Fanboys.

The original post was that, BEFORE the NES came along, the video game industry was a sad excuse.  If that is the case, then what does that make Donkey Kong, or even Pac Man?  It pays to respect what came in the past.  It is fine to say they are a vital part of the industry.  I don't think it is fine to dump on the likes of Atari and Midway, who helped to put the videogame industry on the map to, by saying that NES is the "only true videogame company" and calling stuff prior to 1985, "a sad excuse".

This, more than anything.

Nintendo. Everyone says that competition is good for us, but look what success of Wii has brought to us. Kinect&Move. I would be perfectly fine if it was just MS and Sony. They bring the best our of each other.

-double post

I'd want Sony out because I'm more interested to see what future versions of Kinect are like and Nintendo's innovation would be sorely missed.  Sony is good at taking the other hardware makers' ideas and improving on some of them but either of the other two could take over that role.

Sony's first party games are great though so if they were third-party we wouldn't be missing much at all.

*Patiently waiting for the Activision BobbyBox to be announced so I can vote it down*

M$, cause if ithere is only 1 console made by M$, it would all be 1st person shooter, 3rd person shooter, shooter, shooter, shooter. Ughh

Probably add in some U r the controller Car driving

One might thing that, but can anyone name a single example of a former console maker who ended up STRONGER or on the same level when they dropped the console?

I remember in the Sega-Sony console war (Nintendo was there, but not really in the war), where you had Sony fans were all excited how Sega was dropping out, and becoming a software maker without a console.  They were all eager to get some of Sega's stuff, and look forward to their stuff in the future.  The thought was they would be a strong player in the software market.  Well, they are a marginal player at this point.  They actually had to merge with Sammy to make it.  Their titles, for the most part, are lost in the noise of the videogame industry, and it is hard to think where they really are innovative, at least not the way Sony is.

Atari is less of relevant name now, without a console.  And I think of Sony when they were third-party.  They are less relevant then, and they didn't have much in the way of quality software.  They couldn't afford to take risks like the do no.  There is something about being a console maker that affords you the ability to be innovative and take chances.  With Sony, they know the hardware and get the most out of it.  Stick their stuff on an XBox 360, and would it be the same?  I don't see it.  I doubt you would even have a LittleBigPlanet 2 either.

Sony came out with the eyetoy first...