Support NeoGAF

[DDayton]

We all know that a good chunk of us have a favorite system, and that many of us would be quite happy to see someone bow out of the market. However, I have a half serious question for everyone here...

As a -gamer-, why would it make any difference if Sony dropped out of the market?

All the games we seem to love are made by other companies. If Sony were to cease console production (yes, I know, humor me), those games would merely move to a new platform. Sony is really meaningless in the greater scheme of gaming.

MS's single "must have" console title is Halo, right? If they only have one big console title, I'd assume that one big console title would survive a push to a new console when MS bows out of the market.

Nintendo is a wild card... if they dropped out of the hardware market, would they continue to push as -many- individual and unique titles as they do right now? Or would they reduce production due to lack of royality income from 3rd parties and the shift into other platforms?

Now, I don't see Sony leaving the market any time soon, but it does seem to me that if we were all trying to be completely objective about which companies would be -least missed-, we'd rank them Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo... based entirely upon their own output. Am I right?

 

[Semjaza Azazel]

I like good games. I honestly don't care what they come out on. As long as various current first and second party teams continue to make games for something, it doesn't concern me what they're on.

 

[Insertia]

Gran Turismo is a larger title than Halo, so your argument fails.

 

[Kiriku]

Would we see less good games if one or more of those three stopped making hardware? Well, I do think we would see less money being thrown at big exclusives and internal developed or co-developed games. Money is a nice motivational factor for making better games, wouldn't you agree?

 

[dog$]

As a -gamer-, why would it make any difference if Sony dropped out of the market?

Sony wouldn't charge $90 per game once it decided it had the market cornered, I'd think.

Now, I don't see Sony leaving the market any time soon, but it does seem to me that if we were all trying to be completely objective about which companies would be -least missed-, we'd rank them Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo... based entirely upon their own output. Am I right?

No.
For example, I'd put Nintendo below the other two just because I find 99% of their 21st Centruy output to be expendable.

 

[DDayton]

Gran Turismo is a larger title than Halo, so your argument fails.

Swap the two, then. I've seen a greater Halo fanbase in the forums than a GTA fanbase, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

The "arguement" was really geared towards asking why folks seem to want companies to take over the market when there would be very little change in the software realm if they do.

 

[AniHawk]

Sony wouldn't charge $90 per game once it decided it had the market cornered, I'd think.

Really, who would? Explain to me the logic behind a decision which would make one company think that they are invulnerable enough now to raise software price by $40? Really, who, and why?

 

[Insertia]

Fanboys don't want a certain console to 'take over' the market, people just want their favorite console to perform better than the competitors. If their console performs better, it gets more games, they brag, ect. ect..

That's what fandom is all about.

 

[Sinatar]

My dislike of the PS2 centers around one thing.

Its the weakest piece of hardware on the market.

Due to this, and it being the #1 piece of hardware means it is holding developers back from designing games the way they really want to from both a graphical standpoint and gameplay standpoint.

 

[Kiriku]

Really, who would? Explain to me the logic behind a decision which would make one company think that they are invulnerable enough now to raise software price by $40? Really, who, and why?

I agree, it would be more clever to raise the 3rd party licensing fees.

 

[DarienA]

Swap the two, then. I've seen a greater Halo fanbase in the forums than a GTA fanbase, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

You do know that Gran Turismo has whole community websites devoted to talking about nothing but it.... racing, tweaking, etc... right?

 

[Mike Works]

The argument that Microsoft and Sony bowing out wouldn't affect the industry or gamers as much as Nintendo merely because Nintendo creates more original, memorable, and great selling games has more holes in it than a leper locked in a batting cage.

 

[AniHawk]

Back on topic- I think all companies are expendable. Look at Sega. When they went third party, I personally believed a big part of the industry died. However, nobody really cared, and Sega's in a deep hole struggling to get out. If Apple or Samsung or some other company came here tomorrow and seized control, I don't think anyone besides the veteran gamers would take notice and care.

