Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

Ion...

Tubby

Buff Unit#69
Jun 6, 2004
195
0
0
Southside
www.buffmovement.com
SP's aggressive stance would be seen as sensible policy
THis is true
no one boycott's Sky, or the Sun or any of Murdoch's 'products' shall we say because he has a monopoly, why should SP be any different
With the ion, as an example, SP are actually developing the paintball industry rather than hindering it, with the ion especially, new players are now able to buy a decent marker and have money to spare for paint etc
If the paintball industry had more 'monopolys' like SP then possibly the sport would grow at a fast rate.
Like you say,SP are big in the USA, therefore it is not an oversimplication to state that the reason paintball is 'bigger' over there than it is over here is down to arguably the influence of Smart Parts
I just think its rather harsh to attack a company on a business level where as Bulldog has stated to the rest of the business world SP's move's are a normal practice.

This is just my opinion,wheather you agree or not is up to you

2cence out

Love Matt
:p
 

webby

University Barbarians
Originally posted by Tubby

If the paintball industry had more 'monopolys' like SP then possibly the sport would grow at a fast rate.

How can you have more than one monoply in an industry? Unless you divide it up, so SP has a monopoly in selling markers, Redz in clothing, NPS for hoppers, CP for barrels etc...

But yea, I agree, the introduction of the ion did more good than bad, and I personally have nothing against SP, i will just never pay full price for one of their products as I believe they have poor quality control.
 

Tubby

Buff Unit#69
Jun 6, 2004
195
0
0
Southside
www.buffmovement.com
i was just suggesting that with more big companies competing for paintballer's hard earned pennies it will bring the prices down of the goods, competition a good thing

im not having at go at anyone just giving my opinion, whether its valid or not

matt