Are Sony *and* Microsoft redundant?

[SAMAS]

With the announcement of the Nintendo Switch, there has again been speculation and talk about Nintendo's chances of success and their place in the gaming landscape.

But upon further consideration, I wonder if they're really the one that needs to go?

In the past generation, and continuing with this one, there has been a near total homogenization of the console gaming industry. Over 90% of games not found on a Nintendo system end up on both, and of the 10% that aren't the vast majority are Second-Party developers/publishers bought out by the console maker.

If Nintendo went under, we'd lose Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Fire Emblem.... well, pretty much everybody on Smash Bros. But if we lost Microsoft? Halo, a story that had mostly run it's course already, and who else? What about Sony? Again, most "Playstation" brands are Second-Party, made by another company exclusively for the PlayStation.

So what would happen if, in this generation or the next, the XBox or PS4 went away? No, not both. It's why I said "and" in the title. So to answer this question, I ask a few questions:

Do you have both systems, or just one(and maybe a Wii/U)?

Would you be okay if the other system failed?

What would you do if your system failed?

 

[Saelune]

Congrats on figuring out what I have been saying.

I have all 3 but thats because my friends were Xbox fanboys and Samurai Warriors 4 is only on PS4.

If Xbox went under, with Halo going the way it has, would be no loss. If Playstation went down, Nintendo would pick up their slack considerably, with Xbox getting the western pickings.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Actually this is an interesting question at least to me. Personally, i chose Sony over microsoft for one specific reason. Jrpgs. Japanese role playing games are my genre of preference. And since out of the three Sony is the company that atteacts the most Jrpgs, it was the easiest choice for me.( i also have a 3ds for this reason).

Now say hypothetically, sony died off, i would assume japanese developpers would start making games for Nintendo. Which would then make that console, to me, the most worth while. Basically i would flock to whatever platform would have the most jrpgs.

That being said, say the genre died with sony, i would probably buy a xbone, however i probably wouldn't be as enthusiastic about gaming as i am now. Not that i don't enjoyothee genre, but the Jrpgs are the ones i have the biggest library off. Basically, my gaming habits would most likely change.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think it's important to have at least 2 choices because if there was no Sony, Microsoft would've implemented all that shit on the Xbone if they basically had a monopoly.

I definitely prefer Sony if one were to go because they make more games than Nintendo and Microsoft combined (at least they did not too long ago). PlayStation is about games IMO whereas to me Microsoft just wanted to get into the industry as they saw all that money in gaming and basically have been trying to buy their way to the top. And then you saw what they tried to do once they felt they had the lead after 360 with the Xbone. Sony nor Nintendo tried doing any kind of shit Microsoft did after dominating a generation. In short, I hate Microsoft's business practices.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I only have a PS4 and I'd be fine with it failing, maybe more games for my PC.

 

[CaitSeith]

Right now they seem a little redundant. But if it hasn't been for Sony, Microsoft would probably had pushed forward with their absurdly restrictive features on the XBox One. I think that would had ended being worse for the industry compared to how we are now.

No. Sony has a hand on japanese exclusives that don't want to get near the XBox One with a 10 foot pole (Gaming isn't just AAA games) and XBox One making competition as console keeps Sony from becoming too complacent.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Microsoft going and putting xbox games on pc en masse made it redundant, yes. Sony however still has a ton of worthwhile exclusives, same goes for Nintendo for that matter. The DS and 3DS both did well, I just see the switch as a new handheld that happens to also be a home console.


Sony and Nintendo provide the funds for those games, were they not there, a lot of them like Bayonetta 2 would not exist, so it isn't as simple as the third party devs putting them all on the pc from now on. They would have to find a new source of funding now that consoles aren't funding them, which would inhibit the creation of a lot of smaller games.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Sony was arrogant coming out the PS2 gen (people will get two jobs to buy or $600 console) and Microsoft was arrogant coming out of the 360 gen. They keep each other in check. As for Nintendo, they don't seem to be competing with either Sony or Microsoft and certainly not with PC.

I would prefer none of them go away and if one does, I hope it's replaced for the sake of competition.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I think it's important to have at least 2 choices because if there was no Sony, Microsoft would've implemented all that shit on the Xbone if they basically had a monopoly.

