I'm not saying Sony and Nintendo don't push the business side of it. No one can reasonably expect them not to. Just that they seem to push more new gaming Ip's into the market. Nintendo relies a bit more on their staples, but they make some of the best games out there. Almost all(but not all) of MS gaming ventures seem more on how it can push their brand to be better than the other. I guess in actual practice, that's what all of them do in some way, just MS seems much more blatant about it.

I don't know if I think any one cares more about me as a gamer than the other. I just feel that Sony in particular, and Nintendo in some way, provide more for me and other gamers, while MS tends to focus on a very narrow selection of gamers. First it was the dudebro types, then it was the casuals, whereas Nintendo and Sony tend to provide more high profile releases to a more diverse group. Nintendo maybe less so since they focus on their more recognizable IP's, but they do have more uniqueness to their brand of games than MS or Sony do. That's why I like MS current direction because I feel they are trying to diversify their line up, and I'm all for encouraging that...just the impact of that hasn't really been influential to me yet.

The fact that Nintendo just kind of does their own thing, to me, means more that that's what they want to provide that for gaming, whereas MS tends to focus on narrower target audiences, and Sony tends to have a lot more variety. Each method has it's own merits, just Nintendo and Sony have more relevance to me, and my comment was meant to be about my personal thoughts, and not speaking on general consensus.

That's really all I'm trying to say.

I don't really want to get into a point counterpoint on "sony does it too", because that's not what my comment was referring to. MS itself has done plenty of good things, released plenty of good games, and has in some ways helped push things forward faster than they would have otherwise come about. For that they should be recognized, and I myself have recognized them for it against those who would not give them credit for it.

Despite all that, I personally wouldn't miss MS in the actual hardware market, because their games overall haven't had that much impact on me. I would miss them as a publisher, because I do feel they make quality games that many people like, and I wouldn't want to deny people those games at all. It's more that I just don't personally feel that the hardware side of things overall is really that imperative to what they actually release.

It's just a personal thing though, and I'm sure others have different feelings on the Xbox hardware, and probably would miss it in the market, and because of them, I wouldn't want to personally see the Xbox console leave the market, because that would just be selfish and serve no purpose to me on any level. I wouldn't feel vindicated or have any sort of self-gratifying moment should that come to pass, despite some people these past few days feeling that's my intention with my comments.

On a side note, sometimes it helps not to think of me as a rampant fan boy, because I'm really not, and much more level headed than my comments usually portray. I can be opinionated, but I try to make it clear when I'm speaking from a personal viewpoint and when I'm talking in generalities to argue a point, because the way I frame my comment will be different for each. I feel some people think I go at everything from a generally speaking viewpoint, which gives the wrong impression.

rainslacker
"I'm not saying Sony and Nintendo don't push the business side of it. No one can reasonably expect them not to. Just that they seem to push more new gaming Ip's into the market."

give me a break, microsoft has already announced and/or released more new ip's for the xbox one than nintendo has for the wii u.

"I don't know if I think any one cares more about me as a gamer than the other. I just feel that Sony in particular, and Nintendo in some way, provide more for me and other gamers, while MS tends to focus on a very narrow selection of gamers."

not that accurate really aside from the more depth from japanese studios since the xbox brand stinks over there but it still gets support from sqaure, namco and others.

"The fact that Nintendo just kind of does their own thing, to me, means more that that's what they want to provide that for gaming, whereas MS tends to focus on narrower target audiences, and Sony tends to have a lot more variety. Each method has it's own merits, just Nintendo and Sony have more relevance to me, and my comment was meant to be about my personal thoughts, and not speaking on general consensus."

sounds more like you are narrowing the gap to things like jrpg's to suit your own argument.

"I don't really want to get into a point counterpoint on "sony does it too", because that's not what my comment was referring to."

you basically said is if microsoft exited you wouldn't miss them meaning they don't really cater to your needs. that's fine but that really opens up the door for questions since the plastation and xbox brand are so similar in what each offers.

"Despite all that, I personally wouldn't miss MS in the actual hardware market, because their games overall haven't had that much impact on me. I would miss them as a publisher, because I do feel they make quality games that many people like, and I wouldn't want to deny people those games at all. It's more that I just don't personally feel that the hardware side of things overall is really that imperative to what they actually release."

the same can be said about nintendo and sony and many already want nintendo to go third party because their hardware often counters to what consumers want. and the ps4 doesn't really provide us with anything that can't be found on the pc. sony isn't really offering anything unique there.

"It's just a personal thing though, and I'm sure others have different feelings on the Xbox hardware..."

the consumer wins if you have a strong marketplace with real competition. would the ps3 dropped in price so rapidly if it wasn't for the xbox 360? would psn have improved as quickly if it wasn't for xbox live? would sony continue to make difficult hardware for game developers if it wasn't for the xbox 360 being the lead platform for many western games?

"On a side note, sometimes it helps not to think of me as a rampant fan boy, because I'm really not, and much more level headed than my comments usually portray. "

you have shown no signs of being a rabid fanboy and i will continue to respect your opinion. there is nothing wrong with preferring sony over microsoft. i would be the first to admit they do a much better job at marketing their products worldwide. they also have better game studios as a whole but i'd hate to see it just be sony and nintendo.

