What's your take on Microsoft's strategy this far? | |||
| It will nip them in the butt | 90 | 34.48% | |
| They will DO-minate | 14 | 5.36% | |
| Nintendo and Microsoft wi... | 36 | 13.79% | |
| Sony and Nintendo will be... | 104 | 39.85% | |
| epic bro fist | 17 | 6.51% | |
| Total: | 261 | ||
MS is looking at Apple and Google somewhat more, while looking at Ninty and Sony somewhat less this gen. The reveal said it all.
| Kresnik said: Jim Sterling, of all people, raised an interesting point in a Jimquisition I watched the other day that Microsoft were gunning for Apple/Google with this this reveal, in their own roundabout way; and that they'd firmly left Nintendo and Sony behind. Interesting points of comparison you've raised in the OP, though. |
Jim seems to have a lot of good things to say in those shows. I quite enjoy them actually.
But yeah, I believe all console makers are going their own ways, doing their own things. None are really "competing" directly against another.
| JWeinCom said:
I think it is pretty clear that Microsoft's main competition is Google and Apple. Some of the feautres of the XBone and Wii U are similar, but this is not because Microsoft is "targetting" them. This is simply because we expect multifunctionality from a device these days. It's more of the Wii U and XBone travelling, to some extent, in the same direction. I think Sony will also have a lot of these features. Remember, Nintendo debuted the Wii U at E3 2011, and they showed off TVii at September 2012. Sony may very well have a similar feature. If Microsoft was really targeting Nintendo, they would need to show off the experiences that made the Wii successful. You can't take on Nintendo without having something to combat Mario, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, Smash, Pokemon, etc. If they were targeting Nintendo, they wouldn't focus the small games portion of their presentation on EA Sports stuff and COD. That's not how you speak to the Wii audience. Who is Microsoft targeting? Well, I don't know how to say this nicely... but tools. The kind of people who play COD each year not because they actually like games but because all of their friends play it. The kind of people who line up for the iPhone 5 because they think it will make them cool, and the kind of people who buy a Samsung Galaxy 4 while making fun of the iPhone 5 people and not realizing that they're doing the exact same thing. The kind of person who plays fantasy football and doesn't know the difference between a safety and a cornerback. The kind of person who buys an iPad mini after they just bought an iPad 4 because last year Apple said people wanted a big screen, and this year Apple says small screens are better. The kind of person who buys beats headphones to listen to their pop music despite the fact that beats pretty much only provide only bass. The kind of person who goes to a Giants superbowl parade and says that their favorite player is Sanchez. The kind of person who never had an interest in any sort of zombie movie but watches the walking dead. The kind of person who never read a comic book but lines up at midnight for Dark Knight rises. The kind of person who cares what is trending on twitter. The kind of person who buys a tablet when they have no logical need for one. The kind of person who buys things not for utility but for status. The kind of person who put Gangnam style on their iPod like it was anything more than a novelty. The kind of person will be convinced by Microsoft that they need to multitask on their TV because that will make them tech savvy and hip. Tools. They're targeting tools. /Hipster rant |
Ouch. Okay, I wasn't expecting that. What if multitasking on your TV was something they wanted, not to be tech savy and hip but just because it was more convenient in general and made the experience more organic, more intuitive and more responsive?
What if The Walking Dead had a quality that other Zombie movies didn't have and those who appreciated that quality also flocked to other things with that type of quality, a quality that makes things a classic?
Another thing, what if Nintendo does Mario and TVii, and MS providing competitive services to those new features such as TVii means MS is taking cues from Nintendo, whether they compete on the Mario front or not?
I love this misconception that the PS4 is this bare-bones hardcore gamer box. Even the Wii U is an entertainment box to a degree.
| tiffac said: MS is looking at Apple and Google somewhat more, while looking at Ninty and Sony somewhat less this gen. The reveal said it all. |
If true then its an even more horrible decision/strategy. Google and Apple dominate Microsoft in every single market they compete in.(with Windows on desktops and laptops being the exception)
| happydolphin said: ... I think so, Rol. Traditionally TVs are about shutting your brain off, but more and more we're entering a multi-connected era where you can do everything at any moment at the click of a button while combining different source of content (dual-monitors, multiple devices, multiple apps, multiple services). People want to be in control of their content more and more and the iPad is an example of that need being addressed. At the touch of a finger you can open, close, move flip, stretch, drag without effort and without delay and I believe that's really desired in our uber-technological society. The apple TV tried doing that but it is not nearly the same experience as what we saw in Microsoft's presentation. You can almost control your windows like a windows system by using gestures, that's big. With almost minimal cost they are going to pull this off I believe it will be very attractive. In contrast, back in 2008 they showcased a device called the Microsoft Surface (before the 2012 "Surface"). It was planned to cost some 2000$ or something like that I'm not sure anymore. The thing is that they can now achieve that to a degree with Kinect, which is really impressive. |
sorry to be butting into you and rol's conversation...
