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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Between the Big three (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo), who is the worst when at the top?

KrspaceT on 24 April 2022
victor83fernandes said:

Nintendo is not in the same market as the other 2.

But when Nintendo was at the top, Wii times, they get lazy, same now with the switch, still no new metroid prime, still no new pikmin and so on.

Sony will always be sony, if at the top or not, they will always launch great single player exclusive games, they will always push tech forward, even when they were way at the top with ps4, they still pushed VR, and now they are pushing with new controller features and VR 2.

Microsoft is all about money, they push gaming forward when they are the bottom, like the start of the 360, and start of the X/S, but once they get the consumers locked in, they will not release any new games, also their hardware is cheap, like the elite 2 controller that keeps breaking and they keep selling them for 200 dollars. Also remember they are the ones who introduced paid online, if it wasn't for Microsoft we could be having now free online just like on PC.

On top of that, they had like 2 or 3 games for the whole of this generation when both sony and nintendo keep pushing games.

Kakadu18 said:
victor83fernandes said:

Nintendo is not in the same market as the other 2.

But when Nintendo was at the top, Wii times, they get lazy, same now with the switch, still no new metroid prime, still no new pikmin and so on.

You think that's because of laziness? Are you trolling?

Um....are we forgetting the stuff that came onto the system that isn't the usual stuff? I mean right now you can play the legit Metroid Dread. A 2D Metroid game....like, that's lazy? 

A ton of Nintendo's non core games (Mario platformers, Zelda, Pokemon RPG, Mario Kart, Smash, Animal Crossing) have found their way onto the system. Stuff like Luigi Mansion, Pokemon Snap, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, etc. Heck we'd have Advance Wars if Russia wasn't being evil right now. 

If you want more games like that....yeah they can do more, but the Switch isn't dead yet. Plus it isn't like what we have been gotten isn't pretty top tier for their franchises, even if Kirby and Pokemon needed a few goes to get to that top tier in Forgotten Land and Legends Arceus. 

(Heck Game Freak did something interesting. That's lazy?)



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network
lansingone on 24 April 2022

My vote is Nintendo. MS might be worse based on evidence of every anticompetitive thing they've done with it PC for years, but to give them credit the worst they did in console gaming during their brief time at the top early on with the 360 was just throwing money to get exclusive stuff. Probably also their complete lack of interest in cross play online at that time.
I may be a minority in this viewpoint, but I don't think Sony was ever that bad in their most arrogant. When they made the PS3 they made a console that had everything you could want, standard HDMI, Blu Ray, full backward compatibility, non proprietary upgradable hdd, there was even a model with built in WiFi, and they took the extra effort in cooling to give it an internal power supply. The only sin was that it made it too expensive, but compared to what people drop on tech today, it's actually not that bad.

Nintendo has a proven record of anticompetitive practices during the heights of the NES. They even had a ruthless practice of not allowing the same game to be published on their system if it was on some other console. The stranglehold they had on the industry at the time paired with their lawsuit happy nature makes me unequivocally say Nintendo is the worst.



ZyroXZ2 on 24 April 2022
hinch said:
ZyroXZ2 said:

I'm not ashamed to admit I didn't read all the pages, but I'm going to submit my answer for the ages:

ANY AND ALL OF THEM.

These are companies, and a company's sole (and SOUL!) purpose is to part people and their money.  There is NO company that is immune to greed when they're at the top, none of them.

Heck, I've even seen greed infect non-profit organizations if enough money flows.  I don't want ANY of the companies "at the top", there should always be a healthy competition and round robin on who's in that top spot to keep things favorable for the end user/consumer.

The thing is companies do act differently depending on how they are situated on the market. Which is the main topic.

When a company has the most market share they have the advantage to shape and dictate the market more-so they unfavorable positions. We've seen this a lot in the PC tech market with CPU's and GPU's where the top dog dictates the market and when they have a near majority of the pie its usually bad for us consumers. Some act way worse than others.

Take Intel.. who had the hold of market for such a long time. Absolutely refused to release multicore core CPU's over quad for ages (for mainstream) before AMD had a competitive product like their Zen line. On the GPU market Nvidia shows how awful they could be and their prices during the pandemic, re-releasing priceier SKU's and taking advantage of the already messed up situation, instead fulfilling existing products on the same dies (chips) and selling GPU's directly to miners. On top of that not adding MSRP on their newer graphics cards etc to milk even more money.. is way worse than anything AMD has done when they are/were on top.

