Power On: The Story of Xbox

[EricHiggin]

SKMBlake said:

Chazore said:

, I don't believe Sony's should be either, because if you remember, they only entered the market in a big way because they felt "betrayed" by another Japanese company (Nintendo), which they took Japanese levels of offence to (because that's just like the Japanese to go all Samurai period levels of pissed off, seriously, I'm not joking, history tells you how easy it was to offend them), and decided they wanted to crush their would-be partner.

Well yes and no, they designed a full working console for Nintendo that didn't materialize over fee disputes. So using their prototype, removing the SNES cartridge part, and making an actual console isn't the same, I mean they spent money on the prototype.

Chazore said:

thismeintiel said:

That's not actually true, though. Ken Kutaragi was passionate about gaming. He worked on the SNES sound chip in secret and when he finally presented it to execs, most wanted to end the project, because gaming was seen as a fad within the company. He was able to convince the CEO to allow him to continue working with Nintendo on the chip, which eventually led to the idea of partnering for the Nintendo Play Station.

When Nintendo suddenly pulled out of the deal in favor of a (failed) partnership with Phillips, I'm sure they were upset, but most execs still just wanted to end the project. Kutaragi was, once again, able to convince the CEO about the potential of gaming, and the PlayStation was born.

So, it was born out of passion, not to just get back at Nintendo. Here's a pretty good documentary about it:

I know you see it as passion, but that's like saying Nintendo are the kindest company on earth (yet they ruled with an iron fist, especially with the Nintendo seal of approval logic). 

I don't see it as passion, especially when hearing it from a CEO of a company (a company that like MS, isn't without faults, arrogance and bad dealing here and there), because I know it's really about money at the end of the day. 

While you can use the passion angle, it doesn't exactly hold true to this day, when you're paying £10 extra for upgrades, the data leak fiasco, the exclusivity deals and much more.

Also I really don't like to think that someone could imagine "passion" being used in the same ideal as wanting to replace PC's, like to me that's not passion, that's more of wanting others to change to what they want as their ideal, not mine (and well, because they're a big company, do they care about what my ideal is?, no, which doesn't come off as passionate either, when you look at the big picture).  

We could say MS was "passionate" about what they wanted to do with Xbox, but then we got GFWL on PC, and was that something passionate or born from it, even if you heard a CEO or some journo saying such?. 

SNY seemingly had much more interest in gaming as per the business decision. Dishonorable Nintendo was just the missing Link to the PS brand.

It makes perfect sense because it's a form of entertainment. It fits extremely well with SNY's brand. The necessary console hardware as well.

MS planned for a partnership first. MS did have a tiny amount of gaming interest in mind, but the business decision was mostly to keep SNY in check.

This made sense because offering the gaming software API and OS, fit the MS brand extremely well. The future online infrastructure also.

If SNY wouldn't have indirectly verbally threatened MS business, they may have gotten away without having to compete with XBOX or even 360. Though if PS3 was allowed to match if not exceed PS2 sales due to lack of competition, MS may never have been able to stop SNY from taking a chunk of their business. We would almost certainly have an Apple/Samsung/Google like all encompassing ecosystem for SNY by the time PS4 launched in that case, and PS4 just may have been running a Windows competitor, SNY's or third party.

Overall moral of the story. Don't ever get too cocky.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 17 December 2021