How (ir)relevant/replaceable is Sony/MS/Nintendo? *spawn

[eastmen]

Huh? You harbour Sony hatred deep enough that you want to see the company killed off and all those people lose their jobs and one less competitor in the console space leaving only a monopolistic MS+N conglomerate? I feel sorry for the cat of yours that Sony killed and only hope you can rescue your family from their clutches before they've been brainwashed into assassinating numerous president/ministers and installing Sony as the corporate Ruler of the World.

its just a mega corp which is already failing. So it doesn't mater to me if sony exists in the future, there are plenty of other companies ready to take their place. Heck even if sony does exist 5 or 10 years from now , its already such a vastly different company then when they mattered in the gaming industry 8 years ago who knows what will be left of them if the other parts of the business keep failing. PlayStation may not be a sony product in the future.

I would ilke to see Nintendo join up with someone because it limits the amount of hardware I have to buy and lets be frank , aside from 1 or 2 games from third parties last generation and so far this generation , the only games xbox an playstation owners buy on a Nintendo console are Nintendo games.

 

[MrFox]

its just a mega corp which is already failing. So it doesn't mater to me if sony exists in the future, there are plenty of other companies ready to take their place. Heck even if sony does exist 5 or 10 years from now , its already such a vastly different company then when they mattered in the gaming industry 8 years ago who knows what will be left of them if the other parts of the business keep failing. PlayStation may not be a sony product in the future.

I would ilke to see Nintendo join up with someone because it limits the amount of hardware I have to buy and lets be frank , aside from 1 or 2 games from third parties last generation and so far this generation , the only games xbox an playstation owners buy on a Nintendo console are Nintendo games.

I'm very septic about that.

This is a misterxmedia satire, right? He wrote pretty much the same thing on his blog.

 

[eastmen]

Not really. Look when sega released the Genesis many couldn't imagine the video game industry without them. Now no one really cares that they can't get a sega system. The same would be true of Sony or ms or nintendo esp if the franchises cine to other systems

 

[Cjail]

I'm very septic about that.

This is a misterxmedia satire, right? He wrote pretty much the same thing on his blog.

Misterxmedia it's still out there!?
I thought he had the good taste to disappear after his ridiculous "insider" claims.

 

[temesgen]

its just a mega corp which is already failing. So it doesn't mater to me if sony exists in the future, there are plenty of other companies ready to take their place. Heck even if sony does exist 5 or 10 years from now , its already such a vastly different company then when they mattered in the gaming industry 8 years ago who knows what will be left of them if the other parts of the business keep failing. PlayStation may not be a sony product in the future.

I would ilke to see Nintendo join up with someone because it limits the amount of hardware I have to buy and lets be frank , aside from 1 or 2 games from third parties last generation and so far this generation , the only games xbox an playstation owners buy on a Nintendo console are Nintendo games.

You do realize that many people take issue with right? In the same way that many would point to Halo or Gears if someone said MS is irrelevant to gaming many would cite games like UC3 or The Last of US and say Sony is quite relevant. In fact while much more could be stated as reasons why Sony is relevant to gaming we can end the debate right at the games bc their exclusives are as important to the industry and in some ways more so than anything that EA, Activision or Ubisoft are doing at the moment if one cares at all for a diverse range of genres with high production values as well as the ability to take risk.

Edit:

we don't need to go back 8 years to see the impact Sony is having on the industry; a gamer focused PS4, Morpheus, paywall, indies and game of the year titles closing out the 360/PS3 generation say otherwise.....

 

[joker454]

You do realize that many people take issue with right? In the same way that many would point to Halo or Gears if someone said MS is irrelevant to gaming many would cite games like UC3 or The Last of US and say Sony is quite relevant. In fact while much more could be stated as reasons why Sony is relevant to gaming we can end the debate right at the games bc their exclusives are as important to the industry and in some ways more so than anything that EA, Activision or Ubisoft are doing at the moment if one cares at all for a diverse range of genres with high production values as well as the ability to take risk.

History is littered with companies that did great things and are now gone. Ultimately, everyone is replaceable irregardless of what they did in their past. For example there was a time it was impossible for me to imagine gaming without Origin. But they are long gone and guess what, others came along and filled the void quite nicely.

 

[temesgen]

History is littered with companies that did great things and are now gone. Ultimately, everyone is replaceable irregardless of what they did in their past. For example there was a time it was impossible for me to imagine gaming without Origin. But they are long gone and guess what, others came along and filled the void quite nicely.

It wasn't 8 years ago that Sony did something relevant as the post seemed to be suggesting. We all know that times change and companies are forced to adapt but lets not pretend Sony's last contribution was long long ago...

Something is very wrong with your analysis if you can conclude that.

 

[-tkf-]

I'm very septic about that.

This is a misterxmedia satire, right? He wrote pretty much the same thing on his blog.

I am shocked that you wouldn't care if Sony folded. I was certain you would be thrilled. Of the mega corps out there, there are so few that do crazy shit like Sony does. I would say we need them more than other mega corps and we should prey for the PS4 to succeed like the ps2 did.

 

[joker454]

It wasn't 8 years ago that Sony did something relevant as the post seemed to be suggesting. We all know that times change and companies are forced to adapt but lets not pretend Sony's last contribution was long long ago...

Something is very wrong with your analysis if you can conclude that.

I think you are reading too much into this. It's not that they are irrelevant, but Sony aren't offering anything in gaming that can't or hasn't been done by others. It's not like with video sensors where they are offering some with specs and price points that no one else can touch even if you wanted to spend a ton more. In the video game world they don't stand out among the sea of other high quality video game companies. I'll use Origin again as the example, they were trying games that no one was attempting at the time, and yet even though they are gone it's just not that big of a deal because there are so many game companies now.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

History is littered with companies that did great things and are now gone. Ultimately, everyone is replaceable irregardless of what they did in their past.

What you say is very true but there's quite a difference between a new competitor driving an old dog out of the market and what some here would seemingly like to happen, which is Sony collapsing through financial problems. I don't see any obvious replacement unless gamers are interested in things like OUYA or whatever Amazon is doing.

Thanks to whatever Nintendo is doing, there is already precious little consumer choice for core gamers (PC, PlayStation, Xbox) and I don't want either Microsoft or Sony to go away and leave me with less choice But particularly not Sony because after the strategy hiatus that was the PlayStation 3 era, Sony seem to have got their shit to together. PS4. Morpheus. These things have my interest.

 

[temesgen]

I think you are reading too much into this. It's not that they are irrelevant, but Sony aren't offering anything in gaming that can't or hasn't been done by others. It's not like with video sensors where they are offering some with specs and price points that no one else can touch even if you wanted to spend a ton more. In the video game world they don't stand out among the sea of other high quality video game companies. I'll use Origin again as the example, they were trying games that no one was attempting at the time, and yet even though they are gone it's just not that big of a deal because there are so many game companies now.

I think you are missing my point... Sony is investing in software makers right now that arguably defined the 360/PS3 generation. Using Origin is a bad example, bc we don't have to go back too far to see the impact Sony has had. In fact we can see it in the game of the year awards for 2013 & 2012.... Origin and Sega don't meet this criteria....

It is true that this is a competitive industry and if one isn't careful they'll be irrelevant. That said in someways MS is more in danger of this than Sony, they abandoned Kinect and their key IPs are not really innovating. And this isn't new, they did similar things with the 360 - ignore the core and do Kinect or vice versa.

Sony continues to fund software that doesn't always have large commercial appeal but is important to the industry and they have put policies in place which give indies a better platform to release content which could be the next big thing. Add services like PSN Plus which are being copied, their position on the paywall and one can make a very good argument that they are the company most concerned about consumers and creating the most value. And they seem to understand better than MS and Nintendo that the consumer wants a game console to be a game console first and anything else it might do is secondary. Finally Sony is earlier than either MS or Nintendo with VR, as a company they seem too be the most interested in gaming....

