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
WilliamWatts said:
nordlead said:
WilliamWatts said:
nordlead said:

ok, not reading the whole thread, just throwing out my thoughts.

Microsoft hasn't matched Sony yet, but they are getting there and could be there in the next generation. While Microsoft is currently beating Sony in Unit sale (x360 vs PS3 only) Sony still has a few things in its favor. Overall the PS3 & X360 are relatively matched in terms of system influence, but Sony has portable gaming and much larger 1st party software support. Both of which aren't being matched by Microsoft.

Doesn't Windows Mobile count for anything here? Theres a lot of bus surrounding their Courier tablet (which looks very cool I might add) and their Windows Mobile 7 operating system. I saw a presentation on that and it looks like Windows Mobile 7 will have some excellent gaming capabilities and cross platform support with the much larger Xbox Live service. (Note: I heard from a friend who was working on developing an indie game that the only way they would release on PSN is if fully funded by Sony, so that would just compound their advantage)

No, Windows 7 and Windows mobile do not count for gaming as they are operating systems. Those platforms are made primarily for business/productivity/web use, not gaming. Windows Mobile hasn't even toppled Apple yet, and I was just reading an article about how Apple brings in ~$1.00/month and Android only brings in ~$0.061/month per user in gaming revenue. As much as Apple wants you to think the iPhone will kill the DS, it is a phone that happens to have gaming capabilities. It is a small player when compared to the DS or even the PSP.

Operating systems are platforms which unify distinct hardware under the one umbrella. What the user does with the system is up to the user. For example it seems that more people buy the PSP for media playback than gaming based off attach rates. Does that mean that the PSP doesn't count as a platform for gaming? In addition to this, as future consoles do far more than gaming as well then how do you categorise them?

The iTouch, Phone and soon Pad are the same ecosystem even though they are three distinct pieces of hardware. People have no trouble describing them as a unified platform and they have no problem with the idea that part of their appeal is the mobile games and apps you can get on all three. Windows mobile 7 is also fairly unified in terms of the hardware basis for the phones even if the manufacturers are distinctly different.

In the home operating system space, Microsoft seems to have spent considerable time and money developing their gaming related tools and APIs. Infact both the Xbox 360 and PS3 bear Microsofts influence in the design of their respective GPUs. Its no happy accident that a wide range of gaming does happen on the Microsoft system and people are aware that if they wish to play games they have to go Windows. How does this not add to their overall gaming 'presence'?

 

There are some differences between Windows and console platforms and, I believe, iTouch and iPhone. MS doesn't get any money from Windows games because there are no license fees for games. And MS has no control over who publishes games for Windows because anyone can release and sell games for Windows without permission from MS. MS only gets money from development tools, API's and OS sales. It doesn't matter if game would not even be released or it would sell 100 million copies or only pirates would download the game because MS would not get a penny from game sales. All money to MS comes indirectly from other sources. I am assuming this also applies to Windows mobile (could be wrong though). Only games from which MS gets money directly are games which MS has published and/or developed.



Around the Network

Joke poll ? MS has a handful of studios, Sony is miles beyond them in 1st party exclusives quality and quantity.

Some of the games MS has to compete with if they want to become meaningful one day in the gaming business:

- God of war 3
- LittleBigPlanet
- Last Guardien and other ICO games
- Uncharted 2
- Ratchet A Crack in Time
- MLB 10
- Demon Souls
- Gran Turismo series
- Wipeout
...

The gap is increasing, MS closed Ensemble while Sony bought Media Molecule.

MS doesn't even have any handheld.

One day maybe, if MS buys / opens talented studios and uses its money to fund devs instead of buying timed exclusives which end on the PS3 in better versions later.

I doubt it'll ever happen, I think MS will get out of the gaming business before it ever happens.



yo_john117 said:
pizzahut451 said:
DirtyP2002 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Garnett said:
SpartanFX said:
Garnett said:
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

well to be fair the question is Sony Vs MS and NOT PS3 vs X360.Sony had almost 40% of revenue in gaming last week whereas MS had only 13 %.

