Pemalite said:
Azzanation said:
Because its a very simple concept to understand. 1 has to hurt out of the 3. Hurt also doesnt mean losing money. It also means growth. You know, pleasing the shareholders. |
False.
The industry has matured.
Again, the Xbox One, Playstation 4 and Switch were all profitable and successful.
Azzanation said:
Nintendo hurt when Xbox entered. |
That's a lie.
Nintendo had a trending reduction in console sales going from NES > SNES > Nintendo 64 > Gamecube.
During the 6th generation, Gamecube sales failed to garner traction... BEFORE Microsoft entered the console space.
Every console manufacturer struggled to compete against the dominant Playstation 2, that's a blatant fact.
Azzanation said:
Sega hurt when Sony entered. |
Not true.
Sega hurt due to poor choices they made with the Sega Saturn...
Extremely difficult hardware with it's 8x different processors (2x Hitachi CPU chips, Motorolla CPU for sound, second sound chip, 2x video processors)
It was expensive and hard to make games for.
And sales deservedly suffered as a result. Competition at work.
Azzanation said:
Atari hurt when Sega entered. |
False. - I will only use Japanese release years as they were earlier and more consistent than western.
Atari put itself on the map with the Atari 2600 in 1977 with about 30 million hardware units sold.
Atari released the successor the Atari 5200 in 1982 and the Atari 7800 in 1986.
The 5200 only shifted 1 million units, the 7800 only shifted less than 5 million units...
Atari had already faltered before Sega came along.
Sega entered the console space in 1983 with the SG-1000 which didn't take marketshare as it sold less than 2~ millon units.
Sega released the Master System in 1985 which sold 13~ million units, but it wasn't until the Genesis in 1988 where they had any relevant market-share with 30~ million units sold... By then it had already been years since the Atari peaked with it's successful 2600 device.
Remember this was during the video game crash. Nothing was selling, except Nintendo with the Nintendo Entertainment System which sold about 61~ million hardware units.
Azzanation said:
7th Gen, 360 and PS3 lost billions, almost killing them buisness wise. |
1) Xbox 360 was extremely profitable. - Microsoft's biggest blunders was actually the RROD which set them back.
https://www.audioholics.com/news/microsoft-xbox-360-profits
2) The Playstation 3 did end up being profitable, although was a loss-leader for a few years.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/512740/article-4244.html
So no. It didn't "almost kill them" business wise.
It was normal to loose money on hardware to make it back on games and accessories... And even subscriptions.
Azzanation said:
The next two generations, 8th and 9th Gen, Xbox struggles with growth. if they turn it around and become the market leader, that would hurt Sony. |
Xbox despite loosing marketshare in the 8th gen was still a very profitable console.
Contrary to popular belief, you do not need to be THE market leader to have a successful console.
If Microsoft did "hypothetically" take Marketshare from Sony, then yes, Sony would have lower profits and revenue... Which means... And here is the kicker...
Sony will be required to compete.
Sony will be required to invest.
Sony will be required to put the consumer first.
And the consumer wins... And this is the position Microsoft is in currently, it needs to compete, it needs to invest and it needs to put the consumer first.
Will they succeed? Who knows. But that is what competition is all about.
A healthy industry is where all console manufacturers are successful and profitable, we saw that in the 7th gen, we saw that in the 8th gen and we will likely see it in the 9th gen.
And obviously as the market is not expanding in terms of total user-base, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo need to think outside the box to bring in new revenue streams and potential markets.
Nintendo has achieved it multiple times with garnering the attention of casual gamers with the Wii and the Portable market with the Switch.
Microsoft has bifurcated their business plan to top-load their console offering with subscriptions and value add-ins to make up for the lower hardware install base.
Microsoft isn't a $3 trillion dollar valued company because they make poor business choices, they obviously see video games as a lucrative place to compete in... Which is also why the video gaming division is larger than the Windows division today.
Azzanation said:
Do you see the point yet? Instead of flagging lies, how about do some research on the buisness front of these systems. |
Mate. Don't be daft. Telling anyone to "do your research" is logically fallacious.
1) I have checked the facts and looked up the data points and often provided evidence for my claims. (You have not.)
2) Telling others to do "their research" is not you actually wanting them to do research, you just want them to consume media until they come to the same conclusion you do.
3) You are not a researcher, you are not a scientist, you are a consumer of media. The fact is, you haven't done your research, you have just consumed media... So it's highly hypocritical to assert someone else has not done their research.
Azzanation said:
All three brands cannot be super successful without one falling. Weather thats sales wise or buisness wise. |
They have all been successful for decades.
Actual decades.
I can't make this up.
Microsoft's gaming division is more profitable now than it has ever been.
Switch is potentially going to overtake the Playstation 2 as the best selling home console of all time.
Playstation 5 is doing fantastically well.
...And you somehow illogically come to the conclusion it's going to come crumbling down?
Common man. You can do better than that. |
I really don't think you are reading my posts correctly. I clearly said, its more than profits, it's also about growth.
360, MS were literally about to pull the plug on the Xbox, or change drastically, which is why we saw the XB1. If it was that succesful they would have not bothered changing, but MS didn't want to lose another $3b on hardware.
PS3 lost $5b and at the time when Sony stocks were considered junk, Sony were bleeding and PS3 almost put the nail in the coffee, they were lucky to turn it around with the PS4, thanks to "not much competition" with the WiiU and XB1.
You can make excuses as to why these brands failed with hardware, but don't ignore the fact that they pulled out due to fierce competition. We lost great brands due to competition. If the market was big enough, Sega would still be competing. Sega couldn't keep up with Nintendo and Sony. Xbox is also feeling the pressure as they cannot grow with Xbox hardware anymore. They can profit all they like but they will lose shareholder if they can't show growth. No shareholders, no brand.
You don't seem to understand how the business side works. It's not just about being profitable, it's about growing. Why do you think Xbox and PS are using PCs? To grow because the console space is either shrinking or not enough to satisfy investors. Suits want to see their stocks double, triple, quadruple, not remain the same. Thats the corporate world.
There is good competition like Apple vs Microsoft, and there is bad competition like me trying to play Far Cry 6 on Steam, and I have to now download, update and Sign in to Ubi Connect, syncing them up and running two gaming platforms just to play a game I brought on Steam. Oversaturation isn't good.
I am sure you would agree that you would prefer to have paid for 2 service providers than 12 service providers to watch your movies on.
