Quantcast
Have Microsoft solidified themselves as a gaming giant equal to Sony?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Have Microsoft solidified themselves as a gaming giant equal to Sony?

Have Microsoft solidified themselves as a gaming giant equal to Sony?

Damn right J man 144 25.81%
 
They are getting there 170 30.47%
 
They arent even close 117 20.97%
 
Hell to the No 92 16.49%
 
Silver>Gold 35 6.27%
 
Total:558

Well, if we're talking gaming companies, the actual games produced by said companies are a pretty important factor. Afterall, Sega and Nintendo weren't/aren't gaming juggernauts simply for the hardware they made.

In this area, Sony has Microsoft beat, not only in the number of games they publish, but also in the critical reception of the games they publish and the overall sales of these games (Sony has been on the top ten best selling publishers list consistently for years, often fluctuating between 2nd and 7th place, while MS only breaks the top ten in the 2-3 weeks surrounding the release of a new game).

Sony also sells more consoles than Microsoft and has more brand recognition than Microsoft due to the success of the ps1, ps2, and even the psp, which sits at 60 million units sold despite software sales being flat outside of Japan. Even SCE's "failure" outsells the 360 handily worldwide, coming within 6 million total sales of the 360 despite launching a year late at $599. They have managed to easily outsell MS in Japan and catch up to MS in Europe despite one of the worst launches in gaming history.

The only area in which Microsoft beats Sony as a gaming company is in its ability to court third party developers, and even that is becoming harder and harder to do as the ps3 takes more and more software sales away from the 360. And even then it's not so much Microsoft being better at it as it is Sony not bothering because their first party efforts are stronger than ever. They're becoming Nintendo-esque in this regard.

But ultimately, the prowess of a gaming company is showed off best by the games they make. Every successful video game company has had a decent stable of first party titles to thrive upon. Even the ps1, a console notable for its large selection of third party titles, was driven by first party efforts, with two of its three best selling franchises coming from Sony (Gran Turismo, Crash Bandicoot).



Around the Network
jesus kung fu magic said:
Ping_ii said:
*Sony WON 2 generations in a row,

*MS had 1 year head start and still cant manage to outdo PS3 vastly like Wii has done WW, while ps3 launching @ the most ridiculous price launch ever($600).

*Not even close when it comes to 1st party studio and IP's owned compared to Sony.

And your saying that their equal in terms of brand power?......I WANT THAT CRACK YOUR TAKING!!!





I am getting slightly irritated as people dont seem to be reading the OP 

1. I am talking about as of this day is MS as big a brand as Sony in the gaming market......winning 2 generation does not help you nor prove your point because lest we forget the 360 is winning in sales......thats like saying Tomb Raider is just a big a brand as it was 10 years ago because it sold 5 million 10 years ago........I dont care if it sold 5 million 10 years ago if it only sold 1 million this year.........YOUR BRAND IS ONLY AS POWERFUL AS IT IS TO THIS DAY, IT FALTERS WITH LOSS OF PUBLIC INTEREST!!!(I only capitalized the last part because people seem to not understand)

 

2. Thats where MS's rise in brand and Sony's fall comes into play......Sony once had a domination on the console market that compared to Apples domination in the mp3 market....if Microsoft hadnt had a resurgence like they did with the 360 the ps3 would easily be beating it within a short amount of time.....this wasnt the case (thank god or else we would have been seeing a $300 ps3 in 2012) as MS took like 90% of  3rd party exclusive away from Sony , was getting an ample amount of AAA games (it still is) and was solidifying its second place title.

Sony screwed up and yes that did help MS , but you cannot assume that just because they rectify this screw up they will magically be sitting on the throne again....let me use a gaming example because it would be easier for you to understand. The NBA live series was once considered the best basketball sim with NBA live 05 being its prime , but their first real effort into the hd era was a screw up......the framerate and animations were atrocious......but then there was another series that was catching peoples eyes (anything would after playing live 07) and that series was the 2k series......through the years the Live series has made strides to regain itself but time and time again it gets beaten by the 2k series sales wise consistently........this perfectly describes MS and Sony as it only takes one screw up to lose the throne and Sony has done just  that.

3. Really? Ok then tell me this , if I were to make a console and have every first party studio imaginable BUT also be last in console sales ....would my brand be the biggest? Hell no ,  because first party studios mean jack shit in brand power.......if they do mean something then by all means do tell.

 

Well, at this very moment in time, I'd argue more people worldwide would recognize the name PlayStation than the name Xbox, whether they be ps3, psp, or ps2 players.  And yes, ps2s are still being sold, even officially making their way to markets like Brazil for the very first time this year. In addition to this, there are regions like Eastern Europe where Sony has had a presence for years while Microsoft still haven't bothered to set up any official operations.  Sony has more worldwide presence than Microsoft.  Just compare the number of areas that have access to PSN vs Live.

If you're looking strictly at brand recognition, and are not considering the entire breadth of Sony and Microsoft's impact on gaming (their status as "gaming giants") as your title suggests, then that about covers it.



No. But Microsoft had done great this gen. I'm surprised that PS3 is still behind X360. No one expect X360 to remain strong after PS3 release. PS3 is more ppopular but X360 is just more affordable to most gamer and is better than Sony for some part line online gaming. Sony is still stronger but they had decline so much this gen after 10 years of PS brand domination. Congrats to Microsoft for giving Sony competition. Last gen Sony dont care so much about 1st party games because all 3rd party games is going to PS2. But this gen they realised they need 1st party games to keep competitive.



jesus kung fu magic said:
jarrod said:

Sony today?  Easily... MS might be the bigger brand really.

Sony at their height?  Not even close.  PlayStation used to be synonymous with gaming.

