# What would the gaming industry be without Nintendo?



## thinkingaboutlife (Jun 21, 2013)

People always talk about how they want Nintendo to go 3rd party, but they said multiple times that if they can't make hardware they will leave the gaming industry. 

What would the gaming be like now if nintendo never entered the gaming industry or leave this generation?


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

If they never entered it's impossible to say what the industry would look like, literally impossible as they are what started the second renaissance of gaming.

If they left this generation?  You wouldn't see too much change honestly.  Just we would lose an option, a good option.


----------



## Nardo6670 (Jun 21, 2013)

First one is an interesting question. I'll leave it to one of the other users to put in their speculation as im interested in hearing their thoughts.

If they left, not much would change regarding consoles.Other than people jumping ship to PS4 or XB1.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Jun 21, 2013)

Microsoft and Sony are both far more likely to leave the industry than Nintendo.


----------



## Axl Low (Jun 21, 2013)

if nintendo didnt take off with the NES and then cartridge games,  we wouldnt have Sony in the market either. Sony wanted disk games because of a deal they have with nintendo going south and so they made their own console. 

nintendo not finishing a deal with sony created the PS1. 

so without nintendo there would probably be more arcades around maybe however there probably wouldnt be a console market. 

If they left...
Eh. It would suck big time because PS and Xbox is where the infintie number of shooters are while nintendo overall through out all systems has alot more rpgs.

JRPGs and small games and small games devs tend do better on the nintendo handhelds and consoles than they do xbox or PS1. The market is flooded with shooters. Nintendo while 'simple' and casual has alot to offer. 




> Worldwide sales figures[edit]
> Wii – 99.84 million as of 31 March 2013[8]
> PlayStation 3 – 70 million as of 4 November 2012[53] (IDC January 2013 estimate: "about 77 million")[54][55]
> Xbox 360 – 74.94 million as of 31 December 2012[56]



Hate the wii all you want. It's still numero uno.


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 21, 2013)

Nobody else but Nintendo were capable of saving the industry to the extent they did during the NES days.  It HAD to be them.

If they were to leave the gaming industry now though I don't know what exactly would change,  the quality of the developers today are considerably better than during the atari days and they know that putting crap on a console won't generate great sales.

Unless Nintendo could magically create some engine that significantly reduced the costs of HD development then i could see them bringing back life into the market but with a console that's lagging behind in sales and power, a controller they don't rally know what to do and only recently trying to play catch-up with HD development i feel that Nintendo will always be behind any technology advancements in the gaming world hence not being the great leader in innovation as they once were.

Most of their talent would simply just form new studios and build upon existing concepts and create new games. Gaming itself is eternally but with the costs of console gaming in general somebody need to fix that.


----------



## Death-kun (Jun 21, 2013)

Regardless of how much people say Nintendo "rehashes" their series, each entry they make in their franchises (except a few notable exceptions, like NSMB2 just being NSMB with a ton of coins) is a fun and engaging breath of fresh air. In an industry plagued by hyper-realism and countless amounts of guns and testosterone-filled white guys, Nintendo's games are a constant reminder of what gaming was like and what it should be; diverse, original and fun.

inb4 someone tries to rip me apart by saying Mario is none of those things.


----------



## St. YatōKiri_Kilgharrah (Jun 21, 2013)

Inb4 Nintendo brings sexy back with black guys.

Dont tell anyone about it


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 21, 2013)

Why no black guys though Death-Kun?

We need a black platformer.


----------



## Linkofone (Jun 21, 2013)

I would die a little bit inside and then go and play Halo.


----------



## Gnome (Jun 21, 2013)

Death-kun said:


> Regardless of how much people say Nintendo "rehashes" their series, each entry they make in their franchises (except a few notable exceptions, like NSMB2 just being NSMB with a ton of coins) is a fun and engaging breath of fresh air. In an industry plagued by hyper-realism and countless amounts of guns and testosterone-filled white guys, Nintendo's games are a constant reminder of what gaming was like and what it should be; diverse, original and fun.
> 
> inb4 someone tries to rip me apart by saying Mario is none of those things.



Mario is all those things. The only problem is the premise of "what gaming was like and what it should be" is wrong. If you want the industry to grow you can't strap a definition on what games are, it acts like a vice and strangles innovation.


