Sony and Nintendo should stop making consoles - UKIE

Sony and Nintendo would do better if they stopped making hardware and instead made games for iPhone and Android, according to the chairman of UKIE - the trade association for UK Interactive Entertainment.

UKIE's Andy Payne was speaking as part of a roundtable discussion at the close of yesterday's Develop in Liverpool conference. Halfway through the session, a member of the audience asked how long it would be before Sony and Nintendo realised that platform exclusivity was holding back their first-party titles from wider success.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Pikajew2616d ago (Edited 2616d ago )

What an idiot. People who dont play games think phones are gaming systems when they are not. In order for something to be a gaming system it has to be a dedicated to games unlike phones. you can get a calculator with games on it but it doesn't mean its a gaming system, its an extra feature.

Sony and Nintendo are the kings of console making

MariaHelFutura2616d ago (Edited 2616d ago )

Who ever wrote this needs to be hit in the nuts w/ a Wii and clubbed over the head w/ a launch model PS3.

badz1492615d ago


OMG he even made the word "stupid" stupid! what a terrible human being!

crxss2615d ago

and UKIE needs to stop trolling for attention.

jadenkorri2615d ago

there is a good point made, but not the right one. I personally would like to see 1 console. Gaming giants have always said they make money from the software, not from the hardware. So why not 1 console. Developers will save money making for 1 system, rather than up to 3 or more. We'll get more quality games, developing for multiple systems takes time, their not all the same infrastructure. The community would be larger, example 360/ps3 communities into one would be huge. Consumers would save money by buying only 1 console rather than multiple systems, which that money might be better spend towards other games. No more ps3/360 comparisons. Overall releasing 1 console is beneficial to everyone.

AngryTypingGuy2615d ago

Yeah it would be best to have 1 console, but the problem is that more than one company wants to be the one to make the profit off of selling the console.

Tommykrem2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )


Anyway, I doubt Sony and Nintendo would want to leave a market where they've seen great success in hardware sales. And even though Sony hasn't performed as well as they usually do this generation, PlayStation 3 has still helped promoting Blu-Ray, Bravia and other Sony branches.

Also: While might after immediate though seem as if having only one console on the market would be better, since everyone would be able to access all the content, but the fact of the matter is that it wouldn't. You probably get two consoles now for the price of what a single console would have cost during a monopoly

llMurcielagoll2615d ago

I think it would be better to have to swap the Wii with the PS3 in the process, more painful Haha

itsallgud2615d ago

well Sony should stop making consoles. I mean if they can't do any better than the overpriced internet ready blu ray player that they have now.
I saw an internet ready blu ray player for 49.00.

jeseth2615d ago

So the two companies that innovated their hardware and propelled gaming the most this gen shoudl stop making hardware?

So are we going to have Microsoft make the hardware? So we should expect to buy add on after proprietary add on? NO more upgrading your HDD with any SATA HDD. Go back to paying for online play? No real leaps in technology? If not Microsoft then who?

1 company and console maker would be downright terrible! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. THey would not have to push the limits, innovate, price competitively, or give a damn about the consumer because they are the only console maker and if you don't buy their product you're screwed.

Sony andc Nintendo made console gaming into what it is. Others just follow. MS has been the only company that has been able to stick around, which is why we need MS to stay around to. Competition from MS only makes Sony and Nintendo try harder.

Brosy2615d ago

Wow these guys are retarded. Phone gaming sucks period, and if I had to rely on a phone to game, I wouldn't game at all.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2615d ago
PSX992616d ago

That logic is somewhat flawed.people buy these consoles and use them for other things mainly like Netflix or blu ray.

Kewl_Kat2616d ago


I don't think it's flawed. Even if some buy consoles solely for watching movies, the fact still remains that consoles are built primarily for playing games, just like buying smart phones solely for games doesn't make them less of a phone.

360ICE2615d ago

No. No they do not. The majority of people buy consoles for gaming, and Wii makes profit of console sales like Sony does some of the time. And Sony have films and tv shows on netflix and are very involved in blu-ray anyway.

HellzAssassin2615d ago

Damn, really? I thought I used my PS3 for the countless PS3/PS2/PS1 games I own. I don't even have a subscription to Netflix nor do I even have more then 5 blu-ray movies...

slayorofgods2616d ago (Edited 2616d ago )

Some tech advisers are dense. They really think the iphone and ipads are going to bring forth the extinction of every other electronic device on this planet.

