Support NeoGAF

[Loxley]

I'm surprised at the number of people saying Microsoft, especially after the 360 literally had its best year ever in 2011 - six years into it's life cycle. Financially MS as a corporation is doing just fine, and the Xbox side is printing money and Live has more active users than ever. Why would they be the first to back out? Kinect is very successful, but that's no reason for them to back out of the hardcore, especially when the 360 is practically synonymous with the CoD franchise at this point.

Sony is easily the most likely at the moment, given that, as a company as a whole (not just SCEA) they're not doing that well at all. With their tablet flopping, the Xperia Play under-performing, and the Vita's outlook being very uncertain, I would say between the three they'd be the most likely to pull the plug on the gaming side and solely focus on other consumer electronics. Plus, the hacks last year likely didn't help their moral at all, on top of the promise of more attacks coming in the wake of their SOPA support.

Bare in mind I'm not saying Sony needs to flip the switch to Defcon 1 though, if the Vita ends up doing even marginally well at $249.99 it will probably help them, at the very least until they can figure out what the finished PS4 will look like (and cost ).

If the Vita tanks however, then I might start to ask these questions a little more seriously :/

 

[jeremy1456]

I'm surprised at the number of people saying Microsoft, especially after the 360 literally had its best year ever in 2011 - six years into it's life cycle.

I think it's only the people who hold Sony dear, and know how ridiculous they would sound if they said Nintendo.

 

[Mxrz]

Any of them. Anything else is just rooting for your favorites. Valve or Apple could launch a console tomorrow and change everything.

 

[Foffy]

I think it's only the people who hold Sony dear, and know how ridiculous they would sound if they said Nintendo.

Not that I'm one who's saying Nintendo will bow out, but aren't they at a disadvantage? Sony and Microsoft are able to market their machines as multimedia devices with a focus on games, whereas Nintendo's platforms are just for games. Doesn't that focus of putting all of your chips in one boat leave a bigger risk of failure if it peters out?

Granted, I don't use the multimedia stuff, but it seems like every major piece of tech is now offering multiple functionality, something Nintendo has never had a great history in.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Microsoft.

 

[Somnid]

I'm surprised at the number of people saying Microsoft, especially after the 360 literally had its best year ever in 2011 - six years into it's life cycle. Financially MS as a corporation is doing just fine, and the Xbox side is printing money and Live has more active users than ever. Why would they be the first to back out? Kinect is very successful, but that's no reason for them to back out of the hardcore, especially when the 360 is practically synonymous with the CoD franchise at this point.

Not that I agree MS is in any danger but history has shown us a few things:

-Don't ride the gravy train too long. Sony did that twice with PS2 and PSP, each time it let the competition gain leverage. It'll be pretty bad for them if Wii U is halfway to 10 million before they even launch.

-Don't expect the "it" thing to last. Halo and GTA were huge last gen but they certainly weren't so important this time around and both series seem in decline. Call of Duty for all it's milking and multiplatform-ness is not something I'd expect to carry me next-gen.

 

[Freezie KO]

Sega!

/living under a rock

 

[jeremy1456]

Not that I'm one who's saying Nintendo will bow out, but aren't they at a disadvantage? Sony and Microsoft are able to market their machines as multimedia devices with a focus on games, whereas Nintendo's platforms are just for games. Doesn't that focus of putting all of your chips in one boat leave a bigger risk of failure if it peters out?

Granted, I don't use the multimedia stuff, but it seems like every major piece of tech is now offering multiple functionality, something Nintendo has never had a great history in.

So you think that Sony and Microsoft game consoles could survive as standalone multimedia devices?

I just don't know about that.

 

[Evlar]

Kinda depends on whether you believe in the console apocalypse or not.

 

[Codeblue]

Goddamn. There is no rage like Nintendo rage. Do you guys want me to list all the negatives with Sony/Microsoft too because I can if it'll make Nintendo's faults easier to accept.


People will complain if they change but that's the risk of trying something new. I'm sure many complained when Mario/Zelda went 3D but they were so good everyone shut their mouths.


