And what platform has total backwards compatible support. Please say pc..
How (ir)relevant/replaceable is Sony/MS/Nintendo? *spawn
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
And what platform has total backwards compatible support. Please say pc..
He will say PC, because that's his platform of choice and preference. Please let's not have another PC v console thread - there'll be no new arguments and we've heard it all before.
The whole debate between you and I is here for anyone to read and see where the goal post moved. You keep saying anyone can step and produce the next great game and the loss of any competitor is meaningless, I've already said I agree that this is a competitive industry and any firms resting on their laurels won't be around long.
That said the relevance of Sony here and NOW is not really something reasonable people would debate. There are many reasons why but I presented facts about their software - they've been releasing titles in recent years that arguably were the best in this generation. You then changed the metric to saying the value of any IP is subjective and said we all can put together our own list when I pointed out many publications, journalist agree that that titles I listed were among the best in those respective years you then said the titles didn't matter to the public because their sales didn't exceed all competitors.
When asked for confirmation that this truly is how you feel (and a source for your sales data) you went on to something else... You are welcome to whatever opinion you like but its also fair to say that by most objective standards I've shown that Sony is currently relevant on the basis of the software they are publishing alone.
using his own metric of choice - sales he'd lose....
not that I think sales necessarily equates to quality... or vice versa....But it's not backwards compatible out of the box. Yes, with effort it can run anything, but that would not be the console way of doing things.
So either we kill pc's in this context and thread or we let it run (until it's locked sooner or later)?
If we head down the PC route, it'll be locked very soon! Joker feels Sony (et al) doesn't provide a consumer friendly platform because it's not BC. That's his view, so he'll want any gaming platform, console or otherwise, to offer BC to, in his view, offer consumer friendliness. There are plenty of other people out there who don't see BC as necessary for consumer friendliness though, so we don't need to discuss whether BC is important or not (for which there's another thread).
Perhaps the end of that discussion is whether Joker will assert that a platform holder who doesn't offer BC is irrelevant or not, because that's the crux of that particular issue. If BC isn't necessary to be relevant, it doesn't matter to this discussion whether the consoles have BC or not.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I'd argue that Sony's contribution to the console gaming industry (as any argument about the industry beyond that is irrelevant since neither Sony, MS nor Nintendo operate in those spheres), over the four console generations that they have been in the industry, positively eclipses MS and Nintendo's.
MS was only relevant last gen and still has to prove themselves. Nintendo, outside the Wii, has been coasting on nostalgia and its former glory days for years.
Whilst all three have a history of engaging in questionable, and in some cases squarely anti-consumer practices, Sony have been by no means the worst. And in terms of policy, products and services offered, I would subjectively say that Sony have been the platform holder that's made the most significant pro-consumer moves to recent date (sometimes even to their own detriment).
Regardless of that though, I don't think that either Sony, MS nor Nintendo exiting the gaming industry would be easily replaceable without anyone batting an eyelid. And I agree with Shifty that any potential replacement company would likely not be anywhere near as good in providing as compelling a console platform as well as developing and publishing quality games for it.
MS was only relevant last gen and still has to prove themselves. Nintendo, outside the Wii, has been coasting on nostalgia and its former glory days for years.
Whilst all three have a history of engaging in questionable, and in some cases squarely anti-consumer practices, Sony have been by no means the worst. And in terms of policy, products and services offered, I would subjectively say that Sony have been the platform holder that's made the most significant pro-consumer moves to recent date (sometimes even to their own detriment).
Regardless of that though, I don't think that either Sony, MS nor Nintendo exiting the gaming industry would be easily replaceable without anyone batting an eyelid. And I agree with Shifty that any potential replacement company would likely not be anywhere near as good in providing as compelling a console platform as well as developing and publishing quality games for it.
If Sony went away, the British Academy Games Awards would probably ook like this:
So while I am sure that millions of gamers would enjoy this, I think millions of gamers would be quite sad.
But all joking aside: I think Sony brings a lot more to the game-table, then microsoft to the actual hardware table. I am not even comparing games.
Nintendo however, does have an original, be it a bit traditional, game output. So Nintendo would be missed a lot more than MS in that regard.
So while I am sure that millions of gamers would enjoy this, I think millions of gamers would be quite sad.
But all joking aside: I think Sony brings a lot more to the game-table, then microsoft to the actual hardware table. I am not even comparing games.
Nintendo however, does have an original, be it a bit traditional, game output. So Nintendo would be missed a lot more than MS in that regard.
I see a big danger in Microsft outbidding other buyers in a buyout of Sony's gaming division. Sony's total assets are $148 billion as a whole, lets say say the its gaming division is $15-20 billion.
