Should Microsoft AND Sony both go third party next gen?

With Sony's video game business model losing money with their expensive consoles and handhelds flopping, and Microsoft also not being very profitable in the console department, wouldn't it make sense for them to just develop and publish software? Microsoft consoles end up sharing most of their games with PC, and Sony franchises always end up on their handhelds.

With Nintendo having so much money in the bank that they can't fail, they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and a strong presence in the handheld market. People are going to want the Wii U for the popular Nintendo franchises, and Sony and Microsoft will to have to make weak systems just to compete, and then they might not sell enough to be profitable, so why not just put their software on the Wii U and PC?

Wouldn't fans of those companies be happier if they could focus on making software from the franchises you love, instead of having to compete and fail in the hardware market? Wouldn't PC fans be more happy with devs focusing on games for them that aren't watered-down ports?

It's win-win for everybody.

Microsoft would have to havegames in order to go third party. :3

Nintendo monopoly? I'm down.ZumaJones07

They make behemoth controllers... Wait is that what you want? The world's largest controller... Wii U 2 will be a national monument in japan where everyone is the controller and there is one console...

THE SCREEN IS IN YOUR MIND! TEH INNOVATION!

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]Nintendo monopoly? I'm down.Banjo_Kongfooie

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Microsoft would have to havegames in order to go third party. :3

Slashless

Microsoft putting their focus on the PC platform and Sony going third party would be ideal, but Nintendo would have to get it right with their next console. If Nintendo's intention with the Wii U is to become the go to gaming platform, they have to deliver.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]Nintendo monopoly? I'm down.Bigboi500

SNES, N64 (even though I love the console to death), Gamecube... All came out at a later date. Nintendo never was a tech powerhouse.

The Gameboy was a pathetic piece of **** hardware wise compared to competition... Playstation consoles aside from the portables are the same way.

Microsoft are always the tech powerhouses.

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Tikeio

Rare IPs say hi

Sony doesn't make any games.

MS might

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Tikeio

With Sony's video game business model losing money with their expensive consoles and handhelds flopping, and Microsoft also not being very profitable in the console department, wouldn't it make sense for them to just develop and publish software? Microsoft consoles end up sharing most of their games with PC, and Sony franchises always end up on their handhelds.

With Nintendo having so much money in the bank that they can't fail, they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and a strong presence in the handheld market. People are going to want the Wii U for the popular Nintendo franchises, and Sony and Microsoft will to have to make weak systems just to compete, and then they might not sell enough to be profitable, so why not just put their software on the Wii U and PC?

Wouldn't fans of those companies be happier if they could focus on making software from the franchises you love, instead of having to compete and fail in the hardware market? Wouldn't PC fans be more happy with devs focusing on games for them that aren't watered-down ports?

It's win-win for everybody.

Bigboi500

No. No. Really really no.Ravensmash

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

With Sony's video game business model losing money with their expensive consoles and handhelds flopping, and Microsoft also not being very profitable in the console department, wouldn't it make sense for them to just develop and publish software? Microsoft consoles end up sharing most of their games with PC, and Sony franchises always end up on their handhelds.

With Nintendo having so much money in the bank that they can't fail, they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and a strong presence in the handheld market. People are going to want the Wii U for the popular Nintendo franchises, and Sony and Microsoft will to have to make weak systems just to compete, and then they might not sell enough to be profitable, so why not just put their software on the Wii U and PC?

Wouldn't fans of those companies be happier if they could focus on making software from the franchises you love, instead of having to compete and fail in the hardware market? Wouldn't PC fans be more happy with devs focusing on games for them that aren't watered-down ports?

It's win-win for everybody.

Bruin1986

Microsoft would have to havegames in order to go third party. :3

Slashless

lol, I know right? Microsoft only has...

343 Studios

Turn 10

Lionhead

Rare

(8 Kinect based studios)

(2 mobile gaming studios)

... that is their only first party. Sony would shame them.

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Banjo_Kongfooie

Rare IPs say hi

Rare makes shovelware now. If they were going to use what they already had, they would have done so by now.

