Support NeoGAF

Synth · Feb 19, 2014

BigDug13 said:
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.

What you mean is they stopped releasing basically any of their franchises once the games that were previously destined for DC were out. That said though, I will admit that Sega's exit didn't so much dramatically alter the market, so much as the market dramatically altered, causing Sega's exit.

leobebes said:
Also, they've arguably developed the most successful in house studio between them and Sony, in Bungie.

Alright no... Bungie were Bungie before MS, and Halo was going to be amazing anyway. It just wouldn't have been amazing for Xbox (I'd hate to think how that gen would have gone for MS without it). I'm also not sure Bungie were a bigger success than Polyphony was.

jhmtehgamr20xx said:
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.

I'm not forgetting anything. I accounted for dev focus in the very text you quoted!

And even then,Sony's first party is really responsible for the majority of the titles that set the PS3 apart (and Microsoft Game Studios are responsible for the majority of the best looking 360 games). Sega themselves were extremely capable technically, and gave enough focus to the Saturn that I believe the results should have been there if the machine was as capable. I'd even say they did better matching the PS2's output with the DC (whilst it was alive), than they did matching the PS1 with Saturn. It wasn't just later PS1 games either. Daytona vs Ridge Racer? Anything vs Wipeout 2097? Crash? etc

system11 said:
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.

I disagree with this. The Gold subscription is less likely to be a factor for people on GAF if anything, because it's a cost they'd likely factor into the price of the console, because they'd want to play online anyway. This isn't very important at the start of the gen, as someone who just wants a Netflix box isn't about to pay $400-$500 anyway. Later though as the price drops it begins to stand out that this $200 machine wants an additional $50 each year to continue doing it's job. A cost that no other comparable device is asking for.

A few years back I bought my mother a PS3 instead on a 360 for her media purposes. This was partially due to the PS3 also being a BluRay player, but that wasn't too important because she would mainly be streaming. This real reason was that I wasn't about to give her a machine that would become useless to her the moment she let her sub lapse. I would essentially have had to pay for an extra Gold sub each year to make the gift worthwhile for her.

MS needs to remove the paywall from the media apps by the time the consoles hit mass market prices, or their attempts to sell it as an all-in-one machine are wasted.

jgf · Feb 20, 2014

CoG said:
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.

Fair enough. Of course if anyone would know what the next big thing is going to be, he would be stupid posting it here. My point was more like that I don't see anything especially lacking in current consoles. Hardwarewise speaking. They could be faster, but they do the things they are meant to do quite well. The controllers feel great, games look good, online seems to work. In the example of the iphone there were previous phones that were horrible at surfing the web and internet connectivity in general. Configuration menus were horrible etc. So there was clear room for improvement that could be seen - Even without the vision for the iphone. I simply don't see where current consoles are lacking in that sense.

Game wise youre absolutely right. There needs to be something more then the next CoD. It just feels same old same old by now. But thats a problem thats seperate from consoles in my opinion.

Full circle back to X1. When there is nothing the current consoles are obviously lacking, you have a hard time outshining the competition. If you cant be faster or come up with gimmicks that people actually want - I dont see any - you have to be cheaper.

Louis Cyphre · Feb 20, 2014

Biker19,

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

Then why don't you back up your rebuttal? You made the claim, now it's your job to back it up. The Wii is not the only system to be the under-powered system that won a generation. The XBox for example was much more powerful and it is part of the generation of the PS2 for example.

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.

Once again you keep making blanket statements with no facts. You said the XBox has lost money every year. Prove it.

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.

And you know this because? How many more years is Sony going to keep making TV's? You seem to totally ignore Sony's position financially while always trying to keep the focus on Microsoft for reasons apparently all related to you wanting MS bow out of gaming all-together. I gave a perfect example of how Sony who has lost money for their TV division to still support it. A company with way less capital.

Also, know that there is a difference in every country's bankruptcy policies and how they are handled.

Link.

And what does that answer exactly?

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?

Because every time I see you pop up in various threads you keep saying the same thing. It's almost like if you say it enough times people will just take your word for it. So back up your claims then if you feel your position is so strong about Microsoft pulling out of XBox.

Did I ever say that Playstation would save the company? No, I did not.

That isn't even remotely what I said. My comment was why would they allow Sony to essentially have no competition.

Biker19 said:
Then there can be a new, better competitor.

We know you keep hoping that and until that day ever happens you will keep sensationalizing how bad the XBox brand is and how Microsoft will eventually be forced out by investors. Your leap of faith to that demise is all based on a couple of investors who have publicly said to get rid of the XBox and how the brand has lost them money over the years without actually showing the losses each year or how much influence those investors really have.

Bacon's Love Child · Feb 20, 2014

The XBOX One is the culmination of Microsoft's long term strategy to take over the living room, it is the reason why they got into the console business in the first place. I doubt they'll exit without a fight but I think the major issue they're facing is that they're fighting for the living room with a device that does things other products can do and have been doing for some time. 5 years ago it would have been amazing, now it's just meh and an expensive meh at that.

Oh and nobody wants Kinect.

What does it actually bring to the table that is unique, useful and not broken?

thewhitehawk · Feb 20, 2014

SwiftDeath said:
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.