 

[EviLore]

The "arguement" was really geared towards asking why folks seem to want companies to take over the market when there would be very little change in the software realm if they do

Having a personal preference and believing competition is healthy aren't mutually exclusive. It's not necessary (or interesting, for that matter) to be a paragon of faux-objectivity. Each console manufacturer attempts to succeed or maintain success through its own set of principles. For example, differences in ideals on implementation of online gaming (if any), types of dev houses that are generally acquired/signed on by the company, hardware technologies that are focused on, demographics that are considered key, etc. Obviously the most successful manufacturer will enjoy the widest demographic and most variety of games, but it's hardly plausible to suggest that if Nintendo or Microsoft were #1 this generation with their given consoles that the console gaming market would be identical to its current form.

 

[Andy787]

As a -gamer-, why would it make any difference if Sony dropped out of the market?

we'd rank them Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo... based entirely upon their own output. Am I right?

You're fucking kidding, right? Outside of possibly Nintendo, Sony has put out by far the best lineup of videogames this generation, at least in my opinion. So basically, you're saying that Halo, Mech Assault, and Crimson Skies beat:

Gran Turismo series
Twisted Metal series
Ico
The Mark of Kri
Ape Escape series
Ratchet & Clank series
Jak & Daxter series
Sly Cooper series
Socom series
ATV Offroad series
Champions of Norrath
Sky Gunner
Sky Odyssey
Primal
Ghosthunter
Siren
Lifeline
ChainDive
War of the Monsters
Downhill Domination
Dark Cloud series
Wild Arms series
Arc the Lad series
Bombastic
Fantavision
Amplitude
Frequency
Vib Ribbon series
The Getaway

Obviously, some of these were not developed in-house, and some were brought over here by other publishers, but they are all in large part fruit of Sony's dollar. You are honestly going to tell me that you would rather not see the majority of these franchises again, over Halo? And believe me, I am a huge Halo fan.

 

[AniHawk]

Also, to expand on my last post, by the time Nintendo or Microsoft or Sony leaves the market, nobody will care. Like Sega and Atari, these companies would have had to have screwed with consumers for a very long time and/or produce many poorly made games.

 

[DopeyFish]

to say that microsofts only franchises are Halo, Crimson Skies and Mech Assault is about as stupid as saying Nintendos only franchises were Ice Climber, Pilotwings and Star Tropics

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Great, so really it'll be just another list of "no, these games are teh most important!1!!". To be honest, I wish all the games were on one console. From a purely fantasy perspective. As someone who buys almost every game their interested in on the many that exist now. As a passionate gamer, there's no way I could have just one console and not have it gnaw at me when I couldn't play that one decent title. Obviously (well, to some and the rest of the American public) Nintendo has the least amount of those right now, but that could change in a couple months. Or replace it with ps2, or xbox, whatever and whichever way your tastes carry you at that particular time. The hardware cost eats game money but of course each console has it's particular hardware advantages when it's released.

 

[Andy787]

to say that microsofts only franchises are Halo, Crimson Skies and Mech Assault is about as stupid as saying Nintendos only franchises were Ice Climber, Pilotwings and Star Tropics

The games I mentioned for MS were not supposed to be a definitive list. For example, I absolutely love the Rallisport and Project Gotham series', but I wasn't trying to list all of their titles. I mean, if you'd like, I can rattle off the rest of their lineup, but it's not exactly going to help your arguement;

Tao Feng
Kakuto Chojin
Kung Fu Chaos
Amped series
Top Spin series
Links series
Midtown Madness series
Azurik
Sudeki
Fuzion Frenzy
Grabbed by the Ghoulies
Whacked
Sneakers
Blinx

Wow. The quality of that lineup just exploaded in my pants.

And I intentionally did not include either company's PC lineup.

 

[Mike Works]

Amped series
Top Spin series
Links series
Midtown Madness series

The hell's wrong with those games?

 

[Andy787]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, I was just being fair and listing the rest of their lineup to show his side of the arguement. I personally own all of the ones you pointed out, other than Links.

 

[DDayton]

I'm starting to think I should have more carefully phrased my question.

