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

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer Expects Another Generation

V-r0cK on 26 October 2015

I fully expect another generation of Xbox. Just the mystery of if it being a home console again.

With all of this "Xbox with Windows 10 connection", I feel like MS could just make their own version of the "steam boxes" for the next Xbox. Hybrid of PC and home console gaming.

Keep the competition alive!



Around the Network
Alkibiádēs on 26 October 2015
Tachikoma said:
AlfredoTurkey said:
TheSting said:

There was also the Saturn and Dreamcast. Guess he tried to look smart or make you look silly but it backfired 

You both realize PS1 was at close to 10m sold before the N64 even released, right?, and not once did the sales for the N64 come close to posing a threat.
By the time the Xbox launched the Ps2 had already built a close to 11m sales lead, a lead that again, was never challenged either in total or weekly sales by the Xbox.

The PS1 was Sony's first console, they had no idea it was going to dominate like that. So using the PS1 as an example that monopoly doesn't hurt the game industry doesn't make any sense. Sony had to take their competitors into account before building and releasing their console. In fact, Playstation wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Nintendo.

Saturn enjoyed a small and brief lead in during the PS1's Japan-only launch, but the moment PlayStation 1 was available worldwide it quickly got overtaken, and the dreamcast also suffered from poor sales and eventually being scrapped, mainly because it tried to launch mid cycle, 2 years before the PS2.

Namiireis point is that the PS1 and PS2 thrieved just fine with no major sales challengers in the industry, and it's a valid point, both systems overshadowed other consoles on the market at the time for both generations, and hit sales records that to this day havent been broken.

It's not a valid point at all like I explained above. PS2 was weaker than the XBOX and GC and was harder to develop for. It was also more expensive than the GC. The XBOX had a much better online infrastructure and that influenced Nintendo and Sony to try harder with their online infrastructure. Although Nintendo still is stubborn when it comes to online infrastructure. Sony has copied MS's idea of putting online behind a paywall. Remember the disastrous announcement of the XBONE at E3 2013? MS had to ditch most of their ideas because of the backlash. If they had a monopoly on the market we, the gamers, would have been screwed.

It's entirely possible to do well and make advancements in the console space, without stiff competition from other consoles.

Just about every real-life example would disagree with you. Monopoly leads to stagnation. Maybe not right away, but eventually it will lead to that.

 




"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Tachikoma on 26 October 2015

Alkibiádēs said:

The PS1 was Sony's first console, they had no idea it was going to dominate like that. So using the PS1 as an example that monopoly doesn't hurt the game industry doesn't make any sense. Sony had to take their competitors into account before building and releasing their console. In fact, Playstation wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Nintendo.
What are you talking about at all?, monopoly?, the topic is "a console can do well without competition", the PS1 did exactly that, having the highest sales because people like your product isn't a monopoly, for the PS1 and PS2 to have been a monopoly they would need to have been the ONLY consoles available.

It's not a valid point at all like I explained above. PS2 was weaker than the XBOX and GC and was harder to develop for. It was also more expensive than the GC. The XBOX had a much better online infrastructure and that influenced Nintendo and Sony to try harder with their online infrastructure. Although Nintendo still is stubborn when it comes to online infrastructure. Sony has copied MS's idea of putting online behind a paywall. Remember the disastrous announcement of the XBONE at E3 2013? MS had to ditch most of their ideas because of the backlash. If they had a monopoly on the market we, the gamers, would have been screwed.
None of that has anything to do with the topic, the Ps2 was largely uncontested in sales, and did perfectly fine without major competition, the xbox and gc being better specced or easier to develop for has nothing at all to do with the topic.
Also, MS didn't come up with the idea of locking online behind a pay-wall, that idea came from Gamespy, the technology and service that Microsoft bought to use on the original Xbox.
And prior to that, internet services were available for consoles as far back as the snes and megadrive with peripherals like xband.

