Last week, I went over the debate over physical and digital copies and talked about the strengths and weaknesses of each. Like the previous debates, one side’s strength is the other side’s weakness. Physical copies are better for those who want to own games and use less storage space on gaming systems while digital copies are better for buying at any time and downloading at any time.
This week’s debate is the last debate. Unlike the two different types of games, I’m going over three companies and what they differ in. Since this site is a gaming website, I will be comparing and contrasting the primary companies in the gaming industry, which are Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
Video games have existed since the dawn of the computer age, but it wasn’t until 1983 when Nintendo released their very first home console, the Family Computer (or the Famicom for short). The US picked it up in 1985 as the Nintendo Entertainment System (or NES). Sony entered the gaming industry in 1994 with the first competitive console in the gaming industry, the PlayStation (currently known as the PlayStation 1). When the GameCube and PlayStation 2 came out, Microsoft joined the gaming industry too, with their system called the Xbox. For about 14 years, these three businesses competed with each other based on who has the best console of the generation. Nintendo tries to be more unique and changes over time. Sony attempts copying Nintendo while coming up with a lot of franchises that don’t last long. Microsoft tends to limit themselves to older audiences.
There are 13 issues this time, and there is a side that is neither a winner nor loser in each debate.
Issue #1 – Variety in Exclusives
The first issue is about video games that are exclusive to each system. On each side, there are three parties. First party games are games made by the head company. Examples include Mario and Zelda. Second party games aren’t made by the head company, but are made by one of the acquisitions to the head company. Examples include Pokémon and Kirby. Third party games are made by outside developers that make games for more than one system. Examples include Star Wars and Lego. Exclusives are games from both first party and second party developers.
Let’s take a look at Nintendo’s exclusive library. It appears that Nintendo is famous for the mascot character, Mario. The Super Mario Series is a huge franchise, and also the largest video game franchise in history. It has a couple of platformers, five 3D platformers, and several spin-offs. It had Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Mario Kart, and Mario Party. Plus, there are a few spin-off series based on other characters, which includes Donkey Kong, Wario, Luigi, and Yoshi. Another major franchise is the Legend of Zelda. There are couple handheld games like Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks, as well as console games like Twilight Princess and Majora’s Mask. What other franchises are there? They have Animal Crossing, Star Fox, Metroid, and Smash. Plus, they have the second party games of Pokémon and Kirby. Nintendo has a lot of spirit, as they include a lot of franchises.
Now how does Sony look? They have a lot of exclusive franchises like Nintendo too. Back in the PS1 era, there was Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon, and a few other franchises from the dawn of PlayStation. There were more introduced in the PS2 era, and even more in the PS3 era. They not only have a lot of franchises like Nintendo does, but they have franchises for specific age groups. Franchises like Jak & Daxter, Sly Cooper, and Ratchet & Clank were more appealing to kids while franchises like Uncharted, inFAMOUS, and Resistance were towards adult gamers. Plus, they are a lot nicer on third party games, which adds even more. Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts were more third party, but they have leaned towards the Sony side for a while. And that’s not all. During the PS3 era, they came out with the very first game that is solely on game creation and publishing – Little Big Planet.
Now moving onto Microsoft. Well, what do they have? It appears that they don’t have too many exclusive franchises towards Microsoft. The best-known ones are Halo and Gears of War. They also had Rare games for a while, but they aren’t as good when they worked for Microsoft as they did for Nintendo. So some people think it’s the system that only plays Halo. That’s not true. They have others. Even so, their exclusive library is pretty bland because it’s full of first person shooters and rated M games.
So who wins this round? It’s obvious that Microsoft loses since their aren’t too many exclusive franchises as the only ones they have are quite similar, even if they don’t relate to each other (just like how Star Wars doesn’t relate to Star Trek). So the battle is between Sony and Nintendo. Even if Nintendo has more branches than Sony, it would be an easy win for Sony since Nintendo has fewer parent franchises as they only target kids. Sony has been moving to the adult side over time, but they still made kiddie games. Winner: Sony; Loser: Microsoft.
Issue #2 – Longevity of Exclusive Franchises
Last issue was on variety, but how much charm does every franchise from one side have? How long do they last before they stop coming out with new games or when they decline in quality.