If some NEW company released a game system, and Sony, MS, and Nintendo were ALL third party, which company's output would most suffer, in your opinion?

I think Sony and MS would continue to produce their titles and do well enough... and I think Nintendo would produce their titles and do well, but I'm not as sure that Nintendo would continue to produce the volume and variety of content that they do now. Hence, my logic was that we gamers would be the most annoyed if Nintendo went third party, as they would be the most likely to cut back on content by doing so. Sony and MS would probably keep about the same amount of production as they do now, possibly because (in my understanding) they produce less than Nintendo does.

Hence, I was confused by system fandom, as both Sony and MS would (in all probability) continue to support the gaming market with their creations just as much if they were third party... and if that's the case, there's really no need for folks to want them to be the 95% marketshare hardware company, unless it's merely Nintendo-hate speaking.

 

[dog$]

If some NEW company released a game system, and Sony, MS, and Nintendo were ALL third party, which company's output would most suffer, in your opinion?

Sega.

Sony and MS would (in all probability) continue to support the gaming market with their creations just as much if they were third party... and if that's the case, there's really no need for folks to want them to be the 95% marketshare hardware company, unless it's merely Nintendo-hate speaking.

Maybe some people prefer their attitude of "trying to give customers what they want" instead of Nintendo's attitude of "telling customers what they want". Just one example.

 

[Ranger X]

Well, as a third party, Nintendo may be in a shitty position where they would have to "go with the crowd" a little more than pushing an original game because they will need someone to publish their thing and publishers takes no risk.
But at the same time, the name is so strong that many publisher would take more risk in publishing a daring game from Nintendo than from Treasure, Team17 or whatever other small devellopers.


And about fandom itself, people should love their games itself and actually don't give a damn who makes it and on what console it plays. Being fan of a game or elements of game like some gameplay styles and stuff that's fine for me. To love a company itself or a console, this is retarded. And they will never love you back...

 

[TekunoRobby]

I like videogames and so far they are liking me back. It's a good relationship.

 

[DDayton]

I like videogames and so far they are liking me back. It's a good relationship.

Games are good. (tm)

 

[drohne]

i like sony's first party games better than nintendo's or microsoft's. well, better than nintendo's gamecube games, anyway...they probably pull away if you include gba stuff. ape escape, minna no golf, chain dive, poinie's poin, frequency/amplitude, ico, jak, sly cooper, ratchet and clank, etc. probably not as strong as their ps1 stuff, but there are a lot of good games there.

i agree with your basic premise, if not your pro-nintendo slant - all hardware manufacturers are perfectly expendable.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

It's a good point you make. Nintendo would likely get lost in the shuffle without a proprietary console. On the other hand, maybe it would up their production and overall recent quality if they were competing like that. And wouldn't their base follow them anywhere? I mean Nintendo has Nintendo fans due to their history, Sony and MS have franchise fans.

Yea, that's a major generalization.

 

[DopeyFish]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, I was just being fair and listing the rest of their lineup to show his side of the arguement. I personally own all of the ones you pointed out, other than Links.

though you still haven't even listed their entire lineup.

 

[Grubdog]

As a gamer, i'd like every single third party to make games exclusively for the GameCube, because then it would have the best first party support and the best third party support and I would only have to own one console.

 

[maharg]

Maybe some people prefer their attitude of "trying to give customers what they want" instead of Nintendo's attitude of "telling customers what they want". Just one example.

Once upon a time, competition meant multiple companies filling multiple niches and catering to different customer needs, not multiple companies doing the same thing and jockeying to fuck each other over.

This notion that a company that does its own thing and does it well is 'telling customers what they want' is plain and simple one of the most obnoxious things I have ever heard of. If they don't succeed, that's one thing, but to say that they should fail for filling in an alternate niche is just cruel.

Basically, this is exactly the sort of attitude that massive companies engender. Our economy would be more flexible, and we'd get more of what we want as individuals if large companies like Sony and Microsoft and even Nintendo were the exception rather than the rule.

Oh and kudos to EviLore's reply.