 

to you I say 

"who has 3 platforms on the market???" :P

True, but the brand power is what the OP was talking about.

Xbox and GFWL vs PS3 and ?? (PSP is just about to die and so is the PS2)

 

Xbox brand is equal with the Playstation brand.

 

PS2 alone doubled the sales of Xbox and Xbox 360 together


and that is history my friend. welcome to 2010.

So? Its still a fact that proves that proves that PlayStation brand is 5X stronger. How many Xbox consoles sold over 100 millon? Or even 50 million? Hell, not even a Nintendo console sold over 100 million (notice i said console, not handheld)

No no no, WAS 5x stronger, not is.


So PS2 is not a part of PlayStation brand anymore?



Funny thread. MS sells a few million consoles and now it's party time.

Look at Sony studios and 1st party games, seriously. Sony kills MS with one hand in games quality and quantity.

Plus, PSP, PS1, PS2 and PS3 sold more combined than MS will ever dream of.



mario64 said:
Funny thread. MS sells a few million consoles and now it's party time.

Look at Sony studios and 1st party games, seriously. Sony kills MS with one hand in games quality and quantity.

Plus, PSP, PS1, PS2 and PS3 sold more combined than MS will ever dream of.


why did you name yourself mario64?



Around the Network

Offtopic question. I happen to love Mario 64 too.



Untamoi said:
WilliamWatts said:

Operating systems are platforms which unify distinct hardware under the one umbrella. What the user does with the system is up to the user. For example it seems that more people buy the PSP for media playback than gaming based off attach rates. Does that mean that the PSP doesn't count as a platform for gaming? In addition to this, as future consoles do far more than gaming as well then how do you categorise them?

The iTouch, Phone and soon Pad are the same ecosystem even though they are three distinct pieces of hardware. People have no trouble describing them as a unified platform and they have no problem with the idea that part of their appeal is the mobile games and apps you can get on all three. Windows mobile 7 is also fairly unified in terms of the hardware basis for the phones even if the manufacturers are distinctly different.

In the home operating system space, Microsoft seems to have spent considerable time and money developing their gaming related tools and APIs. Infact both the Xbox 360 and PS3 bear Microsofts influence in the design of their respective GPUs. Its no happy accident that a wide range of gaming does happen on the Microsoft system and people are aware that if they wish to play games they have to go Windows. How does this not add to their overall gaming 'presence'?

 

There are some differences between Windows and console platforms and, I believe, iTouch and iPhone. MS doesn't get any money from Windows games because there are no license fees for games. And MS has no control over who publishes games for Windows because anyone can release and sell games for Windows without permission from MS. MS only gets money from development tools, API's and OS sales. It doesn't matter if game would not even be released or it would sell 100 million copies or only pirates would download the game because MS would not get a penny from game sales. All money to MS comes indirectly from other sources. I am assuming this also applies to Windows mobile (could be wrong though). Only games from which MS gets money directly are games which MS has published and/or developed.

Apple mainly gets money from the hardware they sell and Microsoft mainly get money from the operating system they sell. Gaming is to sell operating systems for them so they still get a cut that way. Remember each copy of Windows is $50 or more in terms of revenue. That makes them a part of the gaming industry even if they do not directly interact with publishers or consumers.



WilliamWatts said:
Untamoi said:
WilliamWatts said:

Operating systems are platforms which unify distinct hardware under the one umbrella. What the user does with the system is up to the user. For example it seems that more people buy the PSP for media playback than gaming based off attach rates. Does that mean that the PSP doesn't count as a platform for gaming? In addition to this, as future consoles do far more than gaming as well then how do you categorise them?

The iTouch, Phone and soon Pad are the same ecosystem even though they are three distinct pieces of hardware. People have no trouble describing them as a unified platform and they have no problem with the idea that part of their appeal is the mobile games and apps you can get on all three. Windows mobile 7 is also fairly unified in terms of the hardware basis for the phones even if the manufacturers are distinctly different.

