Microsoft or SONY: Which one is more important to the console gaming industry?

In your opinion (try to be unbiased), which one is more important and could possibly have more negative impact on the industry if dropped out of the console race?

none

we are

the gamers

In your opinion (try to be unbiased), which one is more important and could possibly have more negative impact on the industry if dropped out of the console race?

Mystery_Writer

I see that you have chosen M$, tell me why ?

Sony are old timers, sort to say in the console bussines, and old timers know a thing or two !!!

Sony, because they were first, duh

none

we are

the gamers

NJGIANTSNY

Seconded. Industry survives on demand.....demand comes from consumers.Firms are not important here.

Microsoft because they give gamers what they want. Sony gives gamers what sony wants.Miketheman83

Sony

why?

Hybrid Aspect even though 360 has same ability but its games are prefer for gamers who doesnt like to play alot on Networks but challenging them on other different genres like jrpg or even adventures

for Offline gamer PS3 is great for that but 360......is too online dependent

Sony

why?

Hybrid Aspect even though 360 has same ability but its games are prefer for gamers who doesnt like to play alot on Networks but challenging them on other different genres like jrpg or even adventures

for Offline gamer PS3 is great for that but 360......is too online dependent

majestix1988

Sony is more important.

Sony with PS2 had a huge success yet I never felt they abandoned the hardcore gamer.

360 has huge success and MS has almost fully abandoned the hardcore gamer.

this gen.HarlockJC

I dunno. The PlayStation brand has dropped like a stone and while Sony has a strong first party none of their franchises seem that important to the industry. Same goes for Microsoft's.

In general THIS >>>>>>>360 hamburger controller cannot defeat Screaming Mantis !!!

Sony, as they are far less restricting and do not force changes upon the industry which can have a negative effect later on.

either sega or nintendo.

MS and Sony are purely greed motivated additions... nothing more.

Neither

Third party devs ensure games for us and since there is a demand there will always be a company to step in with a platform.

SONY.....because of SONY today we have the BRay,free online and the best look games.AtariKidX

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]SONY.....because of SONY today we have the BRay,free online and the best look games.parkurtommo

Truth be told Microsoft innovates and evolves, while Sony prefers to play it safe, a simple example is just take a look at the two system's controllers, I dont feel like listing the other stuff MS has introduced this gen (Which Sony had to play catch up to) ...it has been discussed before several times, for better or worse MS keeps the industry moving forward, so they are more important to the console gaming industry

Sony because they are first to get into the gaming industry (in my lifetime), and they are currently the best, even now.

Sony because they are first to get into the gaming industry (in my lifetime), and they are currently the best, even now.

GaMeR_Willz

Its clearly Sony. In my opinion, they feel more dedicated to gaming than Microsoft.

Truth be told Microsoft innovates and evolves, while Sony prefers to play it safe, a simple example is just take a look at the two system's controllers, I dont feel like listing the other stuff MS has introduced this gen (Which Sony had to play catch up to) ...it has been discussed before several times, for better or worse MS keeps the industry moving forward, so they are more important to the console gaming industry

ethanradd

Microsoft because they give gamers what they want. Sony gives gamers what sony wants.Miketheman83

They try to deliver demened features, but they got them self on trap set by them selfs with hardware. You can quite strange implementaions of those features just to push them, because people want them.

Microsoft because they give gamers what they want. Sony gives gamers what sony wants.Miketheman83

[QUOTE="majestix1988"]

Sony

why?

Hybrid Aspect even though 360 has same ability but its games are prefer for gamers who doesnt like to play alot on Networks but challenging them on other different genres like jrpg or even adventures

for Offline gamer PS3 is great for that but 360......is too online dependent

parkurtommo

[QUOTE="ethanradd"]

Truth be told Microsoft innovates and evolves, while Sony prefers to play it safe, a simple example is just take a look at the two system's controllers, I dont feel like listing the other stuff MS has introduced this gen (Which Sony had to play catch up to) ...it has been discussed before several times, for better or worse MS keeps the industry moving forward, so they are more important to the console gaming industry

kuraimen

I'd say Sony by far. This is coming from an Xbox 360 owner that doesn't have a PS3. If MS dropped out I wouldn't really care. It would be sad to see Sony go though, as horrible as their fanboys are :(Eponique

I am horrible....??:P

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ethanradd"]

Truth be told Microsoft innovates and evolves, while Sony prefers to play it safe, a simple example is just take a look at the two system's controllers, I dont feel like listing the other stuff MS has introduced this gen (Which Sony had to play catch up to) ...it has been discussed before several times, for better or worse MS keeps the industry moving forward, so they are more important to the console gaming industry

mems_1224

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

[QUOTE="Eponique"]I'd say Sony by far. This is coming from an Xbox 360 owner that doesn't have a PS3. If MS dropped out I wouldn't really care. It would be sad to see Sony go though, as horrible as their fanboys are :(AtariKidX

I am horrible....??:P

Now why would you say that? Everyone here loves you.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]

[QUOTE="Eponique"]I'd say Sony by far. This is coming from an Xbox 360 owner that doesn't have a PS3. If MS dropped out I wouldn't really care. It would be sad to see Sony go though, as horrible as their fanboys are :(waltefmoney

I am horrible....??:P

Now why would you say that? Everyone here loves you.