That, and the last good game they made was in 2005. Rare fell off.

[QUOTE="Bruin1986"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

With Sony's video game business model losing money with their expensive consoles and handhelds flopping, and Microsoft also not being very profitable in the console department, wouldn't it make sense for them to just develop and publish software? Microsoft consoles end up sharing most of their games with PC, and Sony franchises always end up on their handhelds.

With Nintendo having so much money in the bank that they can't fail, they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and a strong presence in the handheld market. People are going to want the Wii U for the popular Nintendo franchises, and Sony and Microsoft will to have to make weak systems just to compete, and then they might not sell enough to be profitable, so why not just put their software on the Wii U and PC?

Wouldn't fans of those companies be happier if they could focus on making software from the franchises you love, instead of having to compete and fail in the hardware market? Wouldn't PC fans be more happy with devs focusing on games for them that aren't watered-down ports?

It's win-win for everybody.

Bigboi500

I will also say that Sega was the best competitor for Nintendo because they were just as talented and made significant contributions to the gaming medium; especially arcade gaming. I feel with Sony and Microsoft they just want to sit on 3rd party support/online fees and push gimped pc's into the living room to use as a media hub.

lol, I know right? Microsoft only has...

343 Studios

Turn 10

Lionhead

Rare

(8 Kinect based studios)

(2 mobile gaming studios)

... that is their only first party. Sony would shame them.

DireOwl

tbf they also have Twisted Pixel though there current direction is unknown :P

Rare makes shovelware now. If they were going to use what they already had, they would have done so by now.

That, and the last good game they made was in 2005. Rare fell off.

Tikeio

Viva Pinata Trouble In Paradise came out in 2008. :3

Then who's going to make the hardware? Nintendo obviously sucks at that.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="ZumaJones07"]Nintendo monopoly? I'm down.Bigboi500

[QUOTE="DireOwl"]

lol, I know right? Microsoft only has...

343 Studios

Turn 10

Lionhead

Rare

(8 Kinect based studios)

(2 mobile gaming studios)

... that is their only first party. Sony would shame them.

Slashless

tbf they also have Twisted Pixel though there current direction is unknown :P

True, but they made Gunstringer, so I kinda cheated and threw them in as one of the Kinect studios.

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Bigboi500

Didn't you hear? PC gamers are supposedly too "hardcore" for motion controls. :roll:

But seriously, I doubt that MS would make much profit from Kinect on PC. But that's just me...

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Bruin1986"] I'm going to assume you've never taken economics. One single company having a monopoly on gaming consoles, or anything for that matter, is usually not good. Competition drives excellence. I was also under the impression that the Xbox division has started making MS quite a healthy profit in recent years, maybe I'm mistaken. The xbox dethroning the playstation for #1 HD console is quite impressive, especially considering the massive market share that the PS2 had last generation. Also, MS's market capitalization is like 14x larger than Nintendo's. They'll spend money just to prevent other companies from gaining too much power. Bruin1986

I agree. Plus if anything, Microsoft has been making a profit on their gaming division & have been since 2008. And there's a fat chance that either MS or Sony would go 3rd party. If anything, Sony would most likely exit the gaming division more so than MS would, because MS has got plenty of money to help keep their gaming division going.

I don't see Sony going 3rd party at all. They would most likely either sell off their IP's, or just discard them off.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Tikeio

Didn't you hear? PC gamers are supposedly too "hardcore" for motion controls. :roll:

But seriously, I doubt that MS would make much profit from Kinect on PC. But that's just me...

I'm going to assume you've never taken economics. One single company having a monopoly on gaming consoles, or anything for that matter, is usually not good. Competition drives excellence. I was also under the impression that the Xbox division has started making MS quite a healthy profit in recent years, maybe I'm mistaken. The xbox dethroning the playstation for #1 HD console is quite impressive, especially considering the massive market share that the PS2 had last generation. Also, MS's market capitalization is like 14x larger than Nintendo's. They'll spend money just to prevent other companies from gaining too much power. Bruin1986

Hm... sure.

Nintendo/MS/Sony would make the games and we all play them on the pc, why?

