Try our new beta!Click here

tehpees3 (User)

  • Trainee
  • 10 bubbles
  • 5 in CRank
  • Score: 22800

Nintendo should keep making consoles! Microsoft should go!

tehpees3 | 942d ago
User blog

This is going to be quite a controversial post but I feel this needs saying. Every single chance a certain analyst gets he slams Nintendo saying "I don't like their consoles but I like their games". Who is he? Well you probably know but many incorrectly pronounce his surname as Patcher. Is there truly any justification in his belief? Or should he look at it from the other side for once? Has he considered what could happen to the quality of Nintendo's software? Has he considered what Nintendo brought to this industry and continue to do so? This is my response. Yes a company should go, but you (and every other blind Nintendo hater) have the wrong company. The one who should go should be Microsoft. These are my key points in saying why Microsoft should close shop and Nintendo should stay as a hardware manufacturer. I shall present the argument made by these haters and then present another way to look at it.

1. Nintendo make bad systems. I hate their gimmicks.
What can truly justify a bad system here? I would argue a bad system is one where I have witnessed a family member go through 5 different versions all with varying hardware failure problems. Not a system which uses a control method you don't like. It especially becomes contradictory when the system these haters claim to be good has followed in the footsteps of Nintendo's said "gimmicks". A bad system is a terribly manufactured one which was rushed to market. My counter argument to this is simple. Microsoft is a software maker. Not a hardware one. Already we have had rumors that Xbox One has hardware issues. Would it really surprise you?

2. I want Mario on my system. It would be so much better.
Look at all the people who have sent their content to be published on other systems and you know this will never come to pass like this. Every single company that made for alien hardware had the software quality plummet as they lost the passion they once had to make the games. It happened to Sega. It happened to Rare. It happened to Atari. It happened to Insomniac. Name me a company that migrated from home that didn't have their software decline in quality. In my eyes its simple. Developing for hardware they don't shine on contributes to them not putting the effort in their games that they would usually do on their home turf. And what kinds of releases would we see from Nintendo on an Xbox or Playstation? Definitely not Wonderful 101 or Pikmin 3. The need for those to exist is gone. They don't have their own platform to differentiate any more. Do you really think they would waste money on their lower sellers? They would milk poor Mario and Zelda sequels into oblivion. They wouldn't spend all the time making something on the scale of Zelda games they normally make. That would be gone.

I'm not getting into more points because the others are the obvious ones. That is why Nintendo should stay. So why do I think Microsoft should go? Well there are three key reasons. The first being what they have brought. Nintendo and Sony have paved the way forward in this industry in many ways. What have Microsoft made "the norm"? In my mind the online fees. Everything about online comes from them. Now you can argue "they did online gaming right" but as I already pointed out, they gave greedy publishers the key they needed to start very bad business practices. They introduced DLC as part of their pitch for 360 at E3 2005. They claimed it was to "expand" the game. Instead what has come of it? Things have actually gone backwards. Companies are dictating what we can have and what we can't. Content is being held back instead of added later. And when there is a good chance to add DLC in (UMVC3) most of the time it gets re-released anyway and we are forced to buy the whole game again. Then online charges are becoming the norm. Sony is understandable in which it needs money so paid online is a good way round it. But its only a matter of time before Nintendo follow suit now.

The second point is there doesn't really seem to be a purpose for Xbox. It does things so similar to Playstation. We already have a console which meets our core gaming needs. Why do we need two? You can say "so Sony should go" but Sony aren't the ones who rushed bad hardware to market. They aren't the ones who attempted (and will probably try again later) to restrict how we play our games and charge used fees. Microsoft did that. Sony have shown they only have our best interests. When they already forced paid online on us, Microsoft have shown anything but that. They use Xbox as a scapegoat to get in living room entertainment. But while it was obvious to a lot of us, many on forums seemed strangely surprised by their heavy focus on entertainment and less on games.

Lastly, they already have a system to put their games on. Even if they leave they don't have to go third party. They can just release their games on PC. You may not have to see Halo on Playstation.

A lot of haters out there exist to bash Nintendo and everything they've done but when you compare their mistakes to that of Microsoft, there simply isn't a comparison. Nintendo definitely serve to have your best interests more than Microsoft do. You can say Mario Galaxy 2 would have been great on other systems but the truth is it wouldn't. They would never have put in the amount of time and effort into it. The phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind with Nintendo going third party. A lot would be begging Nintendo to make their own consoles again after the first release when they see the game simply isn't up to scratch with the quality the company puts out now. With Microsoft, they have done nothing that Sony hasn't already done. They aren't doing anything that Sony isn't doing now.