I know that................:twisted:

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="majestix1988"]

Sony

why?

Hybrid Aspect even though 360 has same ability but its games are prefer for gamers who doesnt like to play alot on Networks but challenging them on other different genres like jrpg or even adventures

for Offline gamer PS3 is great for that but 360......is too online dependent

mems_1224

I see the young bucks are in full force here. Sony was not the first to do dick. Nintendo brought console gaming to popularity. Since you kids weren't even around in the 80s I wouldn't expect you to know this.

PS1 success = Nintendo's dated hardware and shift in market demographics. You can lump Sega with Nintentdo.

PS2 success = The huge explosion of DVD and home theaters. The N64, Gamecube, and Dreamcast did not support DVD.

PS3 success = Blu-ray format (and I use success loosley).

Going by this gen, clearly MS.

360 is everything it was hyped to be, probably more since no one expected it to have the biggest library or to get the most support from devs and gamers.

PS3, on the other hand, was hyped as the best at everything but ended up being like a 360 in capabilities, with inferior in library and less dev support (as a long term consequence, it means less games and, in many cases, inferior versions of them).

Sony is paying a high price for being elitist and arrogant. A deserved one, if you ask me. Not that MS is any better as a company, but to be honest, they completly met their hype, this gen.

Microsoft because they give gamers what they want. Sony gives gamers what sony wants.Miketheman83

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] I agree, but the main reason why M$ is disposable is because it has only released 2 consoles, that's nothing, and they weren't innovative ones either.

p4s2p0

too much dependent make the console so bland in my eyes...then its change horrible after this year its good to buy 360 on earlier days but now its losing...on gaming department not online department its to supportive in community but in gaming its not giving it all (its a shame it doesnt have jrpgs or genres but now if customers are wise enough on gaming...i would prefer ps3 because of offline support)

even though xboxlive is revolutionary but its became a double-edge sword to the 360...

even though I like the 360 more then the PS3 I'm gonna have to go with Sony
they brought us online gaming, wireless controllers, blu-ray, looking forward to see what else they create hardware-wise

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Sony takes risks in what matters: games. They have invested in new IPs that push traditional gameplay to evolve like LBP and Heavy Rain and they support them fully. Microsoft basically invests in what they know works like shooters and what the Wii showed that worked for casuals.Heirren

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

Sony by far.

For 3 generation, they've been the MOST consistant in partnering with 3rd party developers and DELIVERING what matters most:

GAMES..........games of various genres, regardless of content.

And by consistancy, they're the most dedicated to the "HARDCORE" gaming demographic.

Going by this gen, clearly MS.

360 is everything it was hyped to be, probably more since no one expected it to have the biggest library or to get the most support from devs and gamers.

PS3, on the other hand, was hyped as the best at everything but ended up being like a 360 in capabilities, with inferior in library and less dev support (as a long term consequence, it means less games and, in many cases, inferior versions of them).

Sony is paying a high price for being elitist and arrogant. A deserved one, if you ask me. Not that MS is any better as a company, but to be honest, they completly met their hype, this gen.

PAL360

With both selling about the same there is no clear 2nd place winner between the 2 this gen.p4s2p0

I meant quantity of games, online popularity, prefered platform from devs, capabilities, etc. Sales wise, 360 and PS3 are indeed very similar, but that was never supposed to happen.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]none of that matters when the best games out this gen are multiplats. and the two biggest exclusive franchises are on 360. and heavy rain didnt push anything to evolve. it was a decent game with tons of plotholes. LBP is held back by the fact that PSN sucks. sony has been playing catch up all gen.kuraimen

Of course it matters. Don't kid yourself. It is rather simple; as gamers we want games, right? Sony pushes games. Do I like all these games? Nope, but I sure am glad that money is being spend ON games. I bought a 360 very near launch, and if I had known that MS would ditch the original adoptors like they have, I would not have bought one based on principle.

It boggles my mind how people defend MS. I was in the minority last gen, in prefering the xbox over the ps2, and now I feel somewhat duped in even buying a 360. MS has completely ditched the original product plan. Their fans are so head-over-heels blind it can be disgusting at times. WHO exactly is buying Kinect? Are people using it? Are gamers that post here lying saying they don't like it, when in reality they may have bought it? Because really, it affects everyone that bought a 360 beforehand.

When SEga released the Activator, gamers simply said, "that is stupid. get that out of my face." Sega took the hit and then continued releasing games--games within lines of what the product was supposed to produce.