This made me lol hard. Especially this one:

rocked the world with Cel-Shading



A. I don't care if casuals far outstrip us. I don't consider myself a casual and I'm not going to applaud Nintendo for making games I'm not interested in. I'm not the type that thinks Nintendo is a god because they sell the most, the games matter more.

B. Galaxy is linear/boring/dull and nothing compared to SM64. Galaxy 2 was better because of Yoshi, had better music and had more creative levels but I won't give a shit about Mario again until they make an SM64 sequel focused on exploration, finding secrets etc. things like that.

C. Spin-off like a realistic Mario game in terms of visuals and aesthetic style, just to try something new. You'd still have the normal cartoony one but I want to see Mario in a different setting/style. Maybe cel-shading or something who knows.

D. You're the one pretending if you think Wii Sports had the same time/budget to it as a Zelda game.

Nintendo doesn't try enough new things with their core franchises, and their new IPs have been geared towards casuals. I want new IPs with the same intense creativity/dedication/time etc. as a Mario or Zelda game. Sony focused big time on new IPs and exclusives this gen, Nintendo lagged far behind in this regard imo.

And when they do put out one of their core franchise games it takes way too long. Skyward Sword took like what 6 years, why? And without changing much except motion controls? They didn't even have to make it in HD. At this rate it'll take 10 years to put out a Zelda game on Wii U if Wii U is in 720p/1080p. If a game like Skyrim takes 3-4 years to make, Zelda should never take any longer and if it does there's a problem.

You dismissed Windwakers superficial shift and then asked where Mario's was.

You think they aren't taking chances because they're not the chances you want or can recognize superficially.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Easily Sony. Even when Nintendo doesn't support their platforms well (or at all) they still sell.

 

[Foffy]

So you think that Sony and Microsoft game consoles could survive as standalone multimedia devices?

I just don't know about that.

Survive is a big question, but their platforms can be easier sells to people who just want more than games. If I recall correctly, some people did in fact buy PS3's early at launch because of the Blu-ray support on top of the fact it played games. I think having a 'jack of all trades' approach is what helped Microsoft in 2011 with the 360, as I really found its lineup of games to be rather lacking.

I know people who don't want a 3DS specifically because it only focuses on games, and they'd stick with a smartphone as it offers more than just games. I'm not one of those types of people who need an all-in-one device, but it seems moving forward game platforms have to focus more on offering more bells and whistles, as other pieces of technology are moving that way, too. This is why I wonder if Nintendo will be able to compete in that type of arena. They sure as shit can compete based on IPs and the quality of their products, but for some, there has to be more than that as an offering.

 

[Flavius]

I don't see any of them bowing out any time soon, but I'm not sure how Sony isn't the obvious answer here.

They aren't Sega, but Sony's position in the industry right now shows some similarities. Nintendo is Nintendo, and will be fine, but Microsoft has positioned itself to always have an advantage over Sony. They have too much invested, and have been too successful, to stop now. Sony Corp continues to bleed. Barring a relatively huge swing, I could see SCE going the software only route (Sony has done a fantastic job of maintaining existing IPs AND developing new IP), or selling SCE to Microsoft.

 

[Nessus]

I can't help but feel Microsoft will happily bail out as soon as they don't think they're making enough money from their games division. It doesn't seem like there are many people in charge over there who consider 'games' as anything other than a formulaic revenue stream like 'TV' or 'movies' any more.

Good point. When they're shuttering amazing studios like Ensemble before Halo Wars even came out (so it wasn't based on sales).

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I think this is such a stupid question because there isn't one ignorant fucking answer at this point in time. It's like just throwing out random shit. I'll say Nintendo because Iwata is on the hot seat because why not. Or Microsoft. They'll pack up and leave just as fast as they came in if shit starts going downhill. Or sony because sony am doomed ps3 suxed this generation bankrupt etc.

 

[Flavius]

I think this is such a stupid question because there isn't one ignorant fucking answer at this point in time. It's like just throwing out random shit. I'll say Nintendo because Iwata is on the hot seat because why not. Or Microsoft. They'll pack up and leave just as fast as they came in if shit starts going downhill. Or sony because sony am doomed ps3 suxed this generation bankrupt etc.