So my point to these people saying Nintendo should go is this. You hate Nintendo so much but ask yourself how many would you be upsetting in your selfish desire to play Mario on your "hardcore" system? When you compare how many would be upset if Nintendo or Sony dropped out to the amount that would be upset if Microsoft dropped out (especially after the anti-consumer tactics they've displayed) people would quickly get over it. Nintendo leaving would leave a black mark on the industry that won't ever go away. They differentiate their platforms. Xbox gets pretty much every release Playstation gets but Sony output more (and arguably better) quality exclusives. Why not cut the man who has no real role to play rather than the man who you seem to think betrayed you when he is just trying to stand out from the crowd.

PopRocks359  +   941d ago
Considering that all Microsoft does is try to out-Sony Sony, I really don't see why we NEED Microsoft's console endeavors anyway. Sony's products can handle what the Xbox is meant for and then some. You have Nintendo for the family oriented easy-to-play console, and then you have Sony for the more singular hardcore experience.

At that point I fail to see why we NEED Sony's doppelganger in the mix. They have had very few exclusives this past generation, and even in this generation Sony and Nintendo still trample Microsoft with the sheer quantity, quality and appeal of their own exclusives.

If there's a third option, they should be doing something unique. Not mimicking Sony and forcing Kinect/TV down our throats.
Godmars290  +   941d ago
All MS have tried to do is bring PC gaming to consoles. Which if you really think about it is almost the complete antithesis of consoles.
PopRocks359  +   941d ago
I was going to say... why the hell would I want a console for PC experiences? At that point I'd just get a better PC!

I respect Microsoft's less shady endeavors and the fans who enjoy them, but I see little reason for their inclusion in the console market when Sony is there doing it and doing it much better now.
s45gr32  +   941d ago
Which is what consoles have become. Gone are the guncon controller based games, shmups, arcade racing/sports, brawler games, Jrpgs (most of these games are on mobile devices like the 3DS), etc.
nukeitall  +   940d ago

Competition keeps company in balance. The more fierce, the better unless it gets so aggressive it kills the industry.

Point being, would you have wanted the Sony of old with the PS3?

Get a second job to afford the PS3?

Their old attitude towards developers? '

In contrast, MS sent engineers to developers to help them.

PS4 is what it is today, because of MS and what they brought to the table and what Sony learned from that. How can one say that we no longer need MS?

These companies want your money, and by doing so, they will keep each other in check!

You do not want a monopoly!
#1.1.3 (Edited 940d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report
dedicatedtogamers  +   941d ago
The only time Microsoft tried to out-Sony Sony is with the original XBox. It was a direct, head-on assault, and it failed.

360 tried to beat Sony by coming in at a different angle. With 360, Microsoft took aspects that were popular on PC and added them to a console. The 360's philosophy (at least at first) was "can't afford a gaming PC? Buy a 360" and I don't mean that in a disparaging way. There's quite obviously a market for such a console.

During the latter half of the 360's life and now with the Xbox One, Microsoft tried again to attack Sony (and Nintendo) with its own brand of motion gaming. The Xbox One isn't trying to out-Sony Sony. It's trying to out-Apple Sony.
colonel179  +   941d ago
A lot of people don't remember this, and I can't find the links anywhere, but there was an interview with Peter Moore when he left MS about how the XBox and 360 came to be, and the sole purpose of them was not to be the best, but to NOT let Sony win. Period. That's why they were trying so hard to make Sony lose the exclusivity of all of their games (Devil May Cry, GTA 4, Tekken, Assassin's Creed, etc).. They actually ordered to pay any amount to convince third parties to let go exclusivity with Sony.

I see them as the little kid that since he can't enjoy his toys, he doesn't let anyone else enjoy them either.

Now I wonder what Microsoft's position would be right now had they spent all that money to make real first party exclusives and have more studios opened to rival those of Sony. In my opinion, if they had done that, if they had really tried to match Sony's First Party Studios' quality games, Microsoft would a giant thread for Sony this generation.
PopRocks359  +   941d ago
Wow, I never heard about that. That's certainly some surprising news to me. I guess Microsoft became a little greedy and cocky this time 'round.
kane_1371  +   941d ago

forget Microsoft, this guy, if had the guts would bomb every single SONY related building in the world.

