By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft Should Quit The Gaming Biz

Jereel Hunter on 10 April 2013
mutantclown said:
Jereel Hunter said:
C0LINx said:
I think so, I mean they really are changing the console business for the worse. We are forgetting what these machines were truly made for. What has Microsoft truly offered to gaming over the past few years? The only thing I could honestly say is a decent online service which one day will be matched by a competitor(Sony).


1) MS is the reason we have the online console capabilities we have today. Their continuing to move Live forward has forced Sony to match suit.

2) Microsoft's boldy acquiring partners has also forced Sony to follow suit. If Xbox live hadn't gotten Netflix, Hulu,  HBOGO, etc type apps, do you think Sony would have? The consoles would not be the media hubs (to the same extent) that they are today.

3) If the 360 wasn't a cheaper, comparable alternative to the PS3, do you think the PS4 would be releasing while the PS3 is still 10 digits in the red, lifetime? Without wanting to one-up MS, we'd be waiting another year or two for a PS4, so Sony could recoup losses.

4) Kinect - maybe there aren't many games we core gamers care about, but there are dance/exercise games that more girls like, lots of ones that entertain kids while being more active than sitting on the couch. And a next generation kinect may even be precise enough to give us games we'll enjoy too.

The fact that Sony has to compete is GEAT for us. What changes from PS1 to PS2? Better graphics. Thats' about it. But with Sony actually having to fight for their position, everything takes a quantum leap forward. Even if you refuse to acknowledge what MS has certainly brought to gaming in the last few years, you have to at least see that it prevents Sony from resting on their laurels. When PS3 released, it was $600, and the advice was to "get a second job" if you can't afford one. Do you really want a company with that mindset to have a virtual monopoly?

1. Agree

2. Nah. If PS3 was alone they would have gone for it and Wii as well.

3. Nah. PS4 has been in the cards since 2008. They never stop going forward.

4. Nah. 

 

PSone and PS2 were great without any really fierce competitors, Sony slashed the Price of PS2 to $200 after just 18 months, and then released an even cheaper slim version, and they never stopped making great games, or resting on their laurels milking the same old 3 franchises or focusing on something other than games primarily. I wouldn't mind Sony to take hold of the market again, they proved for 10 years they are very good kings, I would be afraid of Microsoft having a monopoly in the consoles market, that would be scary.

2) Like I said, to the same extent. A lot of these services don't bring profit - they are SIMPLY a feature. And quite franky, Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon, etc, all directly compete with their own online viewing offerings. If they didn't have competition, they wouldn't offer them at all. Competitiion forces it.

3) I'm not saying PS4 wouldn't come, but not yet. If you think it would, well what can I say - that's incorrect. The PS3 has still not made profit over it's lifetime, overall. Why would they release the next system if they could run away with the generation uncontested like in the PS1/2 years?

4) 15 million kinect sales would disagree. You can say "Nah", but it's neither a valid argument, nor does it invalidate the statement.



Around the Network
mutantclown on 10 April 2013
Jereel Hunter said:
mutantclown said:
Jereel Hunter said:
C0LINx said:
I think so, I mean they really are changing the console business for the worse. We are forgetting what these machines were truly made for. What has Microsoft truly offered to gaming over the past few years? The only thing I could honestly say is a decent online service which one day will be matched by a competitor(Sony).


1) MS is the reason we have the online console capabilities we have today. Their continuing to move Live forward has forced Sony to match suit.

2) Microsoft's boldy acquiring partners has also forced Sony to follow suit. If Xbox live hadn't gotten Netflix, Hulu,  HBOGO, etc type apps, do you think Sony would have? The consoles would not be the media hubs (to the same extent) that they are today.

3) If the 360 wasn't a cheaper, comparable alternative to the PS3, do you think the PS4 would be releasing while the PS3 is still 10 digits in the red, lifetime? Without wanting to one-up MS, we'd be waiting another year or two for a PS4, so Sony could recoup losses.