It is like they forget the capabilities of these devices..... Their logic; the gimped memory, processor speed, graphics capabilities, and whopping 8-32 gigs of storage will make the perfect gaming machine because cloud gaming will be perfected tomorrow and everyone will magically have the bandwidth to run it.

Heartnet2615d ago

When Cloud Gaming (OnLive) makes its way to phone devices along with 4G thats when all consoles will be obselete...

All you would need is a contract with unlimited internet useage and consoles would become a thing of the past

blumatt2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

As long as there are consoles to play, I'll never use OnLive or play games on things like iPads. I like my physical copies that I can sell, trade, and borrow from friends. OnLive gives too much control to the software owners.

bozebo2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

OnLive does and always will have lag.

So it will NEVER be a replacement, except for casual gaming morons who don't notice the huge lag. (60ms round trip time or thereabouts being loads when added onto the game engine's input lag).

Also each instance of a game is running quite scaled down and will always have to be provided the game is recent (and not made to deliberately not take advantage of modern performance harware).

OnLive is not a replacement and never will be.

kneon2615d ago


4G and unlimited usage won't enable something like OnLive. Cell phone radios are designed to shut down as often as possible to preserve battery life. That means that connections are constantly being set up and torn down and this introduces more latency than you are likely to find in a WiFi or wired connection. High latency = bad gaming experience.

If they designed the radio to not do this, or you continuously keep the connection open as would be the case with OnLive then your battery will be dead in a couple of hours.

jeseth2615d ago

Enjoy playing games on your 5" Phone screen.

I'll game on a huge Flat Screen, buy real games (Not crappy phone spinoffs and angry bird garbage), have surround sound, comfort, and a real gaming experience.

Console gaming isn't going anywhere. No matter how bad you hipsters want it to. Gaming on a phone F'Ing sucks. I have a real nice HTC smartphone and outside of bejeweled and tetris ... gaming on a phone blows.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2615d ago
A-Glorious-Dawn2616d ago

It should be noted that he is talking primarily about the handheld market, not home consoles.

otherwise he would have mentioned microsoft.

slayorofgods2616d ago (Edited 2616d ago )

not the case..

"Sony and Nintendo should stop making consoles" "consoles"

"Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft [are] dinosaurs"

A-Glorious-Dawn2616d ago


hmm I put that down to their general ignorance of the gaming industry, I mean either way, they are pretty dim.

the second quote is a different person is it not? (a more dim one)
also the DS and PSV are consoles technically.

Siesser2615d ago

I think it's more to do with Sony and Nintendo actually being recognized as prominent software developers, as well as console makers. You say Sony or Nintendo, and you think of a library of created games, as well as he box on which they're played. Microsoft's not at that level yet (they have in-house development, sure, but not on the level of their competition).

Heartnet2615d ago

Phones nowadays are considered a gaming platform.. and if ur saying the people at UKIE have less gaming knowledge than you, your clearly mistaken...

He is right in saying they shud make games for android and such as there is alot of money to make and a wide audience you can attract...

People at UKIE play games whilst also helping the industry in the UK.... Ur just to naive to see so

bozebo2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

Interactive entertainment on phones is not about gaming - it's about making money.

Hence, us gamers HATE smartphone games because they are not gaming, just games on phones.

Unfortunately, that has been the way the gaming industry in the UK has to move because it is insanely expensive and risky to make a console title and piracy ruins PC development. So the only option left while they ride out the recession is silly iPhone games, nobody who develops games wants to be making them because the developers themselves are gamers.

It's funny though, because 100% of all published iPhone or Android apps can be easily pirated. Same with PSP and NDS games. It's just that the target audience is huge and less tehcnologically able (can't google stuff apparently) overall than the PC gaming audience so piracy doesn't make development on the platforms a bad option. So developers are stuck making games that they themselves have no desire to play... :( nothing good will ever come of that.

2615d ago
Darth_Bane792615d ago

You know having 2 accounts can get you banned from this site Heartnet?

JsonHenry2615d ago

Having only one console is a very dumb idea. No competition= no price drops, no reason to improve, and no reason to invest in innovation and even less reason to come out with better hardware in a timely fashion.

bozebo2615d ago

"In order for something to be a gaming system it has to be a dedicated to games"
What :S

Other than that, yeah.

