-
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
Microsoft.
Halo left a significant mark on the industry, but that is about the only thing, at least from my perspective. An industry without Sony first party studios, and their approach to letting certain developers try new things without much expectation for return, REGARDLESS of how good they actually turned out to be, to me, would be a worse one than it is today. I feel Sony value video games more than Microsoft.
Nintendo is.. Nintendo. Without a doubt it'd be a huge shame to see them go, they're part of the foundations of which this industry was built on. Whilst it has been a long time since I feel Nintendo were at the forefront of making video games, I can't give up on them easily.
Halo left a significant mark on the industry, but that is about the only thing, at least from my perspective. An industry without Sony first party studios, and their approach to letting certain developers try new things without much expectation for return, REGARDLESS of how good they actually turned out to be, to me, would be a worse one than it is today. I feel Sony value video games more than Microsoft.
Nintendo is.. Nintendo. Without a doubt it'd be a huge shame to see them go, they're part of the foundations of which this industry was built on. Whilst it has been a long time since I feel Nintendo were at the forefront of making video games, I can't give up on them easily.
It depends. Western or Us studios might say Nintendo. Japanese definitly wont. The 3DS is very popular and has a lot of support in Japan.
Microsoft ... Their hardware is decent but their software portfolio leaves a lot to be desired.
Sony and Nintendo however are very strong on the software side. They'd definitely be missed.
Now, just make this about hardware? Nintendo. I would *kill* for the opportunity to play a Zelda or Mario game on strong hardware again!
Sony and Nintendo however are very strong on the software side. They'd definitely be missed.
Now, just make this about hardware? Nintendo. I would *kill* for the opportunity to play a Zelda or Mario game on strong hardware again!
Microsoft, definitely. Coming from somebody whose only home console this gen has been a 360, had it not existed, I would have been just as happy, if not more, with a PS3. Nintendo has provided way too much software and innovation wise to be in the discussion, and Sony seems to have a bit better mindset for the business, especially now.
You do realize the PS3 would not be the PS3 you know of now if it wasn't for the Xbox right?
If Playstation's only competitor was Nintendo the Playstation would have only been the worse for it.
PSN as it is now would not exist if it wasn't for it having to match Xbox Live.
Diddy Kong
Banned
First post etc
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Toss up between Microsoft and Sony. Both provide largely redundant consoles and only have around 3-5 major IPs people seem to actually care about.
Well if "industry" means third parties then Nintendo. The directions just don't align, which is kinda sad for many reasons especially because they have a healthy attitude toward gaming.
If "industry" is just about players then it's hard to say. I'd argue that neither Sony or MS contribute as much themselves as both are incredibly 3rd party dependent. Both follow the leads of third parties and both make relatively similar hardware. I can't say I see one as above the other, I think the industry needs at least one, but neither is more valid. Nintendo is it's own beast though. Hardware and software pioneer and also the best publisher out there. It has no equivalent, it hits the absolute largest base of player, young, old, male and female. A healthy game industry would hurt without it. Believe in Wii U or not but they're currently a large part of the portable market and the only one that invests large amounts into software portable software and encourages others to do so.
If "industry" is just about players then it's hard to say. I'd argue that neither Sony or MS contribute as much themselves as both are incredibly 3rd party dependent. Both follow the leads of third parties and both make relatively similar hardware. I can't say I see one as above the other, I think the industry needs at least one, but neither is more valid. Nintendo is it's own beast though. Hardware and software pioneer and also the best publisher out there. It has no equivalent, it hits the absolute largest base of player, young, old, male and female. A healthy game industry would hurt without it. Believe in Wii U or not but they're currently a large part of the portable market and the only one that invests large amounts into software portable software and encourages others to do so.
I'd be really sad if Sony ever left the console business. They're a good company who seems to really love games, and I've had a ton of great experiences on their consoles in the past.
I'd feel indifferent if Microsoft left.
I'd have to say Microsoft. Microsoft was very important to the development of online console gaming, but things would have eventually gone that way at some point. Online gaming had been blossoming on PC for at least a decade before Xbox Live. Steam was already laying down roots at the same time Live debuted. Microsoft also has the weakest first party line up. They have their 3 big franchises (plus Gears. Though I thought Epic owned the IP for that), but almost no mid tier lineup. Sony and Nintendo both have expansive lineups that cover almost every genre.
If Microsoft shut down, third parties would just develop for one of the other platforms, or for PC. It's not like we were lacking for third party software in the 15 years prior to Microsoft entering the console business.
If Microsoft shut down, third parties would just develop for one of the other platforms, or for PC. It's not like we were lacking for third party software in the 15 years prior to Microsoft entering the console business.