4) Kinect - maybe there aren't many games we core gamers care about, but there are dance/exercise games that more girls like, lots of ones that entertain kids while being more active than sitting on the couch. And a next generation kinect may even be precise enough to give us games we'll enjoy too.

The fact that Sony has to compete is GEAT for us. What changes from PS1 to PS2? Better graphics. Thats' about it. But with Sony actually having to fight for their position, everything takes a quantum leap forward. Even if you refuse to acknowledge what MS has certainly brought to gaming in the last few years, you have to at least see that it prevents Sony from resting on their laurels. When PS3 released, it was $600, and the advice was to "get a second job" if you can't afford one. Do you really want a company with that mindset to have a virtual monopoly?

1. Agree

2. Nah. If PS3 was alone they would have gone for it and Wii as well.

3. Nah. PS4 has been in the cards since 2008. They never stop going forward.

4. Nah. 

 

PSone and PS2 were great without any really fierce competitors, Sony slashed the Price of PS2 to $200 after just 18 months, and then released an even cheaper slim version, and they never stopped making great games, or resting on their laurels milking the same old 3 franchises or focusing on something other than games primarily. I wouldn't mind Sony to take hold of the market again, they proved for 10 years they are very good kings, I would be afraid of Microsoft having a monopoly in the consoles market, that would be scary.

2) Like I said, to the same extent. A lot of these services don't bring profit - they are SIMPLY a feature. And quite franky, Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon, etc, all directly compete with their own online viewing offerings. If they didn't have competition, they wouldn't offer them at all. Competitiion forces it.

3) I'm not saying PS4 wouldn't come, but not yet. If you think it would, well what can I say - that's incorrect. The PS3 has still not made profit over it's lifetime, overall. Why would they release the next system if they could run away with the generation uncontested like in the PS1/2 years?

4) 15 million kinect sales would disagree. You can say "Nah", but it's neither a valid argument, nor does it invalidate the statement.


2. Netflix would have approached Wii and PS3, simple as that, others would follow.

3. If the 360 is such a runaway success why didn't they launch 720 last year? And please show me some valid source confirming the PS3 has not made profit over its lifetime, you mean on hardware sales alone? not including software, services, accessories, digital content, etc etc? how would you know this? you're the one who's very incorrect about that.

4. I say "Nah" about Kinect ever being anything more than a gimmick for mindless shoverlware.



J_Allard on 10 April 2013

I am still trying to wrap my head around Forza, Halo, and Gears being "tired franchises" yet God of War 7, Infamous 3, and Killzone 6 are "fresh", "killer", and "innovative".



sidious164 on 10 April 2013

MS profited with the 360 and sony lost billions with the ps3. I think the company that was the financial disaster this gen should leave the gaming biz.



[url=http://www.xboxlc.com/profile/sidious_164]

[/url]

C0LINx on 10 April 2013
Jereel Hunter said:
C0LINx said:
I think so, I mean they really are changing the console business for the worse. We are forgetting what these machines were truly made for. What has Microsoft truly offered to gaming over the past few years? The only thing I could honestly say is a decent online service which one day will be matched by a competitor(Sony).


1) MS is the reason we have the online console capabilities we have today. Their continuing to move Live forward has forced Sony to match suit.

2) Microsoft's boldy acquiring partners has also forced Sony to follow suit. If Xbox live hadn't gotten Netflix, Hulu,  HBOGO, etc type apps, do you think Sony would have? The consoles would not be the media hubs (to the same extent) that they are today.

3) If the 360 wasn't a cheaper, comparable alternative to the PS3, do you think the PS4 would be releasing while the PS3 is still 10 digits in the red, lifetime? Without wanting to one-up MS, we'd be waiting another year or two for a PS4, so Sony could recoup losses.

4) Kinect - maybe there aren't many games we core gamers care about, but there are dance/exercise games that more girls like, lots of ones that entertain kids while being more active than sitting on the couch. And a next generation kinect may even be precise enough to give us games we'll enjoy too.

