The X1 has lost Microsoft 400 million

joest01

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2009
399
0
21
Ultratwinkie said:
joest01 said:
Ultratwinkie said:
They had 10 billion in 2012 and now they only have 4.7 billion.

That's bad.
Actually, your link says they had 16bn in assets and now have 13.

Back on topic though, I don't think the CoD and Madden crowd has reason to be worried. If MSFT really did pull out, I am sure somebody will pick up the slack. In that I think the situation is different from N and Sony...
Assets mean property. I own 10 billion in ferarris, but that doesn't translate to 10 billion in my bank account. A drop that big ain't good no matter how you cut it.I'm not cutting anything, you are. if their balance sheet puts these Ferraris at 10bn then thats what it is. That money shifts does not make it disappear. Part of the drop might even be down to them holding some of their own stock.

Still not a good development for them but lets not take bits and pieces and interpret them out of context.

But surely a lot better situation than Sony is in, trust me, I bought some of their stock back when they owned the living room. Good thing I diversify because I would be a very poor man now.

And MSFT, for them it will be down to whether they continue to consider this piece of their business strategic. And something tells me that they are watching it very very closely these days.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I have a PS4 now myself, but I'm not ready to call the big competition yet because really it seems to me both the Xbox1 and PS4 have been taking their sweet time on getting decent games out there. All it takes is a couple of decent "killer apps" and it can change the entire playing field as we've seen people will literally buy entire consoles or one or two games if those games are good enough.

I mean it's nice to talk about indies, the state of the big developers, and all of that stuff, but at the end of the day whether it comes from indies or AAA those big defining games are likely going to happen, if they don't everyone is going to die. The ones who get them are going to be the big winners.

I tend to think the PS4 is going to dominate, but honestly I'm not willing to count Microsoft out no matter how bad they have been doing recently, because they have been involved in the rat race a long time. Likewise to win big, you have to play big, and honestly at the level Microsoft plays at I'm not sure if 400m is enough for them to really worry about, make noises about yes, but worry about? I don't think so because honestly it seems both consoles are playing the long game as both released without much in the way of actual software or games. While the PS4 seems like an early favorite, I expect it will be years before this even comes close to playing out.

I'll also say that I disagree with the 360 having a bad selection of games, while my 360 has departed, it was the console I played things like "Alan Wake" and "Tales Of Vesperia" on it. I'm not a big shooter fan, and I found a lot of decent games for it. Now granted my PS3 library seemed to always be bigger as I just flat out liked that console better, but I'm not going to knock 360 for being a one trick pony and having nothing else for it.
 

A Weakgeek

New member
Feb 3, 2011
811
0
0
Savagezion said:
Hating the concept of branding driving consumption is not at all unreasonable. The silver lining in this, if you can call it that, is that its by no means specific to our industry. Ever since the advent of modern marketing somewhere around the 1930's, advertizing has been appealing more and more to feelings rather than function (Which for the producer is very beneficial, you can gain an edge without offering a better performing or more economical product) , which is why we have seen the transition from the very simple and straightforward marketing of old, into the incredibly psychologically complex and manipulative marketing of today.

Fortunately, the effects of marketing are less drastic the more involved the person is in the scene. For example, a casual gamer may easily be swayed to buy one console over the other based on a few adverts for the console or a few trailers for the games he does enjoy. Where as a hardcore hobbyist is more likely to look into specs, upcoming release lists beyond the launch window, etc.

Thing is, very few people suddenly go from playing little to no games into a core gamer, and in those cases that people try, I imagine it doesn't always go over very well. Bit like the stereotype of the guy who decides to start playing golf, and despite having played little to no golf before, goes to the sports goods store and spends 3000 dollars on club sets and branded poloshirts.

The convoluted comparison aside, thats where I saw the potential in the whole steambox thing. As a bridge between the casual market and the pc users. I mean sure, it wont be the cheapest, most open or powerful choice you could make, but it would be an easy and a convinient one. Then hopefully, after gaming on it for a time, they would start noticing some of the downsides of a steambox compared to a fully open platform. That way, instead of being this hurdle, they would have it in the back of their minds when the time for the next purchase comes around. Going back to the golf comparison, (Bear with me here) you could invest time and research all the different equippement and ask around to get the best value and performance. Or you could get a starting kit, it's got some stuff you don't need, probably missing some stuff you could use, but you'll learn what those are as you play with your friends, making it an easier transition.

