July 22nd 2023.
In this reader feature, Amchor argues that competition is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to gaming. Instead of inspiring innovation, it encourages panic and conservatism. As examples, Amchor cites both Sony and Nintendo, and draws on their respective histories to make their point.
Sony has been delivering high-quality games for years, but the recent competition from Microsoft has pushed them towards more live service games. Fans may not be too pleased with this, as it doesn't offer the same creative risk-taking as before. Sony now has to focus on surefire hits and not taking any risks, just to try and compete.
On the other hand, Nintendo does not have the same kind of competition and yet they continue to make the most acclaimed games of the last decade. Many questions have been asked recently, of whether Nintendo are direct competitors to Microsoft and Sony, and the answer is no. Nintendo is essentially without any direct competition and yet they still create some of the best games available.
Amchor concludes that the Microsoft acquisition will do the opposite of what they have argued and that it will lead to worse and less innovative games from Sony. This may benefit Xbox but it certainly won’t benefit PlayStation owners.
Ultimately, Amchor's point is that competition does not always lead to better gaming experiences - in fact, it can often lead to worse ones. The reader encourages us to look at Nintendo, who have been around since the very beginning of gaming yet still make some of the best games available. This is because they have not had any real competition for so long.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
