Who is the strongest console developer now?

[Soopy]

Out of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. Who do you think is the strongest contender?
Considering everything, not just the latest developments.

To me, it seems as if it is Microsoft's turn to be head strong and fall over for a little while. But have Nintendo and Sony learned from their arrogance in the past?

 

[Sir Christopher McFarlane]

I think Nintendo is going in the right direction not focusing on graphic prowess. It instead focuses on new systems of input. Their games are also inexpensive. That doesn't mean they'll win the generation though.

 

[Soopy]

That's a fair conclusion. They seem to be focusing on a viable alternative. Which is refreshing in a stale market even if their product doesn't interest me personally.

It seems to me, at this point any how, that Sony may be just knuckling down and doing what they do, well. So that could be interesting too. It's almost a return to normality, or at least a return to the late 90's with Nintendo vs Sony (N64/PS1)

 

[Soopy]

Perhaps the entertainment facet is simply something that is needed for modern consoles?

So long as the emphasis is still on the games, I have no problem with it.

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm going to say Nintendo.
They have been keeping a level head during this generation, while Sony and Microsoft seemed to be doing their damned hardest to do everything nobody wants.
I think in the long run, Nintendo will come out on top.

 

[Blaze the Dragon]

I agree that Nintendo is more "console-oriented" than the other two, but that's what I like about them. I don't need another device to watch TV or browse the internet. I just want to play some games.

I think that the problem with some consoles is that they're starting from the gaming side, and trying to incorporate the functionality of normal computers. Whereas things like Smartphones and Normal Computers start with utility, and then happen to play games. The Former means that you just get watered down functionality for the non-gaming aspects, plus you have to pay more for things you probably wont use; while the latter has all the functionality of the various utilities that you actually want, and the games just get better over time.

Basically I'm saying that facebook should stay on the laptops and ipads. And I guess I'm also saying glorious PC master race, but that's irrelevant.

 

[BrotherRool]

Sony came out strong at the end of this generation. The start was awful, but the PS3 turned out to be sweet with a really wide and interesting range of exclusive. With Sony's non-region locking policy bringing the world Demons Souls and basically creating/reviving a new genre, the continued support of Quantic Dream, inventing the 'Little Big Planet' genre, the Uncharted genre. Creating the best open-world superhero game of all time. Valkyria Chronicles. Motorstorm. Journey, Flower. Pixeljunk Eden. Sony were not put in a box and really brought the creativity to the fight. I'd argue they were the most creative of all the publishers when you count the third-party exclusives, not just out of Nintendo and Microsoft.



Which isn't to say MS completely failed. They invented the cover-based shooter. It's just it was basically shooters, shooters, shooters. (And I guess Fable? But Fable didn't exactly revolutionise anything. It wasn't even a Folklore)

 

[Evil Smurf]

Nintendo, because they are consumer friendly, family friendly and nostalgia friendly:

 

[xPixelatedx]

Jumping on the increasingly growing Nintendo train here. They turned the 3DS around in 1/10th the time it took Sony to turn the at-first-disastrous PS3 around, and aside from the virtual boy they basically got a stellar record. The game-cube may have been 3rd it's gen, but it stayed afloat good enough it got Nintendo to the next one. Nintendo has also been there from day one (after the crash). That's something interesting to consider... Everyone else from those days is gone.

Nintendo is also credited for bringing video games back after the crash in a market where no one else was currently wanting to risk making a "video game console", ironically enough given our current situation lol.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

I would think Nintendo just because they've been in the console business for longer than the other two, they know their stuff.

 

[Vivi22]

Going to have to go with Sony. Even with their arrogance and missteps with the PS3 they still hold the title of best game developer of the three as far as I'm concerned since they give their studios a tremendous amount of freedom instead of pumping out sequel after sequel.

And this gen, as far as making the better console goes, They put together a reasonably good piece of hardware with the specs to last a while at least, are doing it at a lower cost than they did in previous generations, and they managed to get through their initial announcement event without pissing off 90% of their fan base. Oh, and developers actually seem excited to develop for them rather than the situation Nintendo is trying to deal with right now.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Nintendo. Sony, while they might have a good PS4 launch, are currently in the gutter with a Credit Rating of Junk, multiple years of money loss, and no American Headquarters anymore because they had to sell it. Microsoft has never been a number 1 contender through out their console run, and the XBone looks to be a failure. I pick Nintendo because while the WiiU is currently in the toilet, the 3DS is selling amazingly right now, not to mention that they went from last place to first place with the Wii, they've only lost money once in their console making lifetime, and the WiiU doesn't even have it's system sellers out yet, which will probably pull the WiiU out of the toilet.

