Who will be the next hardware maker to exit the market?

[leods]

"I think they need more to attract hardcore Gamers."

 

By hardcore you mean the casual Mainstream crowd buying the annual crap games that are all the same every year?

[Andromeda Stardust]

"I think they need more to attract hardcore Gamers."

 

By hardcore you mean the casual Mainstream crowd buying the annual crap games that are all the same every year?

Yeah most of those games I keep seeing in the big MS/Sony commercials do absolutely zero to pique my interest. I loathe First Person Shooters personally and their twin stick mechanic. I believe the last truly good FPS was Goldeneye for the N64. Nowadays its all about getting headshots online.

 

Maybe the games that impress me don't impress the typical "core" gamer. If the gameplay is there, I'll buy it, whether it's blocky rectangles on a 30 year old console or gorgeous HD visuals. Nintendo makes fantastical fun games although they themselves have been slipping lately. I think the Wii-U would be around 20m right now with semi decent 3rd party support had Nintendo used some of it's cash reserves to advertise the crap out of the Wii-U during it's one year head start instead of sitting back expecting the console to sell itself.

[JamesD]

Well, Nintendo has been shoveling that stuff for decades. If it's what everyone wants why are their console sales last?
It doesn't take as fast of a machine to run those games.

[Bill Loguidice]

Yeah most of those games I keep seeing in the big MS/Sony commercials do absolutely zero to pique my interest. I loathe First Person Shooters personally and their twin stick mechanic. I believe the last truly good FPS was Goldeneye for the N64. Nowadays its all about getting headshots online.

 

Maybe the games that impress me don't impress the typical "core" gamer. If the gameplay is there, I'll buy it, whether it's blocky rectangles on a 30 year old console or gorgeous HD visuals. Nintendo makes fantastical fun games although they themselves have been slipping lately. I think the Wii-U would be around 20m right now with semi decent 3rd party support had Nintendo used some of it's cash reserves to advertise the crap out of the Wii-U during it's one year head start instead of sitting back expecting the console to sell itself.

 

Well, to be fair, those commercials are run because those are generally the biggest sellers, but the PS4 and Xbox One line-ups are actually incredibly diverse, with countless indies and alternative game genres. It's sort of like movies. While the blockbusters get all the advertisment, buzz, and majority of sales, there are plenty of other alternatives out there.

[KreatorKat]

I just don't see Nintendo leaving unless they make maybe 2 more massive slip-ups. Sony needs a few as well to give up PlayStation. Microsoft, however, could take a little less in losses before giving up, so I voted them. But all three are in a good spot long term right now, with Xbox One selling decently, PS4 setting records, and the 3DS deflecting some of the Wii U's losses.

[omegadot]

I feel like the market is so big at this point you don't need some crazy market share to make money. Nintendo churns out fantastic first party titles. While I've owned 3/4 Sony systems and 2/3 MS systems I'm not as aware of their first party support.

 

While I think many or most of us enjoy multiplayer gaming, many of us aren't concerned with KDR rankings anymore, making many of the highest selling titles not really a requirement. The age spread at this point seems far more balanced across the years. I know even the Wii U provides me with enough titles and the addition of practically any other system provides with me with a bit more balance. As it stands I think there's enough room for what is out there for a while. If steam manages to take root with it's awesome indy support and flexible console range things might get a bit crowded, forcing someone's hand but I'm not sure even that can do it.

 

Maybe it's informative that other forms of media providers like music studios, book publishers, movie studios, etc all manage to have a much more crowded market and maintain variety.

[Flojomojo]

Agreed. The market seems pretty healthy. I don't think many forums talk about "which is the next movie studio to die" like game people do. The business has changed a lot since Atari, Mattel, Coleco, Commodore, Sega, and others exited the market.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Agreed. The market seems pretty healthy. I don't think many forums talk about "which is the next movie studio to die" like game people do. The business has changed a lot since Atari, Mattel, Coleco, Commodore, Sega, and others exited the market.