The thing is most people with enough disposable income for luxuries (which gaming is), tend to prefer to invest money more than time. What that sometimes means is preferring to make a fast purchase over a well researched one. I assume this would go double for entertainment (You dont want to do something not fun, in order to get to the funpart, kind of like grinding in a RPG).

Anyways, moving away from my rambling as to why I think large demographics still find PC gaming unattractive, back to the steambox itself. The reason I used past tense before, regarding the potential of Steambox, is because I agree with you. Steambox with its numerous versions seems to be in this akward space inbetween pc and console. Not streamlining and cohesive enough to make them their own brand in a way that a person who isn't open to the idea of gaming PCs in the first place would find attractive. While at the same time doing little to appeal to the core gamer either. I'm afraid all it will end up being is a cash grab, selling excisting PCs with steam preinstalled. Which is about as legit as selling a "Microsoft Machine" just because it has Office 2013 bundled.

TLDR: Branding is a problem everywhere. People don't want to/are too lazy to ask around and research, and prefer to get a subpar experience if its easier. Steambox will probably be a shitbox and even my summary is two lines long holy shit.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Eh, I was about as unhappy with the X1's launch as everyone else's but 400 million isn't that bad. Not when they're likely already selling it at a profit.

Most hardware development cycles see heavy up front expenses that translate into losses in the first year. We're going to have to see next year's numbers to get a real gauge on it.

Still not going to buy it. The move they took to squash license ownership has me unwilling to trust them with holding onto my gaming library for the next few generations. Considering they also dropped Windows Live games they've got a double no-go from me.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
1. Custom is not the same as standard.
And Microsoft's dev costs are not standard. So you're rationalising a doublt standard.

2. A TV show and plushies don't bring in billions. Not like Microsoft or Sony do.
And now you're shifting the goalposts.

3. Cost of design must be paid nearest to the launch date as possible. You cannot pay for future manufacturing technology, which is why the ps3 was 600$ at launch and not 100$.
And? My question went to something completely different. Is this another goalpost shift?

So now with 4.7 billion in the bank, they have 1 last console in them at best. The problem here is moore's law and tech will only get more and more expensive until we use graphene. We can't expect superman to swoop in and save everyone yet.
Assuming that their costs rival Microsoft, which you cannot prove nor have any good faith basis for, and no other factors. Among other things, the estimated cost of manufacture for the Wii U is significantly less, already putting a dent in the costs necessary to run a console. I'm also missing the Moore's Law connection. Shouldn't that mean that the PS4 should cost hundreds of dollars more than the PS3 by your logic?

I agree about Superman. However, the steps you're taking to put them in dire straights might as well be "because ponies." And ponies are horrible prognosticators. We can neither save Nintendo with Superman nor condemn them with magic ponies. Which makes me wonder what your point is, since it has nothing to do with reality.

Strazdas said:
Consoles are closed propriatary systems that all must be identical.
Irrelevant unless the Wii U and Xbox One are identical hardware that must meet the same standards. I mean, the issue here was the assumption that two different boxes from two different manufacturers would have similar dev costs because it is convenient to tar them with the same brush. And ponies. Because brushes and ponies.

No ponies involved.
Unless you're actually addressing my statements. I would presume that since you quoted me and even referenced a line from my post, you were. As long as that's true, "it's different" only works as long as some sort of Calvinball defense is invoked. The fact remains that Microsoft's costs are not indicative of Nintendo's costs any more than one PC build is indicative of a different build's cost. You cannot factually argue that. You cold argue the costs were the same if you had evidence, but that still wouldn't make it reasonable to assume they were the same "because consoles are uniform systems." And if there's evidence of the cost to Nintendo, rather than "some other company spent X dollars," I would entertain that as a real argument.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Vault101 said:
I'm not talking about $20 a CD, I'm talking about any money at all
but 20 a CD is the only thing they offer for the most part! Thats the issue here.