Yeah, I'm not sure I want to completely lose the Microsoft and Sony rivalry. I don't care if one is replaced, but the idea of either having a monopoly over the core console audience is rather frightening considering what both would love to do if they had no competition. Sony made some pretty stupid decisions at the start of the PS3 era because of how confident they were after the PS2's success, and I don't think we'll ever forget about Microsoft's Xbone fiasco.

So while it might be somewhat redundant and fracturing, it's also a good long-term safety measure for gamers.

 

[Fox12]

Are Pepsi and Coke redundant?

How about Chilli's and Appleby's?

Lowe's and Home Depot?

I mean, technically yes, but it's in our interest as consumers for them both the compete with one another. Otherwise we end up with a console monopoly. And, with exclusives being held captive, neither are likely to go anywhere in the immediate future. Heck, that's the only reason Nintendo is even around. People generally like one more then the other. As long as they fight, we win. Do you think that Microsoft would be working so hard for your approval if it wasn't for Sony? Of course not. We've seen what they would do if they could get away with it.

1) I have one console and a steam account. I would consider a WiiU if I had that kind of money.

2) Part of me would love to see Microsoft fail. I think they deserve it, and I consider them them the most dangerous gaming company. Worse then EA by a thousand fold. However, I do not want to see Sony become a monopoly. I would want someone to take Microsoft's place. There are other video game competitors, but they appeal to separate niches. Nintendo and Valve appeal to different audiences. I wouldn't want Sony to have too much control.

3) If MY system failed? I would go where the games go. Persona, Final Fantasy, Fromsoft... hopefully this would mean either a gaming rig computer, or a Nintendo system. My hope would be that they would stay multi-platform. Sadly I will absolutely never, under any circumstances, purchase a Microsoft gaming device. Period. I would probably be cut off from some of my favorite games, but that's just something I would have to accept. If every single game console except the Xbox went out of business, I would quit gaming altogether before I would purchase an Xbox. That's how deplorable the company is to me.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think it's important to have at least 2 choices because if there was no Sony, Microsoft would've implemented all that shit on the Xbone if they basically had a monopoly.

Yeah, I'm not sure I want to completely lose the Microsoft and Sony rivalry. I don't care if one is replaced, but the idea of either having a monopoly over the core console audience is rather frightening considering what both would love to do if they had no competition. Sony made some pretty stupid decisions at the start of the PS3 era because of how confident they were after the PS2's success, and I don't think we'll ever forget about Microsoft's Xbone fiasco.

So while it might be somewhat redundant and fracturing, it's also a good long-term safety measure for gamers.

I don't think Sony would go all anti-consumer if they had a monopoly like Microsoft would. Sony's main bad decision was merely the price point of the PS3. The blu-ray decision was the same exact thing as PS2's DVD decision so that wasn't new or fueled by newfound arrogance. Another reason why the PS3 price was high was due to Sony wanting backwards compatibility, which is a good thing for consumers. Probably the biggest PS3 mistake was doing something unique with architecture, which was what they did with PS2 as well. Sony merely made the same decisions with the PS3 as they did with the PS2. Lastly, you actually did pay less overall going with a PS3 vs 360 as remember the 360s didn't have HDMI ports or wireless along with having to pay for Live. I still wouldn't want any company to basically have a monopoly though as money and greed get to everyone eventually.

 

[stroopwafel]

I don't think so. Nintendo and MS dominate the console market and I don't see Nintendo as a threat to them anytime soon. Espescially not since their last console was a fuck-up and the console before that was specifically targeted at families and children. The Switch doesn't seem to specifically target the PS4/Xbone audience so I don't even think that is Nintendo's intent. It looks like they are more hoping for another runaway success like the Wii with the Switch's emphasis on combined mobile and stationary gaming and multiplayer/social focus.

Still, I genuinely hope the Switch will be a success though. B/c like others said; competition creates better games and is always better for the consumer. Nintendo does seem to have learned it's lesson when it comes to third party support though as it was also the lack of software that killed the WiiU.

