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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - If MS doesn't come 1st next gen or the gen after , should they pull out ?

Bitmap Frogs on 14 June 2009
Alby_da_Wolf said:

In fact, while I believe MS wishes to prevent competitor console makers from becoming strong enough to seize the living room computing, I don't believe by any means it plans to destroy the console market, it's an impossible task, like you wrote, and the best MS can do is live with it, and if possible, try to profit from it and have some synergies with some of its other products. This said, the danger that still Sony, or, currently more likely, Nintendo tries to do what MS fears is still strong, and the only way MS could prevent it is to make XB720 become the first console next gen and make it the best choice of media hub for people not wanting to get stressed by a PC. The danger this gen is still low, PS3 has too little RAM for the task and it's the weakest contender, Wii is the strongest but it has even less RAM, no disk storage and no DVD playback.
To cut it short, this gen Windows was pardoned by PS3 weakness and more generally by HW trade-offs, but next gen each console will be able to become a media centre PC even without their respective manufacturers actively promoting this function, so the stronger XB720 will be, the less sales "stolen" from Windows will go to MS competitors and the more will obviously go anyway to MS.

 

You are operating under the misconception consoles could become PC substitutes. That's a mistake, because precisely the allure of consoles is simplicity - turning a console into a viable PC alternative for the most common tasks means it would necessarily become more complex and thus experience market rejection. See Wii vs. PS360 for more on that. I can't understand how you mention Wii's hardware limitations as the reason why it isn't becoming an expanded multimedia hub; have you ever listened to Iwata? They do not want the Wii to become a PC like device because they want to sell tons of those little white boxes. 

Even if you are just talking about "media hub", computers are safe - because they are more than a media hub. Just as the loss of gaming would make a negligible impact on the PC platform.

Microsoft ain't on the console market because they were afraid of consoles overthrowing windows-equipped PCs, they are there because they can leverage their know-how in customer-oriented platforms and services to deliver a compelling consumer services platform on top of another synergies like a common DirectX architecture which protects Microsoft's interests on that front. Internet-enabled customer offerings/services are a huge market and everyone who can is trying to get a piece of the pie. Even Nokia is trying and they already make billions on the hardware alone. As internet availability and bandwith grows there are a crapload of goods and services that can be delivered through connected devices and Microsoft's move has more to do with having a foothold on such a lucrative market than protecting what does not need to be protected since it hasn't been threatened at all.

To think PS3's weakness has "spared" Windows is ludicrous. Linux on PS3 is just a gimmick and never was anything but marketing fodder for Sony.

Additionally, you are contradicting yourself there, the stronger XB720 will be, the more sales are gonna be stolen from Windows because Microsoft unlike Nintendo does want the console to become a service-hub as the revenue streams are very very strong and offset the loss of marketshare. Heck, both the PS3 and 360 are already complex media-hubs and it isn't denting Windows at all.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

Around the Network
Smashchu2 on 14 June 2009
Bitmap Frogs said:
skiptomylou41k said:
@ Bitmap Frogs

I don't understand why you keep bringing up sales, i'm not even talking about that, my argument is about microsoft's intention which was so solidify the pc gaming market which they saw as deteriorating with increased console gaming, they may not get any profit directly, but they do indirectly with pc sales and market share

 

By Jove!

Let's start with the basics: Microsoft does not get any special profit from gaming being popular on PC's. Every single PC used for gaming would have been bought for something else (you know, internet browing, email, messaging, etc). Their windows license fees are safe. On the other hand, they make a shitton of revenue off the console user (just like any other manufacturer) - profit on the unit, royalties on every game, accessories... Owning a console platform is a massively profitable venture (as Nintendo has shown everybody) and on top of it is a gateway to even more services like movie rentals, etc all of which also leave a share for the platform owner. Microsoft doesn't need a hidden goal of killing console gaming as an excuse to enter the market, the own dynamics of the console market and the revenue streams are enticing enough. Heck, given enough users, Microsoft would make more money off consoles than PC's, which is reason enough to enter the market.

Then, there's the other one: if Microsoft had the secret goal of turning the PC into the single, exclusive gaming platform... TA-DA! It'd been way way cheaper to do it without entering the console market. Selling hardware to consumers it's costly and requires an entire overhead and structure MS had to build from scratch! The billions and billions they've dumped into this venture could have been used to produce hundreds of AAA exclusives for the PC. Not to mention they could have used their massive marketing budget on pushing the PC. Ever since the Xbox got started, Microsoft has squished their PC development teams, killing AAA sales and mindshare franchises like "Age of" in order to concentrate on the Xbox division. Games for Windows, a push to give some support and unity to PC gaming devs and consumers has been pretty much a ghost project with skeleton crew and arguable results. 

