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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Without Playstation, would the industry be in another crisis?

S.T.A.G.E. on 26 April 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
I would hope somebody else would have seen the potential of the industry and have stepped in.

If not then PC gaming would truly reign supreme.


3DO was that opportunity but it was a failure especially once the Playstation stepped in. LG and AT&T were partners in that. PC gaming would've been untouchable and still to this day with exclusives if Sony hadn't come. Microsoft would've stayed a third party for consoles if hadn't succeeded.



Around the Network
RubberWhistleHistle on 26 April 2015
DonFerrari said:
RubberWhistleHistle said:
DonFerrari said:
RubberWhistleHistle said:
i think i would prefer the industry without sony in it to be honest with you. i love the playstation, and to a lesser extent the playstation 2, but at this point, the ps3 and ps4 have been incredibly useless, participating in this competition with microsoft that has done nothing but dragged this industry through the mud. they have absolutely no respect for what gaming is.

if it were just nintendo and sega, the differences that i see are 1) gaming would have stayed niche for longer. at this point, it would be a lot more mainstream. 2) online gaming wouldnt be what it is today (which is probably a good thing, guys. think about it) and 3) games would be more evolved than they are now. 90% of the games that are released would focus on the important aspects of gaming rather than cutscenes and turning them into movies


We all know you would.

Is all you read the first sentence? lol


I read everything... just enfatized the part of you that is crystal clear for anyone... you don't like Sony and MS, and would love if Nintendo had like 90% marketshare... won't you update yours Sony won't ever get 50% marketshare for home consoles on 8th gen??? This year it have been outselling both all weeks. I miss your thread.

you want me to update my thread? its an old thread. its dead. what if i make a new thread?



S.T.A.G.E. on 26 April 2015
RubberWhistleHistle said:
DonFerrari said:


I read everything... just enfatized the part of you that is crystal clear for anyone... you don't like Sony and MS, and would love if Nintendo had like 90% marketshare... won't you update yours Sony won't ever get 50% marketshare for home consoles on 8th gen??? This year it have been outselling both all weeks. I miss your thread.

you want me to update my thread? its an old thread. its dead. what if i make a new thread?


Sega and Nintendo did not have the tools to make gaming more popular than it was. As I saw from your previous post. Pc would've continued to outperform Consoles by a country mile. Steam saved pc gaming after the ps4 dominated  the industry. Pc devs saw console title sales and wanted in on the console action.



zorg1000 on 26 April 2015
S.T.A.G.E. said:
zorg1000 said:


Like I have already said multiple times in this thread, if 3rd parties really felt they were being mistreated they could have developed games elsewhere. Nintendo only shipped 200,000 NES in North America by August 1986 which is right around the time Atari 7800 & Sega Master System released. Also Sega's SG-1000 released the same day as Famicom in Japan, 3rd parties had other options before Nintendo gained massive marketshare, nobody made 3rd parties make Nintendo games.

Thats a terrible excuse. They are in business to make money just like anyone else. They were just forced into exclusivity when they wanted to expand. Thats what third parties do. Nintendo's force of using exclusivity would've broken contract with them and they essentially would have to go to the smallest market possible to make money. Nintendo knew they had the majority of the market so they used the tech to keep them locked in on their console. Nintendo is the reason Nintendo initially was thrown into a spiral of constant spending on first party just to stay alive. There is no excusing it. The court threw it out but they talked to Nintendo about unfair practices.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I just told u there was a point in time when Nintendo didn't have a foothold on the market, Nintendo didn't release Famicom/NES and instantly sell millions of hardware, it was a slow burner and there were other devices on the market to choose from before Nintendo became a dominant force. Why did 3rd parties choose Nintendo on the first place?



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 on 26 April 2015
DonFerrari said:
zorg1000 said:

U just ignored what I said, there was no bigger environment.

SG-1000 released the exact same day as Famicom (NES) in Japan.

NES had shipped only 200,000 in the US when the competitors released.

If Nintendo's restrictions were so harmful to 3rd parties they wouldn't have supported Nintendo in the first place.


Nope, I haven't... give a valid reason then for a publisher to ignore SG-1000 and release on NES and be mandated to keep that game exclusive for 2 years with no monetary incentive besides you either do that or you leave... when PS was a strong alternative they left and never truly came back. How is that for 3rd party satisfaction for you? Or you think they don't release on Nintendo just to be mean?

Give a valid reason for a 3rd party to choose Famicom over SG-1000, they released the same day and both started at 0 units sold, if the restrictions were so bad they could have released their games on that device instead. They CHOSE TO develop games for Nintendo instead of Sega.

What about the strong 4th Gen alternatives? PC-Engine had a few million headstart on SNES in Japan, Genesis was virtually tied with SNES in the west, why didn't 3rd parties jump ship to them in the late 80s/early 90s? Why did Capcom make Street Fighter & Mega Man exclusive to SNES, why did Square keep Final Fantasy exclusive to SNES, why did Enix keep Dragon Quest exclusive to SNES?