 

[Joccaren]

Yes, they are redundant. Competition has some argument, however their methods of competition are wrong. Pepsi and Coke don't compete by buying chocolate bars and ensuring you can only get the chocolate bar you want if you buy their drink to go with it. The consoles should compete on their own merits, not based off which games they can hold hostage so you buy their equipment.

Innovate with the consoles, the features they offer, and what you can do with that, rather than with the games you can load onto them. Nintendo's exclusives I often don't have as much of an issue with, as they utilise special hardware features on the consoles, which some complain is just gimmicks, but it makes them different and worth it for me. And Nintendo develops a lot of them first-party, rather than buying other devs to do it.

Compete in consumer friendly ways, by developing new offerings and making them good, rather than consumer unfriendly ways, forcing people to buy both products to get all the third party stuff they want. We complain about it with pre-order exclusives to Gamestop or EB, but not both, or with our games being locked to Origin, or Uplay, or with DLC for Amibos tied to more expensive plastic figures. We didn't like Project $10 from EA for this reason, making us buy new from them rather than buy used by offering more stuff to the new people, and locking what we consider core aspects away behind how we brought our game. We need to get rid of exclusives that are brought, and get more unique features to the consoles themselves instead. Make the reason you buy the console, what the console offers. Not what other products it holds hostage.

 

[Yopaz]

Actually this is an interesting question at least to me. Personally, i chose Sony over microsoft for one specific reason. Jrpgs. Japanese role playing games are my genre of preference. And since out of the three Sony is the company that atteacts the most Jrpgs, it was the easiest choice for me.( i also have a 3ds for this reason).

Now say hypothetically, sony died off, i would assume japanese developpers would start making games for Nintendo. Which would then make that console, to me, the most worth while. Basically i would flock to whatever platform would have the most jrpgs.

That being said, say the genre died with sony, i would probably buy a xbone, however i probably wouldn't be as enthusiastic about gaming as i am now. Not that i don't enjoyothee genre, but the Jrpgs are the ones i have the biggest library off. Basically, my gaming habits would most likely change.

You and me both. Well, I haven't gotten to the point where I actually buy the PS4 yet, but I might. JRPGs is the reason I am satisfied with my PS Vita though.

Yes, they are redundant. Competition has some argument, however their methods of competition are wrong. Pepsi and Coke don't compete by buying chocolate bars and ensuring you can only get the chocolate bar you want if you buy their drink to go with it. The consoles should compete on their own merits, not based off which games they can hold hostage so you buy their equipment.

Faulty analogy. If you want Mountain Dew you have to buy from Pepsi, if you want Fanta you have to buy from Coca-Cola corporation. Also if we have ever wanted arguments for why multiple console platforms with similar hardware and mostly the same games this generation is the best example of that.

Microsoft announced that Xbox One would require daily internet check-in and games would be tied to your account.
Sony did not do this (they also made so much fun of Microsoft for this) and was hailed as the saviour of gaming so Microsoft backpedaled because they couldn't lose to their competition. If Sony hadn't been there we would have seen that being released. Also we need to remember that Sony has patented technology to restrict us from playing used and borrowed games so it's not like they aren't tempted to do something similar themselves.

Until buying a PC becomes as easy as going into a game store and walking out with a decent one for about $400. PS4s/Xbox Ones will always have a reason to stick around.

I always recommend consoles to any "non gamer" friends who want a system to play games on. Just because it's a waste of their time and money to pay $800 buying every component individually, only to have me or another friend spend the day assembling the PC for them.. Just to play games at a fraction better quality.

Now cue the angry PC fanatics jumping through hoops to try and tell me I'm wrong.

Anyway. I've mentioned the end of the console race quite a few times. Considering the Switch is more of a handheld hybrid, and Microsoft are moving to PC gaming. I'm always miffed when people say the Switch needs to be a PS4/Xbox One clone.

One good thing about consoles is that no company will really hold a monopoly over the rest, even after the the race ends. If handhelds become too unattractive, then Sony'll step up with a new Vita. If the PS5 annoys too many people, we'll get the Xbox 98. And so on..

PC does have several advantages over consoles though, mainly that if you buy a computer that's good for gaming you also got a great work station and most need a PC depending on where you live, why not spring for one that's good enough for games? That said for those who are bad with computers they will sooner or later fuck things up. Malware, viruses, installing too many things running in the background or something. Consoles are still easier to manage and so far more suited for living room gaming.

