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

Forums - Microsoft - Using Sony's Playbook, Microsoft Will Attempt Xbox One's Turnaround

Capulous on 14 May 2014
J_Allard said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Disolitude was looking to downplay the fact that Microsoft has used Sony playbook for two out the three generations they've existed to survive with the Xbox.

Seems to me he was simply taking a shot at Sony's financials. Everyone loves low hanging fruit.

Either way your response was off the mark. And idk, each company has borrowed elements and features from the other but it seems each forges their own path in the industry. Though it is funny how you constantly rail on MS for how different an approach they take compared to Sony when it comes to making games and greedy American practices and blah blah and yet now MS has actually been "using Sony playbook" for a majority of their time in the market. Interesting.

Good point. I do recall someone making comments like that, didn't realize it was him.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 14 May 2014
Sagemode87 said:
disolitude said:
Sony's playbook? Doubt Microsoft is looking to lose money on their gaming division...

How cute. Sony is losing money on their TV business not PS4. I hope you know MS isn't making their money from Xbox. Tallying the losses and profits from 2001 to now, MS hasn't made a dime on Xbox. Their moneymaker is Windows. Shout that from the mountain tops.... 

Actually Sony lost a lot of money to the PS3.  I guess people continue to forget the fact that Sony only started to make money within the PS division a year ago.



mornelithe on 14 May 2014
Capulous said:

Sony pushed blu-ray onto the playstation to help them win the next format wars. They forced the cost onto consumers in order to profit from it. You actually do not recall the whole people will work 2 jobs just to afford a PS3, and stuff like next gen doesn't start unless we say it does. Yea, it really shows how Sony always only had the gamers in mind for all that.

Uh...Sony sold the 20G PS3 at a $306.85 loss, and the 60G at a $241.35 loss, when they launched.  I'm not so sure history jives with that claim.  They weren't breaking even on the PS3 until at least mid-2010.  They were close as of Dec 2009 with the slim costing $37 over the retail price.



Capulous on 14 May 2014
mornelithe said:
Capulous said:

Sony pushed blu-ray onto the playstation to help them win the next format wars. They forced the cost onto consumers in order to profit from it. You actually do not recall the whole people will work 2 jobs just to afford a PS3, and stuff like next gen doesn't start unless we say it does. Yea, it really shows how Sony always only had the gamers in mind for all that.

Uh...Sony sold the 20G PS3 at a $306.85 loss, and the 60G at a $241.35 loss, when they launched.  I'm not so sure history jives with that claim.  They weren't breaking even on the PS3 until at least mid-2010.  They were close as of Dec 2009 with the slim costing $37 over the retail price.

I'm talking about them trying to profit from winning the format wars. I don't know what the exact loss per console was; I did read what a few sites projected. Did Sony ever come out and say exactly what their loss was per console sold?



mornelithe on 14 May 2014
Capulous said:
mornelithe said:
Capulous said:

Sony pushed blu-ray onto the playstation to help them win the next format wars. They forced the cost onto consumers in order to profit from it. You actually do not recall the whole people will work 2 jobs just to afford a PS3, and stuff like next gen doesn't start unless we say it does. Yea, it really shows how Sony always only had the gamers in mind for all that.

Uh...Sony sold the 20G PS3 at a $306.85 loss, and the 60G at a $241.35 loss, when they launched.  I'm not so sure history jives with that claim.  They weren't breaking even on the PS3 until at least mid-2010.  They were close as of Dec 2009 with the slim costing $37 over the retail price.

I'm talking about them trying to profit from winning the format wars. I don't know what the exact loss per console was; I did read what a few sites projected. Did Sony ever come out and say exactly what their loss was per console sold?

No, but Isuppli does it for them, and for virtually all major electronics.

And most companies, make things, and provide services to make a profit, if you're adverse to such things, why have you ever bought anything?  And if you're going to ding Sony for attempting to profit from the format wars, you should probably include, 20th Century Fox, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, LG Electronics, Panasonic Corp, Mitsubishi Electric, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Sharp, TDK and Thomson, since they're all part of the Blu Ray founders group (there's actually more but I can't find the full list).  