----------



## Akira Kurusu (Jun 21, 2013)

Not only would have have to hold out even longer on other consoles due to price, but no Smash Bros/Zelda and Nintendo handhelds would kill half of my gaming needs since half of my favorite companies have turned to shit since the 7th gen began. 



Death-kun said:


> Regardless of how much people say Nintendo "rehashes" their series, each entry they make in their franchises (except a few notable exceptions, like NSMB2 just being NSMB with a ton of coins) is a fun and engaging breath of fresh air. In an industry plagued by hyper-realism and countless amounts of guns and testosterone-filled white guys, Nintendo's games are a constant reminder of what gaming was like and what it should be; diverse, original and fun.
> 
> inb4 someone tries to rip me apart by saying Mario is none of those things.



Especially if we take into account that many other big companies have been making sequels up the ass as well, like what we've mostly seen in E3 in spite of new IPs showing up too. But nope, it far more easier to blame Nintendo for putting new ideas in most of their bigger existing IPs than others (even though i WOULD HAVE wanted to see more new Nintendo IPs from last week).

Nintendoomed since 1989. Live with it bitches.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 21, 2013)

During the video game crash, PC gaming market hit a boom so gaming would still be around without Nintendo but it wouldn't be as mainstream as it is now. Back when consoles could outperform PC's, making side scrolling games is what led to the development of ID making sidescrolling possible on PC, they even completely remade SMB3 for PC, which led the way to Wolfenstein and Doom. So the fps market would be pushed back alot.

It would be impossible to predict exactly how the world have changed without Nintendo so I am not even going to guess. If they were to drop out the of the console race and go the way of Sega? That would be bad, you can't maintain proper balance with 2 dominating home consoles.


----------



## Death-kun (Jun 21, 2013)

Gnome said:


> Mario is all those things. The only problem is the premise of "what gaming was like and what it should be" is wrong. If you want the industry to grow you can't strap a definition on what games are, it acts like a vice and strangles innovation.



Normally I would agree with you about the defining part, if the defining meant that each game is supposed to be a certain way. Like every platformer is supposed to be like Mario, or every FPS is supposed to be like CoD, etc. The difference is that my definition of gaming is meant to promote innovation. I believe games should be unique, diverse and fun/entertaining. Those are very loose and (should be) easily achievable parameters.



Asa-Kun said:


> Especially if we take into account that many other big companies have been making sequels up the ass as well, like what we've mostly seen in E3 in spite of new IPs showing up too. But nope, it far more easier to blame Nintendo for putting new ideas in most of their bigger existing IPs than others (even though i WOULD HAVE wanted to see more new Nintendo IPs from last week).
> 
> Nintendoomed since 1989. Live with it bitches.



Blanket generalizations are the worst, but if I had to make one... Nintendo presents new and fresh ideas with familiar characters and worlds, while quite a few other devs present the same ideas with different characters and worlds. Neither method is particularly bad whatsoever, it's all about how the developer handles it that determines whether or not it will be a good game. But in an industry "starving for innovation", people shouldn't be so quick to point their fingers at Nintendo and cry foul at the first chance they get, because there are worse offenders out there.

Then again, Nintendo has always been held up to a higher standard, so I guess it makes sense why they're singled out the most.


----------



## DejaEntendu (Jun 21, 2013)

I'm genuinely surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without someone ripping into Nintendo. As an exclusive fan to Nintendo consoles, I am pleased.

If Nintendo didn't exist, I daresay there would be no Playstation or Xbox. I'm not really sure if that can be argued. They proved there was a market for gaming, catered to it, advertised it, and made it into the massive business it is today. Sony and Microsoft are just major electronics companies trying to take out shares of the pie, which they've succeeded at, to say the least.

If Nintendo exited the scene in present day, despite my inner fanboy, I think the industry wouldn't suffer too much, but I still don't see them going anywhere. They have significant market share still. Most exclusive fans like myself would lose interest in console gaming, while others would just migrate to Playstation or Xbox. I don't really think Nintendo is in trouble despite all the media attention that says otherwise. Wii was projected to fail. 3DS had a slow start. It always turns around. They just need more software for the Wii U and 3DS is more than enough to keep them afloat I'd imagine.