Nintendo it is.

 

[The White Hunter]

That's a fair conclusion. They seem to be focusing on a viable alternative. Which is refreshing in a stale market even if their product doesn't interest me personally.

It seems to me, at this point any how, that Sony may be just knuckling down and doing what they do, well. So that could be interesting too. It's almost a return to normality, or at least a return to the late 90's with Nintendo vs Sony (N64/PS1)

I must say I agree, Nintendo seem to be focusing on what they do best; interesting new input methods and creative gameplay within their relatively safe first party IP's. Basically experimenting like crazy but using safe IP's as a means of doing so without huge financial risks. The Wii U does interest me though, hence I own one, particularly feeling justified as the giant Sega fanboy I am.

Sony seem to be bunkering down and focusing more too, they're focusing on providing their great first party IP's and a more diverse range of titles than Microsoft seem to bother offering whilst appealing to a wider variety.

This could indeed be a return to normality and I for one welcome it. I can also see it as a return to a more disctinct difference in PC and console gaming, where in the 90's consoles were very much dominated by the East and a very different style of development, I hope to see the Wii U offer a good platform for more traditional japanese games, made on a tighter budget with a bigger focus on a tight experience.

Until we include handhelds, then I think Nintendo is in the strongest position.

 

[bug_of_war]

I'm gonna say Nintendo, but only just ahead of Sony. Nintendo are that company that everyone's mother knows, EVERYONE knows about Mario, Zelda and Pokémon, maybe not in depth, but those names are synonymous with games when it comes to most parents and games. Also, whilst I am sick of, "New, NEW Super Mario Bros. *add console name* addition" it definitely finds it's market and dominates it. Also, all Nintendo have to do to dominate the handheld console market is announce a Pokémon game and they're guaranteed to sell more 3DS' and millions of copies (which is basically happening already).

So yeah, while I wont be buying a Wii U, and I normally wait until everything has had a fair go before jumping to conclusions, I think Nintendo will scratch in a win this gen.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I think Nintendo is going in the right direction not focusing on graphic prowess. It instead focuses on new systems of input. Their games are also inexpensive. That doesn't mean they'll win the generation though.

Nintendo is also great when it comes to handheld games but the problem with their handheld titles is marketing. Betcha didn't know that while the PS2, Gamecube and, 360/PS3 had to suffer through some of the most hated Sonic games, the GBA and DS got some really good ones. I can also hazard a guess that most people are unaware of what the Hell Dillon's Rolling Western is.

Microsoft didn't drop the ball so much as they drop-kicked it into the highway. And they're making us go get it. And it's OUR FUCKING BALL.

Sony...I can't remember what all they're doing with the PS4. I'll need to watch the reveal again honestly. I recall it not being online-only but I also recall stories about the thing being optimized if it's connected to the internet. Otherwise the games on display and the didn't completely WOW me (Killzone Another One looked really pretty, and the golden particle robot game looked fun) and the lack of backwards compatibility is a definite mark against my wanting to get one. Here's the thing though...it's Sony. The PS4 will likely sell long enough to start making money and within the first 3 years the PS4-Slim will be announced and released. That'll be the one I end up getting.

Nintendo wins by default by my standards. Microsoft doesn't want the likes of me to buy an Xbox One. The PS4 will age like wine and eventually be something I want. The Wii U was a console I bought on day one. Clear winner is decided.

...

What do you guys think the Spectrum is going to be?

 

[blizzaradragon]

I'm going to have to say Nintendo in this case. While Sony is definitely in prime position as well, it seems to me that Nintendo is the only one who's making their game console a...well, a game console. Sony and Microsoft are both pushing towards the "entertainment box" approach, albeit with Microsoft essentially sprinting in that direction while Sony is more doing a leisurely walk.

I think part of that is that out of the three console makers Nintendo is literally the only game company. If MS or Sony take losses in their game departments, they still have plenty of other departments to make it up and keep the company alive. If Nintendo takes losses, then it hurts a lot more as that's it for them. I think this shows more in their approach as well, as they don't have the other departments leaking into their console.

