thewhitehawk
Member
Microsoft's exit from the gaming console market would be to the detriment of all console gamers. Competition is good for consumers.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
When do you think Microsoft will react to potentially losing next gen battle?
- Thread starter Tak3n
- Start date
Microsoft's exit from the gaming console market would be to the detriment of all console gamers. Competition is good for consumers.
Sloane_Ranger
Member
Just my 5 cents worth. Based on my experiences with companies I work with getting new CEOs or CMOs .. The CEO will want to make an impact on the high profile business units in their company right away to validate the company choosing them to take the lead - as such, high profile changes have already most likely been discussed and are in the works ... even if they do not feel like they are 'behind' or on par right now. Expect to see visible changes no matter what their market position. IMO.
at the moment, however, MS are not competition. they're not doing anything better than sony, they're not offering anything for better value than sony, and they're not doing anything else to encourage sony to improve their offering.
in fact, at the moment, it's Sony that we should be hopeful stay in the race, not MS, because they're the ones who are offering good value, good first party support, and constantly increasing the value of stuff like PS+. MS need to prove they're actually up for the challenge before we start wishing they'll stay in the race, because nothing they've done with Xbone so far has prompted or required a reaction from Sony.
in fact i could see Amazon's console providing stiffer competition to Sony than MS, because I imagine they'll be aiming at 'casual' gamers who would buy a PS4 in a few years time, from the get-go, and every indication is that they're building quite a stable of first-party developers.
Doug Heffernan
Member
How is that bullshit? There's nothing wrong with that.
Without Microsoft's funding, Dead Rising 3 probably would never have existed at all.
thewhitehawk
Member
I agree with most of what you said but one thing. Microsoft is in the same home console market as Sony, therefore they are competing in the same market. Whether or not they are doing a good job at it is the part that is debatable and in that regard, I agree with what you just said.
Sloane_Ranger
Member
And they [Amazon] are racing to try to control Cable/Other Video over IP, which is squarely in MS wheelhouse. Direct MS competition for the casual set-top living room box.
I'm not going to lie, you're doing a pretty good job convincing me to re-evaluate my stance on the Saturn atm lol. You almost remind me of myself when that gen was currently ongoing.
I guess what I'm trying to convey is that the most powerful console in the eyes of the consumers (which I think makes sense to use as the metric when arguing sales of the console) is dependant on the visuals and audio that the console puts out. On these terms the Saturn was demonstrably less capable than the Playstation was. The difference in situations between the Saturn and the PS3 is that the best looking PS3 games look better than the best looking 360 games. The best looking Saturn games however didn't even begin to approach the best looking PS1 games. There are PS1 games from second and third tier studios that are better graphically than any individual Saturn game. Now if the console had been more successful, and had the world's best talent focused on producing the best content they could for the machine, than things may have been different. As it stands however, any performance advantages outside of the realm of 2D for the Saturn is theoretical, and was not once actually demonstrated in any released software. The fact that the machine wheezed if you simply asked it to draw any transparencies is enough for me to hand this one over to the Playstation.
With that said however, I wouldn't compare the Xbox One's situation with the Saturn's at all. There was such a crazy amount of things going wrong at the same time for Sega, that I don't think the situation is comparable at all. Being $100 more expensive, whilst getting smacked around in graphics is not a good look though. They should drop to $400 with the Kinect left in at the earliest possibility, and just eat the losses in my opinion. Leaving things as they are will cause the situation to become unrepairable within a year or so.
thewhitehawk
Member
I'm not going to lie, you're doing a pretty good job convincing me to re-evaluate my stance on the Saturn atm lol. You almost remind me of myself when that gen was currently ongoing.
I guess what I'm trying to convey is that the most powerful console in the eyes of the consumers (which I think makes sense to use as the metric when arguing sales of the console) is dependant on the visuals and audio that the console puts out. On these terms the Saturn was demonstrably less capable than the Playstation was. The difference in situations between the Saturn and the PS3 is that the best looking PS3 games look better than the best looking 360 games. The best looking Saturn games however didn't even begin to approach the best looking PS1 games. There are PS1 games from second and third tier studios that are better graphically than any individual Saturn game. Now if the console had been more successful, and had the world's best talent focused on producing the best content they could for the machine, than things may have been different. As it stands however, any performance advantages outside of the realm of 2D for the Saturn is theoretical, and was not once actually demonstrated in any released software. The fact that the machine wheezed if you simply asked it to draw any transparencies is enough for me to hand this one over to the Playstation.
