A. You mentioned Sega Nintendo being "neck & neck" for that gen. The point is, the gen will be noted that Nintendo handily beat Sega, despite the "neck & neck" weeks, and desopite Sega's brilliant offerings to the industry at the time. That's the point, take note...

B. You answered your own question about Nintendo getting a run for their money, in fact it happened TWO gens in a row.

C. Nintendo isn't the only company making consoles and the fact that you think that way tells me how misinformed you are.

You seem to have only one outlook on the situation, and aren't willing to take in anything else that doesn't favor your train of thought. Your thread title has also helped create the situation you're in. Your viewpoint IS NOT supreme, no matter how you choose to spin it...

Which is false...

@LiquidNinja

Well, I tried to follow your reasoning. But "video game companies will have to make real games again" seems to stem from your personal weariness and nostalgia more than anything else.

Me, I've been playing videogames since the mid '70s and I don't think that today's gaming - from a gamer's point of view - is anything less enoyable or offers less worthy experiences than any other "era".

@CGI
By now, it's evident that he uses "video game company" meaning a company that exclusively produces videogames.

On this subject I fail to see how the PSX was any more PC-like or less game-focused than the Wii, that has a weather channel, a news channel, an internet browser, and a photo slide software.

He isn't making much sense, which is why I refuse to debate with him any further. It's a waste of time....

You say Nintendo is "the only" video game company "making video game consoles". That isn't true. Then you say that Sega was Nintendo's largest competition, but then in fact admit that Sony was more competition than Sega was. In essence, you've back-tracked a lot, and in turn, your point isn't making sense.

So, who made the PS3, Nintendo? They are the only company in the industry that JUST does video games. They are NOT, however, the only company in the industry building/creating/manufacturing consoles/games. I think that's what YOU fail to compute.

Also, Nintendo not worrying about Sony did what for them? If your logic works, they were absolutely man-handled by Sony because of it, and STILL wiped the floor with Sega. Like I said, research bud, it works....

* facepalm *

Ok, your first sentence is basically saying that Nintendo is THE ONLY VIDEO GAME COMPANY making video game consoles. What you're saying is, Microdsoft and Sony aren't "video game" companies. If you're talking STRICTLY, I agree, Nintendo is STRICTLY a gaming company. However, Microsoft and Sony ARE video game companies, they just do OTHER things as well.

Now, to your second set of sentences: Sony rivaled Nintendo as a software AND a hardware company, and still continue to do so, as does Microsoft. COMPETITORS are people who rival you in the same market/field/set of business. Nintendo has two of them, period, end of story. Sega was also a rival company, who weren't as financially equipped (obviously) to take on a company like Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo. For the past decade, Sony has beaten Nintendo in amount of software on the market, (that is how many pieces of software were on the market between the PS1 and PS2 that ONLY graced those consoles), brand recognition, and hardware sales. Nintendo has LARGE sellers within their first party studios, in fact the LARGEST, but it doesn't mean that Microsoft and Sony's offerings are chopped liver, as you seem to be implying.

I'm tired of this immobile, useless debate. You've been given accounts from all sides, yet still choose to ignore the facts, which are:

Sony - A video game/music/TV/phone/Electronics Company

Microsoft - A Video Game/PC Software Company

Nintendo - A (STRICTLY - NOT "THE ONLY") Video Game Company

ALL are Video Game manufactureres that make their own software and ARE competitors within this industry. DEAL. WITH. IT!!!!!

* facepalm *

Ok, your first sentence is basically saying that Nintendo is THE ONLY VIDEO GAME COMPANY making video game consoles. What you're saying is, Microdsoft and Sony aren't "video game" companies. If you're talking STRICTLY, I agree, Nintendo is STRICTLY a gaming company. However, Microsoft and Sony ARE video game companies, they just do OTHER things as well.

Now, to your second set of sentences: Sony rivaled Nintendo as a software AND a hardware company, and still continue to do so, as does Microsoft. COMPETITORS are people who rival you in the same market/field/set of business. Nintendo has two of them, period, end of story. Sega was also a rival company, who weren't as financially equipped (obviously) to take on a company like Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo. For the past decade, Sony has beaten Nintendo in amount of software on the market, (that is how many pieces of software were on the market between the PS1 and PS2 that ONLY graced those consoles), brand recognition, and hardware sales. Nintendo has LARGE sellers within their first party studios, in fact the LARGEST, but it doesn't mean that Microsoft and Sony's offerings are chopped liver, as you seem to be implying.

I'm tired of this immobile, useless debate. You've been given accounts from all sides, yet still choose to ignore the facts, which are:

Sony - A video game/music/TV/phone/Electronics Company

Microsoft - A Video Game/PC Software Company

Nintendo - A (STRICTLY - NOT "THE ONLY") Video Game Company

ALL are Video Game manufactureres that make their own software and ARE competitors within this industry. DEAL. WITH. IT!!!!!