Attention Fanboys - Playstation and Xbox need each other

Where would we be if there was one dominant console on the market and no competition? Probably not a good place. Competition in the console industry is the driving force behind innovation and pricing. With the latest news that Sony looks to have taken a demanding lead in the ongoing console war, we must question whether this is indeed good for the gaming industry.

[-Foxtrot]

Not really

Sony and Nintendo need each other

They both cater to a certain audience which separate themselves from each other. While Microsoft doesn't have that

[pakua]

Isn't that a fanboy remark? Dismissing the Xbox One in favor of Playstation?

[-Foxtrot]

and Nintendo....

But not really it's just a observation

[ThePandaMaster]

Neither sony nor ms are that important(nintendo either).... if one falls the other two would pick up there side, or another 3rd console maker would enter. Plus if you look at it sony made some of the best games on all of their platforms, even when they were at 150 million vs 20 something. This argument is really dumb no matter why it is being made.

[fenome]

The way I see it, the main difference between Sony and Microsoft is in the contributions they actually make in the gaming industry, or the lack of it.

How many actual games have the mascots at Microsft had their names accredited to? I haven't seen any of them actually have their hand in making a game, they just hold microphones and say what they're paid to. They just market the games and make money off of it, end of story. The only contributions they've actually made to this industry have been with money. The only reason they even went to consoles is because they saw there was money involved, they have no passion for it, their heart's just not in the right place.

A lot of the main people in the Playstation division actually have a solid background in media, entertainment, and especially videogames. They genuinely like this stuff and they've been doing it a long time. They're actually involved in it and enjoy it, it's what they do. At least that's the way I see it anyways.

Yes I am biased, but that doesn't automatically make me a 'fanboy'. I've been gaming all my life and I've played on a lot of consoles, hell I still own everything from an NES to a Sega Genesis, plus backwards compatible PS3 and the PS4 I'm typing this on. They haven't done anything to change my mind about anything either, it just keeps gettin' better the way I see it.

Does that mean I want M$ to leave? Hell no, we need that competition. It keeps 'em humble. For all you guys wishing Sony went belly up though, do you have any idea how bad Microsoft would be raping your wallet.

[Lou-Cipher]

Anyone who thinks that gaming is better because Microsoft is pushing Sony further is nuts. Gaming has gone down hill since Microsoft entered the business.

I wont argue that competition usually breeds better quality, IF both parties are hard working/respectable companies. MS is known for being a scumbag/immoral company since the early 1980s. (It's only got worse since then)

BS DLC / Paying for reviews / gimping games, because it runs better on another system / nickle and diming people / $40 demos/etc.etc are mostly a product of Microsoft's existence in the gaming business.

Sony has learned a FEW good tricks from MS over the years, but,MS has been a hindrance to quality gaming, not a friend of it.

Having competition for Sony is a good thing if it was any other company, other than MS.

[Robearboy]

Please enlighten us all with how MS has been a hindrance to the quality of gaming?

Sony had to bring their A game this Gen to outsmart MS, how is this a hindrance?

MS have brought multiplayer console gaming to another level, thus making Sony to step it up to compete, how is this a hindrance?

Comments like this is why I don't generally like to have a say on this site, its like arguing with a five year old

[ThePandaMaster]

@robearboy There are things ms have done that have changed the type of games we play.... witch I dislike. Also the dominates of Multiplayer gaming is kinda annoying :/. They had some effect on sony that is ture, I would say both positive and negitive, very positive for the devs, and for the wallet, but not so much the games(ps4 hardware), then again probably not that much negitive.

[xDHAV0K24x]

Ohhhhh hush!!!

[Godmars290]

Nintendo's and Sony's "relationship" was pretty much done with the PS1 and N64. Sony was willing to provide a platform to let the industry grow while Nintendo wanted things to largely remain the same, with them calling the shots. Nothing's really changed since then.

MS by comparison was only ever interested in bringing aspects of PC gaming to consoles and they did that. Not really doing consoles any favors in the process

[theWB27]

So in the end you're saying only Sony has done anything worthwhile for the industry?

I find it funny how you say bringing aspects of PC to consoles didn't do any favors yet we have-

More than half of games released having some online component built in...even more games relying heavily on online.

Microsoft, for 3 consoles now, have had more of a PC architecture than Playstion. Now Sony has gone the same route with the PS4.

Sony chose to have PC features like sharing and Twitch and Facebook integrated...like PC.

There are many more examples I could give...but for some reason it's a detriment.

