speculawyer
Member
Well Sony loses most of that money making movies, TVs and other unprofitable consumer electronics. The Playstation is a money-maker for them.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Of Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft; which would the industry miss the least?
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
Well Sony loses most of that money making movies, TVs and other unprofitable consumer electronics. The Playstation is a money-maker for them.
WrenchNinja
Member
One guy says it and the whole site is ruined?
Jinfash
needs 2 extra inches
I mean if I had to pick one it would probably be Microsoft. But I can't help but feel that everyone is neglecting how much they raised the bar in terms of networking, hardware design and 3rd party relations, thus giving pubs/devs more options and raising the competition between them and the other two manufacturers.
I still have bad flashbacks of hubris and ill-designed hardwares before they came into the fray.
I still have bad flashbacks of hubris and ill-designed hardwares before they came into the fray.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I imagine Microsoft has lost a lot of good will over the last three or so years
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
I'd say Sony or MS. Nintendo has been around since my childhood and I'd be pretty upset at their departure. I was upset when Sega left to be a software only company.
I still remember when people were scoffing at the notion when Sony was entering into gaming.
I still remember when people were scoffing at the notion when Sony was entering into gaming.
Quality of any console or games aside, you can't objectively say they weren't competitive.
Partially true. 2011 was the first profitable year for Sony's game division since 2005. Even still, it's unlikely it will make a net profit in the PS3's lifetime.
As a handheld gamer, loosing Nintendo would also mean loosing the classic HH market - which would be horrible.
If MS were gone i think Valve could swoop in with the Steam Box a little bit easier.
After DS,Wii,3DS and WiiU i dont understand this statement....or just because of the hardware power ?
If MS were gone i think Valve could swoop in with the Steam Box a little bit easier.
After DS,Wii,3DS and WiiU i dont understand this statement....or just because of the hardware power ?
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
You can't judge relevancy on the consoles just released. If you did Nintendo would be the most irrelevant.
Playstation is definitely one of gamings biggest brand names WW. I mean each PS console has sold 100 mill a pop and PS3 might follow even after the diaster it was at the beginning.
They are pretty irrelevent in the handheld space though but I suspect they got in to stop Nintendo having a monopoly (not that it worked seeing as the 3DS pretty much has a monopoly).
I am guessing he means WiiU. It is pretty irrelevant right now. 3DS pretty much defines the HH market as you said and DS and Wii were very important to the industry.
Criminal Upper
Banned
Right, now? I'd say Microsoft.
Actually nope. They lost all their PS2 profits due to PS3. To be precise, they lost 4,7 billion dollars due to PS3.
Nintendo is a hallmark with long standing history and Sony won two consoles in a row with PSX and PS2, and tripped with the PS3; causing a chorus of this "return to its former glory" narrative that fans are rooting for. The original XBOX was a dud, but the 360 surprised everyone and won the hearts of the people. But now its reign as king is being vilified. Who will win? Who will die?
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Sigh, if I had to choose one..... Nintendo.
...just kidding. Microsoft.
I mean really, as far as being missed the least, it's probably going to be Microsoft since they showed up pretty late to the console race and their portfolio is just two consoles so far. Their existence has been positive though, causing Sony to up their game.
Realistically, Nintendo is probably in the most danger. Not in that they're gonna go full third party, but they could drop out of the "big" console race and just make handhelds or something like that. I think. I dunno.
Fight! Fight! fight!
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
Sigh, if I had to choose one..... Nintendo.
...just kidding. Microsoft.
I mean really, as far as being missed the least, it's probably going to be Microsoft since they showed up pretty late to the console race and their portfolio is just two consoles so far. Their existence has been positive though, causing Sony to up their game.
Realistically, Nintendo is probably in the most danger. Not in that they're gonna go full third party, but they could drop out of the "big" console race and just make handhelds or something like that. I think. I dunno.
Fight! Fight! fight!
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Its too early for the Vita and it don't matter how you see the PS3
Beven if the Vita is a failure Sony currently is the only company to sell over 70 million with all their consoles
So yes
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
MS has the shortest history and, IMO, the least interesting IPs.
Let's be honest.
If your strictly talking relevance historically to the gaming industry then it's obviously going to be Nintendo, Sony, then MS in that order.
If your talking generationally then last gen I'd say the PS2 clearly would be the gaming system that we all would have missed, thus Sony would win, but I think the convo would get interesting when you talk about the cube vs. the OG Xbox.
This gen, it's all about preferance as to what you played the most and what you still play.
Which console would have missed the most this gen? Then that clearly determines the answers.
But, industry wise, then the answer would be which is the most relevant industry wide.
You could make the case in so many ways regionally, first party success, third party success, what each console brought to the gaming market etc.
Either way, not one of these companies are going anywhere, no matter how much you would or wouldn't miss them
If your strictly talking relevance historically to the gaming industry then it's obviously going to be Nintendo, Sony, then MS in that order.