I disagree with you. If people are debating the relevancy of the specification difference between the Xbox One and the Playstation 4 and how it is helping the later, it's worth pointing out that it's entirely possible for a less-performing console to win the console generation.

twobear · Feb 20, 2014

Synth said:
and Microsoft Game Studios are responsible for the majority of the best looking 360 games

actually what's sad about MS's 1st party development is that the first-party exclusives generally weren't the best looking games on the platform. in fact off the top of my head the only first-party title on 360 that is legitimately among the best looking games on the platform is halo 4.

MS just don't really care for 1st party support. they do as little of it as possible and as cheaply as possible (by iterating the same 4 titles bi-yearly and not putting much effort into graphics etc.)

SwiftDeath · Feb 20, 2014

thewhitehawk said:
I disagree with you. If people are debating the relevancy of the specification difference between the Xbox One and the Playstation 4 and how it is helping the later, it's worth pointing out that it's entirely possible for a less-performing console to win the console generation.

You realize your argument for stating that it's possible for a less-performing console to win the console generation in essence only works if there are people saying that PS4 is going to win the generation solely because it's more powerful and NOT because of any other factors?

We are mainly in agreement about what importance power has in the fate of consoles performance but stating the a less powerful machine can win the generation is like saying a nintendo machine or a sony machine can win the generation because look previous console generations show that trend. It doesn't add anything to the conversation unless people are solely stating that power is what's going to win the PS4 the generation.

Synth · Feb 20, 2014

godelsmetric said:
actually what's sad about MS's 1st party development is that the first-party exclusives generally weren't the best looking games on the platform. in fact off the top of my head the only first-party title on 360 that is legitimately among the best looking games on the platform is halo 4.

MS just don't really care for 1st party support. they do as little of it as possible and as cheaply as possible (by iterating the same 4 titles bi-yearly and not putting much effort into graphics etc.)

Forza Horizon? Viva Pinata? Banjo Nut & Bolts? I can't think of many third party games I'd place over them.

Plus I did say Microsoft Game Studios... so I could kinda cheat and throw Gears and PGR 4 in with them.

twobear · Feb 20, 2014

Synth said:
Forza Horizon? Viva Pinata? Banjo Nut & Bolts? I can't think of many third party games I'd place over them.

Plus I did say Microsoft Game Studios... so I could kinda cheat and throw Gears and PGR 4 in with them.

playground is third party, no?

i legit forgot about banjo though, my mistake.

Synth · Feb 20, 2014

godelsmetric said:
playground is third party, no?

i legit forgot about banjo though, my mistake.

Hmm yea, they are...

I'm sticking with my slightly more tenuous Microsoft Game Studio link! The main point was that the best looking games came from devs focused on developing for the console specifically... why are you making this so difficult for me?

jgf · Feb 20, 2014

thewhitehawk said:
I disagree with you. If people are debating the relevancy of the specification difference between the Xbox One and the Playstation 4 and how it is helping the later, it's worth pointing out that it's entirely possible for a less-performing console to win the console generation.

Granted specs are not everything, but they can become a deciding factor if the consoles are not so much different in any other regard. Also when the biggest titles are multiplatform, performance becomes an issue. E.g. You want to play the new battefield - which console do you choose? 400$ for the better looking option or 500$ for the slightly worse looking one? You have to pay for online play at both systems You might choose the 500$ option if it looked significantly better, which is not the case. But a higher price and worse looking games is a hard pill to swallow for a system primarily used to play games.

If the X1 would have been released 1 year ahead of the PS4 it would have a pretty good chance at coming out on top. Simply because of the games availiable and the lock-in effect of the multiplayer: You go where your friends are already playing. But starting head to head, with the same big titles - specs and price become a really big issue imho.

The other less powerful consoles that "won" thier generation had all something else going for them. Either a year headstart, a significant number of compelling exclusives or some other factor that set them significantly apart from the competition. I don't see any of that in the current generation.

Maybe until now the fastest system has never won a generation, but I refuse to believe that it lost due to beeing so fast. However has the priciest console ever won a generation?

thewhitehawk · Feb 20, 2014

jgf said:
Maybe until now the fastest system has never won a generation, but I refuse to believe that it lost due to beeing so fast. However has the priciest console ever won a generation?

The Super Nintendo was slightly more expensive than the Genesis if I'm not mistaken. The Playstation 2, which tied with the Xbox as the most expensive consoles of the generation also won. The NES had the same price as the Master System. The Wii was the cheapest of the three systems, but when comparing the other two systems, the 360's lower price-point did help Microsoft stay on top of Sony for the longer part of this last console cycle, but it's worth noting that even with a higher price, Sony did manage to catch up in some markets.

I don't think we can determine something from price alone. It's influential on a consumer's decision, for sure, but a lower-price alone is not enough for a console to succeed, just look at the Dreamcast, Gamecube and Nintendo 64 as examples of that.

Amentallica · Feb 20, 2014

GhaleonEB said:
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 also agree with your viewpoint. What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that I don't appreciate the competition Microsoft brings. I'd welcome other competitors.

Synth · Feb 20, 2014

thewhitehawk said:
The Super Nintendo was slightly more expensive than the Genesis if I'm not mistaken.