Around the Network
Capulous on 14 May 2014
mornelithe said:
Capulous said:

I'm talking about them trying to profit from winning the format wars. I don't know what the exact loss per console was; I did read what a few sites projected. Did Sony ever come out and say exactly what their loss was per console sold?

No, but Isuppli does it for them, and for virtually all major electronics.

And most companies, make things, and provide services to make a profit, if you're adverse to such things, why have you ever bought anything?  And if you're going to ding Sony for attempting to profit from the format wars, you should probably include, 20th Century Fox, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, LG Electronics, Panasonic Corp, Mitsubishi Electric, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Sharp, TDK and Thomson, since they're all part of the Blu Ray founders group (there's actually more but I can't find the full list).  

I not bashing Sony for trying to profit. I am just presenting counter points to his arguments of Sony and MS. I've said plenty of times that these companies are here to make a profit. I'm not adverse to such things, don't take the discussion so personal.



mornelithe on 14 May 2014
Capulous said:
mornelithe said:
Capulous said:

I'm talking about them trying to profit from winning the format wars. I don't know what the exact loss per console was; I did read what a few sites projected. Did Sony ever come out and say exactly what their loss was per console sold?

No, but Isuppli does it for them, and for virtually all major electronics.

And most companies, make things, and provide services to make a profit, if you're adverse to such things, why have you ever bought anything?  And if you're going to ding Sony for attempting to profit from the format wars, you should probably include, 20th Century Fox, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, LG Electronics, Panasonic Corp, Mitsubishi Electric, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Sharp, TDK and Thomson, since they're all part of the Blu Ray founders group (there's actually more but I can't find the full list).  

I not bashing Sony for trying to profit. I am just presenting counter points to his arguments of Sony and MS. I've said plenty of times that these companies are here to make a profit. I'm not adverse to such things, don't take the discussion so personal.

Uh?  I'm not taking anything personally, I neither work for Sony or Microsoft, and own products from both.  I'm questioning your statements because they're not entirely accurate.  Sony didn't make Blu Ray alone, and doesn't collect all the profits alone.  Sony did not transfer the costs onto the consumer, anymore than Bugatti transfers the costs of the Veyron onto the consumer (as of Sept 2013, they lose 6.2m per car sold). 

It's not personal, it's a fact thing.



S.T.A.G.E. on 14 May 2014
Capulous said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Capulous said:

How quickly you seem to forget Sony's attitude in the beginning of last generation. MS coming into the console race did a lot for gamers. Options give real gamers more choices and competition is great for innovation and value. You should really start considering that.


Sony took a risk to save a format and allow their Blu Ray board to profit. Blu Rays rate was in their hands and they took the dive. I am sure they are recieving some sort of compensation for not only being the lead group for it but spear heading the initiative. The PS3 did the work and Samsung and all the other brands rode on the wave. 

Microsofts intro into the console race only brought PC gaming to consoles. Microsoft hasnt made a game themselves that was worth a damn outside of Crackdown, Fable, Forza and Project Gotham. Halo would've existed without them, Gears would've existed without them and PC games were already starting to make their way to console gaming since the PS1/N64 era. Microsoft taught Sony and Sega how to create what they've always been wanting to create for years. A online gaming os thats closed and unified to create a community. Thats Microsofts claim to fame...OS software. They were doing that for Sega before they even joined the industry.

Sony made them squirm because they threatend the PC market with the PS1. Outside of the online respect, Microsoft is trying to basically replace everything that makes Sony what they are in front of the western gamer. Problem is they are extremely dependent on third party to accomplish this.

Sony pushed blu-ray onto the playstation to help them win the next format wars. They forced the cost onto consumers in order to profit from it. You actually do not recall the whole people will work 2 jobs just to afford a PS3, and stuff like next gen doesn't start unless we say it does. Yea, it really shows how Sony always only had the gamers in mind for all that.

MS has made plenty of games worth a damn; you yourself list a few. Halo may have existed, and it may have complete failed without MS behind it. Gears probably would have existed, but we don't know in what state. You speak in what may have been, but there is no way to really argue that one way or the other because it didn't happen that way. MS has done plenty for console gaming. Their presence help drive innovation and value; that is why have multiple competitors in the market is a good thing.