..let me ask this. if xbone didn't play games but only did live tv, skype, ect would you pay (an assumed) $400 with a yearly subscription fee? cause i wouldn't.
xbone takes the tv that i already have and routes this through a console to deliver the same live tv i've always had. it doesn't allow me by channels ala cart or anything,.. just to same old tv i've always had but is solves the "problem" of hitting the source button. now to that xbone can also show some internet enabled content at the same time. so that means what to you? 'cause to me that's pretty much the same experience as say watching american idol while using the american idol app. ...except that it's on my tv in a sort of picture-in-picture format. i'm not sure about you but i'd personally rather use an ipad or laptop like i'm already doing.
i dunno, not all the ideas are bad. ..but at the price i just can't see disrupting the market. i see it as being a value add to gamers who want to buy a gaming machine anyways and will enjoy the extras (like the web browser already on my ps3).
edit: and btw i'm watching tv right now (always sunny) while browsing and chatting you up. i'm really quite okay with my setup right now.
"Ouch. Okay, I wasn't expecting that. What if multitasking on your TV was something they wanted, not to be tech savy and hip but just because it was more convenient in general and made the experience more organic, more intuitive and more responsive?"
"What if The Walking Dead had a quality that other Zombie movies didn't have and those who appreciated that quality also flocked to other things with that type of quality, a quality that makes things a classic?"
Some people out there have a legitimate need for multitasking on their TV. Some people want a tablet because they actually need to compute on the go. Some people actually like the walking dead because it's a good show. Some people like Call of Duty because it's a good game. And then there are others who want to multitask on their TV because Microsoft told them they want to (maybe, we'll see), there are people who watch the walking dead solely because of hype, their are people who buy Call of Duty because their friend plays call of duty, and there are people who buy an iPad because it's an iPad and you should really have an iPad.
I believe Microsoft is appealing to the latter crowd. They're inventing a need that, in my opinion, simply doesn't exist. To quote Phil Spencer "My experience is about communicating with my friends, while I'm watching TV, while I might have music on, and at the same time am playing a game." Seriously now... does the average person really need to do this, or want to do this? Nope. But Microsoft will try their hardest to convince you that you do. Maybe I just don't get those young whippersnappers.
"Another thing, what if Nintendo does Mario and TVii, and MS providing competitive services to those new features such as TVii means MS is taking cues from Nintendo, whether they compete on the Mario front or not?"
You're acting as though Nintendo TVii is a unique thing. Pretty much every device does stuff like that. Nintendo's approach is a bit unique, but basically it's a streaming service/universal remote. It's cool, and maybe something a bit unique, but its based on what other companies and devices have been doing. My cell phone streams netflix, an iPad can control my TV, my 3DS could do Netflix, I could browse the internet on like five different devices at arms reach, etc. Sure Nintendo has streaming services, but they didn't invent them or anything.
Besides, Microsoft has been pursuing these partnerships for a long time. It wasn't too long ago that they got on the stage at E3 and bored us to death by showing us how they had this new and exciting partnership with ESPN so you can rewind football games. Microsoft's been pushing for multimedia stuff for years now. This isn't a reaction to Nintendo. Besides, TVii is really a minor feature. Nintendo hasn't really touted it or talked much about it since E3. I don't think Microsoft designed their whole console to combat TVii. Talk about overkill.
I thought they effectively killed the WiiU debut at E3 last year when they introduced Smart Glass. I think all tablets are better than the WiiU's tablets for looking at things. (Granted they are not as good as controllers.)
Nintendo is back to the Game Cube says with the children's market. Well at least that my impression in the states. But Xbox One will probably have Sesame Street Interactive and National Geographic Interactive so really give them some major completion.
I still think Sony is in the game. They are pushing hard for gamers, just not sure if it's enough or will work. Nice stats, but latency. Latency may be a problem.
|
Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon! |
|
 |
Tell me a funny joke! |
Okay JWein and Kitler, you make good points and it ties into what Rol was saying.
I am still of the opinion that the features present a convenience, but then again most people are already well connected with other devices.
Still, there's always been that need to Minority-Report style our content, our displays, and I find the gestures and speed and seamlessness the One showcased fit with that vision and need. Though we may already be connected, it is convenient to have it all on the big screen and not have to look down on a tablet to continue the operation and instead switch content on the fly effortlessly. I agree that paying a subscription to enjoy the full benefit of these features may be uninviting to some, but most people have a connection to Xbox live already.
@JWein. I forgot about the ESPN thing.
lol vgcharts estimates the wiiu sold 23,000 units this week, the console is basically on life support at the moment, why would microsoft be worried about the wiiu at the moment, its not getting third party support and its not selling.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