Just about every real-life example would disagree with you. Monopoly leads to stagnation. Maybe not right away, but eventually it will lead to that.
Read first response over again, a console outperforming it's rivals based on popularity alone, isn't a monopoly.





Alkibiádēs on 26 October 2015
Tachikoma said:

Alkibiádēs said:

The PS1 was Sony's first console, they had no idea it was going to dominate like that. So using the PS1 as an example that monopoly doesn't hurt the game industry doesn't make any sense. Sony had to take their competitors into account before building and releasing their console. In fact, Playstation wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Nintendo.
What are you talking about at all?, monopoly?, the topic is "a console can do well without competition", the PS1 did exactly that, having the highest sales because people like your product isn't a monopoly, for the PS1 and PS2 to have been a monopoly they would need to have been the ONLY consoles available.

It's not a valid point at all like I explained above. PS2 was weaker than the XBOX and GC and was harder to develop for. It was also more expensive than the GC. The XBOX had a much better online infrastructure and that influenced Nintendo and Sony to try harder with their online infrastructure. Although Nintendo still is stubborn when it comes to online infrastructure. Sony has copied MS's idea of putting online behind a paywall. Remember the disastrous announcement of the XBONE at E3 2013? MS had to ditch most of their ideas because of the backlash. If they had a monopoly on the market we, the gamers, would have been screwed.
None of that has anything to do with the topic, the Ps2 was largely uncontested in sales, and did perfectly fine without major competition, the xbox and gc being better specced or easier to develop for has nothing at all to do with the topic.
Also, MS didn't come up with the idea of locking online behind a pay-wall, that idea came from Gamespy, the technology and service that Microsoft bought to use on the original Xbox.
And prior to that, internet services were available for consoles as far back as the snes and megadrive with peripherals like xband.

Just about every real-life example would disagree with you. Monopoly leads to stagnation. Maybe not right away, but eventually it will lead to that.
Read first response over again, a console outperforming it's rivals based on popularity alone, isn't a monopoly.



The discussion is about MS leaving the console market which would lead to PS having a monopoly in said market. That is bad for gamers. The PS1 was a great product because Sony was hellbent on beating Nintendo (and to a lesser extant Sega). PS2 was still a decent product, but both the XBOX and GC were better in many ways. In fact, Sony wanted to push the DVD format with the PS2, a market that had a lot of competition at the time. So even if they dominated the videogame market, Sony had to deliver a relatively cheap PS2 because they wanted the dvd format to become succesful. And antitrust laws don't just cover monopoly, but other unfair business practices as well. Dominating a market can be bad for consumers as well.

I never claimed XBOX invented internet, but MS pushed it a lot, so it became mainstream in the home console market faster than it would have become without them. Can you imagine a home console market dominated/monopolised by Nintendo? Online infrastructure would suck! You can't seriously compare the SNES online capabilities with the XBOX. If I remember correctly the SNES online stuff was Japan only anyway. Not even the Dreamcast comes close to the XBOX when we're talking online infrastructure. This isn't about who did it first, but who made it mainstream. Nintendo wasn't the first to introduce motion controls to the gaming market, but they were the ones that made it mainstream.

Every major company with a HC has brought important changes to the table, whether it is Sony, Nintendo, Atari or MS. Rivals constantly try to get an edge over each other which leads to innovation.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Alkibiádēs on 26 October 2015

- double post -



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Around the Network
Tachikoma on 26 October 2015
Alkibiádēs said:

The discussion is about MS leaving the console market which would lead to PS having a monopoly in said market. That is bad for gamers.

Are we pretending Nintendo doesn't exist then?



Alkibiádēs on 26 October 2015
Tachikoma said:
Alkibiádēs said:

The discussion is about MS leaving the console market which would lead to PS having a monopoly in said market. That is bad for gamers.

Are we pretending Nintendo doesn't exist then?

I don't have much hope of them offering any sort of competition in the HC market. Unless the NX turns out to be a fusion console, that would be interesting to see. But the Wii U? As much as I like it, it's quite irrelevant in today's home console market.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides