Smashchu2 said:
Reasonable said:
Smashchu2 said:
Reasonable said:
Smashchu2 said:
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.
|
First, it may not be profitable if the consoles sell for a gain. This just means that sales are greater then the total variable cost. That division may still have higher fixed cost which will nulify any profit. Also, they could move resources from the video game sector to their PC sector. The point is that investors are tired of Microsoft playing in these markets with marginal profits.
Also, on the bold, no, Sony and Microsoft have to make the system stronger. They have forever put themselves in a shrinking box. The twop focus on their top market which demands better looking and sounding games. If Sony and Microsoft were to make system that were only marginally stronger, their consumer base will deny the system and their division will implode (they are too strong for lower consumers and not strong enough for their best consumers). If there isn't a noticable jump in power, the market will feel cheated.
It doesn't matter. This charade is about over. If it's not for the high cost and billions of loses it's going to be Nintendo disrupting them. There isn't much place to go from here.
|
Great post. One point of - minor - disagreement.
I think MS are the company that has by far put itself into the position of needing to push the HW by linking itself so strongly to former PC genres, particularly FPS/TPS with all the graphical expectations that brings.
Sony does have the option to bail out more readily I think. With the PS2 most of its install base certainly weren't worried about high end graphics, although obviously with the PS3 it has garnered a fair share of that crowd.
MS I believe would struggle to disentangle themselves so easily from the power race, although Natal may (or may not) change their position in that regard.
I get the feeling that both MS and Sony are wondering if they simply keep their consoles longer (after all a Wii2 looking at jump from Gamecube to Wii would probably only have similar power to PS3/360) by allowing costs to drop and matching Nintendo for motion controls.
Of course, the big unknown, as you point out, is what Nintendo do and whether they successfully disrupt again leaving Sony and MS with the choice of chasing the power crowd looking for the next big leap or with comparable base power in the consoles but behind in the experience.
|
I disagree. Microsoft is only in videogames to stop Sony from disrupting computers with a videogame system. They never had an intention of making money.
Sony is very different. They actually see videogames as a intergral part of their company. It has been successful for ~10 year prior. It was also doing well when most of the company was doing badly. Sony takes the videogame market very seriously. Microsoft doesn't as everything flows around Windows. Sony also uses videogames to launch their other products. The PS3 pushed HD and Blu-Ray and will push 3D amoung other Playstation products (a PSP2 will definatly push 3D). It is a very importaint part of their business.
As far as Nintendo is goes, they are still disrupting (the Wii's disruption is a constant thing). This is why the HD twins have motion controllers. They are defending their business. I do not think either of them really want to play in the expanded market and would rather serve their best customers (the so called "hardcore,"). Nintendo has definatly been the shaker this generation. Sony and Microsoft want to play with the upper markets and will fight to the death over them (of course, Microsoft is OK with this as all they are doing is trying to stop Sony. Everything they do is to counter Sony. I suspect that Microsoft is defending against motion controls because Sony is. If they didn't, they would be swollowed up). Nintendo is really a thorn in their side as they forced Sony and Microsoft to play the motion control game (which I'm sure Nintendo is happy about).
The x factor in all of this is the 3DS. Nintendo is likely trying to disrupt 3D, which means it's goal is to destory Sony as a company. I mean, why else would Nintendo, who refuses HD, make a 3D system. The 3D without glasses I think is a big part because I don't think people want to put on glasses to watch TV or play videogames (and what about use with glasses? It's annoying trying to wear two pairs of glasses). Of course, it will do other things as well. This could be they endgame for the videogame industry.
|
I think we're coming at this differently or I'm missing something. The only element of your previous post I disagreed with is that Sony and MS are euqally locked into a HW arms race around supporting steadily increasing graphical prowess. Everything else is pretty much how I view their motives and investment in the videogame industry.
For me the PS1 / PS2 Sony never felt like they were hardcore. The bulk of the install base was fairly casual, so I guess I also disagree that Sony only focuses on the hardcore in a similar manner to MS; the evidence to me is they wanted to continue to expand the appeal of gaming as much as Nintendo (look at dance mats, Eyetoys, Singstar, etc) and maintain their presence as a mass market product - their problem is they fell way behind Nintendo this generation in how to do so.
|
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 PS1/PS2 are not casual, or, more so, they strayed further from the traditiona; roots of videogames made during the Atari, NES and SNES days. Games quickly became more about cinamatic quality. Naturally, the PS2 generation had the lowest household penatration of any generation since the NES (in the US). Sony's success is more linked with being the first console to be successful in all regions (NES never took off in Europe due to troubles in the US), and population growth and mutliple console ownership. Reggie speaks about all this and more here.
What I meantion of the hardware arms race is due to their actions and disruption. There has been a large focus on making the hardware powerful and to have a lot of multimedia features. This is why we have two big systems that cost an arm and a leg and overshot the market (which is what allowed Nintendo to begin disrupting the industry). Remember all the hubub about the Cell processor. Also, Sony and Microsoft will continue to try and one up each other's console. The incumbents, according to disruption, make their products better and better in the old market. They will continue to have an arms race and make the best console. Meanwhile, Nintendo makes motion control games and goars them.
Of course, this is all only targeted to our disagreements. Otherwise, I guess we see eye to eye.
|