Wow, he really hates SONY!

well, what can I say their company lost to SONY, but instead of really finding out the reason and faults he is just bitching about how he really wated or wants to destroy SONY.

Anyway there is your interview.
nosferatuzodd  +   940d ago
i believe you not just Sony but apple and Google under constant unscrupulous attack from Microsoft talk about shady they just want every thing for there selves vote with you're wallet don't let them win
nukeitall  +   940d ago
Well, considering Sony didn't do almost anything with the PS3 that was copied by other vendors, I say MS did a great job.

Many of the innovations MS did was later implemented on PS3 if possible, unlike cross game / party chat!

Nintendo is great gamer maker, but the Wii U is a total disaster so far. Then again they did turn around the 3DS while the PS Vita falters.
XabiDaChosenOne  +   940d ago
You Xbox fans keep touting cross game chat as this end all be all feature yet the PS3 still outsold the Xbox 360 despite not having it and to this day is still increasing it's lead. So you have to ask how relevant is this feature as opposed to the Bluray format which actual is beneficial for games? The PS4 has cross gamechat and party chat and outside of a small group of people who care about this feature nobody really cares about it. The Vita has cross game chat also yet it's still struggling.
nukeitall  +   940d ago

I'm not talking about the success of a device, because by that token we could talk about how the Wii doesn't have online and sold gazillion.

It's pointless.

What I'm talking about is how everybody dismisses MS, but reality is they contributed humongusly in bringing things to this generation:

* XBL and making online gaming on console mainstream
* achievements and social aspect of gaming
* cross game and party chat
* indies with XBLA and the indie channel (where anyone can publish for a $100)
* introduced apps like Netflix
* only console manufacturer to revamp their dashboard, let alone anyone that did it 3 times

The list can go on, but they are definitely a worthy competitor.

I don't think we should get rid of anyone, but should have more competitors, because it looks like Nintendo is unable and so out of touch that I think they might go a slow death.

Whatever Nintendo thinks of, I think MS can copy in a heartbeat as a large company they are agile.

MS has essentially competed on two fronts, the Wii market with Kinect and PS3 with core games. The only market they failed in is Japan, and I don't Japan will ever warm up to the Xbox. Heck, if Sonh/Nintendo died, they would rather go PC than Xbox.
#1.4.2 (Edited 940d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report
_FantasmA_  +   940d ago
Ooo party chat? Is that all you got? I'm sure when you are at work and at school, all you can think about is "I can't wait to get home and party chat with my bros." But then again you need every little worthless feature you can have since there's nothing to play on that ugly box. Desperate xbots are desperate, clinging onto something so worthless. Well guess what, I'm going to brag about Bluetooth now! Bluetooth is the best, I love having now wires! Nevermind the free online, the Blu Ray player, free web browser, PS Home, and all these great games on a reliable piece of high tech hardware. Nope screw all that, Bluetooth is what really matters in my life. Bluetooth>party chat.
#1.4.3 (Edited 940d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report
XabiDaChosenOne  +   940d ago
The only relevant features you listed were XBL and XBLA. Netflix was on Xbox first because of a deal. These features dont out way the negative business practices that MS have brought upon the industry with their. Like pay to play online, putting services like netflix behind a paywall, faulty hardware, drm, limiting used game sales etc. Sega brought some innovations to the industry as well but it didn't justify some of their horrible decisions.
nukeitall  +   939d ago

You have to stop viewing it from your personal standpoint.

Sony introduced these after MS made it popular so that must mean they were worth it. Nobody copies useless feaures§

Also, MS made it possible for Netflix to have their app on console even before it was hip to have it on other devices like tablets, smartphones, other consoles and even smart tvs.

A deal was struck because MS introduces them to their platform, and help them make it a success. If other platforms are more open and willing, why didn't Netflix work with them first?

The fact of the matter is that Netflix fits into MS portfolie for ruling the living room and Sony would rather have Blu-Ray succeed than Netflix.

Give credit where credit is due!