I'm not sure to the extent of the DRM on songs, if streaming isn't an issue there is spotify which is built like itunes where you can find practically anything and its free (the only thing is you have to listen to an add every now and again if your not subscribed)
It appears you did not read what i said:
"Can you tell me a single website that has a decent collection of music that i could legally buy and download? Oh and Itunes wont work because:
1. Itunes DRM
2. Terrible quality"

Baldr said:
Let put this into perspective for some of you Nay-sayers.
Compared to the launch of the Sony Playstation 3 and the original Xbox, The Xbox One is a hit.
http://www.vg247.com/2009/10/30/sony-ps-division-has-lost-4-7-billion-since-launching-ps3/
irrelevant comparison. marked was many times smaller than it is now. that is like saying that some obscure car manufcaturer selling 500 cars is a hit because 100 years ago there were only 500 total sold.

The_Kodu said:
Except even most modern consoles don't have a large amount of apps still open running in the background at the same times.

Yes console do more but most aren't doing it all at once.

Also I think console graphics have evolved beyond nearly square heads and non moving lips.
did you know that there are 16GB of hard drive reserved for OS only? did you know that out of 8GB of ram, only 5GB is available for games because OS eats the other 3? Did you know that 4 of the 16 processor cores are not available because they are reserved for OS? Did you know that unlike PC, OS for console always runs its GUI in the background, loading it with useless stuff? console OS is worse in resource management than PC OS if we take Xbox One as an example.
The fact that it cant run large amount of apps while gobbling these kind of resources can only mean incompetence in the developer. Its like consoles are finally catching up to functionality of windows 95 but using more resources than windows vista.

Yes, moving lips and round heads technology has been ported to console after games with this technology got popular on PC and people saw how cool it is. for moving lips for example you should thank HL2.

The_Kodu said:
They have to develop and design them and the operating systems this isn't android on the consoles.
They have to engineer it all in and develop and sort out what processor and GPU they want in the system which are often actually custom jobs.
R&D is a cost sustained before release and should not figure out in hardware sales costs unless microsoft wants to get fined for bad accounting reports.

These latest consoles are much less costum job than you think. standard architecture, standard parts, the only costum thing is the APU.

Ultratwinkie said:
prebuild money pit stories
I have different experience with prebuilds. im know as "that computer guy" for my extended family, so whenever somone wants to buy a computer im the one they turn to. so ive seen quite a few prebuilds, both from myself when i was young and my family that wanted to "just buy a computer".
the first prebuild was a Pentium 1. After it was retired without failure it sat for a long time till after 15 or so years i decided to give it away to recycling, but i wanted to see if it still works. it did. wasnt much use anymore though so i still gave it away. not a single failure and 4 members of my family had used it after i moved on to a newer one (were poor, ok).
Second prebuild was run by Athlon Xp 1700+
It had GPU heating issues. the issues went mostly unnoticed untill i literally burned the 440mx that sat there playing san andreas. with smoke and everything. replaced with 7300 and didnt have problems there since. the original hard drive gave up, after 8 years of service, but i couldnt ask for more out of how much i task my hard drives and by that time 60gb hard drive wasnt a big loss. I did frankenstein that computer with ram. by the end it ran 4 different frequency DDR sticks with different size. totalled at 868 Mb of RAM. worked flawlessly :p My dad still uses that computer which is now 11 years old. The heating issues were solved simply - removing the sidepanel and exposing inner parts to air. no more overheating.
A mode modern prebuilts were the ones i got for my cousins (ill ignore laptops for adults because laptops are laptops). I dont remmeber the specs now, but after many years of service they still all work fine. so no problems with those there. i even postured about buying one of them off my cousin when she moved to laptop because "PC is too big" but decided against it was it was getting quite dated by then.
Then there was one recent prebuilt thats been working fantastically. it performed like costum build and had no cooling problems despite using stock coolers. the only problem was that prebuilt came with too short monitor cable so i had to replace that for a longer one for the setup needed. Of course that is is still less than a year old but no problems can be observed yet.

