[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] No, they really don't (in almost every case). Not going to get into an economics lesson here, but... 1. that would signify some (bad) things about the state of the industry 2. a few companies doing really well helps to grow the entire industry (usually) far more than 1 could do alone Businesses are not the enemies (in most cases) the public thinks they are. ...why do you think companies let competitors use their ideas, technology, etc *usually is there b/c no economic model is absolute [/QUOTE] There's not that much going in this thread so feel free to educate me about economics. Before you launch into your no doubt brilliant lecture, bear in mind that I am discussing first parties competing for marketshare in a world where the overwhelming majority of consumers only buy one console per generation, not the developers of say, Tekken and Street Fighter collaborating.[/QUOTE] Lessons, like all things in life, are not free. I don't have the patience or time while at work to explain it all to someone that will just readily dismiss it. So the tl;dr version will have to do: Just b/c one is competing for marketshare =/= they want the other to fail in most healthy industries. When that does happen is when the market is shrinking and they 'need' every last person (which I covered above). Multiple companies competing is a good sign and does the industry well (keep in mind too many is just as bad as too few, and many will die off if that is the case). ...every industry has its 'sweet' spot. Companies do not take cutthroat measures to sink the other ships b/c they know this (except, of course, when the industry is shrinking). So long as it does not deal an exceptionally negative blow to them, this is why they let competitors use (for a fee) their technology, ideas, shipping channels, etc. To give a simple example: Nintendo brought people into gaming that might never have tried it...this is good for the other 2. It is in everyone's best interest that everyone prosper. It is when things go south, that this is no longer the case...then, as you said, they want to be the last man standing...which is usually not left standing for long. if you would like some further reading material, there are many great economic examples written about the typewriter industry that I suggest you look up. It serves as a great example for the rise of an industry, healthy competition that pushed innovation and better served all involved (grew the industry through innovation), and the drive to be the last one standing as it went away (the typewriter died out)[/QUOTE]

All corporations strive for complete dominance of market share. It is the nature of the corporation - predicated on the notion of responsibility only to generate increased revenue for the shareholders - to desire this dominance and it is the very reason why anti-monopoly legislation exists.

The very structure of the corporation is literally a mandate for greed: the goal is to perpetually and tirelessly increase revenue and to do so at all costs, even when said costs might be ethically or socially irresponsible. Your assertion that companies do not utilize cutthroat measures to increase market share is as laughably naïve as it is intellectually dishonest. There is a complex and storied history that essentially disproves your altruistic rendition of the corporation and rather illuminates its continuing assault on everything from healthcare and human rights to the very core of democracy.

So no, I don't believe that companies want competitors to succeed and even assuming there were viable economic models where such mutual existence was symbiotic, the current corporate model is so entrenched in malevolent greed that it is unlikely that such a mutually beneficial strategy would be respected in an atmosphere where acquisition is the only clear goal.

It also bears mentioning that licensing competitors to use your technology is merely another way to assert dominant market share and increase revenue. If Bluray becomes the de facto standard for optical media then Sony spreads their influence and increases their profit, period.

Lastly, your typewriter analogy is quite utterly pointless. Typewriters are an entirely obsolete technology and their extinction was both necessary and inevitable once the computer came to fruition and widespread implementation. It is technological Darwinism at its most definitive.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]@Grammaton-Cleric In addition, something being a 'fad' or not is irrelevant and debatable...but, as I said, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it brought people to the door so to speak. It is similar to door buster deals the day after Thanksgiving. They are concerned with getting people in and having them spend money. If it is a fad, it still brought people into games...some will stay. If it is not a fad, more will stay. Also, so long as it is a healthy industry, there will always be a next fad...the next thing to bring people to the door. This is yet another reason competition is a vital part of a healthy industry, and, much to the dismay of the public, competitors really do not want all of their competition to die out[/QUOTE]

The Wii being a fad, however protracted, is not debatable. The sales over the course of its lifecycle demonstrate this, as do the software sales and the types of games consumers purchased on the system.

It is also reinforced by Nintendo?s decision to minimize motion-control on the WiiU and rather focus on something they believe is the current fad/trend: tablet gaming.

The Wii was a fad, motion control was a fad, and the fad is just about over.

It really doesn't matter how many people bought a Wii if most of those people, outside the hardcore crowd, have no intention of continuing their dalliance in this medium. The Wii catered to a broad, casual audience but such a market is both temporary and fickle and it is doubtful many of these consumers will return to any of the Big Three console makers.

If anything, the soccer moms and elderly masses, whom at one point were trumpeted as the most important consumers in this market, will have no particular desire to shell out money for a new system and will likely purchase their games from the unrelenting torrent of shovel-ware that the Wii will enjoy for years to come.