Here's what's happening: you want to believe Microsoft is evil or want to promote that idea, that's your conclusion. Then you've been cherrypicking and twisting facts in order to produce an argument to sustain your pre-decided conclusion. What you are suggesting is not only insane but against all kinds of common and business sense and stinks of conspiranoia. 

The worse is that such a strategy would not work and Microsoft execs are smart enough to realize. Unlike you.

As I have already stated, owning a console platform is a huge business opportunity. If Microsoft somehow could monopolize the console market and then phase out their console operations, you know what would happen? C'mon, that's basic economic theory - someone else would rise to fill the niche. Because this is larger than you think, consoles aren't just a brick under your TV, they are something that people want. And as such, there will always be someone providing it. Even if Microsoft could somehow wipe out all other console makers, they would not be able to wipe the market's interest on such items.

Now go FUD somewhere else, thank you.

First off, how is what he said considered FUD? He is making a claim to revive the PC market with a console. This would be a Blue Ocean type of strategy (although not exactly). That's not fear, uncertainty or doubt.

Second, you are both wrong. Microsoft is in the business for defensive reasons.



Bitmap Frogs on 14 June 2009
Smashchu2 said:

First off, how is what he said considered FUD? He is making a claim to revive the PC market with a console. This would be a Blue Ocean type of strategy (although not exactly). That's not fear, uncertainty or doubt.

Second, you are both wrong. Microsoft is in the business for defensive reasons.

 

That's FUD because he's trying to paint Microsoft has the Four Horsemen so people reject it on that basis alone.

By the way, you are linking from a place called the Wiikly and the first page has Gates next to a RROD while the article is called "Why Microsoft will leave the console business" (or something similar).

Nice one, what are you gonna link next, www.sonydefenseforce.com ?





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

Smashchu2 on 14 June 2009
Bitmap Frogs said:
Smashchu2 said:

First off, how is what he said considered FUD? He is making a claim to revive the PC market with a console. This would be a Blue Ocean type of strategy (although not exactly). That's not fear, uncertainty or doubt.

Second, you are both wrong. Microsoft is in the business for defensive reasons.

 

That's FUD because he's trying to paint Microsoft has the Four Horsemen so people reject it on that basis alone.

By the way, you are linking from a place called the Wiikly and the first page has Gates next to a RROD while the article is called "Why Microsoft will leave the console business" (or something similar).

Nice one, what are you gonna link next, www.sonydefenseforce.com ?

First off, if you think he is spreading FUD, you don't know what FUD. He was never trying to instill doubt into people's mind for the purpose of them not buying a product (that is a Microsoft tactic BTW). He only said that Microsoft was in the console business to help PC gaming. How is that FUD? How could one even assume that from the subject of his argument? You have had a bad habit of twisting things around to some bizzar line of thought to showing how everyone that doesn't agree is an ememy.

Also, I love how you don't acknowledge the article becuase it comes from a site with "Wii" in the name. Rather then actually read it and try to claim it has errors, you dismiss it becuase it must be for Wii fanboys (NOTE: Trhis line of argument is flawed because you have to claim that all sites with "Wii" in the name MUST be unreliable in talking about Microsoft. Since this is improbable, your argument can not hold.[All sites with "Wii" in their name are wrong about Microsoft:The Wiikly has Wii in it's name;Thus, Wiilky is wrong about Microsof). I also love how I must be a huge fanboy who just links to "stupid" sites (again, you question my validity to try and prove a point). I know I am right becuase you are so caught up in insecurities and poor arguments. You can't take the points blow for blow so you try to ddance around them. This only works if I was to play the game. Since I know you are doing this (by attacking people's validity and the validity of the source) it shows me that you are wrong and can obnly resort to this in order to avoid being wrong.



Bitmap Frogs on 14 June 2009
Smashchu2 said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

That's FUD because he's trying to paint Microsoft has the Four Horsemen so people reject it on that basis alone.

By the way, you are linking from a place called the Wiikly and the first page has Gates next to a RROD while the article is called "Why Microsoft will leave the console business" (or something similar).

Nice one, what are you gonna link next, www.sonydefenseforce.com ?

First off, if you think he is spreading FUD, you don't know what FUD. He was never trying to instill doubt into people's mind for the purpose of them not buying a product (that is a Microsoft tactic BTW). He only said that Microsoft was in the console business to help PC gaming. How is that FUD? How could one even assume that from the subject of his argument? You have had a bad habit of twisting things around to some bizzar line of thought to showing how everyone that doesn't agree is an ememy.