Yeah. But video game profit margins for some of the 3rd party studios are razor thin. The game companies (besides Nintendo) mainly sell a platform that plays them and the network infrastructure that supports them. There are parallels, such as Movie Theater :: Arcade and Home Video :: Console Game.

 

But it's a different breed from movies. You've basically got DVD, BluRay, and streaming. It's not "Buy player from company A and have access to these movies. Buy player from company B and have access to those movies." Actually that's exactly how it played out during the BluRay/HDDVD format wars. Many consumers did not invest in either format until a winner was declared. With games, it is the exact opposite. You play Sony's games on a Sony. Nintendo's games on a Nintendo. Games, unlike movies, are only playable on one format and seldom get ported to new generations due to licensing hurdles, expense of porting over code, or plain disinterest.

 

So game companies cannot rely on back catalog sales because once a console is retired, that's it. And they aren't easily ported to one format to the next. So you bought Space Balls on VHS, DVD, and BluRay. Good for you. Aside from popular franchises like Super Mario Bros, Megaman, or Namco arcade classics like Pacman and Galaga, you don't see many comps or reissues. Yeah Nintendo has Virtual Console sure. But how much of the library got ported to new hardware as opposed to movies?

[Bill Loguidice]

I've often written about how the market changed since the last two Crashes (late 70s and then the big one just prior to the mid 80s). Those were still early days, with no real history to go by for guidance of what would and wouldn't work and lots of companies entering the market who either had no clue or no real financial standing (or both) to make a proper go of it, but did so anyway to get in on the "fad." And in fact that fad mentality was as much to blame as anything, with too many reckless decisions for a public still trying to get a grip on it all.

 

As we know, the industry on both sides, videogame and computer, consolidated to a few major players, and more or less what can reasonably be supported (and with what can be reasonably supported expanding over time as more and more consumers participate). That took several decades, of course. In that time, videogames (and computers) have evolved from relative niche items for "geeks" and "nerds" to items that are intractably part of everyday lives. Just like other forms of media are in no danger of going away for the forseeable future, videogames are clearly here to stay, regardless of the normal ups and down of various companies and the natural fluctuations in the market.

[Bill Loguidice]

So game companies cannot rely on back catalog sales because once a console is retired, that's it. And they aren't easily ported to one format to the next. So you bought Space Balls on VHS, DVD, and BluRay. Good for you. Aside from popular franchises like Super Mario Bros, Megaman, or Namco arcade classics like Pacman and Galaga, you don't see many comps or reissues. Yeah Nintendo has Virtual Console sure. But how much of the library got ported to new hardware as opposed to movies?

 

Generally speaking, and especially in comparison to other forms of media, we've done a relatively poor job in videogames of formally preserving our history. With that said, I think great strides have been made in the past decade towards this goal and I suspect it will only continue to improve. It's all part of the maturation of our industry. Of course, due to the uniquely interactive and hardware-specific nature of the media, preserving videogame and computer content has challenges far beyond the relatively straightforward digitizing and remastering of say a film-based movie or tape-based audio.

[InnovaX5]

Microsoft is abysmal sales wise in Japan. I can imagine a market in Japan where Microsoft doesn't exist in the hardware market but to say the same would happen in the US is ridiculous. The reverse side is the Wii U sales have been sub-par in America but it doesn't scratch Nintendo. They have such a strong hold on the American hand held market that the Vita never took off here. To think Any of them would stop making hardware any time soon is absurd.

I do see a shift coming in gaming but it isn't any of those companies going the way of Sega. The shift I see coming is the end of the physical game. Cloud storage for gaming platforms is the future. The need to not go to a store and have a brand new game download on your machine is becoming more and more normal. Steam established the digital library of DRM and it became a staple for many gamers. You combine that with the slow rise of the Steam Machine inching into the main stream and it all makes sense.

