torok said:
It's hard to profit more when you're being outsold by a big margin. It also makes it easier to the competitor to use the large userbase to pull anticompetitive tactics, like buying exclusivity. Basically, market share allows you to diminish your oponents profits. I don't see the difference between buying a new gen console for 500 bucks (that releases every 7 years or so) or buying an upgraded console for 500 bucks that also releases every few years. Really, what's the difference here? So, in order to make us expend less with hardware they will imitate PCs, where we always have to expend a ton of cash in hardware? And don't say that it's not like that, my PC isn't even "enthusiast grade" and it costed me loads of cash. This gen was pretty profitable from day 1. They never sold their consoles at loss, they started with small profits and are evolving towards big ones. Last gen they exaggerated the hardware. Sony put a freaking 400 bucks Blu-Ray drive on the PS3, that alone was pure nonsense. MS would have fared better, but they basically had to replace several times half of the consoles sold in the first 3 years. Also, why a retrocompatible PS5 would be more expensive? The PS3 had to include the entire PS2 hardware because the architectures were extremely different. PS5 will be x86 with a regular GPU, basically what PS4 is. BC will be easily implemented. There's no reason to chose PPC or any other architecture anymore. In the early 2000s, PPC was better than x86. The lack of investiment on it killed its performance and it lagged behind x86 in C/B. That's why Apple left PPC years ago, that's why consoles left it this gen. x86 is the way to go, at least for now. If one day it is not the best option anymore, than a no-gen console would become a liability instead if providing any advantages. And let's face it, BC doesn't sell hardware. X1 added it and it didn't helped them even a tiny bit on sales. They are even worse now in market share than they were 3 years ago. It's a great functionality, but it's quite clear that it doesn't help push units. |
Your missing one key fact. Starting a generation costs billions. It takes half a generation life span to make back the RnD costs. Starting a new gen will reset all the games. Why would MS want to reset all there games as they are adding more and more to there BC lineup (like Steam)
If you cant see it by now, the Xbox eco system is becomming more like a Steam service where you can play all your games. I dont believe a X2 is in the works. I believe theres a boosted X1X in the making that will rival PS5 specs but will play all X1 games etc. Thats the trend i see MS going and its alot cheaper. PC has the largest gaming community where gamers have different spec PCs with a monster library of games.
There is no need for generations anymore. It does nothing but take away what we already own.
Also just because Sony is selling more does not mean Xbox isnt making a profit. The vision is clear where MS want to go with Xbox. If you spend less than your profit targets wont be as high, if you spend more than your profit targets become alot higher.
Trust me you dont need a generation leap to improve on visuals on games. Like i said PCs dont use generation leaps however everyone with different specced PCs can play the same games. Some will play them better than others. Much like X1X will play X1X2 games just at a degraded performance.
