What company has done the most for us now is what we should be asking.  Of course that will still come down to everyones own perspective on what they think the best company is. 

Microsoft may be a new player, but dammit give them credit for putting the effort in.  If they weren't around Sony might of only made ps3 so it was more powerful than Wii and not 360, hmmmmmmm.    I still don't think we would be better off with any one of them gone.

On a side note, too many new posters using Deathnote avatars.  Mine doesn't feel original anymore except for the fact it's a shinigami. Still have Zidane though.

None of the above. All should stay. And if they go some other company will just come in anyway.

Nah, MS forced Sony to get a harddrive and their online rocks. MS is good. None of the 3 need to go. All of them have their benefits.

I agree completely.

 Not to mention Sony got into the buisness for the cash and bought market share via marketing and brand awarness, just like MS.

Sony is important because the PS1, which came out in '94, changed the world of gaming - for the better.

Debate all you wan't but the PS1 is arguably one of the best consoles ever, and Sony offered an alternative to nintendos arcane business practicies at a time when sega was dying.  

the first two reasons i can think of from the top of my head:

1) They opened up the market for the 18+ crowd

2) They single-handedly developed the entire European market.

 If that's not expanding the gaming market, I don't know what is. Sony has grown the industry the way Nintendo now wishes to do with the Wii.

if we completely ignore the company that it comes from and focus solely on the actual gaming platforms themselves, then I this gen would be best off without the 360. Too much focus on online multiplayer which should be an addition to the total experience rather than the major focus.

i agree with narfer sony didnt invent anything with the ps1 or 2 or 3. in fact all the ps1 was was a failed and rejected snes cd rom. and sony was left with the wated hardware so they were like well lets just makee it and it at first was much like the ps3 is now for 2 years at least then they droped the price by alot because the original ps1 had an original price of 799 dollars. it took off after ff7 came out and after the price got down to 300 dollars to compete with the saturn and n64. if u need proof i have to find my buyers guid and then sca it for anone that wants to see. the ps2 followed the dvd stuff after the dreamcast. so now with no one to copy with the ps3 its failing cause of it except for the few sony fanboys out there

It's unfathomable to me that anyone doesn't pick Microsoft, but I know M$ is gaining popularity in the console market lately. Still, how can you argue against all the first-party Sony titles? Sure, blu-ray is a stretch for this generation but if you think it has no effect on games you're wrong. Having to use 3 dual-layer discs with slower reading (DLs read slower) and no dedicated hard drive support to make up for 1 blu-ray disc will make a big difference soon.

It IS the exact same strategy as the PS2 and PS1 that expanded the market for 10 years and did video gaming a lot of good. CDs were virtually new format for consoles (sega cd gets some credit I suppose), and DVDs were just catching on. The consoles were $300 which was still rather expensive for a new console and yet I think it paid off in the end for both the gamer and Sony.

Sony's software franchises, though...come on. Microsoft has Halo but Sony has a lot of quality games. I agree with others that I do not want M$ owning both PC market and console market. PC Gamer magazine is now Games for Windows. How disgusting is that?

To directly answer the question, though, I think paying for online games is a crime against gamers. Does battle.net charge? No. Does Steam charge? No. Does any game charge to play online besides MMOs (and Guild Wars is free monthly, as are others)? No. So why should Microsoft charge for online console games? Call it copycat, Sony will have all the features in XBL and more, and it will be free. M$ didn't innovate, they just combined some features that are on the PC that console developers were slow to add. I give them credit for that, but charging $200 for 4 years of online gaming erases the price difference for blu-ray. When the other 2 catch up (apparently Sony faster than Nintendo...man I wish Double Dash was online...but I digress), how can M$ continue to charge for that service? Someone please tell me what it is besides a menu, messaging (ICQ and AIM for a long time on the PC), voice chat (Sony has video chat with any USB webcam, bluetooth headsets/keyboards/mice), and a store? What else is there? Oh yeah, achievements. Those are clever, copy away Sony and Nintendo (sarcasm).

Oh well, to each his own. I would hate a console market in which M$ dominated.

Since your attacking me i bet your one of those 30 sumthings that lives with your parents in their basements and you know im right so your outright attacking me claiming im a 9yo girl. You obviously know nothing about me, yet i know something about you. You are being pimped out by Nintendo and you are on their cock all the time, hence your name "Mancandy"...so do you want some of my man gravy too?