By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Hypothetically, what if Sony dominates?

S.T.A.G.E. said:
Suke said:
It will be boring and bad for the industry, remember back in the nineties, Nintendo had 85% of the gaming market......yeah, let that sink in.


Was the market boring when Sony was dominating it from 1995-2005?


The golden age of the gaming industry.



Around the Network
Nem said:
kowenicki said:
Nem said:

I totally hope that happens. I want to see Microsoft pushed back to beeing almost irrelevant. I feel they brought many destructive/greedy practices to the market that has been costing us consumers and publishers/developers and will continue to do so.
I do hope the Wii U picks up though (it already is tbh). I would be very pleased with a Sony/Nintendo only market. Microsoft can go back to beeing 3rd party or focus on phones or something. Thats where their pet rival Apple is afterall.


Such a blinkered and sad post.   So they brought practices that other manufacturers were FORCED to follow?  Name these awful, destructive and greedy practices that the industry HAD TO FOLLOW. 

I'll tell you one thing that they have brought which you should be eternally grateful for.... competition.  Imagine thr PS3 with its launch price and no competition...

You need to wise up.

 

 

 


I am entitled to my opinion and i do not wish to enter a huge argument about this. Instead of dragging this on i will give you the most blatant one: paying for online play. Yes, Sony is following suit, but they wouldnt have had if it wasnt for microsoft.

The competition is nintendo. Microsoft does not have a different enough offer to actually make any sort of difference. The games market was here and had competition before Microsoft joined. You can bet it will still be here after they leave.

Why are so many people so hung up on having to pay $50 a year for Live.  That's just over $4.00 a month.  Most of the people who complain are the same ones who go out and rent games for $7-$8 a pop for a few nights.  I have all the systems, I'm not a fanboy of Microsoft (in reality, I've never like MS at all), and have to give them credit, Live is/was by far the best online expierence of the three 7th gen consoles.   Period.



Stop hating and start playing.

The days of the PS2 era and its dominance are over.

Individuals had much more disposable income back then. The PS4 will sell-out its initial shipments much like the Xbox One this holiday season - 3 million. However, will the initial success continue onward after the holiday period? That remains to be seen and will most likely not be the case - Sony will have an edge due to the PS4 releasing in Japan.



BuckStud said:

Why are so many people so hung up on having to pay $50 a year for Live.  That's just over $4.00 a month.  Most of the people who complain are the same ones who go out and rent games for $7-$8 a pop for a few nights.  I have all the systems, I'm not a fanboy of Microsoft (in reality, I've never like MS at all), and have to give them credit, Live is/was by far the best online expierence of the three 7th gen consoles.   Period.


I get you're not hung up for something whose maintnance costs are so low they are convered on the game sales.

While on the topic, since its only 4$ a month. You want to give me 4$ a month? Its nothing you're hung up on.

And just to prove your point wrong, i dont think renting games is legal in most of europe. Also, you have no basis for what you are saying. I have both system, the online play experience is exactly the same. Except in one you have to pay for it.



The forums will be like they are right now. I mean, they are already like Sony won everything, can't change much then.



Around the Network
Nem said:


I get you're not hung up for something whose maintnance costs are so low they are convered on the game sales.

While on the topic, since its only 4$ a month. You want to give me 4$ a month? Its nothing you're hung up on.

And just to prove your point wrong, i dont think renting games is legal in most of europe. Also, you have no basis for what you are saying. I have both system, the online play experience is exactly the same. Except in one you have to pay for it.


$4 is a pittance.

That's less than 1/4th of the minimum wage here, so you would probably only have to do 10 minuits of work to pay that in a month.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Pemalite said:
Nem said:


I get you're not hung up for something whose maintnance costs are so low they are convered on the game sales.

While on the topic, since its only 4$ a month. You want to give me 4$ a month? Its nothing you're hung up on.

And just to prove your point wrong, i dont think renting games is legal in most of europe. Also, you have no basis for what you are saying. I have both system, the online play experience is exactly the same. Except in one you have to pay for it.


$4 is a pittance.

That's less than 1/4th of the minimum wage here, so you would probably only have to do 10 minuits of work to pay that in a month.


Its more of a principle thing. I dont like beeing fooled. Besides... it does add up with the years.

For every year you pay live, a PS3 owner gets one more game than you.



Nem said:
Pemalite said:
Nem said:


I get you're not hung up for something whose maintnance costs are so low they are convered on the game sales.

While on the topic, since its only 4$ a month. You want to give me 4$ a month? Its nothing you're hung up on.

And just to prove your point wrong, i dont think renting games is legal in most of europe. Also, you have no basis for what you are saying. I have both system, the online play experience is exactly the same. Except in one you have to pay for it.


$4 is a pittance.

That's less than 1/4th of the minimum wage here, so you would probably only have to do 10 minuits of work to pay that in a month.


Its more of a principle thing. I dont like beeing fooled.


Don't get me wrong, I completely agree. Paying for online access is downright crap. I'm just not going to get hung-up about it.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

It will be better for the gaming business as developers efforts and resources wont have to be wasted on creating multiple copies of the same game



Nobody's perfect. I aint nobody!!!

Killzone 2. its not a fps. it a FIRST PERSON WAR SIMULATOR!!!! ..The true PLAYSTATION 3 launch date and market dominations is SEP 1st

Xen said:
forevercloud3000 said:
Sony domination seems the least likely to offend all parties.
-MS domination will lead to constant nickel and diming of EVERYTHING, the death of Single Player, and DRM up the wazoo! Signs of this? The fact PSN users will now also have to pay for online.

-Nintendo domination from early last gen led to all devs steering towards Casual game design and tacked on motion controls. Pretty much almost brought on the destruction of the gaming industry as we know it. Signs of this? Kinect and Move. Now if the WiiU were to dominate I am not sure it would create the same problems, who knows.

-Sony domination will of course lead to less games needing to be Multiplat, IE less on XOne and WiiU, but it will also usher in more original and aggressive exclusives for them, which is really what they need. I mainly used PS2 all that gen, but Xbox interested me, even if it had far less games. 360 never did because it simply was all the same games as PS3..

Hello, 2007-8, how we missed thee...

Nintendomination would be fun to see, if only just to see the western third parties bitch, squeal, and then say that Nintendo is the best But I still prefer Sonydomination.

If by "missed" you mean "loathed" lol

Honestly tho, can anyone say that the generations that Sony dominated were bad for anyone? Great for Devs, Great for Customers, Great for Console manufactures unless your name is MS.... but yea.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)