Just wanted to note that the Neo Geo was in this gen, so this one can be discarded.

Imperfected · Feb 20, 2014

GhaleonEB said:
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.

That's kind of a big "if" at the end there. Magnavox and Coleco's exit from the market made way for Nintendo and SEGA. Atari's exit left the door open for Sony. SEGA stepped down to make way for Microsoft.

I would readily argue that this industry has only benefited from the failure of console manufacturers who couldn't compete effectively. I think we're pretty clearly seeing another situation where one of the current three needs to go, though at the moment Nintendo and Microsoft seem to be in a race to the bottom to decide who it should be.

Krisprolls · Feb 20, 2014

I don't think they can do anything now. If they cut the price so soon they basically acknowledge XBO is in trouble and to do so they'd have to remove Kinect anyway. Then you're left with an underpowered machine with nothing special. That wouldn't make people prefer them over the more powerful and still relatively cheap PS4.

I don't see any way MS could make the XBO on top now unless they spend huge sums of money (3rd party exclusives would cost huge sums now that the market share is lower). I just don't see MS sink huge sums in the Xbox division once again, investors just want out right now, it brings nothing to MS anymore.

You can hardly come back from a bad situation in the console market because every sale brings other sales, it feeds on itself. PS3 is the only exception I know, they shouldn't have come back but MS refused to invest in studios and new IPs so they let the PS3 come back mostly based on their games.

The situation here is very different, Sony has so many exclusives planned that you would need huge sums from MS to bring more value. I just don't see it. MS has the money, but gaming is just not their business, it brings their huge return on capital down and they lost enough time and money as it is now on this division.

twobear · Feb 20, 2014

Synth said:
Hmm yea, they are...

I'm sticking with my slightly more tenuous Microsoft Game Studio link! The main point was that the best looking games came from devs focused on developing for the console specifically... why are you making this so difficult for me?

i don't even think that's true; at least not in the way it is on PS3

i mean the absolute best-looking 360 game is probably GTAV, a third-party, multiplatform game

Sydle · Feb 20, 2014

Krisprolls said:
I don't think they can do anything now. If they cut the price so soon they basically acknowledge XBO is in trouble and to do so they'd have to remove Kinect anyway. Then you're left with an underpowered machine with nothing special. That wouldn't make people prefer them over the more powerful and still relatively cheap PS4.

I don't see any way MS could make the XBO on top now unless they spend huge sums of money (3rd party exclusives would cost huge sums now that the market share is lower). I just don't see MS sink huge sums in the Xbox division once again, investors just want out right now, it brings nothing to MS anymore.

You can hardly come back from a bad situation in the console market because every sale brings other sales, it feeds on itself. PS3 is the only exception I know, they shouldn't have come back but MS refused to invest in studios and new IPs so they let the PS3 come back mostly based on their games.

The situation here is very different, Sony has so many exclusives planned that you would need huge sums from MS to bring more value. I just don't see it. MS has the money, but gaming is just not their business, it brings their huge return on capital down and they lost enough time and money as it is now on this division.

Unless the industry is disrupted by the likes Amazon, Apple, and Google and consumer demand shifts over this generation.

Krisprolls · Feb 20, 2014

Double post.

Krisprolls · Feb 20, 2014

Paco said:
Unless the industry is disrupted by the likes Amazon, Apple, and Google and shifts over this generation.

Those companies definitely have the money and power to disrupt the industry but right now all they disrupt is the handheld console market, nothing more I can see...

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see them trying to take the console market simply because there's not much money to make in this market right now... at least unless you manage to bring casual gamers on board too (which the Wii definitely managed to do).

Synth · Feb 20, 2014

Imperfected said:
That's kind of a big "if" at the end there. Magnavox and Coleco's exit from the market made way for Nintendo and SEGA. Atari's exit left the door open for Sony. SEGA stepped down to make way for Microsoft.

I would readily argue that this industry has only benefited from the failure of console manufacturers who couldn't compete effectively. I think we're pretty clearly seeing another situation where one of the current three needs to go, though at the moment Nintendo and Microsoft seem to be in a race to the bottom to decide who it should be.

The problem I see with this is that in each case the game has become more expensive to play. At the point where Sony entered, it would have been basically impossible for any smaller company to compete within the market (part of what shot Sega out of it). The other contenders that tried to play that gen were companies like Panasonic and Philips. MS had to spend a stupid amount of money to enter, and if they leave it would be because they can't justify the cost to play anymore. This means that the potential for new competitors is growing substantially smaller over time, to the point where only Samsung, Google, Apple or Amazon are considered realistic prospects to have a go. If one of them entered and managed to kick Nintendo or Sony out, then we'd be down to only three possible new entrants, and so on.

We don't really have a situation where there were many companies that could produce a console, and stand a reasonable chance at lasting the entire generation.

godelsmetric said:
i don't even think that's true; at least not in the way it is on PS3

i mean the absolute best-looking 360 game is probably GTAV, a third-party, multiplatform game

Here's where I admit that I've never played GTAV, lol.