Thankfully, you suited up and saved the thread with your astute analysis.

Thank you very much.

 

[SturokBGD]

As a business Sega were never untouchable. OP fail.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Thankfully, you suited up and saved the thread with your astute analysis.

Thank you very much.

dude there's like 4 pages straight in this thread of people arguing without backing up sources, then when sources are presented they act like they never happened, and then the people posting afterward completely don't read them because they post their opinion with facts already refuted earlier in the thread, insert some apple references and sega jokes and here we are.

Why isn't my answer good enough? My answer is that I think it's impossible to call this and there is no reasoning at the moment strong enough to even make a guess. Sure I said it in a totally rude amiroxian way, but that's how I gets down.

edit: actually real answer below

 

[Special J]

people are doom and gloom but sony will always be in gaming. playstation brand is too strong and people are too loyal.

they just need to learn to run their business more leaner and meaner, their revenues and sales are strong.

take a look at apple on the brink of going bankrupt have came back as the highest valued company in the world.

 

[KingJ2002]

I guess of the 3... I would count sony as the company that could bow out first.

- the playstation brand isnt as strong as it used to be due to the Xbox 360 & Wii eating at it's marketshare
- The PSVITA's slow start and the lack of interest from the public could stop sony from cementing a place in mobile.

I can see a future where sony licenses the playstation brand to other manufacturers... making sure they follow a certain spec to ensure the games look and play with a certain quality. I can also see them doing the same with playstation mobile... is PSVITA doesn't take off... they would use the android platform to deliver playstation titles.

It's funny... i always thought that if there is any company that can take on apple... it would be sony... setting up an marketplace for music, movies, etc.... but i guess the task was too great... still... the alliance with Google gives them a way to manuever.

I doubt any of this would happen...

but wouldn't it be crazy if Google bought Sony?

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

To be honest, I could see Microsoft totally use gaming as a stepping stone to get into your homes, and then they'll slowly transition away from that and turn into some sort of media hub (that will support an app store of some sort rather than games), once they reach that point the second they see the gaming division not worthwhile they'll drop it since it wont be necessary by then, since they will have accomplished their ultimate goal. Assuming that is their goal, and it's not totally far-fetched.

Whereas with Nintendo and Sony, they'd probably cease existing as companies before they stop making games.

 

[jonabbey]

I don't think any of the big three will go out of the business. If WiiU doesn't do well and is Dreamcasted by XB3 and PS4, Nintendo might need to get pretty creative, though.

Sony needs to do better than PS3 with PS4, but that shouldn't be hard. Even with PS3, remember that the PS3 won them the high definition video disc war, which they've got to be making some pretty good bank on these days.

Vita looks great but iffy, so I worry about them losing money on that more than on the PS4.

Microsoft is currently having a world of hurt in the smart phone business, but the 360 is doing just fantastic now, and they've long since recouped their RROD losses. If Microsoft bases XB3 on the Metro interface and supports a common programming model for XB3 and WP7 / WP8, they might use the console to throw themselves a life-line in phones.

Apple and Google are threatening all of them, particularly 3DS and Vita, but unless they or someone else make an explicit move to try to displace the high end consoles, I don't see a huge risk to any of the big three.

It will be interesting to see how competitive Sony and Microsoft wind up being with each other in their hardware and network services next gen. That's what I'm really curious about.

 

[Gospel]

thread reads like a dear diary of sorts. love it.

 

[entremet]

people are doom and gloom but sony will always be in gaming. playstation brand is too strong and people are too loyal.

they just need to learn to run their business more leaner and meaner, their revenues and sales are strong.

take a look at apple on the brink of going bankrupt have came back as the highest valued company in the world.

Apple had a business genius running the show. Who does Sony has? Stringer has been a failure. Not sure why he still has the job.

If you're looking at Sony as whole, it makes sense why many people are picking them to bow out, based on the OP question.

