| KungKras said: It's hard to explain. But I'll try. Sega was like Nintendo in that they are both pure games companies, both relied on first party games to compete and to drive hardware install bases, both have a mascot that are the face of the company, and they have similar licensing practices. Sony does not have a platformer that is the face of the company They have platformers, sure, but no mascots, and none of their characters is the face of the company the way Sonic or Mario is. They rely on undercutting hardware and paying third parties for exclusives in order to compete and drive install base. I just think that Sony is too different from Nintendo to be considered a rival. Sure, they are a competitor, but they compete on very different terms whereas Nintendo and Sega competed against each other identically, and thus were rivals. |
To put it another way, a rival is someone working towards the same goal, whereas Sony is more like an enemy - fighting AGAINST Nintendo, rather than towards the same goal. Think of the difference in Pokemon Red/Blue/Green, you have the rival and then you have Team Rocket. Sony (and Microsoft) are more like Team Rocket admins. Note that I'm not saying that Sony or MS are evil, just that their goals are different.
As for my own answer to the question - as odd as it sounds, my answer is Activision and EA. While they're not strictly in the "console race", they have such strong hands in the development of all major consoles, and in my opinion, those hands are why the industry is so screwed up right now. If console makers made their consoles with an eye to the consumer, rather than to the huge 3rd party developers, it would be better for everyone. And this is why I prefer Nintendo over the other two - Nintendo clearly puts the consumer ahead of the 3rd parties.
