Support NeoGAF

[schwabdizzle]

I honestly think MS can turn it around with a $350 kinnectless Xbone. I am just gonna leave it at that.

 

[Violater]

Its as if some of you guys have not seen Titan Fall.

 

[BigDug13]

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!

Sure, most exits in this industry are detrimental in some way, but MS leaving the industry wouldn't make it fail or somehow cause it to have a massive contraction. SEGA leaving did what? They started releasing all their franchises across other platforms, most notably Shenmue 2 on Xbox.

 

[Demi_God]

They will abandon home consoles. It's not a growth market and it's hard to make money. I don't think they were very keen on even doing the Xbone.

probably because Microsoft can't dominate the gaming market. They dominated the OS market and all business softwares pretty much, but they just can't dominate the gaming market, which could meant they will abandon home consoles. It's probably another reason those shareholder topics of "Shareholders want microsoft to pull out of the console market" topics pop up from time to time. Microsoft just seems more like a company that needs to dominate and if they can't, they pack up and leave.

 

[TakeItSlowDude]

Don't see Kinectless Xbox One making sense. Forced Kinect has way too much value for data mining and as a way for MS to test their natural language R&D. As much as people laugh at the 'cloud', I am guessing MS is doing some very interesting thing with cloud + voice commands and data mining. With that said, the cloud benefits MS far more than the consumer. MS needs to find a way to actually sell the public on the cloud, maybe natural language translation in Skype could be a killer app https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu-nlQqFCKg.

I think MS will have to grind it out, pay money for exclusives and timed exclusives, work on improving their drivers and sdks, get their indie program running. Maybe use all of that data they are mining from the Xbone to subsidize a price cut. Push for more digital downloads and digital sales once they have a larger user base. It is not about MS selling more console than Sony it is about Xbox being in the black, and mining a ton of data from users, and exploiting that mined data.

 

[Sydle]

probably because Microsoft can't dominate the gaming market. They dominated the OS market and all business softwares pretty much, but they just can't dominate the gaming market, which could meant they will abandon home consoles. It's probably another reason those shareholder topics of "Shareholders want microsoft to pull out of the console market" topics pop up from time to time. Microsoft just seems more like a company that needs to dominate and if they can't, they pack up and leave.

But that flies in the face of Azure, Hyper-V, Surface, Windows Phone, Skype, Xbox, Bing, Outlook.com, OneDrive, and more. Their most successful and fastest growing division, Server & Tools, has major competitors to pretty much every product.

Nadella and Gates believe in the devices and services future. They're not going to drop the TV screen any time soon when it's a portal to sell premium entertainment experiences, especially when they don't have a strong mobile presence yet. They need stronger execution on innovative devices and services. If they really can put their resources to work to move things forward I have no clue why some of you want them to drop out. Ballmer is gone. Mattrick is gone. Gates is back. I say let's see what they can do now.

 

[Skeff]

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.

I definitely see this as a possibility if we are left without Xbox, however I don't think it's a likely possibility as Sony have experienced their own arrogance with the PS3 and it wasn't profitable, I'm sure there would be some arrogance and we'd likely lose out in some way, But I don't think we'll ever see a PS3 scenario from Sony again, companies love making money and to make a financially successful PS5, they would likely attempt to repeat the PS4, assuming it is very successful.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I don't think Microsoft will ever be in first this generation but to say they will lose is crazy. They will make money and all will be well in the world.

This. I would loved to have seen the always on Xbox release in a parallel universe so we could see how much that would have mattered, but I don't think Micorosft is as worried about "losing" the console war insofar as "losing" by pure sales metrics just means they don't make as much profit.

 

[twobear]

I definitely see this as a possibility if we are left without Xbox, however I don't think it's a likely possibility as Sony have experienced their own arrogance with the PS3 and it wasn't profitable, I'm sure there would be some arrogance and we'd likely lose out in some way, But I don't think we'll ever see a PS3 scenario from Sony again, companies love making money and to make a financially successful PS5, they would likely attempt to repeat the PS4, assuming it is very successful.

The only reason PS3 wasn't profitable was because of the Xbox 360. Companies don't 'learn' not to be bloated and uncompetitive, they turn into that when they don't have serious competitors to keep them on their toes.

The idea that Sony (or any company) 'learned' from their arrogance is absurd. If it were true, MS would have 'learned' from the 360 what they should do with Xbone.

 

[Skenzin]

One relaunch late 2014

1. Removed BluRay drive
2. Remove kinect
3. Mandate all published retail games come with a disc and digital dl code (disc install requires DL code)
4. New OS update to reflect changes
5. Smaller chasis with a cool design.
6. $299

turn it into the base low cost model for next gen gameplay (ala PS2 of its era)

 

[jond76]

Lots of fun fan fiction going on in here. Haha

 

[BigDug13]

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.

I think what Sony did with the PS3 wasn't a "very wrong direction" at all (it was a wrong direction, but people like to label it like some sort of disaster). In fact, as someone who was interested in HD movies, the PS3 for $500 or $600 in the face of other blu-ray players costing $1000, they definitely delivered on value. It's still my go-to media player. Considering they also were the only company giving us HDMI and wifi while also providing 3x the HDD space as the 360 as well as HDD upgradability, while they paid $850 BOM to build each $600 PS3, I didn't see the huge missteps in my wallet.

