There Can be Only Two!

Say you have the Ultimate Power to decide who dies or thrives in the Game industry, but there is only room for TWO major powers. Who do you eliminate? The catch is: Eliminate a Publisher and ALL of their First/Second Party games and Series vanish forever!

Eliminate Nintendo: No Mario. No Zelda. No Metroid. No Starfox. No Pokemon.

Eliminate Sony: No inFamous. No Resistance. No Gran Turismo. No Uncharted. No God of War.

Eliminate Microsoft: No Halo. No Gears. No Forza. No Mass Effect. No Fable. No (more) Perfect Dark, Banjo or Rare games.

Who goes and why?

Sony and Nintendo can keep making consoles while MS should go the PC way (or atleast make a hybrid Xbox/PC).

I don't eliminate either because they all have fans and something to offer.

That said, Microsoft is making me REALLY want to pick them the way they are heading this generation, shunning their hardcore fanbase for Kinectimals and s*** games. They're really lagging behind in supporting their audience compared to Sony and companies like Valve and Blizzard do for PC gamers. Even Nintendo at least half tries on Wii with all their success.

Personally I think Microsoft leaving the console business would be for the best. They could return to PC and bring Gears/Halo with them (so they don't die), while Kinect gets better use from creative modders then it ever would by the terrible kids games on the Xbox.

Microsoft. It would be nice if all their IPs and dev support went to the PC.

I'm not going to eliminate anyone because I believe that every company has a group of fa....lol.

I don't know.Nintendo?

The one that would piss off the most people.

Microsoft.

We lose a lot more if Nintendo or Sony go.

I'd say since all my bros and stuff have Xbox, I'd have to say bye bye Sony. They make more and better games but it would be lame if I didn't have anyone to play them with.

But really all I need is Nintendo and a Wii-U.

I pick PC and PS3, so I vote Nintendo and Microsoft out.AmazonTreeBoa

PC isn't in this ya n00b. You only have to pick one.

Freakin' n00b.

Honestly, I think Xbox would be the best choice. Nintendo has a big stable of games and a HUGE legion of fans and great games, they really couldn't go. Sony also has cred, 3 consoles that brought changes and amazing games to the gaming world, plus a slew of franchises.

I think if Xbox went, MS would just move their stuff to PC. Plus from what I hear, Gears is on Xbox due to Epic's choice, so if it wanted to move on PS3 it could, and thus MS doesn't have a big stable of exclusive for people to lose, especially when they'd just move them to PC anyways.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]I pick PC and PS3, so I vote Nintendo and Microsoft out.SPYDER0416

PC isn't in this ya n00b. You only have to pick one.

Freakin' n00b.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]I pick PC and PS3, so I vote Nintendo and Microsoft out.AmazonTreeBoa

PC isn't in this ya n00b. You only have to pick one.

Freakin' n00b.

Getting defensive are we?

TC's point is that each of these systems are run by one company that decides to make them and put out games for them. PC does not work that way. If Nvidia decided to stop making cards, we'd still have AMD, and if Valve closed up Steam, we'd still have other services. The question was related to which company giving up support for a new system and all the games on it.

Nice to know someone who apparently can't read can call me a dumbass with a straight face though,

EDIT: In fact, if you even went back to read what TC said, he just asked which of the three publisher companies would you want would you want to see stop producing game consoles and games for them, so within this context putting the PC in doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]I pick PC and PS3, so I vote Nintendo and Microsoft out.AmazonTreeBoa

PC isn't in this ya n00b. You only have to pick one.

Freakin' n00b.

Realistically, and for the sake of actually having games(no troll), Microsoft would have to go. Unless they get their act together next gen.

But right now, yeah I'd kill them. Not a massive loss really. I'd miss Halo though.

Nintendo, they are becoming a bad influence on the other two with their casual focus.

I almost picked Microsoft but I like Halo too much... so I picked Sony.

Realistically, and for the sake of actually having games(no troll), Microsoft would have to go. Unless they get their act together next gen.

But right now, yeah I'd kill them. Not a massive loss really. I'd miss Halo though.

balfe1990

I want to think that if they went Epic would be willing to keep making Gears for other consoles and MS might still keep Halo on PC or sell it to another publisher, but sadly I think MS probably needs to do more for the hardcore. Right now, they are the weak link in this chain for amount of consistent exclusive titles from their first party developers.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

PC isn't in this ya n00b. You only have to pick one.

