Discussing real possibility. Sony leaves the race, who covers the hole?

[Nieroshai]

I doubt Sony will die from this, they've been through shit PR before, only to come out with a better product than the next guy anyway. On the plus side they'll save money when gen8 comes out because while the PS3 runs gen7 games it has gen8 hardware already. They're banking on the new portable for income, which MIGHT suffer, but PS3 has a VERY loyal and VERY large fan base.

 

[Adam Galli]

I wouldn't be surprised to see Sega or Atari try and jump back into the race, although I really doubt Sony is going to stop.

If Sega came back into the console race I would soil my pants with delight. I loved the Genesis and the Dreamcast.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

simply because of the amount of time, they'd be working against Xbox and Nintendo, both of whom have more money, existing market share, and existing reputations with both consumers and game manufacturers, both of whom know what the consoles can do, and what they want from them.

Replace the word Xbox with Sony and you have Microsoft before the release of the Xbox. One gen later and many people prefer the 360 to the PS3, even plenty of self-proclaimed PlayStation fanboys have made the jump, myself included.

This is true but the first xBox had a one up on both of those consoles in xBox live. The online on the original xBox was like nothing we had seen before except on PC.

Done first on Dreamcast.

Ok, you're a bit flippant.
I didn't say xbox did it first that's totally irrelevant. The Wright brothers flew first but they didn't make commercial air travel.
I said xbox was the first to make online multiplayer as good as the PC, or at come close.
The dreamcast's internet was an add on they did very little with. The xbox used online to redefine multiplayer FPSs on consoles.

Well you're still wrong in that. At least in my opinion. The mainly peer to peer based multiplayer they use on XBL is no where near as good of an experience as a match on dedicated servers. So really as far as I know PS3 was the first to make multiplayer as good as PC in my opinion.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

I have an incling that there will be a gaming crash, Nintendo will become bankrupt, Sony will invest in gaming integrated through Mobile Phones and TVs (as they are already starting with, Sony Experia, TV + Ps2) and Microsoft will pull out as to save money and focus on PCs.

If console gaming is to be saved Sega (funded from Arcades) will jump in as the Japan rep for consoles. Activision and EA will merge (to survive the crash) and also release their own mainstream console, starring all your current favourites.

If a third? Valve will make a PC-based console with links to the PC, online/steam only so no disks.

I had a chat about this with my friend...I invented a joke release line up but yeah...I SHALL NOT repeat that.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Basically, we all know sony is currently in a shitstorm of epic proportions. I doubt very much it would cause bankruptcy, but on the other hand, Sony closing the videogame section (specially since it is such a huge money drain, at least console wise) seem like a very plausible scenario.

No it isn't. Sony has too much invested in the PS brand to drop it because of one little massive breach of security. By this time next year the story will be as stale ground as Lair jokes.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I don't see Sony leaving the console race, but I'll give my input regardless. The most obvious would be Apple, but Apple already has plans to break into the videogame market, and it doesn't involve consoles. I suppose I could see Sega making a return, or another eletronics company making a debut, but it's also possible that no one will fill the void. Nintendo and Microsoft already dominate the market, and with the next Nintendo console possibly being re-geared towards hardcore gamers, and...wait...

Apple is an interesting player to consider. On the one hand, they've got the tech expertise and have been very good at selling overpriced consumer electronics.

On the other hand, Apple has usually relied on a "ground floor of the market" strategy. Their big successes haven't come from entering existing markets, and supporting a console would require a level of cooperation with other companies that Apple isn't used to.

 

[Laxman9292]

It's an interesting question. Creating a console is a massive undertaking though, I don't think that 'Sony's gone, let's do this!' would be a proper motivation for creating a console system, setting up connections with developers and manufacturers, especially if it's going to be on the same level as any of the current systems. Wii, 360 and PS3 cost immense amounts of money to develop and games for them cost as much. More importantly, it would take time, years of development for a new console from scratch. The next Xbox and Wii have most likely been in development since the release of the last generation.

If someone were to see Sony's leaving of the console market as an opening, we might not see another new console coming out for three or four years, probably behind the releases of a new Xbox or Wii console.