So as you see i had quite a pleasant exprience with prebuids and i think for a first time PC gamer its a very possible choice. Not all of them are good, obviuosly, but not all of them are terrible either.


joest01 said:
I'm not cutting anything, you are. if their balance sheet puts these Ferraris at 10bn then thats what it is. That money shifts does not make it disappear. Part of the drop might even be down to them holding some of their own stock.

Still not a good development for them but lets not take bits and pieces and interpret them out of context.

But surely a lot better situation than Sony is in, trust me, I bought some of their stock back when they owned the living room. Good thing I diversify because I would be a very poor man now.
there is difference level of liquidity in assets, and ferarris would be very low liquidity and would not count to operating cash regardless of the sum in the assets sheet (not that it always refpect reality either, especially in short term assets part where most of it is mainly investories and in production, whose price is unstable and are often hard to liquidate at that price.

So no, for the purpose of "how much nintendo has cash" you should only look at cash, not assets.

I do agree that financial-wise they are much better off than Sony, but sony bleeds in places that arent gaming meanwhile Nintendo has ONLY gaming.

Zachary Amaranth said:
Strazdas said:
Consoles are closed propriatary systems that all must be identical.
Irrelevant unless the Wii U and Xbox One are identical hardware that must meet the same standards. I mean, the issue here was the assumption that two different boxes from two different manufacturers would have similar dev costs because it is convenient to tar them with the same brush. And ponies. Because brushes and ponies.
I explained how console building costs are different from PC building costs, without invoking ponies. I was not comparin WiiU to Xbox. Nor was i talking about SonyPonies.
 

joest01

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2009
399
0
21
Ultratwinkie said:
blah blah blah
Wow, you are making a lot of assumptions. If you ask me the next gaming revolution will come from somebody with a garage and a good idea not 4,7 bn in the bank.

And the WiiU may be done, not sure how you know that, but it is the only one of the three new consoles that interests me (bayonetta, w101, devils 3rd, rumors of another metroid prime...). If N didnt have a nasty habit of region locking their consoles (and I had my friendslist, trophies etc on PS3) that decision would be much easier yet.

Fact remains that the likelyhood of MSFT pulling out because they really do have more important battles to fight, or Sony being bought out and sold in pieces are arguably much higher than N going bust in the short term.

Also, who cares. I could live with any of them. Well if the xbone makes it easy to mute the beer guzzling headsetted dudebros, otherwise I might just decide to work in the back yard instead ;)
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Consoles are made by AMD and Nvidia. One of them is pulling out of gaming hardware and near bankruptcy, and the other will take you for a ride because you have no choice.

The next gaming idea won't be a console. Hardware monopolies will make sure of that. Unless you have a smash hit like the wii to bankroll your designs, the monopoly won't care. A single flop could derail Nintendo's entire momentum and throw them off course.

Nintendo's 4.7 billion is tiny to its competitors and Nvidia. Nintendo doesn't actually make its console, thats up for the hardware manufacturers. Nintendo could end up like SEGA, Atari, and all the other console companies that came before it. They'd be stuck making games for other platforms.

Make no mistake, all of them are in trouble. I already predicted that this generation would leave the industry in a bind because no matter what choice they make, they can't climb out of the pit the 7th gen dug.
You ever realised how every single generation since the days of the PS1 everyone has always gone on about the death of Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't need to have the reserves Nvidia, Microsoft or whatever do and you know it. The Wii didn't require them to ejaculate horrendous funds everywhere.

You know I'll hold you to that. If Nintendo (as they are most likely) have one of their gimmicks take off in a big way in the future I can only hope you'll save me the trouble and be a big enough man to just own up to your mistake.

Yeah we heard you, you'll be predicting the same thing next generation, and the next. I remember the "fact" this generation was supposed to bomb immediately and it didn't so a lot of people around here already got a strike on their credibility to predict the future (yourself included).
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
The market was different. Back then, hardware wasn't locked down. So consoles are in trouble because they actually helped a monopoly take over and now they are bitten in the ass. Only now did the market realize that monopolies are bad.