Let’s go back to Nintendo. It turns out that their franchises had a lot of charm from the very beginning, and they still have some charm. Mario is an old video game franchise, at 30 years old (which is considered old for a video game franchise since video games barely existed before 1980). It also serves as Nintendo’s main series as Mario is the mascot. Another old franchise that is still getting new games is The Legend of Zelda. Starting back in February 1986, it appeared to last a while without going downhill. Pokémon started back in 1995, and it remained to be a popular franchise. With 720+ creatures in 15+ elements, this franchise was able to last 20 years and still continue. There are some other franchises at age 10 and up that still get more games. Animal Crossing is one of them.
Now what about Sony. Despite having a better variety of exclusive franchises, it doesn’t seem to have very many long lasting franchises. I don’t know if Crash is getting anymore games, but I know some game franchises from the PS2 era and PS3 era are dead. Sly Cooper was unable to get a new game that was good after Sly 3. inFAMOUS: Second Son didn’t do as well as inFAMOUS. Little Big Planet is already dead. Their older games are now old and losing popularity, LBPK and LBPV failed, and LBP3 did more poorly than the previous games at launch. Not only that, but their franchises don’t have too much charm. You can ask a non-gamer about who Link or Pikachu are, and they’ll understand what you’re talking about. But there are a handful of casual gamers (still gamers) that do not know very much about the Sony franchises, even the more recognized ones like Uncharted. Even I don’t think the franchises are as good. In my opinion, Sly Cooper is the best video game franchise on the Sony side. inFAMOUS is pretty hot, and so is Uncharted. I used to have interest in Little Big Planet, but it has gone downhill as I’m not longer an LBP fan like I used to be two years ago (or six years ago when I started to play the games). And I don’t care too much about the other franchises at all.
Microsoft may have a few franchises, but they still have charm. Halo started back in 2001 (the year the original Xbox came out), and still made games today without going downhill. Halo is to Microsoft as Mario is to Nintendo. Sony doesn’t really have a mascot character or mascot franchise, at least a permanent one.
So it appears that Sony has a larger variety of franchises, but not even one that could last a long time without hiatus, decline, or cancellation. And we all know about Nintendo and their franchises. Winner: Nintendo; Loser: Sony.
Issue #3 – Third Party Support
The other types of games made for each system are the third party games. Third party developers/publishers mostly include Activision, EA Games, Capcom, Sega, and the defunct company of THQ. They don’t have their home consoles (Sega used to, but now only makes games), but they do make games for each of the big three game companies (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft). Let’s see how they are with third party support.
Nintendo has a good variety of exclusive franchises and long-lasting franchises. However, they have a weak spot as well. They have a poor third-party support. For the past four consoles (Wii U included), they don’t have too many third-party games, at least compared to their competitors. Their innovative purposes and uniqueness is their downfall in terms of third party games. Nintendo 64 had cartridges rather than discs. Cartridges are more expensive to mass produce than discs. Not only that, but cartridges don’t hold as much data as discs do. Therefore, N64 has a very small library of games. The GameCube had controllers with analog triggers and confusing layout. Plus, the discs for the GameCube are small. The Wii, while being just as normal as the PS3 and Xbox 360, requires exercise to play rather than using normal controllers. And the Wii U was the most hated console by third party developers. The idea of a handheld-console hybrid scares most third party developers from making games for it, and now they refuse to make games because of its failure. Aside to the console problem, Nintendo doesn’t really like accepting third party games since they want to be unique from the rest of the developers in the gaming industry. But most gamers prefer a large third party library.
Sony, unlike Nintendo, tends to be a lot better when it comes to third party support. They have been that way since the PS1 era. Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, and Metal Gear Solid were all third party classics that only appeared on the PlayStation during the PS1 era. They had more third party games in the PS2 era, and even the PS3 era. Sony has always been more welcome to third party games, and their home consoles are more regular than Nintendo’s.
Microsoft would have to be the king of this debate. While they lack a good variety of exclusives, third party support is their biggest strength. Most of the Xbox games are third party games. Granted, that would mean more shooters, but their third party support is how they get rated E and rated T games. That, and there are some third party games that were only on the Xbox systems (I’m gonna need more information to prove this point).
So who wins this one. Nintendo may be good with exclusives, but their systems mostly limit to third party games nowadays. Sony and Microsoft have third party games, but Microsoft is mostly third party games. Winner: Microsoft; Loser: Nintendo.