It's obviously too early to tell, but PS4 looks like the frontrunner in the next gen. I won't buy one. I have no interest, but they are making a legitimate effort to please their fans. Xbox One honestly looks like low man on the totem pole. They unveil an awful product with so many glaring errors and have to literally go back on their unveil features to try to appease people so they don't get destroyed in preorder sales anymore.

I do think that Nintendo needs to make a few adjustments to stick with the pack, which it sounds like they are doing. They need to solidify that third party support and start multitasking with some mature themed games. It doesn't concern me because I'm a big child and will play Mario and Zelda for life, but their core fan base is aging and defecting. They could very well become obsolete within a few gens. I still say Microsoft has a more serious problems on their hands. There's not much that separates them from Sony in terms of their consoles. They rely on third party support a lot more as well. I don't know too much about the exact specs, but from an outside perspective it seems like Playstation is the way to go if you don't choose Nintendo. Nintendo has so many iconic franchises that just can't be replicated, though. I don't see people forsaking that all together yet. /endrant.


----------



## Yagura (Jun 21, 2013)

People can sing doom and gloom about Nintendo all they like... but the fact of the matter is that they're easily the most resilient company in the industry. 

The day Nintendo dies, is the day that gaming itself does as well.


----------



## God Movement (Jun 21, 2013)

Wouldn't be that great IMO. Nintendo was necessary, they aren't needed now however.


----------



## Akira Kurusu (Jun 21, 2013)

^We need them for dedicated handhelds though.


----------



## Veggie (Jun 21, 2013)

For me nothing would change, I loved Nintendo back in the N64 days and game cube was alright, but now they do absolutely nothing that makes me want to get one of their consoles. I don't care for the tablet control and I'm not interested in Mario games, Zelda, or Smash Bros. 

The best Mario game was Mario 64 and Ocarina of time was brilliant. Mario Galaxy was the only recent Mario that I truly enjoyed since the N64. I did play it on a friend's Wii though, I wasn't about to buy that thing for any game.

I think that Nintendo is just competing with themselves and no others. Sony and Microsoft would only get Nintendo's fanbase if something like that happened. I don't think the market would crash. 

PlayStation and Xbox have taken the lead, and PC gaming is booming. So Nintendo sinking shouldn't change that much, but who knows? I don't care either way to be honest.

But just to be safe it would be better if they stick around for some time.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jun 21, 2013)

There's just something about the way they approach games that arguably no other developer can touch. And while their model for developing new IP is really strict in the manner that the core gaming mechanic must be unique for it to be considered if not the mechanic would instead be used in one of their franchises, it works. In a world where the current market is basically let's folllow what's popular. It's always nice to know there some that say fuck that, we'll do our own thing, for better or worse. 

I've found this recent narrative very interesting because it basically shows that there is demand for their games as much as the current trend is to mock and underestimate and there is only place to get them. As much as critics try to twist it.

Anyway, the industry without Nintendo, dark place.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jun 21, 2013)

Nothing would happen. The talent would disperse, go to other studios or make their own studios, someone would buy the rights to Nintendo's old games etc etc.

Would change a lot, but I mean the core of the industry would more or less be the same.

As for the NES "saving" video games, that's huge hyperbole. Eventually someone would have took over (Sega was already making pushes during that time) or home computers would have become popular world wide. 

Gaming was still popular during that time via arcades, but Arcades were a dying medium - so naturally the market was going to move to house holds. Most people don't really understand what the video game crash really is (it's a pretty small window of time as well, people think it was this long drought), so they have this really weird presentation that Nintendo was the messiah. It doesn't help that due to the success of the NES Nintendo had blackballed the entire market, Nintendo was not as friendly as a company back then as they are now.  Things would be different, but it's not like we wouldn't be playing video games today if it wasn't for Nintendo.

The handheld market would be much more wild to predict, Nintendo has had such a huge grasp over that niche. If Nintendo never existed, we might be playing Neo Geos o.O.


As much as people care to acknowledge, the video game industry is far bigger than any one company. People still have this idea that Nintendo = Video games because at a certain point, that's what people used to literally call video games. 



