| theprof00 said: The fuck are you talking about? I know MS is a great company, nay, Bill Gates is an extraordinary man, and all of Apple's success can be directly attributed to Bill Gates. And they charge because they want us to have a superior online system? Do you know how much money they make on their subscriptions? Many many millions more than they put into making it "an average" serverbase. What about proprietary drives and proprietary wifi adaptor? What were those for? To provide the best possible storage? The best possible wifi? No. These are all money making endeavors. I know you're thinking "that's business". And yes, you're right. But the difference is keeping customers happy. Does a charge keep customers happy for online? No. Does proprietary everything keep customers happy? No. They are obstacles that customers are willing to endure for the system they want. Big difference. When it comes to the consoles, Sony probably does the best as they fund indie games, picking up new developers all the time, and trynig to bring as many games to the console as possible without any charge to us. In the same way that Nintendo learned to be good to its handheld owners, so did Sony with its ps3. That is why both are at the height of each respective outlet. |
Back so ages ago, when the Xbox 360 was just released, Pachter did a breakdown of the costs on an Xbox 360 HDD. At that time I think it was 20 GB or it could have been around the time that Microsoft released the 120 GB. There were actual costs involved in creating the HDDs. A raw HDD would be shipped to one facility, have the games/demos, music, and videos installed on it, then get shipped to another facility where it would get assembled into the carriage it was mounted in, and then either packed in a blister package or sent to another facility for final assembly in an Xbox 360 console. All these steps meant Microsoft wasn't making much profit at on the cost of a HDD, though it was making profit.
The Wi-Fi adapter was proprietary and thus more expensive because of how Microsoft designed the Xbox 360. A portion of the Wi-Fi was built into each console, and a portion built into the accessory. In fact, it's still done the same way today. Open up an Xbox 360 S and you'll find a Wi-Fi module that unplugs internally.
The intention at the time was to offer a less expensive console, then offer a Wi-Fi accessory to those people who need it. Without knowing the demand, I'm guessing the Wi-Fi adapter was always produced in small quanities, making it an expensive accessory. You can argue that Wi-Fi should have been included all along, but the fact that Microsoft didn't include it and instead offered it as an accessory meant that they could sell the Xbox 360 cheaper than the PS3 and more competatively against the Wii.
No, Sony doesn't do the best to fund indie games on consoles, handhelds, PCs, or mobile. Microsoft does a far better job for funding development on consoles, Valve/Steam does a better job for PCs by virtue of being the least expensive to capture the biggest market, no one does a good job with handhelds, and right now I would say Google with Android does a better job than Apple with iOS or Microsoft with XNA for mobile phones. Could Sony break into the Android marketplace with the PlayStation Suite, possibly.
The problem Sony and Nintendo face is that unlike Microsoft, Google, or Apple, Sony and Nintendo are direct competators of indie developers. While Microsoft has always competed in the software spectrum with other development studios, both with applications and games, it openly embraces third-party and independent developers. So important were third-party developers to Microsoft that back before the Xbox 360 was released, Microsoft gathered up developers at a developers conference and asked them what they wanted in a console. Even more importantly, developers helped shape the hardware available in the Xbox 360 as Epic and Gears of War are so famously creditted.
Has Sony learned from Microsoft's example? It said so with the Vita, so we'll see.
I don't think Sony aquiring new development studios is done in the best interest of gamers, necessarily. There are several examples of developers that produced exclusive games for Sony that weren't aquired by Sony and thus folded. Not to mention, several of Sony's own first party studios that have closed in recent years. There are examples of where this is the case with Microsoft as well. The point is, it's business. Studios that have ownership of IPs that Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo want are purchased. Studios that aren't profitable for one reason or another are closed or sold off. Aquiring studios doesn't mean what you think it means, however.
Name a company Microsoft, Nintendo, Activision, or EA has bought and turned around and "charged" gamers for that purchase. That's a ludicrious statement. Sony has so many exclusive games compared to Microsoft because Sony has so many first-party studios. If those first-party studios aren't making games then they're costing Sony money. If those games don't make a solid profit, they cost Sony money. So, the games have to be good and they have to sell well. Based on Meta Critic, Sony isn't hitting either of those marks so well. Their exclusive games haven't been well rated and they haven't done particularly well either. UC3 being an example that bucks that trend, but a rare one.
Worse for Sony, having so many first-party studios producing mediocre AAA games that don't sell well puts a strain on their overall bottom line. In the end that's what's more important. You can bitch about Microsoft charging for Xbox LIVE or making expensive accessories all you want, but the reality is they're a profitable company and they're in business to make money. Sony has been doing everything it can to lose money in the last for years. What is better for gamers? A company that'll be around in the next 10 years, or a company that has to sell off it's businesses to survive or it goes under because of horrible business practices? I personally think the former.
I'm not sure that Sony with the PS3 is at the height of anything. While Sony is holding strong in Japan and a few other markets, in Europe its marketshare is slowly shrinking. I'm not debating that it isn't still strong in Europe, just that it's shrinking. The UK, once a bastion for the PS2 is now a Wii and increasingly Xbox 360 stronghold. In several European nations the Wii soundly has outsold the PS3 in life-time sales, and the Xbox 360 continues to increase its sales. Sony's marketshare in Europe is slowly shrinking and the PS3 and it's exclusives aren't doing much to help sell it.
If you were commenting on this a year ago, you'd probably have some traction, but after a year of the Xbox 360 widening the gap Sony is not at the height of anything yet.