Their PR was a disaster though and Cell was a big mistake. But outside of that, as far as value for what you got for $600, it absolutely blows away what the XBO is offering at $500 when you consider how new blu-ray technology was and the value of HDMI and wifi at the time.

 

[Skeff]

But that flies in the face of Azure, Hyper-V, Surface, Windows Phone, Skype, Xbox, Bing, Outlook.com, OneDrive, and more.

Nadella and Gates believe in the devices and services future. They're not going to drop the TV screen any time soon when it's a portal to sell premium entertainment experiences, especially when they don't have a strong mobile presence yet. I don't know why you guys spend so much time thinking about it. There's a far higher likelihood you'll lose interest in all gaming long before Microsoft does.

I see Microsofts console business as a step to control the living room, they initially had a 3 stage plan which was:

OG Xbox - Become a name (likely lose money but be recognizable in the console business)
360 - Build a succesful brand to compete closely with Nintendo/Sony
XB1 - Become the Market leader and expand the industry to 400million+ units, They want this to be your home OS.

Up until this point the first two generations have done well, in fact the 360 likely did better than their internal projections because the PS3 messed up so badly. Now is crunch time for the Xbox team where they want to be the market leader and want to control the living room, the original plan of the Xbox was to stop Sony from controlling the living room, It's a good plan that was to get Windows into peoples lives away from PC. However Tablets/smartphones have taken the spot of the living room OS now.

The devices division is making a meager profit (mainly thanks to Android patents) and is dragging down the ROI of the entire company, as it stands the xbox division has been surviving at Microsoft on the promise of the connected living room and that they would be the main player in that scenario, this is why MS have gone from hardcore gaming to a kinect focus to even having the kinect bundled, with a TV focus.

At least this is my opinion on the strategy behind MS entering the console business, there is a reason Microsoft wanted an always online box, there is a reason why the want "connected experiences" and there;s a reason Kinect is in the box and the console has a HDMI in and 8gb DDR3 and that reason is to be at the heart of a connected home.

The only reason PS3 wasn't profitable was because of the Xbox 360. Companies don't 'learn' not to be bloated and uncompetitive, they turn into that when they don't have serious competitors to keep them on their toes.

The idea that Sony (or any company) 'learned' from their arrogance is absurd. If it were true, MS would have 'learned' from the 360 what they should do with Xbone.

Well I don't think another 360 would suit their corporate goals for this generation, but also they had no mistake to learn from, the only thing Microsoft knew in the console business was success, they are yet to truly taste failure (and may never) so they had no failure to "learn" from, perhaps instead of learn I should have used the word Fear, because it would be the fear of a PS3 repeat, rather than a learning experience.

 

[Biker19]

One relaunch late 2014

1. Removed BluRay drive
2. Remove kinect
3. Mandate all published retail games come with a disc and digital dl code (disc install requires DL code)
4. New OS update to reflect changes
5. Smaller chasis with a cool design.
6. $299

Turn it into the base low cost model for next gen gameplay (ala PS2 of its era)

Wouldn't work. Internet speeds still aren't very good for countries/regions like NA, & there's also bandwidth caps to think about.

Plus there are plenty of people that's still likes physical media on consoles.

 

[BigDug13]

I see Microsofts console business as a step to control the living room, they initially had a 3 stage plan which was:

OG Xbox - Become a name (likely lose money but be recognizable in the console business)
360 - Build a succesful brand to compete closely with Nintendo/Sony
XB1 - Become the Market leader and expand the industry to 400million+ units, They want this to be your home OS.

Up until this point the first two generations have done well, in fact the 360 likely did better than their internal projections because the PS3 messed up so badly. Now is crunch time for the Xbox team where they want to be the market leader and want to control the living room, the original plan of the Xbox was to stop Sony from controlling the living room, It's a good plan that was to get Windows into peoples lives away from PC. However Tablets/smartphones have taken the spot of the living room OS now.

The devices division is making a meager profit (mainly thanks to Android patents) and is dragging down the ROI of the entire company, as it stands the xbox division has been surviving at Microsoft on the promise of the connected living room and that they would be the main player in that scenario, this is why MS have gone from hardcore gaming to a kinect focus to even having the kinect bundled, with a TV focus.

At least this is my opinion on the strategy behind MS entering the console business, there is a reason Microsoft wanted an always online box, there is a reason why the want "connected experiences" and there;s a reason Kinect is in the box and the console has a HDMI in and 8gb DDR3 and that reason is to be at the heart of a connected home.

You can't take over a living room by charging people $5 a month to do absolutely anything with the device. If that was really their plan, they fumbled the ball pretty hard showing the machine as a value to a non-gamer. It has barely any functionality at all without that subscription. It still burns me that my 360 in my bedroom can't be used for Netflix anymore because I let gold lapse.

