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

Forums - Gaming - How do Sony and Microsoft avoid PS360?

libellule on 12 April 2008

1/ I agree with Bohesatva. PS360 are competing for the same crowd : the hardcore gamers

2/ there are 2 crowds left :

a- PC crowd (PC is the boss)
b- casual (Wii is the boss)


a- To get the PC crowd u need PC game, so the Xbox360 is in the good way to charm the PC gamers du to some good exclusive PC game. But u need BIG PC games like Starcraft2 or World of Warcraft to attract PC gamers. And for the moment, these big system seller are still not on console. That is why I consider both console are not selling so much to PC gamers.

b- A console is generally selling firstly to hardcore and later to casual (price is decreasing over time). It means PS360 need to attract casual gamers.

How to do it ???

==> make casual games (whatever they play with X-mote or classic paddle)

The only solution left for MS and Sony is to make/buy casual games.

Important point : Sony is not very late since their console is still young, quite expensive and is in third position meaning there is a big room before saturation of the hardcore market.
At the opposite, the Xbox360 is older, less expensive and has been sold more to hardcore.
IT NEEDs to begin to sell to casual gamers = it needs casual games !!!!!



Time to Work !

Around the Network
libellule on 12 April 2008

1/ I agree with Bohesatva. PS360 are competing for the same crowd : the hardcore gamers

2/ there are 2 crowds left :

a- PC crowd (PC is the boss)
b- casual (Wii is the boss)


a- To get the PC crowd u need PC game, so the Xbox360 is in the good way to charm the PC gamers du to some good exclusive PC game. But u need BIG PC games like Starcraft2 or World of Warcraft to attract PC gamers. And for the moment, these big system seller are still not on console. That is why I consider both console are not selling so much to PC gamers.

b- A console is generally selling firstly to hardcore and later to casual (price is decreasing over time). It means PS360 need to attract casual gamers.

How to do it ???

==> make casual games (whatever they play with X-mote or classic paddle)

The only solution left for MS and Sony is to make/buy casual games.

Important point : Sony is not very late since their console is still young, quite expensive and is in third position meaning there is a big room before saturation of the hardcore market.
At the opposite, the Xbox360 is older, less expensive and has been sold more to hardcore.
IT NEEDs to begin to sell to casual gamers = it needs casual games !!!!!



Time to Work !

Kasz216 on 12 April 2008
Kyros said:
"how do Sony and Microsoft avoid having their products become interchangable from the consumer vantage point?"

I think the question is, why should they avoid this? At the moment the combined 360/PS3 userbase makes most third-party PS360 multiplatforms a better choice for developers than the Wii/Ps2 multiplats. Alone they could struggle but together they are a pretty formidable opponent to the casual gaming juggernaut.

Personally I think this is a great thing. As a PS3 owner I have access to most great titles that are on the 360 and vice versa. I like BluRay and the far more sophisticated looks of the PS3. Other people want the better online capabilities of the 360. Adn both can play almost all of the best third-party games of this generation.

 Why to maximize sales of course.  Though considering most console owners aren't multiplatform users i don't see it as much of a problem.  

 



Ajax on 12 April 2008
Bodhesatva said:

From a consumer standpoint, this is absolutely fine. Great, even. You have all the games on your system no matter which of the two you choose, save only a few: if you like MGS and Final Fantasy more, pick up a PS3; if you like Bioshock and Mass Effect more, you should pick up a 360. But I can almost garauntee that Sony and Microsoft are frantic to avoid this sort of brand confusion, where the Playstation and Xbox brand become interchangable, virtually identical products to the average consumer. Both are aimed squarely at young males; both tout their high tech graphics and features; both have almost all of the same games. 


I actually think this is a far bigger problem for Sony than for Microsoft,
and maybe not even a problem for Microsoft, but something they actually applaud to.

Sony is the one that is losing ground.
If their Playstation brand becomes interchangable, it will harm them more as they where the previous front-runners for 10 years, and their brand name is still worth alot, especially in Europe.

So why would Microsoft be concerned?

On the contrary,
it's maybe even a victory for Microsoft, as they will have deprived the Playstation of it's identity.

The worth of the brand Xbox was far from the worth of the PlayStation brand when it entered the stage in 2001.
So any form of equelleness means per definition a win for Microsoft and a lose for Sony.


So it's actually Sony's problem..



''Hadouken!''

outlawauron on 12 April 2008

Not sure. It all comes down to who has a more compelling first party line up.

Both have very this year, but thats the key to second place this gen.

@ Rol

I don't see why PS3 or 360 need an add-on remote. PS2 sold 120 million without a remote, why should PS3/360?



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Bodhesatva on 12 April 2008
Kyros said:
"how do Sony and Microsoft avoid having their products become interchangable from the consumer vantage point?"

I think the question is, why should they avoid this? At the moment the combined 360/PS3 userbase makes most third-party PS360 multiplatforms a better choice for developers than the Wii/Ps2 multiplats. Alone they could struggle but together they are a pretty formidable opponent to the casual gaming juggernaut.