Issue #4 – Fanbases
This wouldn’t prove which system is better, but if fans are your biggest issue, all of them have fanbases that are equally bad. Not all fans on each fanbase are bad, but there are a lot of them that are. The radicals think their systems are more superior, trash other people for not agreeing with them, are very arrogant, and are heavily addicted to games.
Aside to that, here are a few other weaknesses of each fanbase:
- Xbox fans – very competitive players, loud and obnoxious, stuck up to one genre of video games (mostly first-person shooters), and take graphics way too seriously.
- Nintendo fans – scornful of modern-day graphics and mechanics, oppose mainstream gaming, keep old franchises alive when they are overdone (most typically Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon), and stuck up to older games as they think they were better in their days.
- PlayStation fans – disrespectful towards other consoles, scornful of fans that support Nintendo or Microsoft, think that Sony is more innovative and creative when they [Sony] really aren’t, and are dismissive of Sony’s failures and disadvantages.
Yes, I know that those are stereotypes, and stereotypes are bad for society, but we should be grateful of what the developers give us, even if they are bad games. Plus, when something has phased out, it’s time to move on. It’s still kinda true that Nintendo fans tend to stick to older games or franchises while PlayStation and Xbox fans prefer moving on and throwing out older games, but not everybody is the same way. And yes, gamers these days tend to stop playing some video games forever once they are finished with the video games.
While there are bad people from one base, there are a bunch of nice people from each base as well. But people these days tend to be more negative than positive, and that is what’s making each fanbase look bad. Whether or not you want to be with more mature people, all fanbases have serious problems. Winner: Tied; Loser: Tied.
Issue #5 – Experience in the Gaming Industry
The previous issues were more about the games they make and the fans that use their products, but most of these issues are more about their organizations and their products as we look into the advantages and disadvantages. The next issue is on each of the competitors and how much experience they had in the gaming industry. Duration doesn’t necessary mean more experience. It’s about how they know a lot about their products and how they try to satisfy their customers.
Although Sony has worked on electronics longer than any of the three companies had, as Microsoft had more experience with computers and programs, Nintendo has been in the gaming industry the longest out of the three. In fact, Mario and Zelda were already existing franchises before Sony came out with the PlayStation 1. Even if they are a few generations behind on some modern features, they knew about gaming a lot better than the other two. Not just because they have been in the gaming industry for over 30 years, but they only make video games. Sony is part of the electronics industry (along with Toshiba, Samsung, LG, and more companies like that) and the film industry too. Microsoft was better known for their computer programming, Office tools like Word and Excel, and internet services like Bing and Hotmail. Since they have more stuff than just games while Nintendo is strictly limited to gaming, they don’t seem to have as much experience as Nintendo does.
What makes Nintendo benefit from this is some of the few advantages they have from it. First of all, they have better customer service. To be fair, Sony and Microsoft aren’t limited to games, but even if they are, they aren’t any better than Nintendo when it comes to customer service. Nintendo has more support for their handheld devices than Sony and Microsoft, they have better product knowledge, they understand complaints very well, and they are tougher on their moderation system. Another advantage is durability. While I discussed the differences between durability between discs and cartridges, there’s another reason why Nintendo is more durable. They tend to make their consoles more energy efficient, which means they are just as good as Sony and Microsoft in game performance as they don’t use as much energy. Plus, they have better construction codes. It’s true that their grade in durability has started to drop during the Wii era, but they are still ahead in the durability issue. Even the Wii U is more durable than the PS4 and Xbox One, but they are still new.
The other two are kinda tied on this, but they don’t seem to do as well as Nintendo on where they benefit from experience. Sony may have entered the gaming industry in 1994, but Nintendo already had their first home console 10 years before. And Microsoft wasn’t even in the gaming industry during the 1900’s. Sony may not be as experienced as Nintendo was, but they dealt with disc players more than Microsoft has. They even made a disc player that can not only play video games, but also movies and TV shows. They tried to rip off of Nintendo’s ideas to be just as successful, but they do at least have the disc drive, something Nintendo scorned until the GameCube era.