Business practices that customers seems just fine with. Remember, it is a business, not a charity. Horrible or not, it is for consumers to decide (even when they are mis-informed).
#1.4.5 (Edited 939d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
XabiDaChosenOne  +   939d ago
"If other platforms are more open and willing, why didn't Netflix work with them first?"
Same reason why Twitch Tv is on the Xbox one exclusivly even though Justin Kan and Emmett shear want it on all platforms, same reason why COD dlc hits Xbox first. MS paid for it *Kanye Shrug
"Sony would rather have Blu-Ray succeed than Netflix." Im pretty sure a service and a product can both succeed since they are not directly competing with each other, which is why Netflix made it on the PS3 lol.
"Business practices that customers seems just fine with." If thats the case than I must have been dreaming when I experienced one of the biggest consumer backlashes for a product that happened recently. But apparently this must have meant to you that consumers were just fine with these business practices.
nukeitall  +   938d ago

"Same reason why Twitch Tv is on the Xbox one exclusivly even though Justin Kan and Emmett shear want it on all platforms, same reason why COD dlc hits Xbox first. MS paid for it *Kanye Shrug"

Right, because it wouldn't be a huge business benefit of being on Xbox One?

Fact of the matter is Twitch preferred MS at the time and signed the deal. Not everything is because of up front money, that is just fangirl explanation (or should I say reasoning).

When Netflix started out on Xbox 360, it didn't almost exist on any platform other than PC. MS opened the floodgates!

"If thats the case than I must have been dreaming when I experienced one of the biggest consumer backlashes for a product that happened recently."

One backlash doesn't mean consumers are in general against the business practices and in fact, the backlash is more due to mis-informed consumers. MS just did a terrible job of explaining. Fact of the matter is, fangirls screwed up the most free digital platform, because nobody had sharing, trading, lending, gifting and sale of digital games before.

However, I don't expect you to understand that. It is just more ammunition for you.

"Im pretty sure a service and a product can both succeed since they are not directly competing with each other, which is why Netflix made it on the PS3 lol."


Is that why the music industry is fighting digital music vigirously in the past until they had no choice, but join it?

Fact if the matter is, Sony had to implement it, otherwise, they would be left behind. The huge success of it, and the lack of it on the PS3 would have been pretty detrimental.

MS open the floodgates, and Sony needed to copy it!

"But apparently this must have meant to you that consumers were just fine with these business practices."

Yup, pre-order are selling out, and sales are doing great. Consumers are just fine with it.


"The PS4 has cross gamechat and party chat and outside of a small group of people who care about this feature nobody really cares about it. "

You mean like this:

"Cross-game chat, the most requested feature for PlayStation 3, is not possible on the platform, Sony has revealed. "

Some will lie and bend the truth to reason and explain away their delusion and bias of being a fangirl!
Godmars290  +   941d ago
While I largely agree with you, the thing is that Nintendo have technically been been out of making consoles for some time. Have fallen so far behind Sony and MS that they're not operating on the same level. They are literally one console generation behind them in fact.
tehpees3  +   941d ago
While you can say they are a generation behind in power and online they are absolutely ahead in many other aspects. This is actually a point I was going to cover but didn't bother to. The point = Nintendo once made some of the most powerful systems of their time. Wii is the exception.

With Wii U, they are expanding on the strategy that worked best for them. They are trying to appeal to a broad audience while trying to keep ground in the core market. This is an incredibly difficult task.

Their path is different. Not behind. Just different.
Godmars290  +   941d ago
Nintendo have "the better tech" per say. Consoles just did not work that way. They had standards of quality for what they had which many third parties like Capcom Square and Komani "shared", but in the end those same largely family oriented standards held them back. Still do.

What tech they had which worked for them were cartridges, which allowed them to sneak in more power along with any extra memory. In that way consoles were modifiable, but with that came additional costs which again hurt them when Sony successfully introduced CDs.
kane_1371  +   940d ago
The problem is that they are not really bringing anything new to the game.
Now don't get me wrong, even though I am a SONY fan I would rather see SONY go out of console gaming business than Nintendo not because I don't like what SONY is doing but because Nintendo has been here for so long and has delivered so much it is just sad for them to not be around!

But the truth is they are not delivering.

When did Wii come out?
It was right in 2006.
Everything was changing, Smart phones were entering the market but gaming on them had not picked up yet. there was no Angry Birds, only Doodle jump.

They had the casual gamers in their hands.
They had a cool new controller that moved with you and etc.

They had games to satisfy the soccer mom, teen girls and growing up boys.

But fastforward to 2013, the industry has changed and in my opinion for worse.
Smartphones and Tablets have taken over the Casual gamers.
Those that were young around the Time Wii came out already bought a Xbox or PS3 around 2010 when the sales started to fall.
They will not get back Cause they haven't felt that nostalgia feeling the Nintendo has for many, very few of them will come back to WiiU (let alone the fact that the console's name is not helping at all).
The new generation of Casual gamers also have tablets and as you know they are casual, they don't care about the quality of the game, as long as they can play something on the toilet or when in the buss they are happy.