You are the only one who seems to understand from what context I am coming from...

Im not talking about the PS brand at its height nor am I talking about how many ip's they own (which has ZERO to do with brand power) I am talking about in the present and how Sonys falter and MS's strides have made them equals........there are far too many posts that ignore where I am coming from with this.

I think you're title is the reason why so many people is straying for your question. 'Gaming giant' is a pretty broad term that can be interpreted in many ways. As a publisher of games, Sony is obviously ahead of Microsoft and this can very easily equal part of the equation of a 'gaming giant'. If you're going to base it purely on image and brand power, than Microsoft has obviously made greater penetration, especially in American and UK where its popularity has arguably eclipsed the Playstation, but overall the Playstation brand is still far more well known globally than the Xbox.

Remember that even if you're to take a snapshot in time and compare the brand name of both company. Sony is still the Playstation family, and not just the PS3 as you seem to perceive. There are whole region that would not know what a Xbox is but would recognise Playstation because the only thing they have availible as a form of entertainment is a chipped PS1 with pirated games on an old 15" CRT TV.

 

 

 




Lets break it down to this.. SONY still have the lead. They have superior first party support and their hardware is more reliable. MS has the edge with LIVE but thats about it atm. Oh and their controller is better too :)



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Around the Network

I think sony is winning small battles at the moment but is defianately ahead of MS and i think the current MS model is mostly unsustainable and does not build any momentum to the industry,Sony and its fans managed to convince a hostile public that blue ray is needed and cell is amazing. Initially it was made out that the ps3 is a beast with gigantic bottle necks not suited for gaming and the xbox 360 is better, now that sony managed to survive 2008 and is in full swing in 2010 i expect alot of suprises this year.

Sony is a sleeping giant and all their fruits are coming to light these days blue ray, HDMI 1.3, Free PSN, Developed First Party, Home,Folding@Home,Cell, improved Marketing, excellent hard ware,wifi etc
its only a matter of time before the pendulum swings in sonys favor completely

What Sony needs to work on now is building hype and not relying on fanboys so much it seems that the market is already captured they need new blood, better sdk's, more coordinated sales srategy with retailers, pay more for marketing! Better PSN service that connects users, as the PSN is a very seperated and lonely place only with games Like COD or MAG do u start to feel like you're online

So in summary Xbox 360 is selling 25% better than the original Xbox due to RROD and cheapness and the PS3 suffered from Nintendo and Atari Big head syndrome!

On a positive note
Natal,XBox live is a first positive contribution to the industry but MS policy of buying DLC and third party games is wasteful and does not benefit anyone all it does is delay Sony, i wonder if that was their only plan delay the PS3 till its next gen. I think Xbox 360's success is all fluff and i think MS is hiding alot of costs the are spending on Xbox division which i've heard has been in the red since the Xbox, i thought MS was a business? the XBox has to become profitable at some point i wont be suprised if Xbox live subscriptions go up dramtically in the not too distant future. So yes the Xbox is beating PS3 currently but at what cost? 1billion dollars in warranties if not more, wasteful spending of DLC 50 million on GTA IV and dont say they make the money back, take 2 makes the money not MS, Who knows how much MS payed for FF13,

MS is a very dirty company and do whatever it takes to look good and to win. I mean look how they desperately tried to create a GT killer instead of making their own game they hired 300 staff members (twice the number of Polyphony Digital) loads of marketing and the game is selling 2 million in 2 months and will get LTD 3-4million? i dont see how this is a good thing, seeing as how much they spent on this game nd i can make a bet that PGR was more profitable than Forza 3

So i think that MS is an Oasis and when MS get tired of playing the Oasis will dry up pretty quick as it is all superficial and will not last! so i don think MS is as big as Sony. I think they have more money than sony but are a superficial gaming giant. How stupid are MS they pay for games and sony gets them for free and sell more on their consoles, example? star ocean iv, tekken 6, alot of jrpgs.

Xbox 360 is a Shooter machine ie COD,HALO,GEARS! sure there lots of other games but those are in the very distant minority!



 

KIYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NOOB!

 

MS lacks some first party developpment power. They have the exclusives, which is great, but that is gone once the contract is over... All will have to be done again next gen.

Now I admit that myself I saw the XBOX as a POS and only came to consider it when it was apparent that sony was exactly on the same strategy.... but with a price above the moon. Though the initial price of the 360 and the +10€ price of the games makes me not buy anything on release day in the HD segment.

What MS did is position itself as a real player in the industry, not just a moneyhated experiment. Sony at the same time gave them credibility by playing the exact same hand they did... so yes MS is getting close to Sony, but the first party and the prior success of the PS brand still keeps them appart. MS is not even close to Nintendo though....

(You can't either say MS is like sega... cause there again, sega had a very healthy set of first party developpment that really set their consoles asside).

The answer to your question will probably come next gen.



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

jesus kung fu magic said:

Just as the title suggests , do you believe that MS is just a big a brand in gaming as sony?

My answer is obviously yes , The Xbox brand has risen while the PS brand has fallen and now we have them meeting somewhere in the middle.....The 360 is STILL in second place and it is nearing its 5th year on the market , something it couldnt dream of doing if it didnt have a rising brand.

you should have put brand in the question instead of giant.  gaming giant vs gaming brand give off two very different ideas



More by virtue of Sonys arrogance and IMHO deserved Fall from grace this gen.

I think even the haters have to admit Nintendo have been a model of consistency thru every gen.

I mean even the N64/GC were money spinners. They may not always get it right with the consoles but there first party games and business practices are second to none.



You know this site is ran by Sony fans when they choose "Not even close", to them i say

"Who has a 5 million lead? Aww to soon??" then i LOL