Microsoft will have to be the big loser in this scenario. They only had three Xboxes compared to Sony’s four PlayStations and two handheld devices, and Nintendo’s six consoles and their multiple handheld devices. But it’s not the lack of consoles or the short time in the gaming industry. What Microsoft is the worst at is on system durability. We may have heard of the infamous Red Ring of Death (RRoD), as well as the Yellow Light of Death (YLoD). It appears that the PlayStation 3 was a better built console than the Xbox 360. The YLoD may be a durability problem, but after one or two years, it’s not as common for a PS3 to get the YLoD as it is for an Xbox 360 to get the RRoD. The poor internal structure construction and faults in the disc drive is somewhat related to Microsoft’s experience in the gaming industry. Since they are better known for their internet and program services, they don’t know too much about the gaming industry. In fact, the RRoD problem was so bad that they got sued for it. They finally addressed the problem, and are now making consoles where you can just download the game straight from disc, but that won’t make them any better in experience.
Like I said before, duration doesn’t have too much impact on experience, but it’s true that companies that spent longer in one industry than another have better experience. Winner: Nintendo; Loser: Microsoft.
Issue #6 – Experience with Online Services
Speaking of experience in the gaming industry, there’s another experience-related issue with console features, and this one is on interactive gaming.
The first side is Nintendo. For a long time, they did not have online services accessed from their systems. Everything that can be transferred had to be done with cables or other devices. It wasn’t until 2005 when they had their first online services, the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection. Even so, there wasn’t much provided. It wasn’t until 2006 when they had more conveniences when the Wii came out. Even still, they were behind both Sony and Microsoft. The DSi was their first system that could connect to the internet (and not just Wi-Fi). The eShop (which was first introduced to the 3DS) came out in 2011. And the Nintendo Network (the Nintendo version of the PSN and Xbox Live) came out in 2012. Even so, they are still behind the others when it comes to online services. The eShop only releases games and DLC. It doesn’t sell videos, music, or other applications (including e-mail). Even the PlayStation Vita, which is more inferior than the 3DS, has a few apps that Nintendo never had or will have. Plus, Nintendo has a lack of achievement system from their games.
Sony may be the last to come in for online services, but the PlayStation Network is older than the Nintendo Network, by six years. And they already have what Nintendo Network still doesn’t have when they [Sony] started. They have trophies, music, video, apps, social zones, and shops that are just as functional as iTunes. You can download video games and DLC straight from the PlayStation Store, not just from the video games. Plus, they are very organized in comparison to Nintendo.
Since I never played any Xbox system, I don’t know too much on Microsoft and how they work. However, they basically had the same stuff Sony had, but only longer. Ever since they launched the original Xbox, they began making online services for video games as well. The Xbox Live was created back during the 6th generation of video gaming. They had online services for over 10 years, longer than Nintendo and Sony ever had.
So this issue proves the opposite of the last issue. Microsoft may not been in the gaming industry any longer than Nintendo or Sony, but they had online services before the other two. And Nintendo is still behind on this issue, even if they have been in the gaming industry for longer. Winner: Microsoft; Loser: Nintendo.
Issue #7 – Online Moderation and Security
We’re still not done with the online stuff. The other issue is on how each server moderates the online community. Which one had the best online moderation and security? Which one had the worst?
This debate will not last as long, but here’s what each have. Nintendo, since they have been new to the online thing Sony and Microsoft had, were also inexperienced on serious issues Sony and Microsoft had. Their network is open, but pretty small. The moderation is tough, but they have gone overboard. You may have heard about MiiVerse and how horrible it was. They tend to be too child-friendly. Sony is the opposite of that. Their network is open, just like Nintendo’s. They don’t charge to create an account, so multiple dummy accounts can be created. Getting banned from the PSN doesn’t really stop the user. They can create other accounts to get away with it. Plus, their moderation system is very weak. The mods aren’t really handling moderation issues very well. Microsoft does have a good moderation system. They actually charge people to register for Xbox Live, which can curb dummy accounts. So once someone is banned, it would be an even bigger deal. Plus, their system isn’t as weak as Sony’s.