This is why Nintendo is not delivering. It is just not appealing to many.

Now is the time for them to make a console like GameCube (being very powerful and core oriented) but with the quality games of N64.
s45gr32  +   941d ago
I guess is time for Nintendo to release a gaming tablet.
NYC_Gamer  +   941d ago
How about all 3 brands continue to exist and give people the option of picking which console offers exclusives/features that fits their needs.
BillytheBarbarian  +   941d ago
Meh, there are reasons why Xbox is here. Debate all you want till you're blue in the face but Playstation is the one that tries to mimic the others.

Xbox live, Wii mote, HD graphics, First person shooters, platformers, western rpgs, ...PlayStation has second rate software that try to compete with Nintendo and Xbox. It's been that way since ps1. Sony always has the "that's good enough" mentality. People buy PlayStation because it's the generic console that does what the others do...good enough.

Here come the fan boy
DragonKnight  +   941d ago
Obvious troll comment is obvious.
BillytheBarbarian  +   941d ago
It's what it is. Recorded in the historical videogame magazines. Are all these guys dragon knight alts?:)
#4.1.1 (Edited 941d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report
punisher99  +   941d ago
"Meh, there are reasons why Xbox is here. Debate all you want till you're blue in the face but Playstation is the one that tries to mimic the others. "

First of all, Microsoft did not invent HD graphics, first person shooters, platformers or western rpgs. Were you born in 2005?? What else you got?

".PlayStation has second rate software that try to compete with Nintendo and Xbox."

Oh really?? Thats news to me. Then why is it that the PS3 has 2 of the top 3 highest rated exclusives this gen and then xbox doesnt???
BillytheBarbarian  +   941d ago
No one said invented. Xbox had features before playstation. That's the debate here.

nice try though.
DragonKnight  +   941d ago
@punisher99: His comment is a troll comment. No one could actually believe that Sony copied HD graphics or first person shooters. That's ridiculous.
punisher99  +   941d ago
"No one said invented. Xbox had features before playstation. That's the debate here. "

Whats your point? If they didn't invent it. Then who is to say where Sony got ideas from. Xbox had features before playstation. You can make the same argument in favor of playstation. Which console had the idea of dvd movie playback first? The PS2. Which console actually came with the idea to play a game online? Again, the PS2.
BillytheBarbarian  +   941d ago
"Which console actually came with the idea to play a game online?"

Genesis and Super Nintendo had modems for online gaming. Saturn made it better and Sega revolutionized online console gaming with Dreamcast.

Playstation's online was an after thought and is the reason it was inferior to both Sega's and Microsoft. Microsoft and Sega had a subscription service while Sony relied on 3rd parties to put their own games online. It was very crude. PSN finally came along years later again playing catch up.

"Sony copied HD graphics"

The PS2 was incapable of HD. Xbox had many games in which support progressive scan 480p. A smaller list even support 720p. This is why PS2 games look bad on HDTVs. It's a good idea to keep a Tube TV around for PS2. Again, Sony had to play catch up because Xbox's 3rd party titles were smoking the PS2 versions. Just run NFL 2k5 side by side or put God of War next to Ninja Gaiden.

".PlayStation has second rate software that try to compete with Nintendo and Xbox."

"Oh really?? Thats news to me. Then why is it that the PS3 has 2 of the top 3 highest rated exclusives this gen and then xbox doesnt???"

Critics are gamers with opinions. Just as mine are so no reason to get feelings hurt over video games. Playstation will pump out more and more FPS games like Killzone and Resistance to only fail at trying to create Halo on Sony. Sony has tried to try their hand at Mario platformers and spin offs but they aren't Mario. Smash Bros Sony comes off as tacky and uninspired. LBP Kart racing...everyone has tried to dethrone mario kart. It's not going to happen. Uncharted? It's Tomb Raider with a cover system and nice cut scenes.

I can go all night long. But it won't make much difference with all these clones of Sony fan Dragon Knight. You guys act like a company cares about you. Next you guys will start telling me how much stock you own in Sony. I've seen it all before. I've been through console wars and fanboy jibberish since the Sega Master System/Atari/NES battles. The only losers are the ones that shut themselves off from enjoying the best of the best. The Last of Us is probably the best thing to come from Sony in a long time. It's not so much that it's original it's the fact that it's a damn fun game. To experience that one game you need a PS3. Just like to experience the best platformers you need Nintendo. To experience the best online console you need Xbox.
Cutting one out or having one leading console leads to mediocrity. Look at the games that have lost competition and how they've been the same for the last 5 years: WWE 13 is the same game as Smackdown 2007. Madden 13 still has the same player models as Madden 06. No competition kills.