Also, I love how you don't acknowledge the article becuase it comes from a site with "Wii" in the name. Rather then actually read it and try to claim it has errors, you dismiss it becuase it must be for Wii fanboys (NOTE: Trhis line of argument is flawed because you have to claim that all sites with "Wii" in the name MUST be unreliable in talking about Microsoft. Since this is improbable, your argument can not hold.[All sites with "Wii" in their name are wrong about Microsoft:The Wiikly has Wii in it's name;Thus, Wiilky is wrong about Microsof). I also love how I must be a huge fanboy who just links to "stupid" sites (again, you question my validity to try and prove a point). I know I am right becuase you are so caught up in insecurities and poor arguments. You can't take the points blow for blow so you try to ddance around them. This only works if I was to play the game. Since I know you are doing this (by attacking people's validity and the validity of the source) it shows me that you are wrong and can obnly resort to this in order to avoid being wrong.

 

I wanted to save you the embarrassment but, hey you are asking for it.

By the way, do you know what FUD stands for? It's for Fear, Uncertainity and Doubt. He was purposedly attempt to instill fear about Microsoft's success in the market - specifically he was claiming Microsoft's success is equal to the destruction of the consoles. You obviously missed the whole shebang since it appears you like that line of thought. But more on that later.

That "article" (and I am loosely using the word) is eleven pages of drivel written in 2006. Much like you and other forum dwellers at VGChartz, the "writer" decided his conclusion first and then proceeded to cherrypick to support his preconceived opinion. In this case, the goal of that mess of words was to support the idea Microsoft would soon pull out of the console business. Early on this gen (2006-2007) it was a common piece of FUD floating around (Microsoft pulling off the plug on the Xbox). Amongst the many deranged claims made there, and mind you we are taking eleven pages of drivel, are:

- Claiming a 360 installed base of 20 million in 2011.

- Claiming the 360 business unit would never make a dime.

- Claiming Microsoft would 100% for sure kill the division before the current generation ends.

- Insinuating the 360 had no future as a platform from third-parties and that games outside of Microsoft Game Studios would only come as long as Microsoft paid for them.

- Claiming Microsoft can't compete in the console videogame market.

- Then, the article supposedly about why Microsoft would pull off the console market gets into relevant materials as to the topic like Zune bashing, smearing Microsoft's marketing practices (which aren't ethical of course, but neither are Sony's nor Nintendo's nor Apple's for that matter... see a trend there?).

In a nutshell, you quoted a load of unresearched drivel, more akin to a propaganda piece than to a journalistic article. Which is no wonder, since it's on a Wii-centric website.

At this point you either:

a) lose all kinds of mental barriers and just swallow whatever it's thrown at you as long as you agree with the basic premise (in this case, Microsoft bashing).

b) are somehow challenged.

c) are intentionally spreading Microsoft hate, for whatever reason.

Which one is yours?





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

Around the Network
TheSteve on 15 June 2009
Bitmap Frogs said:
Smashchu2 said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

That's FUD because he's trying to paint Microsoft has the Four Horsemen so people reject it on that basis alone.

By the way, you are linking from a place called the Wiikly and the first page has Gates next to a RROD while the article is called "Why Microsoft will leave the console business" (or something similar).

Nice one, what are you gonna link next, www.sonydefenseforce.com ?

First off, if you think he is spreading FUD, you don't know what FUD. He was never trying to instill doubt into people's mind for the purpose of them not buying a product (that is a Microsoft tactic BTW). He only said that Microsoft was in the console business to help PC gaming. How is that FUD? How could one even assume that from the subject of his argument? You have had a bad habit of twisting things around to some bizzar line of thought to showing how everyone that doesn't agree is an ememy.

Also, I love how you don't acknowledge the article becuase it comes from a site with "Wii" in the name. Rather then actually read it and try to claim it has errors, you dismiss it becuase it must be for Wii fanboys (NOTE: Trhis line of argument is flawed because you have to claim that all sites with "Wii" in the name MUST be unreliable in talking about Microsoft. Since this is improbable, your argument can not hold.[All sites with "Wii" in their name are wrong about Microsoft:The Wiikly has Wii in it's name;Thus, Wiilky is wrong about Microsof). I also love how I must be a huge fanboy who just links to "stupid" sites (again, you question my validity to try and prove a point). I know I am right becuase you are so caught up in insecurities and poor arguments. You can't take the points blow for blow so you try to ddance around them. This only works if I was to play the game. Since I know you are doing this (by attacking people's validity and the validity of the source) it shows me that you are wrong and can obnly resort to this in order to avoid being wrong.

