Soundwave said:
That means if Sony is going to grab one seat, there's only room for one more. Sure, sure, Wii did it, but Wii was a one-time controller miracle that can't be replicated now that there's 1 billion casual games available to soccer moms and the like 24/7 for free all the time. Other than that, there's never been a console generation that's had three successful home consoles existing concurrently (Turbo Grafx 16, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast, GameCube, etc. all say hi). Microsoft doesn't need gaming. They make billions of dollars. Nintendo needs the game business for obvious reasons ... they're the only purely game focused hardware maker left. With their portable market shrinking thanks to the above mention smart device gaming boom, Nintendo can't afford to simply have a crappy selling console and make up with it on the back of a strong portable market either. More competetion isn't always a good thing either. Competetion forced Sega out, and are we as gamers better for it? Nope. We lost one of the greatest game forces ever, and the industry lost a lot of its spark once Sega basically de-evolved into nothing. MS vacating would allow Nintendo to move back more into their 90s position where they made more core gamer initatives too (ie: the Star Wars deal, GoldenEye, Perfect Dark, Kobe Bryant NBA games, Ken Griffey MLB games, deals for things like Starcraft 64, etc.). Two competitors keep each in line anyway, so that things like a $599 console would quickly be punished by the market, you don't really need 3/4/5 companies for that. |
Nintendo should EARN their position. If they can't win without someone stepping out then they shouldn't be in the console market. Just because a company need it more shouldn't hold any weight.
