Board 8 > Which company made the biggest impact in the gaming industry?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nint--

So--

Microsoft have PC gaming, something that always gets forgotten! So Microsoft>Atari>Sega.

But how much of that is actually something the company gets credit for?

PC gaming existed before Microsoft and most the big PC gaming advances happened completely independent of Microsoft.

Like are you giving Microsoft credit for Steam? That doesn't seem right to me.

I thought of Steam, but didn't think of it enough to write it out properly since I was focusing on console-makers. I suspect...

1-Nintendo
2-Sony
3-Steam

...then these three companies in the poll battle for #4-6 instead of #3-5.

Maniac64 posted...

But how much of that is actually something the company gets credit for?

PC gaming existed before Microsoft and most the big PC gaming advances happened completely independent of Microsoft.

Like are you giving Microsoft credit for Steam? That doesn't seem right to me.

I think you can maybe give it credit for MS DOS and operating systems

also standardizing online play for consoles

People giving Microsoft too little credit here because they're thinking of Xbox and not Windows.

Gotta pick Atari for inventing the first real home console

It's definitely not Microsoft. Even counting PC they were by no means the first, and I'm doubtful they had much of a hand when PC gaming consolidated (I could be wrong here though, so if anyone has some good resources, please share! I've only recently gotten interested in learning about video game history, and older PC gaming is an area I'm not very familiar with).

I'm inclined to go with Sega over Atari. They were much more competitive in Japan, and they were ahead of the curve on plenty of innovations like online play, even if the ideas didn't catch on until they were implemented by others. Atari was important in its early years, but also fucked the US market up so much that Japanese publishers dominated the home console market for years.

I misread the title as "Which company made the biggest mistake in the gaming industry?" and voted "Atari > Sega > Microsoft".

UshiromiyaEva posted...

People giving Microsoft too little credit here because they're thinking of Xbox and not Windows.

But also the Xbox 360 is probably the most influential console since the Playstation anyway with the possible exception of the Switch (waiting to be seen). All modern consoles are working off the 360s blueprint.

Atari
Microsoft
Sega

I love Sego but beyond arcades they didn't really do much except just be a competitor to Nintendo

I think being a competitor to Nintendo is a big deal though. The Genesis is basically the precursor to the PlayStation in it's ability to attract a different crowd. Obviously Sony gets the credit for actually winning, but who knows if the gates would have been open if not for Sega.

I went with Atari > Microsoft > Sega

I gave Atari a lot of credit for its early days. Also, Sega really only had one really successful console, whereas Microsoft has done fine every generation, so I gave Microsoft the edge there. (I wasn't thinking of PC stuff, but that's even more of a reason to vote them over Sega)

Fiop posted...

I gave Atari a lot of credit for its early days. Also, Sega really only had one really successful console, whereas Microsoft has done fine every generation, so I gave Microsoft the edge there. (I wasn't thinking of PC stuff, but that's even more of a reason to vote them over Sega)

Didn't Atari also only have one successful console? All the others were outsold by Sega. And by that I don't mean Genesis, I mean Saturn, Dreamcast, and even the SG-1000. Also the original Master System. By a lot. Like double or more even for the SG-1000.

Not sure how much it should contribute to my vote, but I think it's interesting that despite losing both the battle and the war, Sega's advertising campaign from the Genesis era has shaped the public perception of Nintendo for the past 30 years. It's something they've never been able to entirely shake.

Went Atari > Sega > Microsoft

I agree with the idea that Sega actually becoming a competitor to Nintendo in the early days mattered in terms of showing there could be competition even if they eventually lost and Sony took up the baton. May be overlooking Microsoft's role in PC gaming I guess but IDK.

MitsuruKirijo posted...

Didn't Atari also only have one successful console?

Like I said, I'm giving Atari a lot of credit for what they did in the early days. They had the first real successful, widespread console. Sega came along after those early days, and by the time they were big, Nintendo was too, so the industry was already on a trajectory of sorts. Sega did have a big impact, just not as much as Atari or Microsoft, I would argue.