It might come down to just two consoles, one for 'serious' gamers, the other for 'casual' gamers. A more likely outcome might be that Wii would change it's focus from a more casual focus to a greater 'general gamer' focus, amplifying it's processor and graphics abilities to be able to compete with 360 in the AAA games market and being able to have major titles play on their system without a great deal of modification.

But I don't think someone would 'take over Sony's market share' simply because of the amount of time, they'd be working against Xbox and Nintendo, both of whom have more money, existing market share, and existing reputations with both consumers and game manufacturers, both of whom know what the consoles can do, and what they want from them.

Bahaha Nintendo stepping up their processors to play AAA titles on a level to rival Xbox? You, sir, are one funny individual. Honestly, they have a long way to go considering that some of the Wiis games look shittier than some I played on the Gamecube. I think Nintendo may try getting more serious but they're so far behind now it would take a huge effort to get to that level. But I still don't see Sony leaving the game.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

On the other hand, Apple has usually relied on a "ground floor of the market" strategy. Their big successes haven't come from entering existing markets,

Errrr...? mp3 players and mobile phones weren't existing markets?

and supporting a console would require a level of cooperation with other companies that Apple isn't used to.

Yes, it's not like they don't already work with dozens of hi tech sector companies, media publishers and so on.

Fact is they have all the assets in place to get into the console market so the only thing stopping them is not wanting to get in on it.

 

[Laxman9292]

simply because of the amount of time, they'd be working against Xbox and Nintendo, both of whom have more money, existing market share, and existing reputations with both consumers and game manufacturers, both of whom know what the consoles can do, and what they want from them.

Replace the word Xbox with Sony and you have Microsoft before the release of the Xbox. One gen later and many people prefer the 360 to the PS3, even plenty of self-proclaimed PlayStation fanboys have made the jump, myself included.

This is true but the first xBox had a one up on both of those consoles in xBox live. The online on the original xBox was like nothing we had seen before except on PC.

Done first on Dreamcast.

Ok, you're a bit flippant.
I didn't say xbox did it first that's totally irrelevant. The Wright brothers flew first but they didn't make commercial air travel.
I said xbox was the first to make online multiplayer as good as the PC, or at come close.
The dreamcast's internet was an add on they did very little with. The xbox used online to redefine multiplayer FPSs on consoles.

Well you're still wrong in that. At least in my opinion. The mainly peer to peer based multiplayer they use on XBL is no where near as good of an experience as a match on dedicated servers. So really as far as I know PS3 was the first to make multiplayer as good as PC in my opinion.

No way PSN is better or on the same level as XBL. I bought FIFA 11 for PS3 to play online just to see what the PSN was like and immediately returned it. It's just not the same as XBL, it just didn't do it for me. XBL just does it so solidly that even PSNs "freeness" couldn't sway me.

 

[Harbinger_]

I think we're nearing the end of seeing consoles as the main avenue of getting video games.

Also I would hate to see Apple make a console but thats just because I know what their customer service is like.

Tried to see if they'd donate to a charity once and they said one second I'll put you through and re-routed me to an automated message essentially telling me to go screw myself.

 

[Laxman9292]

the worst thing that could happen is if EA created a console.

why you ask? because they would completely dominate the market.

think about it, if they only make their sports titles exclusive to their own consosle only, that's millions of average joes there that they will get to buy their consoles.


then of course they also have less best selling, but still exclusive killer franchises they could sell:

need for speed, mass effect, dragon age, dead space, battlefield...etc.

When I started reading I thought you were crazy, but then I thought about it more and that wouldn't be so outrageous. It could happen, and the exclusives they have would definitely sway me over. And their large amounts of cash could lead to a really good system... hell maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But then again it's EA, they would find some way to bleed you dry for it. Interesting thought though...

 

[Brutalis317]

Dear God that would be funny as shit to see Neo-Geo rejoin the console wars. I mean back in the ealy 90's their game cartridges were $200 a piece. Now their system would cost $1,800 and the disks would be $499.99. And the absolutely hilarious thing... just like the 90's rich snobs would buy it then feel superior to all the other gamers.

I want this to happen...