Granted all companies are out for consumers money, there are ways in which they act that can be seen as shrewd, anti competitive or downright anti-consumer when all cards swing their way.

Also whoever mentioned Dreamcast. The 'Dreamarena' online play was free using its built in 56K modem. It was not locked behind a paid service. SegaNet was an ISP provided by Sega of America who offered an internet service and broadband that could be used with the console. They released a broadband adapter for the Dreamcast shortly before exiting the console market.

I didn't say they acted they same, I said greed infects any company at the top and thus I don't want any company at the "top".  Power corrupts, and they'll find a way to keep that power at the cost of consumers.  Every company who ever hits the top should feel like the rug could be pulled out from them at any moment in time by a competitor: that is THE healthiest business model that accounts for us, the consumers of products/services.  It literally does not matter who's there at the top.



Check out my entertainment gaming channel!
^^/
SvennoJ on 24 April 2022
LudicrousSpeed said:
victor83fernandes said:

Exactly. My thought exactly. People are just blind. They can’t remember the 360. When Microsoft wanted to grab consumer base so they started making great exclusives. They also introduced paid online. Or else today we could all have free online just like on pc. 

remember what happened when Microsoft was beating Sony. They got lazy and no new exclusives coming besides forza. While Sony continue with great games like last of us and ni no kuni. 

this will happen again. When gamepass has enough subscribers they will raise the prices and you will never own your games. No second hand. No lending games. Just pay up every month more and more. 

Dreamcast introduced paid online.

Also, your remarks regarding raising prices and not owning your games.. you mean exactly like Nintendo did with the online expansion, and what Sony is doing with the new PS+? You gotta pay more on both just to have access to certain titles, which aren’t available outside the services, and are only accessible with a subscription. It’s funny how the doomsday scenario some here are preaching for MS, already exists with the other two. 

Dreamcast did not introduce paid online. You paid for connecting to an access point through dial up, just like phoning anyone else back in the day. They basically acted as an ISP providing access points to dial in to.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/dreamcasts-online-pricing/1100-2465476/
Japanese gamers will pay five yen (about four cents) per minute without any membership fee.

MS introduced paying for using your internet you already paid for, added the membership fee...



HoangNhatAnh on 24 April 2022
Doctor_MG said:

Well, to be fair MS has never been "on top" per se.

Anyway, to answer the question I'm going to vote MS despite not being the market leader. But this is with very limited data. MS botched the Xbox One launch HARD. Now, Nintendo faltered with the Wii U, but it was more because of an inability to advertise correctly and a misunderstanding of market direction. Sony botched the PS3 launch, but that was mostly because of the hardware they were trying to sell (they launched with full BC and everything). MS is really the only one that I feel was truly complacent.

What about vita???



Around the Network
Doctor_MG on 25 April 2022
HoangNhatAnh said:

What about vita???

Not sure what you are inquiring about. Vita launched for 249.99 (as much as it's contemporary launched at for 2-3x the processing power) and offered backward compatibility (PSP digital games and PS1 classic games from PSP and PS3 carried forward) and offered crossbuy for many games. After a year on the market Sony slashed the price by $50 and reduced the price of the memory cards.

It was mostly the memory cards that cost the Vita, but, also, the mobile game market shrunk during that time. DS and PSP sold a combined 230M units. 3DS and Vita sold a paltry 90M combined. Switch really reinvigorated the portable console space, and it doesn't get enough credit for that. 

Last edited by Doctor_MG - on 25 April 2022

LudicrousSpeed on 25 April 2022
SvennoJ said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Dreamcast introduced paid online.

Also, your remarks regarding raising prices and not owning your games.. you mean exactly like Nintendo did with the online expansion, and what Sony is doing with the new PS+? You gotta pay more on both just to have access to certain titles, which aren’t available outside the services, and are only accessible with a subscription. It’s funny how the doomsday scenario some here are preaching for MS, already exists with the other two. 

Dreamcast did not introduce paid online. You paid for connecting to an access point through dial up, just like phoning anyone else back in the day. They basically acted as an ISP providing access points to dial in to.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/dreamcasts-online-pricing/1100-2465476/
Japanese gamers will pay five yen (about four cents) per minute without any membership fee.

MS introduced paying for using your internet you already paid for, added the membership fee...