2615d ago
showtimefolks2615d ago

yeh and that way we will have MS and their broken devices?

nintendo and sony have the better consoles and best exclusives

and don't compare consoles to phones because that just sounds dumb

KUV19772615d ago

It's especially great how his game pricing is calculated: "let's say it's €1 to manufacture it, where the real cost is €0.20" and then he brings up Uncharted as an example. Riiight. Because all you have to do to develop a game like Uncharted is about a days worth of work and from there on it is just the production costs of discs, cases, manuals and Co that determine the price. What he wants is not just to bring the franchises down to phones but also to scale them down in quality to match the phone it runs on and to that i say: No, thanks. The day this happens is the day i drop out of gaming - so basically never.

Muffins12232615d ago

Modern combat 3,real racing 2,infinity blade 2 are the most advance portable games on the market and there all exclusive to the of them uses unreale ngine 3!

zerocrossing2615d ago

You hit the nail on the head there, now would you mind hitting UKIE too?

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2615d ago
Kain812616d ago

Beside that Sony´s PS-Suite supports android plattforms

ZombieAssassin2616d ago (Edited 2616d ago )

I was just about to say Sony is supporting the mobile and tablet area's, we might not see their IP's on them but they are still trying to get their foot in the door for the moment. MicroSoft too with their W7 Phones, the only one that really isn't is NiN most likely because they've dominated the mobile gaming area for years.

Even if they did heavily support other platforms with their games I doubt they'd stop making consoles if they still sold, they get money from every game sold on their console too...just way too much money to be passed up on.

kaveti66162616d ago

They should stop making hardware (at least Microsoft and Sony should) because of how many billions of dollars they seem to have lost on consoles solely because of all the money they spent on researching and developing (here's the best part) medium-powered hardware.

What the UKIE said was half right. I think that instead of developing for phone platforms, Microsoft and Sony should just have their developers make games for mid-level PCs and publish them through STEAM or through their own distribution systems (though STEAM is preferable).

Most people in first world countries have computers dedicated for tasks such as word processing, surfing the net, making powerpoints, editing images and videos, etc. Why do Microsoft and Sony insist on developing separate machines for gaming, when they don't even have to do that?

Instead of owning a 500 dollar (USD) computer that isn't powerful enough to play games, and a separate console that cost 400 to 600 dollars at launch, why not purchase a 1000 dollar computer that does it all?

Why do Microsoft and Sony insist on screwing themselves over with the RND costs, and then proceed to screw us over with the high cost of games and membership fees just so they can make back their initial investment, and if they're lucky, scrape a profit?

No one on this site has ever given me a good reason as why consoles are necessary. A modestly priced PC can do anything a console can do except play console exclusives. But a console can only do a few things that PCs can do and somehow consoles are now considered multimedia entertainment hubs? Bullshit. Too many of us (myself included) have been tricked by the marketing ploys.

We don't need consoles. They are middle men of the gaming industry.

People always say, "I bought X console for so and so game." And it's true. Microsoft and Sony both know that if all the games on their platforms were multiplatform games - if there were no exclusives - we wouldn't look twice at consoles.

People are always so happy when their 360s or PS3s get new updated features.

"Yay, ESPN highlights"
"Yay, Twitter/Facebook"
"Yay, a web browser"

It's ridiculous, but we buy into it.

GroundsKeeperJimbo2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

Just a few reasons why I prefer my console for gaming.

Driver issues, keeping up to date equipment, device conflicts, software updates, installing/HD space, prefer the controller, ect, ect.

Not saying one is better vs the other, but just wanted to point out that their is a demand.

kaveti66162615d ago

If Microsoft and Sony focus on a particular range of hardware for PC, this will force AMD and Nvidia to update their drivers to work with the games that Microsoft and Sony publish for the hardware.

When RAGE was released on PC, it had a lot of issues because 1) it was made for the 360 in mind and then remade for PC. However, both AMD and Nvidia worked tirelessly to update their drivers so that AMD owners would remain loyal to AMD and Nvidia owners would remain loyal to Nvidia.

If Microsoft and Sony stop making consoles, all the third party publishers will go to PC and focus on creating their games for a particular set of hardware, most likely midlevel computers.

Publishers don't want their customers to keep updating their hardware. That's why if the majority of people switch to PC for gaming (following the hypothetical end of consoles), publishers will continue to focus on a particular CPU/GPU set up for many years, thus ending the idea that PC gamers must constantly update their rigs.

Sofware updates exist on all platforms so I don't understand why you listed that.