In the home operating system space, Microsoft seems to have spent considerable time and money developing their gaming related tools and APIs. Infact both the Xbox 360 and PS3 bear Microsofts influence in the design of their respective GPUs. Its no happy accident that a wide range of gaming does happen on the Microsoft system and people are aware that if they wish to play games they have to go Windows. How does this not add to their overall gaming 'presence'?

 

There are some differences between Windows and console platforms and, I believe, iTouch and iPhone. MS doesn't get any money from Windows games because there are no license fees for games. And MS has no control over who publishes games for Windows because anyone can release and sell games for Windows without permission from MS. MS only gets money from development tools, API's and OS sales. It doesn't matter if game would not even be released or it would sell 100 million copies or only pirates would download the game because MS would not get a penny from game sales. All money to MS comes indirectly from other sources. I am assuming this also applies to Windows mobile (could be wrong though). Only games from which MS gets money directly are games which MS has published and/or developed.

Apple mainly gets money from the hardware they sell and Microsoft mainly get money from the operating system they sell. Gaming is to sell operating systems for them so they still get a cut that way. Remember each copy of Windows is $50 or more in terms of revenue. That makes them a part of the gaming industry even if they do not directly interact with publishers or consumers.

But Microsoft sell Windows mostly to companies. End users either get it preinstalled (at a cost of $30-$50) or pirate it. Moreover Apple systems are much more locked in, you can't sell apps for the iPhone if you don't use the Apple dev-kits, while on the other hand you can use wathever you want on Windows.

(btw i played the last remnant and bioshock on linux, using wine...)



Booh! said:
WilliamWatts said:

Apple mainly gets money from the hardware they sell and Microsoft mainly get money from the operating system they sell. Gaming is to sell operating systems for them so they still get a cut that way. Remember each copy of Windows is $50 or more in terms of revenue. That makes them a part of the gaming industry even if they do not directly interact with publishers or consumers.

But Microsoft sell Windows mostly to companies. End users either get it preinstalled (at a cost of $30-$50) or pirate it. Moreover Apple systems are much more locked in, you can't sell apps for the iPhone if you don't use the Apple dev-kits, while on the other hand you can use wathever you want on Windows.

(btw i played the last remnant and bioshock on linux, using wine...)

The idea of a physical box is dead. They sell platforms now. So the question of what particular hardware anything runs on is pretty irrelevant. The fact that 96% of all PC gaming is done on a Windows platform makes Microsoft a much bigger giant in gaming than Sony even if they don't have a direct involvement or a cut from games developed on the Windows platform. It doesn't matter whether they are involved directly or indirectly. Its still their platform and the gaming is still taking place there and in most cases its in exclusion of other platforms.



WilliamWatts said:
Booh! said:
WilliamWatts said:

Apple mainly gets money from the hardware they sell and Microsoft mainly get money from the operating system they sell. Gaming is to sell operating systems for them so they still get a cut that way. Remember each copy of Windows is $50 or more in terms of revenue. That makes them a part of the gaming industry even if they do not directly interact with publishers or consumers.

But Microsoft sell Windows mostly to companies. End users either get it preinstalled (at a cost of $30-$50) or pirate it. Moreover Apple systems are much more locked in, you can't sell apps for the iPhone if you don't use the Apple dev-kits, while on the other hand you can use wathever you want on Windows.

(btw i played the last remnant and bioshock on linux, using wine...)

The idea of a physical box is dead. They sell platforms now. So the question of what particular hardware anything runs on is pretty irrelevant. The fact that 96% of all PC gaming is done on a Windows platform makes Microsoft a much bigger giant in gaming than Sony even if they don't have a direct involvement or a cut from games developed on the Windows platform. It doesn't matter whether they are involved directly or indirectly. Its still their platform and the gaming is still taking place there and in most cases its in exclusion of other platforms.

and most of the software it's pirated, they are still more games being developed for consoles and  handheld than windows platform

unless u count games like sweepmines, and flash games.

microsoft remaining markets are windows and office.

windows mobile failed, zune failed and 360 isn't first this gen either.