CRank: 5Score: 30540

Nintendo should keep making consoles! Microsoft should go!

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.

PopRocks3593791d 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.

Godmars2903791d 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.

PopRocks3593791d 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.

s45gr323790d 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.

nukeitall3790d ago (Edited 3790d 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!

dedicatedtogamers3790d 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.

colonel1793790d 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.

PopRocks3593790d 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_13713790d 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.

nosferatuzodd3789d 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

nukeitall3790d 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.

XabiDaChosenOne3790d 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.

nukeitall3790d ago (Edited 3790d 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.

_FantasmA_3789d ago (Edited 3789d 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.

XabiDaChosenOne3789d 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.

nukeitall3789d ago (Edited 3789d 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).

XabiDaChosenOne3788d 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.

nukeitall3788d 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!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3788d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3788d ago
Godmars2903790d 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.

tehpees33790d 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.

Godmars2903790d 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_13713790d 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.

s45gr323790d ago

I guess is time for Nintendo to release a gaming tablet.

NYC_Gamer3790d 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.

BillytheBarbarian3790d 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 disagrees...lol

DragonKnight3790d ago

Obvious troll comment is obvious.

BillytheBarbarian3790d ago (Edited 3790d ago )

It's what it is. Recorded in the historical videogame magazines. Are all these guys dragon knight alts?:)

punisher993790d 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???

BillytheBarbarian3790d ago

No one said invented. Xbox had features before playstation. That's the debate here.

nice try though.