-vastly superior hardware (any pc you buy today outperforms a console), plus you can still upgrade it whenever you want (making it easier to upgrade it bit by bit instead of spending 600$ upfront each gen).

-k&m (the best controllers for most of the games hands down), but you can still use ANY controller

-No fees to play online, you can still subscribe thou if you want extra benefits (like ps+ free games)

-Sweet steam deals and better prices overall (Steam is god's gift to gamers)

-You can chose to purchase the game digitally or not (removes the hassle of disc swapping)

-No need to buy a full piece of hardware everytime the machine dies (YLOD, RROD)

But we all know it ain't happening, MS will stay in business because shooters sell in there (especially COD and in the USA) and Sony will stay in business because they have along with Nintendo (althou i dislike Nintendo's) better exclusives.

Microsoft would have to havegames in order to go third party. :3

Slashless

This, they can only succeed as a console maker, otherwise they have nothing to bring to the industry.

Not that they have anything right now though xD

Sony, no. We need Sony.And they'll bounce back financially next gen.

[QUOTE="Bruin1986"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]That's all in the past. The markets have changed. Sony and Microsoft really don't contribute much on their own without the help of third party software. I wonder if share holders are tired of them going up and down so much?

InfinityMugen

I'm certainly glad after getting spanked for two gens Nintendo has stepped it up with Wii and we'll see if Wii U can do the same. However Microsoft really didnt contribute much to the gaming market imo. Halo wasn't a Microsoft creation, but their insight on securing it for their system practically saved the disaster that was the Xbox 1. Kinect is also a creation that didn't originate from Microsoft but they bought to turn it into a hit. Microsoft made the investment in Live because they knew they could create a nest egg if they could get enough people to pay premium for online gaming, I'll give them credit for that. While 360 is a signifcant improvement over the predecessor, it was mainly due to Sony's arrogance and failure to secure their 3rd party exclusives.

You could say the same about Sony during the PS1 & PS2 days. And really, Sony didn't have any REAL competition during those two consoles because Nintendo, Sega, & Microsoft all fumbled so badly & because Sony came into the gaming division at the right time. Not only that, but they won on the PS2 mostly due to the DVD drive. They won those two gens due to luck.

If Sony had real, true competition like the Genesis Vs. SNES war, the PS3/360/Wii war, & the DS Vs. PSP war back with the PS1/N64/Saturn era, plus if Nintendo would've stuck with CD's for their 3rd console, then Sony wouldn't have even made it so far into the gaming industry.

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

Simply, NO.

And what exactly would Microsoft have to offer besides Halo and Forza? They don't own many IP's.

Banjo_Kongfooie

Rare IPs say hi

LOL....Rare....they died long ago.

That would mean that the sheep have won System Wars. For real :P

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]
Why their hardware is terrible.

Banjo_Kongfooie

SNES, N64 (even though I love the console to death), Gamecube... All came out at a later date. Nintendo never was a tech powerhouse.

The Gameboy was a pathetic piece of **** hardware wise compared to competition... Playstation consoles aside from the portables are the same way.

Microsoft are always the tech powerhouses.

The Game Boy's weak power is the reason why it outsold all its competition by a large margin. Gunpei Yokoi desgined a system that had excellent battery life, was durable, and could be sold at a lower price then any of its competitors. Had it been desgined with the same power as the Game Gear, there is a large possibility it would have never gotten close to the level of success that it saw.

The SNES was superior to the Genesis in terms of graphics, sound, technical effects, and overall power. About the only edge the Genesis had was a faster processor. Despite being a huge Genesis fan and an owner of one back in the day, I will admit the SNES was the superior system.

As for the Gamecube, it was vastly superior to the PS2 and just barely falls short of matching the Xbox in terms of power.

One final thing I should note is that only the ogrinial Xbox is the tech powerhouse. The 360 is less powerful then the PS3.

