| RolStoppable said: [...]
Making gaming entirely service-based only works for companies who use the same controller every time. So because of that aspect alone it's unlikely that Nintendo will go that route. Theoretically, you could release a new type of controller to work with a service, but that wouldn't garner as much consumer and developer interest as a box that comes with said controller. Besides, this thread isn't about the end of Microsoft consoles, but rather Xbox-branded ones.
Calling it "popular knowledge" would probably be too generous because a lot of gamers don't know about it. Microsoft themselves refered to Xbox as a strategic defensive business move. |
Besides controller issues, gaming as a service can be acceptable for gamers with a connection with more than decent bandwidth and very low ping (so forget about selling such services to country and small village dwellers that solved their download bandwidth problems with sat connections, as they even worsen ping problems and do nothing for upload bandwidth ones). Companies going entirely that way will have to give up gamers with not very good connections.
About MS defensive strategy, yes, those reasons may be over now, true threats are elsewhere and Sony never really had a chance to conquer PC market with consoles, but defence reasons may have been replaced by different, but still strategic ones, like occupying a share of a market to avoid leaving it available to competitors. As long as this can be done at a profit, taking into account possible losses on consoles and some ill-fated peripherals and sure profits on successful peripherals, SW, royalties and service fees, MS has no reasons to give up. Anyway, as Sony isn't the threat MS once feared, and Ninty is precious, as it's an irreplaceable source of inspiration in the gaming industry, we can expect MS competition against them a lot less harsh than in the paranoid and power freakish Ballmer era.
