By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS leaving the console race would be good for gamers.

green_sky on 27 February 2014

Less competition and almost a monopolistic market is good for gamers? Well, i disgree but you are allowed to have your opinions.

They are not perfect but their presence helps.



Around the Network
only777 on 27 February 2014
Wright said:
only777 said:

Remember the PS2 era?  The shear amoutn of greatness that came out of that domination shows that Sony beinging complete control (for the second gen in a row at that point) didn't make a studios that are nothing to do with Sony put out bad PS2 games.


See? You yourself are showing why your idea is not good.

 

In order to compete with the total dominance of Ps2, Gamecube and vanilla Xbox had big sparks of brilliance when it comes to software. That gen justified totally owning all three consoles. You know what made creativeness so strong in that era? Competence.

 


The PS2 was in final design stages before the game Cube or Xbox was even revealed.  there was no way Sony could know what those consoles were like.

Wright said:

Now you're saying about removing two companies and leaving only one in charge. No, no. Prepare for pure showelvare with the ocasional awesome game in that scenario, because there's no one to compete with. You can get lazy and people would still be forced to purchase your product.

Ah yes, I remember the shovelware on PS1 and PS2 and NES.  All these consoles had pretty much no competition, yet I can't think of any decent games for any of those machines. /sarcasam.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

PenguinZ on 27 February 2014
only777 said:
PenguinZ said:
I don't believe it's good to have 2 choices... Just look at American politics. Competition forces companies to out do one another. It's a good thing. 

Gamers haven't accepted Nintendo since 1996?... That's simply laughable.

American politics is such a mess because one party makes plans and the other party ruins them not because they are bad for the people, but just so they can make them look like an in-effective goventment so that they can get back in power only to have the same thing happen to them!

And yes, Nintnedo have been on a downward sprial since the NES.

 

I know you discredited the Wii for your own special reasons, but the third best selling console of all time is still the third best selling console of all time... Regardless of who buys it, or why they buy it.

MS has been pretty beneficial to gamers as well... Online console gaming? Achievements? 



Current gaming platforms - Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Wii U, New 3DS, PC

Lostboy on 27 February 2014

What many Playstation-Fans tend to forget is how arrogant and ignorant Sony was at the end of the PS2 era. Did you all forget the pricetag of the PS3 and statements as:

"[PS3 is] for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

Ken Kutaragi

or

"We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?"

Kaz Hirai, CEO, Sony Computer Entertainment

It was the competition by Microsoft which forced Sony to get their act together, finally resulting in the PS4. If Microsoft dropped out of the console business it´s very likely that we would have the PS3-Situation with the PS5 all over again. Nothing good comes from monopoles (and it would be one, as Nintendo isn´t addressing the same market/target group).



cannonballZ on 27 February 2014

Boy oh boy, you believe ps2 could launch missiles.... I can't believe I just wasted my time googling that.

No,PS4 is they way it is because Sony wanted to out do the competition. I don't think they would be as competitive if it was only Nintendo and Sony.

Also, PS2 was not the most powerful console that gen. They definitely got more competitive once MS entered the race.



Around the Network
Wright on 27 February 2014
only777 said:


I like how you purposedly ignore the meaty parts of the arguments, and focus on cherry-picking

 

I'm done arguing here, but you're free to express yourself, that's why we have freedom of speech



only777 on 27 February 2014
PenguinZ said:
only777 said:
PenguinZ said:
I don't believe it's good to have 2 choices... Just look at American politics. Competition forces companies to out do one another. It's a good thing. 

Gamers haven't accepted Nintendo since 1996?... That's simply laughable.

American politics is such a mess because one party makes plans and the other party ruins them not because they are bad for the people, but just so they can make them look like an in-effective goventment so that they can get back in power only to have the same thing happen to them!

And yes, Nintnedo have been on a downward sprial since the NES.

 

I know you discredited the Wii for your own special reasons, but the third best selling console of all time is still the third best selling console of all time... Regardless of who buys it, or why they buy it.

It's discredited for reasons that shouldn't need to be dragged up again.  But since you asked,.

Yes it does matter, because that market is gone now.  the people that bought the Gamers bought the NES, fewer gamers bought the SNES, much fewer gamers bought the N64, a few gamers bought the Game Cube and almost no gamers are buying the Wii U.  That is a downward spiral.

The Wii was a one off and the Wii U is more than proving that.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

starworld on 27 February 2014
only777 said:

Wait, what?!