Sega seems like far and away the third place here, not sure how anyone could hear say otherwise.

They were popular but they didn't do anything of note for the industry other than "be a rival". I guess the earliest mainstream online play? But it was a console that failed, so.....

I'll note that Sega is the only company here than made a handheld game system I'm aware of.

Also gonna note in terms of mascots that Master Chief, Pac-Man, and Sonic are all each huge in their own right.

Also-also noting that Minecraft is the best-selling game out of anything these three companies made, though Microsoft acquiring Minecraft instead of being Minecraft's creator from the beginning may matter for some opinions.

Sega is absolutely 3rd here.

HaRRicH posted...

I'll note that Sega is the only company here than made a handheld game system I'm aware of.

Nintendo may not be in the poll but they exist. Even if you don't count that, the Atari Lynx came out before the Sega Game Gear.

I think Atari is a bit overrated in these discussions. First doesn't always really matter a lot-- Atari was the first but I feel NES was the first that really drove home the proof of concept and Atari offerings were failed experiments in expanding arcade gaming to homes as much as anything. Was it influential? Sure. More than Microsoft or even Sega? Honestly don't think so.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Nintendo may not be in the poll but they exist. Even if you don't count that, the Atari Lynx came out before the Sega Game Gear.

Oh wow, never heard of the Lynx before. Duly noted!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Lynx

Nintendo (and Sony too) each certainly had their own handheld systems, yes. I was just meaning this statement to be among the three of Atari/Microsoft/Sega being compared here.

Two things to that Lopen!

Atari was not initially a failure. Atari was big. It wasn't just an arcade port machine, in fact trying to do that later on is part of what caused it to fall.

Second, this topic does not say positive impact. Atari collapsing the game industry had an ENORMOUS impact, and their failures paved the way for Nintendo's rise.

I guess I'm just saying I think the NES exists as it was without The Atari. Hard to be sure but I don't think a setback on a market that didn't exist yet is particularly notable either.

Arcade machines and PC games existing is all the NES really needed to exist.

Atari sold more consoles than Sega did!

Sales numbers aren't really all it's about

Sega existing was more proof of concept that the space was big enough for multiple entities. I would say they are what helped make multiplatform development a standardized thing.

Microsoft meanwhile paved the way for what is now standard modern online practices with how it implemented its storefronts and Xbox live.

I do think Atari is in the discussion for third here but I personally have it as 5th and don't think that should be as much of a hot take as it apparently is.

Multiplatform development wasn't standardized until the Xbox came out.

MacArrowny posted...

Multiplatform development wasn't standardized until the Xbox came out.

There are dozens of games on the SNES + Genesis that would disagree with you.

Half the multiplatform games back then were different on each system, or only released in certain territories. And dozens isn't exactly a large number. Multiplatform releases were still highly non-standard.

Lopen posted...

I think Atari is a bit overrated in these discussions. First doesn't always really matter a lot-- Atari was the first but I feel NES was the first that really drove home the proof of concept and Atari offerings were failed experiments in expanding arcade gaming to homes as much as anything.

Yes, Atari had some terrible arcade ports (*cough* Pac-Man), but the question is what made the biggest *impact*, and in that regard they're underrated, if anything

The only reason ports were more standardized in the Xbox and going forward era is because the processors have become more standardized. And by standardized I mean out of date PC chips. There has been close to no reason to own a non-Nintendo console for two+ generations now. If Microsoft has a legacy in consoles, it is the legacy of delegitimizing the ownership of them.

KamikazePotato posted...

Sega is absolutely 3rd here.

Sega is the only company on here that is noteworthy as a developer. Atari had games and Microsoft is now the publisher for a bajillion studios they bought up, but Sega is by far the best creator of games themselves.

azuarc posted...

Sega is the only company on here that is noteworthy as a developer. Atari had games and Microsoft is now the publisher for a bajillion studios they bought up, but Sega is by far the best creator of games themselves.

Yeah but the question is biggest impact on the industry, not best developer.

