The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
When you consider that the videogames industry is worth an amazing $4.7 billion and that there are only 4 real companies in competition with each other (3 when the DC dies), i think this is an awfully large amount of money to be shared between so few companies.
However although many analytical perspectives say that many companies, mean better competition which means better prices, to the videogames industry, i feel this does not apply.
Despite the fact that in 2000 the videogames industry maintaned a steady $6 billion sales figure, a strong indicator of the industries inherent strength, there are still few companies which are so involved in the industry that they have their own console.
I think this could be due to a bloody reminder from the crash of the industry in 1984, where the videogames industry was brought to its knees. So much money was lost that the industry remained dormant for a whole year, until Nintendo stepped in and released the NES.
I think that the crash was because of the competition. Because so many consoles existed companies would publish so many games to look the better console, so much so that quality control got relaxed and the market became saturated.
These days we do not have this problem. Why? Because there are less companies peddling trash games (take note 3DO, quit it with the army men games).
However this does lead to monopolies being formed. I find this most evident with the PS2, as when first released it cost a truly shocking £300. This was because Sony had no real competition (apart form the dreamcast) and decided that people would pay silly money in order to get a next generation as soon as they could.
Conversely however, i think that the people who restarted the fuss in the industry (Nintendo) will be the ones to rectify the Sony monopoly. This is because they have decided that the Gamecube will be sold for only £160 (nice one).
Although the industry will only have 3 leaders at the end of next year, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. I think that it will serve the industry well to see such few leaders, not only does it decrease the volatility in the market, but it also gives consumers a decent selection of goods to choose from.
Thanks for reading. CM
However although many analytical perspectives say that many companies, mean better competition which means better prices, to the videogames industry, i feel this does not apply.
Despite the fact that in 2000 the videogames industry maintaned a steady $6 billion sales figure, a strong indicator of the industries inherent strength, there are still few companies which are so involved in the industry that they have their own console.
I think this could be due to a bloody reminder from the crash of the industry in 1984, where the videogames industry was brought to its knees. So much money was lost that the industry remained dormant for a whole year, until Nintendo stepped in and released the NES.
I think that the crash was because of the competition. Because so many consoles existed companies would publish so many games to look the better console, so much so that quality control got relaxed and the market became saturated.
These days we do not have this problem. Why? Because there are less companies peddling trash games (take note 3DO, quit it with the army men games).
However this does lead to monopolies being formed. I find this most evident with the PS2, as when first released it cost a truly shocking £300. This was because Sony had no real competition (apart form the dreamcast) and decided that people would pay silly money in order to get a next generation as soon as they could.
Conversely however, i think that the people who restarted the fuss in the industry (Nintendo) will be the ones to rectify the Sony monopoly. This is because they have decided that the Gamecube will be sold for only £160 (nice one).
Although the industry will only have 3 leaders at the end of next year, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. I think that it will serve the industry well to see such few leaders, not only does it decrease the volatility in the market, but it also gives consumers a decent selection of goods to choose from.
Thanks for reading. CM
When you consider that the videogames industry is worth an amazing $4.7 billion and that there are only 4 real companies in competition with each other (3 when the DC dies), i think this is an awfully large amount of money to be shared between so few companies.
However although many analytical perspectives say that many companies, mean better competition which means better prices, to the videogames industry, i feel this does not apply.
Despite the fact that in 2000 the videogames industry maintaned a steady $6 billion sales figure, a strong indicator of the industries inherent strength, there are still few companies which are so involved in the industry that they have their own console.
I think this could be due to a bloody reminder from the crash of the industry in 1984, where the videogames industry was brought to its knees. So much money was lost that the industry remained dormant for a whole year, until Nintendo stepped in and released the NES.
I think that the crash was because of the competition. Because so many consoles existed companies would publish so many games to look the better console, so much so that quality control got relaxed and the market became saturated.
These days we do not have this problem. Why? Because there are less companies peddling trash games (take note 3DO, quit it with the army men games).