I personally wouldn't want any of the console makers to bow out any time soon. All three provide many people with gainful employment, and I've enjoyed all three boxes this generation.

 

[Special J]

Apple had a business genius running the show. Who does Sony has? Stringer has been a failure. Not sure why he still has the job.

ya hes a moron.

 

[Grayman]

SCE would be an amazing 3rd party publisher.

Gran Turismo is Sony's only highly successful game. A lot of their games seem like they would not be viable without first party backing. The purpose of Sony's first party today is to get people to buy PS3s instead of Xbox when they want to play COD and GTA.

 

[Kazerei]

If Nintendo suffered a $5 billion flop ... they'd still have enough money for another flop

If Microsoft suffered a $5 billion flop ... they'd put in more resources and keep going

If Sony suffered a $5 billion flop ... they'd probably bow out

 

[Raitosaito]

Gran Turismo is Sony's only highly successful game. A lot of their games seem like they would not be viable without first party backing. The purpose of Sony's first party today is to get people to buy PS3s instead of Xbox when they want to play COD and GTA.

Don't tell some people in this thread. They'll tell you 2 million copies sold for an IP=blockbuster.

Sony doesn't have any real mainstream 1st party IPs

 

[fernoca]

As a business Sega were never untouchable. OP fail.

That's another interesting point, kinda missing from the main post and point.
In the "10 years that took Sega to bow out"; it wasn't like it was out of nowhere or unexpected.

Magazines and the few websites back then were talking about the disappointing sales of the Sega Saturn and the Dreamcast, the high (for back then) budget of Shenmue (which never recouped costs); Saturn losing games to the newcomer "the PlayStation", the "here it is! surprise launch of the Saturn" and so on. Basically, Sega was throwing money all over the place and not getting profits or anything; which is why they had to go. (on top of their constant experiments with the Sega CD, 32-X, Nomad, etc...)

Even when Nintendo "failed" with the Gamecube; they still made profits; which is what made them create something like the Wii..and end making even more money. Management is always key, and Sega was failing at it; which was what forced them out of the consoles-race; not competing with Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft.

 

[rpmurphy]

I would say Microsoft, but since things aren't going sour for them, I doubt it would happen for a fairly long time and totally dependent on whether they would want to ever drop the hardware and focus solely on pushing their OS environments. Sony has other electronic hardware background to leverage, and Nintendo simply has strong enough software branding to last them for a long time.

I guess there's the question of: when the current FPS craze dies down, what happens then? I think it will be interesting to see.

 

[entremet]

If Nintendo suffered a $5 billion flop ... they'd still have enough money for another flop

If Microsoft suffered a $5 billion flop ... they'd put in more resources and keep going

If Sony suffered a $5 billion flop ... they'd probably bow out

I know about MS, but do you have proof about Nintendo surviving a 5 billion dollar flop? They've run a profit for a while now.

 

[njean777]

I wouldnt be able to call it, but to be honest, Sony is the only one that is in trouble right now. But I have high hopes for the ps4 and will be interested to see what they do with it.

 

[sleepykyo]

Probably Sony. Both Microsoft and Nintendo are making far more money right, while Sony is still digging itself out of a whole. They can't afford another flop.

 

[Grayman]

I would say Microsoft, but since things aren't going sour for them, I doubt it would happen for a fairly long time and totally dependent on whether they would want to ever drop the hardware and focus solely on pushing their OS environments. Sony has other electronic hardware background to leverage, and Nintendo simply has strong enough software branding to last them for a long time.

I guess there's the question of: when the current FPS craze dies down, what happens then? I think it will be interesting to see.

The current FPS craze has been going pretty strong for 20 years now.

 

[jeremy1456]

Survive is a big question, but their platforms can be easier sells to people who just want more than games. If I recall correctly, some people did in fact buy PS3's early at launch because of the Blu-ray support on top of the fact it played games. I think having a 'jack of all trades' approach is what helped Microsoft in 2011 with the 360, as I really found its lineup of games to be rather lacking.