Personally I think this is a great thing. As a PS3 owner I have access to most great titles that are on the 360 and vice versa. I like BluRay and the far more sophisticated looks of the PS3. Other people want the better online capabilities of the 360. Adn both can play almost all of the best third-party games of this generation.


 I think you've missed my point, Kyros. I agree, this is a great thing from the position of gamers: it means they get to play nearly all the games, no matter which platform they choose.

It's also a good thing for developers: they can make one game that works for both platforms simultaneously without a great deal of additional investment.

It's a terrible thing for Sony and Microsoft, though: it means that only half the profit/revenue goes to each. Take this to an extreme, to understand the point. Imagine if every single person who played video games had a separate video game system made by a separate publisher unique to them. However, all the games developers made can/would work across each platform. This is great for developers, because their games will work for everyone. It's great for individual players, because they get to play all the games no matter which individual unit they choose. It's cataclysmically, ridiculously awful for the gaming machine producers, though. Researching, developing and producing a console just to sell it to 1 person? And have only that 1 person buy your games/give you game royalties? 

That's the situation Sony/Microsoft are in, but in a much less severe manner. Because there isn't much to distinguish the 360 from the PS3 in terms of game selection, marketing or demographic focus, it basically ends up with this situation:

1) Consumers can choose whichever console they want
2) Developers can develop 1 game for both platforms because the interests/tastes of both platforms is very similar
3) Microsoft and Sony have to split the revenue and profit from royalties basically down the middle

Number 1 and number 2 are good, number 3 definitely isn't. 



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

Kasz216 on 12 April 2008
Bodhesatva said:
Kyros said:
"how do Sony and Microsoft avoid having their products become interchangable from the consumer vantage point?"

I think the question is, why should they avoid this? At the moment the combined 360/PS3 userbase makes most third-party PS360 multiplatforms a better choice for developers than the Wii/Ps2 multiplats. Alone they could struggle but together they are a pretty formidable opponent to the casual gaming juggernaut.

Personally I think this is a great thing. As a PS3 owner I have access to most great titles that are on the 360 and vice versa. I like BluRay and the far more sophisticated looks of the PS3. Other people want the better online capabilities of the 360. Adn both can play almost all of the best third-party games of this generation.


I think you've missed my point, Kyros. I agree, this is a great thing from the position of gamers: it means they get to play nearly all the games, no matter which platform they choose.

It's also a good thing for developers: they can make one game that works for both platforms simultaneously without a great deal of additional investment.

It's a terrible thing for Sony and Microsoft, though: it means that only half the profit/revenue goes to each. Take this to an extreme, to understand the point. Imagine if every single person who played video games had a separate video game system made by a separate publisher unique to them. However, all the games developers made can/would work across each platform. This is great for developers, because their games will work for everyone. It's great for individual players, because they get to play all the games no matter which individual unit they choose. It's cataclysmically, ridiculously awful for the gaming machine producers, though. Researching, developing and producing a console just to sell it to 1 person? And have only that 1 person buy your games/give you game royalties?

That's the situation Sony/Microsoft are in, but in a much less severe manner. Because there isn't much to distinguish the 360 from the PS3 in terms of game selection, marketing or demographic focus, it basically ends up with this situation:

1) Consumers can choose whichever console they want
2) Developers can develop 1 game for both platforms because the interests/tastes of both platforms is very similar
3) Microsoft and Sony have to split the revenue and profit from royalties basically down the middle

Number 1 and number 2 are good, number 3 definitely isn't.


Though, isn't it true that most people only own one console?  So it's mostly a net gain for 360 who is gaining market share from last generation and just a negative for sony.

Sure they are likely going to lose multiplatform sales to the Wii, but that will be the minority, and likely the similarities will lead a net game to 360.

How they are diversifying theselves i think though is everything not relating to the games... well that and the downloadble content.

That's likely why Sony pushes Blu-Ray so far.  Because it's mostly been a 360 that can play blu-ray.  They'll likely push it a little less when their big franchises hit.   

 



Coca-Cola on 12 April 2008

xmote!



De85 on 12 April 2008
kingofwale said:
I think the real question is.. how do Xbox distinguish itself from PC games.

Most (if not all) PS3 games won't see another console/PC, that's for the likes of R&C, Uncharted, Warhawk, FFXIII, MGS4, GT5. But you can't say that for most of 360 games.

 I don't think the PC issue is as important as people make it seem.  Since a gaming PC is many times more expensive than a console the majority of people will pick up the console version. 

 As for how the two companies can differentiate themselves from each other, I don't think there's really anything they can do this generation to truly set themselves apart.  A strong lineup of quality first party titles would help, but as noticed in the OP, gamers preferences will steer some towards one console, and others toward its competitor.



RedArmia on 12 April 2008

Um dude.

Blu ray - nothing
Free online - Pay online
PSn/Home - Live
Diverse line up - Shooters
Quality - lack there of
Sony - MS

The difference is very apparent especially since Br won.

And why are you putting Mass Effect in the same sentence as Final Fantasy, ME is no where near FFs league and we all know that as a fact.