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Errrr...? mp3 players and mobile phones weren't existing markets?

The iPhone was the first consumer-oriented smartphone. The closest thing it had to a competitor at the time was the Blackberry, which is a very different product. The MP3 player market was at the "big, expensive, not entirely practical toy" level when Apple entered it.

Yes, it's not like they don't already work with dozens of hi tech sector companies, media publishers and so on.

Apple's relationships with other companies tend to be ones in which they are clearly dominate. Apple is an extremely proprietary-centric company which isn't used to needing major third-party software companies to sell it's products. When MS entered the console market, they went out and worked hard to get traditional Sony partners to put their games on the Xbox. Apple mostly relies on Apple.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

the worst thing that could happen is if EA created a console.

why you ask? because they would completely dominate the market.

think about it, if they only make their sports titles exclusive to their own consosle only, that's millions of average joes there that they will get to buy their consoles.


then of course they also have less best selling, but still exclusive killer franchises they could sell:

need for speed, mass effect, dragon age, dead space, battlefield...etc.

Actually, that's why EA/Activision *wouldn't* be entering the console market unless both MS and Sony had pulled out. Both companies' fortunes are based on selling cross-platform software. They wouldn't be able to afford to make their games exclusive to a new console competing against an existing one, especially with the console itself being a loss-leader. MS and Sony have other, solid money streams to support themselves with while they wait for their consoles to start making them money. EA and Activision would be sacrificing their bread and butter while taking $100-$200 loss on a each console they sold. Neither company could afford to do that.

 

[SilverUchiha]

Sony isn't going to go down. Especially not to microsoft. Now that steam is on PS3, there is potential for the console to do a lot more than what Xbox is capable of. I'm not saying Xbox couldn't do it, but that microsoft won't do it.

Right now, I'd say Nintendo is the unfortunate member of the race because the wii isn't living up to the potential it started out with and the competitors are going to catch up eventually. Even kick starting a new console generation won't fix it because Nintendo's next goal is to try to match them in terms of visuals (HD and shit). But starting that now will not be enough because Sony and MS are going to keep advancing beyond that (though if Kinect and move have truly been successful, we can assume they won't be doing a new console til at sometime near 2015... unless Project Cafe ends up being more amazing than we are expecting).

What I'm saying is that this hacker business is the first big hurdle Sony has had to face and if they overcome it, then things look pretty good for them for a while. I hate them, but I have to admit that they are doing relatively well aside from this recent issue.

 

[AugustFall]

simply because of the amount of time, they'd be working against Xbox and Nintendo, both of whom have more money, existing market share, and existing reputations with both consumers and game manufacturers, both of whom know what the consoles can do, and what they want from them.

Replace the word Xbox with Sony and you have Microsoft before the release of the Xbox. One gen later and many people prefer the 360 to the PS3, even plenty of self-proclaimed PlayStation fanboys have made the jump, myself included.

This is true but the first xBox had a one up on both of those consoles in xBox live. The online on the original xBox was like nothing we had seen before except on PC.

Done first on Dreamcast.

Ok, you're a bit flippant.
I didn't say xbox did it first that's totally irrelevant. The Wright brothers flew first but they didn't make commercial air travel.
I said xbox was the first to make online multiplayer as good as the PC, or at come close.
The dreamcast's internet was an add on they did very little with. The xbox used online to redefine multiplayer FPSs on consoles.

Well you're still wrong in that. At least in my opinion. The mainly peer to peer based multiplayer they use on XBL is no where near as good of an experience as a match on dedicated servers. So really as far as I know PS3 was the first to make multiplayer as good as PC in my opinion.

eugh still not the point. Look, what I'm saying is the original xbox brought easy competitive multuplayer to consoles and made it mainstream. Halo had multiplayer on a console that was great and popular. Because of this they were able to get the fanbase they have and make themselves a competitor.
People knew the 360 would have good online whereas Playstation at the onset of this gen of consoles was still an unknown as the PS2 was not known for it's internet capability.

