By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
Azzanation said:

I am not entirely disagreeing with you both on the need for competition however I brought up Steam as a prime example of companies succeeding without direct competition. In saying that, added competition on PC is actually causing a negative affect for customers. Just like we have in the TV Service market. Customers now have to sub to multiple TV services to get what they want. Same for the PC Storefronts, all companies want in to divide and conquer rather than keeping it simpler for users. EGS entered to steal Valves revenue, they didn't enter to offer a better platform, otherwise they would have launched ESG very differently.

What I am trying to say is, too many choices isn't always great for customers. Do we need Xbox Hardware? No, I don't believe we do. Xbox can exist and compete without hardware in the future. Will Sony screw over their customers without Xbox? Most likely however that doesn't affect Xbox as an Eco System. Streaming is coming and soon, we all will all be forced on a Cloud network which MS will have most control in. It's the reason they want to buy these massive publishers, otherwise they will be buying individual studios for console gaming.

You keep saying that ESG or even competition with Steam is adding a negative affect on customers and I have no clue where you get this opinion from.  The thing is customers will always have choices in a competitive market.  Basically what you are cheerleading for is a monopoly.  You want one vendor to own them all which we have seen through countless years that when this happens, no matter what your current opinion of the company today, they will abuse that power.  Why do you think we have regulators, anti monopoly laws, etc.  If we are to take your stance, then only one console vendor is required, only one OS company is required hell, we only need one company for just about all our needs because if there is competition now as consumers we have choice to decide which company is worth our dollars.

Also your point that ESG entered the market to steal valves revenue or could it just be that ESG entered the market just like every other company that enters a market, to make money and that would also include Valve.  Its like you believe Valve is made of Angles from heaven and they came to earth to make your life better but reading valve history that is far from the truth.  Valve values money just like every other company as they even got sued trying to circumvent tax laws so they can make more money.

The thing is what is best for you isn't always best for the market.  Your viewpoint is centered on what is valuable to me which isn't the business stance you set for this thread. Business wise there is always a need for competition, for consumers you always need stiff competition from different vendors so that they continue to pursue getting your business instead of the pursuit sonly on making money.

The thing is, what you believe and what MS believe are 2 different things.  It appears you do not believe MS needs hardware based on your own personal feeling compared to what is best for MS as a company.  This is why your arguments mender at times.  They go from a business standpoint to a personal one but on the business standpoint your arguments do not make a lot of sense because in order for those conditions which is need to happen, it requires hardware in order to accomplish it.  GP needs hardware in order to expand at this point in time.  A gimped GP is not going to sell on competing console hardware.  How is MS going to sell its other subscription services without hardware.  How is MS going to expand GP and their game sells to overcome the money they make on licensing fees and selling games on their platform.  These are huge questions that you have not be able to successfully provide a method that MS accomplish this without hardware.

You are misreading what i am saying. I never said zero competition. Sony competes with Nintendo, PC and Mobile to sell PS5s. Steam competes with Windows Store and Apple Store etc. There will always be someone competing. If you dont trust the company you support than stop supporting them.

They all want money however its how they earn your money is the important part of all this. Steam basically had a PC monopoly for many years and it thrived as one of the best values in gaming for so long, before EGS existed. EGS isnt earning your money by offering a better platform, they are moneyhatting to force consumers over. Big difference and is not needed. But if you like your PC library chopped up on many different store fronts, than thats your preference, not mine.

How does MS compete with no Hardware? Lets see. 

PCs, Mobiles, Tablets, TV streaming etc. They are already trying to implement GP on UHD TVs so you can play games directly off your TV. Selling 50m consoles is nothing compared to the PC, Mobile, TV market. Its an extra expense having console hardware when they can go full digital/Streaming. .

So there is your answer.

So it comes down to, do you need to spend hundreds on a console that will be dated in years time or just gain access to the games already on your current devices like your home TV.