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

Forums - Microsoft - If MS haven't entered the gaming market for profit

C_Hollomon on 19 November 2009

The xbox was made to keep the playstaion from seling so much. MS failed in trying to compete with the PS2 with the 1st xbox but is successful with the 360. The 360 wil most likely keep the PS3 from reaching 100m+ like the PS1 and PS2 did. If MS never entered the console business I think Sony would have won this gen and could have ended Nintendo like they ended Sega.

Just like they made the Zune to compete with the ipod but it didn't get big.

Btw this is just my opinion.



Around the Network
max power on 19 November 2009

MS wants a presence in the living room. While I don't think desktop PC's are in any immediate danger, it's entirely plausible that in a few decades, we surf the web just on our phones and TV's... and Microsoft sees that as a threat to its Windows dominance.



V-r0cK on 19 November 2009
Hisiru said:
To be fair, Microsoft sold more consoles than Sony (if we don't count portables and last gen consoles), it's a very respectable position because Sony is much more recognized on this market and made excellent consoles. They are building a huge fanbase and the next step is build a reliable hardware so they won't have problems with 3RL or something. Next generation they will have a huge fanbase, probably a reliable hardware (no prejudice) and much more experience on this market. Seriously, Microsoft can be really sucessful on this market.

To be fair Sony sold more PS3 consoles with its 3 year life so far then MS did with their 360 in the same amount of time frame.  My point is its easy to re-word things to make one thing sound better than the other.  If you want to disregard PS2 vs Xbox then lets disregard the extra year Xbox360 was released before PS3, or better yet lets just start when the PS3 slim was released?

 

As for next gen you wont be too sure if MS will still have a huge fanbase (look what happened to all of the PS2 fanbase), maybe the RROD put a sour taste to some consumers for next gen etc.  There's lots of probabilities.  And of course MS can be successful on this market, they're freakin' rich!  If Sega was as rich as MS im sure alot of us would be playing on Sega's next gen with Shenmue 3..or 4...or 5.

 

OT:  MS entered for profit of course, regardless of a business goal 'profit' is always sitting side by side with whatever other goal a company has in mind.  From places i've read and many mustve read the same thing, MS also entered to stop Sony's domination.  MS already rules the world with computers so now theyve stretched their greed and attempt to take over the console industry.



Talega on 19 November 2009
Garnett said:

The same reason why they entered the multimedia player market, to stop a monolopy.


Monopoly? i dont get it Nintendo belongs to sony?



Hisiru on 19 November 2009
C_Hollomon said:

The xbox was made to keep the playstaion from seling so much. MS failed in trying to compete with the PS2 with the 1st xbox but is successful with the 360. The 360 wil most likely keep the PS3 from reaching 100m+ like the PS1 and PS2 did. If MS never entered the console business I think Sony would have won this gen and could have ended Nintendo like they ended Sega.

Just like they made the Zune to compete with the ipod but it didn't get big.

Btw this is just my opinion.

High sales for PS3 wouldn't change the actual sales for the Wii. 56M worldwide for 3 years is very good, Nintendo wouldn't be like sega and wouldn't quit the gaming industry. 

Nintendo didn't died because of the GB/GBC/GBA, look at the sales for the DS, even low sales for the Wii wouldn't change nothing.

Software sales for Nintendo are very very high. They are selling software like water in the middle of desert. PS3 selling 100M worldwide wouldn't kill Nintendo (not even close).



Around the Network
Bitmap Frogs on 19 November 2009
invetedlotus123 said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
You know, this will be the xbox's third profitable year.

Considering the ps3 launched a year later, it should be sce's second profitable year. Yet it will not be and they aren't that sure next one will be profitable neither.

Which begs that the relevant question is: why is Sony still in the gaming market if they aren't profiting from it anymore?

Well, PSP still pretty profitable. And PS3 was there not to win the generation, but to make blu-ray win the format war. Sony will make up all the loses they had with ps3 with BD dominance and HDTV rise in sales duo that. And they probably release a ps4 to win the next gen, they learned with all their mistakes and i hope they make a profitable system since first day like Wii was.