I still don't think the balance is in favour of multiplatform games though. There's Halo 4 for FPS, PGR4 or Horizon for 30fps racers, Forza 4 for 60fps racers, Gears for TPS, Banjo for platformers, Viva Pinata for umm.. Gardening sims... I'm just struggling to come up with third party multiplats that stood out graphically on the 360 compared to these. I'm aware it's not to the same extent as the PS3, but I think the general point still holds true.

Even with the games released this gen. Ryse and Kinect Sports are placing the XB1 in a more favourable light than the multiplatform games are currently doing. Similarly Killzone is easily the best looking game for the PS4.

I think this is getting too far off topic though, that comment wasn't really supposed to attract any attention, heh.

Biker19 · Feb 20, 2014

Louis Cyphre said:
Then why don't you back up your rebuttal? You made the claim, now it's your job to back it up. The Wii is not the only system to be the under-powered system that won a generation. The XBox for example was much more powerful and it is part of the generation of the PS2 for example.

Why in the hell do I have to back up what I & everyone else said when it was already factual many times throughout this site? Plus the Original Xbox came way too late into the cycle.

Once again you keep making blanket statements with no facts. You said the XBox has lost money every year. Prove it.

See above. They lost a ton of money from their launch to 2007, & they've even still in the red, especially thanks to Xbox One in which they've spent about $3 Billion on everything with it.

And what does that answer exactly?

Absolutely everything.

Because every time I see you pop up in various threads you keep saying the same thing. It's almost like if you say it enough times people will just take your word for it. So back up your claims then if you feel your position is so strong about Microsoft pulling out of XBox.

See? You've just proven that you're obsessed with me. You can't handle my opinions about Microsoft, etc., & prefer for me not to say anything bad about them. People like myself are gonna call them out for the shit that they do whatever you fucking like it or not. We're consumers, not their parents. We're not going to hold their hand or anything of the sort, or try to sugarcoat anything to make anyone feel better.

We know you keep hoping that and until that day ever happens you will keep sensationalizing how bad the XBox brand is and how Microsoft will eventually be forced out by investors. Your leap of faith to that demise is all based on a couple of investors who have publicly said to get rid of the XBox and how the brand has lost them money over the years without actually showing the losses each year or how much influence those investors really have.

Whatever. You just refuse to handle the truth of what me & everyone else has been saying all this time.

Also, I just don't like Microsoft. I don't like their history with their practices, or anything else from them. Period. I would rather prefer somebody better than them in the console space.

Skeff · Feb 20, 2014

Synth said:
The problem I see with this is that in each case the game has become more expensive to play. At the point where Sony entered, it would have been basically impossible for any smaller company to compete within the market (part of what shot Sega out of it). The other contenders that tried to play that gen were companies like Panasonic and Philips. MS had to spend a stupid amount of money to enter, and if they leave it would be because they can't justify the cost to play anymore. This means that the potential for new competitors is growing substantially smaller over time, to the point where only Samsung, Google, Apple or Amazon are considered realistic prospects to have a go. If one of them entered and managed to kick Nintendo or Sony out, then we'd be down to only three possible new entrants, and so on.

We don't really have a situation where there were many companies that could produce a console, and stand a reasonable chance at lasting the entire generation.

But of course you need to remember, companies grow and shrink, the companies you listed may not have been able to enter the market 10-20 years ago and may not be able to enter the market now. In 10 years, we don't know if other companies would have risen to the point where they can enter the market; HP, Hitachi, IBM and Hon Hai precision (Foxconn) all have larger revenue than Sony and manufacture electronics. They could likely enter the console market if they wanted to, not to mention possible partnerships between say Valve and Dell where SteamBoxes could actually become a console with standard specifications.

We really shouldn't rule out any companies entering Gaming in the future, as Companies rise and fall.

And of course if say Microsoft leaves the console business, that doesn't necessarily means Xbox leaves the console business.

Imperfected · Feb 20, 2014

Synth said:
We don't really have a situation where there were many companies that could produce a console, and stand a reasonable chance at lasting the entire generation.

Then what we have is competition.

Companies don't only compete against actual competitors, they compete against hypothetical competitors. They compete against the capability for anyone and everyone to enter the market if they believe they could do a better job than the current market leader is.

If the market leader is doing such a good job that no one really believes it's worthwhile to try to beat them - as in the case of Steam - that's not actually a monopoly, it's just a market where the incumbent market leader has been sufficiently honed by hypothetical competition to stay on top of their game.

If we end up with a one-system generation, and that makes Sony lazy and stupid, then the cost to enter the market drops dramatically because you're suddenly no longer competing against a sleek and hungry market leader who's honed their business to perfection. You no longer have to price yourself into bankruptcy to offer similar products at similar prices. The barrier to entry lowers or raises based on the competency of the current market leader.

To go back the Steam example, imagine if Steam said, "We're the only show in town. No one can really opt out of Steam anymore. We can just charge twice as much for everything and get stupid rich!" Now, suddenly, someone attempting to overthrow Steam in the market isn't looking at a situation where they're going to have to spend billions to price-match Steam, they're instead looking at a situation where they can charge 30% less than Steam and still make a sizable profit; they would be able to dethrone the current market leader easily.

