The X1 has lost Microsoft 400 million
- Thread starter kilenem
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are you a Steam fan?Tayh said:
That question aside, you do understand that we're yet to have a single company bowing out lead to a monopoly, and it's unlikely to start here, right?
The two are almost the same thing really. The Dreamcast actually sold half the number of consoles that the Gamecube did in it's short life span. The only reason Sega was really forced to abandon it was because releasing a few failed peripherals and a failed console all in a row is a good way to put yourself in an untenable financial situation requiring nothing less than hitting it out of the park.DirgeNovak said:
Ironically, they did hit it out of the park, but most people were too busy waiting for the successor to the wildly popular PSX to notice.
What I meant was I want Microsoft to get a good kick in the balls like Nintendo did with the GameCube, but not kill them as a console manufacturer like the Dremacast did to Sega.Vivi22 said:
I'm guessing that the 'Xbox Division' would have been renamed the 'Dish Washing Division'. The Kinect would be just as useless to them.Adam Jensen said:
Strelok said:
I think it depends when you got the 360. Towards the end it became mostly military shooters but they did do a banjo, Kameo was a launch title. Mass Effect was a exlcusive. Plus Xbox live had a ton of different games. Once people finally figured out the playstation hardware, they started to port or make a ton games for the PS3.Ten Foot Bunny said:
That's pretty much what happened to me. I started off with a 360 in 2007, and I loved it along with the game variety. Sure mine RRoD'd once, but I got it repaired for free and kept it until I upgraded to an Elite last year. Game wise, there was a plethora of things I loved with so many different genre, and I would get Live Gold time for Christmas and my birthday since I couldn't get a job since I was too young. But then around 2009 to 2010 I started to notice that the PS3 started to get more of the games that interested me, along with the Wii which I had gotten at launch and had since simply become my second GameCube. Over time I started see less and less variety in the 360, and I stopped with Live after it went up in price. Eventually got a PS3, region broke my Wii for those lovely imports that never came out of Japan, and now my 360 is my least played system.kilenem said:
Will I still play my 360? Yeah, maybe once or twice a year, but compared to my other consoles it's my least played now. For me it goes: PS2, PS3, Wii U/Wii (I use my Wii U more now), GameCube, 360.
No, I despise steam, partly because it's well on the way to becoming a monopoly.Zachary Amaranth said:
If MS bowed out and stopped supporting their console, then Sony's console would be the only AAA-console available, right?
If people had no choice but to use their console for most big games, what's to stop Sony from becoming lazy, complacent and anti-consumer?
To people saying it's not a "monopoly", because of PC and Nintendo:
1) Triple A gaming on PC is not a thing for the vast majority of population. PC has never had the branding and media attention that the consoles have had. That the very possibility is foreign to most people, is a vast hurdle among with the price and the accessibility issues. ( Yes I'm well aware, building a PC, or especially buying prebuilt is simple, but its not something the vast majority of people are capable or wanting to do.) We, core gamers will always be the minority, and a small demographic when discussing as big of an industry as gaming has become.
2) Nintendo consoles have, and for the forseeable future will continue to have a vastly different demographic. The consoles have been carried by 1st party titles, excluding the massive explosion of the Wiimote titles in the last generation. (Something that the WiiU isn't even close to matching) It just currently seems unlikely that the 3rd party franchises that make up the backbone of the industry (GTA, Call of duty, Battlefield, Fifa, Madden, Need for speed, Forza, Gran turismo, Assasin's creed, to name a few) would suddenly find themselves successfully ported onto the WiiU, especially since unlike the Wii the install base is smaller than the PS4.
1) Triple A gaming on PC is not a thing for the vast majority of population. PC has never had the branding and media attention that the consoles have had. That the very possibility is foreign to most people, is a vast hurdle among with the price and the accessibility issues. ( Yes I'm well aware, building a PC, or especially buying prebuilt is simple, but its not something the vast majority of people are capable or wanting to do.) We, core gamers will always be the minority, and a small demographic when discussing as big of an industry as gaming has become.
2) Nintendo consoles have, and for the forseeable future will continue to have a vastly different demographic. The consoles have been carried by 1st party titles, excluding the massive explosion of the Wiimote titles in the last generation. (Something that the WiiU isn't even close to matching) It just currently seems unlikely that the 3rd party franchises that make up the backbone of the industry (GTA, Call of duty, Battlefield, Fifa, Madden, Need for speed, Forza, Gran turismo, Assasin's creed, to name a few) would suddenly find themselves successfully ported onto the WiiU, especially since unlike the Wii the install base is smaller than the PS4.