------------end WALL OF TEXT-------------
TL,DR? just read the last line.
#4.3.1 (Edited 941d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(4) | Report
punisher99  +   941d ago
"Which console actually came with the idea to play a game online?"

"Genesis and Super Nintendo had modems for online gaming. Saturn made it better and Sega revolutionized online console gaming with Dreamcast."

lol Remember earlier when I told you. Microsoft did not invent HD graphics, first person shooters, platformers or western rpgs? Remember when I said that? You replied "Xbox had features before playstation". Well my point for bringing up online play and dvd playback is because playstation had those features before xbox. lol Stop contradicting yourself.
BillytheBarbarian  +   940d ago
No sir, the debate in this thread is why competition is good for gaming. Playstation yes, had a DVD drive.

Xbox forced Sony to step up other features such as HD graphics, broadband internet, FPS games that could hang with Halo, built in HDD,...listed above.

Sony didn't have PSN until 2006. Before that, publishers had to make their games work online with their own servers. Madden wasn't online for PlayStation until 2004. That's 2 years where people were online with Xbox live football and Dreamcast players adopted Xbox to keep their online 2k football and basketball going.

Xbox was out of the box ready. Guess what Ps3 did because of competition with Xbox? PSN, HDD, Broadband etc... You like PSN right? Chances are without Xbox Live it wouldn't exist. It would look like Nintendo's online effort.

Again, no competition kills.

That's the debate. Stop trying to turn it into something else.
_FantasmA_  +   940d ago
Xbox tries to distract you with shiny homescreen icons and fancy crap like ads and wallpapers, etc to cover up their lack of games. When I turn on my PS3, I don't get offered a new Doritos flavor, the Blu Ray in my drive is the first thing that is selected. What good is party chat and all this other garbage if there is nothing to with those features. When M$ grows up, it wants to be like Sony. Sony is the one on the throne and M$ is the jealous, ugly sibling that goes around backstabbin people to try to knock Sony off the throne. LOL at M$ in third place again.
EXVirtual  +   941d ago
This is an AMAZING blog. This is exactly what I mean. We don't need M$ here. We really don't. Just wondering, did you see my blog on the whole 'competition is good for the industry' statement?
NYC_Gamer  +   941d ago
Do you speak for every gamer in the world?why not let people have the option of picking which console they wanna support instead.
EXVirtual  +   941d ago
No I don't. People can pick up 10 Xbox Ones for all I care. I'm just saying. We don't need them here. And I have a blog I'm about to release so stay tuned for that.
tehpees3  +   941d ago
Yes I have. It was what inspired me to write this thank you ;)

It might seem one sided but I am playing the devils advocate here. Microsoft introduced this DRM policy and so far have been the only ones to do it. That says clear to me they would waste no time in bringing it back at the first chance they get. I COMPLETELY agreed with you.
EXVirtual  +   941d ago
Cool. You'll be surprised by this one.
Kevlar009  +   941d ago
People only want Nintendo to go third party because they want to be able to play Nintendo's games on their consoles and don't think Nintendo deserves to have their amazing games on an "inferior system".

Nintendo would stand nothing to gain from dropping out of hardware, neither would MS. Nintendo makes money of each console sold, and they have the freedom to make any game they want because they own the platform.

There's almost no logic in Nintedo dropping out, only the opportunity to take their franchises when they're done (Nintendo would simply devote all their resources into handhelds, as awesome as that may sound to some people)
tehpees3  +   941d ago
I have personally argued the best way round it is for Nintendo to go handheld only. It would be cheaper to make software and for every game they are releasing on Wii U it could be spent making a 3DS game instead.
s45gr32  +   941d ago
Yup that's Nintendo best course of action.
s45gr32  +   941d ago
This blogger just wrote pure nonsense and is true this community is afraid of change. Now here's a radical idea that no one in this community may approve, too radical and too much change. Is time for the big three to pack their bags and go home, the time has come to hand the gaming industry to gamers. Let gamers decide which games are worth playing and wich ones are not, promote say games, fund say games. In order for it to work is basically have a small company just handle the patches/updates regionally plus locally, make sure the game works properly, etc. I mean is already happening with steam in conjunction with kickstarter. With this idea implanted we gamers may see more innovation, fresh ideas, etc. No more middle person retailers, no more corporations choosing which games to play and not play, publishers forcing the developer to add multiplayer or goofy ideas, no more should developers be thrown out or put aside by publishers due to their game being a fps game. It's this types of radical ideas that shake up the industry, so what does the community say do you want this radical idea to happen or you still want your gaming experience being shackled, dictated, etc by multi billion dollar corporations ^_^
Lvl_up_gamer  +   940d ago