However this does lead to monopolies being formed. I find this most evident with the PS2, as when first released it cost a truly shocking £300. This was because Sony had no real competition (apart form the dreamcast) and decided that people would pay silly money in order to get a next generation as soon as they could.
Conversely however, i think that the people who restarted the fuss in the industry (Nintendo) will be the ones to rectify the Sony monopoly. This is because they have decided that the Gamecube will be sold for only £160 (nice one).
Although the industry will only have 3 leaders at the end of next year, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. I think that it will serve the industry well to see such few leaders, not only does it decrease the volatility in the market, but it also gives consumers a decent selection of goods to choose from.
Thanks for reading. CM
However although many analytical perspectives say that many companies, mean better competition which means better prices, to the videogames industry, i feel this does not apply.
Despite the fact that in 2000 the videogames industry maintaned a steady $6 billion sales figure, a strong indicator of the industries inherent strength, there are still few companies which are so involved in the industry that they have their own console.
I think this could be due to a bloody reminder from the crash of the industry in 1984, where the videogames industry was brought to its knees. So much money was lost that the industry remained dormant for a whole year, until Nintendo stepped in and released the NES.
I think that the crash was because of the competition. Because so many consoles existed companies would publish so many games to look the better console, so much so that quality control got relaxed and the market became saturated.
These days we do not have this problem. Why? Because there are less companies peddling trash games (take note 3DO, quit it with the army men games).
However this does lead to monopolies being formed. I find this most evident with the PS2, as when first released it cost a truly shocking £300. This was because Sony had no real competition (apart form the dreamcast) and decided that people would pay silly money in order to get a next generation as soon as they could.
Conversely however, i think that the people who restarted the fuss in the industry (Nintendo) will be the ones to rectify the Sony monopoly. This is because they have decided that the Gamecube will be sold for only £160 (nice one).
Although the industry will only have 3 leaders at the end of next year, Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. I think that it will serve the industry well to see such few leaders, not only does it decrease the volatility in the market, but it also gives consumers a decent selection of goods to choose from.
Thanks for reading. CM
Companies! Nintendo and Sony! That's two!
I mentioned microsoft as well, thats 3.
POP
Games were a bit in the dark ages before the NES was released werent they, I wasnt aware of the industry crash but I dont think the same could ever happen again as the days where one person could program a game on their own in their bedroom are now long gone.
The only thing that would happen these days is that one of the main players drops out of the hardware race. The money is in software mainly, the money in hardware is limited to the leading company only.
The only thing that would happen these days is that one of the main players drops out of the hardware race. The money is in software mainly, the money in hardware is limited to the leading company only.
New Jimmy wrote:
> Games were a bit in the dark ages before the NES was released werent
> they,
Released where? In Japan, the US or Europe?
> Games were a bit in the dark ages before the NES was released werent
> they,
Released where? In Japan, the US or Europe?
cookie monster wrote:
I think this could be
> due to a bloody reminder from the crash of the industry in 1984,
> where the videogames industry was brought to its knees. So much
> money was lost that the industry remained dormant for a whole year,
> until Nintendo stepped in and released the NES.
When was this? I remeber 1984 had some of the best games releases... Ghostbusters, Little Computer People, Commando, Sabetour, etc... The list goes on...
The closest thing to a financial crash for the industry at that time, could at worst be compairable to the Dot Com crash of last year...
The industry never went dormant for a year... I cant think of any tech industry that can afford to go dormant for an entire year :)
I think this could be
> due to a bloody reminder from the crash of the industry in 1984,
> where the videogames industry was brought to its knees. So much
> money was lost that the industry remained dormant for a whole year,
> until Nintendo stepped in and released the NES.
When was this? I remeber 1984 had some of the best games releases... Ghostbusters, Little Computer People, Commando, Sabetour, etc... The list goes on...
The closest thing to a financial crash for the industry at that time, could at worst be compairable to the Dot Com crash of last year...
The industry never went dormant for a year... I cant think of any tech industry that can afford to go dormant for an entire year :)