working class, both as employees and as consumers, this isn't going to change any time soon.

    A market where a company makes a huge amount of profit is a significant indicator of failure of the capitalism ideal. It means fair competition didn't happen, the working class lost against the rich, and their own government didn't step in to regulate.

    Back to Naughty Dog... the console makers are currently forced to compete among equally strong competitors. This is a great thing that doesn't happen often, we should appreciate it while it lasts. It can help Naughty Dog get a better production budget for their games, because money will have to be invested into first party games instead of being taken as profit. The PS3 and XB1 were designed under a leadership that was arrogant because of the PS2 and 360 success, respectively. OTOH, the PS4 was designed while Sony became an underdog. Without Microsoft and Nintendo breathing down their neck, the PS3 would have been the dominant platform and profitable. It would have justified the arrogance, and we would never have the PS4 as is it right now. Worse, we wouldn't have Knack, I couldn't live in such a world.
     
  19. DSoup

    DSoup meh
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    Messages:
    11,693
    Likes Received:
    6,709
    Location:
    London, UK
    No, no and no. In a healthy market, everybody can win - even if you can apply a binary term like 'win' to a competitive market. What's the criteria for winning? The most consoles sold? The most profit made? The most games sold? It's a nonsense notion.

    Ok, let's say company A has 38% of a market, company B has 31% and company C has 31%. Company A sold the most consoles but doesn't sell the most games. Company B sells the most games but launched a year earlier than companies A and C. Who has won?
     
  20. rokkerkory

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2013
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    103
    What are we even talking about anymore? Why is this even brought up in X1 rumor thread lol.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...