Let’s take a look at security issues (mostly on hacking). Nintendo had hacking issues as in game-breaking. Even if Wi-Fi is a barrier to hacking video games, Nintendo is still more prone to it. Action Replay affects all systems, but Nintendo was affected by it the most. They tend to increase security as a result, but Action Replay devices get tougher and tougher. Sony’s is the worst. The hacking issues they have dealt with were stuff like server control and identity theft. Even if they had a strong security system, there was a major hacking incident that was the biggest attack on online gaming servers in history. The 2011 PSN Outage was a result of the extreme hacking situations. In December 2014, they were hacked once again, but they weren’t alone. Xbox Live was hacked too. Again, I don’t know too much about Microsoft, but I haven’t heard too much about hacking issues with their servers or games like I heard from Nintendo and Sony.
If I’m not completely accurate on what I’m writing in this issue and other issues, please leave a comment so I can consider changing. I enjoy writing these debates, and I only use the few facts I know. Anyway, from what I written, it looks like Microsoft is past the horizon while Sony is still far away from it. Hopefully, they will improve, but we don’t know when. Winner: Microsoft; Loser: Sony.
Issue #8 – Innovation
Now moving to another subject – Innovation. The question is, how creative or innovative were these three companies. Let’s look at each view.
Nintendo has been known for staying unique and have made irregular consoles with controllers that differ from the rest of their competitors. They were also very inventive. It is true that they weren’t the first to have a home console or have joysticks at all, but of the big three, they have been more innovative. They had the first home console where two or more people could play, the first to have games with save data, the first 64-bit console, and the first console that requires exercising to play. They were also more revolutionary. They had the first successful 3D game, the first racing game with fighting on track, the first crossover with fighting, and the first modern first-person shooter (though that was made by Rare). The most innovative aspect to ever come out of Nintendo was the Wii. Before that, no console had the ability to exercise to play. I know the amiibo thing is not innovative since that was already existing before. Skylanders were the first to have the same concept Disney Infinity, amiibo, and Lego Dimensions had. But Nintendo utilized amiibos very well.
Sony may not be as innovative or revolutionary, but they did make disc players and controllers with two analog sticks more popular. And they had the first game solely for creating and sharing what you made (Little Big Planet). But they, as well as Microsoft, have tried to rip off from Nintendo. I’m not going deeper into this, but some concepts (like the download play and the video game handheld) were already used by Nintendo. The biggest rip-off is the PS Move. In fact, it looks a lot like the Wii Mote, and with a more simple name.
Microsoft isn’t all that innovative either. They made regular consoles the whole time without making improvements. But the most revolutionary aspect in the gaming world to first come out of Xbox is online gaming.
It looks like that Microsoft is the least innovative, but Sony made more rip-offs than Microsoft did. Winner: Nintendo; Loser: Sony.
Issue #9 – Controller Design
So another issue stands in our way. We know how innovative Nintendo is, but who had the best controller design of the big three?
Nintendo can’t really pick a place to win since none of their controllers were the same as the previous console, but they had an interesting history of controllers. The NES controller had the control pad, two action buttons, a start button, and a select button. The SNES controller added two more buttons on the face, as well as adding two bumper buttons to the back. The N64 controller (the weirdest controller of all time) had a trigger button on the back added. The two extra buttons were removed, but they added four camera buttons and a control stick. The GameCube had another terrible controller layout. The A button looks like the nucleus surrounded by the Golgi apparatus (B button, X button, and Y button). There were three bumper buttons rather than four like what the Xbox controllers and Dualshock controllers had. The GameCube controller did have a camera stick and the two removed buttons added back. The Wii had two sticks (one for motion, which is the Wii mote, and the other for navigation, which is the nun chuck). Finally, they came up with a more regular controller with the Wii U came out, but the main controller is a gamepad. I have a Pro controller, which would be good for the debate.
The Wii U Pro controller has an interesting layout. There are four bumper buttons in the back (two on each side, and two on each level), two analog sticks at the same level, a control pad at a lower level, and four buttons at a lower level. Plus, a start and select button.
Let’s look at the PlayStation controllers. Other than the original one, PlayStation’s controllers were never different at all. But what’s different is that the D-pad is at the same level the Wii U left analog stick has, while the PlayStation left analog stick is down a level. The right analog stick and four buttons also swapped in comparison to the Wii U’s controllers. Plus, the four button arrangement on the right side is correctly placed.
How about Xbox’s controllers? Not looking good. In comparison to a PlayStation controller, the D-pad is right wherever the left analog stick is supposed to be, whereas the left analog stick is where the D-pad is. The right side is still the same as PlayStation’s right side of a controller. Something’s not right. The control sticks aren’t at the same level.
