Quantcast
A question for those that consider themselves Xbox fans/ fanboys...

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - A question for those that consider themselves Xbox fans/ fanboys...

Interesting question because Sony had a monopoly in the last 2 generations and they were brilliant generations in terms of gaming for me - and it didnt really decrease the quality of the games from the competition too drastically in my opinion.

I dont really care who has a monopoly or whether there is one, as long as the quality games keep coming, and if MS continues the way they have been then its great for me. MS is a software/PC company through and through and they have transferred their values into the games market. So even though they have 70% share in total game industry revenue, I dont think they will rest in their laurels in regards to software/online ventures.

Sony just had a hiccup when they took their eye off the main thing - the games - in their initial vision for the PS3.

I doubt any company will have a monopoly this generation though as the industry/consumers are growing rapidly.



Around the Network
gebx said:
FinalEvangelion said:

Do you want to see MS have the same kind of monopoly over the gaming industry that they do with Windows and Office applications?

 

I give credit to the fact that MS has really taken alot of Sony's thunder in terms of being the undisputed king they were in the PS1 and PS2 generation.  MS's direct measure of success, as they have stated many times, is the failure of Sony.  Why?  Because they want to have the same control over the living room as they do in the office.  They saw Sony as being their biggest enemy.

 

With Windows and Office, we as consumers and small businesses have to pay a huge premium over market price because it's really the only viable option.  You can argue that Apple is there, but that has limitations.  Apple really had a window of opportunity to level the playing field when Vista was released, but they wanted to keep their image as a high class setup, rather than get greater marketshare.  Heck, now Apples are equipped with a similar x86 platform that IBM/PC compatibles are.

 

In the gaming industry, there are alternatives.  The most direct alternative is the PS3, which outsold the Xbox 360 for all of 2008 until the price was dropped.  A combination of brand image, percieved value (BD and free online), and reliability statistics (for PS3) helped that case.  Because of that, MS lowered their price to a more consumer-friendly price and fixed their overheating issues, since we haven't heard any widespread RROD cases beginning with the Falcon revision.  Isolated cases will always happen, just like the PS3 and Wii. 

 

At the beginning of this gen, Sony really thought they were in the monopoly position so they thought releasing a $600 system when they weren't completely ready to release software was going to be ok with both consumers and developers.  Obviously, other alternatives were available, and both consumers and devs have seeked other alternatives.

 

What I'm really concerned about, and why I've always been reluctant to support Xbox (I bought one for my jRPGs), is that once MS gets into the monopoly position, they really know how to keep it going and we consumers have to bear the grunt.

 

For me as a GAMER, this generation has been one of the best ones since SNES/Genesis for the same reasons.  There are two companies that have to duke it out each other by constantly 1-upping their offerings.  Sony has offered some of the best gaming experiences I've had since I was a kid with the likes of MGS4, Valkyria, and Little Big Planet.  On the same token, MS has made it possible to get some really good jRPGs that they probably had to give some financial incentive to the devs because HD consoles are too risky for most jRPG developments outside of big titles like FF that cater to a small fanbase.

 

In the end, we want the competition so the benefits are passed on to us - the gamer.

I'm gonna go out and say it..

You think a Sony monopoly is somehow better then an MS' monopoly... well guess what - its not...

You're whole post screams DESPERATION!  It's fanboy dribble praising Sony, while asking 360 fanboys to suppost Sony just to stop MS from gaining a monopoly.

This should be a question asked to all fanboys not just 360 fanboys.

Would you want Sony or Nintendo or MS to have a monopoly in the gaming industry?

The answer from 98% of people would be NO

 

I did give my criticism for Sony, in thinking they were a monopoly at the beginning of this generation.  Looking at the two companies' past history, you can see which has been fined and brought to court for monopoly abuses more in the past.  The record speaks for itself.  No need for accusations.

 

 



"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

 

Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

 

I want all 3 companies nintendo/sony/microsoft to have 33% marketshare each and be always trying to better each other in price/technology/innovation

That way we win YEAH GO CONSUMER! :P





Owner of PS3, Wii, Xbox360, NDS, PSP - Feel Free to add me on PSN or XBL :)

As long as 360 can bash ps3 flat !!!



Well.... at this point talking about either Sony or MS having a monopoly on the gaming industry is not very realistic, considering Nintendo is curb stomping them both while smoking rolled up Benjamins.