 

[MrFox]

Corporate doomsday scenarios are completely irrational for an E3 prediction thread... I'm going back into hibernation until the conferences start.

 

[milk]

Just to add my view on this sony's relevance thing. I consider Sony currently relevant for gaming for the reason they invest in many risky and experimental games as well as in very ambitious and production-wise exceptional games, and by financing a lot of extremelly talented studious while allowing them relatively high amount of creative freedom.
I agree that, all that tallent would not go away without sony, nor would experimental and risky games stop being made. Also other companies might adopt that strategy, as well as Sony could decide to drop it right now. And off course, there are PLENTY other venues for experimental and high quality games besides Sony.
Regardless of all that, as it is right now, Sony is a good company for the gaming industry to have, and their role would not be fully replaced all too soon if they were to cease to exist in the near future. So I guess, that counts.

 

[eastmen]

Look what's the difference between sega and sony?

If so by disappeared other publishers would buy their properties so any fames would still get made.

What because they took a slightly more powerful app from amd suddenly the world would end if they disappeared ?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In the video game world they don't stand out among the sea of other high quality video game companies.

A sea of three games console companies, of which one is hardly serving the mainstream gamer. One can also point to a company in the video game world that makes a console, funds varied high quality first party titles, seems to have a reasonably generous indie platform for those who get on it, and will be bringing a VR experience to the masses soon. How is that not standing out?!?

For those who feel Sony's just another megacorp, they are one of the very few who have invested and committed to the consoling hobby. There are plenty of other megacorps who won't invest because it's too risky, while the new players waiting in the wings to take Sony's place should they fall are going to be uber-conservative mobile-based system pedlars. Sony have brought games and hardware of a decidedly interesting, eclectic mix. If they collapsed tomorrow, there'd be only XB1 as a decent console experience, forcing gamers either onto mobile or PC. Same for MS of course. Nintendo's something of an exception due to their self-maintained niche, but obviously their demise would be a loss to their particular fans. I doubt any company could step up and offer the same quality and curiousity of titles.

There will always be games made as long as there's an industry for them, but it'd be a very different landscape if any of the Big Three exits, and I don't think for the better either.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Look what's the difference between sega and sony?

Sony have demonstrated an interest in funding more out-there titles and hardware. Their demise would mean a more conservative, less interesting gaming landscape. Same for MS. It'd take someone like MS to bring Kinect to gaming. Sega OTOH just made 16 bit games, and when the gaming landscape moved on (thanks in part to Sony's efforts), they got left behind and struggled to remain relevant.

What because they took a slightly more powerful app from amd suddenly the world would end if they disappeared ?

That's needlessly hyperbolic. Who's equating the loss of Sony from gaming with the end of the world?

 

[joker454]

I think you are missing my point... Sony is investing in software makers right now that arguably defined the 360/PS3 generation.

See I don't agree with that comment at all...hence why there's probably no point in continuing since we apparently see things very differently. We'd basically be arguing with two completely different baseline "facts".

A sea of three games console companies, of which one is hardly serving the mainstream gamer.

I don't think that matters. If one hardware maker bows out you can bet your bottom dollar another will step in, if there is profit to be made. It wouldn't be the first time. I just don't see Sony leaving consoles as the end of innovative gaming as we know it.

Sony have demonstrated an interest in funding more out-there titles and hardware. Their demise would mean a more conservative, less interesting gaming landscape.