Microsoft. Only because they are the youngest in the gaming space and don't have a handheld. They have contributed the least to gamers (not all gamers). They have the fewest exclusive IP's and Kinect isn't well liked by the gaming community.
Nintendo saved the industry and has dozens of IP's that sell well. They make the best handhelds and hold that family friendly image (kinda like the Disney of gaming). They are successful in all markets while Microsoft struggles outside North America.
Sony bought gaming to the adults and masses making it "cool" to play games as an adult instead of "weird" or "nerdy". They also have dozens of successful IP's (don't sell as much as Nintendo, but still successful) and are a major hit in all big 3 markets (NA, EU, JP).
Nintendo saved the industry and has dozens of IP's that sell well. They make the best handhelds and hold that family friendly image (kinda like the Disney of gaming). They are successful in all markets while Microsoft struggles outside North America.
Sony bought gaming to the adults and masses making it "cool" to play games as an adult instead of "weird" or "nerdy". They also have dozens of successful IP's (don't sell as much as Nintendo, but still successful) and are a major hit in all big 3 markets (NA, EU, JP).
first reply wins again. I mean, really, what exactly are they bringing to the table?
It better be, since they are the only player in the game charging for it.
Xbudz
Member
I wonder if PS4 multiplayer is free- seems like they would have said as much already.
Angel Whispers
Member
Microsoft would be missed the least. People who say that Nintendo wouldn't be missed on the hardware front are straight-up delusional souls, in my opinion. Here's why...
D-Pad. Second action button - Those were just for the NES. Think about what was possible in gaming because of those things. It changed the way we played games forever. I don't think enough of you realise just how much of a big deal running and jumping while being able to fire in different directions in Metroid is. If that's not an advancement of hardware, then I'm lost as to what is.
4 more action buttons, including shoulder buttons - SNES.
3D stick, Rumble - N64.
C-stick on GameCube was there, but Dual Shock existed before it.
Wiimote and Nunchuk - Wii
GamePad, asymmetric gameplay - Wii U.
Oh, and there's Dual Screens which were on some Game & Watch games, as well as the DS, and 3D without glasses on the 3DS.
I'll also put it out there that the Wii U, despite positioning itself somewhere between the Dreamcast and PS2 end of the 8th Gen scale, is still a very impressive piece of tech. The main screen image quality has to hold AND work in time with the GamePad; Sometimes two times the display, and a critical point ignored on the Internet, especially with regard to its true power and features. All on low power consumption. One would hope that future systems aren't solely about having more power, but greater efficiency. I think it's important, and hope it will be a consideration in the design of future consoles.
Of course, they would be missed because of software - there are reasons why you never hear people saying "I wish I could play Killzone or Halo on my iPhone/another console". But they say "Yay, another Mario game" because they secretly desire to play it
.
......................
Meanwhile...
PS1 just takes shoulder buttons from the SNES and says "A-Ha!! Have 2 more", then Dual Shock takes the N64 controller and says "Have another stick" - There's an argument which says we were just fine without a second stick. Since then, we've had Dual Shock 1, 2, 3 and 'gamers' who couldn't embrace motion controls will happily accept the SAME CONTROLLER for the fourth successive generation... Yeah.
XBox controllers copied the SNES and Dreamcast blueprints, while the XBox 360 controller has a similar layout to that of the GameCube... Dreamcast was also online capable, so it wasn't something that started with the XBox.
That isn't to say that Sony or Microsoft have nothing going for them. Clearly, they do. But the people playing down Nintendo's contribution to hardware are doing so because the Wii existed in an era of HD consoles, and for whatever reasons, they feel so 'burned' by it that they've forgotten everything else that Nintendo have and still continue to bring to the gaming industry's table.
But Yeah, LMAO @ the idea that Nintendo don't 'advance the hardware much' and would be missed the least on those accounts. Putting more powerful bits in your console isn't 'advancing hardware' - PC owners have been doing that for years. Also, when you look at mobile tech, there are others such as Samsung, HTC and Apple playing their part in advancing hardware. Only on NeoGAF... **Sigh and Roll Eyes...URGH.**
D-Pad. Second action button - Those were just for the NES. Think about what was possible in gaming because of those things. It changed the way we played games forever. I don't think enough of you realise just how much of a big deal running and jumping while being able to fire in different directions in Metroid is. If that's not an advancement of hardware, then I'm lost as to what is.
4 more action buttons, including shoulder buttons - SNES.
3D stick, Rumble - N64.
C-stick on GameCube was there, but Dual Shock existed before it.
Wiimote and Nunchuk - Wii
GamePad, asymmetric gameplay - Wii U.
Oh, and there's Dual Screens which were on some Game & Watch games, as well as the DS, and 3D without glasses on the 3DS.