With that said however, I wouldn't compare the Xbox One's situation with the Saturn's at all. There was such a crazy amount of things going wrong at the same time for Sega, that I don't think the situation is comparable at all. Being $100 more expensive, whilst getting smacked around in graphics is not a good look though. They should drop to $400 with the Kinect left in at the earliest possibility, and just eat the losses in my opinion. Leaving things as they are will cause the situation to become unrepairable within a year or so.
You forgot to mention that when the Saturn was launched Sega was trying to support 4 gaming platforms (Genesis, 64X, Sega CD and Saturn)
jabberwocker
Banned
Hopefully this scenario plays out. We have seen ms start to turn around a bit but like Cynn said, they need more quality exclusive IPs. As it stands now all my multi-platforms will be pc or ps4. So exclusives would be the only reason I will be buying games for mine that I can see right now.
Someone better would hopefully fill their shoes.
With the OG Xbox and the 360 Microsoft was an upstart. They were firing on all cylinders wrt innovation. Whatever happened halfway through the 360's time on market sunk all that. The team that created the Xbone are not of the same spirit as the old Xbox team. The Xbone is essentially a bag to push Microsoft's services and policies into the living room. Maybe that was always the case, but it never sucked as badly as with the Xbox One.
Three things may happen:
1. Microsoft does a PS3 and turns it around and the late-gen Xbone and Xbox 4 are awesome
2. The brand dies this generation and a fresh contender takes their slot
3. The brand dies and evil Sony returns
There's probably an arguement to be made that, in their current state, Microsoft actually stifles competition - like the stupid ID@Xbox rule which forces multiplatform indie devs into financial difficulty because they must have all platforms ready at launch if it's not an XONE exclusive. Also, MS's tendency to buy 'sure thing' multiplatform games rather than invest in their own first party studios - which follows on from 360's first party drought because MS got cocky due to the console was doing so well.
thewhitehawk
Member
Someone better? Right now I think the most likely candidates to step into the console market are Samsung, Apple and Valve. They are two of the few companies with enough capital, interest and capability of making such a product.
Samsung's software typically sucks. It's rushed, unfinished and largely unstable and I think that a largely software-based closed platform under their control would suffer because of that.
Apple's approach to gaming so far has basically been "meh, maybe" so I don't think we'd see anything pushing cutting-edge graphics or innovative coming from them.
Valve has the tough job of making computers that perform as well as the proprietary consoles, getting more publishers to port games over to Linux and informing consumers. They will probably have the hardest job of all in the "console" space.
Right now, I think it would be bad if Microsoft moved away from the console business for us.
the better twin
Member
Amazon?
thewhitehawk
Member
I don't know what to think of their moves into the gaming industry. At this point it seems odd to me. I don't know if they're really getting into the console business or if they just want quality developers to make games for their forked-Android tablets.
If they did make a console though, it probably would be closer to the Wii U's performance and very aggressively priced. Amazon tends to be very aggressive with their pricing and while that helps consumers it usually turns off some publishers. So I don't know... it would be weird for them to enter the console market in the upcoming years.
The problem is you're not looking at the disruption angle. Somebody is going to come along out of left field and redefine what a game console is. Could be this gen, could be next, could be a decade from now but it *will* happen.
The console industry as it stands today is in a pretty lame state. Someone need to turn it on its head and it sure as shit ain't gonna be Microsoft.
thewhitehawk
Member
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I'd like to say we should expect a price drop sometime later this year but I'd probably be wrong. What I imagine is MS doing more pack-in offers and being creative with sales.
But that's not going to help much. The only thing that can give the XB1 the right kind of boost right now is a price cut.
But that's not going to help much. The only thing that can give the XB1 the right kind of boost right now is a price cut.
Substitute SEGA for Microsoft in that sentence and you probably have the exact same thought people had when the Dreamcast failed and SEGA left the hardware business.
Someone always steps up to take their place. Probably Amazon's console or some such by that time.
Are you trying to tell me Sega's exit wasn't to the detriment of console gaming? Because I'd be willing to fight you to the death over that!
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Not really. Sega was uncompetetive. The demise of the Dreamcast is akin to the nonpresence of the WiiU - neither Sony nor Microsoft were competing directly with that console.