[QUOTE="InfinityMugen"][QUOTE="Bruin1986"] What's "all in the past"? That competition drives excellence? That has existed forever, and always will. If Nintendo has a monopoly on gaming consoles, the company WILL get lazy and stop innovating. It's 100% inevitable. Nintendo only exists to make money, just like any other company. If their product is the ONLY option for someone that wants a console, they'll stop investing as much money and resources into the product because the customer is forced to buy their product regardless. "Don't contribute much on their own"? What? Microsoft has gone a ton to change the console market. Heavy online incorporation via Xbox live being the biggest. Halo, a 1st party title, is pretty much single-handedly responsible for the explosion of the console FPS that we've seen in recent years. Kinect, regardless of how much the system wars "cool kids" (with zero knowledge of the real world) like to mock it, is a really intriguing technology that has already been adapted to numerous fields outside of gaming. garland51

I'm certainly glad after getting spanked for two gens Nintendo has stepped it up with Wii and we'll see if Wii U can do the same. However Microsoft really didnt contribute much to the gaming market imo. Halo wasn't a Microsoft creation, but their insight on securing it for their system practically saved the disaster that was the Xbox 1. Kinect is also a creation that didn't originate from Microsoft but they bought to turn it into a hit. Microsoft made the investment in Live because they knew they could create a nest egg if they could get enough people to pay premium for online gaming, I'll give them credit for that. While 360 is a signifcant improvement over the predecessor, it was mainly due to Sony's arrogance and failure to secure their 3rd party exclusives.

You could say the same about Sony during the PS1 & PS2 days. And really, Sony didn't have any REAL competition during those two consoles because Nintendo, Sega, & Microsoft all fumbled so badly & because Sony came into the gaming division at the right time. Not only that, but they won on the PS2 mostly due to the DVD drive. They won those two gens due to luck.

If Sony had real, true competition like the Genesis Vs. SNES war, the PS3/360/Wii war, & the DS Vs. PSP war back with the PS1/N64/Saturn era, plus if Nintendo would've stuck with CD's for their 3rd console, then Sony wouldn't have even made it so far into the gaming industry.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="InfinityMugen"]

I'm certainly glad after getting spanked for two gens Nintendo has stepped it up with Wii and we'll see if Wii U can do the same. However Microsoft really didnt contribute much to the gaming market imo. Halo wasn't a Microsoft creation, but their insight on securing it for their system practically saved the disaster that was the Xbox 1. Kinect is also a creation that didn't originate from Microsoft but they bought to turn it into a hit. Microsoft made the investment in Live because they knew they could create a nest egg if they could get enough people to pay premium for online gaming, I'll give them credit for that. While 360 is a signifcant improvement over the predecessor, it was mainly due to Sony's arrogance and failure to secure their 3rd party exclusives.InfinityMugen

You could say the same about Sony during the PS1 & PS2 days. And really, Sony didn't have any REAL competition during those two consoles because Nintendo, Sega, & Microsoft all fumbled so badly & because Sony came into the gaming division at the right time. Not only that, but they won on the PS2 mostly due to the DVD drive. They won those two gens due to luck.

If Sony had real, true competition like the Genesis Vs. SNES war, the PS3/360/Wii war, & the DS Vs. PSP war back with the PS1/N64/Saturn era, plus if Nintendo would've stuck with CD's for their 3rd console, then Sony wouldn't have even made it so far into the gaming industry.

Totally agree. Sega was awesome, by the way. :)

I just had to tell the honest truth as to why Sony won with both PS1 & PS2. They won due to luck & were just steamrolling everyone like there was no tomorrow in console sales. Everyone else had much tougher competition (Sega, Nintendo, & Microsoft), & not Sony up until with DS Vs. PSP, Wii Vs. 360 vs. PS3 war, & now with the war between 3DS Vs. Vita. That's when reality sank in for Sony that they were not invincible & didn't truly know anything about gaming. Both Nintendo & Microsoft took notes from last gen, & boom, they came back strong with both the Wii & Xbox 360.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]No. No. Really really no.Bigboi500

No need for 2 more Sega's in the market. Variety is a good thing. Plus if the only two choices of gaming were between the Wii and PC, Nintendo moght end up becoming a 3rd party dev. Most of their marketing for the Wii U focuses on that tablet controller's capabilities and so far that Zelda game (if that is a new Zelda) is the best looking thing Wii U has to offer based on what Nintendo has revealed so far. All the other games they showed loos to have dated graphics with kiddie themed games.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Only young gamers believe this since they weren't gaming in previous generations.

caryslan2

SNES, N64 (even though I love the console to death), Gamecube... All came out at a later date. Nintendo never was a tech powerhouse.