Had MS NOT been apart of the console industry, console makers like Sony would be a generation behind.

We wouldn't have had PSN, competitive pricing, outside features that don't involve a games only console ability etc.

MS in the business has had a vision and have implemented it brilliantly where they have split the market and taken half of Sony's install base from last gen (PS2 era).

This article is pathetic at best. Just another anti-MS article on an anti-MS website.

I think it's Sony that should leave the console industry. They have been playing catch up to MS's features for the last 10 years. They gave a terribly complex architect console that developers HATED developing for only to turn around and throw out that design after BILLIONS was invested into it. Now we are getting an off the shelf laptop with a lot of overkill RAM that will NEVER be utilized. No customization what so ever. Sony is keeping gaming in a stagnant era. They think it's still 2000 and are desperately trying to keep gaming from evolving by giving the bare minimum of what a console should be able to do in this day and age.

MS have been pushing, trying to give people and gamers MORE out of their system. I want a gaming console that does more then just plays games. Sony wants to put a little black box under your TV that only plays games, while MS is trying to but a little black box under your TV that allows you to have FULL access in a seamless integration to your TV and home theater set up as well as play games.

It's a no brainer. MS NEEDS to stay so that we can move forward in gaming and technology where Sony needs to leave. They don't bring anything to the table to push gaming experience forward.

Those who want MS out are just upset sony fanboys who hate having to see another company outshine their beloved Sony corp on a regular basis.
#8 (Edited 940d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Outside_ofthe_Box  +   940d ago
***"Those who want MS out are just upset sony fanboys who hate having to see another company outshine their beloved Sony corp on a regular basis."***

And those who want Sony out aren't upset fanboys? Interesting logic you have there unless you are admitting that you are in fact a fanboy.
#8.1 (Edited 940d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
TheRealHeisenberg  +   940d ago
@ Lvl_up_gamer

I by no means often agree with Outside_ofthe_Box but I do in this case. Sony being out of the console business would be very bad too and suggesting that wreaks of fanboyism. At a minimum we need the Big 3. Keeps things balanced so to speak.
Outside_ofthe_Box  +   940d ago
Of course you don't. ;)
XabiDaChosenOne  +   939d ago
"outside features that don't involve a games only console ability etc." Like playing CDs, DVDs and Blu Ray? Sony started the multimedia trend on consoles buddy but it's nice of Microsoft to hop on the bandwagon :-) Even though the choose to hope on the bandwagon of a dying media outlet (live t.v)
Lvl_up_gamer  +   939d ago
You are right about sony leading the way with CD, DVD's and Blu-ray.

As I have said before the reasons I bought a PS1 and PS2 were because Sony lead the way of offering MORE then just a console.

I bought a PS1 because it could play CD's.
I bought a PS2 because it could play DVD's
I bought a PS3 because it could play Blu-ray's

However what is the PS4 offering in terms of features OUTSIDE of what the PS3 is currently offering? NOTHING.

Meanwhile, the XB1 is not only offering the ability to do everything the 360 does, bit it's also UNIFYING your TV/cable/DVR.

This is why I am getting the XB1 over the PS4. I want MORE then just a console that plays games. The XB1 will already offer EVERYTHING the PS4 has to offer minus exclusive games, just like how MS will have exclusive games, but the XB1 also offers MORE then just a console that does exactly what this current gen offers.

My TV is on WAY more often then any of my consoles COMBINED simply because there are more then just me using the TV. With an XB1 unified capabilities with my cable box, it will be on just as much as my TV and all integrated seamlessly with....well EVERYTHING.

The XB1 just offers MORE feature wise, and as an adult with my own condo and home theater, I want a console that does more then just plays games....especially at this day and age. I can't believe ANYONE would be satisfied with just a console that does what past consoles do and not bring anything new to the table.