 

[KnockOneOff]

Lmao your all acting like Xbox one has sold nothing

Looks like pach was right console gaming is dead if I read this thread

 

[keltickennedy]

Are they putting out a Xbone Titanfall bundle? That would be pretty stupid if they didn't.

 

[BigDug13]

Are they putting out a Xbone Titanfall bundle? That would be pretty stupid if they didn't.

Not sure that they want a bundle out there that has a game that requires Gold before you can even boot it up. I mean unless the bundle with game still comes out to $500 then I guess that would be ok. But it still would be packing in a game that not everyone is going to be able to play. Better to stick with bundles that have games that both offline and online people can play.

 

[keltickennedy]

Not sure that they want a bundle out there that has a game that requires Gold before you can even boot it up.

Throw in a week or two free gold inside the game.

 

[leobebes]

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.

1. Am I wrong for believing the whole money-hatting exclusives and investing in first party studios has more to do with perception that reality? At this very moment in time, doesn't Microsoft have a decent collection of quality first party studios under their belt? Also, they've arguably developed the most successful in house studio between them and Sony, in Bungie (who've moved on, of course for whatever reason people like to subscribe to) and therefore have proved that they know how to develop in-house talent. I think the perception of MS not investing in first party studios has more to do with gamer's expectations rather than actual reality. Gamers crave new experiences, and feel that as deep as MS' pockets are, they should have double or triple the amount of studio devs under their belt, as compared to Sony, but what they don't take into account is that A. AAA games and franchises are very, very expensive and new franchises come with TONS of risk nowadays and B. The Xbox division is but a small part of MS entire strategy and budget. Sure MS is doing better than Sony as a whole, but the Xbox division probably has the same monetary investment and resources as the Playstation budget, if not less, if you consider the resources it takes to run Vita development.

2. I don't care if my console of choice gets exclusive games through money-hatting, in house studios, or a collection of red-assed mandrills from the Congo who've been paid for their services through half-rotted lychee fruit. I feel that complaining about how a console manufacturer develops their games is akin to being an armchair GM for your favorite sports team. Take a look at the Dodgers now. They're trying to rebuild their farm system all the while replenishing talent through high priced free agency, it worked for the Yankees during their run, and it's kind of like what MS is doing with their games. In the end if the team wins, no one cares where the talent comes from, and the same goes for Xbox users. As long as the games are good, no one could give a rat's behind what studio the game came from.

3. There is value proposition with the Xbox One. As a married man with two children, who's constantly losing the remote(s) to the t.v. and his other media devices, and can't remember what channel shows I want to watch are on because Comedy Central across the county line is on channel 134 and on my side of the street its 803, the Xbox One does provide value. To the majority of GAF, young, single guys who probably sneer at crying kids in restaurants and promptly wish to chuck them through the kitchen and into the fryer, see the Kinect and the $100 price tag as a hindrance, but to someone of my demo, who I assure you is a plentiful one, the Xbox One does provide a value proposition. Also, they'v been proven to refine their OS and software features in the past, so I've cut them some slack for the half-baked OS on the X1, which with the last update, is a bit better.

4. As for the networking features, are you talking about the free games? Sure, PSN mopped the floor late in the PS3's life cycle when it came to enticing Playstation users with free games, but for the new consoles, new game distribution is still up in the air for both consoles, since there haven't been that many new games to begin with. Also, connectivity-wise, Titanfall and Forza have proven to me how incredible Microsoft's Azure system of serves are for multiplayer gaming. Seriously, give Titanfall a shot before the beta closes up shop today. The online multiplayer is as flawless as I've seen a game of its caliber play online. No hyperbole.

Just my .02...

But I agree, Microsoft needs to step up its game (when it comes to appealing its critics and the main demo who are early adopters, young, cynical gamers) or just wave the white flag as you've said.

 

[CoG]

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.

The thing about disruption is that you don't know it until you see it. If I knew what was going to happen I wouldn't be posting it on GAF.

Think about phones and how Apple disrupted that market. Cell phones are the result decades for incremental changes in the phone space. Suddenly the iPhone comes out and you're not only carrying your phone, you have a your camera, entire photo collection, rolodex, GPS, voice recorder, iPod, radio, books, library, etc. and so on in your pocket at all times.

The same thing is going to happen to TV. TV is relatively the same since the 1920s. You had b&w -> color -> cable -> hdtv -> now but nothing has turned it on its head but you can sense something is coming with the imminent collapse of cable and the rise of Netflix, etc.

I have no idea what's going to change consoles, but the state they are in now sucks and the industry needs a kick in the ass. There's little innovation and it's turning into a big CoD2k4 factory. Microsoft tried to push the most draconian vision of the console industry possible. They should not be the ones to disrupt.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

One relaunch late 2014

1. Removed BluRay drive
2. Remove kinect
3. Mandate all published retail games come with a disc and digital dl code (disc install requires DL code)
4. New OS update to reflect changes
5. Smaller chasis with a cool design.
6. $299

turn it into the base low cost model for next gen gameplay (ala PS2 of its era)

Wouldn't work. They'll either remove the drive or Kinect, but sure as hell not both. And at $299, they'd be losing so much money the Xbox division would be guaranteed for a spin-off in a few years to make a few investors very happy.