The Gameboy was a pathetic piece of **** hardware wise compared to competition... Playstation consoles aside from the portables are the same way.

Microsoft are always the tech powerhouses.

The Game Boy's weak power is the reason why it outsold all its competition by a large margin. Gunpei Yokoi desgined a system that had excellent battery life, was durable, and could be sold at a lower price then any of its competitors. Had it been desgined with the same power as the Game Gear, there is a large possibility it would have never gotten close to the level of success that it saw.

The SNES was superior to the Genesis in terms of graphics, sound, technical effects, and overall power. About the only edge the Genesis had was a faster processor. Despite being a huge Genesis fan and an owner of one back in the day, I will admit the SNES was the superior system.

As for the Gamecube, it was vastly superior to the PS2 and just barely falls short of matching the Xbox in terms of power.

One final thing I should note is that only the ogrinial Xbox is the tech powerhouse. The 360 is less powerful then the PS3.

Gameboy's piece of **** tech was the reason the battery life was vastly better than the Gamegear's. You are basically admitting it's ****y technology but making excuses for the Gameboy because you love it.

SNES was stronger than the Genesis because it was out 2 whole ****ing years later and it was not vastly stronger. The CD-i and Commodore64TV were better after a year of SNES's release.

N64 (as much as I love it was out two years after the competition).

The Gamecube was released a year after the PS2 as was the Xbox... The Xbox is the stronger of the two.

Nintendo has always have inferior hardware given the options as Sony had inferior hardware in their consoles.

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

Rare makes shovelware now. If they were going to use what they already had, they would have done so by now.

That, and the last good game they made was in 2005. Rare fell off.

Slashless

Viva Pinata Trouble In Paradise came out in 2008. :3

I stand (un)corrected. ;)

With Sony's video game business model losing money with their expensive consoles and handhelds flopping, and Microsoft also not being very profitable in the console department, wouldn't it make sense for them to just develop and publish software? Microsoft consoles end up sharing most of their games with PC, and Sony franchises always end up on their handhelds.

With Nintendo having so much money in the bank that they can't fail, they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and a strong presence in the handheld market. People are going to want the Wii U for the popular Nintendo franchises, and Sony and Microsoft will to have to make weak systems just to compete, and then they might not sell enough to be profitable, so why not just put their software on the Wii U and PC?

Wouldn't fans of those companies be happier if they could focus on making software from the franchises you love, instead of having to compete and fail in the hardware market? Wouldn't PC fans be more happy with devs focusing on games for them that aren't watered-down ports?

It's win-win for everybody.

Bigboi500

If all software went PC they would go broke from piracy.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

With Sony's video game business model losing money with their expensive consoles and handhelds flopping, and Microsoft also not being very profitable in the console department, wouldn't it make sense for them to just develop and publish software? Microsoft consoles end up sharing most of their games with PC, and Sony franchises always end up on their handhelds.

With Nintendo having so much money in the bank that they can't fail, they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and a strong presence in the handheld market. People are going to want the Wii U for the popular Nintendo franchises, and Sony and Microsoft will to have to make weak systems just to compete, and then they might not sell enough to be profitable, so why not just put their software on the Wii U and PC?

Wouldn't fans of those companies be happier if they could focus on making software from the franchises you love, instead of having to compete and fail in the hardware market? Wouldn't PC fans be more happy with devs focusing on games for them that aren't watered-down ports?

It's win-win for everybody.

ZombieKiller7

If all software went PC they would go broke from piracy.

You be thankful for the pirates...they are the ones preserving video games so that our kids and grandkids can enjoy them too.

Yes I don't expect you to understand, because all you (and video game companies) can think about is short-term profits.