S.T.A.G.E. on 28 April 2009
| Reasonable said: Question - not meant to flame but genuine query. Why do some posters here feel Sony isn't naturally a games company and MS is? Nintendo is the only one of the three I would see as through and through a games company (it might not be, that would just be the general feel I have). I just don't get some of the arguments and there seems to be a double standard of sorts in play in this thread. How can people feel Sony will quit due to losses and the fact they aren't a games company while MS won't quit despite the fact that strictly speaking (i.e. total investment so far vs total return so far) MS may never had made a dollar of clear money yet out of their investment and seem to me to represent even less of an obvious games company that Sony? If you're using such simple metrics as losses and company focus to judge things then both should be pulling out in fact and leaving it to Nintendo, Sega, etc. - the out and out games companies. Just to be clear I don't see any of the current three going anywhere unless something truly catastrophic afflicts their business in the future. The video games market is looking to end up massive (and it's already pretty big), there is lots of money to be made and both MS and Sony remain in good positions to do so for the foreseeable future: hardly grounds for bailing out IHMO. |
Microsoft has been publishing games and first party titles way before Sony started failing at their craft and used the Videogame industry as a crutch to stand on.