So who wins this one? I can’t say that Nintendo loses, but Microsoft’s controller is a bit weird. The control sticks and extra face buttons aren’t well placed like the Wii U’s and any PlayStation controller. So does that mean Nintendo wins? Not very much. I think the analog stick placement of the PlayStation controller is much better than the Wii U controller. Plus, PlayStation had the X, square, triangle, and circle buttons rather than the A, B, X, and Y buttons Nintendo and Microsoft had. I think the button symbols on Sony’s controllers are far more superior than the basic letter buttons. Winner: Sony; Loser: Microsoft.
Issue #10 – Exercise Controllers
Since the Wii came out, Sony and Microsoft copied their concept as well. Which one was the best?
Nintendo had the original exercise controller when they made the Wii. It also had a sensor bar, which can detect the Wii mote’s motion.
Sony had a similar concept. Even if it’s a rip-off, what made Sony’s look better than Nintendo’s? The answer: the round pointer at the end of the motion controller. Not only it lights up, but it changes colors too. And you don’t have to worry about the Motion Controller being physically attached to the Navigation Controller. They have more buttons and rechargeable batteries unlike Nintendo’s Wii Mote. The PlayStation Eye has a wider range than the Sensor Bar. Not bad for a rip-off.
Microsoft’s concept is different to Nintendo’s and Sony’s. They had something called the Kinect, where the camera follows your motions, a s a controller in-game. I find that pretty cheesy since you can easily make the wrong movements that could screw up on your game. And the idea is overall stupid.
The PS Move is easily the biggest ripoff of Nintendo’s concepts, but at least it looks cooler. And it has more features than the Wii’s motion accessories. Winner: Sony; Loser: Microsoft.
Issue #11 – Backwards Compatibility
We looked at their experience in each field and their creativity and designs, so let’s look at how they satisfy the gamers that play their systems. This issue is on Backwards Compatibility. As newer systems are being made, some people would like to play older games on their previous systems.
Nintendo would have to be the best at this. The Gameboy Advance was able to play Gameboy games, the DS can play Gameboy Advance games, and the 3DS can play DS games. The Wii can play GameCube games, as the Wii U can play Wii games. But that’s not all. Nintendo has been making remakes of their older games, mostly Legend of Zelda games. So you can play their older games on newer systems, but on a fresh new copy. Plus, we have the Virtual Console. It may not show how backwards compatible Nintendo is, but it does show that you can play the older games on the newer systems. I bought a Wii U primarily because of the Virtual Console.
Sony appears to suck at this. The PS2 was backwards compatible with PS1 games, but the PS3 wasn’t backwards compatible with either PS2 games or PS1 games. PS4 isn’t backwards compatible with the PS3 games either. Microsoft appeared to face the same fate. The Xbox One isn’t backwards compatible with 360 games. However, the backwards compatibility problem was fixed for the Xbox. On the other hand, Sony refuses to fix the problem. And very rarely, they will make remakes of older games. Not only that, but not all of the games released for the older systems were re-released on the PlayStation Store. It appears that Sony doesn’t care about older games like Nintendo does.
Some gamers prefer to move on without playing older games, but other gamers like to play older games. I’m part of that group. Winner: Nintendo; Loser: Sony.
Issue #12 – Satisfaction of Game Releases
So we know about the backwards compatibility issue, but how good are these companies when it comes to satisfaction of gamers’ demands?
It appears that Nintendo is not the best at this. What gamers wanted are more high-quality games released as quickly as possible. That, and according to many fans, Nintendo’s releases weren’t as good this year. We got more spin-offs and remakes instead of actual new games. Nintendo says that a delayed game would eventually be good, but a rushed game is bad forever. That’s quite true, but they aren’t as understanding as the other two companies about demands.
Sony and Microsoft, however, are better at understanding demands. Gamers want third party games. Well they release third party games. Gamers like regular controllers. Sony and Microsoft never really changed their controllers. Gamers want new games rather than spin-offs or remakes. Sony and Microsoft rarely releases them. But who do I think is better? Sony still hasn’t addressed the backwards compatibility issue, unlike Microsoft. And Microsoft made a console where you don’t need the disc to play, but rather a disc to download.