Myself, I'm a Zelda fan, so my console purchases are obvious. Didn't stop me from getting a Dreamcast back in the day, and it won't stop me from eventually getting some incarnation of the Playstation (especially with backward compat, the library will easily reach a critical mass that is just plain worth the money). I've also played PC games for almost as long as I've played console games, so I don't really end up missing out on much that I'm interested in.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Let's take a step back and read one important sentence:

Videogame Fanboys ain't got shit on Soccer Hooligans.

Be happy that the worst you'll get from a fanboy is a four paragraph response stating that you are an idiot. I prefer that than getting ripped apart and losing my ability to walk.

 

[FortNinety]

I really think its an age thing. The older I get, the less I care about which console wins. Course, I'm older, which means I have more money, which means I have more buying power than before.

Also, everyone wants their flavor to "win" so it makes sense that people will support whichever system supports it.

But most importantly, no one wants to feel like they spend money on a failure.

 

[drohne]

and are we really going to let the assertion stand that nintendo's software output is especially varied or prolific? or that they couldn't release exactly the games they currently release if they went third party?

without the need to push hardware, perhaps grossly overbudgeted games with protracted development cycles like mario 64, shenmue, halo 2, or gran turismo wouldn't readily happen. but nintendo doesn't really do games like that anymore. they could very easily persist with their marginal "experiments" and straightforward franchising as a pure software developer.

follow your argument through to its natural conclusion, daviddayton: we don't need nintendo hardware either.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Console fandom is immature. That being said; of the 3 I'd say Microsoft output has been by far the weakest so far. You must look at this from a global perspective. What the hell has MS-UK and MS-JP done to help Microsoft, let alone the industry? I can name a ton of innovative games that both Sony and Nintendo have released.

 

[dark10x]

All the games we seem to love are made by other companies.

That absolutely is not true, though. One of my very favorite games this generation, for example, was created by Sony (ICO). ICO does not stand alone, however, as there are many other games that were created as a result of Sony Computer Entertainment. Now, you might say, even if a Sony console failed to exist...most of those games would still be made, right? Well guess what? It's the same for Nintendo...and the same for Microsoft. Heck, many of the internal divisions within Nintendo and Sony really may NOT have come into existance without the larger entity behind them...but in Microsoft's case, their absolutely best 1st party title was created by a developer who has been around for quite some time.

For me, it's like this...

Games that leave me with fantastic memories and continue to remind me of why I play games tend to be the games I side with. Over the last few years, it just so happens that there has been more memorable software created and released for the PS2 than any other console (or PC). As a result, I have become quite a fan of the PS2 and support Sony over the other two competitors. Prior to the PS2, however, I was a Sega fan and defended the hell out of the Dreamcast. Why? It provided me with a good number of very memorable experiences, so I stuck with it...just like I'm doing with PS2 now. That's all it takes...just a few experiences from a specific company that leave a huge impact on me.

Using ICO as an example again, I can truly say that it was able to reach me on an emotional level. Not many games can truly do that...and when one does, I become a huge fan.

It also just so happens that my favorite 3rd party games were all created for Sony consoles. Once again, these likely WOULD be made even if Sony consoles failed to exist...but like I said, that also holds true for Nintendo or any other company. So it comes down to which first part titles you prefer. I happen to prefer Sony's first party efforts to Nintendo's. I have little nostalgia binding me to Nintendo, so I can't say that a new Zelda or Mario title particularly excites me (at least to the degree of most people around here). I'm sure I'll enjoy each one, but Nintendo has never created a game that truly left an impact on me (OK, that's not true...many of their SNES games did just that). When I finish playing a Nintendo game, I generally feel nothing. I know I had fun, but the experience was purely "in the moment". The only exception this generation was Metroid Prime...which is a game I often found myself thinking of quite often even after I was finished for the day.

So, when you get right down to it, ALL of the hardware manufacturers could be considered expendable...but people will tend to side with the company which produces the most appealing content for them. As of this moment, I think SCE is simply better than Nintendo. They have not the legacy, but Nintendo's Gamecube titles simply don't impress me.