I guess most of you are just kids and this gen was your fist gen in gaming so you just don't know better.
#8.3.1 (Edited 939d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report
XabiDaChosenOne  +   939d ago
"However what is the PS4 offering in terms of features OUTSIDE of what the PS3 is currently offering? NOTHING."
"Meanwhile, the XB1 is not only offering the ability to do everything the 360 does, bit it's also UNIFYING your TV/cable/DVR."
Oh you mean like this?
Contrary to the argument that you MS fans like to cling onto, the Xbox one is not doing anything new, sorry. Unlike MS fans like yourselves, everybody is moving towards TV on demand. Microsoft is banking on a dying media outlet.
Lvl_up_gamer  +   939d ago
yet they are still offering something MORE then what Sony is offering with the PS4.

So despite you Sony fans trying to downplay what the XB1 will be offering(regardless if it's new or old it's still MORE then what sony is offering with the PS4) and over exaggerating MS's "always watching you" paranoia arguments, MS is still trying to bring together and unify your home entertainment system to give you more.

Bottom line, regardless if MS is just making an old idea better, the XB1 is still offering MORE then what the PS4 is offering feature wise outside of gaming and what is currently available on this gen consoles. To even argue that is just completely delusional.
PrimeGrime  +   937d ago
Hmm that is odd. I thought the Dreamcast practically had all these features before anything.

Wow.. Microsoft made achievements. Nothing else they use is new, everything used today was seen in the Dreamcast. I mean almost everything, online, separate screen to game on, a separate device with a screen that interacted with the console, motion controls, cameras, microphones. All that shit was on Dreamcast.

Can't stand you new age twats who give credit where it isn't due.
#8.5 (Edited 937d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
ThreshStar  +   940d ago
I want to preface this comment with the information that I am a 31 year old PC gamer who owns a Wii and over time owned a nintendo, super nintendo and a Playstation 1.

That being said, I think the hatred with Nintendo stems from their sometimes baffling decisions that they've made throughout their tenure as a video game company. The Nintendo and Super Nintendo were amazing advancements in technology, gameplay, graphics, sound, storylines, etc. that were marveled by fans and even competitors.

Eventually, SONY and Microsoft showed up and did something that Nintendo kind of didn't: Grow with it's audience.

When I went to college in the early 2000's, my roomate had a Playstation 2 and a copy of Grand Theft Auto 3. This graphics, gameplay, scope, audio, etc. was a sight to behold and I was instantly hooked with "Next Gen" gaming. I eventually got a gaming PC and bought games like GTA 3, Jedi Outcast, etc.

Nintendo floundered for a bit with the N64 and GameCube because, in my personal opinion, they were ignoring the somewhat vast majority of gamers that wanted something "Grown-up". It is absolutely their perogative to do so and I didn't hate them for it either.

Cut to - the Wii. This is where Nintendo got back to its roots in a big way. Developing fun, unique games with a brand new, functional, and most importantly FUN technology.

Here's the kicker: Nintendo may have gotten lucky. They continued their business practice of making simple, fun, albeit limited & sometimes shallow games. The only difference is their control scheme was family-friendly-enough to bypass their potential downfall, which was ignoring the consumers.

Then the Wii U came out and I'm sorry, but that was a mess. In the beginning, I didn't have a clear understanding of what it was and when I eventually discovered the product, I was somewhat confused. Nintendo made a semi-updated version of the Wii with a new not-so-unique control scheme and continue with the same business plan of keeping most games in-house and not growing their marketplace.

Again, that's their choice, but as a gamer who is now 31 years old and has played virtually every Mario game there is, there comes a time when a company has to adjust their line of thinking or risk falling behind the market.

Microsoft didn't and Apple & Google showed up.
Sega got confusing and became their own worst enemy.
Kodak didn't adapt to the digital market and went Bankrupt.

The fact is the reason why I'm annoyed at Nintendo right now isn't their console, games, or even ideas...

It's the fact that they're becoming the older person in the room that "knows how the industry works because I've been a part of it for over 30 years, dag-nabbit!"

That's all well and good, until something shows up (Playstation, XBox, mobile gaming, Steam, etc.) that pushes the line ahead of you.

Unfortunately, Nintendo went from "We make games/systems/ideas that gamers want" to "We've been around this long, we ALREADY know what they'll want!" I don't remember asking for a giant tablet-controller on an out-dated system making the same IPs I've seen since the 1980's.
#9 (Edited 940d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
TheRealHeisenberg  +   940d ago
Here is your prize too for this blog.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login