Nintendo is a lot better at customer service and satisfaction, but understanding demands is still a problem. Winner: Microsoft; Loser: Nintendo.
Issue #13 – Sales
Let’s take a look at the next issue. In terms of sales, all of them had pretty good sales, while others are terrible.
According to the console and handheld sales, the highest selling unit of the eighth generation is the 3DS, which spells victory for Nintendo. However, the lowest selling unit of the generation is the Wii U, which is also Nintendo’s. In fact, it sold less than the Dreamcast after three years (duration of the Dreamcast before Sega left the console market).
It appears that Nintendo seems to do very well in this branch, as two of the three highest selling systems were also Nintendo’s. However, the highest selling console or system is the PlayStation 2, a Sony product. It sold over 150 million before it was discontinued. Not only that, but it has been in the market for 13 years. The PS2 era finally came to an end two months before the PS4 era began.
Choosing a winner or loser would be hard this time, but since Nintendo had more failed projects than the other two, and since Sony had the highest selling system of all time (not only that, but the highest selling console of the eighth generation), I like the odds with Sony more and not with Nintendo. Winner: Sony; Loser: Nintendo.
Strengths and Weaknesses
To review how each of the issues went, here are the sides and what issues they won and lost.
Nintendo is known for their innovative purposes and being a gaming-only company. But their isolation and multiple failed systems is creating a barrier for them. Here are two lists that describe them in the debate. The item in bold represents their biggest strength or weakness, as the items in italics represent the smallest strength or weakness.
- Best exclusive franchises
- Experience in the gaming industry
- Most innovative
- Backwards compatibility
- Poor third party support
- Lack of online services
- Poor satisfaction of gamers’ demands
- Most failed systems created
Sony had the highest selling system of all time, but they have a bad moderation system and has been ripping off of Nintendo. Just like Nintendo, Sony has two lists, one with their strengths in this debate, and the other with their weaknesses.
- Most exclusive franchises
- Best controller design
- PlayStation Move
- Highest selling console
- Worst exclusive franchises
- Online moderation and security
- Most rip-offs
- Backwards compatibility
Microsoft may have a small exclusive library, but they have a large third party support. That, and they have better management of their online services. Just like the other two, they have their two lists about their goods and bads, as well as the formats representing how strong are my opinions on each.
- Third party support
- Online services
- Online moderation and security
- Satisfaction of demands
- Least exclusive franchises
- Experience in the gaming industry
- Worst controller design
And here we are, the end of the last debate. I went over the strengths and weaknesses of each side and talked about what side won each issue. Sony and Microsoft are more appealing to gamers while Nintendo is more appealing to family. Nintendo and Sony has a lot of exclusive franchises that add character while Microsoft is pretty neutral. Nintendo and Microsoft have target audiences towards one age group while Sony has a wider target audience.
But what is your opinion? Do you like to play games by Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo? It’s your call, but here is my opinion.
Judging by the issues I picked, all three competitors are equal. Even if they have their own weaknesses, they also have their own strengths. I can’t pick a winner straight out yet. Some issues matter more, just like in politics. Whatever issue you feel stronger in is what you pick. This is a true competition.
It’s just like this. There are two amusement parks. One has free rides, but you have to pay for admissions. The other has free admissions, but rides cost money. The one with free admissions have more rides, but there are more than just rides in the park with free rides. What about fast food? There are two burger joints. One of them sells only burgers, but the quality of burgers is better. The other doesn’t have the best burgers, but they sell chicken, hot dogs, and other sandwiches. What matters more? Quality, or variety?
However, the advantages and disadvantages of a business or side aren’t the only things that matter when choosing what’s better. It also depends on what they provide and what others prefer. Some people would rather go to an American restaurant with bad customer service and overpriced food than a Chinese restaurant with goor customer service and fair-priced food. What’s the issue there? Those people like American food over Chinese food. And this is how I pick a winner. Judging by the main subject of this site, you would probably figure that I pick Nintendo as the winner. Not only that I’m an Animal Crossing fan, but Nintendo honestly had better franchises. Mario had great 3D platformers. I also like the games from Legend of Zelda. Most of my childhood favorite games were for the Nintendo platforms.
And the winner of this debate is:
That’s all for the four debates. Feel free to comment. I would love to see your opinions on what you like better. I would also like to see any improvements to my blog entry in case of inaccuracies.