Nah, this article is early on, when the DC first started getting online games in Japan I assume. Outside of ChuChu, US got online games around a year after launch. And there was no charge for around a year and a half or so, outside of ISP charges. Then Sega started charging a monthly fee to access their titles online. You could still play third party titles with just the ISP, like Quake and Unreal Tournament. But I was big into NFL2k2 and it required a $10 a month payment to play online.



SvennoJ on 25 April 2022
LudicrousSpeed said:
SvennoJ said:

Dreamcast did not introduce paid online. You paid for connecting to an access point through dial up, just like phoning anyone else back in the day. They basically acted as an ISP providing access points to dial in to.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/dreamcasts-online-pricing/1100-2465476/
Japanese gamers will pay five yen (about four cents) per minute without any membership fee.

MS introduced paying for using your internet you already paid for, added the membership fee...

Nah, this article is early on, when the DC first started getting online games in Japan I assume. Outside of ChuChu, US got online games around a year after launch. And there was no charge for around a year and a half or so, outside of ISP charges. Then Sega started charging a monthly fee to access their titles online. You could still play third party titles with just the ISP, like Quake and Unreal Tournament. But I was big into NFL2k2 and it required a $10 a month payment to play online.

Ah, didn't know that. Was that per game or all Sega titles? Games like Ultima Online and Everquest also had a monthly fee already.

Interesting, if Wikepedia is correct it was double that when it launched in the US

As a replacement for Sega's original PC-only online gaming service, Heat.net,[49] SegaNet was initially quite popular when it launched on September 7, 2000.[50] Just over a month after launch, by October 27, 2000, SegaNet had 1.55 million Dreamcast consoles registered online, including 750,000 in Japan, 400,000 in North America, and 400,000 in Europe.[51] This was somewhat surprising given that Sega initially set a monthly subscription fee of USD$21.95, relatively expensive compared to other Internet service providers (ISPs) of the time. However, it was unavailable outside of the contiguous United States; support for Canada, Alaska, and Hawaii was planned, but never realized.[39][40][52] Unlike a standard ISP, game servers were connected directly into SegaNet's internal network, providing very low connection latency between the consoles and servers along with standard Internet access via the included PlanetWeb browser.[8][53]

It was reduced later and seemed to have been different by country. The UK never got a monthly fee according to Wikepedia



LurkerJ on 25 April 2022
LudicrousSpeed said:
SvennoJ said:

Semantics. They were erasing the possibility of selling used games on Ebay, garage sales, giving or lending them to friends. The plan was to have select retailers join a buy back program in which MS would get a cut when a store would buy a game back from you. (Or when it was sold again, don't remember exactly)

No idea even if it would be a worldwide program or how long it would have taken to set up a world wide program. Yet from the start all you got was a license tied to your account with 24hr check ins by the console. When selling the game back to an authorized retailer your license would be revoked. It basically turned all physical games into digital licenses.

MS tried to smooth it over a bit by talking about game sharing and the ability to sell on digital games. Yet the positives never emerged, even though that could still be easily done regardless of 'killing' the physical market.

Semantics, lol. Not at all. Used games still would have been entirely possible. Like I said, the plan was trash, but it wasn’t “erasing used games”.

I believe SONY is the worst when they're unchallenged. This aside, why do you feel the need to rewrite the history of a multi-national tech giant that cares little for your overall wellbeing? bewildering. 



Fei-Hung on 25 April 2022

Microsoft. Regardless of how well or bad they have done, they have always given up quickly on supporting their system with games.

Original Xbox they tried and it didn't go anywhere so they killed it of early to release the next system early and get a head start.

The 360 they released faulty, lashed a bunch of next gen features that had to be bought as add ons, front loaded it with exclusive and after 3 years road it out with 3rd party and their triple halo, gears and Forza releases.

The One, stupidly priced at launch due to a gimmick, lacked behind in HW, gave up 2-3 years in and went back to relying on their usual 3 games.

Series gen, again has had 2 AAA games release in the span of 18 months and one of them being a bi-annual kinda game. In the same time Sony has released around 8 games that are AAA and then smaller games like Sackboy, Astrobot, Kena and Upgraded releases.

Nintendo has been horrendous this gen with only one Zelda, one mainline Mario. Most their games have been re-releases of sorts and they are 5 years into this gen. My fave Nintendo gen won't be beaten I think. The N64 was Nintendo at their best.