If one of the big three had to drop out the race, which would you prefere it be?

Microsoft. I want them to stop meddling with JRPGs.

Microsoft. I want them to stop meddling with JRPGs.

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

im not sure what this thread is about

you get to choose between the 3 companys?

2 of them are basicly clones of eachother

and 1 of them is not considered a gaming company by some people here (lol)

obviously 1 of the clones

i dont care which actully, becouse their IP's arent worth enough to actully care about

while i would probably quit console gaming if nintendo was to drop about, simply becouse their IPs matter more

i can live without call of duty 7 and halo, god of war

but i cant live without Zelda and Metroid.

Half-Way

I agree with you on everything but I'd still like to have Sony around.

A) They force good competition i agree

B) They appreciate online play, while Nintendo thumbs their nose at it until people complain enough (it seems). I doubt we'd ever see anything like Demon Souls i agree even if i would like alot more local multiplayer games this gen

C) Sony keeps the door open on less censored games, where as if Nintendo had kept their way, we'd still have green blood or no blood at all. Nintendo was getting a little too Disney like. ya thats why they supported madworld, even when all those raging moms got mad at them, by saying the wii is for everyone :roll:

M$ also has the weakest 1st party.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Microsoft. I want them to stop meddling with JRPGs.

DarkLink77

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

Sony. Most of their "big" franchises do little to wow me.

If they continue with stuff like Heavy Rain, inFAMOUS, Uncharted, Flower, etc, then that's awesome.

But it's a too little too late thing. MS and Ninty has had me for years.

if microsoft drops out of the gaming industry i will be happyScar_Finger

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

I agree with you on everything but I'd still like to have Sony around.

A) They force good competition i agree

B) They appreciate online play, while Nintendo thumbs their nose at it until people complain enough (it seems). I doubt we'd ever see anything like Demon Souls i agree even if i would like alot more local multiplayer games this gen

C) Sony keeps the door open on less censored games, where as if Nintendo had kept their way, we'd still have green blood or no blood at all. Nintendo was getting a little too Disney like. ya thats why they supported madworld, even when all those raging moms got mad at them, by saying the wii is for everyone :roll:

tok1879

dude belive it or not, not all of us have american taste in games,

if it were up for sony and MS we would all be playing brainless shooters

thank god for actuall game disigners

Microsoft in favor of a new Sega console.

InfinityMugen

Nintendo has to stay..... let MS & Sony fight for the remaining spot, I say.

Even though my fav game is ME2, it would still exist without MS, it would just be on the PS3 and/or PC. Halo would still exist as well, though I'm not sure if it'd be the same series I love or not.

However if Nintendo's hardware division goes bye bye, Nintendo has been quoted saying "we will stop producing software too"... and Daddy needs his Mario & Zelda.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Microsoft. I want them to stop meddling with JRPGs.

hakanakumono

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

Nintendo,used to be big supporter but the Wii IMO is just plain crummy and then never come up with new IP's anymore

[QUOTE="tok1879"][QUOTE="Half-Way"]

Half-Way

dude belive it or not, not all of us have american taste in games,

if it were up for sony and MS we would all be playing brainless shooters

thank god for actuall game disigners

Shooters indeed.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Lost Odyssey was a good game?DarkLink77

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

It's not an argument, it's just me being selfish.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Microsoft. I want them to stop meddling with JRPGs.

hakanakumono

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

If P$3 was out, other JRPG devs could have made their JRPG's for the 360. I'd rather have all the JRPG's focused on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

See how that works?

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

hakanakumono

It's not an argument, it's just me being selfish.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Lost Odyssey was a good game?moistsandwich

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

If P$3 was out, other JRPG devs could have made their JRPG's for the 360. I'd rather have all the JRPG's focused on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

See how that works?

I know, I'm just being selfish. The topic asks what I would prefer. I don't like MS, so ...

With the way Nintendo handles their game development, they're pretty much already dropped out of the business. Just eat the wii sales for the rest of their lives.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

dude belive it or not, not all of us have american taste in games,

if it were up for sony and MS we would all be playing brainless shooters

thank god for actuall game disigners

Half-Way

Shooters indeed.

Siren 2, Little Big Planet, Ico, and Rule of Rose.

im sorry, but im having my ignorant glasses on when i talk to ignorant people

if you dont like it, dont replay :P

Oh, so I'm the one who's "ignorant" even though you claimed that Sony just produces shooters and I proved you wrong? How does that work?

