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

Forums - Sony Discussion - PlayStation created the Industry, Xbox changed the playing field

Qermity on 13 July 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
Nintendo revived the industry
Sega provided competition and stabilized it
Sony broadened it
Microsoft fills Segas role now, down to the online play you give MS credit for. Sega actually had their own pay to play online network long before XBL

Does that mean MS going 3rd party soon?



Around the Network
tinfamous12 on 13 July 2014

I completely disagree with most of this.



Danman27 on 13 July 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Danman27 said:

I'm not saying microsoft didn't do a good job with the 360. But watch e3 2006 and tell me that THE PEOPLE  (because I guess I need to make the distinction) at sony weren't incredibly arrogant. And the watch e3 2013 and tell me that THE PEOPLE at microsoft weren't arrogant. Sony's arrogance made their console less appealing for the first couple years. No, a company doesn't have emotions, but the peopple who run them do. Very few decisions can be made completely objectively. Sony reps said that if you don't like the price of the ps3, get a second job. That's screams arrogance. I don't know what you're trying to proce with this post though, honestly. The reason sony had trouble last gen and microsoft this gen is because of stupid choices made thinking that they were now infallible. Then based on those choices, people picked a console. It's almost like you think that I don't know that consumers make the choice. I'm very aware of this. As for you adressing what I said two posts above. Sorry, I don't have time to read through a twenty page thread. 

They weren't incredibly arrogant. They simply believed the PS3 was the superior console. That's pride, not arrogance.

Watch Larry Hryb and Don Mattrick interviews at e3 last year, and sony execs at e3 2006, and tell me that that's not arrogance that put them in their respective situations. 



CladInShadows on 13 July 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
prayformojo said:

First off, you weren't even ALIVE when I was playing the NES in 1986, so...there's that.

Why is that relevant to my argument?

And secondly, which game set the standard for console 3D gameplay again? Mario 64 did you say? But how? If the PS1 gave birth to the modern era, that shouldn't be.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying and have said.

The modern console industry starts with the NES. 

The industry that the NES had is now outdated. Nintendo is the last of its kind, a game developer with a console, the other two aren't primarily thus the 3rd parties have become a lot more important than in the NES era. This is why Nintendo has a hard time competing for the traditional home console market space. The only concern of this thread is the new PS era, or if that is to much for you to bear you can feel free to call it the era of Multiplatforms

 

The Nintendo of today is NOT the Nintendo of the NES/SNES era. I think that may be one of the flaws in your argument. In Gen 3, Nintendo had a ton of third party support.  Mainly because it was really the only game in town.  But during Gen 4, it faced healthy competition from Sega, and a few of the other consoles that popped up at the time, like the Turbo Grafx, 3DO, Jaguar, etc. But they still had a lot of third party support.  There were multiplatform games in Gen 4. Quite a few of them.

In understand what you're trying to say in your argument.  I even agree with some of it.  The industry that exists today is very little like the industry of the late 80s and early 90s. But it's a natural evolution.  I would argue that the biggest change came from gen 6 to gen 7, honestly. The era of publishers taking no risks, and developers going out of business.

Some things you and others say just reek of ignorance due to you not being there at the time. You let current Nintendo influence how you perceive the Nintendo of old.



prayformojo on 13 July 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
prayformojo said:

First off, you weren't even ALIVE when I was playing the NES in 1986, so...there's that.

Why is that relevant to my argument?

And secondly, which game set the standard for console 3D gameplay again? Mario 64 did you say? But how? If the PS1 gave birth to the modern era, that shouldn't be.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying and have said.

The modern console industry starts with the NES. 

The industry that the NES had is now outdated. Nintendo is the last of its kind, a game developer with a console, the other two aren't primarily thus the 3rd parties have become a lot more important than in the NES era. This is why Nintendo has a hard time competing for the traditional home console market space. The only concern of this thread is the new PS era, or if that is to much for you to bear you can feel free to call it the era of Multiplatforms.