Did anyone read the articles? Or at least understand them? Computing and Gaming Hardware revenue increased $3.2 billion or 49%. Even if the Xbox One hardware is making a loss, the department isn't. Seeing as the focus is in process of shifting almost entirely to X1 from other platforms, the so called $400 Million loss is totally immaterial. There are bound to be losses when launching a new platform.
Or, to put simply, the xbone costs a ton to make, but once you've got one in your home, Microsoft will continue to sell you games and subscriptions with a much better profit margin, and you'll be committed to buying their crap because you bought the console. They still shifted well over 11 million consoles
Or, to put simply, the xbone costs a ton to make, but once you've got one in your home, Microsoft will continue to sell you games and subscriptions with a much better profit margin, and you'll be committed to buying their crap because you bought the console. They still shifted well over 11 million consoles
I hope they lose more until the console is deem total failure, anti-consumeristic greed had got to be punished and the only punishment these greedy bastard knows is losing their money.
Americans almost killed the gaming industry during the atari era, when will they learn? Just stop being so fucking greedy! and stop hiring CEO that doesn't even PLAY games.
Americans almost killed the gaming industry during the atari era, when will they learn? Just stop being so fucking greedy! and stop hiring CEO that doesn't even PLAY games.
Fair enough. However, don't you think this will just further push Sony in the lead? It's not like the casual market will suddenly become more interested in the indie scene which can't afford to market their game to large demographics. It's not like developing for the WiiU is cheaper or easier (I'd imagine its the opposite, with the tablet and all), or that it has a better online store/community for smaller games to thrive on.Ultratwinkie said:
I'd imagine in that situation, continuing to milk old franchises (Like ones mentioned in my previous post) would be even more attractive to publishers, since the possibility of rehashing assets and less need for marketing. I'd also imagine that in this case it'd be less likely to try and port to the WiiU aswell.
This I find amusing because as I was growing up, in the 80s and 90s computers were shoved down the throats of kids because "computers are the future". They were right, computers are now the present. Now is a great time to encourage people to get in to computers. They are plug and play and very simplified. No one is asking people to solder on capacitors. It's more like square peg, square hole. Even if you don't know about computers you are still expected to know how to navigate one as part of a high school education. You don't have to be a hacker to learn how to check system requirements, install through a wizard, open a program, and post on forums if you run into a problem. PC gamers aren't like "Hah, figure it out noob". That is the console audience. PC gamers are more likely to get in a pissing match as to who can solve your problem faster. Sometimes it might become a pissing match over who has the better solution.A Weakgeek said:
The core audience should be aware the platform to end all platforms is already here. Free online play (subscriptions are all but dead), virtually full backwards compatibility, make your own game on the system, plus illegal stuff as it is a truly open platform. (Not advocating, just stating fact.)
However, overall the PC is basically mandatory in the home. For the middle class, the largest demographic, avoiding learning basic computer skills is just choosing to be ignorant. Choosing to be ignorant doesn't make the PC no longer a viable alternative. That's like saying Playstation is already a monopoly because I am not interested in Nintendo (platformers) and Xbox (shooters) game libraries. That's just selective vision.
The only point I will make here is that Nintendo has claimed it is open to M rated games. It's hardware is different for sure, however it is cheaper hardware to develop for which offers a competitive edge in that regard. I will gladly step down in graphical quality if Nintendo suddenly has some good M rated games as well as the usual kid friendly stuff. With risk being cheaper to develop for on the console this could spawn innovation in game design. Not saying it will but it holds potential. Then add in the "seeing what you want to see" bit I mentioned above. These are both viable competitors.
EDIT:
This actually depends on the dev kit. With lower greaphic capabilities, it may be cheaper. A touch screen tablet shouldn't really effect that. Game development cost will lower and speed up as the devs get more familiar with it on both sides. PS4 devs will always be trying to get more horsepower out of it though. Wii-U horsepower can be gauged by last gen hardware, only slightly better.
I don't see the Xbox One making any big comeback like the PS3 last gen.
The big selling point of the Xbox 360 was price and it released first, nobody wanted to spend $800 on a PS3 so the X360 got a huge head start.
PS3 sales ended up over taking X360 sales eventually when prices were dropped and that was because they essentially offered the same things except the PS3 also began to get the monopoly on JRPGs and other niche titles (and a blu ray player).
This time around though the PS4 was cheaper and shot out of the gate, it is also more powerful so it basically offers everything the Xbox One does but in most cases it offers them slightly better, and not only that, but how long do you think it will take for those same JRPG and specialty titles to flock to the PS4?
The X360 right now is essentially dead, it has a few AAA releases that are coming out on every other console, the PS3 on the other hand has 20+ exclusives coming out between now and Q2 next year.