It's Microsoft without question. People forget that Microsoft created DirectX, and the Windows OS, which (quick googling), like 90% of PC games use/are on.

Then you have the Xbox 360, which is like, yeah.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It's Microsoft without question. People forget that Microsoft created DirectX, and the Windows OS, which (quick googling), like 90% of PC games use/are on.

Totally agree. As someone who played PC games in the before times, Windows 95 and the plug and play capability of DirectX made it so much easier.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yeah but the question is biggest impact on the industry, not best developer.

It's Microsoft without question. People forget that Microsoft created DirectX, and the Windows OS, which (quick googling), like 90% of PC games use/are on.

Then you have the Xbox 360, which is like, yeah.

I was thinking consoles and not PC, so your arguments have changed my perspective a bit. Not entirely, though, as their prevalence in OS space to me has little to do with gaming and there are probably more alternatives to DirectX now than ever. In retrospect, I would probably put them ahead of Sega.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Yeah but the question is biggest impact on the industry, not best developer.

So what you're saying is that, in the video game industry, the video games aren't influential to the industry?

That is not what Tony said

Effectively it is. He implied that developers don't have an impact on the industry. Or at least that they cannot have a noticeable enough impact to compare to hardware companies.

Halo influenced other games more than anything Sega released ever did.

Master Chief also has influence over the gummy worms you find at your local gas station.

microsoft made shit to average pc games throughout the 90s.

Its obviously atari > sega >>>> microsoft

microsoft is a OS and business software company for the most part

Atari: 43-18-16 (104)
Microsoft: 20-22-35 (62)
Sega: 14-37-26 (65)

(If 1st=2 points and 2nd=1 point)

Winning option right now:

Atari > Sega > Microsoft 35.9% (28 votes)

Microsoft is beating Sega in the second, third, and fourth most popular options right now. Microsoft also has more first place-votes than Sega...but losing with #1 like this really evens it back out to Sega. Little surprised Atari is doing this well but I get it.

It's Microsoft. People who didn't PC game hardcore don't understand just how big a deal microsoft's gaming side was. How big?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN0K58EfJSg

So big that, in a developer conference where the entire point was to talk shop, this commercial aired selling Windows 95 as a Doom machine. The whole point was to sell the appeal of Windows as a games platform. It succeeded, and today, we just don't really play PC games on anything else.

KanzarisKelshen posted...

we just don't really play PC games on anything else.

Well, sure, if you want to argue that the only noteworthy Mac developer to ever come along got bought out by Microsoft. Gaming just never got started on anything else, and with the market share being what it is, it's not hard to see why. (This is far and away the highest Mac OS has ever been in the market. Historically, it's hovered around 4%.)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/1f929fd9.png

azuarc posted...

Effectively it is. He implied that developers don't have an impact on the industry. Or at least that they cannot have a noticeable enough impact to compare to hardware companies.

I didn't say this lol.

Games created by developers obviously have huge impacts on the industry.

But Microsoft created infrastructure and libraries that influenced EVERYTHING in the industry, not just game design, but everything around it.

I think foolmo would be the best person to explain this, but as far as I know it used to just be OpenGL, then DirectX came out and almost all games used it. Then you have things like friends lists integrated into games and invites, achievements, voice chat. These things existed before Xbox, but the Xbox and Xbox 360 made the impact that caused them to become widespread. That's not even discussing things like the MSN Gaming Zone, which was a website where you could host and join multiplayer PC games super easy, as opposed to the old days where everything was server browsers and direct connections over IP.

I was a bit too young for that. But what's funny now is that we're largely back to OpenGL, due to cross-platform graphics frameworks that can export to OpenGL, Vulkan, and DX. Valve helped that a ton by focusing on Linux gaming.

It's hard to judge because MS was first to deliver these impactful technologies, but they weren't the only ones doing them. So without MS, the tech would definitely have still happened, though maybe a bit slower. You could then argue MS isn't really deserving of the credit. They were just really good at taking credit with their "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Windows, DirectX, and their internet services all fall under that.

Nvidia or AMD ought to be in the running no?