In short, it's an unrealistic list.

2. I don't care if my console of choice gets exclusive games through money-hatting, in house studios, or a collection of red-assed mandrills from the Congo who've been paid for their services through half-rotted lychee fruit. I feel that complaining about how a console manufacturer develops their games is akin to being an armchair GM for your favorite sports team. Take a look at the Dodgers now. They're trying to rebuild their farm system all the while replenishing talent through high priced free agency, it worked for the Yankees during their run, and it's kind of like what MS is doing with their games. In the end if the team wins, no one cares where the talent comes from, and the same goes for Xbox users. As long as the games are good, no one could give a rat's behind what studio the game came from.

You end on a completely different note than what you started this point with. "Moneyhatting" is when a company (in this case a console manufacturer) buys up the exclusive distribution rights of a game to their proprietary platform when in fact all logical signs (marketshare, technical capability, fanbase allocation etc.) point to that game naturally being on a completely different platform or multiple platforms. The only reason it isn't there is because of $$.

Just to be clear, it's not the same as a manufacturer personally funding a game's development and thus taking partial ownership of the game (Nintendo with Bayo2, Sony with Rime). It's not like Respawn didn't already have a sugar daddy in EA to help fund TitanFall and needed Microsoft's money too, for example...

Moneyhatting has nothing to do with what studio is developing the game, so I don't understand how you lose the plot and take your argument into that territory near the end. And yes, people do care about moneyhats because they can lead to bad business practices that may ultimately affect the consumer. That's regardless of who does the moneyhat, mind you.

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.

But you're forgetting something: the reason the PS3 games look better than the best looking 360 games is because the PS3 had enough TIME in the dev scene to get a grip on. All of PS1's best lookers (RE2, Tekken3, Gran Turismo 2, MGS, Omega Boost etc.) all came out quite well after official development on Saturn ceased. That's why you can't really compare VF2 to T3, for example, or SR to RR4....two of those games came out well later and benefited from an already talented developer who had even more time with a given architecture.

I will just forever look at the videos for Saturn VF3 and Shenmue and wonder what could've been if the system's best developers stuck with it longer.

Otherwise, though, you're right: there wasn't any commercially released Saturn games that bested the best-looking commercially released PlayStation games. I personally feel a few came a bit close, though.

 

[ReBurn]

Throw in a week or two free gold inside the game.

Hell, since we are building a bundle we should make it a month.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I think what Sony did with the PS3 wasn't a "very wrong direction" at all (it was a wrong direction, but people like to label it like some sort of disaster). In fact, as someone who was interested in HD movies, the PS3 for $500 or $600 in the face of other blu-ray players costing $1000, they definitely delivered on value. It's still my go-to media player. Considering they also were the only company giving us HDMI and wifi while also providing 3x the HDD space as the 360 as well as HDD upgradability, while they paid $850 BOM to build each $600 PS3, I didn't see the huge missteps in my wallet.

Their PR was a disaster though and Cell was a big mistake. But outside of that, as far as value for what you got for $600, it absolutely blows away what the XBO is offering at $500 when you consider how new blu-ray technology was and the value of HDMI and wifi at the time.

I meant, wrong direction for Sony competetively. Six hundred US dollars pretty much ended their chances of a fast ramp out the gates (which was tied in part to the CELL decisions). They caught up eventually but that priced out millions of potential owners early in the generation who were then not buying content for those years.

 

[Hubble]

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?

What do you mean profits nonexistent? They are extremely profitable. Amazon will release a home console this year likely. They have been on a hiring spree in theirs games divisions and there are already rumors. In fact, if you look at Amazon's track record, all of their hardware releases boast impressive specs especially in relation to competitor devices, so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[BigDug13]

I meant, wrong direction for Sony competetively. Six hundred US dollars pretty much ended their chances of a fast ramp out the gates (which was tied in part to the CELL decisions). They caught up eventually but that priced out millions of potential owners early in the generation who were then not buying content for those years.

Yeah that's true. They tried to do too much. They wanted blu-ray success so badly that they were willing to shoot their gaming division in the foot to achieve it. They overestimated the demand for full BC in a console as well. They added wifi, HDMI, and a bigger HDD which apparently wasn't so necessary for most gamers.

For value per dollar the PS3 was a monster at the time. But from a pure "compete with the 360" standpoint, it was a failure at the start.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Yeah that's true. They tried to do too much. They wanted blu-ray success so badly that they were willing to shoot their gaming division in the foot to achieve it. They overestimated the demand for full BC in a console as well. They added wifi, HDMI, and a bigger HDD which apparently wasn't so necessary for most gamers.

For value per dollar the PS3 was a monster at the time. But from a pure "compete with the 360" standpoint, it was a failure at the start.

The PS3 was really where Sony learned that a more western approach to console design might be more worthwhile.

I love BC on consoles and still have my phatty for PS2 games but as disappointed as I am about no BC on PS4, I understand it.

Nintendo still believes in BC and their hw is apparently made in such a way to allow for it which makes it far more expensive to produce that it should be.