Also, installing/HD space is also available on PC but is not mandatory. If you prefer the controller, you can play pretty much any PC game that can be played with a controller effectively, with a controller. 360 and PS3 controllers work well on PC. And there are a variety of gaming pads that are even better than PS3 and 360 controllers that exist for the PC.

In conclusion, I'm still waiting on a good reason for why we NEED consoles as consumers, and for why developers NEED consoles.

I really don't think anybody needs consoles. Even the console makers should realize this, but we've already heard that the whole point of these consoles is that Microsoft and Sony are competing for the living room.

AtomicGerbil2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

Ease of use, not everybody is clued up on navigating the pitfalls of PC building, buying or using. I know of many people who aren't even aware of the necessity of PC housekeeping let alone have the ability.

What a console brings is the ability to switch on and play. A PC on the other hand can operate on a switch on and play basis, but very often doesn't. A lot of people aren't interested in troubleshooting a problem on a PC.

If the consoles disappeared and devs were left to develop for PC only, then I could see the gaming market shrinking significantly. The only alternative would be to standardise PC hardware, which is fundamentally what a console is.

bozebo2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

"Instead of owning a 500 dollar (USD) computer that isn't powerful enough to play games, and a separate console that cost 400 to 600 dollars at launch, why not purchase a 1000 dollar computer that does it all? "

Sony, MS and Nint like having a closed platform to have control over their business and get revenue from game sale royalties.

They make those platforms a valid option to consumers by launching the hardware at a net loss (to instill a large confirmed target audience) and by having platform exclusives.

3rd party developers may aim at consoles for the massive reduction in piracy.

Consoles were initially conceived as a way to effectively fill a potential gap in a potential market (home computing wasn't around and when it was, gaming capable hardware would have been insanely expensive - that was the case until about 2000). Now they exist to cash in on a gap in a market that they created.

Personally, I may not be buying a next-gen console because of the severe dissapointment that this generation has left me with (so few worthwhile exclusives). Multiplats are going to remain the dominant force and in most cases they will be available on PC, I need a gaming capable PC anyway for what I do so that makes total sense. Perhaps if one console has a significant advantage over another it will be worth getting because third party developers will focus more games towards it.

"Driver issues, keeping up to date equipment, device conflicts, software updates, installing/HD space, prefer the controller, ect, ect. "
Fail on so many levels.

joeorc2615d ago

What you are talking about is yet another form of..develop your games for windows os. Its like there is already such a platform already there in place its called the [email protected] PC.

Look game consoles are embedded systems they are designed as Top set boxes, they were designed as a embedded system for as a unified system design. No hardware chipset upgrades unless they are given that option. PC's are designed not the same as an embedded system complaining about the existance of another embedded system is moot an pointless.

Why do you think the PC has not replaced every embedded system in the market?

For one which company would benefit the most, which company's Os is in over 90% of the worlds PC's.

By what you are asking for would reduce comp. For the Os market when all games developed for computing outside of portables would be one OS by only one Company.

You think any one other company aside from Microsoft want's that esp. Google or Apple. Or even Sony or Nintendo. Destroying the embedded gaming systems market for comp is not something the other companies would want. Though Microsoft would want more than anything for every company to make every game run only on windows thun no real reason for a game console right?

GarandShooter2615d ago

We don't NEED consoles. We also don't NEED PCs, video games or the internet, for that matter.

As evidence to support my position I'd like to present the millennia humankind has thrived and prospered prior to the advent of any of those things.

We WANT them, and that is enough.

The business model is profitable enough that MS jumped in last gen. They could have easily just developed for PC, why risk the console market?

The real question is: How would the demise of consoles strengthen and improve my experience as a gamer?

kaveti66162615d ago

"If the consoles disappeared and devs were left to develop for PC only, then I could see the gaming market shrinking significantly. The only alternative would be to standardise PC hardware, which is fundamentally what a console is."

Standardized PC hardware is not necessarily the same as a console because standardized PC hardware still has the ability to run all the software available to the standard PC OS, which is Windows, but there is also Linux and OSX. Standardizing the hardware would simply mean, for me, that most gaming PCs out there would have similar specifications. The third party publishers would advertise a particular minimum/recommended set up and gamers would purchase those components or their equivalents. With consoles, the software options are extremely limited, as one poster points out below, the reason why Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo continue to make consoles is because they want to control their property and derive more royalties and revenue (publishers that release games on 360/PS3 have to pay royalty fees to MS/Sony).

