- Jun 15, 2019
I think maybe we're using different definitions of the term competition here. I'm talking about products competing against each other in the same market, in this case the video game device market. The strengths/weaknesses and success of the products doesn't matter.It has always been relevent. I can't believe this even has to be explained. The dreamcast wasn't competing with the PS2. The gamecube wasn't competiting with the PS2. The only console competing with the PS2 was the Xbox, and that was just barely.
The biggest driver to the PS2s dominance was because of third party support. Like the Switch, if you wanted to play those games, your option was the PS2. That is what you call a monopoly.
I'll give you this. The switch is competiting with them on a level of "I'm poor with only a couple of 100 to spend" and that's it. Beyond that. The Switch has absolutely no competition.
The N64 and PS1 were competing against each other. The 3DS and Vita were competing against each other. The Dreamcast, GameCube, PS2 and Xbox were all competing against each other. That's why we can say that PS2 had dominance, because it had 3 competitors it was dominating.
The Wii U sold way way way less then the PS4 and had way way way worse third party support. Those two products were still competitors.
I don't understand your point about people being poor. Do products bought by poor people not count or something?