Sony is extremely dependent on third parties as well. If you think otherwise, you are sorely mistaken. The best selling games on both these consoles are third party.


Look up how many first party games Sony actually created last gen. Third parties aside. Microsofts existence increased Sonys hunger to be self sufficient. 

As for Blu Ray. Blu Ray had to live or else the Blu Ray association consisting of the top brands (not just Sony) would've died. Sony spearheaded Blu Ray, so much like DVD they would use Blu Ray. Remarkably, it seems the demand was still there despite the price, because the PS3 still outsold the 360s first year at $200 higher than the Xbox 360 launched.



Capulous on 14 May 2014
mornelithe said:
Capulous said:
mornelithe said:
Capulous said:

I'm talking about them trying to profit from winning the format wars. I don't know what the exact loss per console was; I did read what a few sites projected. Did Sony ever come out and say exactly what their loss was per console sold?

No, but Isuppli does it for them, and for virtually all major electronics.

And most companies, make things, and provide services to make a profit, if you're adverse to such things, why have you ever bought anything?  And if you're going to ding Sony for attempting to profit from the format wars, you should probably include, 20th Century Fox, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, LG Electronics, Panasonic Corp, Mitsubishi Electric, Philips, Samsung Electronics, Sharp, TDK and Thomson, since they're all part of the Blu Ray founders group (there's actually more but I can't find the full list).  

I not bashing Sony for trying to profit. I am just presenting counter points to his arguments of Sony and MS. I've said plenty of times that these companies are here to make a profit. I'm not adverse to such things, don't take the discussion so personal.

Uh?  I'm not taking anything personally, I neither work for Sony or Microsoft, and own products from both.  I'm questioning your statements because they're not entirely accurate.  Sony didn't make Blu Ray alone, and doesn't collect all the profits alone.  Sony did not transfer the costs onto the consumer, anymore than Bugatti transfers the costs of the Veyron onto the consumer (as of Sept 2013, they lose 6.2m per car sold). 

It's not personal, it's a fact thing.

So you don't believe Sony put blu-ray on the PS3 to help them win the format wars? You don't believe any of the cost associated with the PS3 came from the decision to include blu-ray? What do other companies have to do with it? Does Sony recieve profits from blu-rays? Yes. What does it matter that they didn't collect profits alone? They still collected profits from it.



Capulous on 14 May 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Capulous said:

Sony pushed blu-ray onto the playstation to help them win the next format wars. They forced the cost onto consumers in order to profit from it. You actually do not recall the whole people will work 2 jobs just to afford a PS3, and stuff like next gen doesn't start unless we say it does. Yea, it really shows how Sony always only had the gamers in mind for all that.

MS has made plenty of games worth a damn; you yourself list a few. Halo may have existed, and it may have complete failed without MS behind it. Gears probably would have existed, but we don't know in what state. You speak in what may have been, but there is no way to really argue that one way or the other because it didn't happen that way. MS has done plenty for console gaming. Their presence help drive innovation and value; that is why have multiple competitors in the market is a good thing.

Sony is extremely dependent on third parties as well. If you think otherwise, you are sorely mistaken. The best selling games on both these consoles are third party.


Look up how many first party games Sony actually created last gen. Third parties aside. Microsofts existence increased Sonys hunger to be self sufficient. 

As for Blu Ray. Blu Ray had to live or else the Blu Ray association consisting of the top brands (not just Sony) would've died. Sony spearheaded Blu Ray, so much like DVD they would use Blu Ray. Remarkably, it seems the demand was still there despite the price, because the PS3 still outsold the 360s first year at $200 higher than the Xbox 360 launched.

I enjoyed Sony's first party games and I enjoyed MS' first party games. It doesn't change the fact that the best selling games are from third parties on both consoles. These consoles are dependent on the third parties.

If blu-ray failed, HD-DVD would have been there or another format could have arisen. The PS3 could have cost less. These companies are all concerned with the bottom line. I'm not sure why you are trying to paint them differently especially since history has shown otherwise.