Man that original PS3 was such good value for what you got

 

[Tomcat]

What do you mean profits nonexistent? They are extremely profitable. Amazon will release a home console this year likely. They have been on a hiring spree in theirs games divisions and there are already rumors. In fact, if you look at Amazon's track record, all of their hardware releases boast impressive specs especially in relation to competitor devices, so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2014/01/amazon-sales-soar-but-profits-dont/

 

[crazygambit]

I think all of these companies realize that this "console race" is a marathon not a sprint. Give it two or three years and if one is substantially behind or ahead you'll see some change in business strategy, but we are still in the early adopter phase and will be for the next 12 months for sure.

I disagree a bit with this.

In previous gen manufacturing new consoles was hard enough that it would take much longer to get to a decent installed base. They had to start with only 1 territory or have massive shortages. Therefore the first year you were supply limited and there wasn't much urgency to sell more.

Nowadays manufacturing is much faster, so we have the Xbone for example being largely available just 3 months after launch. The PS4 should completely satisfy pent up demand in the next few months as well. Now you don't have a year to ramp up. If you fall behind in these first few months it could prove catastrophic.

So while it's still a marathon, the result could easily be defined in the first few miles.

 

[AU Tiger]

I don't really think that MS will ever admit defeat or that the console is a failure of this gen.

The best thing I think that they could do is simply pay more attention to what gamers and developers are asking for (so far seems to be going ok vs what I read about last gen's policies and stuff) and focus on really delivering high quality 1st party titles.

It wasn't 3rd party stuff that drove me to buy my 360, it was a strong 1st party lineup several years into the life of the console that I finally saw enough games that I really wanted to play that could only be experienced on the 360.

It was the same way with the PS3. What started off as basically a glorified bluray player eventually turned into a machine I actually played games on way after the initial console purchase (OG 40 or 60 gig version I believe)

If MS can really deliver amazing 1st party games, the graphics will be somewhat of a moot point because there is no other standard with which to measure them by. The only measure of quality at that point is whether or not it's fun and people want to play the games.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

So, having a very successful selling product means Microsoft is losing? Sure the PS4 is selling better, but that doesn't mean the Xbox one sales put it into a "losing" category like Nintendo with the Wii U.

As long as games keep coming out on my three next Gen consoles and two handhelds, I am winning.

 

[system11]

You can't take over a living room by charging people $5 a month to do absolutely anything with the device.

Nobody outside GAF gives a damn about tiny subscription fees though. I pay about the same for my phone, I pay a lot more for my TV. I pay more for my internet access and a hell of a lot more for the electricity. Xbox Live is just another cheap utility bill.

 

[Adam182]

Nobody outside GAF gives a damn about tiny subscription fees though. I pay about the same for my phone, I pay a lot more for my TV. I pay more for my internet access and a hell of a lot more for the electricity. Xbox Live is just another cheap utility bill.

Agreed. Been on live for the last decade and honestly feel I get my money's worth. No complaints. I mean who pays full price for live? It's always $40 or less somewhere. Less then $3.50 a month does not bug me at all. Especially for the exclusive content, exclusive apps, security, quality of online experience, etc.

 

[Fangrim]

Isn't it a win if you end up making money on the console?

Also, it's selling better than any of their previous consoles.

I dunno... I don't think they'll ever openly admit that they "lost" any race, the wildest scenario I can think of is Microsoft saying that the Xbox One has not sold as well as they projected.

Alternatively, they'll do a Kinect-less SKU and PR-spin it onto "we listened to YOU, the consumer!"

Admit outright defeat? Never.

 

[Imperfected]

Lmao your all acting like Xbox one has sold nothing

Looks like pach was right console gaming is dead if I read this thread

Pachter predicted both consoles to sell well - albeit the PS4 not as well as it has, and the XB1 better - and is a member of Wedbush, who have published a hundred and fifty page report positing the expansion of the console gaming industry over this generation.

If you're going to build a strawman, at least use actual straw.

 

[Biker19]

Nobody outside GAF gives a damn about tiny subscription fees though. I pay about the same for my phone, I pay a lot more for my TV. I pay more for my internet access and a hell of a lot more for the electricity. Xbox Live is just another cheap utility bill.

But tablets, smartphones, Roku's/Apple TV's, new Smart TV's, etc. have already taken over the living room within the majority of people. Since about 2010.

Live TV isn't exactly huge anymore.

 

[Skeff]

Isn't it a win if you end up making money on the console?

Also, it's selling better than any of their previous consoles.

I dunno... I don't think they'll ever openly admit that they "lost" any race, the wildest scenario I can think of is Microsoft saying that the Xbox One has not sold as well as they projected.

Alternatively, they'll do a Kinect-less SKU and PR-spin it onto "we listened to YOU, the consumer!"

Admit outright defeat? Never.

Well it depends what your goal is, For Nintendo then yes, they would like to make money on a console, for Sony, it's probably the same as Nintendo by and large.

The reason is Nintendo is a games company and Sony aren't doing particularly well in any of there business areas, so a profit would be very nice.