So, money is the main reason why MS and Sony make consoles, but my argument was that since these companies are actually losing a lot of money on consoles at the beginning of the cycle in the hopes of making a little bit of profit at the end, they can no longer look to money as a reason.

"Ease of use, not everybody is clued up on navigating the pitfalls of PC building, buying or using. I know of many people who aren't even aware of the necessity of PC housekeeping let alone have the ability."

I think if PC hardware becomes more popular for gaming, the software will be made easier for the masses to use. It's a lot like operating systems. Windows 7 and OSX are easy to use because they're popular, and are aimed toward the masses. Out of the box, you can connect to the internet with Windows 7 and OSX and you don't need to search the net for driver updates all the time, but with Linux you have to do a lot of work to get your PC up and running.

"We don't NEED consoles. We also don't NEED PCs, video games or the internet, for that matter.

As evidence to support my position I'd like to present the millennia humankind has thrived and prospered prior to the advent of any of those things."

Please don't make irrelevant points to dodge my question. My claim was that we shouldn't need to have consoles if we want to play games. I wasn't talking about needs versus wants altogether. I was talking in the context of gaming.

GarandShooter2615d ago

In the context of gaming, why not consoles over PC's?

You bring up the business model, but fail to answer my question about MS.

'So, money is the main reason why MS and Sony make consoles, but my argument was that since these companies are actually losing a lot of money on consoles at the beginning of the cycle in the hopes of making a little bit of profit at the end, they can no longer look to money as a reason.'

Obviously it is still a reason and it's profitable enough to continue. Could you possibly have come up with so simple a concept that was overlooked by all the business minds at the big 3? Doubtful. MS was PC. They moved into console. WHY? Until you prove they were wrong, you argument holds little water.

Then you dismiss ease of use with theories about how PC software will become easier to use. So if it's not here now, maybe we NEED consoles until such time as ease of use becomes a reality?

You fail to answer how the demise of consoles would benefit my gaming experience. Again, explain how no consoles would benefit me as a gamer. If you can't provide solid reasoning/proof as to how my gaming experience would improve, there's your answer to the NEED for consoles, staring you right in the face.

Because you don't see the relevance doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't need any one of these platforms to game, it's all a matter of preference. Subtract any one and gaming will still exist. Speaking strictly from the context of gaming.

I do admire the way you tighten the parameters of the debate to support your position.

AtomicGerbil2615d ago

What you are suggesting is the ease of a console with the freedom of PC software, yes?

Let's pretend then that consoles have gone extinct and for all your big screen gaming needs you are limited to a PC, then what? You are then at the mercy of operating systems. Microsoft already have Windows, Google may be knocking on the door and Linux is not simple enough to install yet. So from the start you could say that you are then to choose from MS or Google, what's to stop these Companies from demanding licence money from developers to use their OS? Nothing, which leads us to the same situation we have with consoles.

Business is what it is, about making money, if you remove one business model another will take it's place.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2615d ago
tiffac0082616d ago (Edited 2616d ago )

I thought these guys where only talking about the dedicated handheld gaming device by Nintendo and Sony but as I read further one of them even implicated Microsoft.

These guys are telling the Big 3 to stop making consoles and focus their games on smartphones and calling the business structure of the Big 3 as dinosaurs, yet fails to mention that the console market is making billions of dollars per year.

They should take a look at history when a lot of so-called analyst said the PC gaming market was dead when the console market was surging (it ain't so dead now is it?) and look at what's being said about the console market because the smartphone market is surging.

History will just repeat itself.

Heartnet2615d ago

it makes billions but thats not profit by far... Sony lost a ton of money with its consoles in the years its been out and its only recently theyve started to make a little profit...

tiffac0082615d ago

Your talking about one company who is still making money off its Playstation brand. I'm talking about the whole industry that those people are disregarding.

GarandShooter2615d ago (Edited 2615d ago )

Actually it's a cycle. Loss at the beginning of a console life cycle, profit later down the line.

You're not implying that the PS1 and PS2 never turned a profit, are you?

cee7732615d ago

yes true sony's gaming division lost billions but how much has the movie division made because of blu ray ps3 was one the the major reasons bluray won so those losses were recouped through

first party devs
blu ray royalties(movies & games)
ps store
and accessories dualshock,move etc

GribbleGrunger2616d ago

lol. it's quite amusing how many of these so called journalists are just jumping on the fashionable thought of phones replacing consoles. fashions change and it'll be all forgotten soon enough