For the potential buyers that $15-20 billion buys your foot in the door where alot of addiitional money needs to be spent to further establish ones self. Then additional billions in losses on oin numerous things some of which include continuous loss from software development as it takes years for your AAA titles to establish a mind share with consumers and good marketshare where they earn back what they cost, just like it took MS billions and multiple years.
Then with the stiff competition from a superiorly entrenched MS with established loyal userbase and with everyones friends on XBL its gonna take even more billion to get that new company to have some edge over MS. The console market is a business sector where profits aren't enormous, which means it would take years and years and to earn a profit.
On the other hand if MS outbids the other potential suitors lets say by a few billion, they have themselves a virtual monopoly in the console market, and its smooth sailing and handsomely improved profits from there.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
And exactly what is it that Sony did? The way I see it Sony did very little that was actually new. Nintendo came up with some good hardware innovations on the controller/controlls side and perfected/created some game concepts still in use today.
IMHO Sony never really did anything new. They've been very good a copying Nintendo and bashing and then copying Nintendo though.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Errr... lots?
The question was not, "what did Sony do that was new, innovative or original?", rather it was one of, "has Sony been relevant in the console gaming industry", the answer to which is unequivocally... yes.
You've applied a false equivalency, as I never once mentioned anything about Sony doing anything "new". That's neither significant nor relevant to the discussion about their relevance in the industry at large. A company does not have to invent new things to influence an industry, only refine and reinvent existing technologies. Not wanting to get into list wars here to list things that Sony has brought to the industry and consumers, as these things have already been discussed at length in this thread and many have been listed by other posters, in particular Shifty's very well artculated posts.
You only need to look at how disruptive Apple has been and their successes to see how a company can completely change an industry by leveraging existing tech to make exceptional products. You're aguing something completely orthogonal to my point.
I would agree however that Nintendo's many inventions have been positive additions to the games industry. However Sony's ability to take Ninendo's (often inadequate and half-assed) efforts and refine them into some of the staples of modern console gaming (e.g. dual-analogue controller from N64 controller) makes them distinct. Still however, Sony are not without their own duely credited inventions also.
Last edited by a moderator:
Because of Sony the industry and technology moved steps forward. The Playstation matured and expanded the industry like no one before it. Because of Sony the gaming audience expanded to a wider age group. The N64 still looked like a traditional kids console. So was the GC, And they admitted it as such.
For Nintendo consoles are toys. For Sony consoles are a gateway to advanced digital entertainment.
Nintendo is stubborn with tradition to the point that even when they do innovate they either do not implement it well enough or they make steps to the opposite direction at the same time.
Nintendo was traditionally unfriendly to third party developers unlike Sony. How's that for steps back?
They even had unfair competition practices at a time when Sega was innovating more by forcing developers to sign an agreement that prevented them from bringing their games to another system such as Sega's. The Sega Master System was a worthy adversary that might have changed the course of history if it wasnt for Nintendo's practices. Nintendo was keeping the evolution of the industry back by eliminating competition.
The N64 was stuck with cartridges which was limiting developers, one of the worst controllers ever designed despite that it came with an analog stick that was too badly designed for its own good. And continued to be unfriendly to third party developers.
Traditionally a Nintendo console was a console just for Nintendo games.
Really I dont want to imagine how much worse Final Fantasy 7 and MGS would have been if it wasnt for the Playstation.
Sony showed them how a controller should be designed with better analogue sticks which were also dual. Sony have set the standard when Nintendo failed to do so.
The original Playstation also is what forced Sega to think forward. Their original 32 bit console design was going to be a 2D powerhouse but Sony's (state of the art at the time) hardware choice brought us advanced 3D games sooner.
When Nintendo was still making Marios and Zeldas, Sony and Sega were bringing us awesome new IPs that got worldwide recognition and have set new standards.
What innovation did Nintendo bring with the GC? Nothing.
What was the Wii? Innovation? It was a GC with a new controller. It didnt innovate the gaming we loved. It merely brought something that appealed to a new audience that doesnt care about technological advancements, they dont care about innovative gaming designs, dont care much about games in general and have extremely low expectations about gaming. Better hardware mean nothing for these people. So how do you bring those back?
You simply cant. A Wii U with better hardware wouldnt appeal to them. Wii was a one off success for a specific market that doesnt really give a crap about games as much as the rest.
So what did they do? They brought the tablet idea to the console space and called it innovation. Its hardly innovating. The Wii U was one step forward 10 steps back.
We have yet to see Nintendo games that are so good and fresh that they will sell to a larger audience than simply the traditional limited audience of Nintendo or people that expect too little from gaming.
Have you seen Nintendo's OS, media and online services? They are still in the stone age compared to MS and Sony
Sony is a company that showed Nintendo how things should be done. Even the things that Nintendo gave as a tiny taste first. Sony took them and made them great and enjoyable. So Sony was a very important player that pushed the ideas and the industry farther irregardless if the idea was originally conceived by them or not.