 

I wanted to save you the embarrassment but, hey you are asking for it.

By the way, do you know what FUD stands for? It's for Fear, Uncertainity and Doubt. He was purposedly attempt to instill fear about Microsoft's success in the market - specifically he was claiming Microsoft's success is equal to the destruction of the consoles. You obviously missed the whole shebang since it appears you like that line of thought. But more on that later.

That "article" (and I am loosely using the word) is eleven pages of drivel written in 2006. Much like you and other forum dwellers at VGChartz, the "writer" decided his conclusion first and then proceeded to cherrypick to support his preconceived opinion. In this case, the goal of that mess of words was to support the idea Microsoft would soon pull out of the console business. Early on this gen (2006-2007) it was a common piece of FUD floating around (Microsoft pulling off the plug on the Xbox). Amongst the many deranged claims made there, and mind you we are taking eleven pages of drivel, are:

- Claiming a 360 installed base of 20 million in 2011.

- Claiming the 360 business unit would never make a dime.

- Claiming Microsoft would 100% for sure kill the division before the current generation ends.

- Insinuating the 360 had no future as a platform from third-parties and that games outside of Microsoft Game Studios would only come as long as Microsoft paid for them.

- Claiming Microsoft can't compete in the console videogame market.

- Then, the article supposedly about why Microsoft would pull off the console market gets into relevant materials as to the topic like Zune bashing, smearing Microsoft's marketing practices (which aren't ethical of course, but neither are Sony's nor Nintendo's nor Apple's for that matter... see a trend there?).

In a nutshell, you quoted a load of unresearched drivel, more akin to a propaganda piece than to a journalistic article. Which is no wonder, since it's on a Wii-centric website.

At this point you either:

a) lose all kinds of mental barriers and just swallow whatever it's thrown at you as long as you agree with the basic premise (in this case, Microsoft bashing).

b) are somehow challenged.

c) are intentionally spreading Microsoft hate, for whatever reason.

Which one is yours?

What a superb tongue-lashing.  That site is the equivalent of an overdrawn fanboy rant.



Believing in the PLAYSTATION®3......IS.......S_A_C_R_I_L_E_G_E

Seraphic_Sixaxis on 15 June 2009

I'd say yes, due to there horrible lack of 1st party party support, everytime i say the word "Xbox" only Halo comes to mind, and that is pretty sad.

When i hear Nintendo, i think right away, Mario, Miss hawty Samus, Smash Bros, Pokemon, Kirby, Wario, Yoshi, Zelda, Fire Emlem, Etc.....

When i hear Sony, i think right away, Uncharted, God of War, Valkyria Chonicles, Untold games, MotorStorm Games, Jack and Daxter games, Rachet and clank games, inFamous (is going to be a new 1st party franchise for sure franchise), Folklore, WarHawk, anything FFVII related, etc...

So as far as 1st party power and Originality go which are two very important aspects imo, they'll never be this so called "1st" in any generation, it'll always be Sony or Nintendo....or Sega... *Wink*

Still im not saying Xbox is a bad brand, oh dear no, its just it'll always be the middle man console from the looks of things right now, its a 3rd party giant and honestly thats all it has going for it...well if you dont count the insane halo fans but thats another story now isn't it?

As far as who "WOULD" leave the gaming bizz, i'd say NONE of the big 3 would, because each and everyone of that are of value to this gen, if just ONE company of the big 3 went out, 1 of 2 things would happen...well 3...

1. A single comapny of the 3 has a huge mono over the gaming ind and charges fuck all they want and rips off the gamers, that would not be good now would it?

2. PC gaming makes a comeback, which is not good.

3. Handhelds take over console gaming 100%, also not a good thing unless it well, and i MEAN well thought of.

So there you have it, in the end deny it all you want, we NEED all 3 to bring US the gamers The quality of gaming itself. Amen...



Bitmap Frogs on 15 June 2009
Seraphic_Sixaxis said:
I'd say yes, due to there horrible lack of 1st party party support, everytime i say the word "Xbox" only Halo comes to mind, and that is pretty sad.

 

You only see what you want to see. Which is no surprise considering your posting history here. But even the most deranged in here stopped using the halobox/shooterbox shitmeme long time ago.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

BenVTrigger on 15 June 2009

How is this thread even aloud to still be open? This should have been locked as soon as the OP posted. Its blatent flamebait.



StanGable on 15 June 2009

Posting to come back to this thread



What are you looking at, nerd?