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

Forums - Microsoft - How Microsoft's strategy is failing

Domicinator on 19 August 2008
Jordahn said:
Domicinator said:
There should probably be a thread called "How Sony's strategy is failing" as well. Especially after this story was released:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/19/the-sony-reciprocal-ps3-losses-surpass-ps2-profits/

Microsoft, at least as of recently, is now profiting on every console they sell. Therefore, they will be able to reduce the price to $299 this fall for the main sku. Sony is still selling PS3s at less than cost. Yes, as the article states above, Microsoft has lost money too, but they are now in the process of making it back. Sony is not.

So WHOSE strategy is failing?

 

 Ummm...  Both???  Feel better???

Ummmmm...  Yeah, I do!!  Because this thread is absolutely ridiculous!!!

 




Around the Network
Domicinator on 19 August 2008
xman said:
Jordahn said:

Every console has their share of successes and failures, but I think the context here is that Microsoft failed to be the clear dominant console for this gen. Even Microsoft once voiced that they reflected on the success of the PS2 before the launch of the 360. So to say that Microsoft tried to mimic the PS2 while also trying to eliminate the PS3 in which they failed is very accurate. If anyone looks at Microsoft's past pro-monopoly business model, a similar attempt in the console market can be seen. I'm not bashing the console or its offerings because the console is worthy of a purchase. I'm just poining out that it's very obvious that Nintendo is in the lead, and Microsoft has NOT maintained its 10 million one year lead from the PS3. Remember Microsoft claimed that because the PS2 was first to market (which was a lie because the Dreamcast was first, and Microsoft knew it), the PS2 was the dominant console of last gen. Nintendo proved Microsoft wrong by now being the dominant console this gen so far while the PS3 has been a constant and growing thorn in the 360's side. The 360 has had it successes, and I think it is a successful console overall. But the picture here is that it failed to claim this gen as the dominant console in which Microsoft claimed by being first to market and attempting to eliminate its competition.

 

Yeah the monopoly strtaegy MS uses will not work with consoles

 

It worked for Sony, so it can work for other companies as well.  By the way, MS is not a monopoly of anything.




Lolcislaw on 19 August 2008

I don't see the point of writing how much MS are failing, facts are that 360 is still selling v. close to PS3, not many people expected that nearly 2 years after launch PS3 still wont pick up desired pace. I think Xbox brand being pushed very hard starts to become a rival to Ninty or PS. And the broad library does help, greatly in securing their place in the market.

MS would be doing much better without RROD but wel they payed the price for head start. Xbox is doing fairly well compared to Sony who made most mistakes this generation.

Overall it does not matter who's strategy is failing to the gamers, this generation is great with 3 consoles getting quality support and games to choose from.



Grahamhsu on 19 August 2008

@TheBigFatJ
I don't see a single act of innovation from you, all you did was read an arstechnica article and rewrite it in your words.(yes I read your link it says the exact same thing you do...) I don't understand how anyone has the time to do that...My violin teacher always says even a monkey knows how to imitate.




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-

Jordahn on 19 August 2008
Domicinator said:
xman said:
Jordahn said:

Every console has their share of successes and failures, but I think the context here is that Microsoft failed to be the clear dominant console for this gen. Even Microsoft once voiced that they reflected on the success of the PS2 before the launch of the 360. So to say that Microsoft tried to mimic the PS2 while also trying to eliminate the PS3 in which they failed is very accurate. If anyone looks at Microsoft's past pro-monopoly business model, a similar attempt in the console market can be seen. I'm not bashing the console or its offerings because the console is worthy of a purchase. I'm just poining out that it's very obvious that Nintendo is in the lead, and Microsoft has NOT maintained its 10 million one year lead from the PS3. Remember Microsoft claimed that because the PS2 was first to market (which was a lie because the Dreamcast was first, and Microsoft knew it), the PS2 was the dominant console of last gen. Nintendo proved Microsoft wrong by now being the dominant console this gen so far while the PS3 has been a constant and growing thorn in the 360's side. The 360 has had it successes, and I think it is a successful console overall. But the picture here is that it failed to claim this gen as the dominant console in which Microsoft claimed by being first to market and attempting to eliminate its competition.

 

Yeah the monopoly strtaegy MS uses will not work with consoles

 

It worked for Sony, so it can work for other companies as well.  By the way, MS is not a monopoly of anything.