Freakin' n00b.

windsquid9000

All of the Microsoft games except for Halo are third party lol. They'd just go multiplat or go with Sony or Nintendo.ActionRemix

Turn 10 are first party too. And to split hairs even further rare are also first party. Not really worth mentioning though.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

PC isn't in this ya n00b. You only have to pick one.

Freakin' n00b.

SPYDER0416

Getting defensive are we?

TC's point is that each of these systems are run by one company that decides to make them and put out games for them. PC does not work that way. If Nvidia decided to stop making cards, we'd still have AMD, and if Valve closed up Steam, we'd still have other services. The question was related to which company giving up support for a new system and all the games on it.

Nice to know someone who apparently can't read can call me a dumbass with a straight face though,

EDIT: In fact, if you even went back to read what TC said, he just asked which of the three publisher companies would you want would you want to see stop producing game consoles and games for them, so within this context putting the PC in doesn't make sense.

I would like to see Microsoft gone since nothing would be lost if they left the gaming industry

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

Realistically, and for the sake of actually having games(no troll), Microsoft would have to go. Unless they get their act together next gen.

But right now, yeah I'd kill them. Not a massive loss really. I'd miss Halo though.

SPYDER0416

I want to think that if they went Epic would be willing to keep making Gears for other consoles and MS might still keep Halo on PC or sell it to another publisher, but sadly I think MS probably needs to do more for the hardcore. Right now, they are the weak link in this chain for amount of consistent exclusive titles from their first party developers.

And to think how strong they were at the beginning of the gen...

All their unexpected success with the 360 went to their heads. So really, we as "core" gamers are to blame for not having any "core" games...:P

I would like to see Microsoft gone since nothing would be lost if they left the gaming industry

BPoole96

Did you cahnge your avy slightly?

It looks a tone lighter or something...

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]This is system wars, not console wars you dumbass.AmazonTreeBoa

Getting defensive are we?

TC's point is that each of these systems are run by one company that decides to make them and put out games for them. PC does not work that way. If Nvidia decided to stop making cards, we'd still have AMD, and if Valve closed up Steam, we'd still have other services. The question was related to which company giving up support for a new system and all the games on it.

Nice to know someone who apparently can't read can call me a dumbass with a straight face though,

EDIT: In fact, if you even went back to read what TC said, he just asked which of the three publisher companies would you want would you want to see stop producing game consoles and games for them, so within this context putting the PC in doesn't make sense.

Yes, when losing an argument, say you're trolling.

You never lose! Unless they call you out on it, amirite?

All of those Microsoft games were published by them too. They were made by 2nd party developers and published by MS. I consider third party to be multi-platform published games.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

Realistically, and for the sake of actually having games(no troll), Microsoft would have to go. Unless they get their act together next gen.

But right now, yeah I'd kill them. Not a massive loss really. I'd miss Halo though.

balfe1990

I want to think that if they went Epic would be willing to keep making Gears for other consoles and MS might still keep Halo on PC or sell it to another publisher, but sadly I think MS probably needs to do more for the hardcore. Right now, they are the weak link in this chain for amount of consistent exclusive titles from their first party developers.

And to think how strong they were at the beginning of the gen...

All their unexpected success with the 360 went to their heads. So really, we as "core" gamers are to blame for not having any "core" games...:P

I think success gets to everyone's head. Nintendo was riding high on saving the games industry, so when they made the N64 they kind of made a few oopsies, releasing the N64 a year and a half after Sony's Playstation, sticking with the aging cartridge format, lacking more then Super Mario 64 for launch titles, etc (though it was a damn good launch title).

With PS3, Sony was riding high on PS2 beating the world pretty much. So with PS3, they got a little lazy, tried to puch blu ray on it (delaying the release for a year), got some negative press over their overhyping, and didn't give third party developers as much love at first (though they changed all that 180 degrees instantly later on).

Now MS is getting up on the Kinect success, and just ignoring the other games because hardcore games never brought them almost 2 million units on black friday now did they?

If we are going to go back that far, why not include their overall influences in there too?

Eliminate Nintendo: Would Playstation exist? Analog? Feedback? Motion Control? Portable gaming?

Eliminate Sony: Would we be playing on cartridges now? What would happen to RPG's?

Eliminate Microsoft: Would Online gaming be the same? Achievements... Are they even necessary?

Does this change things? Or is it ONLY about the games?

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

Realistically, and for the sake of actually having games(no troll), Microsoft would have to go. Unless they get their act together next gen.

But right now, yeah I'd kill them. Not a massive loss really. I'd miss Halo though.