I'm someone who would always buy a physical copy over digital. It would bother me that the game wasn't on my shelf but I owned it. Now, it doesn't matter to me anymore. I don't have any fear of losing my digital games anymore than I do of my house being robbed or burnt down. I subscribe to Indiebox just because I like the concept of it and still do have a love for physical goods but I no longer limit myself to not have a digital copy of a game just because a physical copy exists.

I feel that Valve will enter the hardware market more. We'll see more Steam Machines come out at lower prices with better specs. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and Valve will be the wave of the future hardware wise. We may see Valve merge with one of those giants and have hardware that embraces Steam and say Xbox Live,

[Unbeliever]

Recently, I've also "opened up" to the experience of digital downloads. This works well for me in the Xbox 360 market, considering some of the games aren't available at my local Gamestop and I have no other way to obtain them (unless I ask on here). I downloaded Kingdoms of Amalur and it's DLC content and am loving every minute of the game, and don't really care at this point if I have a physcial copy on the shelf. My Xbox 360 is the latest model with a 500 gb hard drive, so plenty of space to put more games on it if I so choose.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still prefer physical copies, but more for the "older" systems than my 360. I really don't enjoy the "used" cases at Gamestop, and sometimes there's no other way to get the game unless it's one of Gamestop's, which I will pass on most of the time.

 

I'm not sure how much longer the marketplace will be "open" for Xbox 360 users, but while it's available, I intend to take full advantage of it and download when I see something I like.

[MotoRacer]

Wow. You guys must not be on my wavelength, haha, which is fine, I just disagree. If it wasn't for microsofts huge bank account, Xbox wouldn't still be around. They lost millions. Many millions. All through until half way through the 360's lifespan.

 

I personally feel Nintendo is safe. Sure, their system isn't doing great, but other than the wii's lightening in a bottle, their consoles haven't done well in over 20 years. Their handhelds sell like always, but more importantly, unlike the other two, they have franchises that will literally never die. Sony has ratchet, uncharted, used to have wipeout, lbp, and GT. Some good series, but I honestly doubt uncharted will be around forever like a Mario game would, and GT has heavy competition now. Xbox has gears, forza and halo. Nearly everything else...seriously.... Is multi plat or on PC.

 

Sony is the one with huge financial woes. And if you know anyone who works for their non gaming divisions, ask them. It's dire. Yes PlayStation is very popular, and a great brand, but it's not enough to inflate a company as large as Sony in the long run. Nintendo by comparison has much less dead weight. They make less, but they have less debt, less expenses, and less weighing them down.

 

Xbox isn't going unless Microsoft becomes disinterested. Period. They simply can't go out of business. But Sony could. Tv sales are down. They spun off their PC line. Phones are doing terrible. Don't even ask about film.

 

Not saying Nintendo is the juggernaut it once was. Just that it can healthily service as a smaller company , and has the cash to keep them going for generations worth of bad selling ideas, with the best ip line up in gaming history.

 

I chuckle when I see people think they're going next. Been hearing that since I was a kid when everyone was in love with the Genesis. And I've heard it each generation since.

 

I'm still waiting.

Edited January 8, 2016 by MotoRacer

[Bill Loguidice]

Wow. You guys must not be on my wavelength, haha, which is fine, I just disagree. If it wasn't for microsofts huge bank account, Xbox wouldn't still be around. They lost millions. Many millions. All through until half way through the 360's lifespan.

 

That's the case for all latter day consoles, though. They're massive investments that don't start to pay off until several years into their lifespans. That's why we've only had Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft with major system releases over the past 15 years. While I wouldn't want to go back to a time when we had a half dozen or more consoles on the market, I'm glad we still have three major choices. It helps to force innovation and more consumer-friendly actions.

