As I said, SEGA was filled by very intelligent, creative people, who came up with some killer games and hardware.

SEGA was unfortunately also filled with idiot businessmen who failed to get a single thing right once the industry grew out of its infancy. One person, even the CEO, has very, very little room to change that kind of corporate culture.

Actually- SEGA has been in gaming much more longer than Sony.

They were originally called "Service Games"- basically making games for people in "service" (includes pinball machines, etc.)

Then, it changed into SEGA, simply taking the first two letters of the two words

Just needed to clear that up.

What if Capcom created their own console and entered the next gen wave?
They'd probably call it Resident Mega.lol

They'll never do that.

And some people, even today, think that Dreamcast2 is coming out NEXT year. I mean, there's this guy who gathers 'evidence', and y'know, it is compelling. But it's not going to happen. It'd a helluva awkward too, especially the relationship between Nintendo and SEGA.

Very awkward.

Mario & Sonic at the Olympics says hi.

I think SEGA should takeover Nintendo and rename the Wii U the Dreamcast 2

I think we can all agree that the Dreamcast is hands down one of the greatest console names in videogame history.
The Wii U however stinks.

Nintendo Dream would of been sweet.

Just keep Iwata and Reggie plz :3

Alright, but Miyamoto will have to go. We can't have him Nintendoing up the place.
_{We went so off topic, lol}

lol Okay, deal. Keep Sakurai definitely. Because he's a genius.

_{Going off topic is near impossible sometimes}.

_{Of course. Who else will make Smash for the Wii U Dreamcast 2?}
Anyway, I wonder if there will be some sort of infamous game or port on the Vita. That would be pretty cool.

Infamous is available through the PSN.

Which means you can play it on Vita. Remember, Vita can play all PSN games.

I don't think that applies to those games. I'm still looking for a proper source, but everything I have found so far points to "no".

Are you sure? All the sources I've seen state that the PS Vita will be able to play all PSN games.

http://us.playstation.com/support/answer/index.htm?a_id=2254

CTRL+F PS3 and you should find that it specifically states that Sony Does not currently intend to make PS3 and PS2 games compatible.

That's what I was thinking but I'm sure there will be some limitations as to what kind of PSN games can be downloaded on the Vita.

Let's get something clear: You're not disabusing me of anything. I'm not engaging in this conversation on a emotional, personal level in the first place - I'm looking at it from a business perspective. I don't have favourites, or a 'adoration' for anything, really.

Clearly I am not managing to disabuse, because once again you display a misunderstanding of the terms of the discussion. We're not talking about the ethics of the companies or individuals running them; those are irrelevant. As I said, companies will do what benefits them given the consumers and structural forces at play. Instead, we're talking about the correct choice as a consumer, and as I've noted, the most important votes you cast in today's world are in the products you buy.

We're never going to come to an accord, because you're speaking from a deeply personal view of the industry, while I'm looking at it from a dispassionate, 'business' perspective.

Here's an analogy: in the domain of politics, you are taking the "horse race" position, whereby only the competition itself matters, and the issues are irrelevant. Sure, the horse race defines what political parties will do, but it has absolutely nothing to do with how we should vote. In other words, you're both ignoring your own choices and paying into a certain ideology: that of consumerism mixed with a bizarrely strong fetishizing of the idea of business self-interest as an infallible mechanism, the likes of which I rarely hear even from fanatical libertarian friends.

Ie, there is a passion of the highest order in what you call your "dispassionate, business perspective." That's fine, but I'm surprised you can't see it; in fact, what runs through every statement I've seen you make on various threads is a deep adoration for a particular vision of the powerful, competitive businessman. Citing Sun Tzu borders of self-parody of the highest order in that context.

Nothing you've complained about is anything other than simple business logic. When the lifecycle of a product has reached its natural end, then something new needs to happen. 3D TV. Corporations can't keep selling the same stagnating products, because as consumer interest drops away, so does their fortunes

Um, that's exactly how I described the push for 3D TVs. We are in agreement with the mechanism that led to their sudden surge as a "new" hot item. Once again, understand that I'm not accusing the companies of being immoral; they are simply being typical. However, I am criticizing consumers who fall for it. Or, to be less harsh in formulation, I'm saying that buying into this particular technological change is to actually set us backwards on several fronts, and push around a hell of a lot of new sets when a upgrade simply isn't warranted by the change in tech.

If people stopped buying new things en masse Sony, Microsoft and yes, Nintendo (because contrary to popular belief, it needs Sony and Microsoft to survive, as it needed SEGA) would disappear

We should buy new things, but critically. Once again, you seem to believe that there is progress so long as we all buy in year after year. I'm saying that, if anything, we should all be cutting down on the tech we buy (shrinking life cycles of phones and smaller gadgets are a cause for concern, IMO), and evaluating how it fits into our lives as a whole, as well as how supporting a particular company supports this or that change in a particular market. Games can be wonderful, but I don't like where they're going right now as an industry.

Believe me, I don't expect us to agree re:Sony or re:Microsoft, but it is a very rational perspective to look at the gaming world, look at the vision and practice of each company, and make your decisions from there. You just keep betting on the horses and ignoring everything else.

Where I find your comments strange (and suggest a lack of understanding about business), is that people shouldn't purchase products that you've thrown on an arbitary list, because you're imagined that they are anti-competitive.

Believe me, I'm not saying that no one should buy said products; I'm saying that the practices in question are of a nature that, form my perspective, leads the gaming industry firmly in the wrong direction by changing the terms of competition (ie, no more a matter of ingenious design to fit the right features and form factor to a product while keeping it under cost, but a battle of mega-corporations trying to outdo each other in front-loading costs). Where I get into the heated debate (but a fun one, for sure) is when the very ability to criticize on this level is disputed, as you seem to be doing.