I don't think Sony would go all anti-consumer if they had a monopoly like Microsoft would. Sony's main bad decision was merely the price point of the PS3. The blu-ray decision was the same exact thing as PS2's DVD decision so that wasn't new or fueled by newfound arrogance.

https://gamerant.com/sony-patent-block-used-games/ For those of us with long memories we remember when it wasn't certain the PS4 would allow used games to be played. Also if you look at the Vita they did decide to go with their own expensive memory cards for no good reason and also not released the biggest size outside of Japan. I also read somewhere that the quality is so poor that you should avoid deleting redownloading games as that risks ruining the memory card. Yes, they are selling something really expensive with terrible quality because they can. Sony isn't any better than Microsoft, in fact Microsoft has worked hard on reversing many of their unpopular choices with the Xbox One (daily check-in, Kinect requirement, media focus, BC).

 

[Bilious Green_v1legacy]

I haven't owned a Nintendo product since SNES, so them disappearing would make no difference to me. If Sony shut up shop, I would simply become a PC only gamer and never think about consoles ever again.

 

[Casual Shinji]

So only a world where PC and Nintendo consoles exist? Oh boy, sign me the fuck up, I can't wait!

Yeah, no thanks, I'd rather have choice. I'd also rather have a world where the big bad, AAA industry exists alongside the indie scene, since it gives me more games to choose from.

It's funny how Nintendo seems the most "redundant" of all, since one half of the large amount of IPs they possess all get rehashed over and over, and the other half gets utterly ignored. It's Nintendo's stuborn iron grip on the "virginity" of their IPs that's really redundant.

 

[Joccaren]

Faulty analogy. If you want Mountain Dew you have to buy from Pepsi, if you want Fanta you have to buy from Coca-Cola corporation. Also if we have ever wanted arguments for why multiple console platforms with similar hardware and mostly the same games this generation is the best example of that.

Microsoft announced that Xbox One would require daily internet check-in and games would be tied to your account.
Sony did not do this (they also made so much fun of Microsoft for this) and was hailed as the saviour of gaming so Microsoft backpedaled because they couldn't lose to their competition. If Sony hadn't been there we would have seen that being released. Also we need to remember that Sony has patented technology to restrict us from playing used and borrowed games so it's not like they aren't tempted to do something similar themselves.

That itself is a faulty analogy. I'm fine having to buy Microsoft games from Microsoft, I don't want to have their bottle to do it.

For a better analogy along those lines, Pepsi and Coke don't sell you bottles of drink. They sell you bottles, and they sell the drink separate. Sometimes they do a deal with both in one. If you want to buy a Pepsi drink though, you need a Pepsi-branded bottle. You cannot use any other bottle.

And yes, this gen we did see some competing on features. That's good. Now ditch the exclusives, and focus on competition on features, and we'll see where we go. Some will fail, some will succeed. Welcome to the market. Know your audience, know what they want, and deliver on it.

 

[Joccaren]

So only a world where PC and Nintendo consoles exist? Oh boy, sign me the fuck up, I can't wait!

Yeah, no thanks, I'd rather have choice. I'd also rather have a world where the big bad, AAA industry exists alongside the indie scene, since it gives me more games to choose from.

It's funny how Nintendo seems the most "redundant" of all, since one half of the large amount of IPs they possess all get rehashed over and over, and the other half gets utterly ignored. It's Nintendo's stuborn iron grip on the "virginity" of their IPs that's really redundant.

I'd re-read the OP. Either Sony, OR Microsoft keep existing, the other doesn't. So you'd have PC, Nintendo, and Sony, or PC, Nintendo, and Microsoft. Not both of the other two which are essentially the same thing.

New takes on old genres also isn't redundant, and many people still love the games. Just because they don't name it something new isn't a bad thing. Its like the FPS era we're coming out of; So many games that were brown, gritty, FPS titles set in the modern military or WWII period. They were all different IPs. Didn't make a lick of difference since they were essentially the same in gameplay and look anyway. Nintendo often takes the other route, mixing up the gameplay within their IPs, but keeping the same name, and I don't see anything wrong with that personally.