If your talking generationally then last gen I'd say the PS2 clearly would be the gaming system that we all would have missed, thus Sony would win, but I think the convo would get interesting when you talk about the cube vs. the OG Xbox.
This gen, it's all about preferance as to what you played the most and what you still play.
Which console would have missed the most this gen? Then that clearly determines the answers.
But, industry wise, then the answer would be which is the most relevant industry wide.
You could make the case in so many ways regionally, first party success, third party success, what each console brought to the gaming market etc.
Either way, not one of these companies are going anywhere, no matter how much you would or wouldn't miss them
I would say Microsoft for me. Their IP's never clicked with my gaming taste who loves Japanese games more than western styles. And the fact that they invented th so called paying to play online makes me hate them more.
After seeing Sega dies(Which is a big loss for me especially when tons of their IP's is great.) I would not want to see that happen again especially for Nintendo who also own tons of my favorite IP.
After seeing Sega dies(Which is a big loss for me especially when tons of their IP's is great.) I would not want to see that happen again especially for Nintendo who also own tons of my favorite IP.
I wonder how powerful (in all senses of the word) a handheld from Nintendo would be if they didn't have to divert resources to keep up with home consoles. Think about it, the full brunt of Nintendo's talent and money all funneled into one handheld. It would take the world by storm and ruthlessly destroy everything in its path.
abstract alien
Member
The one with the laughable exclusive stable, same generic controls as the dual shock 1, and 3rd party games I could play elsewhere.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
All 3 need to stay to keep each other in check. The more competition the better.
People are also completely forgetting titles that were released on the original Xbox.
So a 4 months lackluster WiiU launch phase is more important than the last 25 years of content and consoles ? Erm okay xD
Hardware-wise the WiiU is more interesting than the 3DS and its 3D gimmick - but the games just arent there right now and the OS is a POS. Both problems that can and will be fixed in the upcoming months.
I have distinct memories of Microsoft building the worst games console of all time in build quality wise...
ProfessorMoran
Member
Ditto.
Love Halo but Bungie is independent now and 343i just doesn't have the same mojo.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
Microsoft, Sony have everything they have for the most part and their hardware is better.
Microsoft is the most relevant console maker today. Factually. They have the biggest sales (behind Wii) and the best thirdparty support. PS lost its relevance. That is why you call it a disaster. And btw, PS1 sold over 100 million without losing money, PS2 sold over 150 million without losing money. I think you can see how much they dropped.
Wii sold over 70 million. Xbox360 sold over 70 million. You are confusing.
You should see all the damn IP's MS sits on, too. Take some of that money and show some fan service for crying out loud.
I'll go with Nintendo.
I think they've had the least positive impact on the industry in terms of shifts from a technological and software standpoint. Yes, they easily have the most iconic first party output, but if you were to give any of these companies a monopoly, I think Nintendo would do the least to advance the industry. Microsoft is probably the most influential company for console gaming in recent memory with its influences in Online and Arcade style gaming, so I personally can't bring myself to pick them.
I think they've had the least positive impact on the industry in terms of shifts from a technological and software standpoint. Yes, they easily have the most iconic first party output, but if you were to give any of these companies a monopoly, I think Nintendo would do the least to advance the industry. Microsoft is probably the most influential company for console gaming in recent memory with its influences in Online and Arcade style gaming, so I personally can't bring myself to pick them.
Erm no..... PS3 sold as much as 360 while being a launched a year later + 599 USD. 3rd Party wise the PS3 is also the best because it is getting love from both coats. Yakuza, Ninokuni. Tales of etc. are on Ps3.
I could live without innovations like having to be always online or having the most basic applications hidden behind a paid subscription.
Jinfash
needs 2 extra inches
That's the undeniable truth lol, but when I brought up hardware design, I was referring to the push of PC-like, developer-friendly architectures and environments. A break from the highly customized architectures that was trending before.
soulassssns
Banned
Sony
Industry and consumer base are different in my opinion though.
Industry and consumer base are different in my opinion though.
Ok...but what are they doing now? And what are they doing for the industry next? I think that's the crux for the question at hand.
also it would be easy to play devils advocate with the points you raised. for example I find it silly to compliment their hardware design considering all they did was release a simplified PC. and what do we really know about their 3rd party relations? perhaps they hurt the industry by spreading it more thin. it certainly didn't help Sony or Nintendo. then one could go on to argue they've poisoned the industry with Live, an ad heavy interface, and soon we could see always online etc
Eh Microsoft didn't push for anything. They work on Windows, so it makes sense for them to have a PC-like console.
If anything, they're lucky that they're lazy.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Most people would have said Xbox regardless. It kills some people to their very core that the Xbox brand is as successful as it is. They didn't need supposed negative rumors about the next xbox to basically be saying that they are the company people most want to see leave the industry, which is what this thread is about in a roundabout way.