 

If you are referring to consoles, the most SONY every claimed was around 66% during the PSOne days.  By comparison, Nintendo had 95% during the NES days.  And in the general A/V market, SONY always had viable competitors.  Do yourself a favor.  Do a Google on "Microsoft vs. DOJ Judge Thomas Penfield David Boies."  From there it should open up a Pandora's Box.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Around the Network
Domicinator on 19 August 2008
Jordahn said:
Domicinator said:
xman said:
Jordahn said:

Every console has their share of successes and failures, but I think the context here is that Microsoft failed to be the clear dominant console for this gen. Even Microsoft once voiced that they reflected on the success of the PS2 before the launch of the 360. So to say that Microsoft tried to mimic the PS2 while also trying to eliminate the PS3 in which they failed is very accurate. If anyone looks at Microsoft's past pro-monopoly business model, a similar attempt in the console market can be seen. I'm not bashing the console or its offerings because the console is worthy of a purchase. I'm just poining out that it's very obvious that Nintendo is in the lead, and Microsoft has NOT maintained its 10 million one year lead from the PS3. Remember Microsoft claimed that because the PS2 was first to market (which was a lie because the Dreamcast was first, and Microsoft knew it), the PS2 was the dominant console of last gen. Nintendo proved Microsoft wrong by now being the dominant console this gen so far while the PS3 has been a constant and growing thorn in the 360's side. The 360 has had it successes, and I think it is a successful console overall. But the picture here is that it failed to claim this gen as the dominant console in which Microsoft claimed by being first to market and attempting to eliminate its competition.

 

Yeah the monopoly strtaegy MS uses will not work with consoles

 

It worked for Sony, so it can work for other companies as well.  By the way, MS is not a monopoly of anything.

 

If you are referring to consoles, the most SONY every claimed was around 66% during the PSOne days.  By comparison, Nintendo had 95% during the NES days.  And in the general A/V market, SONY always had viable competitors.  Do yourself a favor.  Do a Google on "Microsoft vs. DOJ Judge Thomas Penfield David Boies."  From there it should open up a Pandora's Box.

 

Do YOURself a favor and look up the definition of monopoly.  At what point in time has Microsoft ever had 100% share of anything?




S.T.A.G.E. on 19 August 2008
TheBigFatJ said:

So far this generation, Microsoft has seen a lot of areas of success with the 360. This year, a lot of that has changed. First, let's consider the good.

Microsoft has made some serious inroads by bringing Sony's biggest, established exclusives to their system as well. They've also increased their overall marketshare considerably, especially in the US. And recently they finally enjoyed their first full year of profitability on the Xbox 360 not including the cost of ongoing RROD repairs. Through 2007, the 360 was outselling the PS3 in most areas significantly. Microsoft has been bringing in a lot more revenue than ever before. And while revenue doesn't mean anything on its own, it is a measure of potential to an extent -- if they could cut costs, they could convert more of it into profit. This is primarily academic, though, since cutting costs often means selling a cheaper product.

Games have been flying off of the shelf for the 360. Halo 3 was their biggest launch ever, and may stand for some time as the biggest media launch for any media. The Xbox 360 has a great overall attach ratio and because of Microsoft's early launch, it has become the defacto third party system to develop for. The Xbox 360 has become the best JRPG console this generation.

The XBL marketplace has been a success as well. It works, it sells movies, it sells games, it sells content for games. It's a selling point for the console for a small set of users (the users with Internet connected consoles, with access to payment, willing to buy content and watch it using their console).

Now, let's look at the bad.

The 360 is Microsoft's sole gaming product and it only enjoys serious success in one region. And lately, Sony has been beating Microsoft in the US. For the first three months, Microsoft had claimed there were shortages of the Xbox 360 and this is why it was losing to the PS3. But now that GTA 4 came out and the summer has progressed, we see the Xbox 360 being significantly outsold by the PS3 and very obviously no 360 shortages.

Microsoft is not innovating. They've taken a lot of games from Sony and a lot of ideas from Nintendo. As the recent arstechnica article linked to at the bottom of this page mentions, people at E3 were laughing at Microsoft during their presentation because of how obvious a rip off their new avatar system is. Microsoft was the first to bring online to consoles, but it offers only a subset of the functionality of computers, is technically inferior (few or no dedicated servers), and costs a monthly fee which automatically precludes a large set of people from ever using it, and its a nusance for others.

The most glaring facet of Microsoft's inability to innovate is their game strategy. Microsoft brough online first person shooters from PCs to consoles. As far as online gaming is concerned, Halo 2/3 are slightly watered down versions of first person shooter action on computers -- these games are fine games, don't get me wrong, but there is absolutely nothing new here. It's just a carbon copy of online PC FPS games adapted for consoles.