 

As for your comments about Nintendo, they're a publicly traded company and have to answer to investors, so no, they can't lose money for "generations." If things go bad for them for extended periods, they WILL have to answer with a change in business plan, just like any other company, and just like they've already started doing (for instance, with their mobile app initiatives). The same of course applies to Sony and Microsoft, and we've certainly see more than our fair of changes at those respective companies for the very same reason.

[Mord]

 

That's the case for all latter day consoles, though. They're massive investments that don't start to pay off until several years into their lifespans.

 

Most latter day consoles didn't need to drop 3 billion into their refund program to keep gamers interested in their console long enough for them to fix a costly red ring of death issue however. I doubt any other company could have bankrolled that kind of write off and continued on it's merry way.

 

Seriously, for those xbox gamers who had their 360 die multiple times from the dreaded red ring of death. If getting a replacement out of Microsoft was like pulling teeth, or came at a 100-200+ dollar fee - would you have kept buying games on the system? We have some people here on the forums that went through over half a dozen of returns for that reason alone. If the 360 was done by any other company, it likely would have failed simply because they wouldn't have been able to pay their way through that red ring issue.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

Most latter day consoles didn't need to drop 3 billion into their refund program to keep gamers interested in their console long enough for them to fix a costly red ring of death issue however. I doubt any other company could have bankrolled that kind of write off and continued on it's merry way.

 

Seriously, for those xbox gamers who had their 360 die multiple times from the dreaded red ring of death. If getting a replacement out of Microsoft was like pulling teeth, or came at a 100-200+ dollar fee - would you have kept buying games on the system? We have some people here on the forums that went through over half a dozen of returns for that reason alone. If the 360 was done by any other company, it likely would have failed simply because they wouldn't have been able to pay their way through that red ring issue.

 

That proves the point rather than disputes it. You need deep, deep pockets, preferably with healthy sources of income outside of videogames, to survive the various ups and downs (and that lack of similar financial resolve was one reason why the Crash was so devastating to the industry). It's among many reasons that Nintendo is trying to diversify their portfolio outside of pure videogames moreso these days than they've done in decades.

[Mord]

I wasn't in particularly trying to support or dispute the point rather than add my two cents worth. I do agree you need a lot of cash for a modern day console. Although it seems to me it's more a few million for console development, and a few billion for DRM implementation. But then the amount of cash available determines what kinds of holes you can afford to fall into. If either Nintendo or Sony had released the 360, I personally doubt they'd still be in the console industry today. So it's a good thing those two at least tend to make sure their hardware works well before selling it.

[MotoRacer]

 

That's the case for all latter day consoles, though. They're massive investments that don't start to pay off until several years into their lifespans. That's why we've only had Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft with major system releases over the past 15 years. While I wouldn't want to go back to a time when we had a half dozen or more consoles on the market, I'm glad we still have three major choices. It helps to force innovation and more consumer-friendly actions.

 

As for your comments about Nintendo, they're a publicly traded company and have to answer to investors, so no, they can't lose money for "generations." If things go bad for them for extended periods, they WILL have to answer with a change in business plan, just like any other company, and just like they've already started doing (for instance, with their mobile app initiatives). The same of course applies to Sony and Microsoft, and we've certainly see more than our fair of changes at those respective companies for the very same reason.

The comment was strictly describing how much they have available in the bank, not what responsibility they have to their shareholders.

 

And I think you misread my comment regarding Microsoft. They lost money until over half way through the 360 lifespan. Get it? That means the Xbox, the original one, never made any money. So for the better part of at least ten years (2001 until at least 2012 or 13 or so) all Xbox did for Microsoft was lose them tens of millions of dollars. Not many other companies could sustain that other than Microsoft. Had nothing to do with a console becoming profitable after a couple years, like most systems, which is what I think you thought I meant. We're taking about the brand itself across nearly two whole generations.