SPYDER0416

I want to think that if they went Epic would be willing to keep making Gears for other consoles and MS might still keep Halo on PC or sell it to another publisher, but sadly I think MS probably needs to do more for the hardcore. Right now, they are the weak link in this chain for amount of consistent exclusive titles from their first party developers.

M$ shifting focus to PC could be a pretty good thing since the platform is capable of supporting core games AND casual games with out getting either one killing off what type of exclusives we get. Even if M$ were to do nothing but kinect titles for PC we'd still have several core games since the PC is a very open platform. It seems Microsoft is starting to take more consideration into the platform with bring over the full XBL experience to windows and out the box for windows 8 a long with kinect.

AMD APUs are also advancing the entry level of PC gaming so even joe with his prebuilt dell will still be able to play modern game at decent quality. This could also give a developers a sign of what the standard for their games should be. They'll know to optimize it well for the APUs since a crapload of people will be using them.

If we are going to go back that far, why not include their overall influences in there too?

Eliminate Nintendo: Would Playstation exist? Analog? Feedback? Motion Control? Portable gaming?

Eliminate Sony: Would we be playing on cartridges now? What would happen to RPG's?

Eliminate Microsoft: Would Online gaming be the same? Achievements... Are they even necessary?

Does this change things? Or is it ONLY about the games?

Phantom_Leo

I think the TC is referring to the present.

If I could only keep two publishers today, they'd definitely be Nintendo and Microsoft.

I've never been a fan of Microsoft's core games, but I like their casual approach with Kinect.

It complements the industry nicely.

-

That may actually happen...Sony seems a bit aimless right now. With their massive debts we may see Sony go under in the future if they don't start shaping up their game.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="balfe1990"]

Realistically, and for the sake of actually having games(no troll), Microsoft would have to go. Unless they get their act together next gen.

But right now, yeah I'd kill them. Not a massive loss really. I'd miss Halo though.

NoodleFighter

I want to think that if they went Epic would be willing to keep making Gears for other consoles and MS might still keep Halo on PC or sell it to another publisher, but sadly I think MS probably needs to do more for the hardcore. Right now, they are the weak link in this chain for amount of consistent exclusive titles from their first party developers.

M$ shifting focus to PC could be a pretty good thing since the platform is capable of supporting core games AND casual games with out getting either one killing off what type of exclusives we get. Even if M$ were to do nothing but kinect titles for PC we'd still have several core games since the PC is a very open platform. It seems Microsoft is starting to take more consideration into the platform with bring over the full XBL experience to windows and out the box for windows 8 a long with kinect.

AMD APUs are also advancing the entry level of PC gaming so even joe with his prebuilt dell will still be able to play modern game at decent quality. This could also give a developers a sign of what the standard for their games should be. They'll know to optimize it well for the APUs since a crapload of people will be using them.

Exactly! I feel like PC right now is mostly for multiplats and indie games, not a lot of huge big budget exclusives are coming out as much as they used to back in the day. If MS went to PC, they wouldn't have to focus as much on a console, and could give the PC a few big budget AAA exclusives that aren't RTS or MMO games with some extra support.

To be honest, I think Halo kind of belongs on consoles though. Its got the best matchmaking ever made, one of the most subtle and well working aim assists, bombtastic splitscreen, and its just all so perfect for consoles and I don't think it would quite translate as well on PC tbh. Gears I can see on PC (since Epic is a big former PC dev and Gears works great on PC), but I think Halo's home is on consoles.

SW, you shocked me.

Evict Microsoft from the industry.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Getting defensive are we?

TC's point is that each of these systems are run by one company that decides to make them and put out games for them. PC does not work that way. If Nvidia decided to stop making cards, we'd still have AMD, and if Valve closed up Steam, we'd still have other services. The question was related to which company giving up support for a new system and all the games on it.

Nice to know someone who apparently can't read can call me a dumbass with a straight face though,

EDIT: In fact, if you even went back to read what TC said, he just asked which of the three publisher companies would you want would you want to see stop producing game consoles and games for them, so within this context putting the PC in doesn't make sense.

SPYDER0416

Yes, when losing an argument, say you're trolling.

You never lose! Unless they call you out on it, amirite?

Nintendo, on the basis that I don't own any of their systems... :P

Is it only games? Well then Microsoft may leave. But if we talk in general nitendo or Sony may leave.

Microsoft of course.

The one that doesn't make any games. meetroid8

The cows are once again victorious :]

The cows are once again victorious :]

parkurtommo

Microsoft. It's not a fair question because they don't support a handheld like Sony & Nintendo. But MS and that's why.Floppy_Jim

But do we really need more than one handheld in the market?