Edit:

"thank god for actuall game disigners"

Are you seriously going to say that the developers of Ico aren't game designers? Look who's "ignorant" now.

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Shooters indeed.

Siren 2, Little Big Planet, Ico, and Rule of Rose.

hakanakumono

im sorry, but im having my ignorant glasses on when i talk to ignorant people

if you dont like it, dont replay :P

Oh, so I'm the one who's "ignorant" even though you claimed that Sony just produces shooters and I proved you wrong? How does that work?

obviously you didnt read the dude who i was replaying tos post

then you would notice i wasnt speaking of you

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

im not sure what this thread is about

you get to choose between the 3 companys?

2 of them are basicly clones of eachother

and 1 of them is not considered a gaming company by some people here (lol)

obviously 1 of the clones

i dont care which actully, becouse their IP's arent worth enough to actully care about

while i would probably quit console gaming if nintendo was to drop about, simply becouse their IPs matter more

i can live without call of duty 7 and halo, god of war

but i cant live without Zelda and Metroid.

Half-Way

C) Sony keeps the door open on less censored games, where as if Nintendo had kept their way, we'd still have green blood or no blood at all. Nintendo was getting a little too Disney like. ya thats why they supported madworld, even when all those raging moms got mad at them, by saying the wii is for everyone :roll:

That's why I said KEEPS THE DOOR OPEN. No kidding Wii has gory games. So does GC. I'm referring back to when they censored Zelda giving Gannon Green blood, Mortal Combat without fatalities, and Wolfenstein without dogs and Nazis.

You see, keeping the door open means the door is already open, so you don't have to roll your eyes at my statement because you would understand that the door being open is Nintendo is back on track not censoring.

And if you wanted a better example of adult content, you could have used Red Steel, the game at Wii launch. It had swearing, strippers, and blood and gore. What more could you ask for?

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

C) Sony keeps the door open on less censored games, where as if Nintendo had kept their way, we'd still have green blood or no blood at all. Nintendo was getting a little too Disney like. ya thats why they supported madworld, even when all those raging moms got mad at them, by saying the wii is for everyone :roll:

flazzle

That's why I said KEEPS THE DOOR OPEN. No kidding Wii has gory games. So does GC. I'm referring back to when they censored Zelda giving Gannon Green blood, Mortal Combat without fatalities, and Wolfenstein without dogs and Nazis.

You see, keeping the door open means the door is already open, so you don't have to roll your eyes at my statement because you would understand that the door being open is Nintendo is back on track not censoring.

And if you wanted a better example of adult content, you could have used Red Steel, the game at Wii launch. It had swearing, strippers, and blood and gore. What more could you ask for?

"Sony keeps the door open on less censored games, where as if Nintendo had kept their way"

thats why i rolled my eyes :P

It's funny how people from every nook and cranny of the world abbreviate Microsoft M$ insinuating that they are all about money and not about experience... I have however seen more of the "P$3" abbreviations lately. Seriously people, all companies are out to make money, selling something that they feel will better peoples lives... or lighten their wallets.

I am not going to defend Microsoft here, but I do however want to point out (not flame) that Sony failed to keep things budget-minded with the PS2 and even again with the PS3 (in some cases). One could argue that MS makes you buy a proprietary wireless network adapter for $100 to get on wireless internet. But didn't the PS2 originally come without a hard drive or network adapter? Anyone remember FFXI? Or what about the multi-tap adapter for 4-player multiplayer for the PS2. And having to use memory cards for N64, GameCube, PS1 and PS2 were incredibly painful and gimmicky... I think at one time I had to have 4 memory cards for PS2 to hold all of my save games... I longed for the day to come when we could save it back to the game (if not the system) and thank god we are here now, again.