They eventually switched from Nintendo because of their decision to stick with cartridges when 3rd parties were ready to move to CD. If N64 was CD based it would have kept most of its 3rd party support.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 26 April 2015
zorg1000 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Thats a terrible excuse. They are in business to make money just like anyone else. They were just forced into exclusivity when they wanted to expand. Thats what third parties do. Nintendo's force of using exclusivity would've broken contract with them and they essentially would have to go to the smallest market possible to make money. Nintendo knew they had the majority of the market so they used the tech to keep them locked in on their console. Nintendo is the reason Nintendo initially was thrown into a spiral of constant spending on first party just to stay alive. There is no excusing it. The court threw it out but they talked to Nintendo about unfair practices.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I just told u there was a point in time when Nintendo didn't have a foothold on the market, Nintendo didn't release FSamicom/NES and instantly sell millions of hardware, it was a slow burner and there were other devices on the market to choose from before Nintendo became a dominant force. Why did 3rd parties choose Nintendo on the first place?

The answer is easy. The reason third parties worked with Nintendo is the same reason PC companies came to consoles...expanded market with greater chances for profit. Nintendos ventures eventually penetrated the mass market in the west and thus it only made sense for them to come. The more platforms you exist on the more money you can make. The issue with Nintendo was their distate for anyones profitability outside of their own, hence why they were sued by atari monopolozation attempts. The courts did not sense a monopoly but they did sense foul play so Nintendo was kept in check.

This is shit I only expected from Microsoft until I actually read up on the history. Seems Nintendo is no better.

When smaller companies are struggling with a decent product the bigger players will always throw their weight around. 



Finanzminister on 26 April 2015
Protendo said:
I really don't understand this topic. The industry is in crisis. AAA budgets have gone overboard, B games hardly exist, and mobile gaming is a real threat to the handheld market. Combined console sales are down (excluding launch), combined handheld numbers are down, Japaneses game market is hurting, and more developers are closing/going out of business or converting to cell-phone titles than starting.

Sony could just as easily be part of the cause.


You won the whole Internet with this single Post.



DonFerrari on 26 April 2015
RubberWhistleHistle said:
DonFerrari said:


I read everything... just enfatized the part of you that is crystal clear for anyone... you don't like Sony and MS, and would love if Nintendo had like 90% marketshare... won't you update yours Sony won't ever get 50% marketshare for home consoles on 8th gen??? This year it have been outselling both all weeks. I miss your thread.

you want me to update my thread? its an old thread. its dead. what if i make a new thread?


I would be glad man, so much new info for us to discuss.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 26 April 2015
zorg1000 said:
DonFerrari said:


Nope, I haven't... give a valid reason then for a publisher to ignore SG-1000 and release on NES and be mandated to keep that game exclusive for 2 years with no monetary incentive besides you either do that or you leave... when PS was a strong alternative they left and never truly came back. How is that for 3rd party satisfaction for you? Or you think they don't release on Nintendo just to be mean?

Give a valid reason for a 3rd party to choose Famicom over SG-1000, they released the same day and both started at 0 units sold, if the restrictions were so bad they could have released their games on that device instead. They CHOSE TO develop games for Nintendo instead of Sega.

What about the strong 4th Gen alternatives? PC-Engine had a few million headstart on SNES in Japan, Genesis was virtually tied with SNES in the west, why didn't 3rd parties jump ship to them in the late 80s/early 90s? Why did Capcom make Street Fighter & Mega Man exclusive to SNES, why did Square keep Final Fantasy exclusive to SNES, why did Enix keep Dragon Quest exclusive to SNES?

They eventually switched from Nintendo because of their decision to stick with cartridges when 3rd parties were ready to move to CD. If N64 was CD based it would have kept most of its 3rd party support.

See Rols answer...

The 3rd parties saw the potential on Nintendo console more than in Sega... besides that there is the case that Nintendo were stronger already because of the titles they release on arcade were making them more of a name than Sega... and plus that you have to remember that developing for two devices at the time could be not possible for some studios because of the differences in HW... if you recall a lot of games were exclusive to NES/SNES or MS/MD at that time because of the exigences of Nintendo.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

TheSpindler on 26 April 2015

That's a whole lot of assumptions in that OP.

In any case, the industry would have done fine without any of the big 3 after the market crash. Especially these days when many other tech or software giants could step in. Or that MS so closely mirrors Sony anyway, that if they stepped aside I think there'd be a lot of rollover without much hassle I'd imagine.

Each and every one of the big 3 also supports and funds unique games of their own as well, ether through partnerships of studios that are close, or third party.

With all that being said, the main reason I was interested in console games was mid-tier games, Japanese games and party games with lots of people and something new to offer me that I can't get elsewhere. Most of that seems gone now with previous generation and especially this one.

If I want power(or the same gameplay with better graphics) and standard controllers I'll stick with PC. Since it's something I need and would have to upgrade either way, and what i can't play today, I'll be able to play it at 4k tomorrow.

Also I'm not exactly sure where people got this idea that Sony made videogames consoles into more than a toy, when Sega was already moving in that direction anyway. It was an inevitable evolution imo, especially with your biggest competitor's selling point being that it is a toy. A contrast in marketing and software would have eventually happened.