Before this, people said it would die because the games are much better.

So lets look the market:

- Publishers are either bankrupt, MIA, or sequel factories. The monopolies they hold, which consoles helped establish, made it impossible to negotiate. As it is, Ubisoft refuses to support Wii U, and so does EA. A console relies on the big 3, and a console without games won't survive.

Even then, publishers are so few the games that consoles get are a trickle. Thats why the ps4 is touting indies or else console gamers won't get an actual library for a long time.

- Hardware monopoly has appeared, which they helped create in the 7th gen. Microsoft spent 1 billion for a weak gimmick console with AMD, the cheapest option using the cheapest parts they had. Now that AMD is on its way out, imagine how much Nvidia will charge come 9th gen. AMD's contract can't save them, and they are already abandoning gaming hardware for processors.

A hardware monopoly will kill consoles. Regardless of who it is.

- Then you have Japan itself. Japan enjoys consoles, and that's why Nintendo and Sony make them. Not because of anyone else. Westerners just make it profitable, but the main purpose is to endear itself to Japan. That's why Nintendo doesn't let games leave Japan. But its that lack of foresight that hinders them in a time when western devs are so few and far between.

You're stuck relying on the western cartel to get games, because they killed off everyone else. You can't ask a Japanese company to think outside Japan, because its unthinkable for them. The western side of the market is fucked, and that's where they get their profits.

Everything is so centralized that even one problem is disastrous. The entire market is in trouble because it thought monopolies made up of investors who don't understand games and greedy factory owners are a good idea.

We can't resurrect the dead publishers, and AMD is too far gone. The damage is done.
Few managers have clients so high up the card like Nintendo do. Notice how you'll see some people say they play on the PC and they think the Wii U is the only console worth getting?

I've seen this publisher stuff a lot ever since Jim started the whole hullabaloo, however none of that is the fault of the big three as its circumstances out of their hand. Sony and Nintendo are both safe if EA/Ubisoft/whatever somehow collapse tomorrow.

I've read the doom and gloom which is as ever common on the internet. It isn't a sure fire thing, I remember people 2 years ago saying Sony would be out of business by now and its not been the case. People will make doom predictions forever until the day it actually happens and than they'll claim some great insight, nothing new.

Like it killed the PS2? You're going to have to do better than that to make me take that point seriously. So the mark driven "wars" end, could it really be a WWE WCW situation? I suppose but I don't think the console market and the pro wrestling market are that comparable. Is your point that the customers of the "losers" will just disappear from the equation? Perhaps for some but most will just be absorbed by the monopoly owner.
Besides your scenario doesn't take into account that if Sony is left holding a monopoly and is the sole console manufacturer than they may well land all of Nintendo's clients as exclusives...and that Stable my friend is the most powerful in the business.

Gust a small Japanese company has brought to the west (well really Nippon Ichi but point stands) in the last generation 7 PS3 games, and 7 Vita ports in their atelier series alone.
Nintendo doesn't bring many things over because they pragmatic in those decisions, but we've started seeing some visual novel games of all things come to the west so I don't think they'll start bringing in less (talking of Japan), but more.

Relying on a western cartel? I don't think you are aware that there are Japanese publishing companies out there who can successfully bring over even the most niche of Japanese games over no problem. Pretty sure I own more Japanese games from last gen than western and the amount I own is around 200 or so.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Oh wait, I forgot. You're wrong. I am right. Deal with it, liar.

Consoles rely on physical media, and only publishers can do that. No publishers, no media, no consoles. If they actually had a decent online component, they might have had a chance but they seem fit to charge for the privilege.

The ps2 had a market full of developers and publishers. The market of devs and publishers now is only a fraction of that. The middle devs were all hired by AAA studios, which then went bunk and now they are low budget indies.

The PS2 won because it actually had a diverse market with diverse support. That diversity doesn't exist anymore.

and a hardware monopoly, owned by the richest people around, will take everyone to the cleaners and bend them over a barrel. Reputation and history doesn't mean shit to Nvidia. They were the ones who milked the 7th gen dry and strong armed everyone.

