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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Sony & Microsoft to be allies in next console war?

 

What do you want MS and Sony to do?

Merge. One console to rule them all. 91 30.95%
 
Stay seperate. I hate one... 104 35.37%
 
Cross play. No merger, just some partnership. 99 33.67%
 
Total:294
kain_kusanagi on 31 July 2012
archbrix said:
kain_kusanagi said:
archbrix said:
kain_kusanagi said:
archbrix said:
kain_kusanagi said:

One console would be cheaper and more accessible. It would end stupid fanboy wars. I'd love to go back to a time like when there was just Nintendo and Sega. Those were simpler times, better times.

Well, there was never a time when there was "just" Nintendo and Sega.  There was always either Atari, NEC, SNK, 3DO, etc in the marketplace.  But I agree with your sentiment:  Now that all of the big three are so big, there will inevitably be great games exclusive to each system, and something like this could certainly help to limit how many consoles one has to buy to play everything.

Personally, I don't think it will happen, but if it did, that'd be pretty awesome.

Know what I meant. Of course there has been other game companies. But during the 8 and 16 bit years none of them reached the market share that Nintendo and Sega had. As far as Nintendo and Sega were conserned Atari, NEC, SNK, 3DO etc didn't matter, and they didn't.

Actually, NEC's PC Engine (TG16) outsold Sega's Mega Drive (Genesis) in Japan - so yeah, they kinda did matter to Sega in their homeland regarding the fourth generation...

Yeah, the PC-Engine outsold even Nintendo... in Japan. The TG16 and Turbo Duo, both of which I own, sold terribly in the US and didn't matter to Nintendo or Sega. The largest market is what matters to the big companies. Japan is a small little island.  NEC may have been king of a mole hill, but Nintendo and Sega were titans fighting in mountains.

The little guys that get stepped on are not driving competition. NEC's PC-Engine was super cheap and easy to dev for. Beyond that it was so underpowered that I doubt Sega or Nintendo ever bothered to print an ad even mentioning their superiourity. But they sure did try to one up each other. Nobody tried to one up the Turbo Grafx-16 and nobody even noticed it's CD addon like they did the Sega CD.

All this is moot anyhow. Regardless of the little companies that came and went without notice, Sega dn Nintendo owned half the market each during the 16bit generation. Their competition was plenty to drive games forward. The same would be true if it was just Nintendo and MSony even if the Ouya  even gets released. Nobody will notice the Ouya or care about it's tech. Everyone will be talking about the big two and their tech. The big two will be enough to drive gaming forward just like back in the 16bit days.

I wouldn't call the Japanese game market a "molehill" back in the fourth generation, simply because it was such an important player back then.  And remember that Japanese companies are very proud when it comes to their home turf.  

Of course Nintendo and Sega were undoubtedly the top dogs in the fourth generation and their rivalry was the most legendary before Sony and Microsoft entered the market, but by your rationale - that only the top dogs have merit in the marketplace - would render Nintendo and Sega insignificant for two generations since Sony demolished them.  Were they a threat to Sony in the 5th and 6th gens?  Nope.  Were there console/fanboy rivalries regarding said companies during those eras?  Absolutely.

Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first.  After all, console rivalries have been around since the '70s with Magnavox vs Atari, and later, 2600 vs Intellivision, etc.

Good grief. All I said was that I liked the simple time between Sega and Nintendo. That there were insignificant attempts to break into the market doesn't change the fact that Sega and Nintendo each owned close to 50% market share. They competed with eachother. That competition was heated and drove inovation on both sides. My point was and still is that nobody should fear a lose of competition if MS and Sony joined forces. That's all. I am well aware of the history of video games. I lived through much of it and own quite a large collection of consoles and early computers going back decades.



Around the Network
archbrix on 31 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
archbrix said

I wouldn't call the Japanese game market a "molehill" back in the fourth generation, simply because it was such an important player back then.  And remember that Japanese companies are very proud when it comes to their home turf.  

Of course Nintendo and Sega were undoubtedly the top dogs in the fourth generation and their rivalry was the most legendary before Sony and Microsoft entered the market, but by your rationale - that only the top dogs have merit in the marketplace - would render Nintendo and Sega insignificant for two generations since Sony demolished them.  Were they a threat to Sony in the 5th and 6th gens?  Nope.  Were there console/fanboy rivalries regarding said companies during those eras?  Absolutely.

Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first.  After all, console rivalries have been around since the '70s with Magnavox vs Atari, and later, 2600 vs Intellivision, etc.

Good grief. All I said was that I liked the simple time between Sega and Nintendo. That there were insignificant attempts to break into the market doesn't change the fact that Sega and Nintendo each owned close to 50% market share. They competed with eachother. That competition was heated and drove inovation on both sides. My point was and still is that nobody should fear a lose of competition if MS and Sony joined forces. That's all. I am well aware of the history of video games. I lived through much of it and own quite a large collection of consoles and early computers going back decades.

*sigh*

Did you even read what I posted?  "Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first."

So what's the problem?

Furthermore, Sony owned MORE than 50% of the market in the 5th and 6th generations... so does that mean that Nintendo and Sega were "insignificant attempts" during those eras?  Or that Xbox's innovation with its HDD and Xbox Live service doesn't count because its sales paled in comparison to PS2?

This was what I was responding to:  "kain_kusanagi said:  One console would be cheaper and more accessible. It would end stupid fanboy wars. I'd love to go back to a time like when there was just Nintendo and Sega. Those were simpler times, better times."

Fact:  There were several companies (each with their own fans) in the marketplace back then, not just Nintendo and Sega.  Fact:  Now there are, inarguably, only three.  There have always been fanboy wars and there always will be due to competition.  My point was not to derail your thread but to elaborate more on what you had originally stated, all while actually AGREEING with your opinion on the thread's topic.  Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...



Soundwave on 31 July 2012

It would be called XBox 8 or whatever Microsoft would want it to be called. Microsoft's invested billions into the XBox brand, they would just take the Playstation name and bury it and consolidate both the XBox and PS3 audience under one brand (their own). They'd just allow Sony to publish God of War/Uncharted/Gran Turismo for them.

The "Playstation" brand would became a legacy brand on XBox Live for downloadable PSOne/PS2 games and that's basically it probably. Maybe MS would let Sony release a higher-end home theatre Sony branded XBox but that's about it.

Say hello to a $599.99 console or $149.99 w/a 4 year subscription too, lol. No competition and all that. Enjoy fellas.



kain_kusanagi on 31 July 2012
archbrix said:
kain_kusanagi said:
archbrix said

I wouldn't call the Japanese game market a "molehill" back in the fourth generation, simply because it was such an important player back then.  And remember that Japanese companies are very proud when it comes to their home turf.  

Of course Nintendo and Sega were undoubtedly the top dogs in the fourth generation and their rivalry was the most legendary before Sony and Microsoft entered the market, but by your rationale - that only the top dogs have merit in the marketplace - would render Nintendo and Sega insignificant for two generations since Sony demolished them.  Were they a threat to Sony in the 5th and 6th gens?  Nope.  Were there console/fanboy rivalries regarding said companies during those eras?  Absolutely.

Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first.  After all, console rivalries have been around since the '70s with Magnavox vs Atari, and later, 2600 vs Intellivision, etc.

Good grief. All I said was that I liked the simple time between Sega and Nintendo. That there were insignificant attempts to break into the market doesn't change the fact that Sega and Nintendo each owned close to 50% market share. They competed with eachother. That competition was heated and drove inovation on both sides. My point was and still is that nobody should fear a lose of competition if MS and Sony joined forces. That's all. I am well aware of the history of video games. I lived through much of it and own quite a large collection of consoles and early computers going back decades.

*sigh*

Did you even read what I posted?  "Which brings me back to my initial response to your post in the first place, which was to point out (mostly to some of the younger members here who may have read it) that Nintendo and Sega weren't the only companies around back then, nor was their rivalry the first."

So what's the problem?

Furthermore, Sony owned MORE than 50% of the market in the 5th and 6th generations... so does that mean that Nintendo and Sega were "insignificant attempts" during those eras?  Or that Xbox's innovation with its HDD and Xbox Live service doesn't count because its sales paled in comparison to PS2?

This was what I was responding to:  "kain_kusanagi said:  One console would be cheaper and more accessible. It would end stupid fanboy wars. I'd love to go back to a time like when there was just Nintendo and Sega. Those were simpler times, better times."