See again I don't agree with this at all. Console gaming in general is conservative gaming, there's not much being chanced on there at all quite frankly. The pc world is where chances are being taken and new ideas tried. The existence of console gamers in and of itself is what has led to a less interesting gaming landscape as they don't play a great variety of games, and that's what MS, Sony, etc tend to pander to. Sorry but I just don't see the huge variety of "out there" titles on console. The 360 was decent in offering new and untried stuff but even it pales in comparison to pc. I had a ps3 and same thing there, the gaming selection was just limited. I don't have a ps4 or xb1 but I doubt there has been enough time for either to get a decent selection of "out there" games. Ultimately they can't even if they wanted to because they are locked down pieces of hardware, that will always artificially limit their software selection and make them appear boring to guys like me who want to try new stuff.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

See again I don't agree with this at all. Console gaming in general is conservative gaming, there's not much being chanced on there at all quite frankly.

That's true of gaming in general. In the console space, where the consoles are bought for a certain convenience of experience, Sony offer's a wider portfolio of titles.

The pc world is where chances are being taken and new ideas tried.

Via indies. They aren't in any position to release their own hardware, so are dependent on a big megacorp to provide the platforms for their titles. PC is off course the most open with the most variety, but it's also not the most user friendly platform; it's certainly not the most popular platform for gaming. As long as there are people wanting games consoles (living room TV gaming), there'll need to be a megacorp providing that, and of those Sony have been very positive towards gamers.

The existence of console gamers in and of itself is what has led to a less interesting gaming landscape as they don't play a great variety of games...

I consider that a remarkably blinkered view. ICO and SotC, Singstar, EyeToy, Noby Noby Boy, Home, Linger in Shadows, etc. showcase original content. There's plenty more besides. Typical gamers are conservative and stick to the third parties platforms, but Sony have supplied niche titles that the core gamers may not be interested in but which bring value and game innovation to those interested. If EA were to take Sony's place, their platform would be a ghastly mess of DRM and conservative titles. If Samsung were to take their place, they'd leave it to independent developers who wouldn't be investing in mega-bucks Team Ico style projects or new hardware interfaces if they can't trust to high fiscal returns.

The main problem I see is that you're arguing from your POV as a PC gamer. As mentioned in other threads, the PC isn't a direct replacement for console. As long as consoles have value, Sony are a good company to spearhead a platform as they obviously care about the gaming experience as much as making money (perhaps too much given their financial situation!). Your argument only really takes hold when consoles are no longer needed, which isn't presently the case, and then, all console companies are redundant and should be shelved.

 

[-tkf-]

The pc world is where chances are being taken and new ideas tried. .

Mobile games as well, and that has nothing to do with consoles, mega corps or making money.

The point would be that Sony threw money after some very unlikely games considering the conservative market console gamers supposedly are.

From Ico to journey they made the gaming world a better place. And they clearly have no intention of stopping.

Just to be a bastard, but what pc indy games really made a difference and made it big, big like minecraft.

 

[temesgen]

See I don't agree with that comment at all...hence why there's probably no point in continuing since we apparently see things very differently. We'd basically be arguing with two completely different baseline "facts".

2011 Uncharted 3
2012 Journey
2013 Last of Us

These titles were arguably the best in their respective year of release, won many GOTY awards and shows that Sony is currently extremely relevant to the industry. If Sony doesn't release another title for 3 or 4 years that garners similar appeal we can argue then if they are relevant but right now today they are arguably the most relevant of the big three. Citing Origin as an example when they went out of business 10 years ago makes little sense to me.

We could also discuss the support of Indies, Project Morpheus, PSN Plus, the wide variety of genres and titles that Sony publishes every year, the ongoing support they provide to their platforms years after release. All in all Sony has shown a rather consumer focused business model which should be important to most gamers.

If anything your Origin analogy in someways fits MS, Origin made Wing Commader titles for years and little else and similarly MS has Halo. That isn't to say I don't like MS first party efforts but I would like to see them take more chances like Sony does and not so fickle with their support.

edit:

in many ways the whole debate about the relevance of Sony is eerily reminiscent to the debates coming out of E3 regarding XB1. Some of us felt the paywall, cost, relative power mattered. Some felt otherwise, its something you either recognize or don't as joker already said earlier so I'm not sure how much can come from debating it. That is unless you want to re-post later for posterity....