Assuming of course that these people even purchase additional software at all.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]@Grammaton-Cleric 1. The typewriter serves as a perfect example as it encompasses the entire life cycle (all industries end) ...it shows us (in a modern situation) the rise and fall 2. Who ever said anything about altruism??? I never made any claim other than it was all for profit. Businesses realize it is more profitable to have competitors (not too many or too few). One reason being the thing you and I mentioned...'lending' out technology, ideas, and other competencies for profit. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 'goodness of their heart' and everything to do what ends up creating a SUSTAINABLE economic situation for them. a $100 a year for 50 years is far better than $300 now The very fact that companies engage in practices that allow their competitors to also flourish disproves w/e childish notions of winning and losing you think corporations have. ...many engage in mutually beneficial relationships where they could engage in practices that would sink the other now at a small cost to them but ensure they emerged the victor to reap all later rewards. Why? B/c they know what we have covered ITT (better to have some competition in a healthy market than none in an unhealthy market)[/QUOTE]

All industries don't end. Technology evolves and delivery methodologies change but inherently many industries can and will continue to exist until the collapse of society or the end of humankind.

Some products and technology are simply sustainable while others are not.

The typewriter comparison is not analogous because gaming is a medium and the typewriter was a piece of technology with limited applications and a finite lifespan. Currently, the most apt comparisons to the gaming market would be publishing, music and film.

Such mediums and their subsequent industries are, theoretically, infinitely sustainable and will merely change in terms of delivery and monetizing methods.

As to the notion that companies want other companies offering the same services or goods to thrive, I find that assertion suspect. Certainly licensing the use of technology is a viable way to increase revenue but having dominant or even a monopolistic market share is a far more effective way to make money while simultaneously controlling the price of goods through price fixing, etc.

Historically, most industries, however initially fragmented and varied, become absorbed and congeal into a handful of large corporations. That fact alone negates your theory and even assuming such an approach was viable, historically it has not been supported.

I would also remind you that if these industries truly had the foresight to implement such a model they probably wouldn't be so quick to rape the environment, knowingly release faulty products, utilize sweat shops or abuse their own employees. What I've observed in the contemporary business paradigm is the constant need for immediate gratification that facilitates a model of take and run; basically, let the poor bastard behind me foot the bill. (See the 2008 financial collapse)

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]@Grammaton-Cleric In addition, something being a 'fad' or not is irrelevant and debatable...but, as I said, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it brought people to the door so to speak. It is similar to door buster deals the day after Thanksgiving. They are concerned with getting people in and having them spend money. If it is a fad, it still brought people into games...some will stay. If it is not a fad, more will stay. Also, so long as it is a healthy industry, there will always be a next fad...the next thing to bring people to the door. This is yet another reason competition is a vital part of a healthy industry, and, much to the dismay of the public, competitors really do not want all of their competition to die out[/QUOTE]

The Wii being a fad, however protracted, is not debatable. The sales over the course of its lifecycle demonstrate this, as do the software sales and the types of games consumers purchased on the system.

It is also reinforced by Nintendo?s decision to minimize motion-control on the WiiU and rather focus on something they believe is the current fad/trend: tablet gaming.

The Wii was a fad, motion control was a fad, and the fad is just about over.

It really doesn't matter how many people bought a Wii if most of those people, outside the hardcore crowd, have no intention of continuing their dalliance in this medium. The Wii catered to a broad, casual audience but such a market is both temporary and fickle and it is doubtful many of these consumers will return to any of the Big Three console makers.

If anything, the soccer moms and elderly masses, whom at one point were trumpeted as the most important consumers in this market, will have no particular desire to shell out money for a new system and will likely purchase their games from the unrelenting torrent of shovel-ware that the Wii will enjoy for years to come.

Assuming of course that these people even purchase additional software at all.

[/QUOTE] see previous [quote="rawsavon"] So your assertion is that no one consumer that started with a Wii purchased anything game related from Sony or MS? If you are correct, then fine. If not, then my assertion is correct in that their (Wii) success helped the others...even if by a little. There are also other factors that come along with it. -innovation, for example. Company A is all alone in the market Company B comes along, does something to differentiate itself, attracts new users ...now there are many more users in the market, also each keeps innovating b/c they are pushed, this brings even more users...at least until the industry dies (which happens to them all) [/quote][/QUOTE]

My assertion is that the "new" customers the Wii brought to the industry will recede just as quickly because they bought the Wii as a fad rather than having a vested interest in the medium.

Whatever consumer retention exists will be marginal and of no real significance in terms of market growth or revenue.

This is evidenced by the fact that Nintendo's newest console is geared towards an entirely different market. (The hardcore and tech-savvy crowd)

They know what they accomplished with the Wii cannot be replicated because many of the people who bought the system will probably never buy another dedicated gaming machine.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] Don't bother Grammaton, this guy is clearly another 'blue cape'.[/QUOTE] Oh look, the HS dropout has come back to sit in the back of the class[/QUOTE]

Carnage is actually one of the most intelligent people on these boards.

Not only is he most certainly not a high school dropout but I'd wager he has copious education and makes a damn fine living using his mind.