Sony has pushed the industry forward as much as Ninty has Microsoft (since they entered the fray)

Sony is not carrying the gaming industry....not by a country mile.

[Godmars290]

@theWB27:
Sony hasn't really done anything for consoles since the PS2, if not the PS1.

I mean right now as far as "console" gaming is concerned there's the example of WB saying they're not going to bother fixing game breaking bugs in Batman Origin, but they're still making DLC for it.

Right now its not a question of whether or not you can play the PS4 or XB1 offline, but for how long you can play them offline. Of whether or not a new game needs to download a patch to be playable. The 8th console generation hasn't even properly started, and we've gone from MS's DRM causing a stir to PS Now being welcomed despite being similar thing except from a different angle. Nevermind what's happened to PC gaming in the meanwhile.

[theWB27]

All honesty...that's where the innovation is happening. Online. Consoles have come a long way from PS1/2 days. Sony has helped as much as Micro and Ninty in different areas.

They couldn't release a more powerful version of the PS2 and expect it to sell. So to say little has happened since then is a lie. You may not like the angle at which progression has gone...but it is there.

This is the thing...gamers need to get out of this archaic mindset. We will NEVER game the way we used to.

Sony...with PS Now...is going for a streaming future. They've stated how heavily invested they are in doing so. Cameras, VR headsets, online, social etc is all here and Sony and Micro are not gonna go backwards and offer the gaming of lore.

I wouldn't be surprised if both Microsoft and Sony have something HUGE, online wise, that's going to roll out this gen that will set up next gen to be nothing but online integrated..HEAVILY. Along with alternate ways to game (mainly VR) and the systems and games will rely even more on patches and updates.

Gaming has been pushed forward in the end...

[Godmars290]

Nintendo revived the industry post the Atari crash, Sony expanded it, and MS turned it main stream.

What's going on now, along with a focus on graphics, is both the standardization of the market, to make gaming as necessary as cable TV, and its conversion into services to secure revenue streams. Like I said before, MS was trying to do it through DRM, get people to pay for "full" games while under all other practicality retain ownership, as well as cut into the used market, while Sony could very well replace the current business model, make it nothing but rental based, with PS Now.

The only thing "honestly" going on with gaming aside from PR BS and over hype, is VR to rope in casuals and the indie movement. A lot of which is the archaic gaming you seem to think no one is no longer interested in.

[mediate-this]

Where would sonys online infrastructure be if it were not for x-box live? Live was sick as hell.

[-Foxtrot]

Where would Xbox Live be if it wasn't for the Dreamcasts vision for online gaming before the console dissolved.

Without a seed there is nothing to water

[Sayai jin]

@ Foxtrot - DreamCast really. The article is about The current console companies. I agree with you....True Dreamcast had online gaming, but it was not the standard. Take a look at when online console gaming became the standard. Sony at one time mentioned that online gaming was a fluke and then XBL entered the scene. The PS2 cleaned both MS and Ninty's clock by holding 65 to 70% of the market share and had arguably the best catalogue of gaming ever, but it lacked online gaming. The original Xbox had a few games decent games and had their blockbuster HALO and had better specs, but the console did not do very well, but XBL is what most clamored about.

Look at PSN now...it has grown and flourished. Damn look at PS+. Each company trying to one up each other...stealing exclusives, features, etc. I have been a very happy gamer the last several years.

[GraveLord]

The very nature of competition is that one will win and the other will lose. One will sell more and the other will sell less.

[jhoward585]

Attention Fanboys - Playstation and Xbox need eachother

Sure, but they need us more.

They're nothing without us.

You make us happy we'll give you more money. plain and simple.

[Sayai jin]

Shhhh jhoward- you making too much sense.

I agree with your statement. Look at when MS tried to establish DRM...the backlash smacked them back on course.

Look a few years ago, when a writer on the news tried to say Mass Effect was like watching porn...gamers crushed that little troll.

[XiSasukeUchiha]

Xbox doens't need Sony, Its need Steam boxes !

[BG11579]

I believe that the console world would be fine without MS. They have Nintendo, Sony and soon to be Valve.

And you need grammar lessons...

[ThePandaMaster]

I'm assuming that is a joke haha.

[yewles1]

No, they don't, they need to focus on their uniqueness as brands so that consumers can have NOT ONLY one over the other, but potentially both.