Hence, I was confused by system fandom, as both Sony and MS would (in all probability) continue to support the gaming market with their creations just as much if they were third party... and if that's the case, there's really no need for folks to want them to be the 95% marketshare hardware company, unless it's merely Nintendo-hate speaking.

Why do you continue to exclude Nintendo from this fate? If they were to abandon hardware, do you think they would simply cease to exist? Of course not. Their franchises would continue onward with new installments no matter which hardware they were to appear on. Nintendo is no different and should not be treated as such. It is obvious that, although you are complaining about fandom, you are quite guilty of it. However, it also seems that fandom is acceptable in your eyes...as long as you happen to be a fan of Nintendo. You simply don't seem to understand those that disagree with you and are attempting to present it as some serious question. Sega was doing fantastic back in the Genesis days and one would never ever guess that the entire library of Sonic titles would eventually appear on a Nintendo console...but it HAS happened. The fact of the matter is, Mario and Zelda could just as easily appear on a Sony platform...

 

[jarrod]

It's a good point you make. Nintendo would likely get lost in the shuffle without a proprietary console. On the other hand, maybe it would up their production and overall recent quality if they were competing like that. And wouldn't their base follow them anywhere? I mean Nintendo has Nintendo fans due to their history, Sony and MS have franchise fans.

Yea, that's a major generalization.

I dunno, Nintendo games still tend to stand out in crowded markets historically (NES/FC, SNES/SFC, GB, GBC, GBA)... brand names like Mario, Zelda or Pokemon won't simply roll over and die in the face of competition. You can argue some of Nintendo's strong franchise success comes from their captive market today but reallly there'd be no market at all if these games didn't have significant consumer pull.

 

[Tellaerin]

This notion that a company that does its own thing and does it well is 'telling customers what they want' is plain and simple one of the most obnoxious things I have ever heard of. If they don't succeed, that's one thing, but to say that they should fail for filling in an alternate niche is just cruel.

The problem is that they seem to be trying to create an alternate niche rather than filling ones that already exist. You have all these unfulfilled desires of gamers (improved visuals, online play, etc.), and Nintendo deliberately passes over them to push features that nobody ever expressed any interest in. Perhaps if they'd make an effort to address things people want first, rather than publicly dismissing the importance of online gaming or better graphics and hyping innovations like connectivity as if they can substitute for those things, they'd be seen as more responsive to consumers.

I don't want to see Nintendo fail. I'm concerned that their current strategy is eventually going to doom them to niche status, and I'm hoping they take a new tack before things reach that point.

 

[Kobun Heat]

As for me, Nintendo's just always been my favorite software publisher so it's good to see them continue to succeed in a volatile, crazy industry. But as for whether they're in the "lead" (in a race that doesn't actually exist), I personally couldn't care less.

 

[Kobun Heat]

Perhaps if they'd make an effort to address things people want first, rather than publicly dismissing the importance of online gaming or better graphics and hyping innovations like connectivity as if they can substitute for those things, they'd be seen as more responsive to consumers.

I don't want to turn this thread into yet another one of 'those' threads, so I'll just point out that you're assuming that consumers in general want online gaming and want the absolute highest quality graphics possible. Both of those points are highly debatable. Nintendo could be wrong, but you could be too.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Perhaps if they'd make an effort to address things people want first, rather than publicly dismissing the importance of online gaming or better graphics and hyping innovations like connectivity as if they can substitute for those things, they'd be seen as more responsive to consumers.

I think Nintendo's MAIN fault is that they really don't know how to communicate these ideas that they have.

** Basically they're saying they don't want to or can't go online yet because the model wouldn't be profitable for them.. occasionally theres the odd snippet of information where employees voice interest in online play or things like WiFi, but they drown it out by towing a confusing company line -- thus the consumer reads dismissal of online gaming's importance.

** Nintendo feel they might as well use Gameboy business as leverage with Gamecube one and releases connectivity manifesto -- thus the consumer sees poor online substitute.

