Amen...finally someone said it. None of the companies coming in can kill the industry if they go out. Someone will just fill the void.

If you post this in the UNITY thread, I'll give you one dollar.

well, now I have to agree

Even though I disagree with the OP in some ways, it still makes too much sense to be posted in there.

Not mosy, probably not even many, buta surprising number here and elsewhere that have recently gotten under my skin recently for that sort of thing.

As far as things go, I think Nintendo is important; more than some but, especially recently, less so than others.

Off-topic, is your avatar Maleficent?

Nintendo is irrelevant yet they are constantly talked about

Nintendo is not important so we have to talk about it

Now now, don't bring them into it. Before we know it, the thread will have 1,000+ comments and dick measuring contests!! OP people, OP!!!

Good point, none the less.

well not everyone likes COD style games or yearly sports games. Some people like RPG's, Action adventures, platformers, arcade racers, futuristic racers, tactical games, puzzle games, snowboarding,rail shooters, and FPA's. Nintendo is the only publisher to basically cover most types of genres.

I'm actually not that familiar with Sony hardware, but the retail electronics game is pretty competitive, so I don't doubt it.

In terms of the industry as a whole, I definitely agree both aren't that important.

Points 1 and 2 are valid, and point 3 is all a matter of taste (although history helps to demonstrate that you're largely incorrect). The industry certainly kept growing even when Nintendo was doing poorly (though i still contend we'll reach a plateau this generation).

The key to Nintendo's importance in the industry isn't that they are the *only* one innovating, certainly not. Innovation happens all the time and there are few publishers (outside the shovelware pushers) who can say that they've never upset the formula either in terms of game design in some genre, or business model, etc. The key is that nobody else pursues the kinds of games Nintendo pursues, or does so with such vigour. Sony commendably makes an effort in high-quality, retail-grade platformers, though cannot quite capture the mystique of Mario, DK, or Kirby. Ubisoft keeps Rayman around (though for how much longer after what Legends sold?). Nobody consistently puts their best foot forward in games that aren't violent or adult-oriented in some form (unless you're talking about sports or racing games), so Nintendo's loss would leave a large gap in the industry, similar to if Disney went belly-up tomorrow (and, for the sake of argument, Pixar went down in flames with them), there's nobody that can quite replace their imaginative brand of family entertainment or overall focus on quality in their specific field. Moviegoing, even family movies, would persist, but be noticeably diminished for quite some time.

To compare in terms of the "absence of Nintendo" factor, if Activision left the industry altogether, there would still be military shooters. If Capcom left, there would still be zombie action games and fighting games (though that would be a hard blow to the already-anemic genre) and ARPGs. If EA left, 2K would fill the sports gap. If 2K and Rockstar disappeared, you could still get open-world crime games.

Who replaces Mario? Who replaces Pokemon, Zelda, Metroid, or Kirby? This is where the difference lies.

The rebuttals to point 1 and point 2 (while acknowledging the validity of your arguments, to be sure) lay the grounds for rebuttal to point three. Nintendo's pursuit of basically neglected genres means that for people who like these game-types and are gaming largely amongst them alone (yo!), there's really no true alternative. I can and do enjoy non-Nintendo games of diverse types, but would I really enjoy *gaming*, as a whole, with Nintendo out of the picture?