Fact:  There were several companies (each with their own fans) in the marketplace back then, not just Nintendo and Sega.  Fact:  Now there are, inarguably, only three.  There have always been fanboy wars and there always will be due to competition.  My point was not to derail your thread but to elaborate more on what you had originally stated, all while actually AGREEING with your opinion on the thread's topic.  Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing...

I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? I am? I don't dislike you or anything, but if all you want to do is pick apart the specifics of a nostalgic comment I'd rather not argue semantics anymore. I was clearly speaking from a "water colored" memory perspective. Now, if you want to have the last word, feel free.





kain_kusanagi on 31 July 2012
Soundwave said:
It would be called XBox 8 or whatever Microsoft would want it to be called. Microsoft's invested billions into the XBox brand, they would just take the Playstation name and bury it and consolidate both the XBox and PS3 audience under one brand (their own). They'd just allow Sony to publish God of War/Uncharted/Gran Turismo for them.

The "Playstation" brand would became a legacy brand on XBox Live for downloadable PSOne/PS2 games and that's basically it probably. Maybe MS would let Sony release a higher-end home theatre Sony branded XBox but that's about it.

Say hello to a $599.99 console or $149.99 w/a 4 year subscription too, lol. No competition and all that. Enjoy fellas.

What was the launch price of the PS3? Oh yeah it was $499.99-$599.99.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has a lot of animosity in it. You assume MS was buying the PS brand, which isn't what this rumor is about. But let's say that's the case, what it was the other way around? If Sony bought the Xbox brand you could say it would get shoved to the back and Halo,  Forza and Fable would be all that's left.

Now, to get back on topic. If Sony and MS partnered it could me almost anything. Wouldn't it be great if Sony built the box and MS developed and maintained the OS and Online infrastructure? Wouldn't it be great to get the best of both on one machine? You could play Halo and Uncharted on the same box. The only thing we would lose would be stupid fanboy hate wars.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 31 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Soundwave said:
It would be called XBox 8 or whatever Microsoft would want it to be called. Microsoft's invested billions into the XBox brand, they would just take the Playstation name and bury it and consolidate both the XBox and PS3 audience under one brand (their own). They'd just allow Sony to publish God of War/Uncharted/Gran Turismo for them.

The "Playstation" brand would became a legacy brand on XBox Live for downloadable PSOne/PS2 games and that's basically it probably. Maybe MS would let Sony release a higher-end home theatre Sony branded XBox but that's about it.

Say hello to a $599.99 console or $149.99 w/a 4 year subscription too, lol. No competition and all that. Enjoy fellas.

What was the launch price of the PS3? Oh yeah it was $499.99-$599.99.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has a lot of animosity in it. You assume MS was buying the PS brand, which isn't what this rumor is about. But let's say that's the case, what it was the other way around? If Sony bought the Xbox brand you could say it would get shoved to the back and Halo,  Forza and Fable would be all that's left.

Now, to get back on topic. If Sony and MS partnered it could me almost anything. Wouldn't it be great if Sony built the box and MS developed and maintained the OS and Online infrastructure? Wouldn't it be great to get the best of both on one machine? You could play Halo and Uncharted on the same box. The only thing we would lose would be stupid fanboy hate wars.

We would lose competition
- Lesser quality games, no need to push the machines as hard to lure costumers.
- Less developer aid, less funding for original games to stand out from the other guy.
- Higher starting price point, less price cuts. Not just because they can but because there is less money to be made, A lot of people buy both consoles with their accesories making more money for MS and Sony combined then if they would bring out 1 console together.
- Sales will drop off sooner, a lot of consoles at the end of the generation are bought by people getting the other console. No more option to buy that other console late in the gen with a huge catalog of great games to play.
- It will throw the door wide open for a new competitor to come in offering a specialiced loss leading games console.

The only good that I can see come from it is shorter console cycles to keep interest and fend of new competitors. But a lot of people would call that a negative as well.

Ms and Sony teaming up their online would be a much better way to keep a firm grip on the market. Cross console online play would be a huge bonus to choose a MS or Sony console over the WiiU or a new competitor. Joining there movie stores can also only be beneficial. But that is unlikely to happen as long as MS is enjoying the huge benefits of gold while Sony insists on keeping online play free.



kain_kusanagi on 31 July 2012
SvennoJ said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Soundwave said:
It would be called XBox 8 or whatever Microsoft would want it to be called. Microsoft's invested billions into the XBox brand, they would just take the Playstation name and bury it and consolidate both the XBox and PS3 audience under one brand (their own). They'd just allow Sony to publish God of War/Uncharted/Gran Turismo for them.