Microsoft has managed to get most of Sony's great exclusives, but they've failed to develop anything interesting first party. They bought Rare, who has managed only one very good release for the system so far: Viva Pinata. This leaves Microsoft's strategy look a lot more like slash-and-run than bring innovation to the console market.

In 2008, sales have taken a turn for the worse when compared to the PS3. Microsoft has had their biggest release of the year with GTA 4. Sales are a little up year over year, but not nearly as much as the PS3. And not nearly as much as the Wii either. In Europe, the 360 is floundering despite its already bargan basement price tag. The same goes for Japan.

There is little question that the Xbox 360 in 2008 is in a weaker position relative to the PS3 than the Xbox 360 at the same time in 2007 was. In this market, innovation is everything. Nintendo has done a lot with the Wii since launch, and now that Sony is really getting established they have a variety of good innovations on the way. And yet we see little in the way of innovation from Microsoft. It looks like they're going to give up their world wide installed base lead over the PS3 up without a fight, and if things continue to deteriorate for Microsoft they may even lose their US installed base.

My comments have been inspired by the following article at arstechnica:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080817-microsoft.html

 

You may believe that, but the U.S. is also a helping out the Nintendo Wii and the PS3 sales will pick up once the price drops below $300. Right now for the mass in America price is everything, which is why at $250 price tag for the Wii helped them sell over 13.59 M in the states. I don't know whether you believe its bias, but its really convenience of price. Sony will still lose in the states, but the sales WILL pick up when Sony drops the damn price.

The Xbox 360 may have been RROD ridden in the beginning but it offered something that Sony couldn't compete with. It was price. They also offered the library, and they turned this gen into a new kind of war when they rid Sony of their ace card, which was exclusive 3rd party titles. Rid Sony of that and they will have to work hard on first party titles. Sony right now is playing right into Microsofts hands, because this is what they want them to do.

Tell me the last time you've seen people wrapping around corners for a PS3 game? It's never happened unless it was GTA IV. I don't remember the last time I walked into a Gamestop and had problems picking up a PS2 game.

Microsoft doesn't care to innovate right now, they want to understand how this market works and use it to their advantage understanding how the competitors think and work. Obviously, you see that they figured Sony out after the first console. You heard Microsoft representative Mattrick at E3 stating that Microsoft is happy for the Nintendo Wii's success and they applaud them, but this gen they just want to hold down Sony. They want to see what makes Sony tick . This is something you cannot allow Microsoft to do, because if they succeed, you're in a world of hurt. Microsoft is a dominating and evil corporation much like Sony, but Microsoft is farrrrrrrrrr more of an evil entity.

If you want stolen ideas you should look no further than Sony. Sony wouldn't have a decent online experience without Microsoft being in existence. Nintendo knows very well that Sony has stolen alot of their ideas. Hell the little controller that Sony considers to be Six axis and so revolutionary was actually STOLEN from a 3rd party tilt controller used for the PS1 from the Pelican Brand. Sony was under fire from Nintendo earlier this gen because Nintendo accused them of stealing the motion idea for the controller as well. Well it turns out that the Sony controller didn't steal the motion idea from Nintendo. They actually stole it from Microsoft and Logitech back in 1999. Microsoft only has the wannabe mii's because Sony stole the idea for home and they decided "I'll play the game too." The only thing new on Sonys system is Blu Ray...get it through your thick head.

PS1 Pelican tilt controller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cOBtMMWteA

 

As for carbon copy FPS games....you need look no further than the PS3 games for carbon Copy. Bungie hasn't stolen anything in making the Halo franchise. It's innovated and made one of the most addictive multiplayer experiences in FPS history since Goldeneye. Halo will still remain the greatest console shooter, mark my words and Resistance and Killzone will never scratch their sales. Why might you ask? Because Halo has that it factor that makes it different from other console shooters. All KZ2 can gain from Halo is to steal from it. Hell....KZ2 can have what it took and Resistance looks like a ripped off Battlefield 1942 with Aliens in it (Who is carbon copy now, huh?). Gears of War is a totally different shooting experience which broadens the shooting experience on the 360 (Not to mention the 360 controller is better for shooting games than the PS3, which supports a comfortable X, Y axis). It takes two TOTALLY DIFFERENT GENRES of shooting and Aces them without breaking a sweat.

