| S.T.A.G.E. said: I never said Sony invented those things, but yes Sony is a hardware company and are always looking for the next jump on tech. I've noticed that very few people give Sony as much credit as they deserve for those creations. Yes, the two player 3D TV? Who in the gaming industry did it before them? No one. Nintendo and Sony are always either on their game or ahead of the game with tech. Nintendo knew tablet gaming was going to be big and was the next step (therefore developed it ahead of time), but launched the Wii U after the tablet became a thing and the market became saturated with various companies investing in it. |
The only conclusion one could logically reach by reading your post is that you believe Sony invented those things. Otherwise, in a tangent where you are crapping on MS for not inventing hardware but instead piggybacking on others ideas, would you give Sony credit for piggybacking on others ideas? I don't really care whether it was "officially" harped on by a console company before then or not, there were TV's that already did it and it was showcased at PC gaming conventions over a decade ago. It's old technology. Just like VR.
All 3 companies do a good enough job staying ahead of the curve tech wise. Microsoft and gaming are no different.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: I also never said Nintend or Sony don't use PR like Microsoft either. I said Microsoft is BETTER at it than them because even though Sony and Nintendo are better at the development/technological side of things, Microsoft thrives at image and marketing. Their visual marketing and PR are superior. Microsoft will always destroy them at those things including OS. Microsofts marketing and hype is the reason why the Kinect sold as well as it did when it did, but all good things come to an end once the market is no longer impressed. Sony did the same thing six years before with their own R&D instead of having to buy a company and still profited off of the device, but never marketed the Eyetoy properly. Sony's focus is is always 100% primarily focused on the quality of the tech since they are developing it, opposed to Microsoft which since they didn't focused on the potential and marketing potential of said Natal (Its project name). If Microsoft had made the Eyetoy, they would've out marketed Sony by leaps and bounds. Why would I say something like this? Because Microsoft does not invest in something that big without the expectation of large returns. They just don't take as many internal risks as Sony or Nintendo (even though they have the money to do it). Microsoft understands the psychology of visual marketing of an overall product better than Sony and Nintendo. Even though the both use it as well, its nowhere on par, which is why anywhere you see Microsoft marketing, OS or anything of the that ilk the design, style, psychological influence through visual presentation more often than the competition. Their cohesive unity of their product is better too, when you look at the Smart Glass, Xbox OS and Windows. Why is it that I say this? They are facing Apple who are the Kings of Visual unity and competition makes you a better person for being involved so facing off against Sony and Nintendo is small cookies for them in the visual marketing department. |
Nice long winded paragraph here but it's too far gone from the discussion for me to care much about it.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: I never said Microsofts marketing was terrible. I'm actually complimenting it. Its funny how you ignored the fact that the main point of all the "spectacle" I spoke of was relevant to the market they were in. Americans like spectacle. Remember when I spoke about Pepsi vs Coke? Same difference. Pepsi destroys Coke in US marketing, but around the world since Coke is already more preferred it doesn't seem to matter. Same thing with Microsoft. |
Coke spent 3 billion in marketing a few years ago so I highly doubt Pepsi "destroys" them anywhere in that regard. Either way all the Coke vs Pepsi observations in the world won't help you explain how MS just thrives off image or spins more than anyone else.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: Remember when I said if Microsoft has bad press they snuff it out as quickly as possible where-as Sony would take the bullet and just press on? Look how much money MS has been pouring into making sure demos have been shown on the Xbox with Dragon Age and other games so people have a view of what the game will look like on the Xbox One. Last gen, Sony accepted that they were the lesser console when it came to multiplats and there was nothing they could do to change it. Devs had made it clear. They left the story up to their exclusives which actually harnessed their power. This gen the devs have made it clear that the PS4 is well ahead of the Xbox One in raw power and potential which wasn't the case for the 360 last gen even though multiplats were easier to develop. Microsoft is still paying and fighting back with PR to talk about the cloud. Microsoft much like Apple exist on the notion of snuffing out bad press. The only bad press Apple couldn't snuff out was their lack of value as a gaming platform, but again Microsoft took away their shot to prove it when they bought Bungie while in development. You cannot snuff out facts once they become completely evident, so Microsoft is now forced to prove the value in the Xbox One since multiplats aren't first choice on that platform any longer and neither does it seem to be the case with indies as well. |
Oh please. I mean, it's nice when you try to create theories or actually relevant arguments to the discussion but try to make them a little firmer than this and not full of plot holes. So you're telling me MS is supposedly spending tons of money securing games to be showcased on Xbox One, because they are just all about dat image and just can't handle the bad press associated with Dudebro Shooter 7 running at 900p on Xbone. And at the same time last gen Sony just said "aww shucks" and completely gave up on multiplatform games being showcased on PS3 last gen.
1. If we are to believe this logic, it would mean MS wouldn't have bothered securing any games to be showcased on 360 last gen, because there was no need, it was so well established that the 360 was the go-to console for 3rd party devs that Sony tapped out
2. Sony had deals with plenty of publishers, including the two big ones EA and Ubisoft not only for games to be showcased on PS3, but they also got forever never coming to Xbox DLC included.
Oh yeah man, totally sounds like they threw in the towel to me! And I bet some E3 footage of DE3 on Xbone cost way more than exclusive marketing and DLC and showcasing of Ass Creed 3 and IV on PS3, or Battlefield/Medal of Honor PS3 showcasing and exclusive content, etc. Seems spot on LOL.
| S.T.A.G.E. said: There is logic, you're just running yourself around the logic. Microsoft learned better competitive marketing from facing off against Apple. I'm sure you understand that history. If you know anything about Steve Jobs, he knew image and lifestyle must be thought of in any device you make, because that is the point of making your product different. Microsoft learned a lof about what they have today from Apple about the simplifcation of products for the common man and the psychology of layout, design and image. Sony and Nintendo are coming from a world where marketing isn't as aggressive, but because of Microsoft they've been LEARNING. Sony's OS and marketing have stepped up because of Microsoft, hasn't it? I say it has. Nintendos marketing revolves around characters so they are starting to come into their own involving overall product slowly but surely. Nintendo's marketing strategy is more akin to Disney. Microsofts marketing is more competitive for a overall competitive market involving lifestyle technology. It fits like a glove as consoles are all in one devices and that is Microsofts bread and butter. Once Sony made that the main purpose of consoles upon expanding the market in the mid 90's Microsoft took notice and wanted to partner with them. If you're not with them you're against them, especially when you're in multimedia all-in-one devices. |
No, there is no logic. Just long winded tangents like this that really don't address it at all. Your sole example of them "spinning more than anyone" (the trillions they spent on Dragon Age 3) was a complete joke, and there's been nothing about how MS "thrives off marketing". Maybe you just don't know what thrives means, idk. Oh well. These posts are getting too long for me to care.