But when it comes to the PS4 and XB1, the elasticity of substitution is high. The two consoles share a very similar games library and almost identical media offerings. They have to maintain a competetive spirit in order to succeed. And when one bows out, the leg room to fuck over the customer increases dramatically.
It's not like both Sony and MS haven't taken advantage of their market leadership when either has had the upper hand. Imagine just how much the incentive to innovate would reduce were one company to bow out.
Paying for stuff to be made in the first place and then having exclusivity e.g. B2 and DR3 is fine.
Paying so a certain group of people is excluded isn't.
Rewarding shit competitors is not good for anyone either - why would anyone try anymore if it makes no difference...
edit: sry for dp :-(
It's only good for gamers in that the Microsoft IPs they love will continue to come out . Other than that they are slow to catch up with their main competitor when it comes to value of a subscription and have released a box that isn't really for the hardcore gamer.
I hope Amazon takes their place if they did leave. They may not have the developers of direct x on the payroll but you can't deny they have a better customer mindshare than Microsoft.
Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that it will happen? Perhaps the concept of a game console is so refined by now that only minor improvements are possible from here on out. E.g. cars haven't changed that much for decades.
Do you have anything particular in mind when you say that its going to change? Imho consoles haven't changed that much since the early days. Graphics and controllers got better, there was the shift from 2d to 3d and then online multiplayer was added, which may count as the biggest change. Frankly I'm very satisfied with consoles as they are, so I don't see the need for them to change in a revolutionary way. I see more potential for change in the games themselves, with open worlds and procedurally / user created content. Just imagine a GTA game where you could enter every building and every room would look different and could change over time. The world would feel unbelievably real. But you don't need a revolutionary new device for that. Just powerful cloud servers and a decent console.
Perhaps apple, samsung & co. did not release a revolutionary new console because there is simply nothing inherently wrong with the existing ones.
It's part of the game
Sony locked down EA sports during the Dreamcast days
Luckily Visual Concepts stepped up or it would have been more of a slaughter
I'd argue that it's more a case of MS bowing out without anyone else coming in that could be detrimental.
Their ultimate direction is not game centric (and to be fair they never claimed it was) and while they definitely introduced some good ideas and concepts (although personally I feel they lifted most of these from PC and simply unified them together) they've also used plenty of tactics which aren't consumer friendly (admittedly all the players do this in some form or other but MS seemed particularly guilty last gen in my view of buying up DLC, early access etc that was more geared to limiting consumer choice vs providing superior consumer choice).
Not saying I'm keen they drop out but I certainly don't see it as an automatic big loss specific to MS if they did drop out provided the market reshapes itself accordingly.
I honestly don't care who's doing it - it's an awful practice regardless.
I highly disagree with the optimism of those who think Amazon will swoop into the next-gen market. The chance that Amazon's console will even be remotely as powerful as the XBO/PS4 is very low. They are building a low power Android home console, which may well be powered by a mid-range Tegra chip. Will it have games? Sure, they may even be pretty good games. But the chance of current-gen titles appearing on the system are low.
Amazon wins with Kindle on price. In all likelihood the Amazon console/Kindle Box will be $199 or less, and there's very little chance that they can cram PS4/XBO level hardware into that.
Amazon wins with Kindle on price. In all likelihood the Amazon console/Kindle Box will be $199 or less, and there's very little chance that they can cram PS4/XBO level hardware into that.
That's not true at all. Amazon has a high reputation for selling its hardware at cost and for packing a ton of power into them. All of their hardware have impressive specs, and there are many articles about this. Amazon can be a strong force to reckon with. They have an impressive warchest.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
What the hell? They're already selling off other assets in order to accommodate their financial situation. They're still very far down, but compared to before, they're doing better.
Does it make one feel better to think that Microsoft is sitting around and purposely refusing to sell the hundreds of thousands of consoles they have on shelves? Is this what you think? What waiting game are they playing? They already supplied stores. They're doing a whole lot of something and what's returning is nothing (exaggerated to prove a point).
Eh.
Uno Venova
Banned
The idea of competitors actually making mostly pro-consumer efforts and making great products and being rewarded for those actions sounds much better than everyone getting equal sales just for participating.
Personally I could do without payments to halt development on other platforms, release day clauses and draconian DRM.
are we talking about the same amazon that its profits are nonexistent? yeah keep dreaming they will release a competitive console (powerwise of xbox one/ps4).
if ms exits I don't see anyone really taking their place and why should they?
