Definitely Sony. Without them, Nintendo would be lazy. Sony has made the videogame industry that we see today
| Million said: I did a lengthy post but i lost it so i'll just have to sumarise. |
You can say the innovations Nintendo brings has been done before, but that doesn't mean it's any less significant. They're the only company being aggressive with these innovations - take a look at PS3's motion controls, and how much Sony promotes/uses it. Some of these innovations also aren't obvious, so had Nintendo never come up with them, they would probably never have come. I mean, who else would have thought of rumble or something Wii Fit?
As for Sony being more innovative than Microsoft, I disagree. I don't think Sony contributes more to the hardcore than Microsoft does, who also offer HD graphics, hardcore games, argubly superior online, and others like in-game XMB. There's hardly a difference in how much they contribute to the industry, the only difference I see is people like Sony more than Microsoft.
| RockSmith372 said: Definitely Sony. Without them, Nintendo would be lazy. Sony has made the videogame industry that we see today |
There are other competitors, like Microsoft, if Sony left.
The loss of a single company will never effect the gaming industry as some people have said above. Sure, if Nintendo fell it would be a sad day, great game characters would be missed and it would feel a different market but someone else would step in. Nintendo in my oppinion did nothing to innovate the last generation, the GC was generic, and the GBA was just that, an Advanced Game Boy. They are mighty now but looking back on the last 2 generations, Sony made the changes and bought in the punters.
Nintendo's loss would affect it more but i think in general status then anything. the Gaming industry will always survive.
Hmm, pie.
By loss is it loss of hardware or software?
The games industry could lose any one of the big three and it will still survive. Or to put it simply any one of the three are expendible.
Nintendo - Expendable, proven in the PS1/PS2 generation. Had they not existed then? It wouldn't have mattered.
Sony - Expendible, this generation and the ones before the N64 are proof of this.
Microsoft - Again, expendible.
The point is, the three players in the market have to constantly justify their existance to you the consumer. If they don't they will drop out, its as simple as that.
This is an industry where one or two players can expand and cover the whole market, much like the semiconductor industry. So the one who would drop out of the market would hurt it the least because at that time it would probably be the least relevant and influential in the market anyway. If you want proof, look at the exit of Sega! It hardly caused any ripples at all when they left.
Tease.
You can say the innovations Nintendo brings has been done before, but that doesn't mean it's any less significant. They're the only company being aggressive with these innovations - take a look at PS3's motion controls, and how much Sony promotes/uses it. Some of these innovations also aren't obvious, so had Nintendo never come up with them, they would probably never have come. I mean, who else would have thought of rumble or something Wii Fit? I don't think you get it , by definition Nintendo couldn't have innovated it if had already beed done before like I said before Nintendo we're smart in the way that they used what was already here . Wii Fit is by no means genius , Nintendo identifying a gap in the market and capitalising on it was , but it still wasn't something that no other business could do i'm sure Wii-Fit has been done before in a less succesfull form. And nintendo did not invent vibration feedback what are you talking about ? As for Sony being more innovative than Microsoft, I disagree. I don't think Sony contributes more to the hardcore than Microsoft does, who also offer HD graphics, hardcore games, argubly superior online, and others like in-game XMB. There's hardly a difference in how much they contribute to the industry, the only difference I see is people like Sony more than Microsoft. Firstly i never said Sony was more innovative than Microsoft ( even though I believe they are) my point was Microsoft offers nothing unique to the gaming industry it hasn't done ever , not alot of internal development resources mainly buying exclusive games from 3rd party developers . Here's a list of Sony Published games ( mostly 1st party titles) over the last decade . and with their continued support of the gaming industry I can confidently say Sony leaving would harm gaming far more than MS leaving would.
[edit] Playstation 2
[edit] Playstation 3
[edit] Playstation Network
List of PlayStation Network games [edit] Playstation Portable
There are other competitors, like Microsoft, if Sony left.
No RockSmith never said that was Sony's main contributiion , your taking his words out of context. |
Nintendo.
GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.
| Squilliam said: The games industry could lose any one of the big three and it will still survive. Or to put it simply any one of the three are expendible. Nintendo - Expendable, proven in the PS1/PS2 generation. Had they not existed then? It wouldn't have mattered. Sony - Expendible, this generation and the ones before the N64 are proof of this. Microsoft - Again, expendible. The point is, the three players in the market have to constantly justify their existance to you the consumer. If they don't they will drop out, its as simple as that. This is an industry where one or two players can expand and cover the whole market, much like the semiconductor industry. So the one who would drop out of the market would hurt it the least because at that time it would probably be the least relevant and influential in the market anyway. If you want proof, look at the exit of Sega! It hardly caused any ripples at all when they left. |
Your ignoring the question most probably because the answer hurts you too much , the question wasn't "what company would kill the gaming industry dead with it's depature" was it ?. Of course any gaming company would be expendable but that's beside the point. Sony and Nintendo offer alot to this industry and have both invested heavily in the growth of the gaming industry , Microsoft tried to elbow their way in buying exclusivity , aggresivley dropping the prices of the consoles to the point where they're unlikely to be even profiting of it , released shoddy , poor quality hardware and so on.
Atari!!
Nah, I agree with the Nintendo. not only would we lose most the big franchises, but console gaming would return to the antisocial territory of 18 year old males
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