Themrphenix
Newcomer
I agree that Sony has invested in a more risk and reward style to gaming in the console market.I also believe Microsoft has as well,though many deny it.Microsoft invented Kinect,no matter if you like it or not.Microsoft has pushed games like Kameo,Lost Odyssey,And Viva Pineta.Microsoft has also helped other studios get THIER visions of games out there with funding the projects.Titanfall,Mass Effect,and Sunset Overdrive.
The down side is who ever Microsoft helps and funds it's just the evil MegaCorp Microsoft buying titles.I ask what is the difference in buying and owning studios or helping fund studios to produce their dream project?Sony gets credit for buying studios,but Microsoft gets the stick for funding a studio project and allowing the studio to be their own asset.What is the better way?Buying the soul or buying a dream and keeping your soul?
The down side is who ever Microsoft helps and funds it's just the evil MegaCorp Microsoft buying titles.I ask what is the difference in buying and owning studios or helping fund studios to produce their dream project?Sony gets credit for buying studios,but Microsoft gets the stick for funding a studio project and allowing the studio to be their own asset.What is the better way?Buying the soul or buying a dream and keeping your soul?
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I hadn't touched a games console since the Atari 2600 before the PlayStation. I don't know if Sony was instrumental in the changing (maturing) gaming to appeal to adults more than Nintendo or SEGA circa 1996 but it was Sony who got my attention with games like Wipeout.
djskribbles
Legend
MS invented Kinect, but they weren't the first to do motion gaming. Sony were the first to release a camera accessory and brought motion gaming to the console space. Nintendo then gets the credit for moving motion gaming forward and making it a big thing. MS then invented Kinect, but motion gaming belongs to a niche crowd now. The next big thing is VR IMO, and Sony is once again the first to bring it to the console space.
If MS deserves credit for anything, it's for moving online gaming/services forward. But that's pretty much it IMO.
For anyone trying to say that Sony wasn't or isn't a big part of the gaming industry and could easily be replaced is laughable IMO.
Sure, for a while. And then everyone would move on just like they always do. They aren't irreplaceable, nor are they head and shoulders above any other game dev out there. This whole thing started from a comment from temesgen (which has conveniently since been deleted) where he effectively stated how Sony set the standard for game development in the ps3/360 era. I didn't agree to that and hence replied that they are just another game dev that can exist, or not exist and the industry would continue on.
Steam has done it for ages.
Every platform in existence except consoles.
The goal posts were your original comment of Sony setting the standard of game development in the ps3/360 area. That's what I replied to, and I've followed the chain along as it's twisted and turned, like it always does. Do I agree with you that they set the standard for game development? No, I certainly do not. Do I think the industry will implode if they went away? No, I certainly do not.
Sure, but do they set the bar as you said in a now deleted post? Sorry I don't agree. Nor do I agree that they are necessary for gaming to exist.
But at the same time you guys spout stuff from a console centric point of view, ignoring a billion other devices out there of all shapes and sizes. Goodness, do you guys really feel that the gaming world revolves around Sony? There's a metric fuck ton of people out there that have never played a Sony game ever on whatever devices they play games on. They are not the beginning, middle and end of all gaming! They didn't create it, they didn't define it, they don't single handedly maintain it, they are just another cog in the gaming machine.
The people considering BC as mandatory far outnumber those that don't. If that wasn't the case then Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc would have dropped BC long time ago. They don't because if they did it would cause a firestorm of complaints. But I don't want to go there, like I said my original replay was to a now deleted comment.
wow seaman was loads of fun. They also had space channel 5 , samba whatever it was called and so on.
Sony came in with dual analog controls because sega and Nintendo showed that you need analog controls for 3d games.
Not only that but sony had scrap their controller within months because it didn't have any rumble feed back in it unlike the others
I can see I upset a lot of sony fans. But sega had done as much if not more as any of the 3 current companies have done. The market didn't flinch , advancement didn't flinch . MS came right into the market and we got the amazing xbox live which set the standard and continues to define the standard for online gaming .
If sony went bankrupt a lot of the properties would be sold and a new company would step in (if the console market is still viable) and no one would really care more so than we cared about sega leaving (and that was my fav console company)
I've not deleted any post... you're either being disingenuous or aren't as familiar with the thread as you think you are....
I said Sony is investing in software makers which arguably defined the PS3/360 era and I listed a few recent titles to prove my point that Sony is relevant based on the software alone.
Here's a hint my alleged deleted post is right before you started moving the goal post first by saying its only my opinion and then when that didn't work saying the sales weren't there. BTW you still haven't sourced your sales numbers....
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