There is no specialty market Microsoft can go for to boost Xbox One sales, they have all but abandoned the Kinect, which wasn't a big selling point (or very popular) to begin with.
The Xbox One has nothing to offer over the PS4 besides a very select few exclusives that look fairly generic, the only exclusive I'd want to play on X1 is Sunset Overdrive. I suspect most of it's initial sales were X360 owners who just went with the same thing.
The big selling point of the Xbox 360 was price and it released first, nobody wanted to spend $800 on a PS3 so the X360 got a huge head start.
PS3 sales ended up over taking X360 sales eventually when prices were dropped and that was because they essentially offered the same things except the PS3 also began to get the monopoly on JRPGs and other niche titles (and a blu ray player).
This time around though the PS4 was cheaper and shot out of the gate, it is also more powerful so it basically offers everything the Xbox One does but in most cases it offers them slightly better, and not only that, but how long do you think it will take for those same JRPG and specialty titles to flock to the PS4?
The X360 right now is essentially dead, it has a few AAA releases that are coming out on every other console, the PS3 on the other hand has 20+ exclusives coming out between now and Q2 next year.
There is no specialty market Microsoft can go for to boost Xbox One sales, they have all but abandoned the Kinect, which wasn't a big selling point (or very popular) to begin with.
The Xbox One has nothing to offer over the PS4 besides a very select few exclusives that look fairly generic, the only exclusive I'd want to play on X1 is Sunset Overdrive. I suspect most of it's initial sales were X360 owners who just went with the same thing.
Yep, people seem to keep glazing over this. Sony has lost an assload more than Microsoft has, and you dont see the pundits in here wishing gloom and doom on them, but I guess that is to be expected, by now. Xbox isnt going anywhere, folks, so I am SO sorry to disappoint you. (Please note the sarcasm) Get off this horse, and focus on something more productive.... or keep wasting your time with this, because ultimately, thats all you are really doing.Verlander said:
Also, to the ones seriously desiring the end of the Xbox, do you REALLY think that the Playstation will benefit from that? Do you think YOU as a consumer will benefit from that? Sure, there will be some people that will just say the heck with it, and go over to the PS4, but in all honesty I think most people will do what I would do, and that would be to go back to the PC. I switched over to the xbox, and havent looked back, but if the xbox DID go under (which it wont) then I would quit gaming before I would purchase a playstation anything. I would go back to my roots, the PC, and I bet alot of people would do the same, and the scales would seriously tip in the favor of the PC, over the PS4, and you guys could ultimately see the playstation brand go bye bye, too. When the dust settled, you would see the PC and Nintendo, and thats about it.
Just so it doesn't become a misunderstanding down the line: I'm a PC guy, and I agree with you that it's the best platform for core gaming.Savagezion said:
However where we disagree is the amount of influence core gamers have on the market. The large majority of gamers are casuals, people who, in the current age of seemingly infinte easy to consume entertainment, would not have the patience to go to forums (Provided they know any to begin with, which if they don't, another step of inconvinience is added to the process) to ask how to get their game working. Sure compared to the 90's computers have become vastly easier to handle, but so has the expectations of the consumer regarding ease of use.
I am by no means saying PC isn't a "viable" platform in that it cannot compete functionally. It's just that function isn't what drives consumers, just look at Apple. PC gaming could be media sexy, however it would need some serious rebranding and some added accessibility. Kinda what the Steambox is trying to achieve.
As for the "WiiU cheaper to develop" thing, If they saw it financially beneficial, they could just as easily develop with last gen tier graphics. And it would look better since stuff like texture resolution and framerate would be higher with little to no extra work. I mean I understand why you think they'd be unwilling to do so, however its like arguing that WiiU devs would never make a game that doesn't utilize the tablet in a meanigful way.
Well if what you're suggesting does really come to pass, then you'd be right that it's not a monopoly, but that would merely be because the industry would be completely changed. If indies became the bulk of the industry, we'd go towards the mobile way of things. Small, cheaper games designed to run on as many different type of devices as possible, relying on different online stores for coverage.Ultratwinkie said:
Actually, all of that is already around, both on steam and facebook games. Perhaps we don't disagree at all, its just I see them as a seperate thing in their own right.
Steam already is a monopoly.Tayh said:
Meanwhile, Nintendo is still a "AAA" console company. It's also, if you may notice, the only constant of the three console makers on the market right now. People may complain it's not the same, or that they just don't like Nintendo consoles, but they're still "AAA" consoles.
I suppose at best you could argue that Sony would have a console monopoly on modern military shooters featuring grizzled white men shooting brown people.