I'll also put it out there that the Wii U, despite positioning itself somewhere between the Dreamcast and PS2 end of the 8th Gen scale, is still a very impressive piece of tech. The main screen image quality has to hold AND work in time with the GamePad; Sometimes two times the display, and a critical point ignored on the Internet, especially with regard to its true power and features. All on low power consumption. One would hope that future systems aren't solely about having more power, but greater efficiency. I think it's important, and hope it will be a consideration in the design of future consoles.
Of course, they would be missed because of software - there are reasons why you never hear people saying "I wish I could play Killzone or Halo on my iPhone/another console". But they say "Yay, another Mario game" because they secretly desire to play it
.......................
Meanwhile...
PS1 just takes shoulder buttons from the SNES and says "A-Ha!! Have 2 more", then Dual Shock takes the N64 controller and says "Have another stick" - There's an argument which says we were just fine without a second stick. Since then, we've had Dual Shock 1, 2, 3 and 'gamers' who couldn't embrace motion controls will happily accept the SAME CONTROLLER for the fourth successive generation... Yeah.
XBox controllers copied the SNES and Dreamcast blueprints, while the XBox 360 controller has a similar layout to that of the GameCube... Dreamcast was also online capable, so it wasn't something that started with the XBox.
That isn't to say that Sony or Microsoft have nothing going for them. Clearly, they do. But the people playing down Nintendo's contribution to hardware are doing so because the Wii existed in an era of HD consoles, and for whatever reasons, they feel so 'burned' by it that they've forgotten everything else that Nintendo have and still continue to bring to the gaming industry's table.
But Yeah, LMAO @ the idea that Nintendo don't 'advance the hardware much' and would be missed the least on those accounts. Putting more powerful bits in your console isn't 'advancing hardware' - PC owners have been doing that for years. Also, when you look at mobile tech, there are others such as Samsung, HTC and Apple playing their part in advancing hardware. Only on NeoGAF... **Sigh and Roll Eyes...URGH.**
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
I tend to agree on legacy but I still feel like Microsoft tends to get undervalued from a support/technology perspective. I'd say it's safe to say they've really been leading the industry in terms of stuff like online integration, digital content and dev tools; basically they're the ones pushing forward most the past decade. In a way I think they're probably the one (western) devs would miss the most.
In a weird way Xbox is sort of like the Sega to PlayStation's Nintendo.
Microsoft.
Even if I'm not a fan of Nintendo hardware strategy and I dislike their "familiar" stuff I would feel extremely sad of seeing them go, they still make extraordinary games.
Sony has some fantastic studios and a nice balance in their own offerings. I really dislike what they have done with Liverpool and I don't agree with everything they do but I feel it's a company that talk to me and my particular interests as a consumer.
Microsoft has been extremely conservative with their own ips, has introduced stuff I'm not interested and put it in the place of the things I care about. Rare and Lionhead are now a joke. Closed Ensemble, destroyed Flight Simulator and failed during years to create something new or interesting to me, just sequels, great sequels in some cases but I want more than that. I don't feel that Microsoft really address me as a consumer, I feel sidelined in their messages.
So Microsoft, yes. I's a shame because I really liked them in Xbox times.
Even if I'm not a fan of Nintendo hardware strategy and I dislike their "familiar" stuff I would feel extremely sad of seeing them go, they still make extraordinary games.
Sony has some fantastic studios and a nice balance in their own offerings. I really dislike what they have done with Liverpool and I don't agree with everything they do but I feel it's a company that talk to me and my particular interests as a consumer.
Microsoft has been extremely conservative with their own ips, has introduced stuff I'm not interested and put it in the place of the things I care about. Rare and Lionhead are now a joke. Closed Ensemble, destroyed Flight Simulator and failed during years to create something new or interesting to me, just sequels, great sequels in some cases but I want more than that. I don't feel that Microsoft really address me as a consumer, I feel sidelined in their messages.
So Microsoft, yes. I's a shame because I really liked them in Xbox times.
Microsoft is keen on replacing the cable box. They don't give a fuck about the gaming industry.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I'd say Microsoft:
- Block used games
- Online only
- Charge for what should be a free service
- Block used games
- Online only
- Charge for what should be a free service
Not that I'm undermining Microsoft's success (in fact I highlighted them earlier), but from what murmurings we've had from devs and the like about how PS4 is to develop for, and how much better Sony have gotten at relations, does that fact still hold water?
Master Nairb
Member
If I had to pick one company of this current generation it would have to be Sony. No way I would ever get rid of Nintendo and Microsoft's on line multiplayer this gen has been off the chain.
Next generation will be interesting. If what they say is true about 'always - on' I think I would have to get rid off Microsoft but will just have to wait and see which consoles are better.
