| S.T.A.G.E. said:
|
Breaking news: Console manufacturers, publishers, movie studios, music artists, television studios, plus many more, just LOVE partnering with fast food joints and regular commercial products in order to hype/market their own product. Is this supposed to be relevant here at all?
| S.T.A.G.E. said: Stop talking about the financials if your main point was to prove me wrong about Microsoft being primarily about image. If you're going to prove me wrong, focus on that point and stick with it. |
You said they thrive off of image. I am pointing to their financials because it paints a different picture than a company that thrives off of image. Instead of whining for me to lay off financials (since it decimates your argument), try to explain to me how they are "thriving off image". Protip: this long novel you typed below certainly didn't help illustrate your point.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: Microsoft comes from the personal computer world and are thriving off of the artistic vision of Apple, which they are applying to every product they make. The vision in itself of the product is visual marketing marketing. Much like what Steve Jobs wanted, was a product that could sell itself. The OS is visual marketing. This is where they thrive when they aren't facing apple, because that is a battle of wits where Microsoft will always lose against Apple and and thrive against lesser competition like Sony and Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo don't yet understand, but have more heart where it counts....making games. Microsoft has yet to make classic IP's themselves. They are a marketing machine and like Apple made people believe in the all in one product. Sony inspired them to come to consoles and duke it out over here because Sony's gets it, but they aren't sure how to market it and appy it yet. Problem is Sony's marketing sucks 31 flavors of ass, but when it comes to tech they can pump it out all day. Its all about output, but who sees it? From 3D TV's that play two players on one screen with 3D glasses to project Morpheus, Sony continues to add and add concrete structure and Microsoft just bets on the creations of others to measure up (not to say Sony doesn't either, but their internal output exists in a greater light). Microsoft knows Sony is out to turn gaming into an entertainment lifestyle. Of course those are loftier heights than Nintendo had originally planned as a simple gaming macine that everyone could enjoy. Microsoft understands marketing, OS, layout, cohesive color scheme, and more on a level that neither their competition don't understand but they understand what matters to gaming at its core. Microsoft also has another type of marketing. Its called PR and spends loads trying to paint the Xbox as a revolution when from the start it was only the Pepsi to Sony's Coke. Pepsi has more aggressive marketing in the US, but worldwide....Everyone else knows its Coke that dominates. They live by rules of snuffing out bad press quickly, which makes their marketing ten times greater than any marketing Sony or Nintendo could do for their PR as well. Until hiring Phil Spencer, Microsoft was also the least trusted and tight lipped company when it came to answering to the press, hence why Spener promised to be more...and I quote "transparent". In other words....they are ready to be trustworthy now. When Sony gets in trouble, they get slammed and move on. When Microsoft gets in trouble if it isnt a huge mistake it is quickly snuffed out or not commented on. MIcrosoft was actually arguing the value to DRM to consumers who were not impressed. You cannot talk your way out of that....which is why Phil Spencer had to put his head on the chopping block last year and ended up being the most liked guy at Microsoft because for once people got a little bit of honesty. |
I went ahead and crossed out the irrelevant, borderline rambling section of your post. Has nothing to do with MS thriving off image, or spin, or anything else in discussion. Though, I did enjoy the part where you talked about MS relying on inventions of others, then listed things like a virtual reality headset, or the 3D two players on one screen tech, as if Sony actually created these. Those have both been around a long time. LOL @ you thinking Sony invented the 3D multiplayer tech. Yikes.
The rest of the post to be honest is equally irrelevant, all you're doing here is basically saying MS uses PR and hey Nintendo and Sony do as well just its somehow different when MS does it. Toss in some Spencer nonsense and idk, it seems you actually have no idea what you're even trying to say.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: Look at the launch of the Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One. Which brand had the bright lights, spectacle, celebrities and pretty much every lavish detail involved in grand American Marketing? Microsoft. It make Sony and Nintendo look boring compared, even though their development teams are hard at work at games that will make even Microsoft blush in the coming years. Come on....I mean... I don't think Sony or Nintendo would fork out the money for Usher to be at their E3 show some years back. No...Dead Mouse? Jason Sudeikis? The list goes on and on. It was like a private Grammy Party. Different type of marketing from the other two, wouldn't you say? |
Well they all had bright lights and spectacle. I don't really know what "grand American marketing" is but I'm sure it's as terrible and "only applied by MS" as your "typical American greed" line of logic goes. Celebrities are used all the time at these things. Heck, even Nintendo uses Robin Williams to market Zelda. How American of them. What about when Sony uses an American actor like Harrison Ford to market Uncharted in Japan? On your scale of typical American greed, is this like Inception, with greed within a greed?
All in all I guess you're just saying video game companies love marketing. I agree.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: Nintendo understands the marketing of characters, Sony understands the marketing technology, but Microsoft.....heh.....they understand how to market an online- based lifestyle and much like Apple have spent decades funneling people into it. Oh yeah...they also took Halo from Apple too. They have a wierd relationship with that comapny. |
Well of course. It's that typical American greed. When MS sees a great developer and buy them, any game they then go on to make is stolen and not a product of MS themselves. Any any 3rd party deal reached where MS pays funding to make a game, is also not a MS creation. Meanwhile with Sony if they see Naughty Dog releasing great games and snatch them up, well shit that's typical American greed err i mean that's awesome portfolio building, growing their own talent and investing #4thegamer. And when they pay a company to make a game like Beyond Two Souls or The Order 1886, that's just Sony creating new IP's like no one else does.
LOL give me a break. Entertaining post, but if you have any actual logic or reasoning as to why and how MS "spins more than anyone" or "thrives off image", I'd love to hear it.