And here is a fun fact, beings as I am in the computer sales business, I think you should know this. Back in 2004-2005, integrated wireless networking components were really buggy, and seldom worked to the best of their ability as they do today. When they were of good quality, particularly integrated into laptops, they bumped up the price by about $100 more... Sound familiar here? It's really nice that my PS3 has build in 802.11g, because it doesn't matter where I put it in my home, as long as it's on the same floor as the wireless router, which is also wireless-g. Sure, hard drive prices have dropped significantly, and while I will agree that the hard drive for the 360 is priced a bit unfairly, I have never run out of room completely, and when I was nearing the 2 gig mark, I ended up getting an elite anyways. I still have 70 gigs remaining on my elite (oddly enough, the same amount on my ps3 which doesn't have as many game saves or arcade titles or dlc saved onto it yet :) ) so I can't really complain there. Yes, you have to pay for XBL. I don't see a problem here, because that's the price of a game per year. If Sony starts to charge for PSN, then I guess I will be paying the price of 1.5 or 2 games per year, big woop. That's roughly $6.10 a month people, you spend more than that a week on fast food I am sure.

What about me, eh? I just got a PS3. What do I have to buy in order to have everything the PS3 has to offer? The chatpad, the BluRay remote, the Eye, HDMI Cable, and 3 more controllers (just to cater to the rest of my family). for my 360, I have 3 extra controllers, a wireless headset, a chatpad, a vision camera, the wireless adapter, the universal remote, and a quickcharge dock. Again, big woop. I spend more in Microsoft Points a year, than I ever have for accessories, and I am not complaining still yet. I don't even want to begin to predict how much money I am going to put into my PS3 in the form of PSN cards, but it will probably be close to what I have done for my XBox.

So... yeah, I know this was a bit much, but seriously, before you flame, do some homework to back it up... :)

To be honest, I don't really care for Sony.

NOTE TO COWS: I'M NOT SAYING SONY/THE PS3 IS BAD. I JUST DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THEM.

Microsoft

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

That's a very, very tough question. They all do things I like.:? :cry:

I suppose, as a gamer with all the machines every generation, I could deliberately look at the game output between the three companies.

The company that provides the least amount of games for me to simply play would be the best way to determine it, I think.

Features are nice and all (Blu-Ray, Xbox Live, WiFi, Waggle, HD, Online), but I think in the end I would go with the actual GAMES as my way of elimination.

I would then look to the past, present, and future to make the best decision that would hopefully result in good gaming times for the future.

I could probably make a decision based on how many games I would lose out on. The company the provides the least amount of games for me to play would be my decision, I guess, although...I am reluctant to close anything at all because I might be missing something.

Which company leaving would impact gamers the least?

Renzokucant

i can't believe i read all this crap thinkin there would be an answer at the end, way to answer a question with a question..

Is it crappy? :P I thought it was reasoned out well...as far as the answer, I really thought the answer was obvious with the above logic. After going through and reading the entire thread looking for other ways to reason it out, it seems that was the most sound logic so far.

Regarding the answer you crave, if you read it you can figure out what would impact gamers the least, I think.

I'm sorry you found it crappy, I just didn't want controversy today, because honestly, if someone answers this thread, they risk "teh flamage" (they may get flamed). So, I posed the logic that I would use and I would hope all would use, which inevitably would lead to only one conclusion.:P

Thinking of the past, present, and future of gaming, games, output....it all points to saving us from less games.

Which company would impact gamers the least? We all can see what these companies are doing, it's not hard to see how the future would play out with the removal of one of these companies from the console sector.

It's like choosing to cut off your hand, your leg, or a finger, if you ask me.8) I would choose the finger, but it would sadden me.:(

Make sense, pal?:)

BTW : My personal perspective is coming from a guy who owns all the consoles since launch, for many generations. So, in this case, looking at my Wii, 360, and PS3. Imagine a guy who plays all the greatest games for each of these consoles. I don't assume how Crackdown plays, or Ratchet, or a GeoW, or a Halo, or SSBB, or NMH, or Infamous or Killzone 2 or LBP or Fable or MGS4, or SMG, or Madworld, or a Uncharted 2, etc...I play them all (even the low rated games like Too Human, and Lair). Then I look at what franchises these three consoles have personally delivered to me. Then I think of all the gamers that skip over franchises without seeing, without touching, and not knowing what they are mssing. I would hate for them to make a decsion without having an indepth perspective to back them up (although I know a thread like this is going to bring that kind of decision in inevitably).

I would hate to answer, but there is really only one answer, imho.:P

I just say yay for capitalism!