Frankly, at the moment it seems that Sony is responding more to the threat of hypothetical competitors - and their own past incompetence - than to anything Microsoft or Nintendo is doing. That, to me, means that we have reached the point where Nintendo and Microsoft are no longer valid competitors, and it's probably time for whichever one of the two (if not both) can't right their ship and offer something competitive to hit the road.

twobear · Feb 20, 2014

Imperfected said:
Then what we have is competition.

Companies don't only compete against actual competitors, they compete against hypothetical competitors. They compete against the capability for anyone and everyone to enter the market if they believe they could do a better job than the current market leader is.

If the market leader is doing such a good job that no one really believes it's worthwhile to try to beat them - as in the case of Steam - that's not actually a monopoly, it's just a market where the incumbent market leader has been sufficiently honed by hypothetical competition to stay on top of their game.

If we end up with a one-system generation, and that makes Sony lazy and stupid, then the cost to enter the market drops dramatically because you're suddenly no longer competing against a sleek and hungry market leader who's honed their business to perfection. You no longer have to price yourself into bankruptcy to offer similar products at similar prices. The barrier to entry lowers or raises based on the competency of the current market leader.

To go back the Steam example, imagine if Steam said, "We're the only show in town. No one can really opt out of Steam anymore. We can just charge twice as much for everything and get stupid rich!" Now, suddenly, someone attempting to overthrow Steam in the market isn't looking at a situation where they're going to have to spend billions to price-match Steam, they're instead looking at a situation where they can charge 30% less than Steam and still make a sizable profit; they would be able to dethrone the current market leader easily.

Frankly, at the moment it seems that Sony is responding more to the threat of hypothetical competitors - and their own past incompetence - than to anything Microsoft or Nintendo is doing. That, to me, means that we have reached the point where Nintendo and Microsoft are no longer valid competitors, and it's probably time for whichever one of the two (if not both) can't right their ship and offer something competitive to hit the road.

I kind of agree, but it's clear that the hypothetical competitor that Sony were planning for is MS

They expected them to bring it like they did at the start of the 360 gen

Imperfected · Feb 20, 2014

godelsmetric said:
I kind of agree, but it's clear that the hypothetical competitor that Sony were planning for is MS

They expected them to bring it like they did at the start of the 360 gen

I suppose that's a fair assessment. I do think their estimation of 5,000,000 units sold for the fiscal year - already surpassed - indicates they were expecting stiffer competition than what they actually met. People talk about "humble" Sony, but I think it was less a matter of humility and more that it seemed like a realistic projection at the time.

Sydle · Feb 20, 2014

Krisprolls said:
Those companies definitely have the money and power to disrupt the industry but right now all they disrupt is the handheld console market, nothing more I can see right now...

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see them trying to take the console market, simply because there's not a lot of money to make in this market right now... at least unless you manage to bring casual gamers onboard too (which the Wii definitely managed to do).

I don't see them trying to take just the game console market either. They wouldn't be entering it, or entertaining entering it, if it wasn't part of a bigger strategy.

Personally, I think Apple and Google are chasing the exact same things Microsoft is: to have their products in your everyday life for work and play, which encompasses many devices and services. I also think there's some incentive for them all to push wearable technology, and the living room could be the perfect place for AR via glasses for enhanced game and movie experiences.

I think Amazon just wants to be a major digital entertainment retailer and they can see physical game sales drying up over the next decade, with MS, Apple, and Google having their own clouds and all-in-one digital entertainment storefronts. Perhaps it's just to increase the value of Prime. It's so unclear what they're really up to.

We already witnessed a shift in the handheld consoles market from dedicated gaming machines to smartphones and tablets. It's not unreasonable to think a similar shift will take place in the living room, away from dedicated gaming consoles and cable boxes to multi-purpose devices. I think it's really of question of when, not if.

Synth · Feb 20, 2014

Skeff said:
But of course you need to remember, companies grow and shrink, the companies you listed may not have been able to enter the market 10-20 years ago and may not be able to enter the market now. In 10 years, we don't know if other companies would have risen to the point where they can enter the market; HP, Hitachi, IBM and Hon Hai precision (Foxconn) all have larger revenue than Sony and manufacture electronics. They could likely enter the console market if they wanted to, not to mention possible partnerships between say Valve and Dell where SteamBoxes could actually become a console with standard specifications.

We really shouldn't rule out any companies entering Gaming in the future, as Companies rise and fall.

And of course if say Microsoft leaves the console business, that doesn't necessarily means Xbox leaves the console business.

That's true that there's the potential for different companies to grow, and the list wouldn't remain static. Samsung was not the same company when Sony entered with the Playstation.

I do still think there is a problem with the number of applicable entrants however. Having more revenue than Sony doesn't necessarily mean you have the required resources to enter the market today. Sony got in at a time where it would have been much cheaper. If they didn't already have the Playstation brand established, I doubt the Sony of today would be able to join the market. If the next entrants are companies like Google, Apple and Amazon, that begins to rule out the vast majority of companies for the future (even those such as IBM, who would essentially be starting at the ground level for consumers unless they bought someone already established in the market).

Imperfected said:
Then what we have is competition.

Companies don't only compete against actual competitors, they compete against hypothetical competitors. They compete against the capability for anyone and everyone to enter the market if they believe they could do a better job than the current market leader is.