[Bonkerz]

The absolute truth is people are gonna buy whatever suits them better. Me personally i prefer online games always have always will, i like games that will really make me feel like that 60 bucks was well spent. I love single player games as well BUT they are pretty much a 1 and done. Xbox one for me was the purchase of choice because i know they have games like halo, gears, titanfall, sunset overdrive, etc. I like the online experience and Sony TO ME (my opinion) has not really put the money towards bringing exclusives that have an amazing online experience like many Xbox titles do.

[AceofStaves]

I agree, but for me the situation is reversed. Sony and Nintendo are the console brands that have consistently given me the games I've most enjoyed, while MS has never appealed to my gaming tastes. I prefer single-player over multiplayer, and RPGS over shooters.

Gamers are going to buy the consoles that have the games and features they want most. For some, its Sony's consoles, for others, it's MS', for still others, it's Nintendo's, and for some it's consoles by two or more of the companies.

It's just entertainment. Fighting over consoles is a stupid as fighting over movies or book series.

[BlakHavoc]

Excellent analysis my friend, keeping it real and I respect that. I agree, I feel like it all comes down to preference. I like you chose the console I did because of the kind of gamer I am, I love SP experiences because I love a good story and cinematic experience and it just seems like most MP games can't provide that, or they focus of competitive MP like CoD or Halo. Also i'm just not very good when it comes to playing against millions of people around the world lol, I figured that out way back in the original xbox days and it was quite heartbreaking lol. But I get what your saying, games like CoD, Titanfall, Halo etc have a long lasting appeal cause you can play it over and over, there really isn't a beginning and an end to them like SP games. I honestly think MP games are more popular these days cause most people really enjoy being able to play with family or friends.

[Truway]

I play on everything. I have a PS4,PS3,360 and Wii U. XBox One isn't for me right now. Not saying I won't get one in the future though. I'll buy any system if it has games that interest me.

[D-riders]

Actually not they dont. Competition is needed but it doesn't have to be ms and Sony.

[BlakHavoc]

I agree, I think with video games it won't really mean bad things for the gamer. If the Xbox were to fail for example, how many games would we miss out on? Probably only the ones that were from MS's internal studios, and even those studios may find a way to put out products as second or third party games. We'd still get multiplatform games, and Sony's first party titles, and any studio providing the X1 with exclusive rights would be forced to turn to Sony, so we wouldn't really miss out on much. Gamers would still be satisfied and you would think that devs would still have a genuine love for what they do and we'd still get games that are very enjoyable.

[Megaton]

No they don't. The best games sprouted up during years of utter Sony domination. Devs compete amongst themselves on singular hardware for consumer cash. I'd rather have devs scrambling to outwork eachother than have Sony and Microsoft slapfighting over exclusive DLC.

[DanDan7]

Micro$oft screwed Sony last gen by purposely gimping multiplats, i say F*uck Micro$oft, Sony doesnt need them.

[_FantasmA_]

And yet when PS2 was around things were better. Nintendo was doing better to with the n64. Exbawks came on the scene and thats when things got ugly with short games, short games missing content and sold to us a week later, overpriced map packs, etc. I blame M$ greedy policies for turning gaming into a product. M$ gained too much control over how games could be released and at what prices. If Sony had gotten their first, M$ wouldn't have tried to strong arm developers.

[BlakHavoc]

Fanboys are hilarious to me honestly, and I believe it's just human nature for people to bicker about things of importance and things that are pure entertainment. Sony fans and MS fans both genuinely enjoy their console of choice, but both also get a bit jealous when there's a popular game on the competitors console that they cannot play, regardless of how many fanboys try to deny it. Games like Titanfall, TLOU, UC, Halo etc are prime examples of games that get caught right in the middle of fanboy wars. We've all seen fanboys of both sides bash and point out the flaws of the aforementioned games and ignore the many positives simply cause they can't play it on their own console or it's not an exclusive for their console of choice. These games sometimes get high praise in the media and gets great reviews too, but fanboys try to claim there mediocre or try to discredit the game, maybe some are genuine and really do dislike the game but more than not I think it's just pure fanboyism at it's finest. I mean, it's gotten to a point to where fanboys have even adapted these days, they know they can't just go on a rant and show their fanboy cause anything they say will have no relevancy, so now there's a thing called stealth trolling lol. It usually begins with a "I'm a Xbox fan, but" or "I'm a huge Sony fan, but..." and ends with some sort of mild rant. I can guarantee you fanboys have even showed their ugly heads somewhere on this comment section.

[mediate-this]

@ foxtrot i believe micro was the one who implemented onkine gaming on the dreamcast, there was a powered by mucrosoft windows sticker on every dreamcast, so that seed was planted by micro and sega.