The "Playstation" brand would became a legacy brand on XBox Live for downloadable PSOne/PS2 games and that's basically it probably. Maybe MS would let Sony release a higher-end home theatre Sony branded XBox but that's about it.

Say hello to a $599.99 console or $149.99 w/a 4 year subscription too, lol. No competition and all that. Enjoy fellas.

What was the launch price of the PS3? Oh yeah it was $499.99-$599.99.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has a lot of animosity in it. You assume MS was buying the PS brand, which isn't what this rumor is about. But let's say that's the case, what it was the other way around? If Sony bought the Xbox brand you could say it would get shoved to the back and Halo,  Forza and Fable would be all that's left.

Now, to get back on topic. If Sony and MS partnered it could me almost anything. Wouldn't it be great if Sony built the box and MS developed and maintained the OS and Online infrastructure? Wouldn't it be great to get the best of both on one machine? You could play Halo and Uncharted on the same box. The only thing we would lose would be stupid fanboy hate wars.

We would lose competition
- Lesser quality games, no need to push the machines as hard to lure costumers.
- Less developer aid, less funding for original games to stand out from the other guy.
- Higher starting price point, less price cuts. Not just because they can but because there is less money to be made, A lot of people buy both consoles with their accesories making more money for MS and Sony combined then if they would bring out 1 console together.
- Sales will drop off sooner, a lot of consoles at the end of the generation are bought by people getting the other console. No more option to buy that other console late in the gen with a huge catalog of great games to play.
- It will throw the door wide open for a new competitor to come in offering a specialiced loss leading games console.

The only good that I can see come from it is shorter console cycles to keep interest and fend of new competitors. But a lot of people would call that a negative as well.

Ms and Sony teaming up their online would be a much better way to keep a firm grip on the market. Cross console online play would be a huge bonus to choose a MS or Sony console over the WiiU or a new competitor. Joining there movie stores can also only be beneficial. But that is unlikely to happen as long as MS is enjoying the huge benefits of gold while Sony insists on keeping online play free.

There was plenty of heated competition between Sega and Nintendo. There's no reason to assume that wouldn't be the case with Nintendo and MSony.



Soundwave on 31 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:
Soundwave said:
It would be called XBox 8 or whatever Microsoft would want it to be called. Microsoft's invested billions into the XBox brand, they would just take the Playstation name and bury it and consolidate both the XBox and PS3 audience under one brand (their own). They'd just allow Sony to publish God of War/Uncharted/Gran Turismo for them.

The "Playstation" brand would became a legacy brand on XBox Live for downloadable PSOne/PS2 games and that's basically it probably. Maybe MS would let Sony release a higher-end home theatre Sony branded XBox but that's about it.

Say hello to a $599.99 console or $149.99 w/a 4 year subscription too, lol. No competition and all that. Enjoy fellas.

What was the launch price of the PS3? Oh yeah it was $499.99-$599.99.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has a lot of animosity in it. You assume MS was buying the PS brand, which isn't what this rumor is about. But let's say that's the case, what it was the other way around? If Sony bought the Xbox brand you could say it would get shoved to the back and Halo,  Forza and Fable would be all that's left.

Now, to get back on topic. If Sony and MS partnered it could me almost anything. Wouldn't it be great if Sony built the box and MS developed and maintained the OS and Online infrastructure? Wouldn't it be great to get the best of both on one machine? You could play Halo and Uncharted on the same box. The only thing we would lose would be stupid fanboy hate wars.


Yeah PS3 was $500-$600. And? Without any competetion outside of Nintendo, Microsoft would just price as they please. 

If Sony-MS 'partnered', it wouldn't be almost anything. Lets be realistic. Sony is dirt broke and has three franchises in their entire portfolio that actually sell at a mid-tier rate. 

Microsoft is just becoming profitable in the game sector and they need the game business and control of the living room because of their utter failure at stopping Apple from advancing as the world's most dominant company. So they need the XBox to hang their hat on and show their investors "see, at least we got XBox right!". 

I'm just being realistic. Honestly this rumor is probably about 100% BS anyway, but if this were to realistically happen, MS would take as they please, they wouldn't "share" anything with Sony. Maybe if we're turning the clock back to circa 1999/2000, when Sony actually had something MS didn't, then it would be in MS' interests, but not today. Your idea of Sony buying anything from MS is laughable. 

