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

Forums - Microsoft - What if Microsoft goes on a shopping spree?

 

What's the worst videogame movie of all time?

BloodRayne 208 15.44%
 
DOA: Dead or Alive 166 12.32%
 
House of the Dead 147 10.91%
 
Mortal Kombat 76 5.64%
 
Street Fighter 204 15.14%
 
Super Mario Bros. 546 40.53%
 
Total:1,347
Soleron on 14 April 2009
DirtyP2002 said:
Soleron said:
...

 

 No but it could weaken Sony for the next generation. Plus Xbox brand will be bigger next generation as well. The ROI won't be in the money, but other aspects like the two I mentioned should be considered as well.

That's what I meant. Decreasing Sony's profit or increasing the brand are NOT reasons for MS to do anything. The sole reason MS would do it is profit. Any other reasons are fanboy wishing.

--

@kowenicki

I know individual deals aren't illegal. But what the OP was proposing was having deals with every major third-party game at once specifically to lock out Sony. That would be illegal.

 



Around the Network
MrBubbles on 14 April 2009

i would like some extra content for the next elder scrolls game. <3
exclusivity of the game seems irrelevant.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Jereel Hunter on 14 April 2009
Megadude said:
M$ has lost 100 billion in the last 2 years and DLC like teh lost and the damned or the pitt have has had no real effect on sales. So far this year PS3's lineup is making a mockery of 360's and I think that has a lot to do with all these investments into DLC instead of new IPs.

I think MS best move would to invest money on new and exiting first party titles and get off Sony's nuts.

 

Microsoft lost more, in the last 2 years, than the ENTIRE VIDEOGAME INDUSTRY has made in that period? Wow. You should at least link the Sony Defense Force article you're quoting.



Jereel Hunter on 14 April 2009
Lostplanet22 said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Soleron said:
The reason why companies do anything, from announcing products to doing marketing campaigns, is because it will bring greater profit.

Would the 200m USD investment increase Microsoft's profit? Decreasing Sony's profit is not the same as that. Microsoft won't do anything merely because their fanbase wants it, and they won't do anything that will bring antitrust investigations upon them (making secret exclusivity deals third parties with is the fastest way to do that).

 

 No but it could weaken Sony for the next generation. Plus Xbox brand will be bigger next generation as well. The ROI won't be in the money, but other aspects like the two I mentioned should be considered as well.

After generations where companies as Sega/Nintendo and Sony were on top you saw generations where people just don't care about brand name you still say 'having a strond brand one generation will help the next generation' =p?

 

It absolutely does. If an unknown has made the Wii, it may be big, but it wouldn't be as big as the Wii is today. (Nintendo is both a strong brand, despite the prior 2 generations, and more importantly they have big franchises)

Whereas Sony's brand name is what allowed them to even survive this generation. If the Sony PS3 had been something like the "Acer GameStation", and released at $600, vs the 360 in it's second iteration, it would have bombed. the 360 would be over 40m sales and the GameStation would have had the plug pulled after <5m sales. Sony's powerful brand was the only thing that prevented them from basically ruining their own gaming division.

 



dbot on 14 April 2009
Jereel Hunter said:
Megadude said:
M$ has lost 100 billion in the last 2 years and DLC like teh lost and the damned or the pitt have has had no real effect on sales. So far this year PS3's lineup is making a mockery of 360's and I think that has a lot to do with all these investments into DLC instead of new IPs.

I think MS best move would to invest money on new and exiting first party titles and get off Sony's nuts.

 

Microsoft lost more, in the last 2 years, than the ENTIRE VIDEOGAME INDUSTRY has made in that period? Wow. You should at least link the Sony Defense Force article you're quoting.

 

MS's operating divisions made 35 billion in 2006 and 2007.  The Entertainment and Devices Division lost 3.3 billion in those years.  Maybe he was rounding up?



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Around the Network
shock182 on 14 April 2009
kowenicki said:
@dbot

yeah... weird rounding though... turning a $35bn profit into a $100bn loss.

 

 Ain't the internetz grand



Reasonable on 14 April 2009

I doubt the climate is right for MS to throw money around in such a manner. They seem happier to focus on DLC more than full titles currently, or timed exclusives.

While sure fire earnings are attractive, developers will also have to consider their long term market position as well.

They need fans, they need a lot of people playing their games. Going multiplatform, making the same money and having more players is preferable than making the same money off less players as market perception and brand takes a knock.

MS have the money of course, but I think currently PS3 sales are too strong to ignore and I'd expect most developers to be wary of taking such a route. As more and more developers are saying - right now multiplatform is preferable for expensive HD games.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Lostplanet22 on 14 April 2009
Jereel Hunter said:
Lostplanet22 said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Soleron said:
The reason why companies do anything, from announcing products to doing marketing campaigns, is because it will bring greater profit.

Would the 200m USD investment increase Microsoft's profit? Decreasing Sony's profit is not the same as that. Microsoft won't do anything merely because their fanbase wants it, and they won't do anything that will bring antitrust investigations upon them (making secret exclusivity deals third parties with is the fastest way to do that).

 

 No but it could weaken Sony for the next generation. Plus Xbox brand will be bigger next generation as well. The ROI won't be in the money, but other aspects like the two I mentioned should be considered as well.

After generations where companies as Sega/Nintendo and Sony were on top you saw generations where people just don't care about brand name you still say 'having a strond brand one generation will help the next generation' =p?

 

It absolutely does. If an unknown has made the Wii, it may be big, but it wouldn't be as big as the Wii is today. (Nintendo is both a strong brand, despite the prior 2 generations, and more importantly they have big franchises)

Whereas Sony's brand name is what allowed them to even survive this generation. If the Sony PS3 had been something like the "Acer GameStation", and released at $600, vs the 360 in it's second iteration, it would have bombed. the 360 would be over 40m sales and the GameStation would have had the plug pulled after <5m sales. Sony's powerful brand was the only thing that prevented them from basically ruining their own gaming division.

 

Really why no one then bought a Sega saturn? Sega Genesis was quite popular with even winning in Europe against the Snes no one cared about Sega anymore the next generation.

 



 

Megadude on 14 April 2009

I am talking about market cap.

"MCAP. Market capitalization represents the aggregate value of a company or stock. It is obtained by multiplying the number of shares outstanding by their current price per share. For example, if XYZ company has 15,000,000 shares outstanding and a share price of $20 per share then the market capitalization is 15,000,000 x $20 = $300,000,000. Generally, the U.S. market recognizes three market cap divisions: large cap (usually $5 billion and above), mid cap (usually $1 billion to $5 billion), and small cap (usually less than $1 billion), although the cutoffs between the categories are not precise or fixed. In our example above, XYZ would be considered a small cap company. also called market cap."

Ok so if you want to get into semantics: Microsoft is 100 BILLION dollars less valuable then it was only 2 years ago.

So my question to you is: How many Microsoft employees should be laid off to come up with the magical 200 million dollars for all these exclusives?

http://www.worldboxx.com/2009/03/17/microsoft-getting-ready-to-lay-off-17-of-staff/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/microsoft-outlook-dreary_n_169594.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Google/?p=1193

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/news.phtml/19659/20683/Microsoft-Windows-losing-share-Apple.phtml





disolitude on 14 April 2009

@Megadude

MS would still lay off less employees than Sony even if they spend 200 mil on buying games. And Ps3 is still at 399 too...tsk tsk...