By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
archbrix on 31 July 2012
Edit Thread
kain_kusanagi said:
archbrix said

I wouldn't call the Japanese game market a "molehill" back in the fourth generation, simply because it was such an important player back then.  And remember that Japanese companies are very proud when it comes to their home turf.  

Of course Nintendo and Sega were undoubtedly the top dogs in the fourth generation and their rivalry was the most legendary before Sony and Microsoft entered the market, but by your rationale - that only the top dogs have merit in the marketplace - would render Nintendo and Sega insignificant for two generations since Sony demolished them.  Were they a threat to Sony in the 5th and 6th gens?  Nope.  Were there console/fanboy rivalries regarding said companies during those eras?  Absolutely.

Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first.  After all, console rivalries have been around since the '70s with Magnavox vs Atari, and later, 2600 vs Intellivision, etc.

Good grief. All I said was that I liked the simple time between Sega and Nintendo. That there were insignificant attempts to break into the market doesn't change the fact that Sega and Nintendo each owned close to 50% market share. They competed with eachother. That competition was heated and drove inovation on both sides. My point was and still is that nobody should fear a lose of competition if MS and Sony joined forces. That's all. I am well aware of the history of video games. I lived through much of it and own quite a large collection of consoles and early computers going back decades.

*sigh*

Did you even read what I posted?  "Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first."

So what's the problem?

Furthermore, Sony owned MORE than 50% of the market in the 5th and 6th generations... so does that mean that Nintendo and Sega were "insignificant attempts" during those eras?  Or that Xbox's innovation with its HDD and Xbox Live service doesn't count because its sales paled in comparison to PS2?

This was what I was responding to:  "kain_kusanagi said:  One console would be cheaper and more accessible. It would end stupid fanboy wars. I'd love to go back to a time like when there was just Nintendo and Sega. Those were simpler times, better times."

Fact:  There were several companies (each with their own fans) in the marketplace back then, not just Nintendo and Sega.  Fact:  Now there are, inarguably, only three.  There have always been fanboy wars and there always will be due to competition.  My point was not to derail your thread but to elaborate more on what you had originally stated, all while actually AGREEING with your opinion on the thread's topic.  Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...