Quantcast
Investors to Microsoft: Drop the Xbox

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Investors to Microsoft: Drop the Xbox

dont do it MS!  HAving Ninty as Sony's nemesis won't be nearly as fun as MS is now.



Around the Network

To be fair, I'm a MS stockholder, and I would hate for Microsoft to leave the videogame industry.

However, when I look at stock valuation and the possible drag that MS gaming division has had on profitability which in turn can directly impact growth within a company, especially with the fickleness of investors, it is quite understandable.

The investment culture is very simple.  Make me money.  Don't care about games, don't care about graphs, where's my MONEY!!! 



I game.  You game.  We game.

I'm a videogamer, not a fanboy, but have a special place for Nintendo.

Current Systems Owned: NSwitch/PS4/XONE/WiiU/3DS/2DS/PCGaming Rig-i7/ASUS i7 Gaming Laptop.

Previous Game Consoles:  PS3/Xbox360/Wii/DSL/Pretty much every one thats been released since the Atari 2600.



WereKitten said:
Smashchu2 said:

First, let me start that this is no such thing as "casuals," and "hardcore." They are just buzz workds and have no meaning. "Casual," just refers to a "lesser," gamer. "Hardcore," is anything someone likes. People call old NES games like Super Mario Brothers "hardcore," even though they are more casual (you can warp and beat it in about an hour).

...

The point was about casual and hardcore gamers, not games. Referring to people and their activities the terms casual and hardcore are actually quite well defined. A casual movie-goer is someone who goes to the cinema according to trends, pressures and personal inclinations but has no particular investment in the activity when compared to other aspects of his/her life. A hardcore skater is someone for whom the activity has surged to a central role, thus a lot of time, attention, money and effort goes in it. So much that they develops a high fidelity to the activity, which is why they also tend to constitute a hardcore market in the business sense.

What Reasonable said, which I agree with, is that PS1/PS2 expanded gaming to people who never gamed before, save the mandatory one-off activity with a younger nephew, son or geeky friend. The typical children playing NES and Atari games were actually hardcore gamers, as all children are devoted to their games and PC gamers were a more varied marked, with adults playing flight and war simulators, but they were generally tagged with the stigma of geekdom. With PS1 I remember seeing for the first time adults buying a console to play football games with adult friends. And a surge of the family oriented genre.

Hardcore is rarely used in business. You can refere to your normal business as core, but I would be hard pressed to puit customers in categories. It will tend to create tunnel vision.

The bold is wrong. Out side of population growths, the PS1/PS2 didn't add many people. It was not an expansion of games but games riding the hight tide of good economies and other things. The three major factors that made the PS1 and PS2 generations successus

  • Population growth (which is now down turing in Japan and many European nations)
  • Expanding globaly (The PS1 was the first system to be a success in all major regions. The NES never took off in Europe)
  • Gamers having higher disposable income (a lot of gamers were carrying over. They had more money then they did when they were kids, so they could buy more games and systems. This is what lead to multiple console ownership)

I think I posted this already in this thread, but I'll do it again if not. Reggie, before the Wii was shown, gave a speach about the state of the industry. Most of the data showed declines all around. Japan's market was down. Young males were plaing fewer games. Household penetration was the lowest in the PS2 era. So gaming has not been growing. It has been shrinking.

Also, all gamers on the Atari and NES were noit hardcore. They were all just starting into games. There was no strong market before. The hardcore gamers during the NES days were on the game dedicated PCs which were 16 bit at the time. NES games and gamers were casual as they were designed for short burst of play. The real hardcore gamers were playing longer role playing games on conputers.



^Way before the NES and way before the PC was a viable gaming platform there were plenty of hardcore gamers in the arcades, on the 8-bit home computers and on the older consoles. I was there, and there were young kids my age pouring coin after coin in arcade machines and talking about the best strategies while they walked to school. Buying magazines that detailed the games of the Atari VCS down to the last score for each kind of ship you shooted down, giving strategies and revealing exploitable glitches. It doesn't take long for a small child to become infatuated with something. Believe me, we were no less hardcore in our interest than any modern gamer can be. And since consoles and computers were much rarer, it was way more likely that an owner was a very dedicated gamer, not a casual one.

About the households, assuming it means what it sounds like i.e the share of the hosueholds that have bought a given console, the two things are not mutually exclusive. The number of households where a console is bought can decline while inside those households there is more gaming performed by casual adult gamers and in family reunions and less by younger kids on their own.

Again, just like Reasonable I am european and the PS1 around here was the apparent threshold that liberated gaming -or at least some gaming- from the geeky and kiddy image.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Around the Network
FaRmLaNd said:

Why would they get out of the xbox brand now?

They've just become profitable, and they've succedded in getting millions of people to pay money for their gold accounts.

All they need to do next gen is take a leaf out of Nintendos book and sell the console for a profit from day 1. This may mean advancing the hardware technology more slowly but I think thats a neccesary step next gen. As the cost of the industry to create hardware and software was simply too high in many segments of the market this gen.

I think the console company that will increase its hardware capabilities next gen might just be Nintendo, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony and Microsoft are far more cautious in comparison.


i think all three will take your advice.



The reason the next gen isn't coming soon is development costs - no t the costs of the techonology. Making the same games 60fps 1080p isn't really a significant bump in graphics, and people would chosse the cheaper system.  No 3rd parties will get on board if development costs increase.  We're stuck with 360 and PS3 for quite awhile - I think both MS and Sony knew this to start this gen, MS opted to beat sony to the market and cheaper - Sony opted to cram in as much technology as possible.

It will be interesting if Sony really does go aggressive to the rumored $199 in an attempt to get these investors to pull out with xbox. A $199 PS3 may assure that MS will not be profiting from 360.  I just don't think Sony is that stupid to put out a $600 console without knowing it would become cost effect to produce in the long run.



 

it would be borring without either. without sega it got borring.



Men dont these bastards have enough money to wipe their ****** asses.



WIzarDE said:

Men dont these bastards have enough money to wipe their ****** asses.



it's the greedy where talking about