However Microsoft are making a lot of money in plenty of divisions, the reason why some investors are looking to get rid of xbox is that the profits are comparatively small compared to other divisions. For every 100m that goes into the Devices division, MS may get back 101m and sure that would be 1m profit, but if 100m went into Azure, then it would give back 120m, which would be a 20m profit, for some companies it's all about the Return On Investment (ROI), whereas for others it is simply about making a profit.

short story, it's a win, but maybe they could have got a bigger win somewhere else.

 

[Sydle]

I see Microsofts console business as a step to control the living room, they initially had a 3 stage plan which was:

OG Xbox - Become a name (likely lose money but be recognizable in the console business)
360 - Build a succesful brand to compete closely with Nintendo/Sony
XB1 - Become the Market leader and expand the industry to 400million+ units, They want this to be your home OS.

Up until this point the first two generations have done well, in fact the 360 likely did better than their internal projections because the PS3 messed up so badly. Now is crunch time for the Xbox team where they want to be the market leader and want to control the living room, the original plan of the Xbox was to stop Sony from controlling the living room, It's a good plan that was to get Windows into peoples lives away from PC. However Tablets/smartphones have taken the spot of the living room OS now.

The devices division is making a meager profit (mainly thanks to Android patents) and is dragging down the ROI of the entire company, as it stands the xbox division has been surviving at Microsoft on the promise of the connected living room and that they would be the main player in that scenario, this is why MS have gone from hardcore gaming to a kinect focus to even having the kinect bundled, with a TV focus.

At least this is my opinion on the strategy behind MS entering the console business, there is a reason Microsoft wanted an always online box, there is a reason why the want "connected experiences" and there;s a reason Kinect is in the box and the console has a HDMI in and 8gb DDR3 and that reason is to be at the heart of a connected home.

I think you're half right. Yes, they entered the console market because they thought there was going to be an OS battle in the living room, agreed. What people tend to forget are so many other attempts at consumer entertainment markets for years such as Microsoft TV, Mediaroom, Mediacenter, and Zune to fend off OS competitors from different angles.

All those services were consolidated under Xbox over the last 4-5 years and they've been putting an Xbox app on all Windows devices since 2010. You can trace the intention of having Xbox Live with multi-media capabilities on multiple devices back to their 2007 Live Anywhere announcement, which was in reaction to the emerging mobile market.

The primary takeaways here is they've been reacting to OS competitors on all fronts for years and Xbox was never just meant as a games console play. MS has been chasing entertainment for a very, very long time. They failed for various reasons, probably all of which can be contributed to the inter competition across devices, OS, and services.

Looking forward, OS and cloud will be in peoples' every day lives. All entertainment and productivity will be bought, stored, and accessed online from multiple devices. They want Windows, Azure, Outlook.com, Office 365, Xbox games/music/video, Bing, Skype, etc. with you everywhere you go because you will become tied to the cloud and to the Microsoft digital store fronts where they will make a cut of every transaction you make.

I contend they will come to the consumer market again, again, and again. The entertainment business in Microsoft is not going anywhere as long as Microsoft believes that OS and cloud have a work and play market. Will it morph in scope? Probably. Might they drop out of living room hardware once they figure out how to stream games via an app to any TV? They'd probably like that, because then it's all subscriptions and transactions. Are they going to drop Xbox One anytime soon? Nope.

As for why they want "connected" experiences, it's likely because the more people they have online, invested in the community, the more they become tied to the service/cloud and the more opportunity for them to advertise and cross sell. You'll see these "connected" experiences in original games on Windows Phone and tablets soon enough (e.g., Lift London and Rare).

 

[shone237]

OP, this thread is very childish and full of troll. These are corporations with billions invested, even in bankruptcy they would not lose.

 

[Skeff]

I think you're half right. Yes, they entered the console market because they thought there was going to be an OS battle in the living room, agreed. What people tend to forget are so many other attempts at consumer entertainment markets for years such as Microsoft TV, Mediaroom, Mediacenter, and Zune to fend off OS competitors from different angles.

All those services were consolidated under Xbox over the last 4-5 years and they've been putting an Xbox app on all Windows devices since 2010. You can trace the intention of having Xbox Live with multi-media capabilities on multiple devices back to their 2007 Live Anywhere announcement.

The primary takeaway here is they've been reacting to OS competitors on all fronts for years, because they saw consumers gravitating towards device and services for work and play. It's not new -- MS has been chasing entertainment for a very, very long time. They failed for various reasons, probably all of which can be contributed to the inter competition across devices, OS, and services.

Looking forward, OS and cloud will be in peoples' every day lives. All entertainment and productivity will be bought, stored, and accessed online from multiple devices. They want Windows, Azure, Outlook.com, Office 365, Xbox games/music/video, Bing, Skype, etc. with you everywhere you go because you will become tied to the cloud and to the Microsoft digital store fronts where they will make a cut of every transaction you make.

I contend they will come to the consumer market again, again, and again. The entertainment business in Microsoft is not going anywhere as long as Microsoft believes that OS and cloud have a work and play market. Will it morph in scope? Probably. Might they drop out of living room hardware once they figure out how to stream games via an app to any TV? They'd probably like that, because then it's all subscriptions and transactions. Are they going to drop Xbox One anytime soon? Nope.