I like to see MS having some success this generation. They got bloodied pretty badly last round, so they need this one. Don't forget just how much they've sunk into the Xbox investment.

I do not want to see Sony out of it. As all reasonable people know, competition is good for the consumer, and gives us higher quality systems, games, and lower prices while the companies dance for our dollars. We are certainly nowhere near the point of MS having a monopoly yet, just because PS3 is coming up in third place this generation.

Only Nintendo seems to be immune to competition this gen. Offering inferior hardware, crappy games, and poor services while the customer begs for more. THAT is what I don't want to see dominating the industry... At least it seems like MS and Sony are trying pretty damn hard; Nintendo is just printing money. It pains me >.



      Around the Network
      msnolp said:
      As long as 360 can bash ps3 flat !!!

       

      Really now, how do guys like this not get noticed and reported around here? >_>



      FinalEvangelion said:

       

      MS's direct measure of success, as they have stated many times, is the failure of Sony.

       

      Sony set the standard when they murdered Sega....how can Microsoft not follow their example?



      "I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

      "Its like sex, but with a winner!"

      MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

      MrBubbles said:
      FinalEvangelion said:

       

      MS's direct measure of success, as they have stated many times, is the failure of Sony.

       

      Sony set the standard when they murdered Sega....how can Microsoft not follow their example?

       

      I don't remember Sony saying "We will sell more units than Sega/Nintendo" at official press conferences.  Sega was so focused on Nintendo and had the Sega CD/32x thing before the Saturn, which was similar to the PS3 in the fact development was difficult.  The main difference was that Sony did finally get devs to support them more with the PS3, while Sega just abandoned it to release the Dreamcast.  That's where I have to agree with Euphoria.  I want to see MS expand their 1st/2nd party with devs like Mistwalker.  Where is that "Cry On"?



      "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

       

      Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

       

      FinalEvangelion said:

      Do you want to see MS have the same kind of monopoly over the gaming industry that they do with Windows and Office applications?

       

      I give credit to the fact that MS has really taken alot of Sony's thunder in terms of being the undisputed king they were in the PS1 and PS2 generation.  MS's direct measure of success, as they have stated many times, is the failure of Sony.  Why?  Because they want to have the same control over the living room as they do in the office.  They saw Sony as being their biggest enemy.

       

      With Windows and Office, we as consumers and small businesses have to pay a huge premium over market price because it's really the only viable option.  You can argue that Apple is there, but that has limitations.  Apple really had a window of opportunity to level the playing field when Vista was released, but they wanted to keep their image as a high class setup, rather than get greater marketshare.  Heck, now Apples are equipped with a similar x86 platform that IBM/PC compatibles are.

       

      In the gaming industry, there are alternatives.  The most direct alternative is the PS3, which outsold the Xbox 360 for all of 2008 until the price was dropped.  A combination of brand image, percieved value (BD and free online), and reliability statistics (for PS3) helped that case.  Because of that, MS lowered their price to a more consumer-friendly price and fixed their overheating issues, since we haven't heard any widespread RROD cases beginning with the Falcon revision.  Isolated cases will always happen, just like the PS3 and Wii. 

       

      At the beginning of this gen, Sony really thought they were in the monopoly position so they thought releasing a $600 system when they weren't completely ready to release software was going to be ok with both consumers and developers.  Obviously, other alternatives were available, and both consumers and devs have seeked other alternatives.

       

      What I'm really concerned about, and why I've always been reluctant to support Xbox (I bought one for my jRPGs), is that once MS gets into the monopoly position, they really know how to keep it going and we consumers have to bear the grunt.

       

      For me as a GAMER, this generation has been one of the best ones since SNES/Genesis for the same reasons.  There are two companies that have to duke it out each other by constantly 1-upping their offerings.  Sony has offered some of the best gaming experiences I've had since I was a kid with the likes of MGS4, Valkyria, and Little Big Planet.  On the same token, MS has made it possible to get some really good jRPGs that they probably had to give some financial incentive to the devs because HD consoles are too risky for most jRPG developments outside of big titles like FF that cater to a small fanbase.

       

      In the end, we want the competition so the benefits are passed on to us - the gamer.

       

      I agree with MOST of what you said no one wants a monopoly on ANYTHING, look at the cable companies.  Once ANY company get a monopoly things are not going to be good.  As you mentioned Sony came really close to one last generation and look what it did to them they had the arrogance to come out with a $600 system imagine if we didnt have Nintendo or Microsoft. 

