JoRu said:

In terms of the technology used, true. But Nintendo was the ones who showed the market possibilities when you make motion the centerpiece of the entire hardware rather than an accessory like EyeToy or a Guitar Hero-instrument.

Yes, Nintendo made motion controls mainstream, Kudos for that.

Sure, emulation has been possible a long time, but from a market standpoint; utilizing digital distribution to sell those old games again was a great idea courtesy of Nintendo. Instead of just making hardware backwards compatible to make transitions between consoles smoother you essentially put old games back on the market (= $$$), making money not just from added value to the hardware but actually having previously unavailable content (legally) made easily available on your new platform. Sony and Microsoft would've probably done it eventually, but not that quickly and perhaps not that successfully.

Yeah, sorry, that's not really a valid thing to say. The gaming industry adapts from what Nintendo does (in the same way that it adapts from what Sony and Microsoft does). If Nintendo would just suddenly disappear one day for some reason everyone gets affected, whether you're a supporter of Nintendo or not. You can't "do just fine without them", as if they're a separate entity that you can just dispatch of and trod along as if nothing will happen. The PS4 and the Xbox One everyone are enjoying today are the results of what their competitors, including Nintendo, are doing and have been doing for the last 35 years, adapted to suit their philosophies and tweaked to fit their audience.

Truth be told, they're still the most ballsy gaming hardware manufacturer in the business. Motion controls inspired Kinect which in turn inspired the design for Xbox One. The Virtual Console inspired the digital distribution of old Xbox- and Playstation-titles on Xbox Live and PSN, which now is a huge selling point for Sony when it comes to what Playstation Now can offer. Their hardware design and game design has always influenced the industry, and guess what? Nintendo will continue to.

Indispensable? Well, Sony and Microsoft also have a history of innovation (although not nearly as extensive or ballsy) so it would probably not destroy the industry. But it would be a very boring industry with little variety and fewer innovations. If they're not indispensable then at least very important to its well-being, arguably more important than Microsoft and Sony are on their own (although both disappearing would obviously be the biggest possible disaster).

Here is a outsider perspective on the matter, there is too much fanboysm going on and, as a notorious Sony fanboy and all around shallow individual myself, this is my take on the Nintendo importance, which, as I see, is vital to the gaming industry:

1 - They saved the american gaming industry once, this alone make them light years more important than all the others.

All these western companies trying to shove FPSs down our throats would not even exist if it was not because of Nintendo and their iconic NES and Mario mania in the 80´s

2 - Their haters are not that bright. I get why the kids hate them, they have this ilusion that video games are not toys, which is a lie, and that playing games is a serious thing, which is stupid.

If you do not get it, you are probably not the sharpest pencil in the box: when you play your FPS, you are pretending to be a soldier, this not diferent than pretending to be a magical plumber or a boy elf in green, it is a fun ilusion altogether, but it is suppose to be fun and vide games ARE toys, meant to be played after a hard day of work.

3 - If you do not work, you do not value your play time.

These CofD, Halo fans will not be playing video games forever, they will drop the hobby as soon as the military, testosterone-filled FPS craze goes away, and it will, just like Guitar Hero did.
Nintendo will endure and survive, their haters will not. They will get out of gaming as soon as they discover girls or something like that, real gamers do it for ever, even after married or having kids, but they have no ilusions about the importance of gaming: it is a toy, they do it for fun, for relaxing.

4 - They did not jumped in the FPS bandwagon. Nintendo gets it, it is more important to be cool than to be in the fashion, the fashion followers today are the goofy looking people of tomorrow.

The WiiU may not win this gen, but this do not matter, it will turn a profit and that is the only thing that matters to a company survival.

When the next stupid craze gets here, we will again have discussions why Nintendo is not relevant and Zelda should look like Skrym, which is such a dumb idea that makes my head hurts.

If Nintendo followed these dumb western people ideas, they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago, thank god for Shigeru, thank god for Iwata.

And by that definition a pair of shoes, a DVD, or an ice cream would qualify as a toy so long as an adult buys them and intends to enjoy them in any capacity. Any student of language would know that a dictionary definition is woefully inadequate in any meaningful or in depth discussion, and quoting a dictionary is no more valid that saying "Bob said so". Dictionaries are written by commitee anyway, and we all know how useless that is, one only needs to look at world governments to see a prime example. It's argumentum ad populum at it's worst, as not only is it popular opinion of the commitee, with compromises destroying all accuracy and integrity of the text, but it's unaccountable at that, as no-one knows who's actually deciding on these definitions. Now, in the context of what we're discussing, the psychology of play, these words carry specific meaning, just like how "dirt" has no meaning in the field of forensic science, but means something to a layperson. It's incredible how little of these detailed meanings make it into the dictionary.

In the discusson present, a toy is something that is played with in deconstructive or constructive play in which there is no structure, goal, or pre-determined purpose. You know that definition is correct, I know that definition is correct; and we both know it without the need of a "source" to quote too. You can argue semantics if you like, but if someone pointed to a table with a 6 inch plastic train, a travel set of monopoly, and a copy of 'Dark Souls' for PS3, on it and said, "Could you pass Daves toy", you'd pick up the train and you know you would, you'd not stop and ask "which one" would you? Any honest person would admit this much; this is because we all know, on a subconcious level what people mean when they say "toy".

Honestly, I've always considered semantic arguments like this to be a sign of intellectual dishonesty, there's no way to disprove what either is saying but deep down we both know who's right, and the reluctance to admit that only makes people seem petty and childish, so I'd rather not push this argument any further because I don't see anyone having the humility to capitulate, (especially on the internet).

One of the big annoyances for me here, especially when it comes to this misuse of the word "toy", is it's used derogatorily, in order to undermine and demine the medium of video games, and the people who play them. It's a god damn insult in other words, so why anyone would choose to perpetuate it seems senseless to me. This is why it's worth correcting, after all, I believe video games to be an artistic medium with just as much legitimacy as film, music, or any classic art. Would you also call a music CD a "toy"? No you wouldn't, and if you say you would, we both know you're lying just to be trite so don't bother.