And Nvidia gains more from killing consoles than helping them. Now that the damage is done, and AMD gave up to work only on processors, its over. Even if a new competitor shows up, it would take many years for them to get to the level of Nvidia hardware. It would take them years to get to AMD's level.

So even if sony wanted to make a console, Nvidia would make them pay a heavy price for it. It doesn't matter if you have a historical stable if you're being charged multi billion dollars for a concept.

and how many of those Japanese games actually appear on walmart shelves without resorting to special imports like many gamers I know? How often do Japanese games not made by Nintendo or Sony directly dominate western sales charts? The answer is not many because developers only want to appeal to other Japanese gamers which is a vastly different culture and demands than western gamers. Not everyone is as big Japanese fan as you. Not everyone likes Japanese games either, just like Japanese gamers don't always like Western games.

Just like eastern PC gamers and western PC gamers have different tastes.

Regardless, a lack of diversity is killing the market. You can't rely on one side or the other exclusively, and the western market is so crippled that its a one sided market. Without the western market support, a console can't succeed.

If we didn't go down the route of "bigger and more expensive is better" we would still have our PS2 market. Nvidia wouldn't have gotten the contract for the 7th gen. The big 3 wouldn't be in the positions they are in now.
Your heelwork is so poor its getting on insulting. You going to tell me my hometown sucks next, quit with the childish remarks please.

... Publishers eh. So they don't need to exist but it all comes down if they don't exist. Conflicting signals there especially with the move to digital meaning your physical media focus is odd.

... No diverse market? Take the Blinkers off buddy you know there is more out there.

... Yeah people said Microsoft would crush everyone too.

... So Nvidia will kill one of their own customers (if we go by this scenario that only Nvidia exists) in the hope that everyone will move to PC and buy some pricey cards? What if Sony go down the stream route?

I actually picked up the first atelier (on PS3) at a store shelf oddly enough but regardless its completely irrelevant. Little things called online retailers making getting the game little trouble at a good price, and secondly they are on a digital storefront that can't run out of copies (well...). Those games clearly make enough in the west if they've brought over 14 games in the last gen, and they ain't they only ones coming over. I see plenty of titles even I have no idea what they are and have to go look up so there is an effort to get games over here.

There you go again with the lack of diversity bunkum, you who has talked about the importance of the smaller studios all those times. I'm not going to lecture you on that subject because I know in your heart of hearts you know this already, you see what you want to see not what is actually reality. There is a wealth of games out there, go play them instead of thinking that everything is same giant AAA shooter mud whirlpool. The PS3 had even less last generation and what a fine machine it is today, perhaps not to you as we have different tastes but the PS3 is quite heavenly to me...only the PS2 had a larger abundance of pure gold.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Hey I did tell you i'd hold it over your head until the end of time. i forgot to gloat.

So now I will gloat again: I won. Now and forever. 1,000,000 years of winning.

Publishers back then were numerous. They are very rare now. So rare that they can't support consoles on their own anymore. Digital allowed indies to actually sell their games without publishers, but the consoles still hold onto physical for dear life.

Since publishers have becoming obsolete on PC, there is no way for a publisher to grow really huge. The big 3 are the last of their kind.

Even Ubisoft admitted they can't keep it up for much longer. Games are becoming too expensive to make and AAA are becoming dinosaurs.

Consoles still rely on physical media even though the market that supported it is long gone. When it comes to online, its a joke.

Nvidia would kill its own competitors. They already are making record profits even with consoles existing, they were fucking ecstatic. Sony cannot "stream" games because that requires hardware that nvidia provided. Not to mention streaming games over the internet is a pipe dream that Sony pointed out in every instance when xbox said streaming was the future. They can't make gaming hardware, because that is highly expensive and anything they do make can't compete with established experience. Sony can't afford to spend that much against Nvidia who has locked won gaming with gameworks. No developer will abandon the tools Nvidia provides for Sony's new turd.

