What company would hurt the gaming industry the most...

[c0rd]

Million said:

Squilliam said:
The games industry could lose any one of the big three and it will still survive. Or to put it simply any one of the three are expendible.

Nintendo - Expendable, proven in the PS1/PS2 generation. Had they not existed then? It wouldn't have mattered.

Sony - Expendible, this generation and the ones before the N64 are proof of this.

Microsoft - Again, expendible.

The point is, the three players in the market have to constantly justify their existance to you the consumer. If they don't they will drop out, its as simple as that.

This is an industry where one or two players can expand and cover the whole market, much like the semiconductor industry. So the one who would drop out of the market would hurt it the least because at that time it would probably be the least relevant and influential in the market anyway. If you want proof, look at the exit of Sega! It hardly caused any ripples at all when they left.

 

Your ignoring the question most probably because the answer hurts you too much , the question wasn't "what company would kill the gaming industry dead with it's depature" was it ?. Of course any gaming company would be expendable but that's beside the point. Sony and Nintendo offer alot to this industry and have both invested heavily in the growth of the gaming industry , Microsoft tried to elbow their way in buying exclusivity , aggresivley dropping the prices of the consoles to the point where they're unlikely to be even profiting of it , released shoddy , poor quality hardware and so on.

This sounds like Sony.  Okay, maybe not the hardware and not to the extent Microsoft took things (huge losses), but their hardware was fine last gen and they had to take losses in order to secure some marketshare.  Otherwise, the two companies are very similar in how they approach videogaming - the current consoles, 360vPS3, are the best example.

The reason I say Nintendo is most important is because they've been the main innovator in the industry.  Sure, they did nothing in the days of GBA/GC, but I'd say they were just buying time until they could think up better ideas.  Sony, on the other hand, has yet to show us they can do something different.  Theyhaven't done much besides incremental improvements since the PS1, which works because it was such a success, and no console until the Wii tried anything different.  While they have been adding multimedia functions (DVD, Bluray, UMD, Movie downloads), I don't think that really helps the gaming industry, as it's sort of unrelated (look at the PSP).

I know you said Nintendo does not innovate, they merely find "gaps in the market."  I think it's the same thing, whatever you want to call it.  The Wii filled in a gap in the market.  Its motion controls, Wii Fit & advertising hit a gap in the market.  All of this leads to market growth, which is what is important.  If Konami never came up with DDR, or Harmonix with Guitar Hero, who knows what would have happened?  These "gaps in the market" aren't obvious, so it's very possible that if they never came up with them, nobody would have.  I think the PS1's strength was more obvious than the above (more freedom for third parties), but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would have been done by someone eventually.  Or... okay, maybe I do think so

In all fairness, the gaming industry is relatively young.  Sony has only given us 4 consoles so far (including the PSP), and been in the industry only 14 years.  Microsoft (for consoles) has seen half of that.  It's possible that after seeing the Wii other companies will wake up and get to innovating.  Time will tell.

P.S. I was kidding about Sony's main purpose as being a motivator for Nintendo, of course