Just to let you know, I have reason to believe that Microsoft is going to try and 1up their Xbox live experience by melding Xbox live with PC online. Microsoft has been working on this for a while, so I have reason to believe that they will succeed with it. Home will not touch the Live experience. The problem with Sony is that they are trying to make online a 2nd life/Sims game, when online should truthfully be an online community, nothing more, nothing less.

Microsoft's only goal this gen is to crack Japan, and keep Sony down. They will do their own thing with the 720, but representatives have already unveiled their reasoning for this gen. Not to mention the price drop in September. Thats freaking crazy. Xbox 360's are going to go off of the shelf. I'm sorry...but you do know about that around 60% of Sonys top sales last gen was with the people who couldn't afford a system past its third year price drop right?



Jordahn on 19 August 2008
Domicinator said:
Jordahn said:
Domicinator said:
xman said:
Jordahn said:

Every console has their share of successes and failures, but I think the context here is that Microsoft failed to be the clear dominant console for this gen. Even Microsoft once voiced that they reflected on the success of the PS2 before the launch of the 360. So to say that Microsoft tried to mimic the PS2 while also trying to eliminate the PS3 in which they failed is very accurate. If anyone looks at Microsoft's past pro-monopoly business model, a similar attempt in the console market can be seen. I'm not bashing the console or its offerings because the console is worthy of a purchase. I'm just poining out that it's very obvious that Nintendo is in the lead, and Microsoft has NOT maintained its 10 million one year lead from the PS3. Remember Microsoft claimed that because the PS2 was first to market (which was a lie because the Dreamcast was first, and Microsoft knew it), the PS2 was the dominant console of last gen. Nintendo proved Microsoft wrong by now being the dominant console this gen so far while the PS3 has been a constant and growing thorn in the 360's side. The 360 has had it successes, and I think it is a successful console overall. But the picture here is that it failed to claim this gen as the dominant console in which Microsoft claimed by being first to market and attempting to eliminate its competition.

 

Yeah the monopoly strtaegy MS uses will not work with consoles

 

It worked for Sony, so it can work for other companies as well. By the way, MS is not a monopoly of anything.

 

If you are referring to consoles, the most SONY every claimed was around 66% during the PSOne days. By comparison, Nintendo had 95% during the NES days. And in the general A/V market, SONY always had viable competitors. Do yourself a favor. Do a Google on "Microsoft vs. DOJ Judge Thomas Penfield David Boies." From there it should open up a Pandora's Box.

 

Do YOURself a favor and look up the definition of monopoly. At what point in time has Microsoft ever had 100% share of anything?

 

Do yourself another favor by stop being such a fanboy in denial.  Fanboys cherry pick and argue sematics while non-fanboys reasonably see the big picture.  I said "pro-monopoly business model," I NEVER said Microsoft had 100% of anything so please do not attempt to put false words into my mouth to "prove" a point.  Having "100% share" and a "pro-monopoly business model" are two related but separate concepts.  Also, fanboys are also blatantly hypocritical such as yourself.  You just mentioned that "At what point in time has Microsoft ever had 100% share of anything," but earlier you said "It worked for Sony (monopoly)" knowing that SONY never had 100% of the console market.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

S.T.A.G.E. on 19 August 2008
TheBigFatJ said:
papflesje said:
I'm afraid you're ignoring the massive games still coming (GeOW2 and Fable2 WILL sell).

And the PS3 is indeed up compared to last year, but let's admit it, they were doing LOUSY last year, so it's no surprise that they've stepped up a gear right now.

I wonder what MS will do to keep up with the PS3, but they haven't done as badly as some may believe (although I do think they have to step it up as well).

But Gears of War 2 is just a sequel to another FPS game. It was the one that really introduced a good, solid cover system, but that's not an MS innovation and the game looks to be nothing more than a good, solid sequel. Bringing those along is expected behavior, not innovation. Every company will do that.

I agree that MS has done well overall. There are a lot of bright spots. But it looks like they're starting to lose grip as Sony gains some traction in the market. And while Sony has a lot of interesting products in the pipeline compared to Microsoft, most of them still haven't materialized and yet Sony is still beating MS in its only very successful territory.

nice analysis but too much ms bashing

What in particular do you think is bashing? I don't intend to bash Microsoft, but I am trying to take a critical look at their strategies because /something/ isn't going all that well for them.

 

 

Wrong again! Gears of War is a sequel to a Third person shooter...not a first person. As I said...more variety on Microsoft as far as shooters. Explain a first person shooter with a cover system for me please. I'd love to know.



Grahamhsu on 19 August 2008

So do we call Third Person Shooters, TPS or 3PS? I'm so confused >




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-