 

PSP might be profitable, but the overall losses from the ps3 are overpowering it, and have been for several years. As a whole SCE isn't making a profit yet since this fiscal year will be negative. On the HDTV front they are having problems as well, considering the Korean competitors are kicking ass at the moment. Blu-ray royalties so far still aren't doing much for the company since as a whole Sony still is posting a loss (in fact one can argue that the extreme discounts on royalties given to the Hollywood majors in exchange for their support to Blu-ray has heavily hit the expected royalty return). Anyways the fact Blu-ray is already stablished is a strong demotivator: since the war is won, why do they still need the ps3 promoting the format.

So, again: they are losing money on gaming, have been losing money on gaming for several years and the end is nowhere in sight. 

The pertinent question is why is Sony still on the gaming business?





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).

Hisiru on 19 November 2009
V-r0cK said:
Hisiru said:
To be fair, Microsoft sold more consoles than Sony (if we don't count portables and last gen consoles), it's a very respectable position because Sony is much more recognized on this market and made excellent consoles. They are building a huge fanbase and the next step is build a reliable hardware so they won't have problems with 3RL or something. Next generation they will have a huge fanbase, probably a reliable hardware (no prejudice) and much more experience on this market. Seriously, Microsoft can be really sucessful on this market.

To be fair Sony sold more PS3 consoles with its 3 year life so far then MS did with their 360 in the same amount of time frame.  My point is its easy to re-word things to make one thing sound better than the other.  If you want to disregard PS2 vs Xbox then lets disregard the extra year Xbox360 was released before PS3, or better yet lets just start when the PS3 slim was released?

 

As for next gen you wont be too sure if MS will still have a huge fanbase (look what happened to all of the PS2 fanbase), maybe the RROD put a sour taste to some consumers for next gen etc.  There's lots of probabilities.  And of course MS can be successful on this market, they're freakin' rich!  If Sega was as rich as MS im sure alot of us would be playing on Sega's next gen with Shenmue 3..or 4...or 5.

Well, I can't say that you are wrong, you have a good point. 

And I won't disregard PS2 vs Xbox. The first xbox was truly crushed by the PS2.



invetedlotus123 on 19 November 2009
Bitmap Frogs said:
invetedlotus123 said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
You know, this will be the xbox's third profitable year.

Considering the ps3 launched a year later, it should be sce's second profitable year. Yet it will not be and they aren't that sure next one will be profitable neither.

Which begs that the relevant question is: why is Sony still in the gaming market if they aren't profiting from it anymore?

Well, PSP still pretty profitable. And PS3 was there not to win the generation, but to make blu-ray win the format war. Sony will make up all the loses they had with ps3 with BD dominance and HDTV rise in sales duo that. And they probably release a ps4 to win the next gen, they learned with all their mistakes and i hope they make a profitable system since first day like Wii was.

 

PSP might be profitable, but the overall losses from the ps3 are overpowering it, and have been for several years. As a whole SCE isn't making a profit yet since this fiscal year will be negative. On the HDTV front they are having problems as well, considering the Korean competitors are kicking ass at the moment. Blu-ray royalties so far still aren't doing much for the company since as a whole Sony still is posting a loss (in fact one can argue that the extreme discounts on royalties given to the Hollywood majors in exchange for their support to Blu-ray has heavily hit the expected royalty return). Anyways the fact Blu-ray is already stablished is a strong demotivator: since the war is won, why do they still need the ps3 promoting the format.

So, again: they are losing money on gaming, have been losing money on gaming for several years and the end is nowhere in sight. 

The pertinent question is why is Sony still on the gaming business?

Well, you got me there. Another theory about ps3 is that they made this console so expensive and ahead of it's time to guarantee the ps4. PS4 using an enhanced architecture of actual ps3 would make the console pretty cheap to make and easy to develop, since if you know how to develop to ps3 you are able to develop for ps4 if they use near the same architecture. PS4 destiny is to be more than what ps2 was, and to be so profitable that it will make up the loses of ps3 and have huge profit. This are one of the theories that can added to the BD and HDTV to justify the ps3 and sony in gaming market.