If the market leader is doing such a good job that no one really believes it's worthwhile to try to beat them - as in the case of Steam - that's not actually a monopoly, it's just a market where the incumbent market leader has been sufficiently honed by hypothetical competition to stay on top of their game.

If we end up with a one-system generation, and that makes Sony lazy and stupid, then the cost to enter the market drops dramatically because you're suddenly no longer competing against a sleek and hungry market leader who's honed their business to perfection. You no longer have to price yourself into bankruptcy to offer similar products at similar prices. The barrier to entry lowers or raises based on the competency of the current market leader.

To go back the Steam example, imagine if Steam said, "We're the only show in town. No one can really opt out of Steam anymore. We can just charge twice as much for everything and get stupid rich!" Now, suddenly, someone attempting to overthrow Steam in the market isn't looking at a situation where they're going to have to spend billions to price-match Steam, they're instead looking at a situation where they can charge 30% less than Steam and still make a sizable profit; they would be able to dethrone the current market leader easily.

Frankly, at the moment it seems that Sony is responding more to the threat of hypothetical competitors - and their own past incompetence - than to anything Microsoft or Nintendo is doing. That, to me, means that we have reached the point where Nintendo and Microsoft are no longer valid competitors, and it's probably time for whichever one of the two (if not both) can't right their ship and offer something competitive to hit the road.

Yea, this all makes sense. My point of contention was more with the idea that there would always be someone able to jump in and replace a fallen competitor. I think a situation like Windows on the desktop shows that whilst a company can't exactly just do whatever they want (due to hypothetical competition as you said(, a point can definitely be reached where it is basically impossible for others to realistically enter the market. In Windows case, it took new computing form factors to finally break the hold they had on the OS market.

Louis Cyphre · Feb 20, 2014

Biker19 said:
Why in the hell do I have to back up what I & everyone else said when it was already factual many times throughout this site? Plus the Original Xbox came way too late into the cycle.

The PS2 came out in 2000 for North America (1999 Japan), the XBox came out in 2001, the Dreamcast in 1999 for North America (1998 Japan), the Gamecube in 2001. So by your calculations a year makes everything irrelevant? If that's the case the PS3 shouldn't count last generation.

See above. They lost a ton of money from their launch to 2007, & they've even still in the red, especially thanks to Xbox One.

No real numbers. Great rebuttal.

Absolutely everything.

That's about as vague as all the other answers you give to anyone.

See? You've just proven that you're obsessed with me. You can't handle my opinions about Microsoft, etc., & prefer for me not to say anything bad about them. People like myself are gonna call them out for the shit that they do whatever you fucking like it or not. We're consumers, not their parents. We're not going to hold their hand or anything of the sort, or try to sugarcoat anything to make anyone feel better.

Nobody is asking you to sugarcoat anything, just facts to back up such blanket statements.

Whatever. You just refuse to handle the truth of what me & everyone else has been saying all this time.

What truth is that? All you keep saying is everyone is saying what you're saying.

Also, I just don't like Microsoft. I don't like their history with their practices, or anything else from them. Period. I would rather prefer somebody better than them in the console space.

This is the only part you've been clear on is that your whole basis for your comments are driven by how much you despise Microsoft. I don't think anyone including myself cares one way or another how you feel about them.

keltickennedy · Feb 20, 2014

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

A month some people will already get their fill. A week or two people will more likely buy gold to keep on playing. This is Microsoft you are talking about here. You are looking for a deal?

TheRedSnifit · Feb 20, 2014

Tak3n said:
indeed, but as Sir Alex Ferguson (Manchester UTD Manager) once said. "You can not win the league in the first 12 games, but you can sure as hell lose it"

He did, however, say that the Xbone can win during Squeaky Bum Time.

RexNovis · Feb 20, 2014

SwiftDeath said:
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.

SwiftDeath said:
You realize your argument for stating that it's possible for a less-performing console to win the console generation in essence only works if there are people saying that PS4 is going to win the generation solely because it's more powerful and NOT because of any other factors?

We are mainly in agreement about what importance power has in the fate of consoles performance but stating the a less powerful machine can win the generation is like saying a nintendo machine or a sony machine can win the generation because look previous console generations show that trend. It doesn't add anything to the conversation unless people are solely stating that power is what's going to win the PS4 the generation.

c18d0d779163bf8a5bf2576983a876f297e8c4032af80d3ba7b475b7d3085e6f.jpg

Preach it Brother SwiftDeath!

The logical leaps you have to make to actually believe that being the less powerful console in a generation gives you some sort of statistical advantage are mind boggling. You cannot simply look at power in a vaccum without also considering any number of just as valid if not more valid considerations (Price, Release date advantage, added features [DVD, Online infastructure, Streaming, BluRay etc etc], Exclusive lineup, consumer confidence, exisiting infrastructure, launch software lineup, Brand recognition [company and ip] etc etc). There are an infinite number of variables to weigh and consider and to narrow the entire scope of the argument down to a single one is either damn ignorant or pitifully self serving.

thewhitehawk said:
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.

But that is not what you were saying prior to SwiftDeath's rebuttal. You were upholding this statistical anomaly as some sort of proof that XB1 would come out on top. You can change your mind if you want but don't claim to have intended or said something when you actually didn't. That's not cool.