If there is a joint venture between the two, it won't be Sony making the box, it will be MS. Just like MS making their own tablet now they are realizing they need to have some actual hardware to drive their broader corporate strategy. XBox brand is paramount in that. Sony is the one who would have to bend over, not the other way around. 

I *can* see Microsoft circling around Sony like a vulture picking away at a dead carcass though -- Sony's stock price these days is the lowest it's been in like 30 years or so. If they wanted to move in offer Sony a lucrative, profitable contract to ceremeniously step aside and play an adviser type role to their game division -- now would be the time to try it. 

Today's so-called "console wars" are laughably tame anyway. Sony/MS have the same games more or less with 2-3 truly notable exclusives either way. I was around during the SNES/Genesis days ... now *that* was an intense console war. Today is nothing. 



kain_kusanagi on 31 July 2012
Soundwave said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Soundwave said:
It would be called XBox 8 or whatever Microsoft would want it to be called. Microsoft's invested billions into the XBox brand, they would just take the Playstation name and bury it and consolidate both the XBox and PS3 audience under one brand (their own). They'd just allow Sony to publish God of War/Uncharted/Gran Turismo for them.

The "Playstation" brand would became a legacy brand on XBox Live for downloadable PSOne/PS2 games and that's basically it probably. Maybe MS would let Sony release a higher-end home theatre Sony branded XBox but that's about it.

Say hello to a $599.99 console or $149.99 w/a 4 year subscription too, lol. No competition and all that. Enjoy fellas.

What was the launch price of the PS3? Oh yeah it was $499.99-$599.99.

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion, but yours has a lot of animosity in it. You assume MS was buying the PS brand, which isn't what this rumor is about. But let's say that's the case, what it was the other way around? If Sony bought the Xbox brand you could say it would get shoved to the back and Halo,  Forza and Fable would be all that's left.

Now, to get back on topic. If Sony and MS partnered it could me almost anything. Wouldn't it be great if Sony built the box and MS developed and maintained the OS and Online infrastructure? Wouldn't it be great to get the best of both on one machine? You could play Halo and Uncharted on the same box. The only thing we would lose would be stupid fanboy hate wars.


Yeah PS3 was $500-$600. And? Without any competetion outside of Nintendo, Microsoft would just price as they please. 

If Sony-MS 'partnered', it wouldn't be almost anything. Lets be realistic. Sony is dirt broke and has three franchises in their entire portfolio that actually sell at a mid-tier rate. 

Microsoft is just becoming profitable in the game sector and they need the game business and control of the living room because of their utter failure at stopping Apple from advancing as the world's most dominant company. So they need the XBox to hang their hat on and show their investors "see, at least we got XBox right!". 

I'm just being realistic. Honestly this rumor is probably about 100% BS anyway, but if this were to realistically happen, MS would take as they please, they wouldn't "share" anything with Sony. Maybe if we're turning the clock back to circa 1999/2000, when Sony actually had something MS didn't, then it would be in MS' interests, but not today. Your idea of Sony buying anything from MS is laughable. 

If there is a joint venture between the two, it won't be Sony making the box, it will be MS. Just like MS making their own tablet now they are realizing they need to have some actual hardware to drive their broader corporate strategy. XBox brand is paramount in that. Sony is the one who would have to bend over, not the other way around. 

Today's so-called "console wars" are laughably tame anyway. Sony/MS have the same games more or less with 2-3 truly notable exclusives either way. I was around during the SNES/Genesis days ... now *that* was an intense console war. Today is nothing. 

Sure it was a war, for the companies. On the playground it wasn't anything at all. We kids would play eachother's consoles and enjoy it all. Today fanboys make the fake console wars into something you'd think actualy effects their lives.

But besides that. I agree this rumor is probably bs. But I like specualting and I think it would be good. I'm tired of having to buy so many machines. I'd love to buy one for Halo and Uncharted and another for Mario and Zelda. If I had my way all three would drop hardware and go to PC so all I'd have to do is build myself one kickass machine and upgrade every 5 years.



Argh_College on 31 July 2012

Maybe a Partnership, Microsoft to bring Halo to Ps4 and Sony to bring God of War and others.