By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 13 March 2017
Edit Thread
Snoopy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

1.Funding is contributing, its not actually developing, but moreso acting as a benefactor so a job can reach its end. Gears of Wars development was funded to keep the game from going to Sony. Once again, Halo was developed to prove Apple computers could be seen as gaming machines, but steve jobs did not want to purchase bungie, so Microsoft saw the real estate after the popular tech demo of halo with jobs and yes contributed to the changing of its directions. The point is that Halo was already seen as prime real estate by Microsoft before product was finished. 

2. Games much like opinions are subjective. Trust me I love Halo and Gears hence hy I own and Xbox one. The second Microsoft lost those two key franchises (If they didnt create newer fresh IP to replace them like Sony) I probably wouldnt buy an Xbox again. With their PC initiative, theres little reason to do so, especially since I can get third party titles elsewhere.

3. What has nothing to do with Sony? Sony has to fix their issues in the electronics industry before they lose marketshare and thus continuing to lose popularity. I was referring to the electronics industry, not just the playstation brand. If I was talking about playstation by itself, its one of the major reasons why the console industry is so large and why Microsoft is even in it. Sony is more popular on more contenents than any other brand because of their offerings and thats why they always win. They have the perfect blend of first, second and third party games. Something (once again) their comeptition lacks.

Microsoft doesnt need to make a console with the greatest graphics to beat Sony. They just have to outmatch them (with tech, price and game selection) and knowing how Sony has dominated the console industry since 1994, I cannot see this happen anytime Sony. They just get what people want which is why they keep winning. Dont take for granted that the highest selling Sony home console was the weakest of all of the competition. They just had all of the games. Trying to wow people with graphics when you lack games is only a distraction from the real issue.  The issue is Microsofts ability to make games.

1.  Wrong. Halo for example was an RTS. Microsoft redid it to make it Halo. Also, when you're funding a game you have a say on the direction of the game.

2. Not everyone likes PC gaming. Best selling games on xbox and playstation are found on PC, but people choose consoles. I prefer consoles for multiple reasons that I won't get into (because I know I will get banned lol).

3. Playstation isn't the same situation as Sony tvs. Just like xbox isn't in the same situation as the Zune. One failure device doesn't determine other devices or products. Sony exclusives once again don't sell all that well. Sony hit around 60 million before this year and it wasn't because of bloodborne or uncharted 4. It had to do with brand name, cheaper console (something I blame Kinect and Microsoft on), world wide appeal and where people friends play.

Microsoft can beat Sony in North America and UK, but rest of Europe/Japan they will lose unless something bad happends to Sony. PS3 outsold the 360 in one year in Europe despite the 360 have a year and half head start, better multiplatform games, better online, better exclusives for the first year and was cheaper. They still gravitated to ps3 eventhough they weren't buying it's exclusives and there wasn't much exclusives for the first year. Playstation is just a bigger brand in those areas because people grew up with playstation more than xbox. Sony started at the right time and xbox although very successful will never get playstation popularity unless they buy out GTA or another huge exclusive in my opinion. I think Minecraft can help a lot honestly in the future, but won't be enough for Europe. Japan, isn't something Microsoft shouldn't worry about because Consoles aren't selling well there currently.

1. Halo was always Halo. The concepts for combat evolved were pretty much dead on with the tech demo before Microsoft bought them. Look up Steve Jobs revealing Halo for Apple computers.

2.  Its been a while but Goldeneye sold just as much as the first Halo and it wasnt a PC title and I also believe it was Halo 2 that was the first true non-lan shooter outside of PC for the original Xbox. Nintendo along with Rare (pre microsoft) deserve that crown for being the console to bring FPS popularity to consoles. Once Halo came, that was the second dose of FPS greatness.

3. The Zune is a small product, but Sony corporation is not. Its the reverse of the situation with Microsoft where Sony was in danger and had to sell buildings and assets to recover from the financial blow that Sony took. The Playstation brand is the crown jewel of Sony at this point so in essence Sony has to deliver quality in order to survive (not to mention that Playstation has been at the forefront since the PS2 era expanded the gaming market). Microsoft on the other hand dont really need the industry, they just want the multimedia marketshare. This is why the Xbox One almost lost focus in the beginning of the gen making the Xbox the best center of the home and almost forgot about the games causing a backlash. Phil Spencer saved the Xbox brand from losing focus, because the market that was invested was not having it.

4. This is a problem, which is the last paragraph. Microsoft needs to stop buying things and start to create some grade A developers internally that they can depend on to make what they want at all times. Dedicated studios like Nintendo and Sony that are capable of covering numerous genres.

As for Microsofts consoles, it wouldnt be wise for them to release consoles every three years. The reason being, Microsoft has two titles which they are dependent upon which demand at least two to three iterations per gen in Halo and Gears. Id say at 4 to five years. This will secure interest and profits. The reason why I am talking about the games is because the cart doesnt come before the horse. They need to have those major alluring titles and right now they could use new IP to refresh the branding. Sony and Nintendo have already done this with Xenoblade, Splatoon, the Last of Us and Horizon. Microsoft will always be in a graphics war with Sony, so they just need to make the best console they can whilst keeping the consoles affordable. This will take hiring the leading developers of tech which can make consoles that best (or dare i say gradually) squeeze the resources out of a platform in a given time while working in tandem with third party.

 

This is why the gaming media is going to be extemely focused on Microsofts offerings at E3. Spencer addressed the lack of games issue. Its better hold people in suspense over your offerings than to admit they are sparse. If that is the case, they will compete extremely well vs their competition and you and me as gamers win equally. Again, my skepticism over Microsoft is based on their track record and because ultimately I want them to succeed as a brand.