People don't like it when Sony isn't easily on top.
If you want to play up Sony as the underdog, the original Xbox was a complete financial failure. The PS2 was a colossus sales wise, the original Xbox didn't get a whiff of the success the PS2 got. Sony also had a pretty decent start with the PS1 in the previous gen.
What Microsoft did to make the Xbox brand as popular as the Playstation brand is both a gigantic accomplishment and fantastic luck, Sony being out of their minds at the start of this gen helped Microsoft in spades.
After playing the new Luigi's Mansion, it occurred to me just how good Nintendo STILL is at designing games. I played just a snippet, but damn it was pretty fun.
People who are saying Nintendo isn't doing anything at the moment is looking only at the Wii U, and not the handheld scene, they're kicking ass. This E3 I expect some great software for both their current platforms. They still have the best first party.
One thing I gotta hand to Sony is that every gen they seem to bank on new IPs, something both MS and Nintendo can't seem to do. We can just look at all the franchises born on PS1 and PS2 up to this gen. No Kratos, Sly, Ratchet, Killzone, or Jak before PS2. No Uncharted, Infamous, Resistance, Littlebigplanet, Pixeljunk, Fat Princess, and whatever else you can name this gen. Of course some completely bombed (Folklore, Starhawk), and some clearly not as popular as others. But it's good to know you can buy each one of their consoles expecting new IP's based of their track record.
MS did a lot more for gaming when it comes to establishing a console eco system imo. After XBL, we got PSN, and whatever it is Nintendo does. Along with Achievements, and Cross Game chat and all. Although, those are things that Sony and Nintendo can plaster on. Outside of Halo, they don't really have any title under their belt that really "impacted" gaming. Not to say they have no 1st party, just the weakest of the punch. They lack the diversity at 1st party that both Nintendo and Sony have, and to me lack the impact that both Nintendo and Sony have made in the industry.
So I guess that's why I'd pick them, it's kind of unfair since they've had the least time in the industry. Thus less time to make as much as an impact. But it's been over a decade, and I cannot remember Xbox exclusives besides a few that have had some impact on me (that wasn't also available for PC).
People who are saying Nintendo isn't doing anything at the moment is looking only at the Wii U, and not the handheld scene, they're kicking ass. This E3 I expect some great software for both their current platforms. They still have the best first party.
One thing I gotta hand to Sony is that every gen they seem to bank on new IPs, something both MS and Nintendo can't seem to do. We can just look at all the franchises born on PS1 and PS2 up to this gen. No Kratos, Sly, Ratchet, Killzone, or Jak before PS2. No Uncharted, Infamous, Resistance, Littlebigplanet, Pixeljunk, Fat Princess, and whatever else you can name this gen. Of course some completely bombed (Folklore, Starhawk), and some clearly not as popular as others. But it's good to know you can buy each one of their consoles expecting new IP's based of their track record.
MS did a lot more for gaming when it comes to establishing a console eco system imo. After XBL, we got PSN, and whatever it is Nintendo does. Along with Achievements, and Cross Game chat and all. Although, those are things that Sony and Nintendo can plaster on. Outside of Halo, they don't really have any title under their belt that really "impacted" gaming. Not to say they have no 1st party, just the weakest of the punch. They lack the diversity at 1st party that both Nintendo and Sony have, and to me lack the impact that both Nintendo and Sony have made in the industry.
So I guess that's why I'd pick them, it's kind of unfair since they've had the least time in the industry. Thus less time to make as much as an impact. But it's been over a decade, and I cannot remember Xbox exclusives besides a few that have had some impact on me (that wasn't also available for PC).
I think the fact that Sony did so, so many things wrong this generation and still managed to sell about as much current gen consoles as Microsoft (and at a faster pace) proves you wrong when you say PlayStation as a brand lost its relevance.
abstract alien
Member
Microsoft?
If I were a rich gaffer, you would now be rich as well.
You're cherry picking minute details within a complex system. Before Microsoft, online console gaming sucked. It was fucking awful and disjointed. Considering the state of PSN at the launch of the Playstation 3 (ie. Half-Assed and a carbon copy of Live), it's clear that online gaming wasn't a priority until Microsoft forced their hands into cooking something up. And Arcade/PSN/WiiWare style gaming was pretty much non-existent before Microsoft re released Live Arcade on the 360. Those are the two biggest and most influential shifts in console gaming, and Microsoft were largely responsible for both. Regardless of what they've done lately, that's a huge deal and they deserve credit for it.
Sony allowed the Xbox brand to be just as relevant as the Playstation, that's not a great thing to showboat.
The Gameboy did that far earlier and to a far greater degree than the PS1 or PS2.
If you want to limit it to consoles, then the NES wins. It revived a dead industry.
Nailed it.
RobbieNick
Junior Member
Microsoft. Least amount of exclusive IP's and not much Japanese support.