Your age has alot to do with this due to ignorance and not actually being there. I have seen ALL of these changes personally with my own eyes. The "modern" industry has more to it than just playing online and rated M software. Nintendo created the blueprint for the modern industry with the NES by showing other companies how to be successful as a business. Everything from packaging to marketing to hardware (controllers, gameplay etc.)...it all started with the NES. There wouldn't BE a Playstation without the NES. Can you say that in reverse? No? Ok then.

Your analysis only scratched the surface of what really happened. It's got alot of truths, but ultimately, it's half baked. When I said "learn history", it wasn't an insult, it was a valid suggestion. There's alot of info on the internet for free to choose from and if you really care about the industry, I'd definitely read up. 



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 13 July 2014
Danman27 said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

They weren't incredibly arrogant. They simply believed the PS3 was the superior console. That's pride, not arrogance.

Watch Larry Hryb and Don Mattrick interviews at e3 last year, and sony execs at e3 2006, and tell me that that's not arrogance that put them in their respective situations. 

Its entitlement that calls it arrogance. I see it as overestimation of the strength of their brand.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 13 July 2014
CladInShadows said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
prayformojo said:

First off, you weren't even ALIVE when I was playing the NES in 1986, so...there's that.

Why is that relevant to my argument?

And secondly, which game set the standard for console 3D gameplay again? Mario 64 did you say? But how? If the PS1 gave birth to the modern era, that shouldn't be.

That has nothing to do with what I'm saying and have said.

The modern console industry starts with the NES. 

The industry that the NES had is now outdated. Nintendo is the last of its kind, a game developer with a console, the other two aren't primarily thus the 3rd parties have become a lot more important than in the NES era. This is why Nintendo has a hard time competing for the traditional home console market space. The only concern of this thread is the new PS era, or if that is to much for you to bear you can feel free to call it the era of Multiplatforms

 

The Nintendo of today is NOT the Nintendo of the NES/SNES era. I think that may be one of the flaws in your argument. In Gen 3, Nintendo had a ton of third party support.  Mainly because it was really the only game in town.  But during Gen 4, it faced healthy competition from Sega, and a few of the other consoles that popped up at the time, like the Turbo Grafx, 3DO, Jaguar, etc. But they still had a lot of third party support.  There were multiplatform games in Gen 4. Quite a few of them.

In understand what you're trying to say in your argument.  I even agree with some of it.  The industry that exists today is very little like the industry of the late 80s and early 90s. But it's a natural evolution.  I would argue that the biggest change came from gen 6 to gen 7, honestly. The era of publishers taking no risks, and developers going out of business.

Some things you and others say just reek of ignorance due to you not being there at the time. You let current Nintendo influence how you perceive the Nintendo of old.

The stuff I was ignorant about, I didn't mention.

You're right.

However, the only purpose of this analysis is to assess why the PS4, X1, and WIi U are performing as such. The traditonal market as it stands has requirements that the Wii U has problems meeting. When 3rd party is actively dropping the system mid development, and the burden is so strenous, perhaps this is indictave of market addressal. That's what I'm suggesting.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

jcmmnx on 13 July 2014

PS1 was a natural console for all the kids like me who grew up on NES, SNES, and Genesis. They didn't save anything they just gave gamers who were growing up something more to their tastes.



Daddo Splat on 13 July 2014

I built PC's for years consoles were for fun experience's but the PC had the mouse and keyboard and shooters, Half life, When Halo released on xbox  it brought PC gamers over the shooter can be said to have had as big an impact on console, PC sales, Look at N64 and goldeneye people still talk about 4 player splitscreen! I think MS doing that with Halo and having 4 consoles 16 controllers LAN was huge!

I always thought thats were SONY and COD missed its mark not doing the LAN with 16 player splitscreen, Sony with resistance 1 on the PS3 that would have made it more of a halo killer, albeit expensive. But at one point we had 4 xbox 360 and 16 controllers playing all the halos, or splitting off playing 2 on 2 tournament COD, still not as fun as 8vs8 war.

 

I do remember foundly FF7 on PS1 and many great experiences there.  



alabtrosMyster on 13 July 2014

Your whole premis is off and your excuses to ignore past console makers who are not making them anymore, it's like an historian who decided to ignore Europe because it's less relevant now than at some other time, and it did not fit their made up idea of history.