Studios would have to charge more because they'd have to take on more engineers to handle the stuff, that was being spoon fed to them by hardware manufacturers, or from not getting free monies or hardware.
Possibly yes.
Ask yourself in a scenario with only one player, what would the benefits/consequences be for supporting, vs. consequences benefits for not supporting. Their hardware is the only platform why would they care if the software runs faster at the benefit consumer? When will be buying the hardware anyway?
Because with more novelties and better performance, people would have a reason to update more often.
This kind of strategy works - think about Apple. They don't have any serious competition, i.e. most Apple users would not consider jumping to another company - even with better specs or lower price.
Yet, Apple manages to update it's products in such a way that even sensible people (so not those sleeping in front of stores) are usually updating e.g. their iPhones every 2 years at most.
And while the prices would most likely go up (again: Apple...), a monopoly does not imply lack of progress.
Going back to Intel/AMD - just look what happened in mobile CPUs. AMD is totally absent in this segment and yet the speed of Intel mobile CPUs have doubled since Sandy Bridge (progress in desktops was way smaller). Monopoly worked.
Someone could say that Intel invests in mobile CPUs to defend against ARM smartphones and tablets - I might even agree with that theory. But if that's correct, what stops smartphones and consoles from forcing development of desktop PCs? Again: we don't need another CPU manufacturer.
Being the top dog on the block is completely different from being the ONLY dog on the block, having to exert some effort to maintain the lead vs. having a lead due to no contest. Intel contrary to what you are saying Intel has shown time and time again that they are not above dragging their feet when they have a comfortable lead.
There is another side of this story. Intel has a huge hunger for R&D (that's what happens when you employ so many R&D people).
You're right that every time Intel feels safe in consumer PC territory, desktop CPU improvement slows down. But their not going on vacation.
Intel has been doing some really important stuff lately: AI (including autonomous cars), IoT, faster memory tech and so on.
Just compare the main websites:
I go to
www.intel.com and is all about business, AI, drones. Not a word about gaming. Actually not much about CPUs. Here CPU is just a part of a bigger solution.
Then I open
www.amd.com and it's
"RYZEN POWERS. YOU FIGHT."
Of course I'm not bashing AMD for not concentrating more on practical real-world issues, but it is important to remember that Intel and AMD are two very different companies - even if their most important products do the same thing.
But to be honest: I find Intel's image very appealing, professional, mature... IMO what AMD does lately is a bit too teenager-oriented...