> During the video game crash, PC gaming market hit a boom so gaming would still be around without Nintendo but it wouldn't be as mainstream as it is now. Back when consoles could outperform PC's, making side scrolling games is what led to the development of ID making sidescrolling possible on PC, they even completely remade SMB3 for PC, which led the way to Wolfenstein and Doom. So the fps market would be pushed back alot.



Computers have always been stronger than consoles. There was never a time when a console could "outperform" a computer necessarily.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

Violent By Design said:


> Nothing would happen. The talent would disperse, go to other studios or make their own studios, someone would buy the rights to Nintendo's old games etc etc.
> 
> Would change a lot, but I mean the core of the industry would more or less be the same.
> 
> ...



All I'm saying is that if Nintendo never made the NES it's impossible to say how the gaming industry would have gone.  I'm not saying it would have vanished.  There's just no way to really predict what would have happened.  Too many variables.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> All I'm saying is that if Nintendo never made the NES it's impossible to say how the gaming industry would have gone.  I'm not saying it would have vanished.  There's just no way to really predict what would have happened.  Too many variables.




That is very true.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 21, 2013)

> I'm genuinely surprised we've gotten this far into the thread without someone ripping into Nintendo. As an exclusive fan to Nintendo consoles, I am pleased.



I could rip into Nintendo, but the gaming industry wouldn't be the same without them, even with their shitty business practices.



Violent By Design said:


> Computers have always been stronger than consoles. There was never a time when a console could "outperform" a computer necessarily.



Factoring in the operating system, being a dedicated console could outpreform a computer back in the early 1990's. The driving force to create side scrolling games on PC is what drove  John Carmack to make side scrollers for the pc.


----------



## ensoriki (Jun 21, 2013)

Be disappointing though many of their games have started to mmm...not grow with me?
Hard to say if some of the smaller projects like the Etrian series would be given a home if Nintendo didn't exist so could lose quite a bit.


----------



## Scizor (Jun 21, 2013)

1. No Pok?mon, no Smash Bros., no Mario, no Zelda, no Metroid etc.
That would suck and it makes me sad thinking about it; pretty much all of my memorable gaming experiences where either with a Nintendo franchise or on a Nintendo console.

2. I'm not sure what it would mean for the industry at this point, but it would mean I'd pretty much be left playing Tales of games exclusively. As great as tales of games are, I'd really hate to see Nintendo go.


----------



## Axl Low (Jun 21, 2013)

also no megaman final fantasy or castlevania


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 21, 2013)

It would be dead.
You have to remember the NES was in a time everything was in fact dying.
Nintendo was the only one to really step up.
Now if you tried to argue SNES then things change on that.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 21, 2013)

better            .


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> It would be dead.
> You have to remember the NES was in a time everything was in fact dying.
> Nintendo was the only one to really step up.
> Now if you tried to argue SNES then things change on that.



Eh, not completely true.  Arcades were still doing well at the time and PC wasn't too bad off.


----------



## Xiammes (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Eh, not completely true.  Arcades were still doing well at the time and PC wasn't too bad off.



PC market was booming in Europe and the video game crash only affected America.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Eh, not completely true.  Arcades were still doing well at the time and PC wasn't too bad off.




arcades are expensive to own. 
The lack of ownership makes the comparison invalid, plus they only play one game each.
Pc at that time was also of fairly poor quality game wise and fairly expensive to do unlike now.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

Arcades were still doing good, that means the games industry wasn't dead.  There was still room for recovery.  The NES releasing wouldn't have ended the gaming industry.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Arcades were still doing good, that means the games industry wasn't dead.  There was still room for recovery.  The NES releasing wouldn't have ended the gaming industry.



You ever consider that arcades would be the ones to flourish instead and that it would delay things by several years if not a decade?

Any kind of recovery would look pitiful to what we have now, Pc's probably might not have decided to be pushed powerwise to play games since they weren't popular, companies wouldn't show as much interest, and I wouldn't be into videogames at all.

In fact a lot more people wouldn't be.
I expect many games also wouldn't exist.
That my dear sir, is what I consider dead, because I wouldn't be here arguing with you. The NES changed things to a great enough extent I wouldn't exist in any other way with any of my current qualities existing, not a* ONE*.