I definitely agree about MS looking to do it in many different directions, My opinion isn't that they'll drop the XB1 at all, they'll continue it throughout the generation, But I think they may introduce an Xbox Light, It will play games of some kind (perhaps XBLA/Windows phone games?) and will have the media focus, the Kinect will be reduced to a more media centric device to cut costs and they may market this "xbox light" at $149 along side the XB1, depending on this, the succesor to the XB1 may well be a much cheaper media device, rather than a console toe to toe to toe with PS5.

I don't for one second think they'll stop selling the XB1 for at least another 5 years.

Then again, maybe I'm just nuts.

 

[Dragon Puncher]

Unless Titanfall sells gazillions, I think Microsoft will cut the price down to 399,95, no later than E3. I don't see how a kinectless xbone solves anything, the OS is build around it and it's the one technical element where they are ahead of Sony. And kinectless xbone at 400$ is basically a less powerfull ps4 at the same price.

 

[thewhitehawk]

Those guys have it explained it to you numerous times why what you said is not the case.

The sales figures and the best-selling console's specifications speak for themselves. You can not alter them, they are factual unlike your opinion.

Like I said to the people that contested them, you can justify the reason why each of the consoles that won the generation came out on top, but you can not contest their technical performance nor their sales number, and that's the only thing I pointed out.

 

[Sydle]

I definitely agree about MS looking to do it in many different directions, My opinion isn't that they'll drop the XB1 at all, they'll continue it throughout the generation, But I think they may introduce an Xbox Light, It will play games of some kind (perhaps XBLA/Windows phone games?) and will have the media focus, the Kinect will be reduced to a more media centric device to cut costs and they may market this "xbox light" at $149 along side the XB1, depending on this, the succesor to the XB1 may well be a much cheaper media device, rather than a console toe to toe to toe with PS5.

I don't for one second think they'll stop selling the XB1 for at least another 5 years.

Then again, maybe I'm just nuts.

I think MS is going to try to ride out Xbox One for 10 years and they will probably be more interested in going toe-to-toe with Apple, Google, and Amazon, because they seriously threaten the OS, mobile, and cloud markets Microsoft depends on. Sony does not. Perhaps the "Xbox Light" (rumored Xbox Loop?) is the right answer to fend them off, or maybe they somehow keep Xbox 360 around by re-releasing it as a digital only device that can stream all of the Xbox OG/360 back catalog, Windows Phone games, and can do some of the TV stuff (e.g., NFL) apps like Xbox One.

I don't think you're nuts. Your response is one of the most level headed ones I've seen in this thread.

 

[SwiftDeath]

The sales figures and the best-selling console's specifications speak for themselves. You can not alter them, they are factual unlike your opinion.

Like I said to the people that contested them, you can justify the reason why each of the consoles that won the generation came out on top, but you can not contest their technical performance nor their sales number, and that's the only thing I pointed out.

Studies have been done that correlated height of elementary school students with their reading aptitudes

The correlation between taller students and higher reading aptitudes was incredible

So what is the reasoning for this? Could perhaps those of greater stature see the board with greater ease, learn at an accelerated pace because of this?

Oh wait if you add in the age/grade level of students into the mix you realize that the height of the student has little to do with their reading aptitude. Older students in higher grades read better as would logically make sense and are of course taller.

Why am I telling you this? Because the argument or even mention that "the most powerful console has never won a generation" is completely and utterly meaningless without the proper context. In such a comparison I can guarantee you are experiencing multicollinearity between the power of a console, the time it was released and in fact the price of the console. Trying to take into account the power and price of a console without it's release date relative to its competitors is faulty logic.

 

[thewhitehawk]

Studies have been done that correlated height of elementary school students with their reading aptitudes

The correlation between taller students and higher reading aptitudes was incredible

So what is the reasoning for this? Could perhaps those of greater stature see the board with greater ease, learn at an accelerated pace because of this?

Oh wait if you add in the age/grade level of students into the mix you realize that the height of the student has little to do with their reading aptitude. Older students in higher grades read better as would logically make sense and are of course taller.

Why am I telling you this? Because the argument or even mention that "the most powerful console has never won a generation" is completely and utterly meaningless without the proper context. In such a comparison I can guarantee you are experiencing multicollinearity between the power of a console, the time it was released and in fact the price of the console. Trying to take into account the power and price of a console without it's release date relative to its competitors is faulty logic.

The point of making that statement is to remind people debating the differences in performance between platforms is that their technical performance is not the most important aspect of them. Yes, you can contextualize all of the reasons why each of the consoles failed: the Saturn was harder to develop for and games ended up looking worse, the Super Nintendo was a more versatile system capable of rendering impressive effects, the Playstation 2 was very well received by new players due to its graphics capability and the Dreamcast was showing weak sales due to high piracy and the Playstation 2's imminent arrival, the Wii had motion controls which found a very big audience in the casual market and had the most accessible price point of all the then current consoles.