You're asking people to change, Wariowoods. You're fighting an uphill battle, that's for sure. At least we agree that 3D TVs are NOT a technological advancement, but then again, I don't go around criticizing those who think otherwise.

Ok, Wariowoods, now you're getting personal. Using lots of words, but getting personal. So this will probably be the last response I make in this thread.

Let me preface all of this by saying I find it amusing that you continue to exclude Nintendo and Nintendo products from exactly the same criticism that you level at the "dumb" (paraphrasing, but that's exactly what you're saying) people who buy into Sony and Microsoft. I don't know how to say this any clearer: Nintendo is exactly the same as Sony and Microsoft. It is a corporation. That comes with the same business ethics, the same behaviours, the same interests, and where it deems necessary, the same financial muscle flexing.

The very fact that you're excluding Nintendo means you have a very, very warped idea of what "business" is, and are instead masking your personal opinion as a business discussion.

We're not talking about the ethics of the companies or individuals running them; those are irrelevant. As I said, companies will do what benefits them given the consumers and structural forces at play. Instead, we're talking about the correct choice as a consumer, and as I've noted, the most important votes you cast in today's world are in the products you buy.

No. You are talking about that. I'm explaining over and over again that there is no reason that people shouldn't buy Sony products. In fact, looking at it as a business, there's a very good reason to buy Sony products, because what ultimately benefits consumers is a competitive, financially stable Sony (and Microsoft, and Nintendo. The market needs all of them).

Here's an analogy: in the domain of politics, you are taking the "horse race" position, whereby only the competition itself matters, and the issues are irrelevant. Sure, the horse race defines what political parties will do, but it has absolutely nothing to do with how we should vote. In other words, you're both ignoring your own choices and paying into a certain ideology: that of consumerism mixed with a bizarrely strong fetishizing of the idea of business self-interest as an infallible mechanism, the likes of which I rarely hear even from fanatical libertarian friends.

Ie, there is a passion of the highest order in what you call your "dispassionate, business perspective." That's fine, but I'm surprised you can't see it; in fact, what runs through every statement I've seen you make on various threads is a deep adoration for a particular vision of the powerful, competitive businessman. Citing Sun Tzu borders of self-parody of the highest order in that context.

No. The competition informs everything that a business does. There is nothing that Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft do that is not directly the result of needing to compete with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and other disruptive forces. I'm talking about it from a position of pure realism. You're going on about the issue as though there is some kind of grand ideology where companies should feel responsible for proping up other companies, and should avoid making competitive decisions because the competition might not like it.

That's not the business world. The business world is simple, and brutal. That's the reason that Sun Tsu's philosopy applies to business - because it's little more than a story of primal action and reactions... it's just that people wear suits now.

There is no reason that people should "vote with their wallets" as you suggest, and refuse to buy a product based on your ideology, because it's so far divorced from reality we might as well be in a Final Fantasy game.

As for your personal attack, such that it is - I don't have an adoriation for the business person. I just write about this stuff daily, and this is how it works. It's not a theory, it's not an ideal, it's just basic practicality. Journalists (good ones, anyway), don't pass judgement unless they're specifically setting out to editorialise. I'm not writing an editorial.

Um, that's exactly how I described the push for 3D TVs. We are in agreement with the mechanism that led to their sudden surge as a "new" hot item. Once again, understand that I'm not accusing the companies of being immoral; they are simply being typical. However, I am criticizing consumers who fall for it.

You're criticising consumers for keeping companies alive. If you can't see the basic fallacy in that, then you should consider taking a few economics classes.

Or, to be less harsh in formulation, I'm saying that buying into this particular technological change is to actually set us backwards on several fronts

No it won't. Companies that don't exist can't innovate. And I'm pretty sure the Sony PlayStation 3 is an improvement on the PlayStation 1, so there goes your theory that businesses acting like businesses holds the industry back.

Believe me, I don't expect us to agree re:Sony or re:Microsoft, but it is a very rational perspective to look at the gaming world, look at the vision and practice of each company, and make your decisions from there. You just keep betting on the horses and ignoring everything else.

I was at a conference recently, and the head of Sony Australia said that Sony's vision is to provide the technology for big, spectacular, deep gameplay experiences. Sounds like a pretty good vision to me. So is it ok for me to buy Sony products again?

For that matter, who are you to determine the basis for people to buy into technology, and criticise those who don't agree with your vision? I'm fairly certain that you're not qualified as the supreme adjudicator of good technology on Earth. Your opinion doesn't really count for anything in this conversation.

I like the iPad, I like 3D, but I don't like Kinect. I'm not going to call people that do like Kinect sheep though, which is exactly what you're doing here.

(ie, no more a matter of ingenious design to fit the right features and form factor to a product while keeping it under cost, but a battle of mega-corporations trying to outdo each other in front-loading costs).

And as I've been saying, that's utter crap. Escalating R & D, operations, and marketing budgets have been part of the entire business world since a group of cavemen got together and worked out they could do more as a group than as an individual. And products across the board are getting ever better since the era of the wheel. This isn't just technology, this is everything.

If you're going to continue this discussion, please leave your ego at the door. IMO discussions are boring, unless you can actually back those Os up with actual facts and economic theories, not random guesses and a love for Nintendo.

I was gonna mention this sooner but I got distracted: really I'd love to see so evidence of your so called theories. Because then I might actually understand what it is you're talking about. Why don't you like the current industry? What's so bad about the direction it's going, and what evidence do you have to back that up? You make it sound like there's an obvious problem here, and if we just stopped and thought about it we'd all realize it. Well I tried that and it didn't work, so you're just gonna have to explain it to me.

This is @wariowoods btw