I just say yay for capitalism!

martyr2k6

Let's see. Without Sony, videogaming would be a rich man exclusive Hobby(M$). Without M$ PSN will be pretty much non-existent, but we wouldn't really know what we're missing because we don't know better. Without Nintendo.....the American obesity level will go off the charts. Uhm...fat people are cool. I could live with that , so it's going to have to be Nintendo.tok1879

[QUOTE="martyr2k6"]

I just say yay for capitalism!

surrealnumber5

looking at this generation I would say Nintendo because I feel like the competition between MS and Sony has overall made this generation better. if one of these companies left and was only facing competition with the Wii I feel like the only area the Wii would create a competition in is Sales. We wouldn't see things like online being increased due to the competition between MS and Sony, or the advancement in game technology, etc...as much as we do today.

With the way Nintendo handles their game development, they're pretty much already dropped out of the business. Just eat the wii sales for the rest of their lives.

PSdual_wielder

looking at this generation I would say Nintendo because I feel like the competition between MS and Sony has overall made this generation better. if one of these companies left and was only facing competition with the Wii I feel like the only area the Wii would create a competition in is Sales. We wouldn't see things like online being increased due to the competition between MS and Sony, or the advancement in game technology, etc...as much as we do today.

opex07

Microsoft.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="martyr2k6"]

I just say yay for capitalism!

ElTriforceo

Id say Nintendo. Because if Nintendo went the way of Sega atleast wed have their IPs coming out still. Thats all i enjoy about Nintendo. Atleast we wont have to deal with the crappy hardware.beinss

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

[QUOTE="Half-Way"]

Half-Way

That's why I said KEEPS THE DOOR OPEN. No kidding Wii has gory games. So does GC. I'm referring back to when they censored Zelda giving Gannon Green blood, Mortal Combat without fatalities, and Wolfenstein without dogs and Nazis.

You see, keeping the door open means the door is already open, so you don't have to roll your eyes at my statement because you would understand that the door being open is Nintendo is back on track not censoring.

And if you wanted a better example of adult content, you could have used Red Steel, the game at Wii launch. It had swearing, strippers, and blood and gore. What more could you ask for?

"Sony keeps the door open on less censored games, where as if Nintendo had kept their way"

thats why i rolled my eyes :P

Why? During the SNES era, games weren't even allowed to have the word "PUB," which had to be replaced with "CAFE." The only reason we were able to see the most remotely "mature" of content in games is because of Sony forcing Nintendo to change their game (although Sega did help push the envelope).

Of course, this is 2010 and that doesn't appply anymore. But Nintendo does have some history.

This thread should be called "Which of the big three I hate the most" instead.SpiritOfFire117

yeah why is everything either nintendo or microsoft this is the exact reason SW is the worst theres nothing but Sony fanboys on this forum its not even a fair judge what makes sony so great to get the least portion of answers to drop out and i wouldnt drop out none of them they all do something in my eyes

Nintendo. They're hardly even a gaming company anymore in my eyes. They've ditched the crowd that's been loyal to them for years and try to appeal to soccer moms, kids, and the elderly with a console that has terrible online, mediocre graphics, gimmicky motion controls, and a lousy game selection (IMO of course).

StealthMonkey4

wat?this doesnt even make sense to the least...

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

If M$ was out, Mistwalker could have made it on PS3. I'd rather have all the JRPGs focus on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

hakanakumono

If P$3 was out, other JRPG devs could have made their JRPG's for the 360. I'd rather have all the JRPG's focused on one console, like the PS1 and PS2.

See how that works?

I know, I'm just being selfish. The topic asks what I would prefer. I don't like MS, so ...

that is honestly suprising....

nintendo since they are no longer for the hardcore gamer

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I know, I'm just being selfish. The topic asks what I would prefer. I don't like MS, so ...

Mario1331

that is honestly suprising....

Well, they deliver the least amount of games, right?

I like the 360 to some extent. I like the games on it. But i have a little resentment for Microsoft. Out of the 3 companies, I perceive Microsoft to be the evil big corporation who wants to buy over everything and rule the world, and make everybody pay for eveerything. There is already small evidences of such things happening with Microsoft.

So, for the good of the gaming industry, I want Microsoft to get out. The same reason why i would want EA to get out in a similar vote. I think the reason why the gaming industry is split between 2 giants (ActivisionBlizzard vs EA) is primarily because of EA. EA wants to buy everything and have everything under their control. Worst of all, they like churning things out fast and timely to meet their annual profit targets. Microsoft is no different.