      Also not to pick on the WII but since they are curshing the competetion have we seen a price drop on the $250.00 WII?  No cause they dont need to, to be honest the system is overpriced though you dont see an out cry cause of that.

      I support MS this generation cause in my OPINION they have the best game libaray, great pricing, High Def, an the best online support.  You have no fear they are squarly in second and will not be a monopoly. 

      The funniest part is the third party developers will not allow a monopoly, PS2 was close and look how fast they jumped ship to the 360 so they could support competation.

      Do not penalize the 360 cause its made by MS.  Its a great system and currenly still an underdog.

       

       



      PS3, WII and 360 all great systems depends on what type of console player you are.

      Currently playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fallout 3, Halo ODST and Dragon Age Origins is next game

      Xbox live:mywiferocks

      xman said:
      FinalEvangelion said:

      Do you want to see MS have the same kind of monopoly over the gaming industry that they do with Windows and Office applications?

       

      I give credit to the fact that MS has really taken alot of Sony's thunder in terms of being the undisputed king they were in the PS1 and PS2 generation.  MS's direct measure of success, as they have stated many times, is the failure of Sony.  Why?  Because they want to have the same control over the living room as they do in the office.  They saw Sony as being their biggest enemy.

       

      With Windows and Office, we as consumers and small businesses have to pay a huge premium over market price because it's really the only viable option.  You can argue that Apple is there, but that has limitations.  Apple really had a window of opportunity to level the playing field when Vista was released, but they wanted to keep their image as a high class setup, rather than get greater marketshare.  Heck, now Apples are equipped with a similar x86 platform that IBM/PC compatibles are.

       

      In the gaming industry, there are alternatives.  The most direct alternative is the PS3, which outsold the Xbox 360 for all of 2008 until the price was dropped.  A combination of brand image, percieved value (BD and free online), and reliability statistics (for PS3) helped that case.  Because of that, MS lowered their price to a more consumer-friendly price and fixed their overheating issues, since we haven't heard any widespread RROD cases beginning with the Falcon revision.  Isolated cases will always happen, just like the PS3 and Wii. 

       

      At the beginning of this gen, Sony really thought they were in the monopoly position so they thought releasing a $600 system when they weren't completely ready to release software was going to be ok with both consumers and developers.  Obviously, other alternatives were available, and both consumers and devs have seeked other alternatives.

       

      What I'm really concerned about, and why I've always been reluctant to support Xbox (I bought one for my jRPGs), is that once MS gets into the monopoly position, they really know how to keep it going and we consumers have to bear the grunt.

       

      For me as a GAMER, this generation has been one of the best ones since SNES/Genesis for the same reasons.  There are two companies that have to duke it out each other by constantly 1-upping their offerings.  Sony has offered some of the best gaming experiences I've had since I was a kid with the likes of MGS4, Valkyria, and Little Big Planet.  On the same token, MS has made it possible to get some really good jRPGs that they probably had to give some financial incentive to the devs because HD consoles are too risky for most jRPG developments outside of big titles like FF that cater to a small fanbase.

       

      In the end, we want the competition so the benefits are passed on to us - the gamer.

       

      I agree with MOST of what you said no one wants a monopoly on ANYTHING, look at the cable companies.  Once ANY company get a monopoly things are not going to be good.  As you mentioned Sony came really close to one last generation and look what it did to them they had the arrogance to come out with a $600 system imagine if we didnt have Nintendo or Microsoft. 

      Also not to pick on the WII but since they are curshing the competetion have we seen a price drop on the $250.00 WII?  No cause they dont need to, to be honest the system is overpriced though you dont see an out cry cause of that.

      I support MS this generation cause in my OPINION they have the best game libaray, great pricing, High Def, an the best online support.  You have no fear they are squarly in second and will not be a monopoly. 

      The funniest part is the third party developers will not allow a monopoly, PS2 was close and look how fast they jumped ship to the 360 so they could support competation.

      Do not penalize the 360 cause its made by MS.  Its a great system and currenly still an underdog.

       

       

       

      That's true.  As Sansui said, Wii does have a near monopoly in their SEGMENT of the market, which are the (what ever term is politically correct now for it's target demographic).  I do think even Nintendo is vulnerable if some other company comes in to compete with that demographic.  Then we will start seeing them have to do price cuts.

       

      I'll be interested in how MS (and Sony for that matter) will be focused on capturing the Wii demographic next generation.



      "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

       

      Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.