Nvidia already has lots of money. It turned down consoles because the money they get wouldn't even cover the operational costs.

Sony cannot compete with nvidia. It can't even compete against AMD. Thats why they bought AMD parts for the ps4, and nvidia for the ps3.

And don't say 'there is a wealth out there" when its tied to physical. Its pulling teeth, and tied to location. Not everyone stocks Japanese games, I know that from personal experience. In fact, the gamestops in my area refuse to stock Japanese games, and every other store was the same. There is no store competition in my area.

Not everyone has the same stores you have. Here is the best selling games of 2013, notice the lack of foreign titles. Even EA's digital PC games made that list. It really is the swirling AAA vortex on console because Japanese games don't have the same penetration. For the regular console gamer, AAA is all there is.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/16/100-best-selling-video-games-of-2013-revealed-4265929/

When it comes to digital, there is no competition. Online for consoles is a joke, right behind a paywall now to boot. They don't want digital because then that hurts the only publishers left who can make the big spectacle games that sell consoles in the first place. On digital distribution, you have diversity from indies to AAA, and the highest sellers page on steam shows that.

And the ps3 ran for 7 years. The ps2 didn't. The ps3 has less in 7 years than the short lived ps2, and you just admitted it. Consoles back then had shorter life cycles before their replacement comes up. That's worse.

Centralization is what has been hurting the industry. Its no coincidence.
What? That I made a mistake I corrected sooner than a minute later? Big whoop you've made absolute statements where you posted every single game that made use of shrubbery (apparently only half a dozen games in existence do), you also stated there were no lip movements before half life series, and all those other ridiculous errors that you refused to correct when pressed. You got a pebble, I got a boulder so I'm not the least bit concerned.
Not that'd pick on you here by throwing that boulder as that would be mean, and you don't really think I'd fall for such cheap heelwork do you? You aren't even in my top 1000 forum performers mate, 4/10.

You say that yet they keep getting made, and their games sell really well with yearly sequels constantly planned. You have to separate fantasy from reality if you wish to find to find the truth.

Always with this insistence on physical media. Oh boy if digital only consoles happen it will be a riot to see you set yourself alight attacking them after saying such things.

Own competitors? What because of that shield thing? Not really direct competition.
If Nvidia does attain this glorious monopoly you think they will (Nvidia Monopoly = good, Sony Monopoly = bad what are the odds) than what point is there in eliminating a company that will pay for your product at a markup?
You really think Nvidia is going to kill consoles, double the price of cards, and than just roll in the dosh as everyone dashes to buy from them?

Sony already do game streaming Lanny Poffo.

Its apparent you mark out for Nvidia but you really believe that promo they cut? Its scripted not actually real you know that right? They don't go against the script based on emotion, they are businessmen.

Microsoft, to send that argument you presented in the previous post too straight to hell once again, and yes they bought parts yes...that doesn't mean they are directly competing with each other. Sony competing with Foxconn too while we're at it?

You are familiar with what a digital store is right? And that such stores can stock "niche" titles no problem right?

They outright refuse to stock Japanese games? So they have none of the Marios and the like? So they only stock the Xbone because surely they'd not stock Japanese hardware too? I'd get that Gamestop done for racism if they are purposely not stocking Japanese games because they are from Japan.

Some Japanese/owned by Japanese games on there but its not really as huge a point as you think. You attract 300,000 Persona fans here, 300,000 tales fans there, 200,000 X right there, and the 400,000 Y back there and it starts adding up nicely.

You've been reading the news room this last year right? Sony doesn't want diversity or digital so much that they've been courting all those indies for digital releases on their platform...wait that can't be.

PS3 is still going, oh and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfvZTCE3M8g
 

Shuu

New member
Apr 23, 2013
177
0
0
I don't see it not being profitable in the end. This is M$. Like with the Tomb Raider goings on right now, they'll dig their claws into the market one demographic at a time until they crawl to the top. At which point Sony will need to do the same, but they have far less experience and avenues then Microsoft when it comes to playing dirty. Maybe that's fine, maybe they have their dignity.
Oh wait a minute... The Amazing Spider-Man...