johnlucas said:
Faulty analysis. The original XBox was only a success in a limited sense. Was it true that Microsoft intentionally planned to lose 4 billion U.S. dollars on their first system? No one plans to lose that much money. Stockholders simply won't stand for it. Microsoft expected to make a breakthrough with the system the 1st time around but plans didn't work out that way. And any smart company has a backup plan just in case the frontline fails. This is why companies are working on their next system as soon as their current system is released.
|
Microsoft knew the original Xbox was going to lose a lot of money. However, that is the cost of getting into the game industry. There are only a few companies that are capable of doing what Microsoft did. They wanted to get in it for the long run and didn't expect to make a profit at first. In fact, the press release announcing the xbox didn't even mention any profit incentives, they just wanted to have a box under your TV.
johnlucas said:
In terms of holding a portion of the home console marketshare pie chart, they were more successful than Nintendo's Gamecube but that's only if you count a company's marketshare by one system. In the worldwide company marketshare, Nintendo fueled by the power of the GBA still owned about half of the marketshare pie.
Check out this dramatic recounting of total company market representation in the videogame sector in Japan alone between the years 1996-2007. They break down total unit representation by each company's systems & then combine them all in their respective companies:
History of Video Games Marketshare in Japan 1996-2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdpMv5FjQ5M
Nintendo had so many systems running concurrently that when added together they combined to give Nintendo healthy market representation overall as a company. If you look solely at the home console front then they had problems but Nintendo does not exist solely in the home console section. We've been led to believe that home consoles are the "main platform" & handhelds are the "secondary platform" but in Japan it's pretty much the opposite now which is why Sony decided to even make the PSP hoping to run Nintendo off their last trump card. And remember that clip only showed Japan marketshare. Worldwide marketshare is a whole other thing. And looking at North American or even more narrowly U.S. marketshare you'd get a different picture again.
|
Seeing as how Microsoft is not in the handheld business, that really isn't a concern to them. I don't really understand why you posted this. Even if handhelds are the primary plaform in Japan, Microsoft is interested in having a device in your living room, not pocket. (I guess one could argue about the Zune and Windows mobile, but that is another topic)
johnlucas said:
(1) Nintendo, Ltd. as a whole since they primarily make videogames with toys & playing cards in the minority.
(2) Sony Corp.'s Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. or in other words Sony's gaming branch since Sony Corp. is in so many businesses.
(3) Microsoft Corp.'s Entertainment and Devices Division specifically what holds XBox development on both hardware & software. Microsoft has no clear "gaming division" like Sony does since other products fall under this branch like Zune, Windows CE, not to mention computer game production, another portion of the whole digital electronic gaming market which is too vast to count.
|
That is because Microsoft is a much bigger company than Nintendo and Sony. I'm not talking about physical size, I am talking about market reach. Microsoft's interests range too widely for it to have a department for every single devision. If they did that, they would have a hundred devisions and it would be hell to manage. The name of the divisions is irrelevent.
| johnlucas said:
When looking towards the profitability of the 3, Nintendo always landed on top. Microsoft leveraged its muscle from its computer operating system monopoly to subsidize & sustain its XBox adventure. Any other company would have been bankrupt from the original XBox's financial failure. Of course some of that $4 billion was part Zune as well but it's no mistake that XBox 1 caused the grand majority of that waste. Sony with the record success of their PS1 & PS2 didn't profit as well in comparison to their sales success. The problems of the PS3 were inevitable based on how their business model was set up.
|
Exactly, any other company would have been bankrupt from what Microsoft did. They would have also taken 3X as long to get into the position Microsoft is in right now. Microsoft bought themselves into the console industry and in less than 7 years were able to go from "newcomer under the shadow of the 700 pound Japanese gorilla in the room(Sony)" to "The 500 pound American gorilla poking the 300 pound anorexic Japanese gorilla." They played to their strengths and it worked for them. The young Xbox is pretty much equal to the Playstation brand in the eyes of the consumer (Even with RROD).
| johnlucas said:
You've made a grave mistake with this following view right here. I'll quote you:
jterii said:
-The line between console and PC is blurring. In the future consoles may
very well be underneath each TV, something which Microsoft definetly
wants.
This is the most fundamental MISUNDERSTANDING of what a console is supposed to be. Consoles in reality shouldn't exist. If not for the NES, we would all be playing games on the PC. You gotta understand the lessons of the North American VG market crash of 1983/1984. Videogaming suddenly went out of style as a business enterprise and if not for the NES, it would not have survived as a pastime in a broad sense. Certainly not enough able to influence & reshape the culture like it has. Home consoles from the very beginning were focused on families not technology. Technology was a tool not the driving reason for existence. It was the highway, the medium on how the game creators' ideas could influence how the families interacted with each other through the device.
|
This is the most fundamental misuderstanding of the industry. If in the next generation the Xbox 720 has a feature which allows it to give you a back massage while you play and the consumers LOVES it, then you better damn well bet that the next generations of consoles will also have this feature. Consoles are not just gaming devices anymore. If Nintendo wants to think that, then they are going to pay for it in the long run. What will happen when you have the Wii3 which can only play games and the PS5 and Xbox 1080 which can be used as your Comcast cable box, VOIP video phone, browser, media center, etc. The consumer will vote with their dollar and leave Nintendo in the dust. Even Nintendo added a web browser to their console because they know consoles are evolving.
johnlucas said:
The line between PC & console ain't blurring as much as you think. Else I would primarily use my Internet Channel on my Wii for all my web browsing needs instead of my desktop I'm typing to you on. Microsoft got into the business fighting Sony over this all-in-one media box ideal & while they have probably run Sony off from this fight, that ideal won't be happening anytime soon. The biggest reason it hasn't is simply the way people assign functionality to a certain device. Sure you CAN use this device to perform this function but you feel more comfortable using this one instead. Or they just find one device better than the other for their needs. It's why PSP's multimedia abilities didn't help it beat the DS with its touchscreen & microphone "gimmicks". Same reason why PS3's Blu-ray capabilities ain't increasing its sales in comparison to the standalone Blu-ray players that sell.
|
No, they are. The fact that your Wii has an internet channel is proof of that. NES and SNES had online capabilities in Japan but it wasn't that popular. Using your console for other things besides gaming will become more popular.
"A gaming/multimedia device was essential for multimedia convergence in the new times" - Bill Gates
People will adapt to devices with multiple use. Cell phones aren't just for making calls anymore. Heck, making calls represents less than 10% of what my phone does. Using a console to buy movies would have also seemed a little crazy a few years ago. However, that is where the industry is going. Consumers want for bang for their buck. More functionaliy in 1 device = less devices needed = less money spent.
Also, the reason the PSP is getting its behind handed to it by the DS is because Sony is the leading force behind it. If Nintendo or Microsoft owned the DS, it would have been a hit due to Nintendo's solid handheld strategy and Microsoft's checkbook. Not too big of a hit since people need time to adapt to all the functionality, but a hit nontheless. Wait until the DS2 and PSP2. Those consoles will have more multimedia features and people will embrace them.
EDIT: I don't know why my post is slanted... Oh well, go with it.