But now we are so off topic it doesn't matter. Dreamcast did it first, true, PSN may be better, fine. Go back and read my original post instead of just crossing it out and debating irrelevant details.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

This could actually happen if every person who sues Sony over this wins their lawsuit. Of course, that will never happen, but still. It technically is possible, I guess.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

simply because of the amount of time, they'd be working against Xbox and Nintendo, both of whom have more money, existing market share, and existing reputations with both consumers and game manufacturers, both of whom know what the consoles can do, and what they want from them.

Replace the word Xbox with Sony and you have Microsoft before the release of the Xbox. One gen later and many people prefer the 360 to the PS3, even plenty of self-proclaimed PlayStation fanboys have made the jump, myself included.

This is true but the first xBox had a one up on both of those consoles in xBox live. The online on the original xBox was like nothing we had seen before except on PC.

Done first on Dreamcast.

Ok, you're a bit flippant.
I didn't say xbox did it first that's totally irrelevant. The Wright brothers flew first but they didn't make commercial air travel.
I said xbox was the first to make online multiplayer as good as the PC, or at come close.
The dreamcast's internet was an add on they did very little with. The xbox used online to redefine multiplayer FPSs on consoles.

Well you're still wrong in that. At least in my opinion. The mainly peer to peer based multiplayer they use on XBL is no where near as good of an experience as a match on dedicated servers. So really as far as I know PS3 was the first to make multiplayer as good as PC in my opinion.

eugh still not the point. Look, what I'm saying is the original xbox brought easy competitive multuplayer to consoles and made it mainstream. Halo had multiplayer on a console that was great and popular. Because of this they were able to get the fanbase they have and make themselves a competitor.
People knew the 360 would have good online whereas Playstation at the onset of this gen of consoles was still an unknown as the PS2 was not known for it's internet capability.

But now we are so off topic it doesn't matter. Dreamcast did it first, true, PSN may be better, fine. Go back and read my original post instead of just crossing it out and debating irrelevant details.

Well that is not what you said originally. You said it was nothing like we had seen before when it wasn't. It had been done before. If you think the multiplayer on XBL is good then fair enough but the combo peer to peer and server network with awful community filtering(ie gettign rid of idiots who use racist comments) just isn't good enough in my opinion to be considered good. Decent and competent but not good. So fair enough if that is what you meant to say but that is not what you actually said.

Also why would I quote your whole post when the problem I had was with a certain point and not the whole thing? That seems a bit stupid to me.

simply because of the amount of time, they'd be working against Xbox and Nintendo, both of whom have more money, existing market share, and existing reputations with both consumers and game manufacturers, both of whom know what the consoles can do, and what they want from them.

Replace the word Xbox with Sony and you have Microsoft before the release of the Xbox. One gen later and many people prefer the 360 to the PS3, even plenty of self-proclaimed PlayStation fanboys have made the jump, myself included.

This is true but the first xBox had a one up on both of those consoles in xBox live. The online on the original xBox was like nothing we had seen before except on PC.

Done first on Dreamcast.

Ok, you're a bit flippant.
I didn't say xbox did it first that's totally irrelevant. The Wright brothers flew first but they didn't make commercial air travel.
I said xbox was the first to make online multiplayer as good as the PC, or at come close.
The dreamcast's internet was an add on they did very little with. The xbox used online to redefine multiplayer FPSs on consoles.

Well you're still wrong in that. At least in my opinion. The mainly peer to peer based multiplayer they use on XBL is no where near as good of an experience as a match on dedicated servers. So really as far as I know PS3 was the first to make multiplayer as good as PC in my opinion.

No way PSN is better or on the same level as XBL. I bought FIFA 11 for PS3 to play online just to see what the PSN was like and immediately returned it. It's just not the same as XBL, it just didn't do it for me. XBL just does it so solidly that even PSNs "freeness" couldn't sway me.

Saying it didn't do it for you doesn't make it worse. PS3 has way more games that actually use dedicated servers(eg Resistance and MAG). Dedicated servers and server lists destory P2P and matchmaking multiplayer that has thrived on XBL in almost all instances. Matchmaking never seems to work at all. Also if you like XBL that is fair enough but another point to make on the freeness. You are paying for a service that should be free. Well at least the multiplayer part should be as it is little to no cost to Microsoft.