I know people who don't want a 3DS specifically because it only focuses on games, and they'd stick with a smartphone as it offers more than just games. I'm not one of those types of people who need an all-in-one device, but it seems moving forward game platforms have to focus more on offering more bells and whistles, as other pieces of technology are moving that way, too. This is why I wonder if Nintendo will be able to compete in that type of arena. They sure as shit can compete based on IPs and the quality of their products, but for some, there has to be more than that as an offering.

The Wii can't even play DVDs, and is the market leader. The original DS couldn't even play music, and still sold gangbusters.

I don't think being an all in one device is very important at all.

 

[Freezie KO]

The current FPS craze has been going pretty strong for 20 years now.

Doomed.

 

[rpmurphy]

The current FPS craze has been going pretty strong for 20 years now.

Not if we're talking consoles. There was Goldeneye and Halo, but this generation has seen the FPs and TPS genres explode like crazy.

 

[Acrylic7]

Sony

I love me some PlayStation more then anyone. But they are complete idiots.
They have no idea which way is up.

I don't even think they will be around 7 years from now.

 

[theb0xmIke]

Microsoft, imo they don't seem to care about the hardcore. They have like almost 0 exclusives and 1st party studios *shrugs*

I hate false information

 

[Kazerei]

I know about MS, but do you have proof about Nintendo surviving a 5 billion dollar flop? They've run a profit for a while now.

The last I heard, they had $11 billion saved up. I'll try to find a reference.

EDIT: Well I found this post and this news article. I'm no financial expert, don't ask me :x

 

[Louis Cyphre]

I myself think it will be Nintendo. Microsoft, Sony, (and Apple to some extent) have interests outside of being solely a gaming platform. They see the game console as being an extension to other services and devices. Apple has the best ecosystem thus far but has the least investment into gaming. They just provide the devices to play games on, and what do you know, they make the most money. They don't have the overhead of financing game studios.

Does any one know how much revenue Steam gets? I imagine they are very profitable. That to me is the direction each is headed and sadly it is Nintendo who seems lacking in direction. They stalled on adopting online play. Then they didn't think HDTV's would take off that quickly. Now they think creating another new experience will again carry them over while technology and online services completely overshadow them.

Nintendo will close its doors before they ever go the way of Sega. They have too much pride to ever think they would release their software on another platform and because of that closed-minded thinking it will eventually get the best of them.

 

[Monocle]

I'm not qualified to offer a rigorous assessment here, but it can't have escaped anyone's notice that Sony has fallen a long way from the PS2 days, while Microsoft and Nintendo have been hanging on just fine, to put it mildly.

I expected the PS3 to be my first current gen console. Its initial price tag ensured that this didn't happen, and Sony's loss of several appealing exclusives (when Devil May Cry 4, Tekken 6, and Final Fantasy XIII all went multiplatform), as well as the choice to drop backward compatibility from newer PS3 models, dissolved my lingering interest in the system.

 

[Anth0ny]

At this point, easily Sony.

 

[GillianSeed79]

I'd say from a pure business/financial standpoint, it seems like Sony might be the most logical choice. Microsoft lost a shit ton of money getting into the gaming business, but that's only one division. That and I believe they've started to finallly turn a profit and Kinect, despite poor software sales, sold like gangbusters. Sony seems like it has been losing money on all of its divisions as of late.

At some point, though, as much as I hate to say it, dedicated consoles seem like more and more like things that won't exist in 10 years. The battle for the living room seems like it's more of an antiquated market strategy these days.

People are no longer tethered to the family room or the TV when it comes to entertainment. The 360 and PS3 are not the same machines they were when they launched. At some point it's got to look to Sony and MS shareholders that it's stupid to have these walled off markets and redundant machines. I love consoles, but I'm betting in 2020 launching a device that only plays games in your living room hooked up to your TV is going to look silly.

I'm talking about Xbox LIVE or PlayStation branded tablets, laptops, set top boxes and smartphones. I think Nintendo and MS are going to make the first move in this direction. I'm betting the WiiU adopts some sort of App like business strategy and an Amazon-Kindle like service would make sense. I kind of also believe the rumors that MS will have a Kinect App box and a second "hardcore" game system next gen, while pushing Kinect into other functions like Windows integration.