[MotoRacer]

Tried to check my dates. In 2014 the Xbox division had 1.7 billion in revenue. Costs were 2.1 billion. So they were in 400m in the red in 2014 according to Forbes. But since Xbox is bundled with their smartphone division and other side projects, those numbers are guesses as it's hard to approximate the exact money Xbox is contributing or losing. But the point is the same be it 2 million or 400 million. It makes them no money. It's just about branding for Microsoft and getting you to buy their other products that work in their windows family of products. By comparison Nintendo has 10.5 billion in the bank as of 2012. Obviously Microsoft has MUCH more money in the bank, but if we are just comparing gaming division with gaming company, Nintendo is actually doing better.

 

Now to be fair, PlayStation makes more than double of what Xbox and Nintendo make combined. But then Sony as a company bleeds in every other division.

 

All in all, no one is going anywhere. All for different reasons. Xbox isn't going anywhere because Microsoft is too big to fail, PlayStation makes too much money for Sony to ever be discontinued unless Sony itself is dead, and Nintendo makes less money than its competitors but has a lot of Capitol to play around with as it has only gaming divisions to pay for it worry about.

 

Now can we go back to making fun of Coleco?

Edited January 8, 2016 by MotoRacer

[Andromeda Stardust]

This race to the top specwise while operating in the minus bullcrap is not sustainable. Wanna know how Nintendo survives so well in third place? They put money into making games rather than boosting hardware specs.

 

Look at the 3DO, JagCD. Failures due to sticker shock. 80s computers were easily worth $2000 or more in today's dollars, yet consoles with their cost reduced parts were in every home. The modern strategy of produce the most powerful hardware and sell at the cheapest price and hope each user buys enough over-priced games to offset the costs is a corporate gamble.

 

The game company relies on the studios to earn their money back. And the games studios often put budgets into making games that rival hollywood blockbusters. But is a studio bankrupts itself on a flop game at retail, it is not concern to the hardware makers as long as they get their royalties.

 

Add to that the upcoming of digital distribution and decline of retail stores that depend on physical sales. The retail outlets won't push your systems if they can't sell games for it. I predict a huge market crash in 2017-2018 time line. Cheap mobile pay as you play will be all that's left, and I will be a sad panda...

[Bill Loguidice]

This race to the top specwise while operating in the minus bullcrap is not sustainable. Wanna know how Nintendo survives so well in third place? They put money into making games rather than boosting hardware specs.

 

But Nintendo is not surviving so well anymore. And they did invest in hardware specs with the Wii U, just arguably not in the right places. A lot of their dev went into the touchscreen controller, which failed to resonate. And yes, Nintendo, moreso than Sony or Microsoft, is reliant on producing first party software, but of course they're not able to produce enough to offset the dearth of third party software. Nintendo's failings with the Wii U are as much about execution as it is about other factors.

 

Anyway, the so-called "race to the top specwise" not being sustainable is a ridiculous statement. It's almost always been a "race to the top specwise" and it needs to be for a product expected to last at least five years on the market. The Wii flamed out early for a variety of reasons, but one of those was being too far behind the curve technologically. Your system has to be capable of playing what the other systems are playing, otherwise you're too far off in your own niche.

 

Your other statements, that I didn't quote, are also too pessimistic. There's no danger of a "huge market crash" because there's no real sign that the industry isn't healthy. That doesn't mean the landscape won't change, for instance, with interest in dedicated gaming handhelds declining in recent years - and maybe even dedicated consoles as we know them eventually following suit - but it would be a stretch to say that this particular market segment won't simply continue to evolve along with consumer tastes. Videogames are here to stay.

[MotoRacer]

Honestly, I could see any console, powerful or not, going away one day. PC gaming has become much more accepted in the last couple years than ever before, and it seems PCs are getting nearly every non exclusive, and people are realizing you can build a cheap computer that produces better graphics, and will fit in your living room comfortably. And heck, most exclusives (non Nintendo) quietly get PC ports. Like street fighter v, killer instinct, etc.