Plus Nintendo has shown they can turn around bad launches. After all, the 3DS went from no one wanting it to being a handheld in high demand. Meanwhile Sony is still floundering with the Vita. The Wii U is already showing that it is similar to the 3DS early on(although from what I've seen the sales numbers, while not as distributed throughout the 6 months, are at about the same as the 360 in it's early launch), but if the PS4 ends up being a Vita repeat I'm not sure what Sony would do.

 

[veloper]

Currently IBM sits on the console throne as all the CPUs in the current gen consoles are IBM.
Next gen AMD/ATI will be the console king because 3/3 GPUs and 2/3 CPUs.

 

[bug_of_war]

What's so ironic is that both MS & Nintendo rely on rehashed titles to sell their consoles.......

MS - FIFA, COD, Halo etc.
Nintendo - Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc.

.............but you always feel as if Nintendo could do anything with each franchise. As if it could branch off in any crazy direction and that they really care about creativity and the games.

Whereas you know exactly what you're getting with each MS rehash, and it's reached a point where it's unfathomably hard to get excited by any further releases (IMO)

COD and FIFA aren't exclusive to Xbox...Gears of War is (still love that series) and I'm quite sure Fable is a Microsoft exclusive. I'd say the difference between Nintendo and Microsoft is just that you know the direction that Microsoft will take their product, they're still fun (Gears and Halo yes, Fable...debatable), but Nintendo (other than the previously mentioned, "New, NEW Super Mario Bros *insert console name*") seem to just be like, "Fuck it, lets throw Mario into space" and whilst it's still relatively similar, it's a nice change up. As much as I think Nintendo should try and make new franchises, I can see that they have nearly perfected the franchises that they have. Zelda is still interesting, same with games like Mario Party, Pokémon always sells them a bunch, and yeah, they're just that company that really has been the quiet achiever.

 

[Mr. Omega]

Right now it looks like Nintendo is in the best spot. There's the chance Sony could blow minds at E3, but Sony really could go either way.

Nintendo's strategy seems to be focused on staying small or just competing with Sony and Microsoft and avoid comparisons to PCs. They are cooperating with retailers like Best Buy, focusing on improving features currently on their machine as opposed to adding new ones, and have been putting a surprising amount of focus on indie studios. And the results are showing: some big kickstarter games like Shovel Knight or Road Rampage or Shadows of the Eternals might be coming out on PC, but Nintendo is the only console maker getting these games.

The WiiU's biggest flaws right now are the fact that there are little games out for it and that it is the most expensive machine on the market. The latter is not going to be true by the time the XB1 and PS4 come out, and odds are the former will be resolved by the fall once first party titles start coming out.

Doesn't mean that they are going to win, but they are in the best position. Worst case scenario is that they have another Gamecube (third place, makes money and Nintendo survives because of handhelds). Best case scenario is they repeat what happened with the 3DS.

 

[badgersprite]

I think it's too close to call as to who is in the best position right now.

In theory, you could say Nintendo still has the success of the Wii and the handheld market behind them, but from everything I've heard the WiiU isn't shaping up to replicate its success. Sony had huge success with Playstation 1 & 2, but had some pretty lean years during the last console cycle. Microsoft is difficult to judge because it's always just been kind of a middle of the road contender and I can't say that I think they're trying to be anything else, but they also lack a strong international focus in their marketing. The Xbox is not a truly international brand in the way that Sony and Nintendo genuinely try to be with their consoles and brands.

Personally, I think the Xbox One has fallen behind in the race for a number of reasons. Firstly, latching onto television even though television is kind of a dying medium. Secondly, calling a press conference that only gamers would be interested in watching and talking about everything other than games. Thirdly, again, targeting a games console at people who aren't interested in games during a press announcement that nobody except gamers were watching or interested in. Fourthly, basing their whole marketing strategy on appealing to this idea that people who aren't interested in playing games will want to buy a games console for its non-gaming functions. Even the Wii with its huge and wide-reaching mainstream appeal never sold itself as anything other than a games console; it sold because it had all these titles and casual games that audiences who don't usually play games were interested in. But I digress.

Overall, I really can't predict at this point who's ahead, and probably won't be able to until after E3, but I'd say that I'm anticipating that it's going to be much more of a two-horse race between Sony and Nintendo unless Microsoft has a dramatic turnaround.