Next generation will be interesting. If what they say is true about 'always - on' I think I would have to get rid off Microsoft but will just have to wait and see which consoles are better.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
Because of breadth of games, you would have to say Microsoft. As far as forward thinking into the future, I'd say Nintendo. Nintendo can live through other systems. Microsoft cannot however.
Like it or not, this is the future of the industry.
It can be handled better than MS has handled it though, much better. Like how Sony handles it by offering most of the same features as MS but also continuing to say gamers are the main focus and then proving it by releasing tons of exclusives.
The standard on Sony's platforms is free multiplayer. I don't know why they would have to remind us that it's still free.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Not Nintendo
Hydrargyrus
Member
Microsoft, by far
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
Like most people I'm going with Microsoft, if "industry" = fans. Because of their lack of history, content and their whole pretty sleazy overt use of gaming as a Trojan horse.
Dorimukyasuto
Member
I became a huge Sony fan this generation. I still remember back when it seemed like I was the only one I knew with a PS3. I always had the need to defend Sony when people would insist that 360 was somehow superior (junior/senior years in HS mostly). Man, times changed quickly. Now it seems that people realise the PS3 is good too and they're all switching over. Can't tell you how many people I know dropped 360 (seemingly at least).
Regardless, I would be sad if something happened to Nintendo. Had some good times with GameBoy and the 64.
I still miss Sega ;_;
Regardless, I would be sad if something happened to Nintendo. Had some good times with GameBoy and the 64.
I still miss Sega ;_;
anotherVegan
Member
Microsoft. I probably wouldn't miss Gears of War 7 or Halo 9.
With the industry stance on Microsoft it mostly boils down to "where the userbase is", not the content. They had the advantage early on this gen when they launched by having a plethora of features with an appealing price turning Live into an appealing offer back when online console gaming was still in it's infancy, and Sony's whole $599 fuck up easily helped that. But now Sony has managed to absorb a majority of those compelling features into the PS3 as well, for free no less, and very little remains of Microsoft in terms of offering something different for the consumer. This is especially true with the games, where hubris has easily been the cause of Microsoft losing out most games it could have called it's own at some point (Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden, Dead Rising etc). As it stands I honestly see them having a bigger slice of humble pie coming at them than Nintendo this next gen.
If Microsoft would disappear from the industry, most of the games and a majority of it's audience would go to where that similar kind of output can be replicated, which Sony is doing a good job at doing. There's no particular reverence to any of their products or franchises (with the exception of Halo and maybe Gears), everything is merely "image" for them, and in terms of that they're a pretty blank slate. I can see major corporations like EA and Activision miss them if they're still being the "highest bidder", but their progress this gen has been so circumstantial and a bit luck based that I see no reason why them continuing being a key player is that important.
I wish they'd get their act together for the sake of proper competition in the industry but I dunno. At this rate, I don't see them providing.
If Microsoft would disappear from the industry, most of the games and a majority of it's audience would go to where that similar kind of output can be replicated, which Sony is doing a good job at doing. There's no particular reverence to any of their products or franchises (with the exception of Halo and maybe Gears), everything is merely "image" for them, and in terms of that they're a pretty blank slate. I can see major corporations like EA and Activision miss them if they're still being the "highest bidder", but their progress this gen has been so circumstantial and a bit luck based that I see no reason why them continuing being a key player is that important.
I wish they'd get their act together for the sake of proper competition in the industry but I dunno. At this rate, I don't see them providing.
Bel_Air_Jeff
Banned
Nintendo will always be the company people take for granted..
I fear that one day Nintendo will go under and the whole gaming populace will site Nintendo as the best thing that ever happened to gaming...
While they are still around they are just some stupid Japanese Company that fails to meet expectations.
I fear that one day Nintendo will go under and the whole gaming populace will site Nintendo as the best thing that ever happened to gaming...
While they are still around they are just some stupid Japanese Company that fails to meet expectations.
JetBlackPanda
Member
The industry?? Microsoft.. the general public.. Sony
BolognaSoup
Member
Microsoft by a million bajillion miles.
Losing Nintendo software would be devastating. Sure they've been down as of late but it remains that their software lineup's potential is second to none.
Losing Nintendo software would be devastating. Sure they've been down as of late but it remains that their software lineup's potential is second to none.
digoutyoursoul
Member
This thread is good for what is to come during E3, who says what and what topics they post in.
For the record: I wouldnt like to see any of the three leave.
For the record: I wouldnt like to see any of the three leave.
dragonbane
Member
Microsoft of course. Lol what a question.
I would cry if Sony or Nintendo go down.
I would cry if Sony or Nintendo go down.