 

While I think the screen feature of the Wii u ultimately caused its demise due to cost, I do feel console makers will have to take a page from Nintendo and start coming out with better reasons to prove to customers that consoles are still relevant. It used to be because consoles were plug and play. But with all the multi gig updates, patches, installs etc, plus having to pay for online access unlike PC, there are more downsides than ever before to buy a 400 dollar PlayStation than a 400 dollar PC.

 

PlayStation and Xbox need to make gamers excited about a console again and show a clear reason why it needs to be what customers purchase instead of the rapidly popular PC platform. And frankly, to a much lesser extent, Nintendo needs to do the same. It's time they showed gamers the features they've lacked for far too long.

 

The future is a land grab. Who knows what will happen. If Nintendo is smart I could see the nx being a home run for them. If not, they could be up a certain creek. And if Microsoft and Sony keep only doing more powerful systems with no unique features, pcs could easily become the preferred platform for game development.

[Andromeda Stardust]

 

 

Your other statements, that I didn't quote, are also too pessimistic. There's no danger of a "huge market crash" because there's no real sign that the industry isn't healthy. That doesn't mean the landscape won't change, for instance, with interest in dedicated gaming handhelds declining in recent years - and maybe even dedicated consoles as we know them eventually following suit - but it would be a stretch to say that this particular market segment won't simply continue to evolve along with consumer tastes. Videogames are here to stay.

I wasn't suggesting a crash will spell doom for the industry at large. The last major market crash was in 1983-84. Nearly all of the "old guard" ceased to exist, but from the ashes cleared the path for Nintendo to dominate with a near monopoly.

 

The dotcom bubble and subsequent crash around 2000 led the way for pioneers like Google, Amazon, eBay, etc to create a thriving and sustainable online ecosystem.

 

The concept of consoles or handhelds may not be sustainable against mobile going into the future, but gaming isn't going away. As much as I like the idea of a microconsole, these things continue to falter at the market. Nintendo is mergig their console and handheld teirs into a unified platform with the to be announced NX, which I am convinced will be a hybrid mobile / set top experience running on ARM tech.

 

The second market crash will be a changing of the guard so to speak, as it is becoming more and more apparent that the concept of the "game console" as established by Atari, Sega, Nintendo, Sony, and MS may not be sustainable through the ninth generation. There will be an industry shakedown, so to speak, and something new and different will emerge. At the moment, it isn't clear what that will be.

 

Look at the dinosaurs. Were it not for the cataclysm that wiped them out, humans would not exist. Gaming is in constant evolution, and sometimes you need that asteroid or comet or whatever to clean the slate for something better to come along.

[leods]

Wow. You guys must not be on my wavelength, haha, which is fine, I just disagree. If it wasn't for microsofts huge bank account, Xbox wouldn't still be around. They lost millions. Many millions. All through until half way through the 360's lifespan.

 

I personally feel Nintendo is safe. Sure, their system isn't doing great, but other than the wii's lightening in a bottle, their consoles haven't done well in over 20 years. Their handhelds sell like always, but more importantly, unlike the other two, they have franchises that will literally never die. Sony has ratchet, uncharted, used to have wipeout, lbp, and GT. Some good series, but I honestly doubt uncharted will be around forever like a Mario game would, and GT has heavy competition now. Xbox has gears, forza and halo. Nearly everything else...seriously.... Is multi plat or on PC.

 

I find this comment interesting. So GT has competition, but Mario doesn't? I know Mario is pretty good, but since Super Mario World I know of no 2D Mario that's great. I agree Mario will be around forever, just because it's iconic. Uncharted is a PS3 property, it doesn't have nearly the same ammount of time Mario had out there, but even if Nathan drake is just some generic crappy Hollywood waste of time, MArio as a character is hardly any better.

 

If something Sony keeps actually reinventing itself, making actual new properties that are more fit to the new gaming market. Nintendo is still using Mario, a character developed to work well on an arcade game from the 80s, still being used in modern HD 3D games, just because it's "iconic".