What does Sony have? Blu-Ray is great, but it's kind of clear that we're moving more and more into streaming and digital downloads. PSN is probably their biggest ace. They need to intergrate that in every TV, tablet, laptop, phone or any other gadget they release.

 

[Takao]

Don't tell some people in this thread. They'll tell you 2 million copies sold for an IP=blockbuster.

Sony doesn't have any real mainstream 1st party IPs

Gran Turismo's 10 million unit per real entry not mainstream confirmed.

 

[Cipherr]

Goddamn. There is no rage like Nintendo rage. Do you guys want me to list all the negatives with Sony/Microsoft too because I can if it'll make Nintendo's faults easier to accept.


People will complain if they change but that's the risk of trying something new. I'm sure many complained when Mario/Zelda went 3D but they were so good everyone shut their mouths.


This made me lol hard. Especially this one:

rocked the world with Cel-Shading



A. I don't care if casuals far outstrip us. I don't consider myself a casual and I'm not going to applaud Nintendo for making games I'm not interested in. I'm not the type that thinks Nintendo is a god because they sell the most, the games matter more.

B. Galaxy is linear/boring/dull and nothing compared to SM64. Galaxy 2 was better because of Yoshi, had better music and had more creative levels but I won't give a shit about Mario again until they make an SM64 sequel focused on exploration, finding secrets etc. things like that.

C. Spin-off like a realistic Mario game in terms of visuals and aesthetic style, just to try something new. You'd still have the normal cartoony one but I want to see Mario in a different setting/style. Maybe cel-shading or something who knows.

D. You're the one pretending if you think Wii Sports had the same time/budget to it as a Zelda game.

Nintendo doesn't try enough new things with their core franchises, and their new IPs have been geared towards casuals. I want new IPs with the same intense creativity/dedication/time etc. as a Mario or Zelda game. Sony focused big time on new IPs and exclusives this gen, Nintendo lagged far behind in this regard imo.

And when they do put out one of their core franchise games it takes way too long. Skyward Sword took like what 6 years, why? And without changing much except motion controls? They didn't even have to make it in HD. At this rate it'll take 10 years to put out a Zelda game on Wii U if Wii U is in 720p/1080p. If a game like Skyrim takes 3-4 years to make, Zelda should never take any longer and if it does there's a problem.

Noone cares if you dont like Nintendo, thread title didnt ask that, so save your angsty teen rage for someone who cares.


In any case the only way to answer a question like this without personal bias, or opinions and whatnot is to look at the facts.

Looking at the numbers, I say Sony, by a landslide would be the first. MS has the means to keep going, even if they suffered some horrifying generations. Nintendo does as well, as they have never actually had a generation where they lost money. The only one of the 3 to have done that. They have no debt, and billions upon billions upon billions to fall back on, more than Sony even, and they focus on profitability first. So they will be around just like MS will.

Nintendo also has handheld success that despite all the doom and gloom, is currently blooming once again. And MS has overthrown the PS brand as the go to gaming device for the hardlycore in NA.

Gran Turismo's 10 million unit per real entry not mainstream confirmed.

You are right that GT is large enough to definitely be considered in that echelon of blockbuster massive games. But AFAIK thats the only Sony first party title that walks among the massive massive blockbusters. They don't exactly have a stable of them. Hell, no one studio, or hardware manufacturer does.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

I'm just glad to see the doom train hasn't run out of gas yet.

 

[Cipherr]

I'm just glad to see the doom train hasn't run out of gas yet.

This isn't really doom train. This is purely hypothetical. While I cast a vote, that doesn't mean I think any of the 3 are going anywhere any time soon. And by anytime soon, I mean ANY time soon, if ever. Its purely hypothetical. Not a forecast or a prediction.

 

[xbhaskarx]

Someone should find all the threads from just a few years ago when many people around here seriously thought that Microsoft was on the verge of dropping out of the gaming business....

 

[elrechazado]

Sony obviously, just based on the state of the entire company.