mjk45 said:
EricHiggin said:
If XB1 took the same kind of step that PS3 took, beyond gaming, then ya, PS4 and now PS5 being far closer to PC's in their capability wouldn't be out of the question by any means.
Maybe SNY would've stopped at media and left PC's alone, but that seems kinda unlikely. Where would they have grown from that point? MS got into console, entertainment, digital online (bundle) services, so why wouldn't SNY had tried to offer what PC OS and software could?
Nin got too cocky with the Wii, which led to the Wii U, that was a marketing disaster, which didn't turn out great.
SNY got too cocky about becoming the future of computing, starting with PS2 but mostly with PS3, which didn't turn out great.
MS got too cocky with 360, then trying to do what PS3 did with XB1, though cheaper, yet at the gamers expense, which didn't turn out great.
I guess the real question is, could SNY actually have succeeded in an all in one computing device even if MS didn't enter the console market?
Based on the outcome of PS3 and XB1, was it really the push beyond gaming and pricing that was the problem? Without MS, would SNY have had to retreat to a PS4 like gaming focused console regardless?
I'd say if SNY were to have pushed for that, without MS in the picture, they would've likely had little choice but to offer multiple tiered SKU's like MS has started to do.
|
MS move into consoles didn't stop the rise of the all in one device replacing the PC it simply wasn't going to happen in that form it was a combination of Bill's crystal ball gazing being off and him believing Kens hyperbolic statements about the PS2 and it's multimedia capabilities while the public didn't follow on till it received a more compelling case and that arrived with smart phones.
|
mjk45 said:
Azzanation said:
I haven't seen the documentary, however it wasn't just Sony that pushed MS into the Console market. They were in it way before Sony and even Sega. They were pushed out by the ever popular Commadore 64 which dominated the market at the time. MS always wanted to stay in the market and the moment Sega dropped out, they saw their prime opportunity. Sega was helping drive MS software and without Sega, no one was doing it in the console industry. The Xbox was created in house so they don't have to rely on outsourcing their software. This explains why MS wanted to buy Nintendo etc. The Xbox named after Direct X was Microsoft's return to the industry.
|
Yes they supplied software, but from a hardware standpoint it was Bills fear of the one machine to rule them an all in every home that opened the door but those at MS at the time advocating for MS owned hardware Xbox, not to dissimilar to those early advocates at Sony would have helped it gain impetus.
We need to remember this was a scenario that held sway among many in the tech industry at that time where smart devices were still a fair way from being realised.
|
Well the documentary isn't exactly the most in depth or accurate. MS surely took their sweet time. It's not like money was the problem.
XBOX wasn't created overnight. They were planning years before Sega (Dreamcast) was down and out of the hardware scene.
So XB GP isn't on devices other than XB consoles? MS doesn't want (day 1 XBGS) GP outsourced to as many third party devices as possible?
Which makes you wonder if MS planned on having the only machine to rule them all eventually as well? Why would they assume that about only SNY? Just because they somewhat confidently said something implying that? Everyone says a lot of things, seemingly confident, and then don't do them, or even 180.
Now if Apple had followed through with their console ambitions, then MS entering the market would make way more sense. Not that it made zero sense to begin with, just not as much sense. Which is likely why they were hesitant initially. Instead Apple focused heavily on smart phones, competing with BB, and kept MS from ever getting a foothold in that market.