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
And I'm sorry for such a quick repost, but I experience semantic satiation whenever the word competition is mentioned, and it hurts my head.
While rivalries in business can produce desirable effects, that is not something that is always guaranteed. When PS2 dominated the gaming landscape and arguably had little to no competition, were gamers punished as a result? No. In fact, it prioritized one platform and allowed for the release of hundreds upon hundreds of amazing titles.
And while I do agree that competition is good, in the imaginary instance should Microsoft leave gaming, I don't think the lack of competition will be too detrimental to gamers and the industry, if at all; what comes to mind is the recent debacle with Titanfall and how it was supposedly originally planned to release on multiple consoles but then retained Xbox One exclusivity as a result of paying EA off. It isn't as if they worked the title as an exclusive from the ground up. When I see tactics like that (which isn't a first for Microsoft), I couldn't care much less if they were to exit the industry.
And to be fair, I'm sure companies such as Nintendo and Sony have done similar things as mentioned, but Microsoft is on a whole different level, especially with regard to being public about it. Anyway, I digress.
You said Microsoft leaving would be detrimental to console market, and I kindly disagree.
Edit: And to clarify, I refer to exclusivity in this instance as between Microsoft and Sony consoles, with Titanfall being exclusive to the former.
jiminycracken
Banned
Rockefellar made his money by pricing his oil outrageously low when entering a market for the first time. Then when all competitors went bust from being unable to compete with him, he would have a monopoly and raise his prices to an insane level. Sony might offer you something better now, but if MS bows out what's to say they don't go Rockefellar and become arrogant Sony again?
SwiftDeath
Member
Nintendo, PC gaming, mobile gaming still exist
The idea that even during the PS2 era there existed a monopoly is objectively not true.
If MS leaves, Sony will still have competition
Um, wrong. Only exception is the Wii.
thewhitehawk
Member
Those guys have it explained it to you numerous times why what you said is not the case.
Dude, it's a very well known fact that the Xbox brand has been losing a lot of money since the original Xbox. Plenty of proof has been shown around here.
Just because that Microsoft has a lot more money than Sony does, doesn't mean that they'll continue to put it towards entertainment products if they're not making them a lot of profit that their shareholders want.
Also, know that there is a difference in every country's bankruptcy policies and how they are handled.
Link.
It's not just me that's repeating what's been going on, but many others as well, yet you keep constantly focusing on me & what I say. If you don't like my posts, then why do you keep replying back?
Did I ever say that Playstation would save the company? No, I did not.
it's very probable that in the future they would become 'arrogant sony' again, or at least, less competitive sony, without competition. but the solution to that problem is not to hope that microsoft are kept 'alive' artificially if they're not competing with sony. it's to hope that ms actually start competing with sony in a meaningful sense by investing in first-party games, increasing the value proposition of their console (by either lowering the price or improving the software features) and improving their network services so that they are actually competing with sony in a meaningful way again.
hoping that MS just 'do well' without bringing anything to the table for the sake of 'competition' is utterly misunderstanding how competition in a market works.
Septimus Prime
Member
Forgottonone
Member
I honestly think they could get away with less power.. but them having more power with the 360 made it the behemoth it is today
Are we forgetting how MS's shitty proposed policies in 2013 led to Sony's E3 announcements that completely undercut them?
I take a longer view of the impact of competition. Sony's success with the PS2 led to them taking a very wrong direction with the PS3. So it was great for that gen, but was detrimental in the following.
Meanwhile Microsoft getting their butt kicked by the PS2 led to them making the 360, which stole the NA market lead from Sony. Sony's performance in the last gen led to them taking a more pragmatic, consumer driven approach with the PS4. Microsoft's success in the US with the 360 led to them going all in with a console designed primarily for it. In each case the success is following mistake and their competitor is adjusting in the following generation.
Were MS to drop out, we'd feel the effects on the next generation more so than this one. Assuming another formidable competitor didn't step up.
Then there can be a new, better competitor.
we don't have any (direct) evidence that Sony's announcements were made precisely to undercut MS. for all we know everything they ended up announcing was what they were going to announce anyway.
this. though i would actually argue that sony's 'arrogance' (i hate this term to be honest) started with PS2, but it wasn't until PS3 that it hit full tilt.
but either way, the impact is longer term. who knows what the industry will look like in 2020, and whether Sony will even release a PS5.
Similar threads
- Poll