Yes, I beleive that a three console race ends up being bad for gamers, and that it would be best for everyone if Microsoft would leave.

Why?

Right now console gamers are split across two systems, Xbox and PlayStation.  If this was just Playstation, then studios could take bigger risks with new ideas and new IP's when everyone is all using the same hardware to play on (i.e it lowers costs at the studios end).

But what about Nintendo?

As much as I love 'em let's be honest, Nintendo have had no real presence in the home console market since the N64.  Sure Wii sold a lot of units, but mainly to people who bought it as a one off to play Wii Sports (i.e, your nan), and now those people have moved on to Candy Crush.  However, Sony should have some competition so they don't have a total monoply plus there are enough gamers who will buy two systems as well as die hard Nintendo fans to keep them in the market with a profitable but outside share.

Say that again.

I think a Future where Sony dominate, MS leave and Nintendo are a profitable minority is best for everyone.  Studios can take bigger risks as pretty much everyone has the same machine, so as gamers we probably end up with a better selection of games.  Although if this ever did happen I very much doubt Nintendo would actually survive, but I would like to see them contine as they do add a lot of gameplay inovations.  However I think not only have the people spoken, but Sony do make better consoles then anyone else.

But by this logic, wouldn't it be better if it was only Nintnedo?

Probaby, but let's be at least a little bit realistic here.  Nintendo is out of the console race, and gamers haven't accepted them since 1996.  The console wars are going to claim another brand in this generation and it is not going to be Sony.  Out of Xbox and Nintendo, I wouldn't miss Xbox.

I think nintetendo would be a much better fit, they have no third party support, and make hardware that can't compete, if you'r looking to buy one console only it's hard to recommend a wiiu unless, nintedno franshises are a must for you.



only777 on 27 February 2014
cannonballZ said:
Boy oh boy, you believe ps2 could launch missiles.... I can't believe I just wasted my time googling that.

Maybe you are a bit too young to remember that.  The US goverment thought about blocking sale of the PS2 because it was going to be classed as a super computer at the time

Reference: http://www.zdnet.com/uk-intelligence-dismisses-ps2-missile-fears-3002083302/

cannonballZ said:

Also, PS2 was not the most powerful console that gen. They definitely got more competitive once MS entered the race.

I never said it was the most powerful console of it's generation.  Link my post where I stated this please.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

Leadified on 27 February 2014
only777 said:
Leadified said:
only777 said:
Wright said:
only777 said:
Wright said:

I would like to laugh, but that is a very childish response.

 

So I'll just say that I disagree.


So you beleive that studios spending more money needlessly on games and putting un-nessery risks on new IP's is good for the industry.

Please explain.


If you think a monopoly drives up creativitiness and makes people being more risky...

 

...I'm afraid you're wrong.


Your forgetting about Nintendo, Sony would not have a monoply.


You said it yourself that Nintendo hasn't had a presence since the N64.


Glad you noticed!

But really, I don't see how having one console affects the studios that make the games.  Remember the PS2 era?  The shear amoutn of greatness that came out of that domination shows that Sony beinging complete control (for the second gen in a row at that point) didn't make a studios that are nothing to do with Sony put out bad PS2 games.

Creative freedom comes from having platform freedom.  Puting restrictions on studios and makiong games multiplat, reduces graphics to the lowest quality so it suits the lower powered machine.

Steam has pretty much the PC digital market to itself, see how bad that's got. No?  That because people can do more because they know all the customers are in one place.

Remember what happened after the PS2? Or the Xbox 360? MS and Sony thought they could do anything they wanted, luckily their competitors pretty much prevented full blown disaster. The 6th gen was great not just because of the PS2 but because the 3 other consoles were also trying their hardest to compete but you don't need total domination for that, look at the 4th gen or 7th gen.

Who is forcing games to be multiplat? Are some games multiplat because one of the console manufactors paid them? Yeah, but chances are games are multiplat because their audience is playing on multiple platforms. I hate to say it but if you're so concerned that the graphics quality of games will be in danger of being multiplat then why isn't every game a PC exculsive? Or better yet if this was the 6th gen then why wasn't every game a Xbox exculsive?

Steam doesn't have a monopoly (not even a digital monopoly because of PSN and XBL) because their competitors are the consoles along with Origin and other services. Valve doesn't just do whatever because they want to keep customers here rather than going to consoles or rival services.