** Nintendo say improving graphics and horse power alone won't bring anything new to the table -- consumer thinks Nintendo are saying good graphics aren't important. Which they aren't.

They reap what they sow in terms of marketing, but I think they've come on leaps and bounds in third party support and the overall system quality this generation compared with the last. They've been pumping out games themselves faster than ever, and localising them faster too -- and it's at a slight detriment at worst. It's a shame really that such royal PR cockup, miscommunication or misunderstanding (whatever it is!) can affect perception so much. I wish they'd had this much heat on them in the N64 years.

Thom

 

[maharg]

The problem is that they seem to be trying to create an alternate niche rather than filling ones that already exist. You have all these unfulfilled desires of gamers (improved visuals, online play, etc.), and Nintendo deliberately passes over them to push features that nobody ever expressed any interest in. Perhaps if they'd make an effort to address things people want first, rather than publicly dismissing the importance of online gaming or better graphics and hyping innovations like connectivity as if they can substitute for those things, they'd be seen as more responsive to consumers.

I don't want to see Nintendo fail. I'm concerned that their current strategy is eventually going to doom them to niche status, and I'm hoping they take a new tack before things reach that point.

That's exactly the problem I have here. There is not One Market With Voices United. There are people who enjoy the things connectivity does, and Nintendo is providing them with it in a market where no one else is (personally I don't think it's that big a deal, but I see the appeal).

What I'm saying is it's not binary. A company can provide for a small niche, and not for a large niche, and it DOES NOT MEAN that they are a failure or that they are stupid. It means they see an opportunity and they are trying to make it profitable, which is a far more noble cause than trying to take another company's existing niche and undermine it. I'm not saying Nintendo is entirely noble, and I'm not saying they wouldn't take first place if they could get it, I'm just saying their logic is not wrong simply because it is not #1 or bust.

In most markets, niche status is not failure, it's the norm. Video games will eventually become the same way.

 

[Tellaerin]

I don't want to turn this thread into yet another one of 'those' threads, so I'll just point out that you're assuming that consumers in general want online gaming and want the absolute highest quality graphics possible. Both of those points are highly debatable. Nintendo could be wrong, but you could be too.

To which I can only say that at least some consumers have expressed an interest in those things. Regardless of whether or not their views reflect the vast majority of gamers, there are still more of them than there are people clamoring for 'different' things. I don't recall an untapped demand for a handheld with two screens instead of one, or connectivity, or what have you. Yet Iwata marginalizes and dismisses the people who are partial to improved visuals or online play in his speeches, while Nintendo boldly presents one unasked-for innovation after another, throwing stuff at the wall in the hope that it'll stick. And that's what's earning them a (not-undeserved, IMO) reputation for being unresponsive to consumers' wishes.

 

[Kcerrid 31]

I really think its an age thing. The older I get, the less I care about which console wins. Course, I'm older, which means I have more money, which means I have more buying power than before.

Also, everyone wants their flavor to "win" so it makes sense that people will support whichever system supports it.

But most importantly, no one wants to feel like they spend money on a failure.

This is exactly the reason why I usually wait 2 years into a system's lifetime before I decide to buy. I picked up a PSOne in 97 due to FF7, but also by this time, I knew how strong the PS game line up had become (my heart really goes out to 3DO and Jaguar early purchasers).

I didn't grab a Dreamcast until it was $50.00, and this was mainly because of its fighting games (I still play it BTW). My Gamecube purchase was more of a "thank you" to Nintendo for making my teen years more bearable. But those years have now past and I realize that if a certain system is pumping out my type of games, at a cheap price, why not pick one up?

 

[Kobun Heat]

To which I can only say that at least some consumers have expressed an interest in those things. Regardless of whether or not their views reflect the vast majority of gamers, there are still more of them than there are people clamoring for 'different' things. I don't recall an untapped demand for a handheld with two screens instead of one, or connectivity, or what have you.

