MS and Sony should give up the fight for marketshare. Agree? | |||
| Yes | 39 | 20.53% | |
| Partially | 33 | 17.37% | |
| No | 118 | 62.11% | |
| Total: | 190 | ||
| twesterm said: Why are you talking about Nintendo in a topic you made about MS and Sony? |
Because I probably wouldn't give a shit if MS or Sony were to subsidize my gaming, but I wanted to illustrate a point.
A game I'm developing with some friends:
www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm
It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.
jarrod said:
Right, because God of War Collection and various PSP ports (Parappa, Ape Escape, Popolocrois, etc) just needed more time. ;) |
they were were done fast ;). true, but sony have games like uncharted 2, killzone 2, resistance2, GT5, Crack in time, God of war 3.
we know nintendo it's doing zelda, and pikmin? what else?
Xoj said:
they were were done fast ;). true, but sony have games like uncharted 2, killzone 2, resistance2, GT5, Crack in time, God of war 3. we know nintendo it's doing zelda, and pikmin? what else? |
Mario Galaxy, Other M, Twilight Princess, Smash Brawl, Mario Kart, Prime 3, Radiant Dawn, NSMBWii...
Demotruk said:
You're an odd guy. So, how's your great FFXIII vs NSMB prediction going? |
great, thank you for asking. FFX 13 is showing incredable legs and PS3 didnt even hit 199$ yet.
BladeOfGod said:
hahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! ROFL, best comeback EVER
POST OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! |
.........But that makes YOU a SISSY TOO.....
Gaming make me feel GOOD!
Demotruk said:
Yeah, I'd love if Nintendo started subsidizing my games too but there's little point about discussing what they should do based on my interests, my interests don't motivate them. |
LOL man brings in nintendo out of nowhere...... O.o and our interests do motivate them... we wanted a cheaper ps3... ps3 slim at $299 says hi! without demand there is no business rule #1
Without profit there is no business must be rule #2 then, I guess.
A game I'm developing with some friends:
www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm
It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.
| Demotruk said: They had a reason to fight for marketshare in the past, the whole point of the razors and blades model is to gain enough marketshare to a) be relevant enough to achieve substantial developer support and b) to get such a lead that developers flock to their system. a) is already achieved and neither are not going to lose it by being less aggressive now, b) is no longer reasonably possible by competing mainly with each other. They would both still have exclusives, mostly first party ones. People have to remember that marketshare is not an end in itself. It is a means to the end that is profit. At this point though, fighting for market-share amongst eachother is working against the goal of profit. Competing less aggressively achieves the end goal better than competing aggressively. As for competing with Wii, Nintendo more likely cut because it's sales were in decline, not because of anything to do with the PS3. Either way, it hasn't helped them achieve more profit, has it? Nintendo's lower weekly marketshare has much more to do with their own decline due to their own software drought than anything that's happened with the HD consoles. Nor do they need to compete over third party support with the Wii, it's clear the Wii isn't getting the same support anyway. Only one major game in the whole generation has jumped from PS3 to Wii. |
trying to gain marketshare allows for innovation within a companies infrastructure to produce the products more efficiently than competitors. By doing so, gaining a profit. The ps3 dropped to $299 yet it is closer than ever to gaining profits is it not? "competing less agressively achieves the end goal better than competing agressively" they are still competing for marketshare are they not? the ps3 could've been at $599 and 360 at $499 they would be losing money because everyone would buy a wii. To gain profits you have to stay relevant in the industry and to stay relevant u must top ur competitor thus fighting for marketshare. Whoever can gain marketshare at the same time gain profits = win for the company as a whole. Isn't this the basics to business?
| Demotruk said: Without profit there is no business must be rule #2 then, I guess. |
this is why microsoft is in a great postition compared to sony. Sony maybe outselling 360 worldwide every week but microsoft is gaining profits so is nintendo. That is why sony's goal is to become more relevant in the industry again. Sell more consoles than the competitor at the same time try to build their systems more cost efficiently trying to gain profits. Caring about profits automatically translates to caring for marketshare.
No it doesn't. Gaining marketshare often happens at the cost of profits. Particularly if you're following the razors and blades model, as MS and Sony are. In the long run, a fight like that only kills both companies. And unlike the PS2 gen, there is no prize they are fighting over as neither is going to leave the other in the dust. Both should be looking to make profit in the near term if there is any point in staying in the business at all.
I mean, look at what the fight for marketshare has cost Sony:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57802
They've already squandered most of what they've ever gained in the games industry with the PS3. They've gained marketshare, but they're not going to make it back as long as Stringer lives:
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/31607/Stringer-PS3-business-model-inferior-to-Wiis
A game I'm developing with some friends:
www.xnagg.com/zombieasteroids/publish.htm
It is largely a technical exercise but feedback is appreciated.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