Woah woah slow down guys lol. Xbox hasn't died!

People are so quick to write off Xbox all of a sudden because QB is on PC?? Lol come on. I know its wishful thinking on the part of some here but don't jump the gun.

Both Xbox and PS4 are basically PCs. There's no war, just sibling rivalry or a clone fight.

Here comes Moldy and Spetic for damage control department.

@Moldy

-New IP's

You're right. I think being a WiiU/3DS owner, I often don't distinguish the two, A lot of their support is more on the handheld Outside a few notableexceptions, the WiiU keeps to the staples

-providing for gamers

This is more down to diversity. I'm sure Xbox gamers find MS IP exclusives more to their tastes. I just feel that Nintendo/Sony, offer up more variety. Some of that is internal to 1st/2nd party, some is due to the breadth of support you mention. Most Japanese Xbox support comes more in the vein of games meant for western release. On the PS brand, those games can do reasonably well, and find a nice home with a solid fan base.

-narrowing the gap

I think Nintendo provides nice variety overall, a lot of that is focused on 3DS however. WiiU had some surprises this gen, but I was speaking more of overall content. WiiU doesn't receive the same 3rd party love that PS has. The WiiU isn't really a mainstream console IMO, but Nintendo wanted to make it a thing, and to them, they offered what they thought would be appealing to the customer. I feel that direction was more about trying to not compete directly, but rather bring something different to gaming. In respect to my original comment, it's actions like these that make it seem like they are less business oriented, but rather approach it from the ideal of furthering gaming in general, or trying to expand it.

Sony vs. MS et al.

No, MS doen't cater to my needs, which is why I wouldn't miss them. Overall, I'd say what they offer in terms of hardware and system services is about equal, and since I care almost nothing about most of the added value features or services, I base my comment on what games are available on each. I would miss the PS games, and Nintendo games, but not the MS games so much. MS does have a lot of quality games, but they just aren't usually the kind that make me excited to get day one, although I'm usually pleased with them when I do play them.

I feel if any left the hardware market, I'd really hope they'd go third party. I wouldn't want to see any of them leave the gaming market altogether, and my comment was strictly about the hardware itself. I should have been specific about that.

Competition

Overall, I'd agree with you on this point. Competition has more benefits for the consumer than it has drawbacks. Most annoying thing about the competition has been the timed/brought exclusives, and the console wars which erupted surrounding it all. I will 100% agree that MS kicked the idea of features and services on console into overdrive, forcing Sony and Nintendo to adapt and grow quicker, and their sudden growth in the market is what caused that, and that was a good thing for PS, and Nintendo gamers. However, at the same time, the idea that competition is absolutely necessary for a healthy market is not always true, and has been proven that it isn't absolutely necessary. Competition is important for change though, which is why I would not really like to see a one console market, but don't see all doom for the consumer should one be dominate.

@Septic

Xbox isn't dead, nor is it likely to die. A paradigm is changing for 1st party published releases is all. It can be interesting and discussed rationally, or people can batten down the hatches and go into full defense mode assuming everyone is trying to spell doom and gloom for MS and the Xbox brand.

Agreed. MS needs to focus on making money, not "wars" I see no reason to make less money just to sell a plastic box that actually makes then less money then software.

Who is making wars? Sony fanboys doing the exact same thing they complained about last gen..... Its a cycle. I own a PS4, mostly for playing FIFA with family in Ireland and exclusives only on PS, own an Xbox for games I love on Xbox, and own laptop for the odd game and Football Manager.... Theres a place for everything, and happy there are choices..... If you like to follow the sheep, that is your business.....

That isn't a war... That's a walk in the park for PC.

Miyamoto, I am sure $ony have there own plans too.... $ony are also in it for the money.... They messed up so much witn $ony PS3, they had to severely $uck up to gullible gamers.

@Khaotic

Please then, educate me on what XBL subs have to do with the hardware, and why they can't gain that revenue using other methods.

You know...Sony's licensing out PSNow to hardware vendors. Guess what they're getting from it....revenue.

Same principal for MS, just with a different implementation of more robust hardware and Windows being put onto more devices. It's not a hard concept to understand. That's about as simple as I can put it for what I'm saying MS may do in the future.

Please also educate yourself to understand when I say leave the hardware market, it doesn't mean they'll drop the Xbox brand, simply change the way they approach the hardware market.

My speculation is based on a myriad of factors, and I may be wrong and 100% will say that it's merely speculation and just a possibility.

You not discussing it rationally is you being devoid any any kind of rational argument, and has no bearing on the weight of my argument, because I give my reasons using logical thought based on previously mentioned factors. The exact factors I base my reasons on are spelled out in the comments you keep replying to with no actual argument to counter other than one fact which has nothing to do with my comment.

If you don't like what I have to say, there is an ignore button. You're free to use it. I use different words, but the reasonings are the same, and you have yet to provide any sort of reasons why those reasons are wrong.

None of this may come to pass. I may be completely wrong. So what? Do you care to discuss the possibility, or simply dismiss the possibility? If it's the latter, then why bother to keep replying to me? Seems like a waste of your time if I have nothing to say which you can use for discussion.

Your goal seems more to be discrediting me than it is to actually discuss anything. Guess that's par for the course around here though.