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

After Windows 8 I'd say good windows OS is an oxymoron at this point. I know they have the on and off pattern of bad OS (Vista) ---> good OS (Win 7) ----> Bad OS (Win 8) but I think people are losing patience with their OSs in the commerical sector. They still have a firm grasp on the corporate sector but consumers are moving away from Windows in droves now and honestly I would be too if Linux or OSx supported more of my PC games and that's due to change with Steam OS and the push for linux/opengl support.

thewhitehawk · Feb 20, 2014

RexNovis said:
But that is not what you were saying prior to SwiftDeath's rebuttal. You were upholding this statistical anomaly as some sort of proof that XB1 would come out on top. You can change your mind if you want but don't claim to have intended or said something when you actually didn't. That's not cool.

What? No! This whole conversation started because I mentioned Carmack said that the two consoles aren't very far apart in terms of performance and even if there is a gap in performance between the two (right now there is, at least in terms of software) that does not imply that it's impossible for the console to succeed in the market.

I don't even own or intend to own Xbox One in the near-future. I really dislike the constant anti-consumer initiatives Microsoft has partaken in.

All I said is that historically, it is not the most technically-advanced console that usually ends up selling the most in each console generation, there are other aspects that contribute more towards sales than having better graphics performance or processing power. That's all.

Cimeas · Feb 20, 2014

I don't think this is a discussion about whether it is losing, it is a discussion about what will MS do in order to boost sales (or whether they will give up).

I find the latter option highly unlikely, if only because MS often keeps going with products that don't do so well (inc Windows Phone and Bing) for many many years.

cartoon_soldier · Feb 20, 2014

If I was MS I would be thinking of the next gen already. Launch something in 5-6 years.

Celestial Mortal · Feb 20, 2014

They'll react once they stop passing up on games.

tickling · Feb 20, 2014

Microsoft's battle isn't with Sony and Nintendo

jimbobsmells · Feb 20, 2014

tickling said:
Microsoft's battle isn't with Sony and Nintendo

They should stop marketing it at gamers then.

Yaoibot · Feb 20, 2014

Imperfected said:
That's kind of a big "if" at the end there. Magnavox and Coleco's exit from the market made way for Nintendo and SEGA. Atari's exit left the door open for Sony. SEGA stepped down to make way for Microsoft.

I would readily argue that this industry has only benefited from the failure of console manufacturers who couldn't compete effectively. I think we're pretty clearly seeing another situation where one of the current three needs to go, though at the moment Nintendo and Microsoft seem to be in a race to the bottom to decide who it should be.

Came here to post, but you took the words out of my mouth. That's how a competitive ecosystem works. If someone isn't competing, get out of the race. I think Nintendo will hold on longer than MS though, as they have no other revenue streams to fall back on.

DragonNC · Feb 20, 2014

bobbytkc said:
It is not called the 180 for no reason.

I expect a revised OS to accompany a kinectless model in the coming months. Probably before fall. That is when the real competition starts. It was crazy of Microsoft to think they can compete at a higher price with less power under the hood. Removing Kinect will at least solve the price problem.

They lost so much firepower in console because that KINECT in all consoles.
Biggest mistake ever.

JimiNutz · Feb 20, 2014

MS need to use this generation to invest in second and first party games (or strike up reallt good relationships with third parties to secure more exclusive content).

When Sony had troubles with PS3 they were able to somewhat fall back on their exclusives.
Nintendo are never really in trouble because it their great library of exclusive games.
Microsoft need the same and this is the generation to do it.

Build a nice library of exclusives and then launch the next xbox within the next 5 years - no later!

I'd argue that they're off to a good start with their exclusives already. Just need to keep building on it!

twobear · Feb 20, 2014

i feel like i've seen a ghost :O

Jack_AG · Feb 20, 2014

Goldenroad said:
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.

While this is how it should be considered, MS has already changed their messaging a quadrillion times before launch. If they held your view, we'd still have always-on DRM.

I give it until April. If March doesn't help MS sell XOs then I fully expect a Kinectless version for 400 bucks which people will still not bite on that much for a weaker box and more tie-in expenses vs the competitor.

They'd have to hit 350 at the highest to become actively engaged in a tight race. Until then, no dice. The box isnt worth it at this time.

coldone · Feb 20, 2014

Actually MS leaving will be good for the industry now.

1) It will cut down development and Mktg costs for game development. Especially for Indie guys.

2) People will spend more on games than hardware. In last generation, lot of people had a Wii + PS3/360. Spending on hardware doesn't help any one. Consoles are sold at loss, retailers dont make much.. may be $10 every console. Games are sold at healthy margins.

Lower cost of game development, more games sold will be a welcome change.

In long run it may be good or bad. we dont know. Having MS.. keeps Sony on their feet. Else they would have released PS4 with cell processor.

aries_71 · Feb 20, 2014

How would you define "loosing" the next gen battle? Coming out second in number of console sold? Coming out second in software or peripheral sold?

I don't think a modern corporation uses such parameters. If MS Xbox division meets its internal budget goals at the end of the generation, it won't matter if it comes first, second or last in number of consoles sold.

jelly · Feb 20, 2014

I think another troubling aspect for Microsoft and Sony is the extra subscriptions, Xbox Live Gold and Playstation Plus.