But at the end of it all, all of the consoles that won were due to a combination of good pricing, good software and popularity. Not because of their processing capability. If the software is good enough and popular and if the hardware is competitively priced, the players will come. The 3DS is a perfect example of this. At it's launch price it was a weak proposition for a lot of players, but thank to the release of some very good software (Ocarina of time 3D and Super Mario 3D Land) and a very aggressive price-point, sales started rose significantly and it is now a popular platform, and once again, it's not the most powerful system of it's kind.

Reason why I brought this up here was because even if there is a performance gap between the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One, it shouldn't worry the people that prefer the Xbox because the lesser performance of a console does not imply that it will imminently lose the battle and in fact, the numbers have shown us that the consoles who win each console generation are usually not the most powerful.

I'm not implying, with that, that console specifications are irrelevant. I'm just saying that the opposite is not the most crucial and determining factor for a console's success.

 

[StealthGoblin]

A kinectless Xbox one will screw over the sales of their next big peripheral.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

Looking at Microsoft's launch strategy I don't think "winning" was part of it. They certainly didn't price the machine or launch in enough territories to have any realistic shot of being ahead currently.


They don't need to be the best selling console to make money. The vita makes money and has the install base of 2 ouyas duct taped together. I will concede that each month that Microsoft loses in the US is damaging PR, but that won't sink them. Microsoft as an entitiy makes its money off of software and services, not hardware. I think they are approaching the Xbox One in the same way. They will make their money with XBLG, fitness stuff, subscription based TV stuff, their own television content, etc. And halo, of course. It's a very different route to financial success than the PS4 which is "we need to sell a fuckload of games."

yeah but sony is gonna get their fair share of the none gaming stuff, so they wont have the mindset that your describing

 

[Demi_God]

But that flies in the face of Azure, Hyper-V, Surface, Windows Phone, Skype, Xbox, Bing, Outlook.com, OneDrive, and more. Their most successful and fastest growing division, Server & Tools, has major competitors to pretty much every product.

Nadella and Gates believe in the devices and services future. They're not going to drop the TV screen any time soon when it's a portal to sell premium entertainment experiences, especially when they don't have a strong mobile presence yet. They need stronger execution on innovative devices and services. If they really can put their resources to work to move things forward I have no clue why some of you want them to drop out. Ballmer is gone. Mattrick is gone. Gates is back. I say let's see what they can do now.

yea but for me I don't care about surface, skype, phones, or Xbox, I just want a good freakin windows OS.

 

[SwiftDeath]

The point of making that statement is to remind people debating the differences in performance between platforms is that their technical performance is not the most important aspect of them. Yes, you can contextualize all of the reasons why each of the consoles failed: the Saturn was harder to develop for and games ended up looking worse, the Super Nintendo was a more versatile system capable of rendering impressive effects, the Playstation 2 was very well received by new players due to its graphics capability and the Dreamcast was showing weak sales due to high piracy and the Playstation 2's imminent arrival, the Wii had motion controls which found a very big audience in the casual market and had the most accessible price point of all the then current consoles.

But at the end of it all, all of the consoles that won were due to a combination of good pricing, good software and popularity. Not because of their processing capability. If the software is good enough and popular and if the hardware is competitively priced, the players will come. The 3DS is a perfect example of this. At it's launch price it was a weak proposition for a lot of players, but thank to the release of some very good software (Ocarina of time 3D and Super Mario 3D Land) and a very aggressive price-point, sales started rose significantly and it is now a popular platform, and once again, it's not the most powerful system of it's kind.

Reason why I brought this up here was because even if there is a performance gap between the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One, it shouldn't worry the people that prefer the Xbox because the lesser performance of a console does not imply that it will imminently lose the battle and in fact, the numbers have shown us that the consoles who win each console generation are usually not the most powerful.


I'm not implying, with that, that console specifications are irrelevant. I'm just saying that the opposite is not the most crucial and determining factor for a console's success.

Everything up to the bolded is logical and discusses those pesky variables that likely led to the success of those platforms although you are missing out on an important aspect to success which is time released on the market within a generation. The PS2 for instance would've been likely far less successful if the Gamecube and Xbox released at the same time or prior to it and so on.

The bolded is completely irrelevant and the point of my previous post. There are simply too many other variables involved for any type of conclusion to be drawn from "the strongest console has never won a generation". It is a completely useless statement that serves no purpose nor can anything be drawn from it.

Saying that implicitly implies that either being the stronger console doesn't matter or has an adverse effect on the consoles performance while in reality you are likely experiencing multicollinearity with the price of the console and/or how far into the generation it was launched. It is a worthless statement to make.

I agree that power is likely one of the least important factors in a consoles success but that statement is simply not of any real substance considering other variables at play.

 

[ekim]

I still feel that the last year's launch was kind of a soft launch for the Xbox One. They will have to show people a good reason to buy an Xbox bundled with Kinect. The voice stuff is pretty cool but that would also be possible with a simple microphone. I guess it comes down to on how MS can differentiate the XB1 from the PS4. So far Kinect doesn't do the trick - there are simply no games that make an impressive use out of it. I hope this year's E3 will show a defined direction where MS is going. (The entertainment stuff, future of the OS, actual Kinect games, new IP)