The fact that Sony has to compete is GEAT for us. What changes from PS1 to PS2? Better graphics. Thats' about it. But with Sony actually having to fight for their position, everything takes a quantum leap forward. Even if you refuse to acknowledge what MS has certainly brought to gaming in the last few years, you have to at least see that it prevents Sony from resting on their laurels. When PS3 released, it was $600, and the advice was to "get a second job" if you can't afford one. Do you really want a company with that mindset to have a virtual monopoly?

What has been so different about XBOX Live in the past 2 years? I'll wait till I see the 720 and its new features before making a full judgement on whether their online infastructure has improved upon the already great XBOX Live. Your first point pretty much reiterated what I said. 



Around the Network
HappyHenry on 10 April 2013

What a load of rubbish this post is .course the xbox is first and formost a games machine the added media functions are a bonus .even TVs are crammed with media now and so will the PS4 as for in it to make money all the consoles are in it to make money coz if they lose loads of money thats when they give up.



sales2099 on 10 April 2013
J_Allard said:
I am still trying to wrap my head around Forza, Halo, and Gears being "tired franchises" yet God of War 7, Infamous 3, and Killzone 6 are "fresh", "killer", and "innovative".

Thank God....I thought I was alone in thinking that lol



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

TruckOSaurus on 10 April 2013

What a bad bad article/post/blog drivel. Microsoft is making money off "the gaming biz" so no, they shouldn't quit. End of story.



Signature goes here!

Jereel Hunter on 10 April 2013
C0LINx said:
Jereel Hunter said:
C0LINx said:
I think so, I mean they really are changing the console business for the worse. We are forgetting what these machines were truly made for. What has Microsoft truly offered to gaming over the past few years? The only thing I could honestly say is a decent online service which one day will be matched by a competitor(Sony).


1) MS is the reason we have the online console capabilities we have today. Their continuing to move Live forward has forced Sony to match suit.

2) Microsoft's boldy acquiring partners has also forced Sony to follow suit. If Xbox live hadn't gotten Netflix, Hulu,  HBOGO, etc type apps, do you think Sony would have? The consoles would not be the media hubs (to the same extent) that they are today.

3) If the 360 wasn't a cheaper, comparable alternative to the PS3, do you think the PS4 would be releasing while the PS3 is still 10 digits in the red, lifetime? Without wanting to one-up MS, we'd be waiting another year or two for a PS4, so Sony could recoup losses.

4) Kinect - maybe there aren't many games we core gamers care about, but there are dance/exercise games that more girls like, lots of ones that entertain kids while being more active than sitting on the couch. And a next generation kinect may even be precise enough to give us games we'll enjoy too.

The fact that Sony has to compete is GEAT for us. What changes from PS1 to PS2? Better graphics. Thats' about it. But with Sony actually having to fight for their position, everything takes a quantum leap forward. Even if you refuse to acknowledge what MS has certainly brought to gaming in the last few years, you have to at least see that it prevents Sony from resting on their laurels. When PS3 released, it was $600, and the advice was to "get a second job" if you can't afford one. Do you really want a company with that mindset to have a virtual monopoly?

What has been so different about XBOX Live in the past 2 years? I'll wait till I see the 720 and its new features before making a full judgement on whether their online infastructure has improved upon the already great XBOX Live. Your first point pretty much reiterated what I said.


My point there wasn't that they've changed that much specifically in the last two years, but simply about why they shouldn't quit. If they quit, Sony doesn't need to try anymore. They can release a $600 console with no good games, and it still gets to be a success...

This generation, they did that and it was a disaster, so they redoubled their efforts and thus things got better for gamers. Would they have needed to try so hard if MS wasn't in the business? Nope. That's my only point. You don't need to constantly innovate to be worthwhile.

Aside from which, every new addition this generation (except movement based controls) has been MS first, and Sony following - if anything, this logic suggests it's Sony that should change businesses.



Chris Hu on 10 April 2013

People who know nothing about the video game industry shouldn't attempt to write about it. This article is absurd.