Consumers are going to be more aware than ever when considering which consoles to buy and Sony allowing most features to still be free without Playstation Plus is one of the smartest things they've done and puts Microsoft in more bad light which instantly swings consumers to Playstation for expanded features and F2P, the former particularly media capabilities, a big Microsoft focus looks like a premium consumers don't need to pay for on Playstation.

So, once again the Playstation comes out on top. Two subscriptions is a tough ask but one subscription that offers better value and doesn't gimp your console when your not subscribed would be more attractive to consumers.

Biker19 · Feb 20, 2014

Louis Cyphre said:
The PS2 came out in 2000 for North America (1999 Japan), the XBox came out in 2001, the Dreamcast in 1999 for North America (1998 Japan), the Gamecube in 2001. So by your calculations a year makes everything irrelevant? If that's the case the PS3 shouldn't count last generation.

Both the Gamecube & Xbox were out longer for more than a year. You should also go back & read posts like SwiftDeath's.

No real numbers. Great rebuttal.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Xbox brand is still in the red. And nice to see that you've ignored the other part of my comment.

That's about as vague as all the other answers you give to anyone.

Really now?

This is the only part you've been clear on is that your whole basis for your comments are driven by how much you despise Microsoft. I don't think anyone including myself cares one way or another how you feel about them.

Then why do you keep responding to me? Because you can't help it.

jryi · Feb 20, 2014

Skeff said:
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.

From an investor's point of view, it's even more cut and dry. If you invest 100M and get 101M in return, when you could have made 120M, you are essentially losing 19M. That's opportunity cost. Investors also weight risks, and if you have lower risk, you are willing to accept smaller profit. Higher risk, higher profit expectation.

Keeping all this in mind: would you rather invest in Xbox or Microsoft Office?

Imperfected said:
Companies don't only compete against actual competitors, they compete against hypothetical competitors.

I have nothing to add here. Loving this post!

Louis Cyphre · Feb 20, 2014

Biker19 said:
Both the Gamecube & Xbox were out longer for more than a year. You should also go back & read posts like SwiftDeath's.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is your friend, I suggest you use it instead of passing the buck onto somebody else.The dates are clear to when all of those systems released and you seem to be making the rules up as you go to support your own arguments, nobody else.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Xbox brand is still in the red. And nice to see that you've ignored the other part of my comment.

Click to expand...

Actually it does seem to be the case because you went from the XBox brand losing money every year. To losing money from when the XBox started to 2007 plus the R&D of the XBox One. To now just saying they are still in the red. You're all over the map son when what would be easy is a clear graph showing real numbers. But nah, that would be way too easy. You'd rather just keep going in circles hoping nobody notices. All while you totally ignore anything in response about Sony and the money they have lost since the PS3 and how financially unstable the company is as a whole. Just a link showing Japan and how they handle bankruptcies.

Then why do you keep responding to me? Because you can't help it.

Click to expand...

Because it becomes annoying if all you plan to do is talk about how bad Microsoft is and then telling everyone it's just because they need to be called out for their shit for what they do. That's great, they should be called out for their mistakes. That's how products get better over time. That's how companies learn is through feedback. That's how the PS4 improved 10 fold from that of the PS3 but Sony is still not immune to criticism either. Same goes for Nintendo and everyone else.

Yet if your whole argument structure is purely based on hating Microsoft what good is that to any meaningful dialogue? That just means you're not interested in anything they do and don't care if anything improves. Fine, then I guess your done here if that is the case.

Biker19 · Feb 20, 2014

Louis Cyphre said:
Wikipedia is your friend, I suggest you use it instead of passing the buck onto somebody else. The dates are clear to when all of those systems released and you seem to be making the rules up as you go to support your own arguments, nobody else.

"Passing the buck?" Right...

Actually it does seem to be the case because you went from the XBox brand losing money every year. To losing money from when the XBox started to 2007 plus the R&D of the XBox One. To now just saying they are still in the red. You're all over the map son when what would be easy is a clear graph showing real numbers. But nah, that would be way too easy. You'd rather just keep going in circles hoping nobody notices.

I'm all over the map & going around circles? You're the one that keeps saying that Microsoft's making big bucks within the Xbox division, or whatever. I can easily pull off that graph to show you that Microsoft's gaming division is still in the red, but let me get that for you, anyway, since you can't understand where I'm coming from:

Link.

While it only goes through 2011, you get the picture.

All while you totally ignore anything in response about Sony and the money they have lost since the PS3 and how financially unstable the company is as a whole. Just a link showing Japan and how they handle bankruptcies.

I don't think that you realize how commercial bankruptcy entails works throughout companies, especially Japanese companies. It's nearly always Ch. 11 or 13, neither are liquidations.

Support NeoGAF

When do you think Microsoft will react to potentially losing next gen battle?

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

sputum-flecked apoplexy

Member

Member

sputum-flecked apoplexy

Member

Member

Member

Unconfirmed Member

Member

Member

Banned

sputum-flecked apoplexy

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

sputum-flecked apoplexy

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

sputum-flecked apoplexy

Banned

Member

Junior Member

Member

Banned

Senior Analyst, Fanboy Drivel Research Partners LLC

Banned

Banned

Similar threads