To which I can only say that I can drive a Mack truck through the holes in this argument. If you had your way, nothing new would ever be invented. Ever. Nobody 'asked' Nintendo for the DS because nobody ever thought of it. That's their job, to think of stuff nobody knows they want. You're going to say that nobody's interested in the possibilities of dual-screen, touch-screen gaming? I sincerely hope not, considering that the DS has raised at least as much interest as the PSP. As far as graphic quality between the two systems, Nintendo has always maintained that there should be a balance between graphics and battery life - and for the last fifteen years, the market has overwhelmingly agreed.

Speaking of which, the GameCube, lest we forget, has improved visual quality over the PS2. Iwata isn't saying graphics aren't important - he's saying that we're taking the fast train to a time in the near future when the chase for the absolute highest specs isn't going to matter at all. They're not calling up Retro and telling them to make MP2 look less awesome. They're saying that what's going to separate the hardware systems in the minds of the consumer will be something other than graphic quality. And that could be as soon as next gen. And it's not just Nintendo saying this - Jason Rubin made it the focus of his GDC keynote a few years back. Everybody knows it's coming.

Do consumers 'want' online? A small percentage of them do. Look, we went through this on GAF Classic. Even if you assumed that with a full-blown online program like Sony's or Microsoft's, Nintendo would get a 10% market penetration for the BBA, the extra sales that would result from taking Gamecube games online would be negligible. If you want to talk about 'building up a reputation', I agree to some extent. But brand recognition in general is more important than the consumer awareness of online programs. If Nintendo had a Sony-style online program, it would be way too confusing and complicated for a Nintendo product. And if they'd set up an Xbox Live style system, they'd be announcing their bankruptcy this week instead of Acclaim.

 

[seismologist]

Well I like Microsoft's first party better since they have Rare and they appeal more to a Western audience.
Bungie doesn't matter that much because I feel that they're gonna be a one trick pony.

 

[DopeyFish]

Well I like Microsoft's first party better since they have Rare and they appeal more to a Western audience.
Bungie doesn't matter that much because I feel that they're gonna be a one trick pony.

bungie a one trick pony?! LMAO! LOL! *coughs up a lung and dies*

 

[Lord Error]

Due to this, and it being the #1 piece of hardware means it is holding developers back from designing games the way they really want to from both a graphical standpoint and gameplay standpoint.

You cannot seriously believe that the PS2 hardware is somehow stiffling the gameplay design in todays games? Or if you can, at least support it with an example. Where are those game out there made exclusively for other consoles that show gameplay that is above and beyond anything on the PS2? What about FFXI? That game actually has a gameplay design that is beyond anything you'll find on other consoles, or what is probably even possible on GC due to it's lack of harddrive support.

 

[RevenantKioku]

bungie a one trick pony?! LMAO! LOL! *coughs up a lung and dies*

Its okay. What the hell do people know about Mac games anyway?

 

[dark10x]

My dislike of the PS2 centers around one thing.

Its the weakest piece of hardware on the market.

Due to this, and it being the #1 piece of hardware means it is holding developers back from designing games the way they really want to from both a graphical standpoint and gameplay standpoint.

BS

I finally had the chance to play Burnout 3, and it really is one of (if not THE) best looking racers I've ever seen. It is just doing so many impressive things and even supports progressive scan and 16:9! The PS2 is MORE than capable of pumping out really impressive visuals...

It has also been the system to most consistantly provide 60 fps for games.

GC and XBOX are certainly stronger hardware, but they don't leave the PS2 in the dust. They are not different enough to change the way games can be played. I mean, the best looking games on all systems could be created for PS2 just as easily. PS2 does NOT hold developers back from a gameplay standpoint...and it barely holds them back from a visual standpoint.

What's worse is that a LOT of the biggest PS2 detractors still remain big Dreamcast supporters. Now THAT is dated hardware.

Bungie doesn't matter that much because I feel that they're gonna be a one trick pony.

Wow, THAT'S fair. Let's just go ahead and ignore their lineage and assume that Halo is the ONLY GREAT game they have made. Bungie has been around for a while and most of their games have been fantastic. They have also been a PC developer for a while, so it wasn't as if all of their games were limited to the Mac.