The diversity of games was just fine when Game Boy + Game Boy Color + Game Boy Advance ruled the handheld market.

Is it the first poll this year that XBOX is actually winning? :shock::oops:

[QUOTE="Floppy_Jim"]Microsoft. It's not a fair question because they don't support a handheld like Sony & Nintendo. But MS and that's why.peterw007

But do we really need more than one handheld in the market?

The diversity of games was just fine when Game Boy + Game Boy Color + Game Boy Advance ruled the handheld market.

Accidentally clicked Nintendo instead of Microsoft, epic fail on my part.

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I want to think that if they went Epic would be willing to keep making Gears for other consoles and MS might still keep Halo on PC or sell it to another publisher, but sadly I think MS probably needs to do more for the hardcore. Right now, they are the weak link in this chain for amount of consistent exclusive titles from their first party developers.

SPYDER0416

M$ shifting focus to PC could be a pretty good thing since the platform is capable of supporting core games AND casual games with out getting either one killing off what type of exclusives we get. Even if M$ were to do nothing but kinect titles for PC we'd still have several core games since the PC is a very open platform. It seems Microsoft is starting to take more consideration into the platform with bring over the full XBL experience to windows and out the box for windows 8 a long with kinect.

AMD APUs are also advancing the entry level of PC gaming so even joe with his prebuilt dell will still be able to play modern game at decent quality. This could also give a developers a sign of what the standard for their games should be. They'll know to optimize it well for the APUs since a crapload of people will be using them.

Exactly! I feel like PC right now is mostly for multiplats and indie games, not a lot of huge big budget exclusives are coming out as much as they used to back in the day. If MS went to PC, they wouldn't have to focus as much on a console, and could give the PC a few big budget AAA exclusives that aren't RTS or MMO games with some extra support.

To be honest, I think Halo kind of belongs on consoles though. Its got the best matchmaking ever made, one of the most subtle and well working aim assists, bombtastic splitscreen, and its just all so perfect for consoles and I don't think it would quite translate as well on PC tbh. Gears I can see on PC (since Epic is a big former PC dev and Gears works great on PC), but I think Halo's home is on consoles.

The Greatest weapon PC can use to lure in gamers is the free to play market. Free to play games are starting to get more technically a long with the attraction of western developers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoqPjKP2jKI&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6BD5D6061C4DAD1D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g9xRCxWWd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oevWde_F-yU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0vzqTqcQnE

with free alternatives like this instead of paying money for the usual multiplayer FPS/co op games you could see very large player bases.

In terms of XBL Microsoft should or would have to make it free since the PC has alternatives like Steam which are free. With PC gamers already on the platform they're not going to be as willing to use the service with a paying fee if other services can do most of the same things as XBL for free (since GFWL is free they'll probably make XBL on PC free). Microsoft would also have to loosen up their policies on XBL, they need to be as friendly/open as Valve or more to developers if they want to get money out of their service and support. Like the PC gamers the developers also have options so microsoft can't do crap like "WE'LL TAKE 70% OF ALL THE PROFIT YOU MAKE AND YOU CAN'T DO NOTHING ABOUT IT!!". The developers could simply give Microsoft the finger and release the game themselves and on other services.

Microsoft could greatly benefit from being open because as you see Valve is also alowing MMOs and Free to play games on their service and are only asking for a fair cut of money from anyone who buys micro transactions and etc off the steam versions. This is a win win for for Valve and the Developers since Steam will a very good way to market the game to new gamers and attract a lot of people while valve gets a cut in the profit since their service pratically advertised it.

Investing into some exclusives for PC that aren't MMO/RTS would be nice and I've noticed a lot developers Microsoft hires for Xbox 360 exclusives are PC developers. (Crytek, Epic Games, Lionhead, etc etc). With new players being introduced it should really boost the indie scene where indie developers start becoming bigger companies quicker and make big companies on the PC even bigger. In terms of Halo, PC gamers have long forgotten about it and are turning to titles such as Tribes Ascend which seems to be growing in popularity quickly since Tribes was the type of PC shooter we haven't seen in years since the glory days of Counter Strike, Quake and Unreal Tournament.

Microsoft should encourage companies to use APUs in their $300-$600 computers instead of intels usual crap intel IGPs. This could also boom and make HTPCs more gaming accessible a long with said earlier giving developers a form of hardware on pc they know to optimize seriously for.