By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Acevil on 13 June 2011
Edit Thread
sethnintendo said:
CGI-Quality said:
Michael-5 said:

OH WOW!!! I forgot, original PS1 controllers had no analog sticks!

 

That settles it, everyone copies Nintendo. However not everything is copied.

MS introduced achievements, a home button, and basically introduced online play onto consoles. They also made Kinect.

Sony introduced less, all I can think of is the built in battery pack to controllers, Eyetoy (but one can argue that's a copy of Gameboy Camera), and that's about it. Maybe Analog sticks for handhelds?

Nintendo leads with innovation, simple.

I just hope they introduce some form of achievement/trophy system with the Wii U. They are addictive, and I like completing my favorite games. Completing a Zelda would be a very daunting task, but I've done it for Ocarina of Time.

Sony was the first to incorporate a DVD drive in a console, along with the first to introduce dual analog on a controller. They have their fair share of innovations (and/or polish to current ideas - if you will), but I'd hardly argue with the notion that they trail Nintendo.

Because putting a DVD drive in a console is so innovating.  Nintendo could have (and did in Japan for GCN and Wii) but they just doesn't care to pay the royalties for the rest of the world.   I'd rather go the route of Nintendo.  When I buy a video game console I don't even care about DVD or Blu-Ray etc.  I care about what games I can play.  If you can't afford a DVD player or Blu-ray player right now then you shouldn't even be buying a video game console if you care that much about a watching videos.  Streaming is the future anyways (at least in the USA where most companies don't have cap limits yet).  The only reason why Microsoft jumped into home consoles was because it saw that the video game system (I'll blame Sony) could replace computers for some functions in the future.  They only care remotely for the actual gamer.  If they actually cared then Live would be free.  Just ask any PC gamer if they would ever pay money for Live... 

Two problems with your statement. One you assumed, people don't want a device that does more than one thing. Two you don't consider it an asset. A lot of individuals by consoles for features as well, my friend bought a ps3 for blu-ray...and he can also game. Having perks helps the companies.  Secondly incorporating DVD and Blu-ray was an asset to the ps brand, as it allows more room for developers to work with. One of the major weakness of Gamecube and Xbox360, is that they cannot handle that much storage on a disk. 

Oh and I just noticed another problem, the future of video, has no relation to the past of video. PS2 with DVDs is the past, PS3 with Blu-ray is the past. Online Streaming is the future. 

Seriously I think I need to argue biased opinion against microsoft, and I might have hat trick in this thread.