 

Mario is just as iconic as Pac man, and pac man hasn't have a good game in a while. Well, it has Championship Edition.

 

I think there's a ridiculously unfair perception of Quality in Nintendo games. They're not bad for sure, but they're mostly not very great, and for the most part really don't justify the Price tag, much less the purchase of a console. Bringing up Mario as if 2 games one of witch is kinda mediocre, as the reason why Nintendo has an edge on Sony really doesn't add up. Maybe for you MArio is the be all end all of gaming, but when I Play Dark Souls, and afterwards I Play some Mario, I want to cry. I just wish Nintendo went back to their roots of actually making the best game they can, and not some kiddy friendly casual middle ground game. Dark Souls is what the new Zelda game should be. But if in the NES it was fine to make the Player live the adventure with all the frustrations involved, now it isn't.

 

The first Mario, and even the third one, were full of discovery, were new. That's why they're iconic. Now it really is: "another mario". At least the 3D stuff seems to be good. Still not something I see sucking People in for 300 hours or more, creating a huge community, and actually generating creative progressive gameplay and game design. Somthing Fighting games have been doing, and so have Monster Hunter, Souls games, DoTA, FPS games etc.. And then People will bring up Smash bros, that's exactly the most casual, kiddy friendly, dumbed down game Franchise that's ever been successful. No other Company would get away with doing such a fighting game. But that's nintendo's edge. They can do whatever the heck they want, and even if the game sucks People can just Claim it's "fun". Yeah, fun is 100% subjective. I can say eating dirt is fun. If I'm biased or brainwashed enough I'll even justify buying an Xbox one.

 

But screw all that. Nintendo was innovative 20 years ago, so who cares about Sony's garbage. It's not iconic.

 

I know the rant sounds agressive, but that's not the Point. I still think Nintendo Has the best next gen console still, although third parties are making the PS4 more and more a better Proposition.

 

My Problem is that for new stuff, for new products comming out today, and to push this industry Forward we absolutely Need to take off the damned nostalgia glasses, drop the fanboysm and try to see things for what they are. Overall PC is just destroying the other platforms in Terms of Hardware and Distribution, and third Party developers are humiliating the bit 3 in Terms of Quality and specially creativity in their games. Who will leave the market first? None of them, because they'll Keep making Money for a while (or just Keep their brand recognition in the case of MS, they make no Money but their Name is out there. Xbox is their gaming Marketing division). Who SHOULD leave the market? All 3. They brought NOTHING to the table with their Hardware this Generation. There is no reason whatsoever why anyone should have their crap.

 

I just wish gaming was less of a casual Hobby for People who don't actually give a damn about gaming. It it was taking at least a bit seriously we wouldn't be lead around by this companies like this. PC is the salvation, and the big word of the Moment is RGB leds. Seriously. Screw Gamers. Is this the best we can do?

[Unbeliever]

It's kinda strange...I went off the NIntendo wagon awhile back to focus on collecting and playing my Xbox 360 and it's myriads of games out there. Games like Dragons Dogma, Kingdoms of Amalur, South Park: The Stick of Truth, and yes, the Halo series is what I really want to "game" now. My Atari 2600 still gets plenty of play time, too, and I'm most happy with both of these and have no desire to get an Xbox One or Playstation 4. There was a time when I had to have the latest game system, but not anymore. The option to purchase them isn't in my reach, nor have I seen anything that really excites me. I seem perfectly happy playing Asteroids than whatever new game is on the Xbone.

 

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo was an absolute favorite of mine, but I really tired of Animal Crossing, Link, and yes, even Mario. I've played them all since the NES days and now I want something else. I'm not sure what happened, but I don't regret the decision to collect for the Xbox 360. Mario still "calls" to me once in awhile, but I'm finding I can now ignore him without regret.