----------



## B Rabbit (Jun 21, 2013)

Well Nintendo did save the gaming industry, but Nintendo has always done their best to put out games that everyone enjoys, and tries to make it fun and simplistic. Right now Nintendo dropping out would make a difference do to Mario, Zelda, Pokemon being such big icons in the gaming industry, but let's be honest. If Nintendo put those three games on the market, every developer would jump on it.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

As I said before, there's too many variables to say what would have happened.  Only thing I'm certain of is gaming wouldn't be dead.

You make way too many assumptions.  Hell, for all we know Sega could have taken the place of Nintendo.


----------



## B Rabbit (Jun 21, 2013)

That's true. If Nintendo weren't around we would probably see more sega consoles and stuff. You never know. I did have fun with my dreamcast.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> As I said before, there's too many variables to say what would have happened.  Only thing I'm certain of is gaming wouldn't be dead.
> 
> You make way too many assumptions.  Hell, for all we know Sega could have taken the place of Nintendo.



Sega did what it did to compete with nintendo.
I don't think it could have taken it's place especially considering what it's current state is.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Sega did what it did to compete with nintendo.
> I don't think it could have taken it's place especially considering what it's current state is.



Sega SG-1000 = July 15, 1983
Nintendo Famicom = July 15, 1983

Sega entered the console game on the same day Nintendo did.  If Nintendo wasn't entering the console game Sega still would have released the SG-1000.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> Sega SG-1000 = July 15, 1983
> Nintendo Famicom = July 15, 1983
> 
> Sega entered the console game on the same day Nintendo did.  If Nintendo wasn't entering the console game Sega still would have released the SG-1000.


You are comparing a plain rock to a gem however.

I'm sorry what makes you think anyone would buy that?
Shit looks like all of the other shit no one would buy.
The game library it has is also pitiful, some looking like the kind of games people didn't want to buy and ripped  ideas off of nintendo.
Sega would have crashed and burned horribly.
This wouldn't have saved a damn thing.

The master system is when they got going and that was due to nintendo's NES. It was a 3rd generation system based off of competition
No nintendo = no sega = no sonic

It would be different if you argued PC since that would eventually get going, but the process would have been much slower.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 21, 2013)

The SG-1000 didn't do terribly and if there was no Famicom it probably would have done better.

Anyways, you're clearly ignoring the fact that Sega very well could have taken Nintendos place or something else could have happened.  Not sure why you're denying the fact that the videogame industry could have survived without Nintendo but eh, whatever that's your opinion.

Also, I'm not arguing anything, look back on the first page.  I specifically have said it's impossible to predict as there was too many variables.  I've mentioned Sega, PCs and arcades, each of them have relevance here.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 21, 2013)

Enclave said:


> The SG-1000 didn't do terribly and if there was no Famicom it probably would have done better.
> 
> Anyways, you're clearly ignoring the fact that Sega very well could have taken Nintendos place or something else could have happened.  Not sure why you're denying the fact that the videogame industry could have survived without Nintendo but eh, whatever that's your opinion.
> 
> Also, I'm not arguing anything, look back on the first page.  I specifically have said it's impossible to predict as there was too many variables.  I've mentioned Sega, PCs and arcades, each of them have relevance here.



Sega does what Nintendon't


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 22, 2013)

Sega would have killed the industry again by the next two consoles. The Playstation came about because of Nintendo. Remember that.


----------



## Akira Kurusu (Jun 22, 2013)

^Why would Sega kill the industry?


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 22, 2013)

Because they were killing themselves.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jun 22, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> Because they were killing themselves.



They were killing themselves in the 80s? That's news to me.


You guys are really silly if you think Sega wouldn't have taken over considering they became a major power despite being black balled by Nintendo. The NES isn't famous because of just Nintendo, Capcom and Koonami had a lot to do with its success, so it's not like half of the famous games on NES would have been made some where else.  And PC games were not "bad" back then, I don't even get what that means, "home computers" are not even PCs.

Gaming was perfectly fine. Atari was losing its fan base (hence why the video game crash is only an American thing), other than that the video game industry was the same. What games would be made would be different if there was no Nintendo, but let's not pretend Nintendo is actually video games, that is insanely ignorant. We'd be talking on this message board about a similar topic if Nintendo did not make the NES.


----------

